[0:05] President
[0:09] » present.
>> Council Rustin
[0:11] » present.
>> Councelor Warrington
[0:13] » present.
>> Councelor Le
[0:14] » present.
>> Thank you. Now we're on to item number
[0:20] four, agenda additions or corrections.
So I believe I had some minute
[0:25] corrections. So, I would like to move
the minutes out of the consent agenda to
[0:31] new business. Is that okay with
everyone?
[0:34] » Yes. Okay. Are there any other changes
to the agenda that people would like to
[0:39] make?
[0:43] Hearing none, I'd be open to a motion.
>> Councelor Weber, I would make a motion
[0:49] for the approval of the consent agenda.
[0:55] It will just be the agenda since we
remove the consent agenda.
[1:00] » Thank you. Could I get a second, please?
>> Second.
[1:03] » Okay, we have Councelor Rustin has the
second. All those in favor?
[1:10] » I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:14] Motion carries.
>> Now, we're going to go to public
[1:17] comment. I have the public comment
sheets here.
[1:21] Uh, just a reminder, please come up and
state your name. Resident, rural
[1:26] resident, non-resident.
Uh, you have three minutes. Let me get
[1:31] my timer ready.
[1:35] The first name is Lisa Ferrar.
[1:50] Good evening, counselors. I am here
tonight as a Brinhill homeowner to share
[1:55] a brief update about our community. Uh
last week, as you may know, the
[1:59] developer LAR officially turned control
over of the Brinhill Homeowners
[2:04] Association to the homeowners
themselves. We now have a homeowner
[2:08] elected board of directors. We are also
retaining the current management company
[2:13] Rolling Rock that has worked closely
with the developer to provide continuity
[2:17] as we move forward. We also understand
that public restrooms are being
[2:21] installed in the area and will be
managed by the city. We'd like to
[2:25] establish a good line of communication
with the city so that any concerns
[2:29] regarding safety, cleanliness, or
maintenance can be addressed together
[2:32] and promptly. Brinhill has welcomed many
new families, young families to North
[2:38] Plains, bringing energy experiences and
perspectives to our community. We know
[2:43] we're still new here, but we hope to
become a welcomed and valued part of
[2:46] North Plains, to be good neighbors, to
get involved, and to contribute to the
[2:50] community we now call home. Thank you.
>> Thank you, sir.
[3:00] » The next name is Meredith Buff.
[3:10] I'm Meredith Bach. I live on 309th,
three blocks from here, and I learned
[3:15] the Jesse Mays Community Center. In
June, I suggested we install a pictorial
[3:22] tribute to Jesse with her photographs so
people would know that she was not a
[3:28] man.
And I now have an exhibit that you could
[3:32] send around me with a rough draft of how
that might work. And it is small. And as
[3:40] I've talked to various people, we've
thought of everything from statuary to
[3:45] magnificent
big pieces of art. But I spoke to
[3:50] Jesse's son, Elmer, who is 100 years old
and counting,
[3:56] and he agreed with me that Jesse would
be pleased if people could get a drink
[4:01] of water at the playground.
And the size of that example, the
[4:06] exhibit, is the size that we can afford,
$500. And I suggest, and Elmer agrees,
[4:13] that it could easily be installed over
the drinking fountains and people would
[4:19] be refreshed and informed.
And I hope that this suggestion right
[4:24] now will arrive at the parks meeting
next Monday if in fact that occurs. I've
[4:31] had trouble finding out when that group
gets together.
[4:36] One suggestion was that you needed to
advise them to get together.
[4:40] But in any case, my words will be
recorded, I hope, and be provided. Thank
[4:46] you.
>> Thank you, Meredith. Next up, Russ Sh.
[5:05] Russ Sheldon, resident.
[5:10] I'm here tonight because I care deeply
about the future and the governance of
[5:14] the city. I want to address something
bigger than any one counselor issue or
[5:20] political disagreement.
Who is governing North Plains? and our
[5:26] voters being given the opportunity to
make decision for themselves. [snorts]
[5:33] Over the past several years, North
Plains has experienced significant
[5:37] turnover in elected leadership
and senior administration, including
[5:43] mayoral and council resignations,
city manager turnover, and changes in
[5:49] department leadership.
At the same time, more council positions
[5:54] have been filled by appointment rather
than direct election.
[5:59] Appointments may be legally permitted,
but there is an important distinction
[6:03] between temporarily filling a vacancy
and allowing appointments to become a
[6:09] continuing substitute for the voters's
ability to choose their representatives.
[6:15] That is why I believe the council should
be cautious about any action that
[6:19] further separates public office from
direct voter accountability.
[6:25] That brings me to the recall process.
Recall is an exercise of the voters's
[6:30] power. It is not a determination of
guilt or a conviction, nor does it
[6:37] require voters to remove an official. It
simply gives the people the opportunity
[6:43] to decide whether an elected official
should continue serving.
[6:48] Once citizens have lawfully completed
the recall process and submitted the
[6:53] required signatures, the ultimate
decision should belong to the voters.
[6:59] Whether councelor Mark DeForge should
remain in office should not be decided
[7:04] by this council. It should be decided by
the people.
[7:10] Regardless of where we stand on growth,
development, audits, city finances, or
[7:17] individual counselors,
I believe we can agree that government
[7:22] works best when it is transparent,
accountable, and answerable to the
[7:26] people it serves.
That means following the city charter,
[7:31] respecting counciling rules, maintaining
appropriate boundaries
[7:37] between elected officials and city
staff, and conducting public business
[7:42] openly when the law requires it. North
Plains is at an important crossroads. We
[7:49] can continue on a path where residents
question whether their voices matter, or
[7:54] we can restore trust by respecting the
voters.
[7:58] and respecting their voice voices,
following the rules and putting
[8:02] residents at the center of city
government.
[8:06] Ultimately, the people, not the council,
activists, special interests, or
[8:11] individual office should have the final
say about who represents them. Thank
[8:16] you. Thank you, sir.
[8:23] and start which kind.
[8:39] Is it on
the green light? Did I touch something?
[8:44] Oh,
[8:47] how's that?
All right. don't work. So, it's okay. I
[8:52] got a loud voice. Anyway, I'm here
tonight supporting uh
[9:19] we try. Okay.
[9:35] » Sorry. Okay. All right. Well, anyway,
but Kindle live [clears throat] on uh I
[9:41] live on Lennox Street right here about a
block and a half from right here from
[9:45] city hall. Been here for 51 years.
Anyway, I'm here to support Cindy Hurst
[9:49] tonight for uh for mayor. Uh this is the
first time that I can remember in 44
[9:54] years that we've had this appointment by
so many people sitting here on city
[10:00] council. They should all be elected.
That's what we have a government for and
[10:05] gives everybody a chance to hear for
themselves, not just a few people that
[10:10] are concerned be sitting here tonight.
So all you city councilors are uh this
[10:15] is a pivotal point for North Plains. I
feel uh we need somebody in here. I have
[10:20] nothing against Mark is maybe running
the city, but I think he could move
[10:24] over. Let's sit and sit down. Let's all
learn from experience. That's what
[10:29] you're all missing that I can see. It
takes time. Usually, we get one or two
[10:34] come in on a on a quorum of seven
counselors. So, nobody ever steps right
[10:40] into a mayor position. And like I said,
I think you guys need that's what you're
[10:45] lacking is the experience and you four
or five times you never took that stuff
[10:50] in the point of this and uh why don't
you guys want I mean what you scared to
[10:54] death of us or what I mean we're not
going to chew your head off. We want to
[10:57] help you and that's what we're here for.
So that's my role. S can do that. I've
[11:02] been with her her and her husband. We
were on city council almost 40 years.
[11:06] Her husband her
>> sat right here and we had fun. and I
[11:11] want you guys to have fun. So, take my
advice, please. Thank you so much.
[11:18] » Thank you, sir. That concludes public
comment. Is there anyone that is uh
[11:24] online that submitted a request?
>> Yeah,
[11:33] » council. I submitted a request at 10:30
this morning. Linda Gallis Merton from
[11:37] Strong Towns.
Go ahead, Linda. Thank you.
[11:42] » So, um, good evening, councilors. Uh, my
name is Linda Gallas Merin representing
[11:46] Strong Towns North Plains with members
throughout 97133.
[11:52] Typically, cities pass specific
municipal codes that explicitly
[11:58] adopt their logo or seal, prohibit
unauthorized commercial or political
[12:03] use, and establish fines or legal
penalties for misuse.
[12:10] We have not been able to find any
adoption of such a policy in North
[12:14] Plains, nor can we find any council
approved policy governing the use of the
[12:19] city's logo.
As a result, if you stop by the North
[12:24] Plain Senior Center, a private
nonprofit, you will see this recently
[12:29] installed sign on the front door.
[12:38] » As you can see, it bears the distinct
logo for the city of North Plains.
[12:42] Seeing a city logo on a building is
supposed to mean that the structure
[12:47] belongs to or is operated by the local
uh municipal government. This is not the
[12:54] case for the North Plain Senior Center.
So this raises a number of questions.
[13:00] One, who among city staff authorized the
use of the logo for this purpose?
[13:07] If no one, then who at the senior center
authorized its use? Did public works
[13:13] install the sign as reported by
eyewitnesses?
[13:17] If yes, who gave the work order to
public works?
[13:22] And who paid for the sign? Since there
seems to be no codes that would forbid
[13:27] this type of use, there may be nothing
to be done in this particular case other
[13:33] than to ask nicely for the signs to be
taken down.
[13:37] However, the council can adopt policy
around the use and abuse of the city's
[13:44] logo, and we urge you to do so with some
urgency and to make the policy
[13:51] retroactive.
Thank you very much for your
[13:53] consideration.
[13:56] » Thank you, Linda.
[14:01] Is there anyone else online that
submitted public comment requests by 3
[14:06] p.m.
[14:14] Hearing none, I'm going to move on
[14:19] public comment
on our agenda. Next is consent agenda
[14:25] which we have moved to new business. So
now I will move to new business. A
[14:30] [sighs and gasps]
awarding contract for new roof on a
[14:33] Jesse Wings community center.
[14:38] » Mayor and members of city council, you
have for you a report recommending a
[14:44] contract to fix the roof here at the May
Center. Uh public works has received
[14:50] three bids for the work. They've
evaluated them and we're recommending
[14:56] that you adopt resolution 2349.
I'm sorry. You in 26 you adopted
[15:03] resolution 2349
allocating $100,000 out of the general
[15:07] fund contingency for the new roof. Our
recommendation is that uh SA roofing be
[15:13] selected to replace the current uh roof
at the maze center with a metal roof in
[15:19] an amount not to exceed $59,950
and authorize the city manager to enter
[15:25] into a contract with the SA.
[clears throat]
[15:30] » Thank you, sir.
So, I'll just add to that quick recap.
[15:34] So there was a budget committee meeting
where this was discussed and the funds
[15:38] were allocated in a resolution that
the funds. So now they've selected a
[15:46] contractor and they're looking for
feedback or approval from us to proceed.
[15:50] Now uh are you looking for a motion from
us or just a uh kind of
[15:57] » you can move the recommendation.
>> Okay. So, first can we have some
[16:03] discussion? What do you guys think about
the new roof and its vendor?
[16:11] » Warrington. Um, I just wanted to call
out that the three um contract uh
[16:16] proposals, one from Ideal Roofing, I did
some AI Google searching. I have no
[16:21] conflict of interest. I didn't
communicate with these people. I just
[16:25] researched them a little bit. Ideal
roofing has a 4.9 out of five stars. JT
[16:30] has a 4.6 out of five stars and essay,
the one they're recommending, has a five
[16:35] out of five stars. So, I just want to
say good job on picking the roofing
[16:40] choices.
[16:45] Councelor Rustin, I do have a question.
If we're being asked to
[16:49] approve an amount of $59,950
not to exceed that uh says right here
[16:56] that the cost all bids included a note
in the case of the need to replace wood
[17:00] portions of the structures there will be
an additional cost. I watch a lot of
[17:05] home shows there's always additional
cost.
[17:09] » What happens then?
>> Um $100,000 is allocated in the budget
[17:14] for this project. I like the concept but
do not exceed but the contract will
[17:21] require them to come to to us and say
hey we're going to go beyond budget
[17:26] we'll need this extra money
so that so that's what happen
[17:33] structure around the roof
[17:40] thank you
>> one more question councelor wariner is
[17:45] there any scheduling constraints around
any of these?
[17:51] » So, will the contractor be able to move
forward quickly as we approach the rainy
[17:55] season?
>> That that is our hope. We understand
[17:58] that the rainy season is coming and we
want to get this work in and done before
[18:01] it gets heavy and rain.
>> Councelor Weber, do we have clarity?
[18:07] Does this building get shut down
throughout the entire process?
[18:13] We think it might have limited use.
It'll depend on the status of the
[18:19] weather as well as the work in progress.
[18:24] » Good.
[18:27] And so uh thank you for compiling this
report. I did want to just reiterate um
[18:35] if we can align that all of the bids
that we receive we do because we are
[18:40] using taxpayer funds need to select the
lowest bid. Correct.
[18:45] » Right.
>> Okay. Um the other part I wanted to
[18:49] touch on is what the timeline looks
like. And it sounds like there's still
[18:52] some question marks there. Um, but I
think as we all know, this space is is
[18:57] slated to be used uh for some community
events that are really near and dear to
[19:02] our heart. So I would I would just be
curious if later on you could provide an
[19:06] update of a timeline and any disruptions
to the space.
[19:09] » Yeah, we'll be meetings next week with
the contractor to work all those details
[19:13] out. We'll also have a copy of the
schedule of potential uses and see how
[19:18] we can adjust work schedules so some of
those events can take place.
[19:23] » Okay. Thank you.
[19:29] » So, I prepped ahead of time in case you
wanted a motion. I'll just toss this
[19:35] motion out for your guys's
consideration.
[19:38] The council authorizes the interim city
manager to award a contract to SA
[19:42] roofing with authority to spend up to
$59,950.
[19:47] Does that sound like an acceptable
motion to you?
[19:50] » Yes, it does.
>> Okay. Is there any more discussion that
[19:53] you guys would like to have? I got to
say I really appreciate I believe it was
[19:58] Cody who who moved this forward. We we
asked for this work I think it was maybe
[20:03] in the May June time frame and I really
appreciate him stepping up and moving
[20:08] this forward.
So at this point are you guys
[20:13] comfortable with moving forward on a
motion?
[20:16] » Yes.
>> Okay. So the motion again was that
[20:20] council authorizes the interim city
manager to award a contract to SA
[20:24] roofing with authority to spend up to
59,
[20:27] 950.
>> I get a
[20:30] » councelor Weber so moved.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir.
[20:34] » I uh I'm looking for a second at this
point. Councelor Warrington with a
[20:39] second. So we have an active motion. Is
there any discussion you guys would like
[20:43] to have before we vote on this?
[20:48] Okay. All in favor of this motion say I.
I.
[20:52] » I. Any opposed.
Motion carries.
[21:01] Now we're going to move to agenda 7B,
which is authorization to seek bids to
[21:07] contract for city manager search.
Mayor and members of city council. Uh,
[21:13] as you know from my contract, I will be
here through February of 27. Uh, I think
[21:19] high on your priority list would be the
selection process for a permanent city
[21:24] manager. I'm recommending that you
authorize me to seek proposals
[21:30] uh from search firms that bring those
recommendations to council on October
[21:35] 26. I included in my report a rough
schedule. Uh the marketplace for finding
[21:41] permanent city managers is really tough.
Takes more time than you would think. Uh
[21:47] but October for us to contract with the
firm. Uh review and update the manager
[21:53] job description, which would be your
job. In November, begin recruitment and
[21:57] seeking applicants. in December, review
the applicants, selecting five or six
[22:03] finalists, conduct the interviews in
town, select the final candidate, and
[22:08] hopefully in January or early February,
start the new manager. Now, that
[22:13] schedule will firm up once we get a
firm. But I'm I'm recommending that you
[22:18] authorize me to seek proposals from
search firms and bring that
[22:23] recommendation back to you in October
this year.
[22:27] » Okay. Okay. So, you're looking for an
authorization to begin the search.
[22:30] You're not going to make choices or
spend money or brings us so the council
[22:35] still has the ability to shape the
process.
[22:38] » Good, good question, mayor. No, this is
something you have to do.
[22:42] » Yeah.
>> Okay. Is there any discussion you guys
[22:44] would like to have?
>> Excellent idea. Do we need a resolution
[22:50] or just a consensus support?
>> Paul, would you like a motion from us on
[22:54] this? I'd like a motion adopting the
recommendation.
[22:57] » Okay. So, uh if I were to I saw
councelor Ugarte, would you like to?
[23:03] » Sure. Uh council, I move to authorize
the interim city manager to seek
[23:08] proposals from search firms and bring a
recommendation to council in October
[23:12] 2026.
>> I have a second.
[23:15] » Second.
>> Second from councelor Warrington. Any
[23:18] further discussion before you guys vote
on this?
[23:23] Okay. All those in favor of the motion
say I.
[23:27] » I.
>> I. I.
[23:28] » I.
>> Any oppose?
[23:31] Thank you. Motion carries.
[23:38] » Moving to agenda item 7C, resolution
number 2370,
[23:44] authorization to proceed with state
grant from Blankolder.
[23:50] Mayor and members of the city council,
as you well know, the city's been
[23:53] working for several years to clean up
the Glen Cole property. We've been
[23:57] working with um Palpac as well as Tom
Holt put together an application for a
[24:05] state grant to assist in that process.
Uh there are fe several sources that
[24:11] have offered to assist the city in the
cleanup. uh and we want to take
[24:15] advantage of that. And the schedule for
the grant applications is later around
[24:21] this month, so we need to move it fairly
quickly. Uh there is no known budget
[24:25] impact to you at this time. Uh but I
would ask you to adopt a resolution
[24:30] authorizing the application for a state
grant.
[24:35] » Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there any
discussion?
[24:40] What is uh if we receive the grant, how
long before we would actually have the
[24:44] funds?
>> According to Tom and Calac on this,
[24:49] their schedule of anticipation is
shortly after the first of next year to
[24:56] get moving on cleaning up that property.
[25:02] Councelor Warrington, again just for
transparency, uh because people have
[25:06] been asking me what the status is on
what's happening. Uh so from what I
[25:11] understand, uh this grant is
supplemental funding for the structure
[25:15] removal. At the same time, a soil
amendment paperwork is going to be
[25:19] worked on. Uh bids for soil removal will
be happening. The soil is then removed.
[25:25] Uh clean soil is added and then it the
developmental steps occur from there.
[25:30] Just a recap.
>> That That is correct, Councilwoman.
[25:34] » Thank you.
>> I'll chime in. I really appreciate the
[25:38] staff for moving this forward. I think
this is a big opportunity for the city.
[25:43] Uh love to clean up that property and I
love their willingness to get the
[25:48] grants. Is this um is this Bailey and
Eric and who else was participating on
[25:55] that?
>> Uh Tom Holt.
[25:57] » Tom Holt. Yes. I appreciate
[clears throat]
[26:00] appreciate the initiative. This is a
sounds like a good idea.
[26:04] » I I should point out mayor and councel
that uh lots of the work that I do is
[26:09] driven by the priorities. The fact that
we have a pretty commitment from the
[26:14] state for the money that this is a high
priority for the council to get done
[26:19] means that we've got to throw stuff
together to get it this far. what Tom's
[26:24] waiting for is the signed resolution.
And then that's sort of the state will
[26:29] want to know too. What's where's the
resolution from the city. I should also
[26:33] mention that a gentleman contacted me
the other day. He claims he has a
[26:38] contract to take down the barn on that
property. I haven't found the contract
[26:44] yet. I need to find that, research it,
uh, and double check with the attorneys
[26:49] to make sure that can be done.
I know there's been uh concern about
[26:57] salvaging yes kind of the nice material.
I think uh Ross's feedback to us was
[27:04] » he felt that structure was safe unsafe
and so I would just whatever we can do
[27:09] to keep employees safe and contractors
safe as we demo it but try and preserve
[27:14] as much of it as possible. There any
other comments from council?
[27:20] I would hope if there was a contract the
that person could also produce the
[27:25] contract if there is one.
>> I'm hoping that [clears throat] yes.
[27:35] » Okay.
If there's no further discussion, are
[27:40] you guys okay proceeding with the
resolution?
[27:43] So, uh, Colleen, I've used roll call
votes on resolutions. Do you have a list
[27:50] of counselors?
>> Yes.
[27:52] » Okay. Are you guys okay with the roll
call vote?
[27:59] » Thank you.
>> Councelor Ugarte, I move to approve
[28:03] resolution number 2370 authorizing the
city manager to apply for a state grant
[28:08] in support of the Glendville project.
>> Thank you. Councilman second. Councilman
[28:15] second. Thank you.
Council President DeForge.
[28:20] » Hi,
>> Councelor Yugarte.
[28:23] » Hi,
>> Councelor Lambert.
[28:26] » Hi,
>> Councelor Leon.
[28:28] » Hi,
>> Councelor Warren.
[28:30] » Hi.
[clears throat]
[28:32] » Thank you, Mayor Castle.
>> Okay. So, that concludes item number C.
[28:39] Now, we're going to go to item number,
which is action to select mayor for the
[28:44] city. There are two applicants, myself
and city purse. And since I have recused
[28:51] myself, I'm going to now turn it over to
our presiding officer for this action,
[28:57] councelor.
[29:02] » Thank you, Mark. Um just as a quick
overview of this process, um this
[29:08] process is defined in our charter
section 33 and the North Plains
[29:12] Municipal Code 3337.
Uh in that m municipal code 3337.
[29:19] Uh we may hold interviews, but it's not
required. However, we've all decided, of
[29:24] course, to interview uh both applicants.
Um the vacancy has to be posted in a
[29:30] newspaper, which it was. Uh the vacancy
uh is posted for two weeks which it was.
[29:37] There is not a tiebreaker vote. Um and
we all have a set of questions.
[29:44] Okay. Um as a presiding officer, is
there anyone here uh that on the council
[29:51] that wants to recluse themselves from
this process? And Mark walked away. He's
[29:56] holding his hand up over there. So um I
need to ask the council for a consensus
[30:01] vote for him to recluse himself from
this process. So uh just consensus say
[30:08] um I if you approve
>> I nay.
[30:14] » Okay. Uh that means there are now four
counselors and four votes. So if a tie
[30:20] occurs we need to go into deliberations
because there is no tiebreaker vote.
[30:27] Um, again the questions from the
counselors. Uh, I'm sorry. Any questions
[30:31] from the counselors before we begin the
interviews?
[30:34] » Um, yeah, councelor Russ and I I've got
uh a couple concerns on this actually.
[30:40] Um, given the information that was
submitted today, uh, with the recall,
[30:45] there still seems to be some questions.
Uh, I question whether or not that this
[30:49] is something that we should uh decide on
today or whether or not we should
[30:53] postpone this pending written legal
analysis from the city attorney on the
[30:57] recall petition status under the Oregon
statute 249.
[31:03] 865 of the North Plains charter.
[31:10] » Any other comments? Anybody have a
comment around that?
[31:19] I I don't see a reason not to proceed.
Councelor Weber.
[31:27] » Thank you, Councelor Yugerte. That was
also a concern of mine. Um just given
[31:32] again the emails that we've received
today mentioning the recall. I also
[31:38] would be curious um if Emily is online
if we could potentially discuss um you
[31:45] know any negative outcomes if we
postpone this appointment process until
[31:52] the recall petition has been confirmed
and and gone from there.
[31:59] » Is Emily on the call?
[32:06] Emily or if there's anyone from from BEH
to represent legal counsel on this call,
[32:12] that would be great.
>> Mayor and members of the council, I did
[32:17] talk to the attorneys late this
afternoon
[32:21] and included in my quick note to you
what Emily's opinion is. Um I if if the
[32:30] the current
[32:33] mark if he were to be selected as mayor
that would render the recall
[32:41] uh move it it takes it away because he's
being recalled as a councilman and not
[32:47] as a mayor. So that would be the impact.
It is uh and Emily
[32:54] mentioned this too. This is a policy
choice that you all have to grapple with
[33:00] and make you either want to move forward
with this or you want to postpone action
[33:05] until the recall is done or some other
action that you may choose to do.
[33:15] Council Weber, my understanding from the
attorney, she did not tell us that she
[33:20] recommended that we should not take
action.
[33:22] » No, she did not. Okay.
Uh, councelor Rustin, but the email that
[33:27] you sent out, I think the words you used
was the city attorney suggests. Um, I
[33:34] would like to see a written legal
opinion, okay, from her.
[33:37] » Uh, I would also like to, you know, I
know that we received u the signatures.
[33:43] Uh, I think that that needs to be
validated before we, you know, to know
[33:47] that whether or not we even have a a
ballot recall.
[33:52] Councelor
[33:59] Warrington. Um, so were the signatures
submitted to the county or to whomever
[34:06] needs to uh validate the signatures at
10:00 this morning?
[34:12] » To be honest with you, Councilwoman, I I
do not know the status of the
[34:16] signatures. I only received the letter.
It would take some research for us to uh
[34:22] get the signatures and spend the time to
have it validated. Uh I talked to Bailey
[34:28] about this and suggested we work closely
with the county to make sure that it's
[34:33] done above board and open.
>> Okay. So, at this point, we don't know
[34:38] how many signatures are collected. They
we don't know if they've been submitted
[34:42] to the county. Uh we don't know if
they're all valid. Um but we we do have
[34:48] the attorney's advice that um there's no
risk for us to uh complete this process.
[35:00] Is that correct?
>> That would be my my interpretation
[35:03] [clears throat]
of what she is saying.
[35:06] » Okay. Then it is my opinion that we do
what the city attorney is suggesting and
[35:12] proceed with uh with this.
selection process.
[35:20] » Council Weber, I would agree.
Um, councelor Ugarth.
[35:26] » Thank you, Councelor Yuggart. And I do
want to remind this body um to please
[35:31] raise your hand, wait for the chair to
call on us um as part of our council
[35:35] rules. Um I will add in my own um
opinion that I think that we should
[35:43] postpone tonight's process. um given
that you know we as a council represent
[35:50] everyone in this community not one side
or the other and while we don't know all
[35:57] of the details and these signatures have
not been verified I think it's important
[36:01] that we pause to let that process move
forward and to gain more information
[36:06] before moving forward in tonight's
process um again we've heard time and
[36:10] time again from our community
transparency honesty Y those are all key
[36:16] things and I cannot in my in my own
approach I cannot feel that this is the
[36:23] right move to potentially consider
someone that's that's potentially being
[36:28] recalled um into a mayoral position. Um,
that just is not that's not part of the
[36:33] integrity that I I see. And I would I
would be in support of postponing
[36:40] tonight's
mayoral selection.
[36:51] » Council Rustin.
>> Yeah, Council Rustin. Um, yeah, I agree.
[36:55] just based on everything that came in
today. Um,
[37:01] like I said, I would like to see a
written opinion from the attorney, not
[37:04] just something that you know what they
you know suggests in the conversation.
[37:08] Um, I've explained my thoughts on just
the recall and I think that that needs
[37:13] to be uh, you know, validated before we
move forward and, um, I do think that,
[37:20] you know, I I I agree that um,
you know, we do need to take our time on
[37:26] this. you know, it's uh this is a
significant um decision that we're going
[37:34] to go ahead and make and I don't think
that it hurts for us to go ahead and
[37:39] make sure that we have gone through the
process. You know, there I think some
[37:44] valid concerns were raised today with
public comment. Uh I think if we go
[37:48] through and give get the legal opinion
in writing if we validate the recall we
[37:54] then have a firmer foundation to go
ahead and move forward whether that is
[37:58] to uh select a merit before the recall
or uh wait till the recall happens. I
[38:05] just don't feel comfortable at this
point making a decision.
[38:10] » Okay. Uh councelor warrant here. Um so
it sounds like we have a stone
[38:15] stalemate. uh two to two here to
proceed. So, um when that happens, I
[38:20] think we uh take a um 10-minute recess
um reboot for a minute or two and um
[38:28] maybe we can get PH on the call uh see
what they if they can talk to us about
[38:32] this real time so we can get uh their
opinion. Uh Mr. Weber, council,
[38:38] » a question. My understanding is we have
on the agenda to select the mayor. If a
[38:45] majority of us decided to not select the
mayor, then we would not. My
[38:50] understanding is if we had a two to two,
uh that means we would proceed because
[38:54] there was not a majority to change
what's on the agenda.
[38:58] » Oh,
>> but I don't know. You could
[39:00] » I would Is that correct, Mr. City
Manager?
[39:05] My recommendation was if it's two and
two that you not proceed.
[39:10] » That's correct.
>> Yes. All right. So, um all in favor of
[39:16] taking a uh 10-minute deliberation break
to see if we can get um BH on the line.
[39:23] Um
all those in favor?
[39:27] » Oh, I'm sorry.
>> Any discussion? Do we have discussion
[39:30] first?
>> Yes. Uh, councelor Ugarte, I appreciate
[39:34] um you suggesting the idea of a
10-minute break. However, again, I want
[39:40] to be transparent to the community, and
I don't think that we need to have a
[39:45] 10-minute break to discuss this, right?
Because we should be discussing it right
[39:49] here on the DAS in front of everyone.
Um, I do see Paul is looks like he's
[39:53] probably uh trying to get someone from
BEH on online right now, but I think
[39:58] overall this is the question at hand is
do we feel that this is the right
[40:04] decision to move forward without knowing
all of the information on the recall and
[40:09] knowing that we're dismissing part of
the public recall process. Um, and so I
[40:17] think that's the really the question
here of do we want to just dismiss that
[40:21] and move forward and and hope for the
best or do we want to do our due
[40:25] diligence and pause, reconvene in two
weeks and move from there?
[40:31] » Um, thank you councelor. Um, I did not
mean we were all going to have a secret
[40:36] meeting um, and discuss of course
because that's colluding. uh but what I
[40:40] am uh trying to establish here is to get
clarity on the issue through BEH. So
[40:46] taking a maybe five minute break trying
to get BEH on the call so we can get
[40:52] clarity today so we don't have to push
this further.
[40:56] » Yes, thank you. I I would question what
is the question we're looking for DEH to
[41:02] answer specifically? Uh, councelor
Rustin has uh requested uh more clarity
[41:08] on the process um uh and wants a
definitive decision from the attorney on
[41:15] whether um we can proceed or it's just
suggested we proceed if I'm not
[41:21] mistaken.
>> Um councelor Rustin that is one concern.
[41:25] The other concern is I do think that we
need to know I think we need to have the
[41:30] status of the recall. I do think that,
you know, from a process standpoint, we
[41:34] do need to know if it's a valid recall
before we move forward on it.
[41:38] » Yes, there are two things. So, I don't
know that there's anything that BEH is
[41:41] going to say today that, you know, is
going to change my mind. We've been
[41:46] [clears throat] short staff since I
joined a couple months ago. I'll see how
[41:50] putting this off for two weeks. Uh,
really is going to hurt anything.
[42:00] We need order. There's no clapping from
the office. We're the voters. I know
[42:05] you're the voters, but this is a city
council meeting and you don't get to
[42:09] clap and and do that. So, thank you.
>> So, um I I understand uh what you're
[42:16] saying. Um,
so I think that um
[42:22] where it's still made again. Um,
city
[42:27] um manager, are you aligned with um
are you trying to get a hold of this
[42:34] city attorney?
>> I will. And I would suggest you probably
[42:37] have to take the five minute break that
connection.
[42:41] » Okay. Okay. So five minute break uh
starting now it's 7:43. So it's 7:48
[42:48] we'll reconvene. Thank you.
[42:57] No one can stop.
[43:07] » Well,
understand this.
[50:19] Can you hear me now?
>> Can you hear me now? Okay. I wanted to
[50:25] let you know we did get Emily on the
call. She will be joining. When she
[50:29] joins our Zoom call, we'll reconvene.
So, we might need a minute or two while
[50:33] she joins the call.
[53:04] Um, we're just going to continue the
meeting and when Emily joins then we'll
[53:08] go back to Oh, look. I just had to say
that she joined.
[53:13] Good. Uh, Emily, are you on call? Can
you unmute?
[53:18] » Yes, I'm here. Awesome.
Thank you for joining the call abruptly.
[53:23] I appreciate your timing. Um I am um
we're at a kind of a conundrum here. So
[53:30] we're looking for some legal advice from
you. Um we are in the process of doing
[53:37] the mayor selection process. Um, and
there's some questioning about should we
[53:44] continue to do the mayor selection
process. Uh, while there is a pending
[53:50] recall on one of the counselors. Um, so
we've read your emails um, etc. It says
[53:57] you um
uh your opinion I think is maybe the
[54:03] word uh is that we can proceed but um
councelor Rustin and others have a
[54:09] couple of questions if you don't mind
answering for them.
[54:13] » Okay.
>> Of course
[54:15] » I'll hand it over to councelor Rustin
then.
[54:18] » Um Council Rustin, first off I don't
recall actually seeing a letter from
[54:24] Emily on this. I saw
Paul's summary of it and
[54:30] um I have to find it.
>> Could you use the microphone please?
[54:34] It's really hard to hear. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, what I was saying is I don't
[54:38] recall actually seeing a letter from
Emily on this with a with a written
[54:42] opinion on this. You know, I saw a
summary from a conversation that she had
[54:47] with Paul that I'm not part of.
And what my request on that you know so
[54:53] it's two things I'm looking one is a
stated written opinion on um you know
[55:00] just sorry I have this written down on
here uh on whether or not you know
[55:07] whether or not we should be moving
forward on this. The other thing is, and
[55:10] I don't think we're going to settle this
here, you know, if the recall
[55:14] documentation was submitted, I think
that, you know, we have an obligation
[55:18] to, you know, at least have it validated
before we make a decision moving
[55:25] forward. And I don't think that that's
something, Emily, that you can
[55:28] definitively answer on that. You know,
if I'm wrong, please uh correct me. But
[55:33] I think that uh you know we owe it to
our constituents to validate those two
[55:39] things before we move forward. Whether
that's you know uh voting on and putting
[55:45] uh council orange in that position or uh
Cindy Hurst or whoever else you know may
[55:51] be more appropriate. So
does that make sense what I'm looking
[55:56] for?
I think I understand and I think that I
[56:01] have one answer essentially to respond
to both of your questions which is that
[56:06] there is no legal need to stop the
appointment process at this point. the
[56:13] council may proceed with appointing
someone to the mayoral vacancy
[56:20] um even when one of those applicants is
someone counselor DeForge who has a
[56:28] pending recall petition. The if the
council were to appoint councelor
[56:37] DeForge to the mayoral vacancy, the
effect of that would be in order to
[56:42] accept the mayoral appointment,
councelor DeForge would need to resign
[56:48] his council position. And the effect of
that would be to moot the recall
[56:53] petition which was for councelor
DeForge's position council position.
[56:59] So that there is no legal reason to stop
at this point. That is a policy choice
[57:06] for the council to make. It is up to you
whether you want to continue the
[57:13] appointment
um and you know risk that effect.
[57:21] Does that address both of your
questions?
[57:24] » No, I understand that we can do it. Um I
think it's you know the second question
[57:29] is that you know should we do it you
know this way I I personally think that
[57:33] we need to take a little bit more time
think through you know for myself I I
[57:37] need a little bit more time to think
through some of this stuff uh you know
[57:42] just with the fact that we had the
documentation submitted that we did
[57:45] today you know I just think that that's
it's responsible to take a little bit of
[57:48] time I don't think it's going to hurt
anything for us to take two more weeks
[57:54] » you know because you know at any time we
can move forward with this regardless of
[57:57] where we are in any kind of recall
process, can't we?
[58:02] » So essentially the risk in not
appointing to fill a vacancy is very
[58:09] low. Um it is a duty within your charter
of the council to fill a vacancy. There
[58:16] is no deadline.
Um, so you I mean I guess speaking
[58:23] practically you have another vacancy
which I think will be up in 2 weeks as
[58:30] well. Um, I know that council had talked
about keeping those processes separate
[58:35] in order to avoid confusion, but um, it
seems like that could that's a
[58:42] possibility.
[58:52] » Councelor Weber, uh, a question, Emily.
So explain how the process works if in
[58:58] fact there are enough valid signatures
on this recall. Explain the timeline
[59:05] kind of costs involved everything that
happens to actually my understanding it
[59:09] then would have to go to a general vote
a separate some kind of vote. Could you
[59:14] so could you explain kind of the
timeline and all those steps before it
[59:18] might come to a conclusion?
Let me uh I can explain the next step
[59:26] and then let me look up so that I know
and can explain. So the next step is if
[59:32] it appears to the city that there are
enough
[59:37] um signatures then the county verifies
those signatures.
[59:44] Um
and
[59:47] that's up to the county. I think that
the if I recall the deadline for the
[59:53] county is within I want to say 30 days.
I'm pulling it up right now um so I can
[59:59] tell you more definitively.
[1:00:07] » Emily, this is councelor Warrington. Do
you know if the signatures were even
[1:00:11] submitted to the county?
>> You know,
[1:00:14] » no, I uh I don't believe this. I believe
the city received the signatures today.
[1:00:19] I don't believe they have been turned
over to the county yet. And the deadline
[1:00:23] is the 30th day after submission or 120
days after the prospective recall
[1:00:29] petition is filed, whichever is sooner.
And in this case, I'm almost positive
[1:00:33] it's 30 days. So, the signature, the
county has 30 days to verify the
[1:00:37] signatures
after the city uh provides them to the
[1:00:42] county.
>> Thank you. So, what you're saying is
[1:00:47] that this would in two weeks, if we
delay this for two weeks, we're going to
[1:00:51] be in the same position,
um, we would still have to wait for the
[1:00:58] signatures to be valid. Um, and then if
they are, we would still be in the same
[1:01:04] position until the vote in November to
do the recall if all that works. Is that
[1:01:10] correct?
So the um recall is extremely unlikely
[1:01:17] to be on the November ballot. It is very
likely to be a special election
[1:01:22] um based on the timelines of ballot
printing uh and everything. So it is uh
[1:01:29] I I think
I don't I don't know the exact
[1:01:34] timelines. I expect that county
elections is very busy right now with
[1:01:38] the upcoming November election and so I
expect they would probably take most of
[1:01:42] those 30 days and then um
the election the there's a resignation
[1:01:51] period five five days and then there's a
election no later than the 35th day
[1:01:59] after the last day for the public
officer to resign. So that is about 75
[1:02:05] days from
did I do that math right? Uh 70 days
[1:02:11] excuse me from when the city turns over
the
[1:02:17] signatures for verification to the
county. And I think probably, like I
[1:02:21] said, because of the timing of the of it
right now, it's likely that county
[1:02:26] elections will take most of those most
of that time.
[1:02:34] » Thank you. Any other questions for um
Emily?
[1:02:42] » Okay. Uh
>> a practical question. If we're split, uh
[1:02:47] you know, on the agenda is choosing the
mayor. If we're split two to two on
[1:02:50] whether to proceed,
what does that mean?
[1:02:55] » So, um, it depends on what the motion
was. What was the motion?
[1:03:00] [clears throat]
[1:03:04] » What was the question put to council?
>> We did. We This has come up during
[1:03:09] discussion. We haven't made an official
motion [clears throat] yet.
[1:03:12] We just were starting the mayor
selection process and came to kind of a
[1:03:17] breaching halt because of discussions
before we even started it.
[1:03:22] » So the the motion would be uh something
similar to um uh
[1:03:30] um electing a or appointing a new mayor
to fill uh Aaron Dunrow's position.
[1:03:39] » Point of order. My understanding is we
already have on the agenda to fill it.
[1:03:44] The potential the potential motion would
be to delay it that delay that for two
[1:03:51] weeks, right?
>> No, that's not that's not our original
[1:03:54] motion. That's their that's another
motion. So the original one was for us
[1:04:00] to appoint a mayor. The other one is to
take a two week break to delivery.
[1:04:09] Does that make sense?
[1:04:14] » Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:04:18] » Hey, Emily, this is counselor. Um, I I
think the question we have here now that
[1:04:24] we've learned a little bit more, we know
um that there's likely going to be that
[1:04:28] full 30 days for the county elections
office to validate signatures for the
[1:04:33] recall. I think my question um that I
specifically would ask is is there an
[1:04:39] inherent risk of us postponing this
process for 30 days um until that
[1:04:46] validation process has has gone through.
Um I think the other part you know is
[1:04:52] that we are all concerned because
there's four of us on the dis right now
[1:04:58] and likely could be a stalemate. So, I
think that's the part where we're trying
[1:05:02] to figure out plan A, plan B, and plan C
of can we wait 30 days potentially if
[1:05:08] that's the consensus of council. And if
tonight we do come to a stalemate,
[1:05:16] do we just postpone until a further date
or what would that look like?
[1:05:22] So I would say that um like I said
earlier the risk in postponing
[1:05:30] temporarily is very low. Um it is a
duty of the council to fill vacancies
[1:05:39] but there's no timeline. So the that's
pretty much all I can answer on the
[1:05:44] risk. It's it's low but there's some
there. Um the it depends on as for a tie
[1:05:53] it depends on the situation. I think
that the
[1:06:01] um
what I understood there is no um have
[1:06:07] have you interviewed the candidates? Are
you proceeding? No. So the question, it
[1:06:12] appears to me that the question before
the council is whether you intend to
[1:06:18] postpone the mayoral appointment process
till a to a future meeting. And I don't
[1:06:26] um I don't know if you're talking about
two weeks if you want to talk about when
[1:06:30] that is. The
>> councilor warranton I think you said 70
[1:06:36] days until um the not 30 days but more
like 70 days before this might be
[1:06:42] finalized. Is that is that what you were
saying?
[1:06:46] » That's when the election would occur.
The actual recall election would occur
[1:06:51] is around 70 days from now. The
signature verification process is the
[1:06:56] next step. And once the city provides
the signatures to the county, then the
[1:07:02] county has 30 days to verify the
signatures.
[1:07:06] » So, council, go ahead. I was just going
to say, so we have a window of 30 to 70
[1:07:12] days to get this complete for this to be
settled. 30 to 70 days. Councelor Yarte.
[1:07:20] » Thank you. Uh, councelor Ugarte, I think
Emily, just the final question I have
[1:07:23] for you is tonight, um, because it it
feels like we have kind of already taken
[1:07:29] a stance before we've even deliberated
this full process. Um, so my question to
[1:07:33] you is tonight, if we are a tie for
moving forward with this mural process,
[1:07:41] how do we break that? How do we move
forward if we cannot agree to even move
[1:07:45] forward to interview tonight?
So I understand that councelor DeForge
[1:07:51] is there and he has been excused by the
council from participating in this vote.
[1:07:57] So according to your code if this is
section 30.07
[1:08:03] subb if any member declines to vote and
the result of such action would be to
[1:08:09] create a tie that member's vote shall be
counted as an I.
[1:08:16] And I councelor Ugarte, I just wanted to
clarify and if my memory serves me
[1:08:20] correctly at our last council meeting,
we discussed this potential that
[1:08:26] councelor DeForge would not be eligible
for a tiebreaker vote, nor would
[1:08:30] counselor Warrington um as the acting
um council member leading the meeting.
[1:08:37] So
that was my understanding and feel free
[1:08:41] to chime in, but there there really
isn't a tiebreaker. Um, so that's what
[1:08:45] I'm trying to figure out of how do we
move forward because it's very likely
[1:08:48] there will be a tie tonight and I feel
like there's only the option to
[1:08:53] postpone. But I wanted
>> Yeah, sorry to interrupt. Um that is
[1:09:01] so the mayoral appointment is different
and that's where there's all these sort
[1:09:08] of uncertainties where the in um the
code and charter it provides that the
[1:09:15] mayor votes to break a tie but you have
a mayor vacancy so the mayor can't vote
[1:09:21] to break a tie. This is this is separate
from that. This is not this is much more
[1:09:28] simple
and this actually applies to this
[1:09:32] situation because the we're not
appointing the mayor. So the members
[1:09:36] vote the me excused members vote shall
be counted as an I. So if I understand
[1:09:42] the question before the council to be
correct which is should we postpone the
[1:09:49] appointment process the councelor
deforges
[1:09:54] exc as an excused member his vote shall
be counted as an I. So that means yes
[1:09:59] his vote would be to postpone the
mayoral process to a future meeting
[1:10:06] Russ. Yeah, sorry, Council Ros, but uh
every other topic on the agenda, we've
[1:10:12] made a motion on that. We have yet to
make a motion one way or the other on
[1:10:18] this. So, would it be a question as to
how the motion would uh be framed? And
[1:10:24] if we are absolutely how
>> uh we would need a majority to pass a
[1:10:28] motion to do this anyways. And there
it's going to come out two to two on
[1:10:33] this. you know, if we motion to table
it, two of us are going to vote yes, two
[1:10:37] of us are going to vote no. And at that
point, at that point, it becomes it
[1:10:42] becomes uh uh we get in one of these
sort of catch two. I don't think we're
[1:10:46] going to have enough votes just to even
pass a motion one way or the other.
[1:10:52] » A motion to vote or not to vote.
Councelor Warrington. Um,
[1:10:59] should Mark DeForge be unreluced to be
the tiebreaker?
[1:11:06] » There is. There is a tiebreaker in the
code. I
[1:11:10] Your concern is
>> my concern is uh just what councelor
[1:11:16] Rustin is saying. If we make a motion um
two, we're going to say we don't want to
[1:11:22] postpone it and two we're going to say
we do want to postpone it. So we're
[1:11:26] still stuck.
>> So who's going to be the time
[1:11:31] » in that situation? The code provides
that the member who is excused, their
[1:11:37] vote shall be counted as an I. So it
should be postponed.
[1:11:43] » Okay. So again, how how you do the
motion?
[1:11:45] » It should be postponed.
>> So
[1:11:50] councelor Ugarte.
>> Councelor Yugarte. So, Emily, I really
[1:11:54] appreciate you taking the time to join
us tonight for this last minute uh Zoom
[1:11:58] call. I just want to make sure I'm
understanding correctly.
[1:12:03] Um, hypothetically,
one of us could make a motion to
[1:12:08] postpone the mayoral interview process
for 30 days, let's say. Um, and then it
[1:12:14] would just require a second and then we
would also consider any other motions
[1:12:20] and then we would be able to take a
vote, right? There's anything else we
[1:12:23] need to consider to move forward in this
process?
[1:12:27] » Not that I'm aware of. No.
>> So, oh, go ahead. Go ahead.
[1:12:32] » Yep. It's councelor Wart's.
>> Okay. Uh, councelor Russ and I move to
[1:12:35] postpone the vote on the mayor
appointment for 30 days.
[1:12:38] » Councelor second
[1:12:43] vote.
Hi.
[1:12:50] » Nay.
>> I'm sorry. Wait. Wait. Sorry.
[1:12:55] » Say hi.
>> I'm so sorry. Councelor Negarte.
[1:12:58] » I was hilarious.
>> I to postpone the mayoral process.
[1:13:03] Sorry.
>> Too late.
[1:13:05] » Yeah. I'm initially now. [laughter]
[1:13:09] » Um, okay. So, it sounds like we're just
going to postpone this for 30 days and
[1:13:15] give the opportunity for the recall to
work its way through and we'll come back
[1:13:20] after that and try this again.
Is that correct? Um, all those in favor
[1:13:27] of that, I think we all in favor. Okay.
So, I think that's what we're doing. So,
[1:13:32] uh, now Mr. Ford is coming back to his
seat. we will be under the rules because
[1:13:37] there is no more um
mayor process selection process. So
[1:13:43] welcome back to meetings.
>> Thank you.
[1:13:48] » Thank you Emily.
>> Okay.
[1:13:51] » Okay.
>> You don't need me for anything else.
[1:13:54] » Uh thank you Emily. I think you can
though I appreciate you very much. Thank
[1:13:59] you.
>> Thank you.
[1:14:00] » Thank you.
>> All in favor. Now moving to agenda item
[1:14:06] E which was minutes that was added out
of the consent agenda. So I had
[1:14:14] previously emailed uh city manager to I
think I identified a couple mistakes
[1:14:20] minutes that uh councelor Warrington was
listed as a name vote on page six.
[1:14:28] Council Warrington, I got three or four
that I had called Colleen. I verified
[1:14:34] her just before the meeting. She has the
email. She'll correct those including
[1:14:39] the names and other items. So, she is
aware of the updates and we'll take care
[1:14:44] of those.
>> Perfect.
[1:14:48] Thank you. Council
[clears throat]
[1:14:50] » Council, can you please clarify what the
corrections are to the minutes?
[1:14:57] Um, yes. Let me get my phone. Thank you
for asking.
[1:15:09] I can go first. Uh,
councelor war if that's okay.
[1:15:14] » Uhhuh.
>> Okay. I'm looking at page six
[1:15:18] and this first sentence which is a
continuation of from page five. city
[1:15:25] manager separation agreement says
councelor Warrington voted nay. I don't
[1:15:30] think that was correct. That was that's
what I'm asking to have changed.
[1:15:35] » So I have a complete list if it's okay.
>> So page three the staff presence uh Bill
[1:15:41] Reed should be added to that because
Bill Reed was in that uh meeting. Uh
[1:15:46] page five and six, city manager
separation agreement remove councelor
[1:15:51] Warrington voting nay and add counselor
Ugarte voting nay. Um appointment of
[1:15:56] acting city manager remove counselor
warrington voting nay, add counselor's
[1:16:02] voting nay. Page eight, the finance
department monthly report. Remove a
[1:16:08] representative and add bill read. Those
are the the four that I have.
[1:16:15] One meeting.
>> That is the July July 15 minutes.
[1:16:21] » Great.
[1:16:26] » Was it June 15th?
>> Yes. I'm sorry. June. Yeah.
[1:16:30] » Sorry. I saw June and July. Thank you,
>> Councelor.
[1:16:34] » Thank you, Councelor. And thank you,
Councelor Warrington, for clarifying. I
[1:16:38] also had a few overlapping, so I wanted
to make sure. Um on
[1:16:43] that June 15, 2026
meeting notes for number seven
[1:16:48] presentation from Umpqua Valley
Financial. Are you mentioning that the
[1:16:53] first sentence that says a
representative from Umpqua Valley
[1:16:56] Financial be corrected to reflect Bill
Reed?
[1:16:59] » Correct.
>> Yes.
[1:17:01] » So Bill, how would how would that
sentence read? I just want to make sure
[1:17:04] I remember in front of me, but instead
of a representative, that would be
[1:17:09] removed and it would say Bill Reed
and then he uh represented Unplot.
[1:17:19] So the sentence on number seven Aqua
Valley Financial would read instead of a
[1:17:26] representative, it would read Bill Reed
from Uqua Valley Financial.
[1:17:30] » No, he um No, I'm sorry. Uh
it would say Bill Reed represented
[1:17:38] Home Enqua Financial and then from there
because he was the one speaking, not
[1:17:44] anybody from HomeQua Financial.
>> Okay. And Gene Larson, we would redact
[1:17:50] that part portion as well.
Uh I didn't see that. I know that Bill
[1:17:56] was doing the reporting out. Maybe there
was a question in there, but I do know
[1:18:00] that Bill was the one who started the
conversation and reported out that
[1:18:04] financial um information.
>> Okay. And I and I appreciate you
[1:18:09] clarifying. I I don't want to beat a
dead horse, but I want to make sure I'm
[1:18:12] understanding correctly. So the sentence
as presented in the agenda or in the
[1:18:17] minutes states a representative from
Elqua Valley Financial in parenthesis
[1:18:21] Ash a partner appeared via Zoom
accompanied by Jean Larson who leads the
[1:18:26] single audit area and so that's the the
exact sentence I want to clarify that
[1:18:32] none of those those people listed should
be included in the minutes. Thank you
[1:18:37] for the questions. Um, I carefully
watched this piece of the video several
[1:18:42] times to see what happened. Um, and it
was Bill Reid who uh was a
[1:18:47] representative for Umpqua and I don't
know who Ash is. I don't know what
[1:18:52] that's all about. Um, and appeared via
Zoom is not correct. Um, because they
[1:18:58] weren't on the Zoom call because Bill
Reed was the person um representing them
[1:19:04] in our council meeting.
Okay.
[1:19:08] » So, um I think we need to take a minute.
Um I'll have to So, this is different
[1:19:12] than what I edited. It came back
different. So, I'm going to have to look
[1:19:18] at it again and rewrite it.
>> Request a rewrite
[1:19:25] » because it came to me, I reviewed it, I
edited it, this is what I had, and this
[1:19:30] is how it came back different than what
I requested. So, okay.
[1:19:35] » Thank you. Thank you for clarifying
that. So, um, what I'm hearing is
[1:19:38] there's still some adjustments that
might need to be made given this new
[1:19:42] information and and corrections. So, um,
Council President DeForge, I would be
[1:19:48] curious if we could postpone approving
at least the June 15, 2026 minutes to a
[1:19:54] future meeting.
>> Is everyone okay with getting ourselves
[1:19:59] some extra review time?
>> Agree. Yes.
[1:20:03] » Okay. Thank you, Council Gart. We move
to the approval of the June July 6, 2026
[1:20:13] minutes.
Was there any feedback provided to
[1:20:16] Colleen?
[1:20:20] » I did not have any issues with uh the
July 6th
[1:20:26] edits.
>> I did not either.
[1:20:31] » Councelor Yugarte.
>> Councelor Yugarte. A couple things I did
[1:20:34] connect with Colleen. Um, just
mentioning it marked I was marked as
[1:20:38] absent. I have previously spoken to
interimm city manager Rob and Dodie
[1:20:42] during that time letting her know that I
would be gone. Um, so I would like that
[1:20:46] corrected to say excused versus absent.
And then there were just a couple small
[1:20:52] spelling errors um, specifically under
public comment for the July 6, 2026
[1:20:58] meeting minutes. Um it says public
comment section C talks about Butch
[1:21:03] Kendall address the council. Um and
later in that that paragraph it says Mr.
[1:21:09] Kendall and it it just has a um his name
spelled incorrectly. So it should say
[1:21:13] Mr. Kendall also noted that since North
Plains Incorporation
[1:21:18] etc etc. So just want to update that to
reflect the correct spelling in the
[1:21:22] minutes. Um and with that I will pass it
back on.
[1:21:26] » Okay. any additional corrections or any
feedback to councelor's corrections? If
[1:21:35] not, I would recommend that be listing
for a motion to approve the July 6, 2026
[1:21:42] minutes as amended.
[1:21:48] » Councelor Weber so moved.
>> Second.
[1:21:52] » Second.
>> Councelor Warrington. Second.
[1:21:55] All those in favor of approving the July
6 minutes.
[1:22:00] » I
>> I
[1:22:01] » Any opposed?
Okay. Motion carries and we will um
[1:22:07] continue the conversation on the June
15th, 2026 minutes to the next week.
[1:22:14] We're going to move along to item eight,
which is old business. There is no item
[1:22:19] there. So number nine, city manager
report. Thank you, mayor, members of
[1:22:25] council. U my report is going to be
verbal this time because I didn't have
[1:22:29] time to write one given everything else.
So, I hope you have patience with me. I
[1:22:34] did send you all a copy of a uh
information sheet that I received about
[1:22:42] city improvements. Uh so, you have that
information.
[1:22:46] Uh I also sent you a copy of Ross's
final report and recommendations. You
[1:22:52] may want to put that on a future agenda
and consider those. I'll be meeting with
[1:22:58] uh the city recorder on Thursday to talk
about or phasing back in to the work and
[1:23:05] that'll take a lot of pressure off some
folks.
[1:23:11] Uh on Wednesday morning, um Brianna and
Bailey and I are meeting with Theres to
[1:23:20] close out her contract, which will
include doing one final newsletter. That
[1:23:26] will be the end of her work here.
I'll be calling you all, if I haven't
[1:23:32] already, to schedule the interviews uh
with with you council members.
[1:23:40] and we'll be interviewing three
finalists for the program and community
[1:23:45] communication supervisor position. There
were five. They've been boiled down to
[1:23:50] three and I'm setting those up for next
week so we can get that position moving
[1:23:55] forward.
And I'm meeting Wednesday at 1 on the uh
[1:24:01] clean water contract to get that moving.
That needs to come forward to you. Uh
[1:24:07] and that concludes my report for today.
Thank you, sir. Are there any comments
[1:24:13] for
from city manager?
[1:24:17] » Councelor Weber, what will be the
process? The three applications for the
[1:24:21] new position. Will you bring
three to us or one to us or what will be
[1:24:26] the process?
>> We will bring one for recommended hire.
[1:24:31] Okay.
>> Councelor Ugarte.
[1:24:35] Thank you, councelor Yugarte. Um, I
wanted to ask a little bit more about
[1:24:40] the city contract ending with PR for
theres and what does that look like
[1:24:46] after that contract is ended or do we
have someone else lined up or what is
[1:24:51] the plan going forward for PR?
>> Good question. And I think the plan is
[1:24:56] that you're the new position
of of programs and communication
[1:25:02] supervisor would pick up some of those
elements plus some recreation and some
[1:25:08] other council directed activities.
[1:25:13] » And so for the timeline of someone being
in that position versus the contract
[1:25:19] ending with the Ling, what does that
look like? Is there going to be
[1:25:24] continuity? Is there a gap?
>> My my hope is it will be positive and
[1:25:31] the new person will pick up in early
October.
[1:25:37] Theres has been notified by the city of
that her contract terminates on the 30th
[1:25:44] of September.
So that we may see some void in there
[1:25:49] for a while.
But I'm hoping that we don't have that.
[1:25:53] But again, the reality is we could very
well have a week or two where there is
[1:25:58] nobody covering that base.
>> Okay. And what's the contingency plan if
[1:26:04] there is a gap?
>> Good question. I have none at this time.
[1:26:09] And I and I just asked that because we
um unfortunately have made many
[1:26:14] headlines across
the local news and I think it's really
[1:26:19] important that we continue to be mindful
of the narrative that is is being
[1:26:25] broadcast um from this this council's
actions and from our city as well. So um
[1:26:31] I respect the process and and understand
that we need time to appoint someone for
[1:26:36] that new position. However, I would be
curious if we
[1:26:41] had something where we did a weekby-
week extension of a contract until we
[1:26:45] have someone solidified into that
position. Again, um the narrative for
[1:26:49] the this community is very important and
especially as we are trying to attract
[1:26:54] talent to city staff. Um I want to be
mindful that we are not relying on um
[1:27:01] people on Facebook controlling the
narrative for us, but instead have a
[1:27:05] voice for the city. Good, good point.
Let me let me analyze that and study it
[1:27:10] and get you a report back to let you
know what our options are. I see at
[1:27:16] least a couple one would be a a couple
week void if we have the void what staff
[1:27:23] members will cover those bases. If we
can extend the for a week or two if
[1:27:29] she's even willing u that would be an
option but let me do that and get it to
[1:27:35] you.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[1:27:37] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, council. Any other comments?
[1:27:47] Yes, sir. Mayor, if I may put one other
point out here, and I've done this in my
[1:27:53] daily status reports. I I am just
absolutely amazed at the amount of work
[1:28:01] that is being done by your staff. You
have about as short a staff city as I
[1:28:08] have ever run into in my 110 years of
doing school.
[1:28:13] But but it is amazing and I would
suggest that any time you get a chance
[1:28:18] to compliment your staff do so because
they are really under pressure and some
[1:28:24] of them are getting more pressure now
that I'm here uh throwing more
[1:28:29] responsibilities on them and they're
just soaking it up and they're
[1:28:33] delivering at a high level.
>> Very nice. Thank you, sir. We appreciate
[1:28:37] our staff.
[1:28:42] Anything else before I move on to the
next agenda item?
[1:28:48] » Going to move to council comments 10,
which is council reports.
[1:28:54] Um, councelor Rustin, do you mind if I
start with you? You come on down.
[1:28:58] » Um, yeah, that's fine. U,
[clears throat] so I last meeting I've
[1:29:04] not had any expio
uh obligations, but I will be attending
[1:29:08] the library board meeting next week. Uh,
one thing that I am concerned about as
[1:29:14] I've gone through the calendar is just
the number of boards and committees that
[1:29:17] have uh, canceled meetings. Uh and what
I would like to get on the agenda is for
[1:29:24] you the EDC uh library you know all of
them in front uh the council to give an
[1:29:30] update on when their last meeting was
what their primary objectives are
[1:29:35] roadblocks that they have
[clears throat] uh and assistance that
[1:29:39] they need from the council to move
forward. Uh, I'm just concerned that,
[1:29:44] you know, we're seeing stalls in, as far
as I can tell, every board committee
[1:29:49] with the exception of the library and
maybe public works.
[1:29:53] » Well, would you like to address that? I
know we've got the planning commission
[1:29:56] is scheduled for tomorrow, right?
>> Yes. And I'm in discussions with Patty
[1:30:01] for the uh Rick Parks board meeting
coming up in a couple of weeks. But I
[1:30:08] think that's a good comment. just let
let me let us do some analysis and and
[1:30:14] come up with a plan to properly
service those committees and get that
[1:30:20] moving forward.
>> Yeah, I I appreciate that and it doesn't
[1:30:23] necessarily need to all happen once at
once, but I would like to see us move
[1:30:27] forward.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir. Does that address
[1:30:30] your concern?
>> That is. Yeah. Thank you.
[1:30:33] » Anything else you'd like to comment?
>> No, I think I've done it enough today.
[1:30:39] Great. Thank you. Um I would like to add
an agenda item um a high priority one um
[1:30:47] for the next meeting if possible. Uh we
all uh the whole city is behind a data
[1:30:56] center ban. We have a ordinance number
501 that Emily Waldron uh wrote up for
[1:31:02] us as a draft. Um, I think we would like
I would like to have a agenda item that
[1:31:08] we can review that uh and see if there
are next steps or what we need to do to
[1:31:13] um further the data center ban in our
city.
[1:31:18] » Thank you, councelor.
>> Um, not done.
[1:31:21] » I apologize. [laughter]
>> Um, also the Jesse Mays uh thing, I know
[1:31:26] there are two sections around that. Uh,
I know that uh Mr. Paul Cook is working
[1:31:31] on the pitcher itself. Um, and we need
to also have an agenda item around this
[1:31:38] drinking fountain um plaque. So, I'd
like to add that to some agenda items
[1:31:43] soon. Um, and the audit results for
2122. The last time we talked about
[1:31:49] those um there was additional details or
more in depth that we wanted um provided
[1:31:56] to us. Have we gotten those details um
from is it?
[1:32:04] » I believe it was Marina that
>> Marina. Thank you. Get those additional
[1:32:07] details that you asked for.
>> Uh yes, I believe that that was
[1:32:11] complete. I can provide a copy.
>> That would be great. Thank you. That's
[1:32:15] all I have.
>> Okay. So, let me just pause a second
[1:32:17] here because you brought up some some
items I wanted to check with the team.
[1:32:21] So, uh data center ban as a future
agenda item. Is there council consensus
[1:32:27] that you would like to discuss this?
>> Yes.
[1:32:35] » Okay. Councelor Weber, if it were
possible, it would also for me be
[1:32:40] helpful to have Emily, legal counsel,
>> look over the document and see if there
[1:32:45] are any legal issues that
>> Yeah, I think my suggestion for next
[1:32:50] steps would be now that Paul has an
agenda item for us, he would think about
[1:32:56] how to maybe bring us options and I can
share with you what a citizen prepared a
[1:33:01] document and has a starting point and we
can have a conversation. so that when
[1:33:06] the next council meeting happens, we can
address councelor Warrington's
[1:33:11] suggestion. You also uh suggested Jesse
May's picture. I believe we have um
[1:33:18] talked about that before and everyone's
on board with that. Um I think Ross left
[1:33:23] it as public works department was going
to be responsible for hanging it and we
[1:33:29] we just need to get that across the
finish line. Is that right?
[1:33:31] » I believe that is correct. We need to
know where to hang it and then ask them
[1:33:35] to hang it. So, just a quick agenda item
to discuss that and finalize.
[1:33:40] » Is it is it an agenda item or is it
you're asking the the public works
[1:33:44] department to hang the picture?
>> Where are we going to hang it? I mean,
[1:33:47] it was under the TV. Is that where we
want to hang it?
[1:33:50] » So, how about uh can you come back to
the council and tell us what public
[1:33:56] works feedback is on how to hang that
picture? Is that would that address your
[1:34:01] concern council or you want you want to
go ahead? Yeah, sir. When I discussed it
[1:34:07] with Patty today at chamber lunchon, she
indicated that they felt it was the role
[1:34:12] of the park committee to review the
situation and come forward to council
[1:34:18] with recommendations about where to hang
it, how to do the plaque and all of
[1:34:23] those pieces.
Councelor Warrington, there's two
[1:34:27] separate things and uh the hanging the
picture is one. Yeah. And that was going
[1:34:33] to be in the in this room, I thought.
And the other one is the plaque above
[1:34:38] the um fountain.
>> And maybe that's the parks and wreck
[1:34:43] thing, but the other one is the framed
picture that was just going to be home.
[1:34:48] » So, well, can we break this into two
separate issues? So, the first one is
[1:34:54] the picture. So Ross's feedback before
was public works own that if you would
[1:35:00] like to take Paul a different position
and how about how about think about it
[1:35:05] analyze it and come back to us with a
recommendation. I think everyone's
[1:35:09] aligned that we want to honor Jesse Mays
and we would like
[1:35:13] » we'd like somehow to to make that
happen. So, if you could think about a
[1:35:18] way that would address councelor
Warrington's concern.
[1:35:22] » I don't think there's any doubt that
public works will have to do the hang.
[1:35:25] » Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay. Does that address your first
[1:35:29] concern on the picture? Okay. Thank you.
Now, to the drinking fountain and this
[1:35:33] is followup to the public comment that I
believe was Meredith made. So, it looks
[1:35:38] like we would like to get a plaque. I
think Meredith said $500. And if we
[1:35:43] could, since Elmer is 100 years old, if
we could we could make that happen, I
[1:35:50] think that would be great. Is that
>> is that okay with you there, Paul?
[1:35:55] » Yes.
>> Thank you, sir. Every is that okay with
[1:35:57] everyone else?
>> Okay. And Okay, I'll take an action item
[1:36:02] on audit results.
Okay.
[1:36:07] Councelor Weber.
>> Councelor Weber. Uh I'm not sure the
[1:36:12] best way to do this. I would ask for
some sort of council perhaps work
[1:36:16] session would be the best way to do it
before the next meeting to discuss where
[1:36:20] we are with the TGM uh the UGB process.
Uh that has not been doing much for
[1:36:27] several months. Uh one suggestion would
be to see if we could invite I'm not
[1:36:31] sure his full name but Glenn works with
ODOT who are the people that are uh
[1:36:37] involved in that whole process. if
perhaps he would join us uh at a work
[1:36:43] session to discuss what our options are
uh going forward.
[1:36:48] » So Paul, did you get a briefing on our
TGM project? Are you familiar?
[1:36:51] » I have that.
>> Okay, I can I can bring you up to speed
[1:36:54] on that. But basically, we have a
planning process through ODOT and uh we
[1:37:00] need to
continue on our next steps. So let me
[1:37:04] just check around the room here. Is
adding the TGM
[1:37:09] checkin or update or decision point to a
future agenda that be something you guys
[1:37:16] are consistent with. I'll start over
here. Council West, you okay with that?
[1:37:21] Warrington?
>> Yeah.
[1:37:23] » Okay. Okay. Looks like there's consensus
that we would like to discuss TGM
[1:37:28] project. Okay. Council Weber, go ahead.
>> A couple meetings uh I attended. I am
[1:37:34] involved in the MAC Metropolitan Area
Communication Council and I will be
[1:37:40] working uh with Paul. Uh we have a
10-year Comcast agreement that they
[1:37:46] would like our resolution that we would
approve at the next meeting. I think
[1:37:51] there's 15 different municipalities that
are part of this Comcast agreement. Uh
[1:37:56] we don't get a huge financial
uh from that. I think it's around maybe
[1:38:02] 15 to 17,000 but it's something we are
all a part of have been a part of this
[1:38:06] for a long time this Comcast agreement
and we need to do a resolution so I will
[1:38:12] work with Paul to bring that before the
group and then the group can decide. Uh
[1:38:16] I've also been working with MAC a bit
just uh trying to create a good
[1:38:21] relationship with them. Uh unfortunately
when I first uh joined the MAC uh there
[1:38:28] was a problem with a grant that they had
given us that was going to be used at
[1:38:31] the Kindle Center and uh $30,000 of the
grant was never used. Uh so they uh
[1:38:38] responded that the city would need to
repay the unused portion and uh I'm not
[1:38:42] sure the whole reason but there was a
six-month delay when that money was not
[1:38:47] refunded when they had requested to be
refunded. Uh fortunately um myself and
[1:38:54] others were involved and that was worked
out. The money about a month ago was
[1:38:59] given back to MAC which was good. Uh I
also met with the um talked to the new
[1:39:06] director of MAC about one of the
priorities have been to get a better
[1:39:12] sound system, TV, all that in this room.
and he corresponded to me that in 2025
[1:39:20] he had come to this building met with
Bill Reid uh staff and brought an expert
[1:39:26] on board and they are open the funding
at that time it was the $ 15 to $20,000
[1:39:32] upgrade grant that they were open to uh
helping us with through MAC. Uh
[1:39:38] unfortunately, I don't know the whole
reason for it, but he said they went
[1:39:42] back and forth several times, but uh for
some reason in March uh March, April,
[1:39:48] May, June, the city for some reason was
not responding back to requests from
[1:39:54] MAC. And at that point, MAC uh the grant
process timeline ran out. So that money
[1:39:59] went away. Uh but he is open to us
reapplying for uh future funds. So we
[1:40:06] will be working on that.
I also attended a uh EPA and Brownfield
[1:40:12] uh meeting on the 5acre uh Glenco
property cleanup. Uh Ross was at that
[1:40:20] meeting. Also, Tom Bolt, our um lobbyist
was there. Uh it was a very impressive
[1:40:27] meeting. The representative from the EPA
was there and we had an excellent
[1:40:31] discussion on the brownfield uh cleanup.
Uh the part that was a little surprising
[1:40:37] to me uh at one point she said, "I'm
just here to kind of clarify if you
[1:40:42] still
uh are hoping to get the million dollars
[1:40:46] because we have not received any of your
paperwork." The agreement uh the way the
[1:40:51] grant works is you're given the grant,
but then there's a whole agreement
[1:40:53] process that needs to take place. And
for some reason in this uh last 15-month
[1:40:59] period uh the city had not completed
that documentation had not given it to
[1:41:05] the EPA. Uh the EPA was very cordial
about it but was surprised that the city
[1:41:11] had not responded with what was needed.
Uh they said that was very unusual uh
[1:41:18] that a city would wait that long to
basically get the money. So, the good
[1:41:22] news is that is moving at this point.
Ross has worked on it. Tom Bolt is
[1:41:28] involved. I think they've come to you.
Bailey, I think, is working on some of
[1:41:32] the paperwork. And um uh the good news
is I think that's uh the key is not so
[1:41:38] much looking back, but the forward
motion now is working where we will be
[1:41:42] able to uh secure those funds it looks
like and then hopefully additional money
[1:41:47] for the house re house removals.
That is the end of the year. Thank you,
[1:41:52] sir. Council,
[1:41:59] » thank you, councelor Ugarte. Um, again,
no exeicio duties. Um, I want to echo
[1:42:07] councelor Rustin's statement regarding
trying to establish our boards and
[1:42:12] committees back into their regular
cadence and meetings. So, thank you to
[1:42:14] Paul for already being proactive. Um, I
think my my question is for Paul. Is
[1:42:21] there anything you need from council to
help support getting move meetings back
[1:42:26] into the regular schedule
for other boards of commissions?
[1:42:30] » Right. I'll let you let you know. Okay.
>> Okay. Um, the other um topic I wanted to
[1:42:38] mention and I I would like everyone to
refrain their pitch works for just a
[1:42:42] second, but I was going to say data
center. I know that's a hot topic. Um
[1:42:46] but I while I support us exploring an
option for data center ban, I would say
[1:42:55] that we have other topics that are of a
higher priority and more timesensitive
[1:43:00] um than spending time on a data center
van. Right now we need to get our city
[1:43:05] into a functional state with just staff
in general. um getting our boards and
[1:43:10] commissions back into place and to spend
time on a data center van when we don't
[1:43:16] even have enough buildable inventory for
anything in the city close to a data
[1:43:21] center. Um it just feels like this is
this could be a waste of time at this
[1:43:26] point. I do think it is important. I do
not personally want data centers of
[1:43:30] North Plains, but I think that we have
other priorities, especially given some
[1:43:34] of the feedback that we've received from
previous interimm city manager on some
[1:43:39] data points and areas of opportunity. I
would really encourage this council to
[1:43:44] consider postponing dis discussion for
data center and to really highlight a
[1:43:51] work session andor agenda topic for some
of those points that Ross had previously
[1:43:57] left for us as a council. And I know
Paul had also echoed that that that is
[1:44:01] um a priority. I was just curious what
everyone's thoughts are. Are we I know
[1:44:07] time is finite, but are we leaning
towards wanting to spend time with the
[1:44:12] next meeting for data center ban or are
we wanting to potentially table that for
[1:44:18] a future topic once the city is
stabilized
[1:44:22] and we instead we can focus on really
the the task at hand of stabilizing our
[1:44:28] city given the feedback we have.
>> Council Council Rustin, I don't think
[1:44:32] that uh there's any reason to postpone
it. I think we can address the other
[1:44:36] things and at least entertain a
conversation. You know, us having a
[1:44:40] conversation does not prevent us from
doing anything else. Okay.
[1:44:45] » Warrington.
>> Councelor Warrington. Um I think a a
[1:44:48] discussion is in order. I don't think we
need to spend hours upon hours on
[1:44:53] discussing it, but at least start uh the
conversation to see where it might lead
[1:44:58] us is a good idea.
>> Thank you, Councelor Weber. I would also
[1:45:03] move forward with the conversation.
I'll I'll also support
[1:45:09] the effort to have the discussion.
>> Okay, no problem. Um, couple other
[1:45:14] things I wanted to uh mention. Um, just
again, huge thanks to the community for
[1:45:20] coming out. Um, just really giving your
support and and letting us know how you
[1:45:25] feel and what you want. So, I just want
to say thank you um to everyone online,
[1:45:28] to everyone here in person. um just
thank you. It's really important to show
[1:45:33] up. So, thank you for that. Um I also
wanted to remind council um I've noticed
[1:45:39] that there have been several emails
amongst the council that is replying all
[1:45:43] and I want to remind everyone of the
serial communications law. We should not
[1:45:47] be hitting reply all as counselors
to any communication amongst council.
[1:45:54] So, I just want to remind everyone, the
other thing I wanted to remind this
[1:45:58] council of are Robert's rules. Part of
our council rules is that we need to
[1:46:03] make a gesture for the chair to call on
us and say, "Councelor Warrington,
[1:46:10] counselor Rustin, um because there have
been several times tonight that I have
[1:46:15] raised my hand and someone another
council member has spoken over me um
[1:46:20] without following Robert's rules." So
again, I know we're all learning. Um
[1:46:24] this is a new process for for most, but
I just want to really make sure that we
[1:46:29] are following the agenda um and the
rules at hand with us. So um that being
[1:46:34] said, I the last thing I wanted to cover
are just our exeicio duties and try to
[1:46:42] get a clear picture of what meetings are
occurring within the city this this
[1:46:46] month.
And that might be a question for Paul,
[1:46:50] that might be
a question at the next meeting, but I'm
[1:46:54] just curious what meetings we should
plan on holding for the month of
[1:46:58] September for our boards and
commissions.
[1:47:05] Thank you, counselor. Um, my quick
update is um I will be attending the
[1:47:11] planning commission meeting as exopicio
tomorrow. Um, I've been attending Metro
[1:47:18] Policy Advisory Committee. They didn't
have a meeting in August meeting in
[1:47:23] July. Um,
and I think that is it for me.
[1:47:28] Councelor,
>> thank you. So, back to my previous
[1:47:32] question, what what meetings are
occurring this month? Can we trust
[1:47:35] what's in the packet that the parks and
recck board will be occurring on
[1:47:39] September 14th? Yes or no?
>> To the best of my knowledge, no date has
[1:47:45] been set.
the chairperson for the committee will
[1:47:49] be out of town till next week. We agreed
to get together and put together an
[1:47:54] agenda and a meeting day or two.
>> Okay. So, the 914 parks and recck board
[1:47:59] is still TBD.
Is that is that correct?
[1:48:04] » Could happen. I I don't know how fast
that she's going to want to
[1:48:09] council. Uh
>> council ran according to the North
[1:48:11] Plains calendar, the four the meeting on
the 14th is listed as being cancelled
[1:48:15] for parks and wreck.
which was part of my you know sorry
[1:48:20] because I'm seeing a lot of those on the
calendar.
[1:48:23] » Thank you sir. Council
>> thank you and I think that's the the
[1:48:26] disconnect right now is as you know
staff is doing their very best and
[1:48:30] there's a lot of moving pieces that have
to get updated and you know looking at
[1:48:35] the the calendar said it's cancelled but
looking at our agenda packet that was
[1:48:40] just recently provided it says that
they're all of the meetings are
[1:48:43] occurring. So, I don't want to peacemeal
this and I know again staffing is is at
[1:48:50] a critical level, but we need to have
direction and we need to know are these
[1:48:54] meetings happening in the next 3 weeks.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
[1:48:58] Um, so if if this is a decision of we're
going to cancel the parks and recck
[1:49:03] meeting for 9:14 and try again in
October once we have a clear picture,
[1:49:08] maybe that's more definitive. I feel
like we are running the city day by day
[1:49:13] and we are getting notices of special
meetings that are out of cadence that
[1:49:20] are not being properly communicated and
everything is is discombobulated for
[1:49:25] lack of a better term.
>> I think those are good points. Let let
[1:49:28] me get back with you with a
comprehensive report to bring all of
[1:49:32] that up to.
>> Okay. So, thank you and I appreciate it.
[1:49:35] And again, I know you're just walking in
and and again, everyone is doing the
[1:49:39] best they can, but I think as a city
again, it's really important that we're
[1:49:43] communicating and there's a big
disconnect right now. That's again why
[1:49:46] I'm concerned about PR. The other
question I had, um, planning commission,
[1:49:50] we are good to go for the library board
916 meeting. Is that planned in progress
[1:49:58] or is that canled?
>> As far as I know, it is on.
[1:50:02] » Okay, perfect. Thank you. And then um
just the only other thing I wanted to
[1:50:07] touch on is for the Washington County
Coordinating Committee. I know that that
[1:50:12] typically has been um just mayors that
are able to attend. Is that something
[1:50:19] within your scope? I know you have a lot
on your plate, but do you have capacity
[1:50:23] to attend that so that we still have
representation for North Plains?
[1:50:26] » What's the date?
>> Uh it's the second Monday of every
[1:50:30] month. So it looks like it'll be Monday
the 14th.
[1:50:34] at noon.
And this is this is the very last page
[1:50:38] in our packet if you need to reference
it later on.
[1:50:43] » Let me take a look at at that function
and my calendar. See if I can do that.
[1:50:48] » Okay. Thank you,
>> Council Rustin.
[1:50:51] » Yeah, sorry. Council Russ, uh, one more
thing just I was looking at the, uh,
[1:50:56] calendar. We don't have any URA meetings
scheduled for next. We're on discuss
[1:51:02] that.
>> Okay. Get those back on the calendar.
[1:51:05] Okay. Yeah. Good point.
[1:51:09] » Okay. I think we we kind of transitioned
into uh 10B which is review September
[1:51:16] 2026 council calendar. So is there any
other comments on the calendar?
[1:51:25] Okay.
So I am going to adjourn the meeting.
[1:51:30] » Council Warington, I have one one last
comment. I'm sorry. During our meeting
[1:51:35] today, I requested the audience not to
um clap or make noises. Okay. And I
[1:51:41] think that we need to revisit the uh
rules of disruption to the council
[1:51:47] meeting. Um I know that Hillsboro allows
people to snap um so it isn't as
[1:51:52] disruptive. Uh, I know that, you know,
there's obviously emotions going on here
[1:51:57] and we want to, uh, let people express
themselves, but we don't also want to
[1:52:03] be, um, disrupted. So, maybe we can call
that up or um, the next comments or
[1:52:10] something on how the audience can
participate in uh, their emotions
[1:52:16] without disrupting the council.
>> Okay.
[1:52:22] » Thank you.
[1:52:27] There are any other comments before I
adjourn the meeting?
[1:52:32] » Okay. So, the city council meeting is
going to be adjourned at only 53 p.m.
[1:52:38] » Thank you. Thank you.
[1:52:46] » Thank you.
[1:52:49] for you for
me.