City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're ready to go. Welcome, everybody, to the July 27 2026 City Council meeting. At this point, I'd like to ask the city clerk to please call the roll.

Present.

Councillor Randall.

Present.

Councillor Ring.

Present.

Councillor Runyon.

Present.

Councillor Richardson.

Present.

Mayor Mayes.

Present. At this point, item three is the Pledge of Allegiance. I'd like to ask Councillor Ben Ring to lead us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty for each

Thank you, Councilor Ring. Under item four is approval of the agenda. We do have some changes. We have to add an item nine C to the consent agenda, which deals with a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a lease agreement with QLife. We also have an additional item under Item 11A has been added to the agenda, and that is a contract with a firm doing archaeological studies as part of the First Street Project. So that'll be item 11A. As a result of that, items on 11 down get pushed back to, for example, item 11 becomes item 12, item 12 becomes items 13, and item 13 becomes item 14. So with that, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Also moved.

I'll second it.

It's been moved by Council Richardson and seconded by Council Randall to approve the agenda as amended. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 5A. This is a presentation by the Dow's Lands Club. Mr. Jim Wilcox is here tonight making a presentation to the city. Thank you, Jim, for being here.

I'm Jim Wilcox, 416 West 7th Street, The Dalles. I'm representing the Dalles Lions Club and the Dalles Lions Club Charitable Trust. Our club has been serving this community this year for 100 years. That's a thrill to us that we're still here and still serving. We made a commitment to participate in the Federal Street Project about nine months ago, and tonight we're here to meet that commitment. We have a presentation check and in the picture we would like that we have two lions sitting up here at the dais. We have Lion Rich Mays and Lion Tim McLaughlin and we'd like for you to be in the picture, but also I want to acknowledge the Northern Wasco PUD. The check we're presenting tonight, one third of those funds came from their community development fund. We applied for a grant and received it from the PUD. And I want to acknowledge Roger Klein and Karen Heim from the PUD and what they, it's another example of what they do for our community. So if our treasurer and secretary or president would come forward. Mike Kilkenny, line Mike Kilkenny is our treasurer and line Carolyn Lason is our president, right? And we have a check for $30,000 to go towards the water feature project. And that's... The biggest bogus check you'll ever see. Non-cashable, but it does represent the funds that we will be depositing in the city's account.

Lions Club meetings are run just like this too.

I just wanted to- So if we could get some Lions up here and Lion Tim and Lion Rich, please. I'd like to have you in the picture. And I think it would be appropriate for the POD representatives to be in our picture too. We're very proud of that. Right, all the other Lions, get up here. Nope, I'm the mouth, I'm not in the picture. Wore the wrong shirt. So again, on behalf of the Lions Club, We are just extremely proud to be able to help with this project that will benefit our entire community. And thank you on council for serving and making this possible for all of us. Thank you.

Oh, sure.

Yeah, I think it goes without saying that the Lions Club is a great institution in the city of the Dalles. 100 years speaks for itself. I appreciate the four or five members that are here, Nancy and Ellen and Chris and Mike and Carolyn. You guys do so much for the community long before I ever joined. And we really appreciate everything you guys do for the community. Thank you very much. And also the PUD. Roger, you're tremendous too. Thank you very much. Okay. With that, we'll go to item 5B, which is a presentation by the Wasco County District Attorney, Kara Davis. Come forward.

Hello. I apologize. I was in Nashville all last week. So this morning, I emailed over the year in review. Did you guys all get a copy of it? This is a year in review presentation that I did for the county commissioners, and I just gave you exactly what I gave them just for consistency sake. I'm working, hopefully, to make sure that we have better communications between my county office and the city. I feel like maybe that wasn't always so great in the past. I've met with Matthew and Jonathan, a couple of times too, to talk about different issues. And I just wanted to let you know what's going on over at the courthouse with my office. Good news is crime is down that I just want to lead with that. Crime is down. Mental health continues to be an issue where we do have crime. And we've made some notable steps in my office. So I'm not going to completely repeat everything I said in here. But what I did is I kind of looked at I wanted to control for drug cases. So I looked at our stats for 2024 and compared them to 2019. 2024 was our first full year with drugs recriminalized. So I compared it to our last full year with criminalized drugs and we had one less referral. So it was 933 referrals in 2024 compared to 2020. 934 referrals in 2019. And I would love to take the credit for that. Clearly me entering office is what did it, but it is following a nationwide trend. So there was a blip after COVID, like during COVID where crime went up, kind of nationwide crime is going down. And then I think We're seeing the effects of recriminalization. And if you weren't aware, we have restarted the Mint Task Force. So the Mint Task Force is up and running. And that has also led to some pretty significant arrests for local criminals. entrepreneurs of the illegal kind. We put a dent. We put a dent in that. And I think you've seen some of Chief Worthy's press releases on some of those arrests for our community. And it's been going very well. At my office, when we seize drug funds, we had one significant seizure that had $100,000 cash involved. we took that seizure and then put all that money back in towards mint. So the seizures of drug funds from our office are going for the most part back into mint. There's a small amount that we're taking to help fund the administration of those cases in our office, but otherwise the majority of it is going back into mint. I don't think I addressed it in here. We've had a really significant issue with our child advocacy center. Are you guys familiar with Safe Space and what the child advocacy centers do? We are no longer utilizing Safe Space. There was... if there was a breakdown and i ended up actually issuing a brady letter for the executive director of safe space we've been trying and trying we did a mediation we've been doing several different things to try and fix that relationship but it wasn't working so we now have a cac that is operating under the district attorney's office um we met with people from the oregon child abuse solutions which does the certification of cacs and people from the doj that are the funders for the money for victim advocacy programs and the children advocacy centers At this point, they believe we can be up and certified, which Safe Space is not certified. We could be up and certified within six months. I told them, don't do that to me. I have a lot going on. But we are overperforming, in their words, in the victim advocacy sphere, and we're meeting all applicable standards. So that's been really good. And it's been really, I'd like to say, law enforcement, the city police, and The juvenile department have been absolutely amazing in helping us get people up and certified to do the forensic interviews of the kids. Lynn Frost has graciously agreed to be our designated medical provider, and she's been doing it for free. So we've had a lot of moving parts while we've been getting this together. It's taken a lot of work, but we have an up and running CAC that is located under my office. If any of you have name suggestions, please give me some because mine are morbid and we can't use them. We cannot use them. Okay. We have a new attorney in my office. He was the first attorney in the county to be certified under the SPPE program, which is kind of like an apprenticeship program. So he's graduated from law school. He has all of the credentials any other lawyer has, but he did an apprenticeship that took 10 months instead of taking the bar exam. So he's already up and running and doing he's He's prepped for several trials, but like the day of trial, something's happened with the defense attorney and they've backed out. But he's doing presentations to grand jury. He is doing caseloads on his own and is doing a great job. So we're happy to have him here. We also have my victim advocate, one Rural Victim Advocate of the Year at the last Oregon District Attorney's Conference in Bend last year. So she is the Victim Advocate of the Year. So we've got some kudos for our office. We are running into some issues with mental people with mental health problems. If you're not aware, there was an Oregon Supreme Court ruling out that said if somebody we've had a couple of different things. So we've had an Oregon Supreme Court case out that said if you can't get somebody an attorney within 60 days, even if they're not in custody, the case has to be dismissed. which means if it's a B or C misdemeanor, it cannot be refiled. And then we also had a federal case come out that is kind of a continuation of finding that our standards in Oregon for dealing with the mentally ill are deficient. So people who are unable to aid and assist and need a hospital level of care be able to be made able to aid and assist um if it's anything less than pretty much a violent felony they cannot be sent to the state hospital we have to try in the community to get them able to aid and assist which is almost impossible for people that need forced medication right so basically people who are unable to aid and assist and have persistent, hard-to-treat mental illnesses, if it isn't a fairly serious felony, you can't do anything. And that's per federal court orders. So far, the people that that has been affecting us on are low-level crimes, disorderly conducts, trespass. maybe a theft of like 10 bucks or something. Like we have one person that keeps going into Fred Meyers and stealing a sandwich to eat. But that one guy that I'm thinking of, at the rate he's committing crimes, he will be responsible for probably two to 3% of all my criminal referrals for the entire county, that one man. Him and one other man between the two of them are on... on the path that those two gentlemen alone will be 5% of all my criminal referrals. So when you hear like almost a thousand criminal referrals, you have to understand that a very small number make up a pretty significant percentage of those referrals and it's all mental health. It's all mental health and we don't have a solution for it right now. I mean, the staff at the aid and assist support staff are great and they're giving all the correct referrals, but we just don't have the resources in the state of Oregon or in this county right now to meet those court orders. Thankfully, they haven't been committing I don't even want to say it's not been serious crimes that we've been seeing them commit. I started a new policy in my office as far as how plea negotiations work. I heard I heard some of you during the election complain about the lack of trials. And while I can't force people to go to trial, I did have issues with. how many people were waiting until the day of trial, setting things for trial in order to try and get a better plea deal. We were having way too many cases being set for trial, and then none of them were actually going to trial, which made it hard to prepare effectively for the cases. So now we have a rule that if you set it for trial, there's no more plea negotiation. You, of course, are always welcome to plead open sentencing. I can't make you try it. You can say you're guilty and ask for... whatever you want from the judge, but you either have to plead guilty to everything or you go to trial. So I think we're seeing less cases. Finally, it took a while. We're seeing less cases getting set for trial and the ones that are being set for trial are going to trial. We had some pretty big cases go to trial. I had child abuse case where a little six nonverbal autistic girl that was six years old had her leg broken through and through her femur up by her hip socket. No eyewitnesses, no confession. She's nonverbal. It was a brutal trial, but we got a guilty verdict. And I think he got eight years, which that's the sentence in Oregon. And we had Donnie Lewis's case went to trial. The home invasion case that went to trial was a really tough case because we were relying on a. on an informant and there's a technicality in the law that says, if you're using an informant, you have to have independent evidence that proves the person's guilty. That isn't at all tied to the, um, snitch to his testimony and and uh he didn't have a lot of independent evidence but we got it we got the conviction and he got what 19 years i believe is what his sentence was so we've had some big ones i really don't need another week-long trial but i think in october i have a three-week murder trial coming up so The trials have been going and they've been going well. It's just a lot of work and we do not have a lot of funding right now. My murder trial, the ME, the medical examiner has retired and she wants $15,000 to come testify about the autopsy she performed. My annual witness budget is 2000. You know, after I had about, what was it? A $90,000 cut to my budget. somewhere. But $2,000 is an average witness fee budget. That's Union County's budget. That's Lake County's budget. That's my budget. I don't know why she's doing this, but we're having to come up with some creative workarounds for things like that. Everybody's tight for money, right? So the only thing I'll leave you with, unless you have questions, is I would like you guys to consider, just let it verbal in the back of your mind, that I think it would be really wonderful if the county and city teamed up and we found maybe a position for a district attorney's investigator, like a law, a BPSST investigator, person to come in and do all, we have a lot of work trying to find people to serve subpoenas, to find witnesses, to find victims. Um, we have a lot of homeless cases. I do not want to not prosecute people who are victimizing homeless people because it's hard to find the homeless witnesses or the homeless victims, but that ends up happening when I can't find the people I need for trial. Um, needing people to track down just loose ends and discovery issues. It is a lot of time and effort for law enforcement. The sheriff's office and the city police are wonderful about it. We've got a great relationship, but they could use that time back too. So I think that would be, I think if there was funding for maybe half a person from the city, I could probably talk the county into funding the other half. That's my pitch. If you guys. When I think about it for a later date, I think it would be something we could have up and running by next fiscal year. If you're interested, if you want to work with me on that, maybe. You guys have any questions for me?

Any questions for Ms. Davis? Council Runyon? Just curiosity.

In the case of the murder defendant that was listed here on these papers, it was unable to aid and assist and can't be restored to fitness. So the criminal charges are dismissed and they're going to the Oregon State Hospital, presumably, it says, for the rest of their life. What if they had some miraculous recovery at some point down the road? Would those charges automatically come back into play?

They're not automatic, but yes, I can refile. And we've already had our first hearing. They just do regular hearings, like status hearings, basically on where he is towards restoration. He is in the highest level security that the Oregon State Hospital has. I'll tell you, this scared me. This law scared me because they were like, oh, no, you tried for a year to restore him. He's a murderer. Let's just let him out. And this was the very first time I think anyone in eastern Oregon has used this statute to get someone committed as a dangerous, criminally dangerous offender. So I was sweating bullets on this one a little bit, but. He, when we were doing his review hearing a couple months ago, he had committed, I think, 109 assaults in the last 100 days. So he is not making any progress. And there's no, nobody's even trying to move him down in the hospital levels at this point. But yes, I can refile if he does get released. but they would have to make a finding that he's no longer dangerous to the public in order to release him even to a halfway house. Unlike some of the cases you hear about with PSRB, this one doesn't run out. It is scary though.

Thank you. Councilor McLaughlin.

I have been mentoring a young man that lost his mother when he was, I think, nine years old to cancer. He moved here to the Dalles, lived with his grandmother. She just passed away. He's 17 years old, which left him into that void of what is he going to do? So... Fortunately, I took him to the multi-agency resource center. I walked in the door and there's one of my old Leo students standing there and he's a navigator for your agency. It was, that's one of the best investment in children and community that I can tell you about. So thank you. I know you must have something to do with that as well. So that said, thank you.

Thank you.

Another thing. I talk to officers, police officers, city officers quite often. And the reports I'm getting back is that they're impressed with what you're doing in the agency and holding people accountable. And I'm just telling you, keep up the good work.

Thank you. I paid them to say that.

Did you? No. Well, I'm going to charge them back then.

Anybody else? I'm sorry, I didn't see that. Councilor Ring.

Thanks for coming tonight. It's interesting to see, because I'm our newest counselor here on the dais, and it's been interesting to watch in the background and just see how things have progressed and whatnot over time. And I'm glad to see that people are being brought to justice appropriately, and I think that's encouraging. And it's good to hear. I think it's good for our public to hear that those things are happening. They're not... It's easy to dismiss it and forget it because it's not in the daily... that people see that, right? And I'm, you know, the same thing I ask other organizations that come up here is, you know, what sort of roadblocks and things does your office face? You mentioned things like financing and whatnot, but, you know, if you could expand maybe a little more on those roadblocks, like what's stopping you from being even more successful than you already are, right? And I know we don't have time to go through it all, but I'd be more than happy to meet with you and see what else we could do. And I would like to meet with you. Sure.

Please email me and we'll set up a time. I'd be happy to. We've been coming up with creative solutions with the question about like, okay, if you don't have an attorney within 60 days, then you have to dismiss the case. So we've been working with the police. We've been kind of holding onto them until we get, we have some people we're fairly certain we're going to see again. So we hold them all together until we have maybe five compatible charges that could be charged on one charging document, because then we can ensure that they only get one lawyer and we're only using up a certain amount of case counts so that they don't, get to the point where they can't accept any more cases. We've also been working on not filing things and dismissing them as part of plea bargains if people are going to plea bargain and only charging them. if they're not gonna accept the plea bargain to kind of help with those. When I was in Nashville last week, it was with a bunch of people from the area for the Drug Court Conference. And I know Judge Olson and I went to a very interesting presentation on doing aid and assist diversions. Still brand new stages, right? But we're trying to think outside of the box and think creatively. There's always... Always a new problem to tackle. And sometimes you've just got to shift and pivot to a new sort of offense to deal with what you have coming toward you. So I would be happy to. Yeah, thanks.

Hermes. One more quick comment. Sure. You'll ask if we read your letter. And yes, we did.

This is annotated.

And in detail. And your appearance here tonight is a wonderful thing for communication between county and city because we depend on each other. So thank you for being here.

Thank you. I have one comment, one question. The comment is, you probably remember, I served on a grand jury about three years ago. And I just want to say I was really impressed with the professionalism and dedication of all the attorneys in your office. And I was particularly struck with the patience that they showed with victims and with the boss. The question, I'm kind of concerned about the future of child advocacy in the Dalles and having visited their facility, the small facility they outgrew and then the bigger one. And, you know, we gave them a significant amount of money. And I believe that something like 72% of all the cases are either from the Dalles or Wasco County, one of the two. So I'm hoping no matter what can get worked out that we can get some local, a local office here. So for whatever that's worth.

Well, the office I've created is local. We're doing all the interviews actually in the, my victim advocates office, which would I, from what I understand from listening to people at the state level is a much nicer facility than a lot of other places, safe spaces are, facility over in Hood River was amazing, but they chose to follow an expansion and go to a new building there instead of ever building a satellite site here like they had promised us. And there was a lot. I don't want to down talk anyone, but there were a lot of issues. They have an amazing space over in Hood River. Our space is working really well right now. The county is going to help us pick out better recording equipment because that's definitely a need. And we're using the public health facility for all of our medical exams.

Okay. Last call for questions, comments. Thank you very much for being here. Appreciate it. We'll see you in a few months.

Okay.

Item six is audience participation. During this portion of the meeting, anyone may speak on any subject which does not later appear on the agenda. Interested citizens are required to sign up in advance to be recognized. Up to three minutes per person will be allowed. Citizens are encouraged to ask questions with the understanding that the city can either answer the question tonight or refer that question to the appropriate staff member who will get back to you within a reasonable amount of time. If a response by the city is requested and that response is not immediately provided, the speaker will be referred to the city manager for further action. Tonight, we have three people signed up. First is Mark Lineberger.

Good evening. Mark Lineberger, 324 East 14th, Dallas. I basically let everyone know that I am not going to open up the Baldwin Saloon. I have never in my 50 years of being in this business and of that 40 years of self-employed, I'm up against, how can I say this? People I don't trust and I have to do business with. And I'm not happy at all. When I came back, I've been out of the country for a while. And when I came back and saw what was going on and saw that the Baldwin Saloon was empty and the condition that it was in, I immediately got a hold of the Martins. We talked about it. We had a game plan. And I was going to come back in and give life back to the saloon. It's impossible. At this point, impossible. I can't do it. And I started it over 35 years ago. And I still to this day tell you I cannot do it. Not because I'm not physical to do it. Not because I don't have the knowledge to do it. Not that I don't have a vehicle to do it in. I have people. How can I say this? I don't trust. And when I say I don't trust, I can trust when I have stuff down in writing. I can trust that. There is nothing in writing. Dates. I've asked to be included, to be brought up to date on the project down there. nothing. The only thing I was brought up to date on was that I'm a terrible person. I shouldn't treat the employees of the city that way. I'm the criminal. I'm the guilty person. And when I first talked to somebody, I always tell them, I'm going to be aggressive. I'm going to fight for that building because I don't want to end up like the Getcho building. And You guys might not think it's going to, but I can tell you, I've already seen some tagging going on at that building. Inside that building, there's artwork that's worth over $150,000 and it's in an empty building. It's just right for anybody to come in and do whatever they want to do. I have not, all I've gotten is we want to get the place open from the people I'm having trouble with. Well, No one sat me down and brought me up to the speed on everything. I was trying to remove the awnings because it looks terrible.

Mark, you got 30 seconds.

Okay. Anyhow, I couldn't do that. I had to do all kinds of things. But yeah, I'm not opening up the saloon. That's it. And it's because of how I was dealt with. So if anybody want to ask me questions... be more than happy to talk to you afterwards. That's it. Done.

Okay. I would take you up on your invitation.

Not a problem. Anybody else?

Okay. Thank you very much. Next is Darcy Long. I know your face.

Thank you, honorable mayor and city council members. It's good to see you all again. I'm here to talk about two different issues tonight that people have been bringing to me and some I've actually been aware of both myself for quite a while, but there's just enough people bringing it forward and feeling, I guess, intimidated to come and talk to you, but I know you're all friendly and willing to listen. So the first item I want to talk about is people living in commercial spaces downtown. I'm not talking about the housing, which we are encouraging, but I'm talking about people that are living in places that we know. And it's kind of a well-known, I won't say secret because it's not a secret, but old restaurants, other businesses. And we know it's not safe and it's against our ordinances. And I think that we are sending the wrong message by looking the other direction. And so I'm asking you to please follow through on this and make sure that we are following what our ordinances are or looking at changing them. But I think from the feedback that I've been getting, people are not happy with people just living in closed down commercial spaces rather than having businesses going or even living inside those businesses. It's not what we want to portray. The second is the parking because of construction. And we know that we're extremely limited on our options. But I do want to say that now that we are extending the construction till 2027 is the last thing that I heard. I think we need to have a temporary revision that everyone can count on and understand where they are allowed to park and where they're not. And I think we need to look at where we maybe have some parking that's been identified that is next to businesses and currently falls inside that parking diagram that we could we could make some compromises on during this time. I think the police department and codes have some input probably for that based on their attempts to enforce that. So I would encourage you to look at putting something out that is for just this time of construction so everybody knows what is and isn't allowed and gets them thinking about how they can be better neighbors. And the other thing that I just want to bring up is that It's no big deal for me to walk three or four blocks. And I know it's a mindset shift and a lot of people don't want to do that. That's just how the Dallas is. I get it. But we do also need to keep in mind that some people cannot physically walk even more than half a block or a block. Some people have mobility issues, whether we can see those or not. And they may not be serious enough to have a handicap sticker.

Darcy, you got... Seven seconds.

Yeah, okay. Yep. Sorry.

That's okay.

So anyway, consider that there's not a lot of spots right now that are marked handicap.

Sorry to interrupt you there.

That's okay. Just blew my train of thought there.

Any questions for Darcy? Thank you very much. Third is, and last, is Nicole Bassett. I pronounce that right.

Oh, good evening, everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Nicole Bassett and I'm running for the Oregon State Senate for our district. And I am committed to understanding the nuances and the needs of the communities that make up this district. I've been introducing myself to various city councils, starting out in Canby and working my way east. So, yeah, I will. I'm a business owner and a Hood River community member who has spent the last 20 years helping companies create good jobs, strengthening local economies, and taking better care of people on the planet. I've worked with businesses primarily in the outdoors and apparel sectors like Patagonia and Columbia and REI, and my expertise is in supporting fair wages, bringing manufacturing jobs back to communities, helping industries reduce waste and operate more efficiently. In 2015, I co-founded a company in Cascade Locks that created 45 local jobs and 80 globally by giving apparel a second life instead of sending it to landfill. We sold that company and what we built continues to change the industry. And we started that just in our small town. I grew up in a rural community, and I understand both the opportunities and the challenges that cities like the Dalles face, supporting local businesses, maintaining infrastructure, managing growth, and making sure that families can both afford to work and live here. Outside of my professional work, I do all the outdoorsy things that Oregonians do, hike, bike, garden. And I serve as a hospice volunteer with sitting with people at the end of their lives. I've gotten to know a lot of people in the Dalles because of that. This is a place that I come often to be with people. That experience keeps me committed with what really matters, like community, dignity, and showing up for one another. I'm running because I believe we need practical, grounded leadership that listens to local communities and works in partnership with them. If elected, I want to prioritize that in the state government, that they're delivering the services efficiently and meeting the moment that we're in right now. That means an economy that works for all, supporting small businesses, housing, education, healthcare, investing in infrastructure, and making sure communities like the Dalles have a strong voice in Salem. So I'd also like the opportunity to follow up with you after this meeting. I'd hear your priorities and how I could be the best Senator to support the work that you need done. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Bassett? Thank you for being here. Item seven is the city manager's report. Mr. Cleaves.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a lengthy city manager report, and I'll try and be brief, though. First and foremost, the Westside Interceptor Project Phase 2 project is in final closeout. We're not expecting any big items to come up through this closeout process, and the project should be done soon. I think we all are appreciative of that and the work by Public Works and other city staff to get that project completed as quickly as possible. Out on 6th Street, we are still working with our contractor to come up with an acceptable corrective action plan to address some of the concerns and issues with the paving job out on 6th. And so we will bring some additional information to you just as soon as we can, and we have that plan in place. On the first street project, we do have that on the agenda later this evening, specifically around some of the archeological needs for the project. But in a brief summary, the council has authorized the permanent water line repair close to the railroad crossing. There's been a change order authorized for the sewer replacement work on Court Street. and this is part of my report this evening but we've been continuing to engage with mr linebarger and james martin who is the owner of the baldwin saloon to improve access to the building during the life of the project We've had a lot of discussions, a lot of exchanges of emails back and forth. I wanted to reiterate our support that we all wanted to see the Baldwin Saloon open. It's one of the, or if not the, best restaurants in the Gorge. That being said, the First Street project, as the council knows, is very complicated and is a long-term project over many months, as we knew from the beginning of this project. There's some hard limitations to what can be done to improve access, but here are some of the things that we were doing and we were working on. We have restored water service to the building. We received authorization from the property owner to remove the awnings on the east side of the building later this week. We are also in conversations with building codes to design and ultimately construct a ramp off the alleyway to provide access across the patio, to provide public access to the building. The property owner and the business owner would still need to coordinate directly with the fire marshal and building codes. And with the information tonight, i guess we'll follow up to see if that ramp is still of interest and that's something that we would be provided providing at no cost to the building owner or business owner access on the east side of the building is very difficult because it the ramps or the access that could be put in place there the entrance point lands right in the actual closed construction zone which the public cannot enter and then the last update with first street is the archaeological discussion on the agenda later tonight The Federal Street Plaza is progressing. The timeline may need to be extended, and we're working on that construction update for you. And the Federal Street Plaza Ad Hoc Committee will be meeting next week. And that's a meeting open to the public right here in this room. I also attended the QLife board meeting last week, and they are continuing to work on their build out throughout the Dalles. As a reminder, our city clerk sent a poll for additional work session dates in both September and October for the wastewater master plan update. If you have not responded to this poll, please do so as soon as you can. The Local Government Academy is moving forward this fall. Applications are now open and they will close on August 14th. You can access the application at thedals.gov slash LGA. Additionally, the local agency and nonprofit funding request application is open also until August 14th. This is somewhat similar to the PUD program. This has been open since June 16 and has been advertised on our website and Facebook page. And so that deadline is coming up here soon. Candidate filing deadlines for non-incumbent positions for city council positions and the mayor is August 25th, just for your awareness. And then the final update here is in regards to some of the wildfires in our area. So the public works staff has been coordinating with the US Forest Service related specifically to the Grasshopper fire. We've had a request to start finding the work needed to allow some of the helicopter assets to refill their buckets and whatnot from our reservoir. So we're going to be staying in touch with them as things develop over the course of this week, keeping an eye on the fire's progress and wind conditions. Just for some reference for the council and for the public, when a helicopter kind of dips their bucket into a river or a reservoir, it's about 500 to 1,000 gallons per bucket. And the helicopters are not being used to put out the fire, but instead create cool zones to slow its progress going forward, while some of the actual plane firefighting assets are the ones being focused on critical spots. The reservoir itself is not big enough for planes to refill their systems. We do have some concern that if the fire were to enter our watershed, it may impact water treatment plant operations, so that's something we're trying to be mindful of. We have city crews going up tomorrow to proactively clear out some of the deadwood and smaller brush around the Dog River diversion site with permission from the U.S. Forest Service to kind of proactively, you know, stay ahead of this as best we can. I also wanted to remind the public that we have a seasonal water supply monitoring web page, which is relatively new. And that's the dals.gov slash monitoring water supply for more information. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for Mr. Cleaves? Oh, sorry. Council Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Cleaves, it might be useful to have some follow-up discussion to our new dog licensing program in the next couple of months. I know it's just underway, but I'm kind of leading a little bit. So if you could put that on the calendar for early this fall or mid-fall, that'd be great.

I'd be happy to.

Anybody else?

just for just for context for the room the city of the dallas has had a licensing requirement for for many years now we have rolled out a new software program called docupet and so if you have a dog within city limits you are highly encouraged to get them licensed and to work with your your local vet and the docupet system to get that completed okay we'll move on to city council reports we'll start on my left with council running

July 16th, a city briefing session with the mayor and city manager. And also on that same day, attended the dedication of the Annex's new playground for children on the family side of the Annex, just on 2nd Street. And let's see what else we had on the 20th of July. went out to Columbia basin for the legacy garden, uh, appreciation day. And a number of awards were handed out out there for a long time, committed folks on the board and otherwise, uh, for Columbia basin nursing home and, uh, seven 23 Q life meeting with our guests from the P U D there. And, uh, Good meeting, good news to come. That's all I can say right now, but things are moving.

Councilor Richardson.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of things. I attended a plaza subcommittee meeting where we talked about several things, specifically went around about potential and location for shade in the plaza. I was absent from a traffic safety commission meeting. I had to be out of town for work. That was last week, the 15th. But I can tell you that those folks have been discussing electric bikes and scooters in town and whether there's a role for the city to enhance education or enforcement for safety. I attended a couple of briefing sessions individually with Mayor Mays and City Manager Klebs. And for those who may be watching or reading the minutes, I'd like to just echo our city manager's note that on our website, thedallas.gov, we do have applications for the local government academy. So if anyone's interested in getting engaged in their local government at the city level, I'd really encourage you to take a look at that.

That's it. Thank you. Councilor Randall.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On July 16th, I attended pretty much the same thing Councilor Runyon did with the briefing with yourself and the city manager and then the ribbon cutting for the new play area at the annex. On July 20th, as a member of the Household Hazardous Waste and Recycling Steering Committee, I took a tour of the recycling facility that handles all of the material from Wasco and Hood River counties, and it's in Clackamas, operated by a company called Pioneer Recycling Services. A very interesting tour to see where all our material that we put in our recycling bins, where it goes to be handled. Something of interest that was mentioned is the frequency of fires caused by lithium batteries mistakenly thrown in with the recycling materials. Lithium batteries are actually quite flammable, and they have here in Nadal, I was told, every other week they have a fire in their trucks started by lithium batteries, and more frequently at the recycling center. So something for people to be aware of to keep those lithium batteries out of the recycling and put them in the e-waste recycling that is available at the transfer station. Also of interest was a comment by the leader of the tour group said that the Hood River and Wasco counties have the highest quality of commingled materials that they take into their center. So that's kind of impressive because they take in quite a bit of material from around the state. And that's my report.

Thank you. Councilor Ring?

I don't have anything significant to report this week because I've been out, in and out for a day, John.

Thank you. Councilor McLaughlin.

Thank you, Mayor Mayes. On July 13th, I attended a briefing with yourself and Manager Klebs. On July 17th, I attended the airport commission meeting. July 20th, the ribbon cutting at Columbia Basin. And if you haven't seen the progress in this facility in the last 20, 30 years, it's amazing what they have done with that property and with their organization. So that was excellent. I also met with the neon sign museum owners to discuss the merry go round and possible second story access for ADA access. And that's my report.

Thank you. Most of the items that I was going to bring up have already been discussed. So in the interest of brevity, I'll just mention a couple. The Mid-Columbia Community Action Playground was dedicated on July 16th, and I and a couple of other council members attended. It was a wonderful event and a really nice new playground to a really nice facility, the Annex. And finally, on July 15th, I attended a Zoom legislative hearing held in Washington, D.C. by the Committee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Mining regarding our bill that we're trying to get passed in the Senate, House Bill 655, which is the bill I'm sure most of you have heard of, which transfers 150 acres of property owned by the Forest Service Mr. John Crockett, who was the deputy director of the Forest Service in Washington testified before the committee and supported the bill. The Forest Service has always supported that bill to transfer that land to the city. So anyway, other than that, the committee hearing was pretty uneventful. So we took quite an interest in that. So with that, we'll move on. Item nine is the consent agenda. Items of a routine and non-controversial nature are placed on the consent agenda to allow the city to spend its time and energy on the more important items and issues. Any counselor may request an item be pulled from the consent agenda and be considered separately. Items pulled from the consent agenda will be placed on the agenda at the end of the action items section. Tonight we have three items. We did have two, but we added a third one as I announced before. First is the approval of the July 13th regular city council meeting minutes. Second is approving the surplus of public works, vehicles, and equipment. And finally, the one we added is a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a lease agreement with QLife. Is there any, do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I'll move to approve the consent agenda as amended. I'll say.

It's been moved by Councilor Randall and seconded by Councilor Ring to approve the consent agenda. Is there any questions or any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Item 10A is consideration of the annexation of property located at 2430 East 18th Street and the adoption of a special ordinance annexing the property into the city. Mr. Chandler.

Good evening, Mayor Mayes, Councilors, Joshua Chandler, Community Development Department. As mentioned.

Mr. Mayor, sorry. I believe we have a script for this hearing that the city clerk has printed for you.

Yeah, I'm really on top of this.

Let's see. It should be right there.

Thank you for reminding me. You're very welcome. Sorry, Josh. Now is the time specified for the council to conduct a legislative public hearing on agenda item 10A, annexation. ANX 82-25 for property located at 2430 East 18th Street and special ordinance number 26-614, annexing the property into the city pursuant to ORS 222.125. This is a legislative hearing under the Dalles Municipal Code 10.14.010.03. and 10.3.020.060. The proposed annexation is being considered as an ORS 222.125 consent annexation. The council is not relying on the statutory hearing procedure otherwise required by ORS 222.120. This hearing requires the city council to consider explanation of the relevant criteria standards, policies, and laws, a statement of basic facts relied upon in rendering the decision and the evidence in the record. The applicable criteria, standards, policies, and laws are identified in the staff report and the proposed findings in Exhibit C. Anyone who wishes to testify must first be recognized. When recognized, please state your full name, mailing address, and whether you are testifying for yourself or on behalf of another person or organization. Please direct your testimony to the annexation criteria or other criteria you believe apply. Testimony is limited to three minutes unless I allow additional time. Counselors may ask questions at any time. I may limit cumulative, repetitive, immaterial, irrelevant, or disruptive testimony. To preserve any potential appeal rights to LUBA, Land Use Board of Appeals, you must participate in this proceeding either orally or in writing. Please raise any issue with enough detail to allow the counsel and staff an opportunity to respond. Are there any questions about the hearing procedure? Seeing none, do any counselors wish to make any conflict of interest disclosure or abstain from participating or voting on this matter because of possible financial gain resulting from the legislative action? Anybody?

No. No.

For the record, there are none. The public hearing is now open. May we please have a staff report?

Yeah. Good evening, counselors. As mentioned, this is annexation 82-25 in consideration of Special Ordinance 26-614. This is a request to annex approximately 0.88 acres located at 2430 East 18th Street into the city limits. the applicant submitted a consent to annex application so the property may be incorporated into the city and connected to city utilities the proposed residence has already received the necessary building permit so this is a part this is a part of our building permit process going through the process if you are in the urban growth boundary and you are within 300 feet of utilities you are required to consent to an annexation. So this is part of that process. Staff reviewed the request against the applicable criteria and have found that it meets those criteria. They're provided further in our findings. Overall, this is relatively straightforward, I think. Actually, when you look at it on a map, Attachment 1, we do have the assessor's map, which those can be a little confusing to look at. But if you look at Attachment 1, there's a little vicinity map. It shows the shaded area, which is city limits, the unshaded area, which is outside city limits. This is surrounded on three sides by city limits. It is at the boundary, the southern boundary of the urban growth boundary. There are utilities already in the street, so this is really almost a formality here throughout this whole process. Staff found that it is a logical extension of urban services, therefore complying with the comprehensive plan. notice was provided per municipal code per the municipal code we had discussed this this was on the agenda for on the june 22nd council meeting due to technical difficulties it was postponed moved to this meeting we provided appropriate notice in the paper and to the property owner as well for this re-notice and Overall, like I said, this is relatively straightforward annexation process, and I am happy to answer any questions and staff recommends approval.

This is not the time for the council to deliberate. However, as Josh said, we are entertaining questions at this time. Does the city council have any questions for the staff at this time? Just to reiterate it, the property is surrounded on three sides by- Correct.

Yeah. Development around it is connected to city services.

Okay. Is the applicant or property owner present, and do they wish to add anything to the record? They're not here. Does anyone wish to testify in opposition, or excuse me, in support of the annexation? Anybody wish to testify in support of the annexation? Is there anyone here who would like to testify in opposition to the annexation? Okay. No one is here to testify in opposition or in support. Does anyone wish to testify in any other way concerning the annexation? Anybody? No takers there either. Does the city council have any further questions or any last call for council questions? Okay.

Mr. Runyon.

Sorry, I didn't see you there. Council Runyon.

Quite often not seen. I'm just trying to look at this map. It's here and whatnot. Am I right in assuming this is the ground to the south of the track? It's up top of Thompson? Is that where we're at? This would be to the east of Thompson.

If you go to Thompson Track and 18th Street, if you start heading to the east, it would be that way.

This has come up in past years and the owners at that time, I'm assuming the ownership has changed somehow or something's gone on because it's something they did not want in past years. But is there a new ownership there? Do you have any idea?

Talking like a connection, a 19th by chance?

Yeah, I guess.

Yeah, no. So this would be further east from that. A little further east from that. Side of it, I think, is a church. There's a church on the southern side of it just across the urban growth boundary.

All right. Okay. Just a misreading of the map here. I'm not sure what led me down the wrong path, but okay. I know where you're talking about.

Any other questions? Okay. public testimony portion of this hearing is now closed the council may now deliberate on an an x 8225 and special ordinance number 26-614 any discussion as our director of community development stated i think this is pretty straightforward um Is there anybody on the city council, if there's no other discussion or questions, is there anybody on the council that would like to have the ordinance read in its entirety?

No.

Seeing no takers there, if the council is ready, I'll ask the city clerk to read special ordinance number 26614 by title only. Is the council ready for a motion? Go ahead, Amy.

Special ordinance number 26-614, an ordinance annexing certain property located within the urban growth boundary of the City of the Dalles pursuant to ORS 222.125, consent annexation, annex number 8225.

Anybody like to make a motion to adopt the ordinance?

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to adopt special ordinance number 26-614, approving the consent annexation of the property located at 2430 East 18th Street and legally described in Exhibit B to the ordinance as described in annexation application ANX 82-25.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

It's been moved by Councilor Randall and seconded by Councilor Ring to adopt a special ordinance approving the annexation of the property at 2430 East 18th Street. Is there any more discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Item, it is the one we added, 11A. We're gonna be considering the Fifth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Archeological Investigations Northwest for archeological data recovery services associated with the First Street Streetscape Project. Mr. Chandler.

yeah Thank you again i'm joined, we are joined this evening by President senior archaeologist Joe Reese and senior archaeologist Nicholas smith survey and w they're on the screen here they're going to be able to assist answering any additional questions that you may have. This item before you is the proposed Fifth Amendment to the City's Professional Service Agreement with AI&W in an amount not to exceed $146,955.85. This amendment is associated with the archaeological discovery made during the First Street project and represents the next step required to resolve the discovery and allow construction to proceed. So we do want to acknowledge the fact that this is another amendment to Archaeological Services. Staff recognizes Council's concern, community's concern regarding both the frequency and additional costs of these amendments. Since the original agreement was executed, there have been four additional. Those are provided to you on page 22, a breakdown of each for specific tasks each time. So in March, construction uncovered a previously unidentified archaeological feature during excavation of the retaining wall between Washington and Court Streets. Our work immediately stopped in that area. The discovery was protected. Our contractors placed steel plates on top of the archeological area, built some walls around the area, and the city followed procedures required under our approved monitoring and inadvertent discovery plan, our MOU with SHPO and state law. The second amendment authorized only enough work to evaluate that discovery so SHPO could determine what additional mitigation would be needed. So ultimately, we found a discovery. We had to do additional research to find the extent of that. And then after that, we had to proceed further with additional research and data gathering of that area. since that time staff our engineers ai and w ajax have worked extensively to minimize the impacts of this feature i did not realize we would be talking so you know in the weeds about the exact elevation of where these walls are going to be placed and we're talking conversations got into the inches Ultimately, a discovery was found. Our walls need to go down to a certain elevation. They are on top of this discovery area. We tried reducing the overall depth of that wall to avoid the impacts of this area. We were able to decrease it some, but you can only decrease that wall so much or it impacts the overall structural integrity of that wall. So ultimately our team had worked to try to reduce the impact as much as we could, but it was determined it couldn't be avoided. So therefore it was determined that this was an adverse impact to that archeological feature and SHPO determined that initial mitigation would be required. This was all laid out in our MOU and inadvertent discovery plan. Because of this, staff actually met with, after this discovery, staff met with SHPO to discuss that to the extent that we needed to take to meet our requirements of our permit of state law. Also in doing so, they laid out for us the exact, what you're going to see in here, what's being considered here. There are two one-by-one archaeological units that we will dig into the area, find out more information about this discovery. This was the minimum requirement that Shipbo required. So there was some additional proposal that would have been more than this, but we were able to meet with SHPO. Thankfully, we really want to appreciate, you know, send a shout out to the governor's office for some assistance on that, getting a hold of SHPO. They're a very understaffed, difficult agency to get a hold of at times. So we were thankful enough to set up a call with them and their director. They went through the information that was provided to us to be able to provide a breakdown of the minimum that we needed to move this project forward. And that is what's laid out for you this evening of the $146,000. This is not only these two units, but all the different, you know, the data gathering that goes into it and everything associated with that. Although this excavation is relatively small, the majority of the proposed cost is associated with work that occurs after excavation, processing, cataloging, specialist analysis, curation with Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, and preparation of technical reports to be submitted to SHPO.

Josh, what did you say was small? I'm sorry to interrupt.

The overall area that we are excavating is relatively small. So as part of this consideration presented to staff by AAMW, staff also identified opportunities that we could reduce that cost, less of an impact as possible. As I said, we understand the impacts, the increased costs of this project. We wanted to reduce those as much as we can. In the process, SHPO is also requiring that the city submit a new archaeological permit. The reason being is the original permit and a typical with a lot of permits like that, once you find a discovery, you dig to an area where you effectively have two what are called sterile levels. So you want to see how far down that discovery is. So you go until you find nothing in the area that you're digging. AI&W's recommendation was dig down just to where the wall, base of the wall needs to go. Very practical, makes sense. SHPO agreed, but that's not what was originally called out in the permit. So we submitted a new permit and we requested an expedited permit and SHPO did grant us that expedited permit. So instead of a 30 day turnaround, it was a 48 hour turnaround. So that has been approved. So I say all this just to let you know that this information presented to you has staff went through, fine-tuned code, working with SHPO, working with our consultants on this, finding additional monies that hadn't been spent on the original contract. For instance, with the original agreement, where our estimate was that we would find 5,000 artifacts, we didn't in that initial portion of it. We actually found only about 1,500. So there was around a $58,000 savings. We were able to take that 58,000 and use it toward the final data recovery or the data analysis of this most recent test unit that we had in the discovery area. So long story short, there was a little bit of movement in the money that was originally allocated to the project, so we weren't going to see an overall increase to that project. We were able to use unexpended funds to pay for portions of the additional work that needed to be done. This amendment before you is intentionally limited in scope. It authorizes only this work that was identified by SHPO. does not authorize additional excavation beyond those two units. We do know though, and it's something worth bringing up, the project, there is still some excavation. In the event there are additional discoveries, that is a conversation we will have with council at a future date. But this discovery area that we've already determined these two holes are the extent of those additional excavations within this discovery area. So budget implications. The... Contract, if approved this evening, the contract extension or amendment, excuse me, $146,955 would increase the current AIW contract from $663,732 to $810,688. Could you repeat that, please? Yeah, so this increase of the $146,955 increases the current contract of 663,732 to 810,688. As I mentioned in here, there was some aspects of some ultimate we were able to... The other aspect of this approval doesn't impact the discovery area, the two units that we're talking about, but this approval does allow us to kind of move some money around for what was originally within the $400,000 original contract. Some of those funds will be used for additional data that was recovered in this discovery area. so no additional increase though to that to that original portion of of the agreement um as i mentioned there is a new permit that is required but we've already made it through that so that it was was a huge lift another you know thank you to shippo and assisting us and expediting that process forward So from an overall perspective, the first street project currently has approximately $814,932 remaining within the approved project budget. After approval of this amendment, approximately $668,000 would remain available for the remainder of the project. Staff has reserved current commitments and expenditures and determined there is sufficient funding remaining to complete this amendment. And with that, I am more than happy to answer questions. So I guess I jumped to it already. Staff does recommend that council authorized the city manager to execute the fifth amendment of the personal service agreement with AINW and an amount not to exceed $146,955.85. And now I'm happy to answer any questions. And Nicholas and Joe are here to assist with those questions as well.

Before we get to questions, I'd like to have the two employees of AI&W. Introduce yourself and your position with the company, please.

Good evening. I'm Jill Reese. I'm the president of AI&W. I'm also a professional archaeologist. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Nicholas Smith. I'm a senior archaeologist at AINW.

Thank you. Okay. We'll open up for questions. I know I have a few. Councilor Ring, you want to go first?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Josh, you said something, maybe I was just, it's drinking from the fire hose, but you said something about the original cost is about $400,000, but there was no, I was confused over the comment of the original cost of $400,000 and the increase, because if I do the math, it's like doubled, right? from the original cost of the contract. In other words, if I look at the original agreement of $400,000 and I look at the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth amendments, it's over $810,000. So is it because of where the money is coming from for those amendments that it's... I apologize because I caught it in the heat of the moment.

No, that's fine. I'll take my best shot at answering the question. The first, second, third, and fourth amendments increased. This is on page 22 of the supplemental. I'll show you the incremental increases of each one of them and the tasks associated with each of those. So some of the figures I've been throwing out here, there was like $58,000 that I threw out there in this conversation. There was $58,000 unexpended from the original agreement. And that was used to make things a little confusing here. As we talked about, the Second Amendment was the amendment that approved data recovery within this discovery area. So not only the data recovery is ultimately digging holes in the ground. Sorry, archaeologists, I'm just going to be real here. Ultimately, that's the data recovery, and then after that, you have to curate that, and you do the research that goes into it and document it. So the original agreement, we estimated 5,000 artifacts would be found throughout the area. It was only about 1,500. So as a result, there was $58,000 about that was unexpended. That was used to go towards... that test unit that we approved through the Second Amendment.

Thank you. That makes much more sense to me now, I think. One of my other questions, I'm reading the memo from July 19, 2026 from AI&W Inc. And some of it's redacted. I'm sure there's probably a reason for that, but it mentions proposal for data recovery to resolve adverse effects to site and then it's redacted um there's just several places in here that like what's the context here what i'm trying to get to is what did we find right it's a relatively small area but this is becoming a this is kind of a large amount a large increase it's a it's the second largest increase, the Third Amendment, I think, being the most, at $146,840. Or $804, sorry. So I'm trying to get a sense of, you know, this is the second, like, large... um, increase, like, what are we, what are we looking at here? Right. Because we still have a lot of work to do and I'm trying to, to better understand and, and prepare myself for the sticker shock of, you know, we go dig in another spot, we go find, there's going to be some discovery or something. And then we have a $200,000 amendment and it's, you know, just kind of like eats away at the budget. I'm trying to understand like, how do we, how do we, like manage that deficit in our heads or is there some sort of ratio obviously we don't know what's under the ground but yeah like it but we're gonna run out of money right

Yeah, so a great question. I think going back to when the original agreement was adopted by council, I made a comment there that these are the assumptions that we have and these are our estimates. If we find something, it will slow the process and it will increase the cost. I think that's what we're seeing here. But to the point of excavation, we have excavated a significant amount of the project at this point. Um, quite a bit is done. And I mean, there's a big portion that's still needed in this discovery area, but once we complete the units that we're talking about here, that Chippewa laid out for us, that area can basically proceed. And that's it's ultimately there's there's aspects. We will collect what is in the ground there, document it, and then we can continue to move forward. And unless there is a significant discovery in that area, we effectively will continue moving forward knowing that there will be some things that are found within that area. Yes, it's a... It's sticker shock, I think, for us, you know, for our team. I think the amount of back and forth that goes into getting this, you know, any of these amendments or change orders for the first street project before it gets in front of council, we tear these things apart and we are very, very critical. We appreciate the patience from all the consultants that we have because we understand the importance of public funds and the project. What's redacted here, ultimately, public records law has some exemptions of what can be, or some call-outs for what can be exempt from public records law, and that is what we redacted here, and these are the actual locations of archeological sites. And the information here and the information in the staff report doesn't provide you with much information. But I think with full transparency for the public, we provided a confidential document to you today that had everything that was found. That's the information that wanted to be in front of council. So you make your decision this evening. But like I said, in full transparency, what I can say about what was found, it was significant enough that it was determined to be an adverse impact per SHPO requiring us to do some additional data recovery of the area. I hope that answered your question.

Mind if I ask a follow-up question on that? So what was redacted was... the location of what was found, not necessarily what was found.

Correct. And here, this memo here that A&W provided to us was at this point, this really didn't discuss what was found. So everything redacted in here are location, it's location based.

Are the artifacts that were actually found in the description, are those by public law off limits?

They are. And I have, no. Okay. They're not. Well, that's why they weren't provided, so I guess I need some clarification on that one.

Mayor Mays, are you asking about the identification of the objects that are discovered that we're talking about here?

Can those be revealed legally?

I have a legal opinion, and I'd love to hear what our archaeological consultants would say, and then I'll tell you what my opinion is right after.

Okay. Ms. Reese, do you understand the question?

I think what I'm hearing is you want to know what we have recovered or what might be there that we want to do, that we need to do data recovery for. And is that right? What kind of artifacts, what we found?

Yeah, it pertains specifically to what's been redacted from the report. So the question is, can what you all have found there be publicly revealed?

The reason that archaeological information is allowed to be withheld is so that there is not illicit what's called pot hunting. There are not pots here. There are bottles usually that are illicitly dug up by people just passing through. The area is where the data recovery of the two one-by-one units, and by the way, I'm looking at the table that that Josh is at. And that's probably about two one by ones combined. So that's the size of the areas, one here and one there that we're going to be going to be doing. So because people get excited about archeology, which of course we enjoy the support of the public and the information at this point, because it's an ongoing archeological excavation. What I would say is that we're trying to not provide information that might fill, might, have people motivated to go out and dig up the archaeological site illicitly. There are some security measures that have already been taken for this particular area, but that's always a potential problem. So what can we say about the artifacts that we have found there? And so thank you for asking. I feel a little uncomfortable about making, saying much, but I will share with you that typically the things that are there that pot hunters dig up are bottles, that kind of thing. And they're really not that valuable for money. It's not like there's gold there. This is information that's really important for us to understand the past. And we can get a lot of information from that. They're just not that valuable intrinsically, but people are attracted to that. archaeological sites, and that's just definitely a risk here. So Nicholas, do you know if there's what we can share? What would you feel comfortable? It's a historic period archaeological site, and there's some evidence of Native peoples among the deposits there. So am I dancing around the topic sufficiently to give you some information at this point? I'm really not sure here if I've done a good job.

Mr. Smith, did you have anything you wanted to add?

Yeah, I think what Joe is getting at is that we have an eye toward protecting the discovery at this moment because construction is happening and it's sort of vulnerable to people coming and digging, looking for artifacts. But we want to give you the information you need to be able to make a decision. And once construction is farther along and completed and the retaining wall is up, essentially that protects the site again. And at that point, you know, sharing more of what we found there, I think is a good idea so that, you know, the public is aware, the city residents are aware more of the archaeology there. But that part of the Dells, as you know, I think the last time we were here, we talked about it. That was Chinatown in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. So we have archaeological deposits associated with Chinatown and earlier in the Dells.

Mr. Mayor, I'd be interested in hearing our staff attorney's brief legal opinion on whether we can just

yeah whether it's advisable or not is its own point but so uh we're gonna get locked up if i say it's this and not that yeah no i i hear you uh mr mayor um the the oregon public records law talks about um all of the things in the city are public records subject to disclosure unless there's like an exemption that applies and there's an exemption that applies for archaeological objects um the exemption applies to its and anything that would identify its location. And so to say that, you know, we found an object somewhere, that's completely generally in a vacuum, just fine. To say, oh, we found an object over there on the corner by this and whatever, that's when you start to get into the issues under the Oregon Public Records Law and the information that Oregon law considers exempt from public disclosure. In this particular case... um we're not in a vacuum and so um we have Are archaeological consultants here advising every step of the way as their full-time job how the city should be managing these archaeological objects? And even if that information is something that in a vacuum, you know, we might want to, we could consider disclosing later. But for right now, I don't want to, I wouldn't want to recommend disclosure if that's something that our archaeological consultants are concerned about.

You think there's some legal jeopardy to that? Sorry, Mr. Mayor.

I just, I don't want to pretend like I know everything and I certainly don't. I tend to defer to the experts on these issues, especially, you know, in a public setting. And our experts are, you know, if they're sharing this information and they're not being more direct about it, I'd like to think that Nicholas and Joe have a reason for that. And so I'd like to trust them. They've guided us every step of the way for many years on this.

Yeah, I hope you understand, too, that, you know, if we were talking a few thousand dollars here, maybe the contents would not be that much of interest. But when our total contract within the service is rendered by your firm, it reaches the $810,000 mark. I think that that certainly raises a lot of questions as to what exactly is being found. So, Councilor Ring, did you have any other questions?

I know. Thank you. I just, I think you said it pretty succinctly and I, I, you know, doing the math, the rough, I hate public math, but it's 103% increase since the original agreement. So that's, that's just why I'm bringing it up and it is significant.

Uh, council Richardson, what did you have any other questions?

I had a couple.

Do you want to do that now? Okay, go ahead. And council McLaughlin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you to Councillor Ring for being the one to brave the math in front of everybody. It is a big increase. It's a doubling. So my understanding is the proposed additional two sample plots or holes go to the, will be excavated to the depth of the base of the wall, the retaining wall, right? So we're not digging down below it. We're digging to essentially. So what's the point of the two holes? Is it to just get like a statistical sample of what's in the larger area?

That's correct.

All right. And I just want, I guess I would say, walking the line respectfully uh just for those um i don't know i feel like our our sort of vague and cryptic uh secretive you know discussion may give people the wrong impression that you know what a lay person might be thinking you know pots of gold or silver or something super dramatic it's like it's not what we're talking about right we're talking about something much more uh a mundane and sort of run of the mill, if you will. Uh, it just, it's, it's old and interesting. Um, in that sense, um, I guess I would like to know from staff, um, you, you've put to, uh, I guess some degree of rest that you have investigated the, um, the idea, the plan to do this excavation and this is your best recommendation to fulfill the legal requirements without sort of taking the rest of the year, the rest of the decade and just going whole hog on discovering what's down there. Is that fair?

Yeah, ultimately, I think, you know, the report that I shared, the original recommendation was to dig further, find additional samples, additional information. Then we shared that with State Historic Preservation Office, provided them the report that we provided to you today. And it was recommended SHPO came back and recommended the two units or didn't recommend required the two units. And that would be enough to satisfy the requirements.

Thank you. Are the new retaining walls covering or the backfill then covering the site? I mean, essentially we'll be burying the site. Correct. All right. Well, good. Is it fair to say that the project will not be destroying the site? Will it be disturbing? What verb would you use there? We are necessarily disturbing some amount of historic fill, but it's necessary for public safety and just having a city street.

Yeah, you will impact that entire area to the depth of the wall. But after that, ultimately, public infrastructure is going to cap it. Yeah.

I want to appreciate the knowledge base and the professionalism of our contractors, but I also, I guess, Not having been privy to the conversations with staff, I do want to be a little bit blunt with you all that having an archaeological dig that goes on and on and were it to go on and on and bankrupt the project and leave us with more knowledge about the site's sort of historical artifacts, but an unfinished project. you know street infrastructure would be a would be a failed project that's not acceptable you know this is necessary work legally and maybe it's necessary work to some degree ethically but it's also necessary for us to fill the holes in and have our street back and and to make it sort of a safe and hopefully lively part of our city you know this is i just want to really impress on you that there's necessary work but We need and we need you to guide yourselves within those parameters that we're not a lottery ticket, not to be offensive, but there's got to be some restraint on the side of the professional. So I hope that without having any way to know, I hope that that's the reality that you guys suggest or recommend. what is necessary to get the work done, but not a great deal further. We have a lot of project. It's been hanging around a long time, and we need to just get it implemented. I think those are my questions at the moment, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Councilor McLaughlin?

We had an acronym thrown around quite a bit. It was SHPO. SHPO. And we have the advantage up here of having it defined. So it's the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. And I just, that's, forgive me, it's the teacher. Oh, no, thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Also, along with what Councilor Richardson said, I have worries about what if we run out of money? Where does that leave this project? And I share that with you. And is there a timeline to resumption of construction? Where are we in the archaeological dig? I mean, can we expect to resume soon?

Yeah, as far as the archeology goes, like I said, a thank you to the State Historic Preservation Office for expediting the permit. As I mentioned originally, we submitted it last week. We were pretty quick about turning the thing around. It was intended on being a 30 day wait. But we're actually we're able to expedite it. So there was I don't think any comments. We ultimately have to wait for comments and the comment period ended today. So that means I and W can get get to work continuing to to work on those two holes. There is a little bit of logistics. Removing those steel plates requires heavy machinery. We're not going to call out Ajax to remove steel plates in the morning, send crews home. and then bring the plates back. So we are going to coordinate the schedule AINW's work once AJAX is back on. AJAX, it is intended on them having crews back on site first week of August. This is aligned with when we can get the material for our CIPP lining for that sewer line replacement. So the contractors there are supposed to return August 24th. Basing everything off this August 24th date is when we will have crews out there to start setting everything up for that. As soon as we have crews out there, Aang and W can come back so they can kind of jump back and forth between one aspect of it and helping remove the plates every day and putting them back on.

Understood. Is that... Documentation is the calendar that you've just shared with us. Is that written down somewhere and is it on public notice?

It's not on public notice. Yeah, no, it's been one aspect of this project that I'll be honest, has been a little frustrating. You know, it's been, you know, we hear it. We hear it. We see it. I'm totally truthful with you. Very frustrating for me to watch this. The delays we've been happening that have been happening. So we are Really trying to get back to work as quickly as we can. So one of the reasons we chose the contractor for the lining project was the fact that they could be on site August 24th. However, once we signed the contract with them, they still have to do the engineering for their lining and then order the material. So fingers crossed, there are no delays in that material order. But yeah, we are trying our darndest to get back to work.

I appreciate your response. Thank you.

The other thing I would just briefly add is that that timing and schedule in part relies on the decision.

Move to the microphone, please.

Thanks. I just wanted to add that one of the other elements with the timeline that was just discussed was the decision tonight. Oh. That's a key piece of that. Understood.

Councilor Ring.

I do have one more question. I apologize. I'm curious. I can totally appreciate the work that's been done, both by city staff and by our contractors. And I really, I absolutely see the importance to preserve things that are found that are beneath their feet every day, right? But my last question, and this is a challenge, and I know Josh, you've been thinking about this as well. How do we, where is there a world in which AINW, you know, continues their work, their reporting, their cataloging, the work that they need to do to comply with state law and whatnot and keep the project, you know, in compliance. But I can't help but notice that there seems to be a lot of other work that we could be doing at the same time that's on the other end of the street, down by the post office, down by Union. There's other things that need to be done. And I understand that there's phases to projects and things like that. That might also kind of help not just us up here as city council, you know, going through these decisions, but I think it would be good in the public interest for us to the discuss at some point probably not tonight but how do we continue with other aspects of the project and run in parallel so that we're not on this continuance of you know disturbed parking traffic all of those things I think that would that would help us in the future it's kind of a a little bit of a challenge I'm throwing out but how do we how do we continue with other aspects of this project so we can, cause now we're at the point that we need to figure out how to like bring the schedule to the left again. Right. And so going, going forward, that would be a question that I would have is what else can we be working on at the same time that, Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So to the point about parking impacts and traffic impacts, they are the same. They will remain the same for 18 months. That was, you know, when we had this informational meeting in October. In the event parking spaces open up because some aspect of the project is finished and we can open those back up, then I think that's a win. But overall, there will be no additional, you know, negative impacts, I guess, to parking and traffic. It's just something that we assumed from the very beginning that this is going to be an impact period. There are aspects of the project that we would have liked to, maybe I would have liked to have seen move forward, but there's also some mobilization that goes into it. If we have, yeah, we can get some irrigation in the line, right. You know, in the ground right now, we can do that. And that'll take about five days. And then after that pulling crews back off and, you know, there's a little bit of this back and forth of the, the contractors approach has been, we bring them back on site and we're going to be working the duration of the project instead of bringing someone on for a week or two, waiting a month on for a week or two. I mean, The main delay has been that sewer line, ultimately. The waiting and waiting that it took for us to figure out the shoring associated with that project, we lost months. to try and nail down some numbers that weren't $1.5 million to bring insuring in an area that is really confined 17 feet in the ground. It just wasn't acceptable, obviously, so we went this other path. That's been the most significant delay of all of this has been this sewer line replacement. But I'll be honest, I'm pushing hard on our progress meetings every week as much as I can. I hate to be in front of council right now explaining to you that the project's delayed and we're still not getting back to work. But it has been, you know, I'm a constant nag on everybody's side every week trying to get this thing back to work. And we understand the impacts. I don't want to see it, the delays, as much as anybody else.

What is the total cost of the project now with the additional what we authorized? Is that going to take you a while to look up?

No, it shouldn't. It should be... 5.87 million. So I think with this new increase, it's just under $6 million.

So according to my calculations, about 14% of the project is due to archeological issues. Correct. 14%.

Okay.

My last question I think is for Ms. Reese or Mr. Smith. We were told a week ago that the additional cost of your work would be about just short of $300,000. Is that right?

Correct.

Yeah. And because of the efforts of SHPO and the governor's office, specifically the regional solutions office of the governor's office, because of their efforts, we were able to lower that down to $146,000. Could you explain a little bit about what went through the process by which you were able to lower the amount from $300,000 down to $146,000?

Yeah, that's excellent news for the city as far as the level of effort for archaeology. There's no set standard. The short answer to that question, which is a good one, is at this point in the archaeological compliance process for data recovery, there's no set equation to determine the level of effort for data recovery. It's a conversation that happens in discussion with the project proponent, in this case, the city SHPO and tribes and other permit reviewers. And so during the course of that discussion, my understanding is that as that discussion took several weeks with some folks responding and others not, that the city was able to have a meeting directly with SHPO and determine a minimum level of effort for the scope of the next phase of work.

Which you obviously had to agree to to proceed.

uh that's shippo's determination so of course yeah okay all right any other questions oh mr uh council randall thank you josh uh we talked about the timeline on the third amendment we authorized additional 50 days do we still have those still remaining or have we burned through those already or how is this going to affect that timeline as far as the that third amendment

yeah i think maybe there's like 46 days remaining something along those lines yeah so since work's been halted okay we haven't needed anyone thank you yeah you know what i will i will say you know um we are thankful as i've mentioned getting a hold of the state historic preservation office a and w you know well well respected firm um we took the advice of state archaeologists ultimately to communicate through a path providing updates the information that we did the reason for those delays is out of their guidance, it wasn't following typical protocol for SHPO. So the director of SHPO was unaware of the updates that AINW has consistently provided. So when we talk about sending information out asking for responses within 48 hours that we laid out in our original plan we were not getting these responses so i'm not you know i don't want to hold any punches here it's been difficult in those conversations that we had with shippo i think the i owned eye opening point for the city manager and i this was what two weeks ago they told us the last communication that they had with the city was january So their logs, they haven't been logging all of the conversations that A&W has has sent out. We then sent out to their team so they could look into it further. I don't know, 30 to 40 updates that A&W has been providing to SHPO and not been receiving those responses. So to their point, it's been there. You have an archaeologist that's depending on the regulatory agency of the state, and that agency is not responding at all. Makes it very difficult for a project. So then, yes, we had to go to the regional solutions office to get some assistance to kind of shake things up a little bit, wake everybody up so we could get those responses that we should have been receiving for the past six months.

Anybody else? Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion?

Mayor Mays, may I move to authorize the city manager to execute the Fifth Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Archaeological Investigations Northwest Inc. in the amount not to exceed $146,955.85 as presented.

I will second that motion. To move by Councillor McLaughlin and seconded by Councillor Richardson to approve the Fifth Amendment to the contract with AINW. Is there any more discussion? Councillor Randall, or excuse me, Councillor Runyon.

Just to note that this will be the last, this will be the last increase that I vote yes on. I think we have done our part.

Anybody else? Council Randall. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Yeah, I think we can debate the value and practicality of historical preservation and archaeological digs, public works projects, and the nature of the artifacts found. But the key phrase I heard tonight was, these are steps required to allow construction to proceed. So I think we really have no choice.

All those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Josh.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Reese. Thank you, Mr. Smits, for being with us tonight.

Thank you, Josh.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, item 12A, consideration of wage table adjustments. for nonrepresented public safety and leadership positions. Mr. Cleebs.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As the council knows- Mr. Mayor. It appears Councilor Randall wants to say something.

Thank you. Mr. Mayor, before we get into item 12A for considering non-representative public safety leadership compensation adjustments, I'm disclosing a potential conflict of interest. My son is a sworn the Dallas City police officer, currently covered by the collective bargaining agreement. So this item does not affect his current pay. If he is later promoted to sergeant, however, the non-representative wage table being considered tonight could apply to him and financially affect him. I will not participate in the discussion and vote. You want to leave the room? Sure.

Thank you, counselor. Okay, Mr. Cleaves.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As the council knows, we have been continuing our review of nonrepresented classifications and compensation levels to ensure that we are remaining competitive from a recruitment and retention standpoint. This next phase, as noted in the staff report, focuses on nonrepresented public safety leadership classifications. More specifically, these are our police sergeants, police captain, and police chief. These three position classifications provide command oversight, personnel supervision, policy implementation, emergency response leadership, and accountability for the delivery of police services to the city of the Dalles. Reviewing these classifications together allows the city to assess our market competitiveness while preserving appropriate compensation relationships within the wage table and reduce the risk of wage compression, which is one of the items that we are responding to tonight. We looked at several different comparators to gather data, both on wages and the compensation package. It included base wage ranges, the organizational structure, position responsibilities, and some of the different benefits that each jurisdiction may provide. So based on that analysis of the data collected, we have our recommendations included in the staff report. We are looking to apply these increases retroactively to July 1st, 2026. The proposed adjustment for the police sergeants are 11% increase. The police captain is also 11% and the police chief is 9%. This is after applying our cost of living adjustments that are effective on July 1st as well. The other item that came up in our analysis was looking at the different incentives offered to nonrepresented and unrepresented officers. And as a result of the data collected and looking at how we're structuring everything, we're also recommending to increase the incentive for the DPSST certification pay for the police captain and police sergeants. The police chief position has that as a requirement, and so that's why that has been excluded there. Currently the incentive is an 8% incentive and we'd like to increase that to 10% of the base wage. This compensation effort is something that we've had long identified and so we've included some adjustments and necessary resources in the city's adopted fiscal year 26-27 budget. So there are sufficient budgetary appropriations available to support these changes. The total cost of those changes in a given fiscal year is approximately $133,500 given our current staffing levels. we have six six sergeants uh one chief and one captain and with that i'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have our recommendation is to adopt the proposed wage adjustments as noted along with increasing the dpsst certificate incentive pay questions for the city manager council richardson

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Manager Cleaves, DPSST is the, no, I had it at the tip of my tongue, basically the state standards, police standards.

Public safety standards. Thank you.

What's involved in earning the management and executive certifications?

Well, not to put him on the spot, but I think he is in the back of the room here. Our chief may be best able to answer that question.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for that question, Tom Worthy, Police Chief, City of the Dells. DPSST, or the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, certifies all law enforcement agents and officers in Oregon from basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive. For example, I have an executive certification. It's the highest one you can attain. And those are all based on training hours to achieve those. And so if you go through a certain number of training hours, like the sergeant or the basic... leadership certification is the lowest level. And then you build up from there. So it's all dependent on training hours.

Give me an order of magnitude of hours required for the captain.

You get a sergeant's certification. You'll need a week training class, which is, you know, you go away to the academy for a week and then ongoing training hours every year, which we normally attain through the Oregon association of chiefs of police conferences that we attend.

On the job training? I mean, are we paying for the training?

Yeah, we pay for it. We do. That's all required.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Other questions? Mr. May. Counsel Ring.

When was the last time that we had an increase like this for these positions in the police department, if anybody knows?

I think it has been quite some time since we have reviewed these positions. One of the challenges that we do have is a certain amount of compression when we are looking at the collective bargaining agreements we have with the Dallas Police Department's patrol officers. And so that is one of the reasons to go back and look at these from time to time. to make sure that our wage tables are structured appropriately. And it makes sense to move up through the ranks with, you know, increasing responsibility with increasing compensation. Um, that all being said, I, I can't, I don't know off the cuff. When was the last time we adjusted and tried to address some of these issues as directly as we are tonight?

Okay.

Thanks.

Other questions. Just to clarify, um, I want to make sure it's correct that the sergeants are not getting an 11% raise and the captain is not getting an 11% raise. The range is increasing by that amount.

Correct. So on that first page of the staff report, you'll see the chart detailing the current annual wage range for each of these classifications and then the proposed range.

Mayor Mrakas, Anything else have a comment. Mayor Mrakas, Thank you, so I really I honestly appreciate and support. Mayor Mrakas, The department's move to set really high standards G for the lead a pretty in depth certification a departmental certification. effort that took at least a year, which was much to his credit, much to the department's credit. That said, I don't know that it I guess I'm just not able to really grasp the rationale for increasing the management and executive certifications. I mean, at some point doing a superior job and gaining training that we, you know, send folks for that seems part of the job, you know, for a really high functioning people. So I'm, I guess I scratched the head a little bit at why we bumped that up on top of increasing the ranges.

If I can give some additional context, one of the rationales behind it is because that is the incentive level in the police union agreement. And so if you're a patrol officer receiving 10% for a DPSST certificate and you're promoted to a sergeant, your incentive goes down to 8%. And so that's another dynamic that we're trying to address here.

Another sort of response to compression in a sense.

uh a piece of it and i think it also aligns with the approach that we've been doing to to kind of look at these not as individual classifications but what it what does it look like to progress with a long career here with the city where you may come in as a patrol officer and work your way all the way up and as you gain your experience as you gain your certifications and have a great career here with the city of the dallas Are we aligned to promote that and that there's not some of these strange instances where, you know, I wasn't getting a 10% incentive for a certain certificate, I get promoted and somehow I'm getting less and taking all those different factors into consideration.

Appreciate your response.

Is it true that we were at full staff finally, at full staff in the police department maybe six months ago, we finally achieved it, and then now we find out we just lost a sergeant. So is that a true statement?

Correct.

OK. Anybody else? Looking for a motion?

I'll do this one. I would move to accept staff recommendation and adopt the proposed wage adjustments for the nonrepresented public safety leadership classifications of police sergeant, police captain, and police chief, and increase DPSSD certification incentive pay for sergeants and captain to 10%.

Is there a second?

I'll say it.

It's been moved by Councilor Richardson and seconded by Councilor Ring to approve the aforementioned increases in the ranges for the Sergeant, Captain, and Police Chief and increase the DPSST certification and incentive pay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much.

Okay.

Item 12B is consideration of an ordinance granting a franchise to QLife Agency.

Thank you very much, Mayor Mays. Good evening. I'm almost done, I promise. All right.

Okay.

As part of the city's ongoing efforts to update our franchise utility program, the city manager and I have been coordinating with representatives from the QLife Intergovernmental Agency, which the city council should know well as a public agency formed under ORS Chapter 190. in partnership with Wasco County and the Northern Wasco County PUD to own and operate a regional fiber network here in the city and throughout Wasco County. The city regulates the use and occupancy of our public rights away under our city charter and under our municipal code and our permission is required for occupancy of the public right of way before industry, or in this case, even partner agencies place their facilities there. Federal law also preserves the city's authority to manage its public rights away and to generally require publicly disclosed and fair and reasonable compensation that is competitively neutral and non-discriminatorily applied to different entities who offer various types of services that occupy our rights-of-way. In this case, with QLife, the city's proposed a telecommunications franchise agreement here for the council's consideration and approval here tonight. This would formalize QLife's continued use of the city right-of-way. QLife would be sharing the public right-of-way as it does with, as a non-exclusive franchise with other telecommunications providers and service generally throughout the city. um this proposed agreement has been approved administratively at least with the city manager and the executive director of q life um of course it would it looks like we need some um council level approval at this point the uh the attorneys myself and um counsel for q life have been working on this uh proposed agreement for for a few months now and and i believe we're all in a very good place um And so it is time for council to take a peek and weigh in. The agreements intended to provide very practical rules for our ongoing relationship with QLife and how it occupies the city rights of way. Generally QLife must be coordinating planned work with the city, getting its required permits from our public works department. and maintaining a usable mapping so that we have a good idea of where the locations are for their facilities located in our right-of-way for a variety of different public health, safety, and welfare reasons. uh any work uh that goes into our right-of-way that that impacts certain areas that they will you know q life like any other entity will need to restore those areas to the city standards um and we have all the usual telecom franchise provisions uh explained at length in the actual agreement um Looking at the staff reports, council alternatives, I'll just mention I do have an adjustment to the recommended motion language here. i mentioned we have negotiated this agreement over several months and just like this agreement is here before the city council tonight for authorization we also have q life's board who will weigh in and they have not considered this agreement yet it's not clear to me when exactly the q life board will be considering this i believe it'll be in the month of August. And so the language that's recommended on page 29 of 30 is nearly the exact motion that staff's recommending at this point. Before this item started on the agenda, I was just sort of handwriting something here. The recommended motion language is now to move to adopt the ordinance by title only as presented subject to non-material revisions to the franchise agreement approved as to form by the city attorney. And this will allow the city manager who this special ordinance would authorize to sign this franchise agreement would allow the city manager the flexibility depending on how the QLife board looks at this and maybe they have a couple tweaks that they'd like to see in here. And so just to sort of spare this coming back to city council again, if everything is otherwise materially consistent with the agreement as we presented it, that revised motion language should allow that flexibility. And so, go ahead. Mr. Mays.

I was just going to repeat what I think you just said. That's all. Okay.

Subject to non-material revisions to the TFA, the telecommunications franchise agreement approved as to form by the city attorney. And so talking about material revisions, the budget implications associated with this franchise as drafted and as agreed at least by the attorneys and by the city manager and the executive director is the common 7% of QLife's gross revenue earned from within the city limits from its telecom system. That is the franchise fee. that we agreed to at least internally. And so it's hard to navigate this from the council's perspective, I can imagine, considering the relatively straightforward, but also kind of complicated situation with QLife as an entity. And so ultimately the QLife board will need to weigh in on this. And because of that, having that flexibility in the language of the motion, I should have included it to begin with, candidly. it'll just make things a lot easier. And so a material revision would be changing 7% to something else, right? And that's not at all what I'm envisioning. But, you know, let's say there's a provision of this agreement that talks about we have to give 30 days notice and QLife says, oh, we kind of want 45 days. I mean, something like that, something that doesn't impact the bottom line. Those are the kinds of revisions that would be considered non-material.

Okay. Questions for the city attorney? I have one. What is the likelihood that the franchise fee would equal $500 per quarter? What's the likelihood that we'd get up that high? get up that high. Yeah, or low, I guess I should say.

It's exceedingly low.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's exceedingly low. That's a standard that the city council adopted as part of our annual fee schedule. It's a $500 minimum annual franchise fee. There are some entities that could have franchises that impact the city right-of-way, but otherwise they don't generate any revenue here. They might be doing long haul that otherwise do have impacts that the city should, you know, has the authority to to recover some amounts of money on. It's not really about the money at that point. It's about the cost of the administration of the franchise and the contract itself. In this case, Q Life's revenue is, I think, very much focused in the city limits and elsewhere throughout Wasco County. But I'm not going to say 0% to answer your question, but but I would imagine very close to 0%.

Thank you. Looking for a motion.

I have a quick question, if I may.

Sorry, Council Richardson.

Thank you. Actually, two questions. Hopefully briefly, is there a standard rate for telecom non-exclusive right-of-way use now in the city of the Dallas and is 7% that rate or is this special? Is 7% now a standard rate for telecom companies non-exclusive right-of-way use?

Yeah, it's based on the use. And so telecommunications in the public right-of-way, the standard in Oregon is up to 7%. That's the cap currently. But telecom companies... They're not subject to a 7%, but it's the services themselves that are being offered. And so you can imagine a company that offers cable versus telecom versus something else entirely. There's a difference in the amount of gross revenue percentage. There's a cap there. Under the Cable Act, which is preempted by the federal law, it's 5%. But for fiber, it's 7%. Things like that.

Interesting. Thank you. And you used the phrase or the proposed phrase, if we were to go with the staff recommendation approved as to form, is that just good English or is that a particular legal phrase?

Yeah, it's a little bit of both, but no, it's certainly a legal phrase. As an attorney, any attorney who reviews an agreement between their client and somebody else, typically we're not subject matter experts, right? I'm not a subject matter expert nearly on anything other than cities. And so I leave the business decisions to the city manager and to staff, depending on what the contract is about or the city council as the case may be. And so I recommend, I approve as to form based off of what the law talks about as far as having a meeting of the minds with the other party and the job of the attorney both attorneys on both sides, is to ensure that their client's wishes is what's reflected on the four corners of the document. So when I say approved as to form, there's a wrong way to change that 30 day, 45 day notice that I gave as an example such that it won't actually say that. But if I get direction from Matthew to say, hey, we need this to say 45 days, my job is to make sure that there's no other way this could be interpreted other than 45 days.

Thank you. Any other questions? Anybody like to make a motion to adopt this ordinance?

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to adopt special ordinance number 26-615 by title only, as presented, subject to non-material revisions to the TFA approved as to form by the city attorney.

Is there a second?

I second. McLaughlin will second.

Okay, it's been moved by Councilor Randall and seconded by Councilor McLaughlin to adopt the special ordinance. Is there anyone that would like to have the ordinance read in its entirety? Seeing no, one. The city clerk, please read the ordinance by title only.

Special ordinance number 26-615, a special ordinance granting a non-exclusive telecommunications franchise to Quality Life Intergovernmental Agency.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. The City Council of the City of the Dells will now meet in executive session in accordance with ORS 192.6602D to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations. Representatives of the news media shall not be allowed to attend the executive session. All members of the audience are asked to please leave the room. No final decision may be made in executive session. At the end of the executive session, we will return to open session and welcome the audience back into the room. We expect a return to open session in about 10 minutes. Okay, we're back in open session. It is five after eight. Would anybody like to make a motion?

I'm working on it. I can pass it around.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the successor collective bargaining agreement, which will be effective July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029 between the city and SEIU. I'll second it.

The move by Councilor Ring and seconded by Councilor Randall to approve the labor contract. Is there any more discussion? All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Any other business to come before the council? This meeting is adjourned.