Current Listing

Submitted By: bbq@nehalemtel.net – Click to email about this post

With less than a week to go we desperately need funds to keep the campaign to defeat Measure 29-161 going strong until the very last day. As of this posting less that 16% of the ballots are in. There is still time to reach voters and help them to understand how dangerous and costly this measure would be to the county.

Please donate anything that you can to A Just Right PAC at ajustright.org. Every dollar counts and goes directly to costs. We are registered with the state and you can see expenditures listed on Orestar.

Thank you!

Submitted By: rkinor@gmail.com – Click to email about this post

The Manzanita City Council homepage prominently announces its commitment in conducting City business to “inform and actively engage residents, second homeowners and businesses in identification of and solutions to community issues. The Council invites and encourages citizen involvement in the development of City programs and services.”

Having been encouraged by the Council to become informed and involved in the important issues of how the City develops its Budget, I carefully examined the FCS Indirect Cost allocation Study that the Council has relied upon to move $213,000 out of City Water Funds for City Hall staff services for the next Fiscal Year Budget now under discussion.

I noted a small footnote at the bottom of page 6 of the FCS study that stated “FTE (Full Time Equivalent) support for the Parks Department, Roads Fund and Water Operating Fund is provided by the Public Works Department and are based on detailed employee timesheet records for the 2021 calendar year.”

Apparently our Public Works employees do take the time to document how they spend their day working in their three different areas of responsibility resulting in a very accurate accounting of their time for Budgeting purposes. We are told that City Hall staff can’t be bothered to fill out a similar timesheet to record just the one activity of time they spend daily assisting the Public Works Director manage the water utility. Why use a simple and direct approach to gather the information you are interested in like other City employees have to do when you can hire a consultant for $30,000 to create a complex model to get you an answer more to your liking?

Wanting to make sure that I fully understood how the FCS Study came to its indirect cost conclusions, I made a public records request for a blank timesheet that our utility workers fill out to document how they spend their time in maintaining our streets, parks and water system. I was informed that this request would require one hour of a City Hall staffers time and a charge of $43.07.

Thinking that there must be some misunderstanding of my request, I clarified that I only wanted to see a copy of a blank timesheet that apparently is readily available and in regular use by Public Works employees. Sorry, 1 hour of staff time and $43.07 payment to get a copy of a blank timesheet.

Maybe the City should rewrite its invitation to the public by saying it encourages citizens to become informed and involved in these important issues, but if you need information other than what we want you to know, be prepared to open your checkbook.

Public Hearing on next year’s Budget is May 18th at 6 pm. Come ask your questions, there’s no charge. us02web.zoom.us/j/86345266710

Submitted By: gardencoachkaren@gmail.com – Click to email about this post

A letter was recently sent to Wheeler Residents. Anyone, whether you live in Wheeler or not can provide public input regarding this issue.

Dear Wheeler community member,

You have recently received a letter from the City giving the facts and timeline about the applications filed by Ken Ulbricht of Botts Marsh LLC for the Botts Marsh upland property over the last two years, and the city’s actions in the public processes. We copy the city’s update at the end of this newsletter for you, in case you wish to refer to it again.

The most immediate action is a new City Council hearing on the original Botts Marsh LLC application approved by the former City Council two years ago. After two lawsuits, that application, for a hotel and a fish processing/sales plant plus restaurant, is being heard by City Council again on remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals. The hearing will be at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, May 24th. We need people to attend the hearing and submit testimony! Because this is a new hearing, you must resend any testimony you sent on this first Ulbricht application (which had two conditional use requests, for the hotel and the fish sales/restaurant building) in September 2019 — just re-date and make any additions you wish. Whatever happens on the Botts Marsh upland parcel will greatly impact Wheeler’s future. Please submit comments by Monday, May 16th to have your comments included in the packet — and come speak at the hearing on the 24th at 7:00 PM at City Hall. You need not be a resident of Wheeler to participate in this process. You may comment now even if you had not previously.

Send Comments to Mary Johnson, Wheeler City Manager pro tem
Email: maryjohnson@ci.wheeler.or.us
Hard Copy: Wheeler City Council, PO Box 177, Wheeler, OR 97147

Here are a few additional facts you might not know that are very important to bring up City Council on May 24th or in written testimony beforehand.

1, This section of Wheeler’s bayshore, called Botts Marsh, was originally part of the bay and for the first part of the 1900’s supported a commercial fishing industry, water transportation of logs, and then (once the parcel was filled in) a shingle mill. Most or all of the parcel is now fill land and in most places is only 1-2 ft above the designated FEMA flood plain. An earlier attempt in 2007 to develop the site with condominiums was dropped because of serious geologic problems.

2. Because of the previous industrial use of the site, there are soil contamination problems on parts of the property. An environmental review investigation was completed for Tillamook County in 2017. Mr. Ulbricht has never addressed the potential contamination in his application materials (including this application having a remand hearing May 24th), even though geotechnical engineers stipulate that any construction would necessitate the removal of large quantities of possibly toxic soils. This is a serious public health and safety issue the city needs to address at the hearing.

3. Geotechnical Engineers have cautioned that there are greater than normal risks associated with any construction on fill lands such as these highly compressible and liquefiable soils, which are also within the tsunami inundation zone. Conditions have not changed, and these issues have not been addressed. Botts Marsh LLC has only provided a recycled geological hazard report from 2007, not a current report dealing with this proposed development.

4. A key issue in the debate over this project is the role of Wheeler’s Vision Plan. The Land Use Board of Appeals has upheld the Vision Plan as a mandatory decision criterion — and also made it clear that the development limit under it is limited to no more than ten units. This is a very powerful tool for Wheeler to be able to chart its own future according to its own vision. The Vision Plan definitely applies to this Ulbricht project, and we encourage you to mention it and its standards.

4. In a town as small as Wheeler, a project that could involve major construction on as much as 50% of the town’s environmentally sensitive waterfront is necessarily one which should involve the community and address all potential problems. This has not occurred at any time since Botts Marsh LLC began submitting applications to the city. At no time has Mr. Ulbricht submitted an application for cottages as he originally presented to the community shortly after he purchased the property

5. The Wheeler waterfront is not a backstreet industrial parcel – It is the most visible piece of beautiful bay coastline to everyone traveling on Highway 101. The accessibility and the historical qualities of the three-block town make it one of the most photographed sites on the Oregon coast. A proposal to have the City of Wheeler purchase this Botts Marsh upland property is still on the table, but Mr. Ulbricht has not thus far moved it forward, though grants and loans are available to the city. Past attempts to purchase the parcel have failed due to financial problems.

Submitted By: bbq@nehalemtel.net – Click to email about this post

Has anyone in bbq land received a telephone call from an alleged Fred Meyer person indicating you had one a store gift card that they wish to deliver to your door? If so let us know, as we’ve checked with Fredd Meyer mangers of both Tillamook and Warrenton stores and they have no knowledge of such a card or visitation protocol.
Thanks.
Chuck at bbqw@nehalemtel.net

Submitted By: bluefishout@earthlink.net – Click to email about this post

Imagine the scene: You’re at the Fair. It’s the first big event you’ve been to in over a year. Maybe you’re holding the hand of someone you care about. Maybe you got the elephant ear that you’d been craving. You’re happy and doing something normal feels good. Then someone shouts out “Hey, do you want to sign a petition to protect the Second Amendment?”
It’s an obvious yes for a lot of people. Maybe even me. But then I would ask what were they doing with the petition. I’m always wary of the ol’ bait and switch.
Good people take things at face value and sometimes not-so-good people take advantage of that.
I can believe that folks signed the petition to get Measure 29-161 on the ballot based on a false promise that it protects the Second Amendment. It doesn’t and there is every chance that signers weren’t given the opportunity to read the full ordinance before signing.
If they had they would see that it had no power to affect the Second Amendment and that the real question should’ve been “Hey, do you want to sign a petition that limits local law enforcement on basically all firearm regulations?”
That question is not as obvious of a yes. They wanted the signatures so they didn’t ask that way.
I know this to be true because every signer that I have checked with has told me that it happened as described above.
With transparency Measure 29-161 would’ve never made it on the ballot.
It’s up to voters to right this wrong.
Vote NO! on the false promises of Measure 29-161.