Astoria City Council Work Session – May 27, 2026

The Astoria City Council held a work session on May 27, 2026, from 6:00 PM to 8:03 PM in the Council Chambers. The meeting covered agenda setting for upcoming meetings, a presentation on the Arts & Culture Development Project with strategic recommendations, and a review of the Astoria Parks Master Plan Update. No formal votes were taken; discussions focused on future direction and next steps.

Agenda Setting

• Council reviewed the June meeting schedule. Councilor Andy Davis suggested reserving June 2 for unfinished business due to several substantial items on the June 1 agenda (camping code, homeless liaison, charter amendments). Councilor Andrea Mazzarella supported this and requested a broader review of the System Development Charge (SDC) program, including impacts on renovations. Staff recommended separating immediate SDC decisions from a future program review. Councilor Elisabeth Adams agreed to June 2. Mayor Sean Fitzpatrick supported reserving June 2 and avoiding late-night decisions. City Manager Scott Spence agreed to reserve June 2 for carryover and split agenda items between June 1 and 2. The June 22 work session will be used to organize remaining calendar items. No formal action was taken.

Discussion Items

Arts & Culture Development Project Recap & Strategic Recommendations

• Jessamyn Grace West presented results of a year-long arts and culture development project, including an inventory of nearly 400 artists, arts businesses, organizations, and event producers; 12 stakeholder meetings with 84 participants; and identification of approximately $5 million to $7 million in potential outside grant resources.
• Key findings: arts are central to Astoria's identity and economy; fragmented arts community; limited organizational capacity; uneven funding and visibility; rising costs for studio space; need for coordinated city support. Six recommendations were presented: (1) establish an arts and culture advisory committee; (2) dedicated coordination capacity (e.g., a coordinator or contractor); (3) strengthen marketing and visibility (community events calendar, annual printed art guide); (4) establish an Astoria-wide arts and culture district; (5) expand grant support (increase tourism grant pool, create individual artist grants, provide technical assistance); (6) develop affordable creative workspace long-term.
• Councilor Elisabeth Adams asked about trust/exclusion/gatekeeping, comparisons with other Oregon cities, duplication with existing organizations, and the most impactful recommendation for individual artists. She showed interest in affordable creative space and an advisory committee. Assistant to the City Manager Ryan Quigley explained an advisory committee could develop proposals one at a time and bring actionable recommendations to council.
• Councilor Andy Davis asked about the relationship between a city advisory committee and the Arts Council of Clatsop County, whether a district could succeed without dedicated staff, the funding/staffing needed, and whether studio space is becoming harder to find. He requested consideration of funding for a coordinator or events calendar. Staff noted creating a district could be a multiyear process; outside funding may be available. City Manager Scott Spence cautioned that adding a new position would require an offset since the budget is balanced. Finance Director Hilary Norton advised that significant changes could require reconvening the Budget Committee.
• Councilor Andrea Mazzarella expressed support for an advisory committee as an immediate first step.
• Councilor Joshua Conklin asked whether arts districts improve grant competitiveness, whether existing organizations already connect artists to grants, and what challenges artists face with city permitting. Jessamyn Grace West explained districts do not currently have exclusive grant access but could strengthen applications. Permitting concerns related to uncertainty about requirements and which city department to contact.
• Mayor Fitzpatrick supported the advisory committee concept but wanted more time to review other recommendations. Staff recommended returning to the topic at a future work session rather than rushing before budget adoption.
• Council direction: schedule a future discussion to review recommendations individually and potentially provide additional public input opportunities. No formal action was taken.

Review of the Astoria Parks Master Plan Update

• Parks and Recreation Director Jonah Dart-McLean presented the draft update to the 2016 Parks Master Plan. The planning process was funded by a $50,000 state grant and a $34,000 Parks Project Fund match, engaging approximately 2,300 participants and gathering more than 3,100 written comments. Community feedback rated parks services highly (average 4 out of 5 stars) and emphasized maintaining existing assets, increasing aquatic center hours, more programs/events, and additional indoor/all-weather recreation space. The draft plan includes updated park inventories, service-area mapping, maintenance priority categories, and implementation recommendations across operations/maintenance, capital projects, programs, and planning.
• Councilor Joshua Conklin asked how dog park feedback was collected, whether survey participants were Astoria residents, and how online results compared to in-person meetings. Staff reported feedback indicated general interest but mixed opinions on locating at Tapiola Park; most dog park feedback came from online surveys.
• Councilor Andrea Mazzarella asked whether opposition was to dog parks generally or the Tapiola location, about staffing for a community center expansion, and expressed interest in a climbing wall. Staff explained Tapiola Park is the most viable city-owned location due to existing infrastructure and an underused one-acre area; a potential design could include separate large/small dog areas, controlled entrances, and mud/turf management.
• Councilor Elisabeth Adams asked about new parks since 2016, how the city prioritizes improvements (based on safety, usage, community-wide benefit, unique amenities, maintenance, and alternatives), potential future use of Alameda Park (lower-maintenance passive park), staffing changes (from 7 to 14 full-time employees, reduced part-time reliance), long-term staffing needs (currently well-staffed), aquatic center hours (restoring Monday hours would require at least two additional FTE; use increased 3% after reduction; revenue targets met), and whether the Riverwalk is part of the park system (yes).
• Mayor Fitzpatrick asked about dog park size and configuration (about one acre, divided into large and small dog areas) and expressed interest in a climbing wall. Staff noted a community center expansion (approximately 10,000 square feet) is less staff-intensive than additional pool operations and could accommodate a climbing wall.
• Councilor Andy Davis requested a future discussion about accessibility standards for presentations to council (font size, color contrast, captioning space, readability).
• Staff anticipated returning to council with the final Parks Master Plan for adoption in June. After adoption, it would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and used to pursue funding and guide future projects.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken. Council agreed to reserve June 2 for carryover from the June 1 meeting and to use the June 22 work session for calendar organization.
• Council directed staff to schedule a future work session to further discuss the arts and culture recommendations individually and potentially hold additional public input opportunities.
• Staff will bring the final Parks Master Plan to council for adoption in June. Councilor Davis's request for a future discussion on presentation accessibility standards was acknowledged.