Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2025-03-31 Special O s� CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING cn MINUTES —� March 31, 2025 EGO� 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Buck called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. on Monday, March 31, 2025. The meeting was held both virtually via video conferencing and in-person in the Council Chamber at City Hall 380 A Avenue. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Buck, Councilors Afghan, Mboup, Wendland Verdick, Corrigan, Rapf. Staff Present: Martha Bennett, City Manager; Ellen Osoinach, City Attorney; Kari Linder, City Recorder 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Buck led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON RESOLUTION 25-16 and RESOLUTION 25-18 Mayor Buck asked those present to listen to one another with respect and open ears. City Attorney Osoinach reviewed the public comment procedures and asked those providing comment to identify whether they were in favor, opposed to, or neutral on Resolution 25-16, the resolution that would authorize the City Attorney to file an appeal in the case of Kramer v. the City of Lake Oswego et al. Participants should also have provided their opinion on Resolution 25-18, which regarded the adoption of immediate park rules and coordination with multiple other agencies that had jurisdiction to manage public safety and water quality on the lake. The City had received many comments on the issue, and the Council had reviewed and would take into consideration any written comments received. • Katharyn Thompson, Financial Committee, Lake Corporation Board, provided details about the 690 Lake Corporation shareholder properties and 3,200 easement-eligible properties. The Lake Corporation had been a good steward of the lake for 80 years, with members financially responsible for the more than$2.5 million cost of managing and operating the lake each year. It was run by a voluntary Board of directors and committee members, and the Board employed dedicated staff to run the day-to-day operations. The lake did not return any profits to anyone or any business. Safety was the number one priority, and while the Lake Corporation maintained a liability insurance policy, it would not accept liability for the public City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11 March 31, 2025 entering the lake through City property. Water quality was the second priority of the Lake Corporation to ensure the lake was safe for swimming. The Lake Corporation funded all of the lake's needs, which benefited the entire community by drawing people to visit, shop, and dine. Mayor Buck informed Ms. Thompson her time had expired. • Patrick Gutierrez, resident, urged the Council not to appeal the court order, stating it was a waste of taxpayers' money and resources. He noted that the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Advisory (PARKS) Board had voted to recommend the Council vote against the appeal and allow citizen access to the lake. As a private citizen, he urged Councilors to take the advice of the Parks Board and the many citizens advocating for public access,which would offer valuable opportunities for recreation and access to a beautiful, natural resource in the heart of the city. • Randy Arthur, resident, added to previously submitted written testimony urging the City to act by utilizing the appellant settlement program to pause proceedings and, with the agreement from all parties, establish a 7-member task force to examine lake management, water care, and public access. If the parties wished to settle the 13-year litigation, they should do so based on the task force's proposals. Plaintiffs told the media they looked forward to working collaboratively with the City to reach a positive solution, and the Lake Oswego Corporation stated it remained willing to work with all interested parties. The City Council should lead the community forward on this matter. • Justin Harnish, President, Lake Corporation, reviewed comments Mayor Buck and Councilors Mboup Verdick, Afghan, Corrigan provided to the Lake Corporation during their campaigns that indicated support for the current arrangement and the Lake Corporation's management of the lake. It was important to note that 4,000 households, nearly 15,000 citizens or one-third of Lake Oswego's population, did have access to the lake. Mr. Prager was merely one citizen of Lake Oswego, and while there were a few residents who supported the plaintiff's views, those who did not far outnumber them. Attorney Osoinach asked the audience to keep their audible indications of support to a minimum. • Kimvi To, resident, LO for Love, read a statement for the Board of Directors of LO for Love into the record in opposition to Resolution 25-16 and recommending the City work with the appropriate public and private agencies to adopt rules to transition the lake for safe public access. • Anastasia Roderick, resident, said she was neutral on the appeal and discussed the history of the lake and lake access while acknowledging security concerns for the private homes lining the lake. She believed there was a way to open up the swim park. • Jeff Edelson, Board Member, Lake Oswego Corporation, spoke in favor of Resolution 25- 16 and stated that Councilors past and present had supported the Lake Oswego Corporation and its contributions to the lake and the community. There were 10 reasons a legal appeal was necessary. First, court applied the wrong legal standard by substituting the judgment of an advisory jury for the judgment and wisdom of the City Council. What role would be left for Councils if courts could second-guess such complex decisions? Second, the court imposed the wrong remedy. Rather than holding a hearing, the court set arbitrary deadlines that were impossible to meet and failed to impose limits to protect public safety. Allowing immediate City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 March 31, 2025 access without time for the City or Oregon Marine Board to create safety rules bordered on irresponsibility. Requiring the City to move boulders without time to obtain Division of Lands permits or comply with the Clean Water Act was reckless. Mayor Buck informed Mr. Edelson his time had expired. • Terri Bianco, resident, read into the record her previously submitted written comments in opposition to Resolution 25-16 stating no additional tax dollars should be spent denying or delaying lawful public access as determined by the Courts to Oswego Lake. • Kent Studebaker, former Lake Oswego Mayor spoke in favor of Resolution 25-16, citing safety, cost, and water quality. The Lake Corporation had done a wonderful job taking care of the lake and spent substantial amount of money, which would be needed to sustain that work. If the public were allowed in, they would have to pay for that. The Lake Patrol did not have the authority to do anything to someone violating their rules. If the lake remained open to the public, somebody would have to pay, and the City should be making its share of the cost because it was not cheap. He believed there was a good chance that home valuations would go down as a result of public access, and in that case, the City would have to come up with more money to make up the difference. • Teresa Spangler, resident, spoke in opposition to Resolution 25-16 and in favor of Resolution 25-18, saying modern technology could help manage lake access. She disagreed with opponents who claimed public access would be overwhelming and urged the Council to ignore vitriol, citing comments about the "wrong element" as embarrassing. Reasonable solutions could be found. • Howard Cumberland, resident, spoke in favor of Resolution 25-16, citing concerns regarding water quality and invasive species. For more than 80 years, the Lake Oswego Corporation had been charged with reducing the impacts from phosphorus and other nutrients that lead to harmful algae blooms and invested more than $450,000 per year in water quality maintenance. The shareholders and members of the Lake Oswego Corporation covered the costs entirely. Without the investment, the lake would routinely be dominated by cyanobacteria—harmful algae blooms—and would not be useable by humans or be a viable habitat for fish and avian wildlife. Moreover, the City already earmarked at least $8 million to divert or clean up pollutants from runoff entering Oswego Lake at over 60-City controlled access points as part of the City's Stormwater Management Program. If the lake was opened to the public, would the City assume all of the Lake Corporation's operations and employ the internal staff and external consultants and take over the fulltime management of lake? • Jymm Meier, resident, spoke in opposition to Resolution 25-16 and in favor of Resolution 25-18. Though he empathized with those who lived on the lake and had invested in their homes and easements, he was an environmental educator for 26 years and he had seen the powerful impact of providing access to nature for those without it. He believed the people of Lake Oswego could come together through a task force to move forward. In addition, while he appreciated Lake Corporation president's comments regarding Councilors' previous statements, people could change their minds when presented with reasonable arguments. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 March 31, 2025 • Jeremy Langeliers, resident, spoke in favor of Resolution 25-16, citing concerns regarding water safety. He read into the record a written statement from Nancy Klein Tongue, which spoke about water safety and urging the Council to prioritize safety on the lake. • Michele Morales said living organisms were open systems and that closed ecosystems did not survive. In the discussion about what might be lost by opening the lake, she urged consideration of what good might be gained—such as values, reputation, and economic vitality. She noted that downtown businesses needed tourists and described a healthy ecosystem as vibrant and full of life. She spoke of cultivating joy across races through connection with nature and said nature should be accessible, like breath. • James Maitland, resident, read into the record written comments in favor of Resolution 25- 16, citing concerns regarding property values, waterway safety, and the introduction of invasive species. The City had a responsibility to protect our community's interest and character of the Lake. The Lake Corporation should not stand alone in this appeal. The City needed a long-term solution that balanced public access with preserving Oswego Lake's unique characteristics and the safety of its residents. • Stephen Dow Beckham, resident, provided a history of Oswego Lake, stating that the State of Oregon had had repeatedly exercised its authority over the lake that it owned and there were more than 400 pages of public testimony about the public water administered by the state. In addition, Article III of the sewer easement purchased by Lake Oswego in 2008 read, "the easement area shall remain open for the public recreational and other non-proprietary uses unless restricted or closed to public entry by the State Land Board." To his knowledge, the State Land Board had never closed recreation in the public waters of Oswego Lake. It was time for the City government to cease spending public funds for the sluicing benefit of the members of the Lake Corporation. Mayor Buck informed Mr. Beckham his time had expired and confirmed Councilors would receive whatever papers Mr. Beckham shared. • Helen Leek, resident, spoke in favor of Resolution 25-16, stating that the City would be open to lawsuits if the lake was opened to the public and the regulations necessary to prevent lawsuits would be controversial to those who wanted the lake open to the public. • Bruce Poinsette, Respond to Racism, spoke in opposition to Resolution 25-16, stating that opening up access to the lake would not just be a symbolic gesture to making Lake Oswego more inclusive, it would tangibly increase tourism and outdoor recreation activities, as well as increase opportunities to residents of Lake Oswego to collaborate with community members from outside the city. • Tom Berridge, resident, spoke in opposition to Resolution 25-16, stating he had kayaked on more than 100 bodies of water in the United States but not on the lake closest to him because boating was prohibited for some but not for others,which he found patently unfair. He believed the City should make the rules and that the rules should apply to everyone equally, either allowing boating for all or for no one. • Liz Gage, resident, spoke in favor of Resolution 25-16, citing concerns about safety and water quality as well as financial impact to homeowners if there were safety and ecology City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 March 31, 2025 problems on the lake. The City collected a lot of taxes from properties surrounding the lake and she wondered what a decline in property value would do to the schools and the City. Mayor Buck confirmed that the City had received many written comments, which were posted to the City's website. 5. COUNCIL BUSINESS 5.1 Resolution 25-16, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Authorizing the City Attorney to Appeal the Clackamas County Circuit Court Judgment in Mark Kramer and Todd Prager v. City of Lake Oswego and the State of Oregon, By and Through the State Land Board and the Department of State Lands and Lake Oswego Corporation; and Resolution 25-18, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Recognizing State and Local Responsibilities Regarding Oswego Lake and Directing the City Manager to Take Actions to Ensure Public Access and Safety Management. Councilor Rapf moved to adopt Resolution 25-16. Councilor Wendland seconded the motion. Councilor Afghan commented that the issue was complicated, and he felt conflicted. He respected private property ownership rights but questioned whether those rights should be honored if built on illegal terms. After hearing many perspectives, he saw a little truth in each. Most shareholders worked hard to buy property, volunteered time, and donated to schools and the community. They were good people. Those who wanted access were also good people. • Thanks to previous visionaries, the City had constructed a downtown with a lake view, but that idea was now something that divided the community. The lake had been developed and maintained by private funding. When people claimed tax money paid for access, that was incorrect. The Lake Oswego Corporation spent $2.5 million annually, with $1 million going to safety and water quality. The City paid just under$9,000 in frontage fees. Only the water was public. The bottom, banks, and easements were private property. • The feedback received by the City showed that most people wanted to keep the beauty of the lake and were concerned about safety, crowding, environmental impact, water quality, and equity. The City owned a narrow lakefront property that had not been designed for lake access. If Council decided not to appeal, there would need to be a stringent plan for time, place, and manner. If not, everyone would lose. Councilor Rapf said he was a shareholder in the Lake Corporation and took great offense to opponents of the resolution weaponizing racial guilt and classism. The issue was about race or wealth and the false racial narratives signaled a lack of rational arguments. The plaintiffs had spent 12 years attempting to divide the community but had not spoken tonight despite requesting significant reimbursement for legal fees. His understanding was that they received free legal advice from Lewis and Clark Law School. This was an issue regarding private property and what was happening now was redistribution. • The City had spent about$70,000 per year over the past 12 years to defend the lake and the City, less than what it spent on electric landscaping equipment. While today's issue was the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 March 31, 2025 lake, future issues could affect others' property. He urged Councilors to stand by the commitments they made to the Lake Corporation during their campaigns. • He urged the Council to vote in favor or Resolution 25-16, stating the majority of residents wanted the City to appeal the decision and the Councilors should listen. The decision would impact the community for decades. Notifying for the appeal did not commit the City to pursue it but preserved its options. The City needed time to do its due diligence, involve the right stakeholders, and do it right but the judge had not given that time. Mayor Buck noted that many people wanted the City, the Lake Corporation, and other stakeholders to have more time to work through regulations. The Council had received a comprehensive legal analysis of the issue offline and asked Attorney Osoinach to share her opinion on the likelihood that a stay would be granted if the Council appealed. Attorney Osoinach clarified that Mayor Buck had asked for her opinion as City Attorney on the likelihood that the Court of Appeals would grant a stay—meaning a delay in the effectiveness of Judge Steele's judgment. She noted that reasonable legal minds could disagree but based on her two years as the City's attorney and familiarity with the litigation, her opinion was that the likelihood of obtaining a stay was very low. The appeal involved two primary issues: whether the advisory jury's and judge's factual determinations were supported by the record, and whether the remedy imposed was within the court's authority. Because the issue of access had been heavily litigated, appealing that determination presented substantial challenges. To grant a stay, the court would require a showing of both likelihood of success and substantial harm. While substantial harm might be shown, she believed the City would have extreme difficulty meeting the first part of the test. For those reasons, she believed a stay was unlikely. Mayor Buck confirmed the judge's current ruling was in effect and asked whether the City had ever enforced Resolution 12-12, the City's previous resolution barring access at Lower Millennium. City Manager Bennett said the City had not enforced the resolution because it would have required catching someone in the act of entering the lake or launching a boat from Lower Millennium. She believed the Resolution had still deterred people, as many checked in advance and wanted to follow the rules. Councilor Wendland commented that the issue of public access to the lake had been around a long time and was complex. It had gone through different courts and appeals. The most recent court order did not sit well with him for several reasons. First was the issue of home rule. The court order removed local control and restricted future park planning and development. It mandated spending that had not been budgeted and displaced other community priorities. Second was the part of the order dealing with property rights. He questioned how the state could own the water but not the land beneath or around it. Third was the lack of concern and respect for the City and the Lake Corporation. As defendants, they were not allowed to contribute input to the court. The judge had issued a decree but given the City only 120 to comply and a request for more time was denied. • He believed the City should appeal on principle, regardless of the City Attorney's opinion about whether it could win. The Judge referenced during trial that appeals were expected. At the very least, the City should file a notice of appeal to preserve the option. If it did not, that chance would be lost. As stewards of the public trust, he believed supporting Resolution 25-16 and appealing was the responsible action. If not, the Council should at least file a notice until these issues were resolved. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 March 31, 2025 Councilor Corrigan commented that there were the 25 to 30 percent who had worked hard for lake access, and the 65 to 70 percent of the community without access. She respected and appreciated the remarkable stewardship the Lake Oswego Corporation provided for decades. At the same time, she respected the two-thirds who asked the City not to spend their tax money to prevent access to the lake when it could be spent on things that benefit them. She acknowledged that home rule was a real concern and did not discount any of her colleagues' views. Everyone was concerned about safety and the environmental health of the lake. In that way, the community would sink or swim together based on how the lake was cared for. The City had a competent City Manager, and existing parks on the river had been successful for some time. Councilor Mboup noted that when asked about the issue during his campaign, he had responded that open access to the lake could cause a problem and still believed that. It was a small body of water. However, decisions were judged based on the information available at the time. He did not want the City to appeal because the City Attorney believed the City would lose, and others had told the City it was not worth pursuing. • Most seemed to believe lake access was possible, but safety needed to be addressed. Lake Oswego did not have jurisdiction on the water. The Marine Board, the State of Oregon, and the County did have jurisdiction over the water. Lake Oswego's Police Department had jurisdiction over crime. The City's responsibility was to protect residents who lived on the lake just as it protected those on any street. • The lake was a metaphor for unity and an asset; if it was lost, everyone would lose. Those who lived on the lake were citizens who deserved respect and had a right to be afraid of the decision. But the other 75 percent also had a right to go through the park. He urged respect for the court's ruling and cooperation to make it work for all. If not, there would be winners and losers, which would not be good for the community. Councilor Verdick thanked those who participated and the Lake Corporation for its work in cleaning the lake. She noted the recurring theme of safety and the need to protect the lake's environmental health. There were many questions that needed to be worked out, and while the City had more control over some issues than others, many believed it had more authority than it actually did.The City still needed to do everything possible to ensure safe lake access and support the Lake Corporation in working with the Marine Board and the State. • As her colleagues and the City Attorney had shared, obtaining a stay was unlikely, and the City was also unlikely to win on appeal. That would require more time and resources that could be used elsewhere. Many residents had purchased homes with the understanding that the lake was private, but the courts had decided the water was public. While she had her own opinion after four years of research and believed the State overreached in Phase I of the lawsuit, the City had not been part of that phase. Phase II was about park access. • She shared concerns about home rule but believed the City needed to be thoughtful about all constituents and how public funds were used. The focus should be on how the community could work together to ensure there was a safe place for public access, support safety on the lake, and encourage respect for the environment and for those who lived around the lake. She believed it was possible to get there. • In an ideal situation, there would have been more time, but the judge had ruled that access was now open. Most people who wanted to use the lake were responsible and wanted to follow the rules. They did not want to be reckless, get hurt, or hurt others. The City just needed to do everything it could to help people understand how to recreate safely. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 March 31, 2025 Attorney Osoinach responded to questions from Councilors as follows: • The City had a general judgment, and the next step was for the prevailing party to petition for attorney fees. Plaintiffs had done so, seeking fees dating back 12 years. All defendants, including the State of Oregon, the City of Lake Oswego, and the Lake Corporation, had requested and were granted more time to respond due to the volume of documentation. The City still had the ability to argue whether it should be responsible for attorney fees, and if so, how much. Once the trial court issued a supplemental judgment, the City would have 30 days to decide whether to appeal it. • If the City appealed the attorney fees or any other part of the judgment, the cost would depend on the scope and number of issues included. Outside counsel estimated an appeal would cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, more than $100,000. A more realistic estimate was between $150,000 and $200,000. The total would vary depending on how vigorously the City pursued each issue. • The City had requested more time to comply with the court's deadlines, submitting a detailed declaration explaining the anticipated timeline for work. Judge Steele declined the request, stating she believed she no longer had jurisdiction after the Lake Corporation filed its appeal. The City responded that she retained discretion to grant an extension, but she did not agree. • Judge Steele's position on jurisdiction made it uncertain whether she would take enforcement action if the City failed to meet the deadlines. It was unlikely she would act to enforce the judgment, even though she might technically have discretion. It appeared she preferred the Court of Appeals to resolve outstanding issues first. • The trial court was unlikely to enforce the judgment or hold the City in contempt if it failed to meet the 120-day deadline. No judge at the trial court level could independently monitor or compel compliance. If plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce, the response was uncertain, especially since plaintiffs had earlier argued the court lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension. That contradiction would complicate any enforcement attempt. • While the judgment was unlikely to be enforced,failure to appeal could be seen as acceptance of the ruling, which was one reason parties typically acted to implement a judgment. If the City did not appeal but the Lake Corporation did, the City's actions toward compliance could affect the Lake Corporation's appeal. Public perception was also a factor, as choosing not to appeal while taking no steps to comply could be seen as resistance. • The City was in the process of complying with the judgment. A progress report would not be sent at the 120-day mark, contrary to some press reports. At the time the statement was made to the press, the court had not yet informed the City that it believed it lacked jurisdiction. Mayor Buck noted it was important to bring attention to why the City was involved in the lawsuit. Many community members had asked which side the City was on, which was a natural question in a legal or political context. Some believed the City was aligned with the Lake Corporation, which had long held that the lake was private. Many residents and business owners had made significant decisions based on that understanding. At the same time, the plaintiffs questioned why they could not swim or paddle from a public park that abutted a lake, as citizens were accustomed to doing not just in Oregon, but in many places. • The City had defended the decisions made over decades to plan downtown parks in a specific way and the principle that communities had the right to decide how their parks were designed and used. Changing use without changing design could be dangerous. However, the facts on the ground were no longer the same. The community that designed Millennium Park, City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 March 31, 2025 Sundeleaf Plaza, and the Headlee Walkway had done so under the widely accepted belief that the lake was private. A community with new facts might make different choices. A decade ago, there was not the range of perspectives seen today. The legal process and the daylighting of past decisions had created new awareness. The lake was now legally recognized as public, and the City, as a public body, could not have a rule that fully prohibited access at Lower Millennium. The court found it was reasonable to restrict access at Sundeleaf Plaza and Headlee Walkway due to safety and practicality concerns. • The City's main concern had been safety at the entry point, which had also been raised in many public comments. The matter had required a long and complex legal process. A different path might have been possible had earlier collaboration occurred, but the issue ended up in court, as many disputes do. At this stage, the legal questions were largely resolved. The City owned a park that now abutted a public body of water, and a rule that prohibited access was no longer legal. Legal counsel advised that seeking a stay would likely be unproductive and that filing an intent to appeal would not serve the community or be a good use of public funds. • The lake was already being accessed, and it was imperative to put guidelines in place to support safety and respect for surrounding residents. The greater challenge now was bringing the community together. Those who purchased lakefront homes with the understanding of limited access had reason to feel that the terms had changed. Those living on the Bay were understandably concerned about future implications. Other lake residents wondered how law enforcement presence or event management might change. The court's decision marked a significant departure from past practice. • The issue could not be viewed solely as a legal matter. It had reputational implications and raised questions about the community's self-image. Many desired a town that welcomed all, which was difficult to reconcile with the perception of a private lake kept off-limits by the City's own actions. That perception, while not representative of the City's intent,was difficult to clarify in public discourse. The court's decision offered an opportunity to move forward, ensure safe and reasonable access, and connect the full community to the lake through collaboration between elected officials and residents. • With significant change came fear and uncertainty, but the community could move forward with mutual respect and shared stewardship. There was room for empathy with those experiencing great change and for embracing the opportunity the ruling presented for Lake Oswego's future and its commitment to inclusion. Councilor Rapf confirmed that the Resolution would authorize the City to appeal Phase I and asked whether, if the City did not appeal, paid attorney fees, and the Lake Corporation later prevailed in its appeal, the City would be reimbursed. Attorney Osoinach confirmed that if the City did not appeal the supplemental judgment imposing attorney fees, those fees would still be paid, even if the Lake Corporation later won its appeal and the decision became moot. The two appeals were separate, and there would be no reimbursement of fees already paid. She clarified that the decision to appeal the supplemental judgment was not currently before the Council. A roll call vote was held, and the motion failed, with Councilors Wendland and Rapf voting `aye', and Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan, Mboup, Verdick, and Corrigan, voting `no', (2-5). Council took a recess from 8:27 p.m. to 8:37 p.m. Resolution 25-18, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Recognizing State and Local Responsibilities Regarding Oswego Lake and City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 March 31, 2025 Directing the City Manager to Take Actions to Ensure Public Access and Safety Management. Mayor Buck reviewed Resolution 25-18, which would recognize state and local responsibilities regarding Oswego Lake and directing the City Manager to take actions to ensure public access and safety management. City Manager Bennett noted that Judge Steele had given the City permission to impose reasonable restrictions and agreed the number one concern raised was public safety. The City had responsibility for safety within its park, but once on the water, that responsibility shifted to other authorities. At the same time, the City had an interest in ensuring safety for all users, whether they launched from the City's park or elsewhere. The City planned to convene conversations to clarify roles and work collaboratively. In addition to developing regulations, the City would work with the Lake Corporation and the Marine Board on next neighbor practices. The City would also invite people to be good neighbors on the lake, recognizing the presence of private property along the shoreline. Councilor Rapf asked for confirmation that every important stakeholder would be involved in the discussions because this was not something the City could do on its own. City Manager Bennett agreed with Councilor Rapf and added that while earlier testimony and email feedback had suggested convening a giant community conversation, time was of the essence. Between now and April 15, the City would convene discussions with the Lake Corporation, and Oregon State Marine Board to ask what could be done together. She added that the City was interested in both a regulatory approach and a good neighbor approach, as people wanted to behave well on the lake and the City wanted to help them figure out how to do that. Mayor Buck added that the City was already in conversation with the Oregon State Marine Board and that the Clackamas County Sheriff had been out on the water at the end of the previous week, so the City and other agencies were already actively involved in addressing safety and regulatory issues. City Manager Bennett clarified that the City Council had passed Resolution 22-17 shortly after the Judge Lininger ruling, at a time when the parties were talking about trying to come together. When it became clear the matter would not be resolved and would proceed to the second half of the trial, the Council gave direction to suspend action on Resolution 22-17. City Manager Bennett confirmed that Section 1 of Resolution 25-18 called for access rules to be in place "as soon as practicable, but no later than April 15." Staff would report back to Council in September to review how the summer progressed. Councilor Wendland moved to adopt Resolution 25-18. Councilor Verdick seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Buck and Councilors Afghan, Mboup, Wendland, Verdick, Corrigan, and Rapf, voting `aye', (7-0). 6. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Buck adjourned the special City Council meeting at 8:43 p.m. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 March 31, 2025 Respectfully submitted, 44i01,.0) Kari Linder, City Recorder Approve. by the City Council on May 20, 2025. Joseph . Buck, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 March 31, 2025