City Council - Regular Meeting

in the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Councilmember Callings?

Here.

Councilmember Clerk? Councilmember Stackflat? Here. Councilmember Redmond? Here. Mayor Gladman?

Here. All right. Thank you, Rachel. Do we have any special presentations or announcements this evening? No? Okay. All right. We will now move on to public comments. So any members of the public that would like to speak on any item not on the agenda, please come up to the microphone, say your name and where you live, and tell us what you'd like to say.

And for any first-time commenters, I will keep track of your three minutes for you. I'll let you know when you have 30 seconds remaining and when your time is up.

No lights, huh? Rosalind McCoy, I live here in Mount Shasta. Well, our last meeting, we really had a lot of problems with sound system. And these microphones were purchased, what, like 1995? area and enough microphones were not purchased for everyone. They didn't have on and off switches. They are old and they're not the quality that we really need to be able to hear. Sound systems, a little better today, but I can't stay at home and listen because I can't hear you. I come here and I can't hear you. So our city needs to put the residents as a priority, make sure that we can hear the meetings, engage with the meetings, and it is really too bad that we can't have a hybrid meeting because you had a lot more participation from the public that we need to look at. Instead of putting so much money, what, over $200,000 into advertisement that our residents need to be the priority and get more funding to be able to participate and hear city council meetings. So I would ask that you consider upgrading the sound system so everyone has their own microphone, you don't have to move it away from you, so you can be secret, sneeze, whatever, but this really needs to be made better. Thank you.

Thank you. We were able to hear that nice and clear.

Good evening. Johanna Altorfer. I have two topics that I'd like to mention tonight. One of them is one that you've heard me speak on before, which is the hybrid meetings. I've been exploring options for other venues that are AV ready in our city so we don't have to have the setup cost and the 22nd Avenue people come up here to set it up. They could remote in. It's important for hybrid for the public to participate in real-time agenda items during public comments. Our current space has really poor acoustics, including the train that comes by all the time and the microphone issue that Rosalind mentioned. And if we have a space that is AV ready and no setup is required, then 22nd Avenue, it would save, I figured out it would save us $10,800 a year in fees, $300 a meeting. And we would have better acoustics and we would be able to have public participation. So the two places that I've checked out, one of them is Driscoll Ranch, which is from the Driscoll Strawberries, and they have their property, the Driscolls who owned the property died, and they allow the space for community events. It would require the city to have an insurance rider, which you probably already have for our city park, but it's a beautiful venue. It's got a meeting room set up, and it's already AV ready. I think Chris Carpenter would be interested in talking to you about that, and I'd be happy to arrange that as well. The other place that I've approached which also is AV ready and has the meeting room all set up is Mountain Medics. And they would be also just down the half a mile down from here. My goal is to improve community participation. The community has ideas, concerns, opinions, and that's the foundation that shapes the future of our city. And it takes a village. and we're a small community, about 3,300 in population, about 60% demographics being seniors, and it's hard enough to get participation as it is. Anyway, so you've heard all of this from me before, so I'll skip that and get to my second point, and that is for planning staff direction on the vacancy tax. which was my understanding from the PC meeting is going to come up tonight. And I would urge you to carefully think about this and not move forward with any vacancy tax. It impacts constitutional rights for second homes and whatnot. And there's five cities in the state that have it. And San Francisco is in litigation right now. So I would urge you to vote no on that or urge you not to have direction on that. Thank you for your consideration.

At the risk of making this a back and forth, I'll just respond to your first one. I spoke with Chad shortly after you did, and he has no interest in hosting our meetings. The liability alone is something he doesn't want to deal with. I'm happy to talk to the folks at the Singing Rock Ranch, but I have a feeling it'll be similar. But I'm happy to ask them, and I appreciate you looking into it.

Okay. Yeah, Chad was very open to it until he had that conversation. So he was very interested in it. So it's unfortunate. But I was hoping maybe we could resurrect that because it's such a wonderful venue.

Any other public comment?

Hi.

I'm Therese Swenson.

Can you speak into the microphone, please? We've been having issues with audio issues lately.

I'm here to talk about the landing. And I just found something on the Internet, which is a picture. I'm so not computer literate. I'm so sorry. I want to hold this up to the camera.

Can you speak into the microphone, please? Folks can't hear you. All right.

I don't know how to make this easy.

Thank you. This was on the website as the final RFP that's been accepted.

Did I understand correctly?

I'm not sure what we're looking at. I can't.

This was on the website about final landing.

No.

That's not it?

No.

No. Okay.

That's the word that I understand it as.

So I understand that 14 RFPs came in with ideas for development. I understand you reduced it down to five, and you've now reduced it to one. And you're going to be having meetings.

This is actually on the agenda. We'll be getting to this.

But I don't get to speak later.

You do. There's public comment for each agenda item as well. So if you'd like to speak about something that's not on the agenda at this point, we would welcome it. Of course.

I want

Also on the agenda, and I'd like to remind you to please speak into the microphone.

And the reason this is important is the Surplus Land Act requires that surplus land be available to everyone.

Again, this is on the agenda.

Therese, you can speak on this during the agenda, not during public comment on open comment, not on the agenda. So come back. Okay, this is not the time for that. This is for public comment and not on the agenda. You may are more than welcome to come back and speak to this matter when we get to number 12. Thank you. Sorry, 15, next page. 16.

All right. Any other public comment not on the agenda items already on there? Okay. Okay. All right, moving on to number five, then, council and staff comments. We'll see council first. To my left. Fair enough. To the right. Jeffrey, please.

Yeah, just briefly to address room acoustics and a better hybrid sound system. Pardon me. You had both spoken about better room acoustics and getting a better hybrid sound system for the meetings, correct? I can barely hear you now.

The speaker's right in your ear. I can hear you. I can hear you. Did you speak about the sound system?

Yes, I spoke about the sound system. That monitor's not that bad.

Yeah, Jeremy, can you bring up that monitor back over? I bet you have. OK, gotcha. The answer is vote for the sales tax increase so we can afford those things. And the location will change from here likely when we, thanks to these gentlemen over here and others, complete the library expansion, which is where we'll hold our meetings.

Or likely to. It will almost certainly not be this year. it will start moving forward, hopefully in the near future. All right, any other council? How about some staff comments over here? Kim?

Nothing.

Over here, guys. Bring it home, Chief.

All right, just a... Couple of interesting points for the citizens. As you may or may not know, we had a little wayward mountain lion with no tail. This mountain lion had previously been trapped and removed from the weed area, had been released in the Trinity Wilderness Area, and found its way back to Mount Shasta for its free hunting grounds. We were able to locate it about a block from a preschool, get it in a tree and get CDF or CDW down here with their biologist to tranquilize the cat. It has now been safely tranquilized and removed from the community and they're going to reevaluate placement through the biologist and hopefully this time it's farther away so it doesn't find its way back to our area. And then on another note, our K-9 officer was called out to assist with a traffic stop up at North Weed. During the traffic stop, our K-9 alerted to the presence of narcotics after a search of a hidden compartment. They located approximately 1.9 million in street value of cocaine headed north from here. So good job, Artie, on getting the drugs off the street.

Okay.

Todd, do you think you can top that? No, but I can outbore you all. So a lot of you are aware that we've been having problems with formerly the Loge in unpaid TOT fines where we got to the point of six months or more without the hotel remitting those taxes. We sued, got our money back, fines, all of that, and attorney's fees. They turned around, did the same thing, sued, fines, attorney's fees, back TOT, and then they ran up another bill, and then supposedly the Loge went bankrupt. What I found out today is I don't see any filing that they actually filed for bankruptcy on PACER, which is where all public filings happen. Anyway, there's a new, they are doing the shuffling of LLCs, and they've created one called Shasta View LLC out of California. It's not clear who owns this, even though the other LLCs, all correspondents went to an entity up in King County, Washington. We need transparency on that. What they're saying is they want to make payments on past TOT. They want us to... to forego any fines, any late fees. And I told them, no, if you want to operate. And they have been taking guests since early May. Despite this, we put out a cease and desist order on Friday, and they kept taking guests over the weekend. And when Chief Gibson went there this morning, they said, We're going to ignore your cease and desist unless it comes from your attorney, which it did come from our attorney today. Now it's clear from John Kenny talking to their attorney that if they want a business license, They need to pay all TOT, all fines, all of it, not making payments. Made a referral to the DA's office, second referral, and for both criminal and civil penalties. I don't know if it's going to get taken up, but the next step is for us to seek an injunction and shut the building down and do padlock the doors. It's just I've never dealt with an entity that believes that gravity doesn't apply to them. So we're, I guess, a couple just basic housekeeping things because you haven't heard about them for a while. We have Green Dot and Alta writing a cycle eight active transportation grant for the lake street engineering um i looked at it and finished up final edits today and it goes in this week and uh hopeful that we get that um and um i guess the next piece and again this is later on the agenda but I am really excited about getting some community meetings going from, you know, three meetings and hopefully we get the people that are interested from day one at first meeting all the way through so that if we're going to have development at the landing that we shape it the way the community wants. And are we going to satisfy everybody? No, but if we do our best, to satisfy the majority of folks that development of the landing is in their best interest. And there's something about the landing that is really the community can take ownership of and love and be a centerpiece. I think that's the key to this being a success. We'll talk about this more. We had 14 great applicants. We ended up doing five. You know, hour-long interviews. It was really tough to make a decision. We had some really good folks.

Awesome. Looking forward to hearing about it. Any other updates? Okay. Moving on to item six, committee updates. We've got the Downtown Enhancement Advisory Committee, the Library Tax Advisory Committee, the Beautification Committee, and the Active Transportation Committee.

Um, so the DEAC held a, um, and Rachel, feel free to, um, fill in the gaps because I was kind of on, uh, text messages with John. Um, you know, there were still, uh, you know, uh, trying to get our funding straight for finishing power box art, um, you know, getting murals painted in our various locations. And, um, I'm missing a big one here. Oh, and the planning for the Biketober event. Danny from Fifth Season and I have been working on that. Mayor Globman and I had a great conversation with Stephen Bryan from the Community Resource Center today. It sounds like they've got someone on staff through Grant was able to get sound system and a projector and we talked about the potential for using it in relation to the gateway trails that are opening up and at the end of the year having a take a kid mountain biking day where you take kids out on the new trails teach them how to ride bikes with supervision and then come back and have a camp out with a big screen and you know good AV and show some really cool mountain biking videos, people making big jumps and that kind of thing to get kids really excited about jumping into the sport. So yeah, that's what I've got. Awesome.

And to reassure you, Ken, if I am involved, I will wear a helmet. Just a reminder for folks out there here or watching at home, there are two vacancies on the beautification committee and one on the downtown enhancement advisory committee. So if you are interested in either of those, come on down to city hall and chat with somebody there. We'd love to love to have you on there. All right. In that case, we will move on to item seven, the consent agenda. The city manager recommends approval of the following consent agenda items. All resolutions and ordinances on this agenda or added hereto shall be introduced or adopted as applicable by title only and the full reading thereof is hereby waived. A, approval of minutes May 27th, 2026, regular city council meeting. B, police department monthly report.

All right. I'll move to approve consent agenda items A and B by title only.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay. Moving on to item eight, we've got the sales tax percentage selection. On May 26th, the council adopted a resolution consolidating the city's general municipal election with the Siskiyou County general election. The resolution included authorization to place a sales tax measure on the ballot, but did not specify a tax rate. Todd is going to give us a little more background.

Yes. Um, so as mayor Globman mentioned, um, you know, we needed to con you know, pass a resolution consolidating, um, the general election with the county for two vacant positions on council, uh, as well as, um, to consolidate, uh, elections to, uh, put a sales tax measure on the ballot. The one thing that we left blank and that we need to see if we can come to agreement on this evening, because our due date, uh, for that turning in that resolution with that percentage is July 1st. Um, and so we have been, um, talking about this in town halls and laying out, uh, the city's budget and all that we've had to do in terms of cuts and, um, uh, everything from finding out that not only did we not have a reserve, but we were deficit spending by about $700,000 in the cuts that went that with that. And, um, the, you know, the difficulty that we had in just getting to even, um, this year at the bug on the budget, if we want to have a robust, if we want to have a full staff fire department and police and be able to replace equipment for fire and police, we need to raise some revenue. And so the town halls that we've been holding have been sort of leading with a potential 1.5% sales tax measure. The original estimate was that it would bring in 2.75 million with reduced TOT, and TOT coming in, that number is actually now projected at 2.25. And at 1%, we're looking at Sorry, 1.5 million. We need to make a decision here, hopefully unanimously. We've got to have a united front. Obviously, if you put in a higher tax rate, it's just any economics. When something gets too expensive, people don't want to pay for it. We had, if you recall, original polling on this where we talked about, right now, if we passed a general measure in support of fire or police, what's the percentage this would pass by? It was 77%. If it was at a 1.5% rate, it was pretty tight at, I believe, it was 52% or 53%. You know, we've had two tax town halls laying out all the information and have done a lot of outreach, letting people know where the city is, what we need. And we have another town hall planned right before the election. I think, you know, but there are other factors that play into this. Inflation is high. But this is a need. And I think that council's got a tough decision to make tonight because you've got to walk that fine line between doing your best to ensure that something's going to pass and doing whatever we can to make sure that we're shored up into the future. And I think the thing to keep in mind, just kind of a little bit of a shift is that as opposed to sales tax now, passing a local measure, all that money stays in the community. So just setting the stage, you know, you guys have a tough decision to make and I'm looking forward to the robust debate.

Thank you very much. I'd like to, I had a, this came up pretty, frequently at the last Coffee with the Mayor event that I did and I would just like to ask a couple questions here on the record just to clear up a couple of the misconceptions that I think folks had. I saw some of this on some chatter floating around afterwards as well. You did with one of them so that all of the revenue stays here even with online shopping, none of that's going away. We'll see online shopping increasing obviously so that is a good thing. Now the O is the citizens oversight committee is that that's not something we hope to create. It is, if this is put on the ballot on the ballot, or this is on the ballot in November, rather as part of that, it is mandatory that we will have a citizens oversight committee, right. As part of this ballot measure.

It it's it's we've been consistent all the way through this, that this is part of the package.

Excellent. And then the other question, I believe I saw at one of the last things, there was four categories that were excluded from this tax. I'm sorry to put you on the spot. There was food, medical. Food, medical. There was two others. Sorry.

I should have. I'm like having a moment here. Well, we'll find out.

Any other questions over here, Jeffrey? Not questions, council discussion. John? Either, John?

Questions?

No questions. Okay, well, Todd, if you find that, we can bring it back during the council discussion portion here, but for now, I think we'll open it up to public comment. I see some folks getting ready to come up here, so if you would like to make a public comment about this, I think you know the drill.

Good evening again, Johanna Eltorfer. Two points I'd like you to consider on the sales tax measure, and that is what is gonna happen if our rate goes up, whether it's 1% or 1.5%, we need to really consider that we may lose revenue to neighboring cities like Weed or Dunsmuir, not just Oregon or perhaps Reading. And I think Weed or Dunsmuir may have some of their own measures on the table, but we need to consider if they pass, and perhaps they may not pass, and what that impact will be in our community. Because a lot of people are already shopping out of state where there's no sales tax. And then the other thing on the oversight committee is my understanding was that they would come in after the fact to talk about where the money went. but I don't think that's a very good use of people's time and efforts because the oversight committee should be proactive and be ahead of the curve and help direct where those funds go. Like I would envision them having a proposal presented by the city staff of where the money should go and then this oversight committee would review the requests and then allocate that present a proposal for you guys to allocate that accordingly after having done research with the appropriate department heads. Something of that nature. But on a proactive standpoint, not reactive, because what are they going to do? Just report on it? Like, that doesn't even make sense. You know? That's not oversight. That's hindsight. So I would really love for you guys to consider the pre-oversight Thank you.

Normally we don't have a back and forth, but the intent was once we get the measure in place at the end of the first year, we've got a lot of staffing for public safety. It's an audit committee that looks at how we've spent money over the previous year and provides direction on spending into the next year.

Just to follow through on that, putting together the proposals of how to spend the money talking to city staff is pretty much the role of city council, the elected officials from the city. I mean, it is. Yeah, you're right. Not pretty much. That is the role of council.

I guess, isn't that Melissa's job to do budget and variance and all of that at the end of each quarter or year, fiscal year? Sure.

She looks at how much money we have. But it's council that directs where that money goes. And also, just to address one of your earlier points, Weed actually just did pass a sales tax measure, and at the same time, they had one that had sunsetted out, so they made that one permanent and then passed an additional one at one of their last council meetings within the last few months. To answer your question back there, Ms. Swenson, I don't have the exact amount off the top of my head. I apologize.

What city was this?

Weed. Sorry, Dunsmuir. My mistake. Sorry, Dunsmuir.

Dunsmuir is at 8%. 8%? Okay.

Anyway. All right.

So then they would be less than we are when we're done.

We'd have to look at that, yeah.

Yeah, so anyway, just if you could consider that. And then I guess based on the feedback.

It's three minutes. That's three minutes, yeah.

Well, I think you guys took up some of my three minutes. I just want to respond if I can. Again, this would be still a committee presenting a review of where the money went, again, is not an oversight committee, and whether they make the recommendations to the staff or to the city council, I mean, I may have gotten that wrong of where the direction needs to go, but if it needs to go to the city council, let it go to the city council, but ahead of time, not after the fact. After the fact, that's something Melissa can do, you know? That's part of

That's not the intent. The intent is to look at how to provide accountability for the way the city has spent the money in relation to the tax measure that we put up and provide guidance. That guidance then goes to the city council to take into account and I'm sure they'll take it seriously. The intent is to follow what we need which is to shore up police and fire. Our big problem here, well, there's a lot. Our big problem here is cities of this size typically don't have full service fire and police. It's very, very unusual and it's very, very expensive.

Yeah. Yeah, no, I'm all for more fire and police. That's fine. I'm just saying the committee itself should be ahead of the curve. Because it sounds like the first report will be at the end of the fiscal year, which is kind of a moot point at that point.

That's all.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Digital goods and labor, and that's something revenue and taxation we're trying to get at, is when you're streaming a movie... or you're ordering software online, you don't have to pay sales tax on that. And we're trying to change that at the state level because they really should. They make a lot of money on this stuff. Then they've got another category called exempt entities, which are when you have direct purchases to US government, public educational institutions, so it's basically non-profits. And I'm sure that's going to stay the same. But I'm really hoping that the digital, like streaming services, streaming movies, downloading expensive software, because most states have already started to charge sales tax. We're one of the few that doesn't.

Without diving into too much of an aside here, if it doesn't matter, only if you How do those states get around VPNs from knowing where somebody is downloading that? Do you know? Just off the top of your head. We don't have to dive into this.

I can find out. I'm not sure. That's a great question, though. All right. Because, I mean, you could show up like you're ordering it from Malaysia. Yeah.

All right. Step on up.

Roslyn, I brought this up to my son about the community oversight, and he said, well, aren't you gonna have to pay the police department and all of these city workers to sit down and talk with these residents? So, no.

It's not a detail we've worked out, but I would imagine it would be our assigned finance committee members who are currently Councilperson Kerr and Stackfliff, as well as the finance director and whoever wants to volunteer for this oversight committee.

So how is that different? Because we just got the budget that... Anybody can look at this and then talk. I mean, trying to do a public record request and just get certain information has not been successful, but we'll keep trying. But I got most of it in the last meeting's budget. Muriel sat down and talked with me, and I'm not sure if that kind of thing will happen with our new bookkeeper, and is that... Is it still open to the public?

Oh, it should be, yeah. And if that isn't the case, you call me.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I will say she is currently unavailable as she is on a much-needed vacation after getting the budget done. But when she's back. Next person.

I had a suggestion for the sales pitch for the penny. And I said that you should say the government is going to stop printing pennies, so we want to collect your last penny. And we could use a cent for the logo or whatever, but I think we could just use the fact that the government is not more printing of pennies, but we want your last cent. I just thought it would be a connection for a sales pitch.

I like it. Thank you. Thank you very much. We got two, we got two more folks out there. I see you shaking your heads now. All right. All right. You're you're here for something else. All right. Well, in that case, thank you for that. We will bring it back now for council discussion. John, I believe you had something.

Okay. So we have to decide now. whether it's going to be 1%, 1.25%, or 1.5%. And I think that decision should be largely of the number of the percentage. So the consultants polling indicated 77% chance of passage at 1%. The consultants polling showed that 77% chance of passing at 1%. So that's where I'm leaning because of that.

I think that's, I think, I think that's a reasonable way to look at it. I also, I do wonder if the people who are just going to be against it completely are just against any tax in general. I mean, I guess there was the, I mean, I guess the polling does show that, but we haven't, as you know, as Todd mentioned, we have had a couple of city hall assaults and more outreach between now and November and It's hard to say if it'll go up or down. Jeffrey, what are you leaning?

I'm leaning the same way that Council Member Stackforth. I mean, I think I follow the numbers, although let me frame that with these are my last six months here. By the time this thing passes, I won't be here. Oh, yeah. And consequently... You know, it feels more like, yes, I'm going in perspective, but I'll line up with what the folks that are going to stay here and manage it and be responsible for it want. Fair enough.

Fair enough.

Todd? And this just is more information. Don't take this as trying to sway anything one way or another. And this is anecdotal. It is not anything that you should be considering as part of a survey, but, um, I think the, um, the, the first town hall and the second town hall, you know, we had people come out in both that said no way on taxes. Um, uh, especially during the first town hall, I think that, um, when we laid the budget bare and walked through how much we've cut and that we don't even have a full cadre of firefighters right now, paid firefighters. I think the thing that really actually swayed a number of people is just not understanding the fact that fulfillment centers um, uh, for Mount Chaff specifically, you know, cause they had our zip code. Um, we would have, uh, 57% more sales tax revenue. We have the locations where we're ordering things from like Best Buy, Target, Walmart, um, and Amazon. Um, the state and the community. And, you know, and part of this is the obvious shop local. And of course, you know, for bigger shops, people are going to go to Medford because there was no sales tax. Um, but I think it was pretty eyeopening, um, for a lot of people of why, uh, things are going the direction they are and, um, why they're likely to get worse and couple that with the fact that if we pass this tax, whatever it is, um, it stays here.

Yeah, I mean, we are likely to see online shopping continue to increase. Although I do agree with Ms. Swenson's earlier comments, we should all shop local. Unfortunately, that's just not the way the world is going. Council Member Redmond, what are you thinking over there?

I've been for the 1.5% so that we actually, so everybody can hear me, that I've been in favor of the 1.5% so we actually have the funds we need. But on a united front to get it passed, if it's one, it's one. I'm not up for a fight on any of this. I think, unfortunately, it's going to get shot down anyways because this is a very elderly community on fixed income, and I really don't... I'm thinking the best on this. It's already been shot down once. The 1% has been shot down once, and even if we come back with 1% on this, I do not feel it's going to pass.

Well, I choose to approach it with a slightly more optimistic take, but I understand where you're coming from.

Keep in mind, though, the first measure was a dedicated that required a two-thirds passage, and this is a majority.

Yeah. Chair? Please. To piggyback on what the city manager was saying, the number of percentage of people that voted for the sales tax last time was 66%. It failed because it needed two thirds. It needed 66.6%. But it was 66%. This time it's 50. I'm actually more, I could be wrong, but I'm a little more optimistic. and i and i don't think we did a great job of communicating the number one thing about the sales tax increase is that all of it stays here none of this right leaves our community that's that you all get to talk to us every meeting and tell us what's important and what isn't thank you yeah

I guess it does come down to do we think that a relatively good chance of something is better than a harder chance of what we think that we actually need? I mean, it's pretty clear from the numbers that 1.5% is more needed and pretty crucial, but can we make that pitch to the voters between now and November that are going to come out for this? To the chair that's yeah, please.

I still think that's why just agreeing on the 1% Is what we do need to do just to even give it a chance I'm sorry say that again the 1% just settling on 1% instead of one and a half I mean one and a half is what we need, but we know that's not gonna pass So if we try the 1% again, maybe this time it'll work. I hope so This town needs the medical service. We're not getting any younger around here calls are gonna go up as everybody gets older and And plus, we live in a very first world country with TV shows saying the minute you call 911, it's all right there. Everybody's saved. And so everybody's going to be expecting to be saved. You call 911 over everything, you expect a response. But like I said, if you go over to the sheriffs, hey, they might respond in an hour. We got no fire? Hey, have fun with your fire extinguisher. Yeah, I mean, I guess if we don't get this passed, it's going to be more like Fallout instead of House MD, but... The 1% is the number we need to have a chance, and that is what I will vote for right now.

That's where you're at as well?

John, that's it.

Yeah, I'm glad. We better go 1%. Okay. We should go with the 1%, so I'm going to move for that, but I don't like the way this is laid out. So we have agenda item number eight. We have agenda item number eight is... What CCR number is this going to be? 26-what? 09. Okay, 09. And this looks to be regarding the consolidation of the election, which we passed last meeting.

So... I think this would just be amending that to add the actual number to it, is my understanding of it. Okay. Are you saying versus agenda item 9 for tonight?

9 has to do with language on... The ballot? Yes. Okay. So where is the amendment? Where is the spot fill in the blank on the resolution 09? I don't want to get this wrong because we have a deadline, right?

It's in the language in the packet. And there are a couple amendments after talking to Bill Berry that we should add, which I've got them redlined out.

Because when you go to agenda item number nine, the percentage is highlighted in that ballot question, ask voter, okay, and you would fill in the blanks. Mm-hmm. Anybody else's thought on the language of the resolution? Am I seeing this wrong? Let's see here. Yeah, go ahead, Jeffrey. Yeah, that's the next resolution. That's what I mean. I thought that's just what the language was. Yeah.

City Manager, on page 27 on the language that would actually be in the ballot, the 1% number was... The one in the one and a half percent, the language of the total revenue that would come in was incorrect.

27? 27.

I see a number there.

Oh, there it is. In the whereas, the first whereas, it's got a blank spot with highlight next to the percentage.

I think he's talking about under the City of Mount Shasta Vital Services Protection Measure. Is that the one you're talking about, Jeffrey, next to the yes and no box?

Right. It would actually be on the ballot. Right.

No. So that's agenda item number nine or number eight. I thought your concern was agenda item number nine. It's eight. Eight is what we're on. Correct. Yes. And this is very similar to our last agenda item at the previous meeting regarding consolidation. So we're having this discussion about what percentage, but in the actual wording of this resolution, I don't see where the percentage comes in.

So why don't why don't I walk you through this? The consolidation of the election resolution passed at the last May meeting. And when that passed, we said that the one thing that we're missing because we haven't had that debate yet is we'd have to come back and approve the sales per percentage amount to be added to the consolidation. And so we make that decision on this item. And then we go to the next agenda item, which is related to placing the sales tax measure on the ballot, which is a little bit different. But the reason I put this afterwards is so that we can plug the percentage in from the consolidation resolution. And that's why the blank spaces.

OK, so if I say let's before I do this officially, I say, all right, I move to approve resolution CCR-26-09, and then read the boldface print. I have no mention, I will not be mentioning what the percentage is. That will take care of in the next agenda item, correct? Yes. So is this kind of a repeat of our last agenda? It absolutely is. So here we go, let's do this. All right, I'll move to approve resolution number CCR-26-09, resolution of the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta calling and giving notice of a general municipal election to be held on November 3rd, 2026 and requesting consolidation of this election with the presidential general election. with the general election. Just with the general election. All right, so consolidation of this election with the general election. Note the edit that presidential will be struck from the resolution.

Actually, the senatorial and presidential... or language that need to be in the consolidation.

Okay, so I'll move to approve resolution number CCR-26-09. It's so confusing. Resolution of the city council of the city of Mount Shasta calling and giving notice of a general municipal election to be held on November 3rd, 2026 and requesting consolidation of this election with the congressional general election So that's what it is. It's both houses of Congress. Note the change.

Second.

Okay.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay. All right. So now we'll move on to number nine where we will actually choose. But number nine is where we're choosing whether or not to put a measure of support or sorry, a statement of support on the ballot. Yeah. Okay. So we're going to choose the number and whether or not to put the statement of support or said number.

I want to be very careful on this because, um, uh, you know, uh, Bill Berry and, and the city attorney went back and forth. And, um, uh, I spoke to, to bill, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ROUND AND ROUND. SO I SHOULD WALK THROUGH HERE. PLEASE STRIKE THIS WITH ME SO WHEN WE READ IT THAT THESE EDITS NEED TO BE ADOPTED AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION. OKAY. SO IN THE SUBJECT, IT SHOULD READ, RESOLUTION PLACING SALES TAX MEASURE STRIKE ARGUMENT ON THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 BALLOT. Got it. Okay. And then under recommendation, first sentence, it says, staff recommend that the city council adopt the attached resolution, strike directing that a ballot argument in favor of the, and then after that line, placing the city sales tax measure, and then that stays the same. Understood. So go down to discussion. Obviously, we need to add the resolution number, but then... CCR-26-09, is that the one right there? Yep.

Oh, this one will be 10.

Yeah. So the attached resolution, resolution number, and we got it. formally requests that the Siskiyou County election clerk place the city's strike ballot argument in favor of the, and then sales tax measures and the rest of that sentence are all the same. Okay?

Okay.

And those are the strikes. The reason, as I understand it, is we don't... We don't wanna state that we're putting a ballot argument, meaning council putting a ballot argument on the election. We wanna come back and carefully choose five members of the community that are leaders and are behind this to actually come in and say, they're carrying this ballot measure and signing for it for the election.

Okay. All right, so now we will discuss, well, we will get back to our previously scheduled discussion of one, one and a half percent. Sounds like folks were pretty settled on 1%. Yes. Was that you? Yeah, that's what I'm, okay, yeah. So we'll go to council questions. All right, anybody got questions here? Okay, well, we're gonna have to go back to go, we're gonna go back to public comment about, I guess we'll go to public comment about the percentage. Y'all have thoughts about one or one and a half percent? I know you do. Don't be shy.

Johanna, I guess I would err on the side of a lower percentage rather than a higher percentage for the reasons I stated earlier with our neighboring cities and Medford and whatnot. And then the other thing to consider is And I don't know if this is something you envisioned the committee to do as well, and that is, or who's gonna do this, but when monies are spent from this, because TOT varies, and we don't wanna spend future revenue that we haven't received yet. So this will always be on, I believe, a one-month lag, because our TOT is now on a 30-day lag. So I think that's something we need to consider on how we spend the money. going forward. Do you understand what I'm saying? There's going to be a lag in the revenue, and then some of the expenditures may be higher, so we need to be careful to not overspend this new fund if it gets passed by the voters.

Absolutely, and that's why we have our finance director do her quarterly updates, and we readjust the budget going forward about four times a year or so, for that exact reason, as you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, projections are You know, she's very, very good at it, but if she was 100%, well, I think we'd all be rich.

I mean, this is Mount Shasta.

There's a lot of clairvoyancy. Fair enough. Just for a point of clarification, a government accounting practice, GASB, requires that we cannot book any revenue until we have it. we can't base it on a projection. It has to be money that we have in-house.

Correct.

I don't know if that's the way it was done before, but that's the way it has been done since.

And I think that was part of the reason for changing the TOT to a 30-day rather than quarterly, just to make it more accurate, frankly, in real time as much as possible. Obviously, it's not daily, but you know, as, as much as possible.

Yeah. There's certain metrics usually you can accrue for, but not.

Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely. And Hey, at least we do have in our favor, uh, it's now too expensive to drive to Medford. So we got that going for us.

And if I might add, um, you know, um, uh, weed is floating a one and a half percent sales tax measure, um, So if we passed 1.5%, which isn't what we're going for, we would be the same way RECA passed a 1.5% sales tax measure.

So if Weed passes theirs at 1.5%, what would their ending rate be? 9%. And what would our ending rate be, 9.5? 8.5. Oh, 8.5, with a 1.5%? That's with 1%. Okay. So then that would actually be another argument for the 1% because we'd be half a percent lower than weed, which would keep people...

I don't think anybody's going to be traveling to another city for a half percent decrease.

It's not worth the price of gas at this point.

That's true. Anyway, but those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I just want to take an opportunity to remind people to use Amazon like a catalog. Because if you go to Amazon and you find something you like and you go to the person that's selling it and you order it, the tax goes to the city. If it goes through the Reading to get distributed to us, Reading gets the tax. People need to understand that. so i want everybody to use amazon like a catalog just so we can get the tax money here and that penny we need a fireman we need two firemen and we need a policeman and if we can get money to be able to have that i think everybody would like the security i want to make one comment about cities not having fire and police dunsmuir doesn't have either so we basically cover them like mount shasta includes dunsmuir in the call Because they don't have a sheriff or a policeman or a fireman. Well, they have fire trucks sitting there.

We respond to fires depending on how large they are in Dunsmuir. If there's a large event, we would respond in terms of police. But they rely on part- Sheriff. Yeah, part-time. And one of the problems and why there is a significant amount of crime in Dunsmuir is they've figured out when the sheriff's going to be there.

I just wanted to include that our call sometimes goes to that district.

All right. Any other public comment on the, uh, one versus one and a half here? Okay. All right. We'll bring it back for council discussion. I think you guys have, uh, said what you were going to say, Jeffrey. Yeah.

Please, Jeffrey.

You just, if I could draw the council members, Please. Attention to Section 1 on page 27. I'm sorry, which page? This is the actual question that will be on the ballot. Oh, yeah. The language in there is at 1.5%, but the equation is incorrect. It would bring in $1.8 million and that. It's wrong. We'll strike that. Yeah, I just want to just get the math correct. That's all.

The 1.8 is kind of right in between the two, oddly enough.

So 1 and 1.5. Right.

Anything else for discussion? Well, at this point, as much as I would like to push for 1.5% because I do think that we need it, I think at this point, It seems like presenting a united front is more important than anything else, and the appetite seems more to be to go for what we think we can get in November. Yeah.

Okay, so I'm going to move with the long version here. I'll move to approve resolution CCR-26-10. Okay, I'm gonna read the full measure, okay. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta requesting the election clerk of the County of Siskiyou to place on the November 3rd, 2026 ballot a measure to adopt a sales and transaction tax as a general tax requiring a majority vote. Whereas the City Council of the city of Mount Shasta desires to place on the November 3rd, 2026 ballot, a ballot measure to authorize the imposition of a 1.0% sales tax. And whereas the ballot measure exhibit A attached is a general tax with revenues to be used to prevent reduction in police and fire protection wildfire protection, and other necessary general governmental services and requiring a majority vote for adoption. And now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Mount Shasta does hereby, please note the need for an edit there, hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows. Section one, the City Council requests that the following question be placed on the November 3rd, 2026 ballot. Okay, so there's gonna be edits. And I will mention it as I'm reading. City of Mount Shasta Vital Services Protection Measure. This is a yes or no vote on the following. To prevent cuts to its police and fire department, maintain public safety, prevent and protect against wildfires, provide rapid responses to 911 emergencies, add needed police officers, firefighters, and paramedics, and for general government use, shall the city of Mount Shasta adopt an ordinance establishing a 1%... a one cent sales transaction and use tax, providing approximately 1,800, what is the number? $1,500,000 annually until ended by voters with strict accountability, annual audits, citizen oversight, and all funds legally required to stay in Mount Shasta. Section two. Before I continue with section two, are the edits clear, clerk? Okay, okay. Section two, in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. Section three, after a legally noticed public hearing, the city council, by a two-thirds vote, ordered the following ordinance be placed on the November 3rd, 2026 ballot, measure to be submitted to the voters measure, voter's measure, did we give it a title? Like, you know, T, H for help, P for please, what? Anybody? It would be the next letter after the one that failed. I'll just say it that way. Measure to be submitted to the voters, measure the next letter after the measure that failed in the previous election. Section four. The County Clerk of the County of Siskiyou is authorized, instructed, and directed to give all appropriate and convenient notice of the election inform time and matter as prescribed by law. Section five, the Board of Supervisors has requested consent and agreed to the consolidation of the City of Mount Shasta Municipal Election with the general election to be held on November 3rd, 2026. Passed and adopted on this day. Here we go, more edits. On this eighth day of June 2026 by the following vote.

Do I have a second?

You don't want two-thirds?

It's how the city council authorized to put it on, not what we're asking for.

We have to do it by two-thirds. That does sound right, actually. In other words, in this case, it would be 75%. But this is what the city council's placement. No, no, no, no. The placement of it on the ballot, yeah, it's going to be a general measure. Therefore, it's 50% by the public. That's how we put it on. We have to be in a super majority to put it on the ballot. I do believe that's correct.

You could just say by a unanimous vote, since that's what we did, ordered the following ordinance. That's accurate. Okay.

Okay, so that's the motion, fully read, with edits noted. Second.

There we go.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay. All right. On to number 10. However, I have been asked to table this measure until such time as it can... All right, so what day would you like it?

Planner? City planner? Who needs it?

So no, it's gonna have to go afterwards. Because what happened was after Jeff presented this to me to bring to council, it didn't the new noise element did not go to the planning.

So it's gonna have to go to the Planning Commission, which I believe the next meeting that she Okay, so move move to table item, agenda item number 10 to a date to be determined.

All those in favor? Any opposed or abstain? Excellent. All right. Moving on to item 11. And for those following along, this is on page 39 of your packet. The extension of the contract with the Ascension Aesthetic. The Chamber of Commerce, which owns the Visit Mount Shasta brand, has expressed interest in preparing an RFQ for digital marketing services to explore whether other firms provide better marketing and value. Todd?

Yep. So... Ascension Aesthetics, who does our Visit Mount Shasta campaign and other social media postings, the Visit Mount Shasta brand is the property of the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce wanted to meet. They said that they're wondering about the cost of the Ascension Aesthetics contract and they would like the time to put together an RFP request for proposal or request for qualifications to see what other firms are out there to see if we can provide or find a firm that will provide like services to Ascension that is less expensive or the same price but we get more bang for the buck. This is just extending Josh's contract with Ascension Aesthetics that expires on June 30th through the end of August to give the Chamber the time to put those requests out.

All right. Go for it, please.

Does the Chamber of Commerce pay for his services? That was mine.

We pay, right? Yeah, we pay Ascension directly, and we receive quarterly metrics from Josh. Yeah.

And why are we looking at this?

Yeah, I'm with Jeffrey on this one.

Why is the Chamber of Commerce... putting out an RFP?

Do they plan on paying for it? I think what they're trying to do, and it would involve council's okay, is to say, hey, visit Mount Shasta as our property. We'll pull it inside and manage this contract. Then we'd change the way that contract is paid, it will be passed through to that entity through the chamber. And again, that's a council decision to make whether that's a good idea or not, but they're just trying to see what else is out there. To me, Josh is doing a great job. I don't know how much this stuff costs because I am a complete Luddite and I don't understand it. And I think the the chamber is trying to see if there are other firms out there that can do this.

So I'll just express skepticism that there's another firm that has the requisite history and knowledge with Mount Shasta specifically to do this at a lower cost. But just to piggyback on Jeffrey's comment, will the cost of producing this RFP fall on city staff or is the chamber going to foot the bill for putting that out?

I said I would provide them a template that they could use.

Well, is that costing anything?

No, it's clear they've got to put it together.

Through the chair. Yeah, please. All right, so we're on clarifying questions. So to me, this agenda item is about extending Ascension's contract while other options are explored. That's pretty straightforward. I don't have a problem with doing this. Yeah, you're right. The details with respect to who's going to pay for a potential new vendor is worthy of discussion, but ultimately, the council, the city will pay because whether it's an add-on to the Chamber's contract or whether we pay directly to the new vendor, Unless we don't know something about the chamber, are they like flush with cash all of a sudden? Did they do something really well?

Yeah, was it huge? I think they would think that what we're paying, in equivalent to what we're paying Ascension Aesthetics would... they would hire the contractor and the city would pay the chamber. That's another agenda item.

Any other questions? No. We'll take this one out to public comment here.

Johanna, I just have a question on this. I don't understand if the chamber owns the Mount Shasta logo or saying.

Visit Mount Shasta specifically. What? Visit Mount Shasta specifically. Visit Mount Shasta, thank you. Like the Instagram account, the Facebook page.

Visit Mount Shasta. Sorry, I said that wrong logo. The Visit Mount Shasta name, whatever you want to call that. Why is the city paying for that? Shouldn't the chamber be paying for that? It seems like they should be in charge of that contract to protect and defend their trademark, I guess. Is it a trademark? or the name, I mean, I guess I don't understand why the city's using their budget money on this if it belongs to them.

I think it comes down to who council decides is better at, whether the city is better or the chamber would be better at driving results from this contract.

okay i mean to me it makes sense that it's the chambers but then if it's the chambers because they have the bandwidth to manage that but then wouldn't they also take that contract and pay for the contract because the contract should i would think be in their name not in the city's name if it's their trademark just a thought yeah um i think there's certainly something to that um I mean, that doesn't mean that the city can't increase whatever funds they give to the chamber, but I'm just saying the logistics, whose name is it in, it just sounds backwards. Anyway. My two cents. Thank you.

Thank you. One comment for you. Yes.

Thank you, Jeff.

The chamber owns a website. with a domain name, period. They don't own the image of Mount Shasta. They don't own the brand of Mount Shasta. They don't own that. Just a distinction.

Okay, thank you. And I think that you were just saying the visit Mount Shasta contract with this other company.

No. The current company contracts with the city of Mount Shasta to promote the city of Mount Shasta. The domain name it rolls through is Visit Mount Shasta, which that domain is owned by the Chamber of Commerce.

I see. I'll have to think about that. I'll have to put that down on paper and figure that out. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other? Oh, we got one.

Over $38,000, the city is paying for that. Sure, if the chamber wants to go out and find someone else that can do this relatively simple website, which I think should be someone in Mount Shasta, that we should look at giving the jobs to people in Mount Shasta than to hire outside agencies.

I would just clarify the Ascension Aesthetic is a company that was started by a longtime Mount Shasta resident.

Are they still Mount Shasta?

Yeah. He also owns Mountain Cowork downtown.

Well, $38,000 for this kind of advertisement seems really overpriced.

It's actually significantly below most marketing contracts in larger markets these days for something. Advertising, revenue.

Well, we have Cisco Economic Development getting money to advertise, and then the city beautification, and the... Visit Mount Shasta and the Visiting Bureau. There's all of these different groups that we're putting money into and it just really seems like this budget for advertisement is way too high. And so public comment on our budget, I think this is too way, way high. That this money should go into our police and our fire than advertisement.

Thank you. Unfortunately, it is kind of the price we pay for living in a tourist-based economy here. Any other public comment? Yeah. Okay. All right. We'll bring it back for council discussion then. And just to be clear, we're not, we're actually just voting on whether or not we're not putting out a new RFP or RFQ right now. We're just voting on whether or not to extend the Ascension aesthetic contract, which would expire at the end of this month for another two months to the end of August while the chamber puts out the RFP or RFQ. Yeah. Give or take.

All right, I'm gonna move to approve the extension of Ascension Aesthetics digital marketing contract with the city of Mount Shasta for the period of July 1st, 2026 through August 31st, 2026 at a monthly rate of $3,200 totaling no more than $6,400. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay. All right. We will move on to item 12, the modification of contract. And this is on packet page 45. The modification of contract with Kimley Horn in January, 2026, the city contracted with Kimley Horn for the reconstruction of Lake street, including upgrades to water and sewer infrastructure. The proposal, The proposed contract amendment increases the total contract cost to account for a revised scope of work. We're now going to hear from our Public Works Director, Ken.

I was hoping you'd go ahead and finish. Oh, all right. Just read the whole thing? No, I can go ahead and do that. Let's see. So, you covered basically... As part of the Complete Streets approach, water and sewer infrastructure, this is for the design construction package contract for East Lake Street, Mount Chester Boulevard up to Rockfellow. As part of the, and it was awarded to Kim Lee Horner, as part of the Complete Streets approach, water and sewer infrastructure was assessed and identified for upgrade When you put together the Complete Streets approach, the improvements to the infrastructure, it became obvious through the preliminary, sorry about this, construction cost estimate, the 2.2 million that we had in grant construction funding was insufficient to complete the entire length of East Lake Street. So it was necessary to phase the project. Phase one will expend the 2.2 million and extend from Mount Shasta Boulevard to just short of Alder Street. Phase 2 will begin where Phase 1 ends and extend to Rockfellow Drive. The revised scope of work in Amendment 1 increases the total contract cost by roughly $47,000 for several reasons. One, the fact that we're going to have to create two construction packages for phase one and phase two, the increased cost of including the design of the water and sewer improvements for the entire stretch of Lake Street, of Mount Shasta Boulevard, Rockfellow. And because we're including the complete streets plan as part of this, one part of that is we're adding bulb outs to the intersection of Mount Shasta Boulevard. That will, it's a very good benefit to the pedestrian and bicycle traffic, but it will change the traffic configurations. Currently we have three lanes there. We're going to have to make it two. That's going to create more of a traffic analysis on how they're going to combine that turn lane and the straight head lane. So, all of that adds up to the $47,000 in additional cost. The cost of this amendment will be covered with gas tax. So recommendation is staff respectfully request the city council approve amendment number one to the professional services agreement with Kim Lee Horn for the reconstruction of Lake Street Complete Streets project. Okay.

Thank you for that, Ken. First question. Does this change the timeline for the overall project?

No.

Love it. Simple.

Oh, I should add a note. We've had to, and we would have had to have done this anyway. We just filed for an extension of the construction funding.

Okay.

And that actually is coming before the state next week.

Next week in front of the California Transportation Commission. Okay.

What are the odds they say yes or no? We have very good chance of them saying yes. They came back with us with additional questions about two weeks ago. We answered all those questions. I'd be rather surprised if they said no, but nothing's for sure.

Sounds good. Jeffrey, how about you guys? Okay. All right, we'll take this out to public comment. Lake street. Okay. We got a thumbs up. Put it in the official record. Uh, we'll bring it back for council discussion. Jeff, anybody? No, I think we're all in favor of this project overall. So if this is what needs to happen. Yeah, I agree.

I mean, my, my only comment is the construction costs, prevailing wage, So do we know the distance that is being reconstructed? It's like half a mile? 0.83 mile. 0.83 mile. Oh, really? Okay. And so the total cost is going to be $2.2 million or $4 million?

$2.2 million covers from Mount Shasta Boulevard to basically Aldert Street, just short of Aldert.

That's two blocks. I know.

It's...

That does include all the infrastructure, the sewer and everything. Yeah, that's not just the roadway.

It's everything. And that's part of the problem. When we first went after this grant, it was strictly for refurbishing the street, reconstruction of the street. It didn't have sidewalk curb and gutter. It didn't have water and sewer. It didn't have the... What? The ADA, none of the traffic calming was included with that.

So you want it to be a complete streets. And we did that with Alma from Sisson Middle School down to Chestnut basically. And I remember that being about 1.4 million. and that was a Complete Streets project.

Sounds like about the price of inflation.

Yeah, so inflation right there, boom. So I'll move to approve. You don't even get any roundabouts. Amendment one to the Professional Services Agreement with Kimley Horn for the reconstruction of Lake Street Complete Streets project. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay, awesome. We will move on to number 14. This is on page 71 in your packet. This is agenda item number 14 local transportation fund claim. Staff has prepared a claim on behalf of the city for its annual allocation of transportation funding from the Oh, sorry. Oh, yeah, totally different modification. Sorry, Ken. Item 13. Package page 57. My mistake. go back a little bit here all right the modification of contract with progression engineering for further design work in june of 2025 the city contracted with progression engineering for improvements to storm drainage the proposed contract amendment increases the total contract cost to account for a revised scope of work okay

Yes, mayor and members of the council. In June of 25, the city contracted with Progression Engineering for planning, modeling, and design of stormwater system improvements from McLeod Avenue, Cold Creek, and Washington Drive, Mount Shasta Boulevard storm drainages. During drainage system design for South Washington Drive, assumptions were made regarding street width, slope, curb height, and drop inlet placements. Designing the drainage and street improvements on South Washington together will produce more accurate results and will strengthen future funding applications for both project components. MEANING BOTH PROJECT COMPONENTS BEING THE MONEY TO BUILD THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND MONEY TO RECONSTRUCT WASHINGTON DRIVE BECAUSE WE WILL AT THIS POINT HAVE A FINISHED DESIGN. The amendment primarily adds street improvements designed for South Washington Drive. It also repurposes funds from reduced-scope tasks and adds right-of-way work near West Water Street and the Union Pacific Railroad, where we had questionable information on right-of-way and existing easements. We really need to get that straightened out. This amendment cost is $191,801 bringing the total contract to $1,436,070. This total is still within the available grant funding of $1,575,000. So we'll just be spending more grant money that we already have. So staff requests the City Council approve an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Progression Engineering to add street improvements on South Washington Drive, including pavement, sidewalk, curb, gutter, and associated structures.

Cool. Coming back for some questions here. Right here. I got a question. Not so much about adding this amendment to the thing, more so about the project, if that's all right. Yes. What's the timeline for, I get asked this a lot, so what's the timeline here for Washington? What are we looking at?

For the design or for the complete storm drainage improvements? Give me both. Well, we just talked to the state last week about getting an extension on this project as well. Because we were starting off this project with the assumption we could do a categorical exemption, which would really streamline this and we'd be done with this total design and everything in the next few months. We decided... Given the amount of work that's going to be done as part of this project, we need to do a negative DEC. There's more of a term to it. I'm calling it a negative DEC for short.

This would ultimately not be a CEQA exempt project, so it would come with an ISM&D, an initial study mitigated negative declaration.

Understood.

And due to that, it's going to take some additional time to get that environmental work performed.

So what's going to happen first, this project or the state just overturning CEQA completely? I'm just kidding. All right. Well, we'll keep our fingers crossed for this one. All right. Any other questions then from council? All right. We'll go to public comment out there.

Is this about kids' discussion just now? Yes. Yeah.

The only thing is I said before is people in Washington want to know.

So it's not going to be done this year. You're just doing a plan. Correct.

This will be...

This will just be for the design package.

I just want to be clear in case anybody's listening and they're going Washington.

But it's a step further than we had before. Oh, careful. Sorry. Ooh, let's... All right, any other public comment out there?

Oh, sorry, go ahead. If you don't mind, I'd like to add, as part of the design of Washington Street, as you all well know from past studies and right away with and what we don't have and what we need, where existing houses are and so on and so forth we're looking at to get a 60 foot right away everywhere possible but there will be some segments we're looking at a 50 foot right away and by having this finished package we can go to the homeowners and show them exactly what we'll be asking for i saw that how many spots roughly does it sort of do that bow in where you

Potentially, are you gonna lose the sidewalk in those spots or what's the design gonna look like?

No, we will have full sidewalk curb and gutter the entire way. We'll have to get a little creative with our bike lanes and we'll have to go with, well, of course we would anyway, but 11 foot travel lanes, we wouldn't go big wide travel lanes there. We wanna reduce speed on that street as well. Yeah, sounds good. Cool, all right.

I think we're still in the public comment phase if anybody had something. Okay. All right. In that case, we'll bring it back for discussion here.

Yeah, so before I make a question.

Sure. Can the, this looks like a pretty interesting and intricate and ambitious project overall were to come to fruition.

Yes. Do you have any idea what this is going to cost construction-wise? We do have... We do have estimates, and I didn't bring them, but we're talking over 8 million.

Yeah. Big project, though. On grants. Most likely, yeah.

As much as possible. Maybe we should revisit that one.

I don't know.

All right.

Move to approve an amendment to the professional services agreement with progression engineering and street improvements on South Washington Drive, including pavement, sidewalk, curb, gutter, and associated structures. For costs not to exceed, help me out here, $10,000.

$1,900. $1,500.

People at home can't hear you. You have a capital money.

How about that? All right, I'll move to approve an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Progression Engineering to add street improvements on South Washington Drive, including pavement, sidewalk, curb, gutter, and associated structures. The amendment cost is $191,801. bringing the total contract to $1.436 million. This total is still within the available grant not to exceed an amount totaling $1.575 million. All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain?

Nope. All right, cool. Now we will move on to item five. This one, Jesus. 14 on page 71. Wow. All right. No, no, no, I'm good. Local transportation funds. Staff has prepared a claim on behalf of the city for its annual allocation of transportation funding from the local transportation commission. Todd. Todd.

or I can read it if you want. We're looking for City Council to adopt the proposed resolution of City Council to claim the city's apportionment of local transportation funds, which is an annual allocation. Ours this year is $139,092. of which just under 50,000 is for streets and roads programs. And the rest is to, uh, for unmet public transit needs. That's for, um, you know, our, uh, our, our portion of the bus service here running through town through, you know, the stage. Um, and, uh, I think that's, that's the only use, but it's, it's just, it's, uh, it's passing a resolution that allows us to take my, uh, money, that originates with gas tax that is our apportionment by population that is, you know, is provided to the county through the local transportation fund and apportioned to cities in Siskiyou County.

Okay.

So, all right, we'll bring this back for council questions here.

I just wanted to make a comment. $49,000 after the discussion we had about complete streets and redoing drainage and so forth, and the dollars involved there, this pretty much is chip sealing some blocks, certain sections. I mean, how much do we... It's always chip seal, right? Yes.

And... Again, We're banking a lot of the gas tax funds and funds like this to just like the Lake Street project. We use it to fill in the gaps with our funding. Match. Matching. Chip ceiling, I am going to get back to doing some chip ceiling, but I'm still waiting for the county to get their equipment fixed. They promised to help us with chip ceiling when their equipment is functional again. I mean... We can get it done for half the cost. I just hate to put it out the contract knowing I can get it cheaper if I wait.

Quick question.

Yeah, please.

I remember these conversations about waiting for the county's chip sealing equipment way back. Is there any reasonable expectation that the county is going to repair and or buy it or fix this year.

I mean, next year they need it more than we do. I mean, they do a lot more roads to drive things.

Um, we also have an, um, I, I don't want to ascribe too much to this, but, um, we have a new public works director at the county who, um, is much more responsive, uh, and cooperative.

Yeah, I'd like to piggyback on that one. I think I spend as much time up at Castle Lake and Bunny as anybody in the wintertime, and every single time it snowed, they were up there in force. I mean, they had Castle Lake plowed this winter by like 8 a.m. every time it snowed. So, can't say what the future will hold, but they definitely got the message two winters ago, and we'll... You know, we'll give them this summer as a little grace period.

I would like to add one little note to the recommendation for the new public works director. Out of, what, the last three years, we've been trying to talk to the county about doing something about Cascade Gulch and the mud flow. The new public works director is meeting with us next week, along with the high school district, to take a look at that and see what kind of solutions we can work on.

We're, as opposed to Cascade... What? Which is what we've been receiving.

Give him the opportunity to prove it right. All right. We'll go out. Oh, is that council question? All right. We'll go out for public comment here. Go ahead. Come on up.

Johanna, I just had a question, Ken, on the chip ceiling. Is any of this going to impact the downtown streets at all, like Pine Street, for example? Because chip sealing, the reason I'm asking is chip sealing in about 2015 or so, Pine Street got, used to be asphalt and then it got chip sealed. And because people speed there, like someone must have been going 50 the other day. And it's really loud because we have snow tires here in our county because of our weather. And it has extra air gaps and chip seal has extra air gaps. And when that noise comes together, it makes it really loud. So the street has gotten louder since it's been chip sealed.

Chip ceiling, again, wouldn't help that, but Pine Street is not on the top section of the roads we have scheduled for chip ceiling.

Okay. I would really love asphalt because it's quieter.

I'd love to asphalt every street in town, but no.

I know it's more expensive. I understand. It used to be asphalt.

We could revisit the one versus one and a half, I don't know if we talked about that one enough, but... We can call it measure asphalt if you'd like.

Okay. We could also use that $10,000 savings when we move to another location for hybrid facilities.

That'll get us two and a half feet of roadway. I do want to remind folks, this is just a measure to claim our portion of this year's gas tax, not specifically about the road ceiling.

That's okay. I was just asking a question. No, no, understandable. Thank you.

Absolutely. Agreed. Oh, come on up.

Can I ask a question about the mud flow? Sure. Can I ask a question? You can see in front of the high school, it's all been rocked in. Is this the first year we've had a mud flow, and is it because of the Upton subdivision? I want to understand if that's true.

It's not because of their subdivision. I'll talk to you afterwards.

All right. Any other public comment? All right, well, we will now bring it back for council discussion. You guys want to discuss whether or not we should claim this money?

Yes. Go ahead, John.

All right, we're good? Yeah. Move to approve resolution CCR-26-11, a resolution of the city council of the city of Mount Shasta claiming the city's apportionment of local transportation funds in the amount of $139,000 Is it 892? Yeah, it's 092, okay. Of which $49,365 is claimed for streets and roads purposes and the balance of $89,727 is to be used for unmet public transit needs and authorizing the mayor to execute the claim. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed or abstain?

Okay.

All right. We are now on to, I don't want to get this right, item 15, parks lease renewal. The city's lease agreement with the Mount Shasta Recreation and Parks District for the use of the City Park Upper Lodge is due for renewal.

So, let's see, it is, so it's for another one-year term. It's $200. per meeting per month. Well, let me make sure I've got that right. It's $200 a month for two council meetings and one planning. There was no change in over last year's contract or the contract before. And that is for this use of this facility to continue our meetings here.

We'll bring it back for questions. Jeffrey.

You guys got questions? Yeah, go ahead. So for the sake of the public and others, it's $200 per meeting and typically we have three meetings here. Two city council meetings and one planning commission meeting. So $600 a month.

Yeah, any other questions? All right, we'll go out to public comment for this one. Oh, you guys have been waiting patiently.

Hi, I'm Ann Murphy, and I'm the building manager. And Leo Sartor, as he is in charge of the Siskiyou Temple Association. and they're the owners and operators of the Mount Shasta Community Building. And we're here tonight to ask that we be allowed to bid on the contract for the following year. We have gone over all the contract that you have with this building and we are willing to meet or match all of the requirements that you need. We have newly installed speakers in our building with Wi-Fi. We've updated the main hall as well as our restrooms. We've got adequate parking. We don't have a train. We have heat. In prior years, we have had you in the building and then you came out here. And we would like to be able to bid on this and have you come return to our building and have your meetings there. Yes. Yes.

Okay. She's the boss. No? No. No, she always tells me I'm the boss. But the building belongs to Siskiyou Masonic Lodge. And you were there for, I don't know, how many years before? And for some reason, city council, the... the city manager and the building manager that we had didn't get along. So that's why you guys ended up here. And we'd like to have you back. Our building is well insulated and we got one big parking lot. So we'd like to have you back.

Thank you.

Thank you. Cool, we'll bring it back here, I guess.

I would say that we don't have an RFP out. We aren't taking bids, but I don't know anything about this, but if we can, if it's something that's better, then.

Sorry, it looks like we might have more public. I may have been premature. It looks like we have more public comment. I apologize. Sorry, I didn't realize you were waiting to speak after them. Sorry about that.

That's okay. Thank you. I would be totally in favor of this because they have, it sounds like they have AV and that would need to be confirmed with 22nd Avenue. And you know, if there is some contract discussion with City Park that perhaps you do it on a month to month basis until a bid can be, other bids can be approved or reviewed, excuse me. And I think that would be great. I looked at the Masonic temple, but I didn't have time to arrange anything. So I think that would work. Anything for hybrid meetings again? Anyway, thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

I would like to support the idea that if you're paying that fee, and she's suggested they're willing to meet that, I think it's a good facility. I do remember meetings there. And I want to support moving there. However, then I want to talk to Kim about parking.

So I won't go into that now.

But I think the Masonic building the community center has parking and Drive-through where you drop people off if there was somebody that want to come to a meeting Anyway, I support the consideration even though he said it wasn't up for bidding I think we should consider that there's another location that used to be used and they're asking to be at the same price So I support that

This has been a very unusual meeting. We haven't had the train. We haven't had to stop in the middle of the meeting and wait for the train to go by. And in the community building, we never were affected by that type of sound. So I think the community building is much better. It has better acoustics. And with the new speakers in the ceiling, the sound quality is has greatly improved in there. All right.

Well, unless I'm mistaken, I believe that's everyone in the audience commenting on this one. So we will now bring it back for discussion here. Thanks so much for coming and presenting that. And I haven't had an event there, I think, since you all did your renovations. So I'm happy to check it out. Personally, I think it's worth looking into, especially if I did hear meet or beat the price, maybe? I think I might have heard that. I think it could... I did hear meet or potentially beat the current price.

Okay.

Hey, any savings is good savings, right? Well, we'll put it out to a competitive bidding process. I've got a couple sheds in the backyard.

Okay, so my comment on this is that the acoustics are better in that building. Sure. I mean, noticeably better. Yeah. The sound system is a combination of what they have and what we put into it. That's a separate subject. what the people are saying without realizing it is that they actually want to go back to what we had during COVID with this group and the thoroughgoing Zoom program, which wasn't cheap. It was about $45,000, something like that. But that's a separate discussion with respect to venues. The reality is the acoustics are better in that building.

Well, I'm all for making us sound better. And no train sound. And no train.

Well, we'll miss that. Councilman Stackforth. Councilman Stackforth. How does this impact, you know, Shannon's revenue stream?

She will feel badly about losing $7,200, yeah?

I haven't been there. If that's where council, I'll take a look. If you guys have all been there, I'd love to see it. Jeffrey?

What are you thinking?

On this agenda item, we're just approving it for the next year regardless?

Correct.

I'm clear the answer is yes.

You would move to... to go with the existing arrangement? Is that what you're saying? That's what this item is, yeah.

What are you guys thinking? Oh, I mean, it's just to be here for another year. That's what we're voting on. If they want to get into where next year we can prove it then. But as far as the train goes, they're still right next to the tracks. It's a blow zone. Wherever you are in town, you hear the train. You hear the train. You hear the train everywhere in town. You hear the train.

Question for you there, Todd, or anyone. How quickly can we put together some sort of RFP to go out for a bid on this? What's the process for that?

Yeah. You know where we're at. Fair enough. We're buried with things with much higher priority, but I think if this is a better alternative, we should explore it. I just don't think we can get it done through an RFP process. And remember, you've got to keep in mind, and this may be a great option, Before we went with Jeremy and we were looking at different packages and locations, we had a lot of people that promised in the community they could provide better sound for cheaper prices and we went and tested everything out and we ended up wasting a lot of time on stuff that wouldn't work. This sounds like an avenue that has a lot of possibility.

To the chair.

Go ahead.

I think the Councilman Stacklet's comment that taking $7,200 out of the Parks Department is a meaningful element to consider when you look at the entire where are we going. And at least in, I don't know, John, three, four years before the library is built and an extension, am I correct in assuming that that would have a space that would be large enough to hold city council meetings?

Go ahead. Yes, and the intent of that expansion is creating another community center of sorts like the one that is over on Ivy and Alder. So, yeah, that would be the home of city council meetings. But that's going to take a long time to figure out because of the costs. And if we're not doing another tax increase, another amendment to the library tax, if we're not going to do that, it's going to take a while to... The line for getting library grant funds is long, and there was a cancellation or holding on library grants that were actually awarded due to the state budgets.

And we had a really good application. We were close, but we didn't finish in the money.

It's a long way away from getting grant money. The only other thing to do is loans, like we did with the water treatment plant. complete the project, pay it back, but that would require tax increase. It's here. It's the community center. It's Sisson Museum's back room, et cetera, et cetera. Those are the venues. Sisson Middle School's gym. We had a meeting there once, I think.

The community center? No, at the...

I believe we had a meeting at Sisson's gym because it was big, well attended. Yeah.

Well, I mean, I'm personally loathe unless it's a significant cost savings. I am reticent to do it at the same price just given that currently the money does go towards our parks department. The last meeting we discussed the parks need for more revenue because of the the need for security here or, you know, the upgrades needed here. I mean, we, you know, we go back and forth. So unless it's a significant cost savings, I, I mean, I'm, I'm in favor of exploring it, I suppose, but it doesn't sound like that's going to be able to be done anytime soon.

It's, it's pretty short notice, especially with this contract expiring, but I'd like to take a look at it. I mean, if we'd key this up for next year, then yeah.

Question for you. When does the lease agreement actually expire? Sorry if I missed that. End of June. I guess just to exhaust all opportunities, is month-to-month an option? I'm hearing that from over here. And I know you don't speak for the Parks Department.

The answer is I don't know. I would my opinion is that I would hesitate on going month to month with parks because they need time to adjust because they were on an absolute shoestring is a lot fatter than their budget.

Yeah, I'm going to move to approve a one-year renewal of the lease agreement between the City of Mount Shasta and the Mount Shasta Recreation and Parks District commencing July 1st with no changes to the existing agreement. And see you next year, maybe we'll open it up. Second.

All right, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Noted. All right, thank you. All right. On to item number 16. This is on page 89 in the packet. The approval of contract for the conceptual master plan with GHD. It looks like Todd's gone. I'll just start reading.

I'll take this one.

Ah, excellent. There we go.

Todd's got a lot tonight. May was a very busy month for city staff in terms of reviewing the 14 proposals that came in for the landing. As of last week, staff had to notify 15 of those respondents that they were not getting the award for the contract. And as consultants, there's a lot of time, a lot of labor that's involved in putting a proposal together. And so as we're notifying folks that they haven't been selected, the next question is always, well, what did we do wrong or how can we do better? You know, what was it about our proposal that wasn't good for the city? And that's difficult to answer because the reality is there were many very good proposals that came in and staff, you know, the panel that was put together was myself, the city manager, police chief, public works director, I mean, we poured through hundreds of pages and selected five firms to interview, and ultimately, at the end of the day, the firm that we're choosing, recommending to go with, is not a firm that just checked the boxes, but it was a firm that went above and beyond to give us more than we actually put into our RP, for the same amount of dollars. One key member of the team that we've selected, they have a transportation planner who has a very good track record with dealing with Caltrans District 2, and that's a valuable piece of the equation that we're going to need to solve. Also on that same team is an economist market strategist who can help us figure out exactly how to phase this thing out so it can actually pencil and it can actually work. These are the kinds of details that this team brought to the table. Not to say that any other team didn't do anything right. It's just this particular team was able to give us more in the budget that we had available. So I'll let Todd weigh in.

And I don't want to belabor this point, but everybody met Nunzio and DeSantis. Incredibly talented individual. I think he suffered from incumbent status that he'd spent, he'd come out here on his own dime three different times and may have, in putting his application package together, there may have been some stuff that he took for granted that we knew that didn't get down, but there were certain things he, I think he would have been great in helping the community visualize what this place could be. But in the long run, I couldn't get there myself because we had a particular transportation planner, and there were a lot of transportation planners, but this guy had already looked at the area, the region, He said, your big problem isn't just the amount of traffic that you could generate. It's keeping that down, but it's your sight lines as you're coming around on that on and off ramp and the way it connects into 89. He came in prepared. And he had Caltrans connections on, and he made some calls about how do we, if we get development off the ground here, how do we manage it? And Caltrans was really receptive. They went above and beyond. There was the woman who is the economic strategist. She's, A, she's really smart. She really holds her ground, but she's able to describe that kind of interface between planning and what the community needs. But also, as you phase these projects, in what way do you phase them so if you put one piece in, you're creating enough ROI that you're able to put a portion of the infrastructure in for the next piece. So it's a very systematic approach. And it felt like, I hate to say this, but a lot of the other teams, there was no other women, and her intelligence and her ability you know, her level of expertise I think is just going to be an absolute incredible addition to be making the community kind of walk through, do this walk with us and figure out what's best for the community and ensuring that it'll work from an ROI perspective.

We also call the references. glowing references from folks down in Reading. So nearby, local, relevant work.

They did all of that Reading reconstruction that's going on. There's a part of the packet was highlighting that as well, as well as a bunch of others.

And so we called those references and they checked out.

K2 worked with this firm extensively, including on, it went belly up for nothing related to the developers or the plan, but the extensive Reading work waterfront plan that was pretty incredible. And a lot of, you know, besides the Reading Market, but the walkability downtown has really transformed that spaghetti of state highway routes into something that is moving towards a walkable community with people living downtown. And both the Knott brothers had nothing but glowing things to say about them.

Awesome. Well, thank you. Many questions. I can come back to you. Okay. I do have one question on the proposed timeline that they provided. There are the town hall dates set in stone. Kim.

The town hall dates have been vetted by the development team, the consultant team, our team, and also Recreation Parks to verify that we do have the meeting space available, and also 22nd Avenue to make sure that they're available to record and stream the meeting. So that's as far as we've gotten in terms of settling the dates.

The one thing I will add is in discussions, we pushed out the start for the first town hall as far as we could. because we feel it's absolutely imperative that we get mailers out. In my opinion, this doesn't work unless you're polling as many people as you can from the start for the first meeting and you bring them out to all three. They need to be carried along through the whole process so that it feels like it's meaningful.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to move it earlier. I was just curious if we could move that second meeting, like push it by like four or five days. But if not, no worries.

I'll add it to the list for discussion. We'll talk. Second meeting?

The one that was, I believe it's August 14th.

It's the first town hall meeting is July 14th.

July 14th, and then it was like, I think.

The second one is August 11th.

August 11th, yeah. Push it out a little bit, but we'll talk.

Okay.

Other than that, I took a look at this.

I think it looks, they, yeah, they know what they're doing. Very cool. Council questions? Anybody?

No? Jeffrey? You want to wait for discussion? Let's move to public comment. No, it doesn't quite work that way, but you'll take it anyway. Please speak into the microphone.

So, I have had a difficult time for a year trying to find out about the posting of this notice of availability. And I asked Kim if she had worked with surplus land before and she said yes. And the surplus land government code section 6060 says that this will be posted in a classified section for four weeks. This was never posted. When I asked Kim, she said, it's not required, HUD doesn't require it. The Surplus Land Act says that it needs to be posted so we can have a competitive bid.

I feel very strongly that

There are people that go to the classified ads every week to see what lands available. I knew people personally that kept asking me, when's that going to be posted? I kept coming in literally a year ago. What's going on? Todd said to me, it's being posted for 60 days.

When somebody bids, then we have 90 days.

So I watched the clock. He said he had a letter of interest, not a bid, a letter of interest. I waited 90 days, and I said, okay. He said at a meeting, and I have sent this to the council members, that after 90 days, he would put the land up for sale. I want to ask the council to do their job to honor the government code and post this for four weeks and allow other people to bid. That's the reason I say that the land is for sale today.

I'd like to remind you to please speak into the microphone.

Okay, there's something else I want to bring up. Kim was very good to meet with me and tell me that the landing had some green areas that they were going to work with.

Microphone, please.

Keeping the gateway trail. So that'll be part of the landing development. I like that.

But when I add up all of her acreage, it doesn't add up.

When I look at the letter that was sent out that John C. Power did answer.

30 seconds. I should have spoke three minutes at the beginning because this is important. Three minutes per topic.

I went up to the county assessor and I got a copy of the map. The copy of the map, the listing that went into the available bid that he said he sent to four addresses and 360 emails does not match on any of these three papers.

That's time, thank you.

And he said, what difference does it make? It matters. That's time, please.

You guys cut me off in the beginning.

I don't think that the city has to follow the SLA government. You have your three minutes on agenda item, the same as everyone. Any other public comment? Johanna? Okay. We'll bring it back for discussion. Jeffrey, if you'd like to respond. Sure.

Terez, if I may address your concern about acreages not making sense to you and not adding up the way that you think they should.

The county assessor, not me.

For years, the city manager has filed and a couple of planners have filed dozens of documents regarding to various proposals of different sizes, different aspects of the landing. And I don't know any other way to address this with you other than to say they're not that dumb that they don't know how to read plants and know how many acres they're covering when they file whatever documents they need to file. They're really good. And that's, I know that won't satisfy you on one level, but just have a little faith in them. They know how to do their job. And thank you.

Thank you, Jeffrey. Discussion over here?

I like the enthusiasm staff has for this group. I like their history, their projects that are completed. very apt to make our ship should you know the plan is one thing but uh should the actual build out of of the plan come to be i think it'll be a wonderful thing so um keep in mind that there's monies from the epa brownfield cleanup grant to cover this so move to approve gh a approved the GHD contract for the development of a conceptual master plan for the landing to cost $175,000, which is less than the remaining $200,000 of the EPA brownfield cleanup grant we received years ago. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed or abstain? Okay. All right.

Thank you Dunsmuir citizen

All right, we're going to table that matter. We'll move on to item 17, council reports on attendance at appointed or outside meetings.

All right, so I missed a Collier meeting due to work, so I don't have anything. Jeffrey?

I did have another Coffee with the Mayor event. We had about 20 people there at Deadwood for about two and a half hours. It was a lot of fun. We got through a lot of topics, and I think... You know, people were varying degrees of satisfied with the answers I was able to give, but I think we're all used to that. That was about it. Let's see. Any other outside meetings? No? Okay. Moving on to 18 future agenda items. We've got the Master Fee Schedule Review. I think we can take that one off of the 60 to 90 day. We discussed moving that to, like, significantly later than that. Yeah, so I think that can come off of the, if this is adhering to the 60 to 90 day, I don't think it needs to be on the future one for now. Mobile home rent stabilization.

June 22nd.

Love it. And then the 2026 sales tax. We just did that, so that one's not on a future agenda either. Do you have any more?

No, I'm good. Oh, please, go ahead. All right, so we have to pass a budget And it appears that finance director will not be available till after June 22nd. So we're thinking that based on the meeting she wants to have with the finance committee, that She's probably going to call for a special meeting on the 29th, so I'm suggesting instead of having two council meetings, the 22nd and the 29th, we would just postpone everything regarding all agenda items that would be scheduled for the 22nd to the 29th so that we can have a regular meeting.

We do have public hearings noticed for the 22nd.

Oh, we do? Then we've got to have it.

We got 10 days to change that, right?

Could that be a Planning Commission meeting? That would be a Tuesday? Yeah.

That is a Planning Commission meeting. Oh, okay.

Okay, so never mind 22nd regular meeting, but heads up, we're going to have to have a special meeting on the 29th. Unless you guys have the budget ready on the 22nd.

No, I misspoke. Planning Commission is June 16th. So I don't know what's on the 23rd.

Well, we're not actually sure that was noticed on the 23rd. You won't be here? I wasn't planning to be, but I guess I will now.

What are the odds of getting that budget ready by the 22nd?

you know, she's got to make adjustments from the last meeting. So I think we're, you know, I think we're in for two meetings in a row, unless I hear something different from her. All right. Okay.

Anybody else got anything they'd like added to future agenda items? Okay. In that case, we'll move on to item 19.