[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.

North Plains City Council Meeting September 8th, 2026

Transcript