MY WORK & FAQs

I will never vote "yes" if I do not feel I can confidently justify my vote to any member of the public.

One of the number one complaints I hear from the public, is many people feel the Council always approves staff recommendations without considering the people that elected them. I enter every meeting with objectivity, and ready to hear the public and the information that will be presented on the record. I ask a lot of questions, because I believe YOU deserve to understand the details.

My approach is simple: when questions arise, I don’t avoid them. I document, organize, and make the information accessible. I believe my actions on the public record clearly demonstrate my commitment to adopted rules, lawful process, accountability to the people I serve and commitment to maintaining public confidence at all times.

NOTE: I have attached links or screenshot of the record because I believe it is important for those who do not regularly watch our meetings to understand these are the majority of the specific issues where my opponent and I differ. This list is not comprehensive and is actively a work in progress.

ON THE RECORD

I have not supported a general obligation bond measure being the only option considered. I have heard the public asking for detailed financials on how we got in this position today, and a call for evaluating our available assets including all city owned properties. I support this. I want to see the city do this work before asking for more tax payer dollars and raising the cost of housing in our community for the next 30 years. It was estimate at the second town hall that if/when the City Hall and Library were to be in a right-sized 30,000 sq ft building we might save close to $800,000/year in overhead. Times that by 30 years, with an increase year after year... what is the plan for those future savings?

MY TAKE: If we are going to be spending future generations public dollars (that is what debt is) we need to take the time to think about the future. I WANT to do the work to explore alternative funding options, including weighing tradeoffs - evaluating existing programs and policies, and considering difficult decisions.

What is our senior center going to look like in 15-20 years? The space and revenue we waive each year is not negligible and our senior center is growing and thriving and has filled that space.

Does our community want an expanded "library of things"? I believe a Community Sharing Center could be a worthwhile economic vitality project to consider - because it would make us a place where it doesn't cost so much to live. Tie that to a true Community Center , separate from the Recreation Center, with not just meeting rooms, but shared space for non-profits and maybe even a small business incubator!

This creative community deserves to weigh in on what we want our civic future to look like - because the spaces we create will define it. I have not yet been convinced that renovating the Lincoln Square to make ALL the space usable in a way the creates a positive economic impact is not best direction.

This year we looked at changes to our rate structure as opposed to just increasing rates. The first proposal would have cut the residential water allowance off 400cf in half, and begin adding usage charges after 200cf. I created my own spreadsheet based on information provided by staff to be able to understand the actual impacts of the proposed rate changes on different user types. It identified that the majority of increase in revenue landed on the median, average water users. I advocated strongly for a conservation informed policy that generated our need revenue from a smaller segments of water users. I made a motion for an alternative proposal that failed 3-3, that was immediately followed by the proposed motion in the packet to approve the new proposed rate structure, which also failed 3-3. I believe it is important the public understand this would have resulted in a 30% increase for rate payers in the 200-400cf usage tiers. I put in a LOT of hours to advocate for a proposal that places the highest burden on the users that were most likely to have more discretionary water usage and NOT our fixed income residents and working families.

Because Council was unable to agree, another work session was scheduled and staff brought back detailed numbers that answered many of the question I had brought forward from the public. That presentation can be viewed here.

The new rate structure we ultimately adopted preserves the 400cf allowance for residential, switched short term rentals from residential to commercial users, and created additional tiers that increase the cost of water as usage increases. It also has a significant increase in the peak season rates. What I like about the new structure is it will give future Councils more levers to adjust with future rate changes, as opposed to always raising rates across the board. I don't think it is perfect, but I also do not support taking the risk on not having any liquid cashflow in our water and sewer funds to address emergency repairs if and when they occur. If I am able to serve another term as a member of the Council, I will continue to advocate for and do the work of meaningful evaluation of the impacts of our decisions on all demographics of our stakeholders.

The final approval of the construction of the D River Welcome Center was presented to the Council on February 23, 2026 in the amount of the $6,745,000 with a $410,000 contingency for a total of $7,155,000.

If you click the sentence above you will be taken to the HTML meeting record, where you can scroll down and click on agenda item L.2. and the video will jump to that portion of the meeting. I asked if there was a rough breakdown of how much was budgeted for the demolition, waste disposal, beach access improvements, sidewalk improvements, signage, the parking lot, the plaza, and the new building respectively. Staff said there was a large spreadsheet showing the full breakdown of what the contractors had submitted that was organized by materials that could be made available. I asked about the size of the building and the answer was 1700 sqft. Council President Hoagland stated this was the single largest expenditure he had ever been asked approve in his time on council and that we were being asked to make the decision with a two page staff report.

I made the motion for an updated public presentation and itemized financials - passed 5-2.

It was immediately followed by a motion to approve the project - passed 5-2.

Again, I will never vote to approve project where the questions I have heard from the public have not been answered.

At our next meeting, staff returned with the updated presentation and itemized financials which you can view here.

I have regularly advocated for town halls on "hot topics". I believe we should be facilitating community discussions until we find common ground. I do not feel town halls fall under ceremonial events. I would love for all members of Council to be able to equally participate at the level they are comfortable with. Maybe not every member would choose to participate in the same way, but I believe we should all have equal opportunities, including the Mayor.

We hosted our first town hall in a long time after I made the Motion to Direct Staff to Schedule and Promote a Town Hall Style Event to Facilitate Open Discussion Including Back & Forth Dialogue No Later Than February 28, 2025, to be Followed by a Council Work Session Regarding City Policy about Outside Agencies, Specifically, Non-Profit Grants.

4th of July Discussions

After the drone show, when the Council was asked to renew the contract, I made the motion to forsake the contract.

I advocated for a town hall around 4th of July Celebrations and prepared ideas to share with the whole community of citywide, daytime events. I supported bring back a City sponsored firework show. In the future I would support that show being held in Taft, as had been our tradition, for as long as the state will issue the needed permits. I believe we should apply early and have a contingency plan in place, and feel the lake is a great alternative if needed.

I was not on the Council when Lincoln City banned the sale and use of fireworks. I grew up celebrating the 4th at the fire station where families of volunteers and the few paid staff gathered and safely enjoyed the fireworks that are legal in Oregon. It was an opportunity for kids like me to learn responsibility and fire safety in a controlled and safe environment. I would support community events designed around this idea. I believe the general population finds it to be insulting that our City says they cannot light a sparkler on their own property. I take fire safety incredibly seriously, and I agree.

When the Drone Show contract came before the Council, I voted "no" on the motion to approve a 3 year contract, and voted "no" on approving even a 1 year contract. I did not hear broad community support for the change.

July 28, 2025 Motion to Direct Staff to Schedule a Work Session to Evaluate Potential Changes to Our Code Enforcement Model, Including but not Limited to: Complaint Based Versus Proactive Enforcement Strategies, Staffing Levels, and Scheduling Alignment with Community Needs, Resource Allocation and Workload Capacity and Strategies for Addressing Chronic or Repeat Violations; Aiming to Increase Equity in Enforcement, Ensure Accountability and Improve Neighborhood Health, Safety and Livability.

Ayes (5): Todd Barker - Councilor Ward 1, Riley Hoagland - Councilor Ward 2, Marci Baker - Councilor Ward 2, Rick Mark - Councilor Ward 3, and Kevin Hohnbaum - Councilor Ward 3

Nays (1): Susan Wahlke - Mayor

Absent (1): Mitch Parsons - Councilor Ward 1

Passed by Roll Call Vote (5 to 1)

Code enforcement is one of the top concerns raised to me by residents. Council has not received an update on this direction since this motion passed last summer.

I want to better understand how we are approaching code enforcement today, and consider if we want to make a change to accomplish a more desired outcome. I believe we could design a model that includes assistance programs for property owners or businesses that want to come into compliance, and actually hold repeat offenders and those not willing to make an effort to move towards compliance accountable in a way that generates revenue. That revenue in turn could be allocated to fund the assis

My first year on budget committee I made a motion that proposed two changes to the proposed budget that passed. The first was a motion to create a line item with $6000 for public engagement in planning. The second was to increase the Library budget for diversity and belonging materials by $10,000. My initial motions contemplated balancing these changes elsewhere in the budget, and I was surprised to hear that these amounts were small enough to simply be taken out of contingency.

My second year on budget committee I was elected Chair, so if you are curious to see how I run a meeting you can watch any City budget committee meetings from 2025 or 2026. I made two motions in 2025 targeted at policy and procedures. The first was a motion for a review of the purpose, structure and oversight of our Workforce Housing Fund. This motion failed 7 YES 3 NO. How? Because the budget committee requires a super majority vote. This means, with a 14 member body any motion takes 8 affirmative votes to pass regardless of how many people are present at the meeting. It is incredibly difficult to have any motions pass the budget committee when there are multiple members absent from the meeting. The second proactive motion I made was to have the budget committee meet outside of our regular budget season to discuss our process and how the proposed budget is presented. This failed 5-5.

October 27, 2025 I was the lone "no" vote on raising or Parks System Development Charge Fees - because I can not in good faith raise the cost of housing.

October 13, 2025 I voted "no" on approving the non-profit grant awards - because I did not support awarding taxpayer dollars to organizations that did not meet the application requirements, and because there were more dollars allocated to large, high revenue organizations while multiple of our small local youth organizations that did complete the requirements of the application did not have their full requests met.

June 9, 2025 I voted "no" on raising the water and sewer rates and adopting the FY25/26 Budget - because the specific questions I had asked during budget season were not answered in time.

December 09, 2024 I voted "no" on adopting the City fee schedule due to confusion on the System Development Charge numbers, a confusing public hearing, and for the sake of clarity for the public and respect for staff and Council time to pass a fee schedule correctly one time. Where there are errors in what has been noticed to the public, I believe in taking the time to ensure there is clarity for both the Council and the Public on what we are voting on.

January 13, 2025

After one year of serving on the Council I shared best practice training information from the League of Oregon Cities conference, regarding strong advice that each new Council should be reviewing their council rules to ensure they work for the present body.

Discussion of Council Rules Motion: Motion to Add a Discussion of Council Rules to the January 27th Meeting Agenda

Moved by: Marci Baker - Councilor Ward 2

Seconded by: Todd Barker - Councilor Ward 1

Ayes (2): Todd Barker - Councilor Ward 1, and Marci Baker - Councilor Ward 2

Nays (5): Susan Wahlke - Mayor, Mitch Parsons - Councilor Ward 1, Riley Hoagland - Councilor Ward 2, Kevin Hohnbaum - Councilor Ward 3, and Rick Mark - Councilor Ward 3

Motion: Failed Roll Call Vote (2 to 5)

August 21, 2025 1:59pm - click to see notice I received

I received notice the topic of the 8/25 (already noticed) Executive session had been changed because the Council had taken action to schedule an executive session under LCMC 2.04.170 B and ORS 192.660(2)(b) to consider the matter of allegations that I violated Lincoln City Charter Section 4.8 and LCMC 2.04.180 (Council Rules) 5.6, 6.1, 6.3 B, C and D.

I exercised my right to an open hearing, as I knew the Council, as the governing body, had NOT taken this action (confirmed during the scheduling discussion during the Regular 6pm Council meeting on 8/25, timestamp 1:53:25) and believed there was immense public interest in this issue, considering I am an elected official. If I ever do something wrong, I want to be held accountable where the people can see and state law protects my right to ensure it does.

9/29 Special Meeting - click to open video Most people never saw the Council deliberations over how to handle the anonymous complaints and alleged rules violations against me because they were never noticed on a meeting agenda, and most of it happened at the end of this special meeting. I made several attempts to ensure my own due process.

1:14:45 Scheduling discussion for Baker meeting

I ask - “Does staff feel the motion to explore my actions provides sufficient specificity to draft a lawful notice, and give clear authority to act under 2.04.170B? If so, what definition of "explore" and what details would staff be relying on?” I explained - Council rejected “investigate” and passed “explore.” Explore isn’t a defined purpose under LCMC 2.04.170(B), and staff cannot lawfully draft a notice without specificity.

1:26:45 Memo requested “about procedure” confidential by email

1:26:55 - My motions around due process:

Motion for Specificity “I move that Council clarify the scope of its prior motion ‘pursuant to LCMC 2.04.170(B)’ by identifying the specific council rule, ordinance, charter, or state law that is alleged to have been violated, by what specific actions, and by defining what ‘explore’ is intended to mean in this context. This clarification is necessary to ensure staff can prepare a lawful notice under 2.04.170(B), as the code authorizes only investigations of specific violations, not undefined explorations.”

Failed 3-3 Mayor states we will move forward with a confidential memo from the city attorney.

Yes: Baker, Barker, Hoagland

No: Hohnbaum, Mark, Wahlke

Motion on Conflict of Interest “I move that, due to an apparent conflict of interest, the City Attorney not be assigned to draft or manage any process related to the Council’s motion concerning Councilor Baker. Instead, an independent party (not referenced or involved in any of the exploration) shall prepare the materials.” Failed 4-2

Yes: Hoagland, Baker

No: Hohnbaum, Mark, Wahlke, Barker

Motion on Presiding Authority “I move that, given the presiding officer’s direct involvement in the matters at issue, the Mayor shall not preside over any executive session held under LCMC 2.04.170(B) concerning the motion referencing Councilor Baker and that Council select an alternate presiding officer.” Passed 4-2

Yes: Mark, Baker, Barker, Hoagland

No: Hohnbaum, Wahlke

Motion for Complete Record Review “I move that the Council’s direction to ‘explore actions’ explicitly include review of all communications, complaints, and risk assessments regarding Councilor Baker dated August 13 forward, including timestamps and participants, to ensure context and completeness.” Failed 3-3

Yes: Baker, Barker, Hohnbaum

No: Mark, Wahlke, Hoagland

October 27, 2025

I made a motion to direct the city manager to ensure all written city policies that apply to Elected officials and/or volunteers, including but not limited to the City’s EEO Policy, be provided to all covered parties by October 31st, 2025. Failed 4-3

Yes: Peterson, Baker, Hoagland

No: Mark, Wahlke, Barker, Hohnbaum

The reason I made this motion is because state law requires these polices be distributed to all volunteers and elected officials as well as staff. These are the policies that define Lincoln City's complaint channels, equal opportunity employment, and anti-workplace harassment policies.

I made a motion to direct staff to bring back proposed amendments to sections 9.2, 9.3 of the council rules, and 2.04.110 to ensure our meeting rules uphold constitutional rights, clarify what constitutes disruption, require warnings before removal unless there’s a physical threat, or warranted arrest and provide an appeal process for anyone removed. Passed 5-2

Yes: Hoagland, Hohnbaum, Peterson, Baker, Barker

No: Mark, Wahlke

I made this motion because I felt our current code is problematic, as it states the Mayor can order an arrest and fails to define what constitutes a disruption. This was recently reviewed and discussed in our August 18, 2026 work session and the Council will be considering a code update to these sections at an upcoming meeting.

August, 18 2026 Council Work Session - click to listen to audio

At this work session we finally received legal review of Council Rules 9.2 & 9.3 which I made a motion to review to ensure our rules were not violating the publics rights to attend our meetings (10/27/25). Code changes will be forthcoming.

I ask for clarification regarding council rules 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 A, B & C which I had been alleged to have violated one year ago. It is stated by the city manager that it is his understanding that while I was a candidate for the position of city manager pro tem, I had a conflict and it would have been correct to withhold access to information related to the hiring process, had I requested any. Once I had been eliminated as an applicant, I was acting in my capacity as a city councilor and it was in error to refuse me access to any information requests.

Lastly, I brought forward multiple questions and concerns with Chapter 2.06 Appointive Bodies. We have an adopted council goal that states "Strengthen the Council’s Relationship with the Public & Advisory Bodies." There is identical language in this chapter to language that was noticed to be reviewed in 2.04 City Council. I do not understand the reasons for the resistance I felt to this discussion, or why two on my fellow council members left the work session early, but I believe in making the most of the times that we meet to actually do the work (work session, right?) and always show up prepared.

The public record shows how I navigate complexity under pressure.

Last year I gained invaluable experience while navigating a prolonged challenging period the Lincoln City Council faced last year, following the resignation of our City Manager. Throughout this period, my decisions did not change based on pressure, politics, or convenience. I consistently asked for clarity, due process, and adherence to the rules even when doing so was uncomfortable, unpopular, or unsupported. I believe, when handled with the best interest of everyone in mind, conflict and challenges make us more resilient, and ultimately more connected.

Not all of these events were clearly surfaced through formal meeting structures or public notice, so I took the time to organize them in one place. Rather than offering a narrative, I am providing direct access to the public record, including timestamps and meeting references, so you can see exactly what occurred on the record and come to your own conclusions.

7/14 Regular Meeting - click to open video 4:51:25 After Executive Session the Council voted to terminate the City Manager Pro Tem’s contract and the mayor immediately adjourned the meeting.

7/21 Special Meeting - click to open video This is the meeting where the Council passed Resolution 2025-16 and I recused myself from the decision. The Council had not had a discussion on how to fill this vacancy as we had not met since the 7/14 meeting was adjourned. I had submitted a "statement of willingness" to be considered by the Council to serve for any temporary period of time to fill the vacancy, and recused myself stating a potential conflict at the beginning of the discussion. I self-reported an ethics complaint to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission to gain clarity around whether I had made a mistake in not declaring the nature on my conflict. Ultimately I learned I never had a conflict at this meeting because the materials I submitted to HR were never presented to the Council. This matter was dismissed after the preliminary investigation stage.

7/28 Regular Meeting - click to open video My Councilor Comments 2:02:45-2:17:00 Resolution 2025-16 clarifying questions: I asked who decided to solely solicit existing department heads for their availability and the answer was “Legal & HR.” Both were listed as considerations for the appointment via Resolution 2025-16. I asked multiple questions to bring clarity to the administrative delegation that Council had adopted, as I was not part of the discussion in adopting the resolution.

8/11 Regular Meeting - click to open video

My Councilor Comments

1:56:45 Engage LC / Ethics F&B Question

2:01:15 Existing Council Direction / Tracking system

2:06:30 Library Diversity & Belonging Collection

2:08:15 17th St Restroom progress

2:09:35 Overdue Council Employee Performance Reviews

2:10:45-2:13:45 Ethics Statement Re 7/21/25 Link to details under 7/21/25 Special Meeting above.

8/21/25 1:59pm - click to see notice I received

8/25 Special Meeting 5:00 pm - click to open video

Note:

When the authority is explained the relevant city code is skipped, this is LCMC 2.04.170, as is stated on the meeting notice.
I submitted procedural questions related to LCMC 2.04.170 prior to this meeting and they were not answered due to the interpretation that it “had the makings of a serial meeting”... later addressed on 9/8 2:56:40. Those questions remain unanswered.
The question is posed to the Council “whether or not they want to hold the meeting in the first place”, yet I had already received notice (including a certified letter) claiming the Council scheduled the meeting.
It appears at the beginning, prior to the meeting being called to order, Councilors are reading out of a prepared red binder, which I held up and stated I would not be looking at.
The legal options outlined to the Council of how to proceed were to "Hold the meeting, continue the meeting, or schedule the meeting for a future date."
It was publicly suggested in the 10/20 Work Session below that I had invited the public to disrupt the meeting. I want to be clear, this was noticed as a public meeting because I exercised my right to an open hearing. I did not ask anyone, even my family to come. I only let a few people close to me know I was the subject of the noticed hearing.

8/25 Regular Meeting 6pm - click to open video

06:30-19:28 Public Comment about the 5pm Special meeting being abruptly adjourned.

1:53:25-1:55:10 Confirmation the Council did not give direction to hold a hearing for potential violation of council rules (LCMC 2.04.170)

2:02:15-2:06:51 Pro Tem Hiring process - Application Scoring tools were used and are not confidential from the Council

2:17:10-2:21:40 My last Two Weeks Summery of my Experience as an Elected Official.

2:24:31-2:24:50 Though the councilor's comments make it sound personal, I want to be clear, for me it was always about following LCMC 2.04.170 and properly addressing anonymous complaints.

2:28:17 Reading Charter Section 4.8, which I had just been accused of violating, and had received no due process, appears to be an insinuation of guilt.

My understanding is per Robert’s Rules I had the right to respond but was instead gaveled over.

What I explained after the mics were cut was that my question regarding the application scoring tools was directly related to the City Manager Pro Tem hiring process, which falls under the Council’s authority, not the city manager’s office. I also mentioned Council Rule 6.2b and asked about equal accountability for everyone following all the rules.

9/08 Regular Meeting - click to open video

2:03:30 Reading of Marie McFarland’s Questions

2:12:00 Actions if any - First Council Motion related to LCMC 2.04.170b

2:14:45 I called a Point Order (ignored) because I had the floor during discussion of a motion. I challenged the ruling of the chair (also ignored) to bring attention to the rules.

2:18:40-2:20:30 Discussion of the authority Stated that only the governing body has jurisdiction to discipline elected officials and that it can not come from Council employees or administration.

2:20:30-2:42:55 Council Mark’s motion - He changed “investigate” to “explore”

2:46:55 My councilor comments

New public comment script
4th of July Decision
Barriers to affordable housing- planning commission recommendations
Admin website statistics? Viewership #?
Library Update thanks!
RSWAC update
LCHAB update
Engage LC meeting update

2:53:00 Prepared statement reading for OGEC

2:54:45 Making of a serial meetings - My unanswered procedural questions

2:55:50 I welcome an outside unbiased investigation of all parties beginning July 14th

9/22 Regular Meeting - click to open video

2:45:45 Scheduling the meeting regarding Councilor Baker

2:48:40 Process discussion, due process concern, unanswered questions - ignored. Discussion postponed to 9/29 Special Meeting

3:14:50 Councilor Comments

Emailed procedural question follow up - making of Serial meeting question
Application scoring tools? 2.04.180 6.2 B
3:21:25 statement that four outside attorneys consulted on my public records requests
3:23:20 statement that the council decided in executive session not to receive the scoring tools (not allowed)
3:23:40 My explanation of why the scoring tool was relevant to the decision made
3:26:20 Roberts rules of order questions regarding chair, proper discussions, and point of order being ignored - feeling pressured to censor myself, rushed discussions
3:28:35 Resolution 2025-16 Clarity around city manager pro tem back & fourth tracking
8/25 approved minutes Mayors refusal to sign
“Business Meeting” decorum
3:32:15 Call to rebuild public trust Statement (clip)

9/29 Special Meeting - click to open video

1:14:45 Scheduling discussion for Baker meeting

1:26:45 Memo requested “about procedure” confidential by email

1:26:55 - My motions around due process:

Motion for Specificity “I move that Council clarify the scope of its prior motion ‘pursuant to LCMC 2.04.170(B)’ by identifying the specific council rule, ordinance, charter, or state law that is alleged to have been violated, by what specific actions, and by defining what ‘explore’ is intended to mean in this context. This clarification is necessary to ensure staff can prepare a lawful notice under 2.04.170(B), as the code authorizes only investigations of specific violations, not undefined explorations.”

Failed 3-3 Mayor states we will move forward with a confidential memo from the city attorney.

Yes: Baker, Barker, Hoagland

No: Hohnbaum, Mark, Wahlke

Motion on Conflict of Interest “I move that, due to an apparent conflict of interest, the City Attorney not be assigned to draft or manage any process related to the Council’s motion concerning Councilor Baker. Instead, an independent party (not referenced or involved in any of the exploration) shall prepare the materials.”

Failed 4-2

Yes: Hoagland, Baker

No: Hohnbaum, Mark, Wahlke, Barker

Motion on Presiding Authority “I move that, given the presiding officer’s direct involvement in the matters at issue, the Mayor shall not preside over any executive session held under LCMC 2.04.170(B) concerning the motion referencing Councilor Baker and that Council select an alternate presiding officer.”

Passed 4-2

Yes: Mark, Baker, Barker, Hoagland

No: Hohnbaum, Wahlke

Motion for Complete Record Review “I move that the Council’s direction to ‘explore actions’ explicitly include review of all communications, complaints, and risk assessments regarding Councilor Baker dated August 13 forward, including timestamps and participants, to ensure context and completeness.”

Failed 3-3

Yes: Baker, Barker, Hohnbaum

No: Mark, Wahlke, Hoagland

10/20 Work Session - click to open audio only record (standard for work sessions)

03:00- 1:50:00 Headphones recommended. I know it's long, but this is where the details are regarding discussion of the anonymous complaints against me.

Unfortunately most folks struggle to tell who is who. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. (541)554-5425

The memo provided that is referenced throughout is a public record, and I have my highlighted copy if anyone wants to meet up to see what I came prepared with for this narrowly defined examination of my actions.

10/27 Regular Meeting - click to open video

There were a lot of motions made during the "Actions if any based on work session, executive session, or public comment" section of the meeting. My motions, and the motion made to reprimand me, that failed to mention LCMC 2.04.170 Violation of Council Rules are in bold. I voted no on that motion because I had not been afforded due process as I understand to be required by LCMC 2.04.170.

1:50:10 Actions if any…

1:50:50 Baker:

Asked for clarification on application of public records law to public comment, particularly questions submitted in writing.

1:52:14 Hoagland:

I make a motion to direct staff to give us clarity in regards to public comment and the application of public records law, in reference to questions submitted in electronic and written form. Passed 6-1

Yes: Hoagland, Hohnbaum, Peterson, Baker, Barker, Wahlke

No: Mark

Immediately Answered: The submitted question must request a record to automatically be considered a public records request. 1:56:39 Unanimous consent to have staff write a “1-pager” explanation of the answer provided and discuss with IT having that information provided on the website adjacent to information regarding “public comment”.

1:58:00 Baker:

I move that we direct staff to bring back proposed amendments to sections 9.2, 9.3 of the council rules, and 2.04.110 to ensure our meeting rules uphold constitutional rights, clarify what constitutes disruption, require warnings before removal unless there’s a physical threat, or warranted arrest and provide an appeal process for anyone removed.

Yes: Hoagland, Hohnbaum, Peterson, Baker, Barker

No: Mark, Wahlke

Passed 5-2

2:05:30 Baker:

I move the Council’s next scheduled work session shall include an agenda item prioritizing our existing potential work session topics; including but not limited to the list consolidated by Councilor Baker presented at our October 27th regular meeting.

Yes: Hoagland, Hohnbaum, Peterson, Baker, Barker, Mark, Wahlke

Passed 7-0

2:15:20 Hohnbaum:

I move to approve designating $11,500 of the budgeted non-profit grants be awarded to North Lincoln County Historical Society, who turned in a

Yes: Hoagland, Hohnbaum, Peterson, Barker, Mark, Wahlke

No: Baker

Passed 6-1

2:18:35 Mark:

I’d like to make a motion regarding Councilor Baker’s emails and interactions with staff in August (read prepared statement - submitted to recorder) On that basis…

2:20:40

I move that Councilor Baker be reprimanded by Council for violating Charter section 4.8 titled "Interference in Administration” which reads,

A member of the council shall not coerce or attempt to coerce the manager or any other city employee in carrying out the duties of the office…

also for violating LCMC 2.04.180 Council rules paragraph 6.1 which reads,

…Council requests for information shall be to the city manager except for minor requests that can be quickly handled by staff…

and also for violating paragraph 6.3(c) which says Councilors should

Limit individual contacts with city officers and employees so as not to influence staff decisions or recommendations, interfere with staff work performance, undermine the authority of supervisors…

Discussion: 2:23:15 - 2:42:16

Yes: Hohnbaum, Mark, Wahlke

No: Baker, Barker, Hoagland

Excused / Abstained: Peterson

Failed 3-3

2:45:00 Baker:

I move to direct the city manager to ensure all written city policies that apply to Elected officials and/or volunteers, including but not limited to the City’s EEO Policy, be provided to all covered parties by October 31st, 2025.

Yes: Peterson, Baker, Hoagland

No: Mark, Wahlke, Barker, Hohnbaum

Failed 4-3

2:47:00 Baker:

I move the council schedule an executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(b)

to consider the dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against the city attorney.

Yes: Peterson, Baker, Hoagland, Hohnbaum

No: Mark, Wahlke, Barker

Passed 4-3

2:48:20 Hoagland

Question regarding legality of ballot vote to appoint Councilor Peterson.

Answer: It was legal.

3:09:30 Hoagland

Motion to direct staff to investigate ways the city can fill in gaps in federal funding deficiencies in regards to food, housing, and utilities for our local residents.

Yes: Peterson, Baker, Barker, Hoagland, Hohnbaum

No: Mark, Wahlke

Passed 5-2

The topic regarding complaints against me has not been discussed by the council since this meeting.

This was the first meeting the new City Manager Pro Tem was present.

The city attorney was placed on paid administrative leave as of 10/28/25 and last day of was July 31. 2026.

The City Council is currently in the process of hiring a new city attorney.

8/18/2026 Council Work Session - click to listen to audio

1:28:45 - 1:31:08 I ask for clarification regarding council rules 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 A, B & C which I had been alleged to have violated one year ago. It is stated by the city manager that it is his understanding that while I was a candidate for the position of city manager pro tem, I had a conflict and it would have been correct to withhold access to information related to the hiring process, had I requested any. Once I had been eliminated as an applicant, I was acting in my capacity as a city councilor and it was in error to refuse me access to any information requests.

FAQs

Neither. I’m not affiliated with a political party, and that’s intentional. I’m not running to represent a political party. I’m running to serve all the stakeholders of Lincoln City services.

I believe local government works best when we see people first, not political affiliations. I’ve known people in this community for decades without knowing how they vote, and I’ve never needed to know. When someone comes to me with concerns about water rates, housing, parks, or city finances, their political affiliation has no bearing on whether their voice deserves to be heard.

I believe our elected officials should be focused on doing the work of local government, not allowing national partisan divisions to distract from the business of our city. Good leadership requires preparation, accountability, thoughtful oversight, and a willingness to work with people who see things differently.

I encourage voters to look beyond party labels and consider how candidates will actually serve them. Will they be accessible? Will they listen? Will they do the work?

When you contact my campaign, you’re contacting me. I manage my own website, answer my own messages, and make myself available to the people I hope to represent. That’s how I believe public service should work.

The first step is simple: listen to the people doing the work. We are a community full of small and micro businesses that are the lifeblood of our economy. I will proactively connect with local business owners, to understand what barriers they are actually facing. I want to hear directly where the process breaks down, what causes delays, and what challenges entrepreneurs encounter after deciding to invest here.

Having opened three businesses myself, I understand how complex the process can be. Business owners often must navigate zoning, comprehensive plan designations, building code, fire code, wastewater requirements, health licensing, insurance, workers’ compensation, lease negotiations, along with their own business plans and financing—often with little professional, much less centralized, guidance.

Examples of specific steps I would support:

Improving access to clear startup guidance and educational resources
Supporting business associations, mentorship and practical business education
Creating better connections between local investors and local entrepreneurs
Building opportunities for networking, pitch events, and collaborative support
Enhancing partnerships and programs that ensure tourism spending draws visitors not just to our communities, but into our local business

If we want small businesses to thrive, we must treat their success as a City priority. I would love to see our Council adopt an ambitious goal of being the best city in Oregon to operate a small business, and draw people who want to build a life here.

Economic growth should build upon the strengths, and our local character and natural resources are among some of our greatest assets.

I support policies and programs that prioritize:

Proactively address drinking water protection in our watersheds so we can continue to grow
Balancing conservation with recreation so we can responsibly enjoy our natural environments
Heritage preservation and Main Street programs that help revitalize and celebrate our historic districts
Encourage the environmental tourism market, along with a culture of buying and supporting local

As Mayor, I would advocate for convening organizations already doing the work around economic development, heritage preservation, environmental stewardship, community planning and emergency preparedness to create a cohesive strategy that positions future generations to thrive.

The same way I am engaging now: by staying present, accessible, and in conversation with the community. My personal phone number has been shared publicly and openly since the Echo Mountain Fire in 2020.

I do not screen my calls and get back to anyone I miss as soon as possible. My goal is to earn trust continuously through visibility, responsiveness, and real dialogue.

You deserve a Mayor that not only shows up to ribbon cuttings and ceremonial events - but shows up at your coffee table to talk to you about the one thing that matters to you. I commit to continuing to prioritize being available and responsive to the public between meetings.

I strongly support attracting industries that strengthen the businesses already here.

Rather than importing disconnected industries that require education we don't offer here, and thus leave our existing workforce behind, we should strengthen the ecosystem around sectors where we already have demand, competitive advantage, and that create new attainable opportunities our workforce can grow into.

One example of a major opportunity I see is in building infrastructure around our existing food and hospitality economy. Tourism data consistently shows food and beverage is one of Lincoln City’s strongest sectors. We could build on that by supporting complementary industries such as:

Agriculture and micro-farming
Specialty food production
Value-added processing and co-packing facilities
Local supply chain development for restaurants and retailers
Online markets with centralized shipping and inventory management
Small-business collective bargaining

I also believe there is untapped potential in expanding heritage celebrations, professional conferences & festivals, indoor family entertainment, and even shared mixed-use workspaces.

Every major policy decision requires balancing competing interests. There is no one-size-fits-all formula.

My approach is to:

Gather complete and transparent information
Ensure the public has meaningful opportunity to weigh in
Look for solutions that maximize shared benefit whenever possible
Evaluate tradeoffs honestly when no perfect solution exists

When weighing tradeoffs, we need to already know what we are not willing to compromise on for Lincoln City. I believe strongly in pursuing win-win solutions, and am always looking for that bonus “third win”.

I do not support adopting a new policy without first defining the desired outcome, and lastly ensuring the policy defines how success will be measured. The metric should match the policy.

For every policy addressed, I ask:

What outcome are we trying to achieve?
How will we know if it worked?
What data will we track?
When will we revisit the results?

I have consistently advocated for measurable goals in government because outcomes matter more than appearances. Good governance requires accountability, and accountability requires metrics. If we are not measuring outcomes, we are not governing - we are guessing.

Housing and short-term rentals (STRs) are often framed as if they’re competing priorities, but on the Oregon coast they’re really part of the same system. Tourism is a key part of our local economy, and short-term rentals play an important role in that. At the same time, the housing shortage is very real, and we need more homes for the people who live and work here.

Lincoln City has the highest concentration of short-term rentals in the county. I come to this issue with a long history. I started cleaning vacation rentals in high school and later worked as assistant manager for one of the largest vacation rental companies on the coast. In fact, vacation rental dwellings were the first issue that drew me into local government in my early 20s.

I have not seen any statistics that reliably show increasing regulations around short-term rentals results in an increase in available year-round housing. In Lincoln City, when year-round licenses were capped, and then later accessory-use licenses were eliminated, many homes shifted into furnished monthly rentals that easily rent for around three thousand dollars a month. Those technically count as long-term housing, and are a needed housing type, but they’re still far out of reach for many workers.

I do not believe the housing crisis will be solved by simply pressuring private property owners through regulation. If we want property owners to be part of the solution, government tends to be far more effective when it uses thoughtful incentives that align private investment with community needs.

So the larger issue is really about land use, enforceable regulations and neighborhood alignment.

Short-term rentals function as lodging units, and some are year-round businesses. Many are located in residential areas that were never designed for that level of activity. I would advocate for broad community visioning so we can be more intentional about where new vacation rentals are located. For example, Lincoln City’s new 2043 Comprehensive Plan set a new strategy of decreasing short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods while increasing the number in commercial zones. I believe mixed-use zones are another place where they can work well. Those areas already blend residential, commercial, and visitor activity, and they can support both long-term and short-term housing while still creating vibrant community spaces.

Next, enforcement has to be realistic. If we require a local contact, that person should truly be local. Communities become frustrated when the number they’re given connects them to someone halfway around the world. They wonder what the impacts would be if there were an emergency. I’ve also personally observed that smaller, locally based management companies often maintain better relationships with neighborhoods than large national management firms. Meaningful enforcement requires metrics to be evaluated on a regular basis. Outcomes matter.

But I want to be clear about something. I don’t approach issues like this believing I have the single right answer. What I bring to the table are ideas and experience, and then I work collaboratively with other elected officials, staff, industry partners, and community members to develop solutions that make sense for each neighborhood.

Short-term rentals, housing supply, tourism, and infrastructure are all interconnected. We didn’t arrive at these challenges overnight, and we won’t solve them overnight. What we can do is approach them thoughtfully, increase the overall supply of housing in all its forms, and create policies that balance economic vitality, property rights, and livable communities.

There has been strong public interest in this question, so I want to answer it clearly and directly:

Yes, I am personally strongly opposed to an ICE facility anywhere in Lincoln County.

I am happy to respectfully discuss the merits of our individual opinions with anyone one on one, on any topic.

Also, my personal opinions are not what I vote based on as your representative.

I want to share a relevant example of how I approach issues like this as your representative. You may or may not know this issue was brought before the Council in January. The issue was brought forward during public comment, so it had not been noticed on the agenda. I first became aware of it through written public comment just hours before the meeting.

My vote in that meeting was not a “no” on the issue, but rather it was a “no” on the narrow scope of the specific motion that was on the table. I did not feel the initial motion fully represented the range of concerns shared by community members that night. I was a “yes” vote for making sure what we passed actually reflected our community, rather than adopting language from another city without doing that work locally.

Following that meeting, I went to work. I developed a set of listening questions and spent six days engaging directly with community members to better understand their perspectives. I then drafted a broad resolution based on what I heard and shared it publicly so people could provide feedback before any decision was made. I knew it could be weeks before we would get anything back from legal for the public to review, so I spent close to 100 hours on this work over two weeks. In the end, that dedication contributed to FIVE resolutions being brought forward all noticed on the same agenda, and ultimately the Council unanimously adopted the version that had the strongest community support.

I believe meaningful public engagement is essential to good governance.

I listen first, do the work, and bring forward solutions grounded in the people I serve.

If you’d like to dive deeper into seeing how I speak up as your representative, please feel free to review the process that occurred earlier this year, as mentioned above. You can click on the agenda section, and the video will jump to that part of the meeting. I also took the time to pull out the time stamps since many of the meetings are 3-4 hours.

City Council Regular Meeting - January 12, 2026

13:30 - 42:50 Public Comment

2:04:00 Council discussion begins on topic:

2:10:30 - 2:21:20 Motion to bring back a resolution based on Toledo's opposing detention facility

2:23:48 - 2:33:00 Additional Public Comment

2:35:40 - 2:42:40 My Councilor Comments

City Council Regular Meeting - January 26, 2026

6:00 - 1:09:00 Public Comment

3:46:37 - 3:55:30 Additional Public Comment

3:59:00 My Comments regarding my efforts to reflect public comment into draft resolution

4:11:20 - 4:12:35 Motion to Send Additional 4 Resolutions for legal review

City Council Regular Meeting - February 23, 2026

05:18 - 36:48 Public Comment

1:14:40 -1:42:34 Resolution 2026-06 ICE Facility

Lastly, I am always eager to provide clarity around misunderstandings and misinformation which there unfortunately has been in our community about me regarding this topic since it came before the council.

I encourage anyone to reach out to me directly, express whatever concerns you might have. My focus continues to be showing up, staying grounded, and doing the work so that when decisions are made, they are thoughtful, transparent, and truly representative of this community.

What's next?

EXPLORE COMMUNITY SUPPORT

MEET MARCI

CONTACT

Join the Campaign

This website reflects Marci's individual views and opinions and does not represent those of any governing body or organization.

ON THE RECORD

FAQs

Are you a Democrat or a Republican?

What specific steps will you take to support small businesses?

What policies do you support that balance economic growth with preserving our character and natural resources?

How will you engage with the public throughout your term?

What is your plan to attract new industries or investment while supporting existing businesses?

When faced with competing interests, how do you evaluate and decide?

What metrics will you use to measure whether our policies are working?

What would you plan to do about the housing shortage, while allowing a key local industry, like STR's to still thrive?

Do you strongly oppose development of an ICE facility?

What's next?