City Council - Regular Meeting

Morning everyone and welcome to the April 27th, 2026 city council work session. Thank you for joining us in this hybrid meeting format. For work sessions like this one, there is no opportunity for public comment. And those wishing to access the meeting can do so by watching the live stream available on our website, the broadcast on Comcast channel 21 or by calling into one of the phone numbers listed for this meeting on the city of Eugene's website's public webcast and meetings materials page. In case of a medical emergency, an automated external defibrill and AED is located on the counter behind staff on the left uh your left or the west side of this room. And in case of an emergency evacuation, the emergency exits are through the double doors that are located at the back of the room and the doors to the patio can also be used as needed. Thank you all again for joining us this evening. I now call the April 27th, 2026 work session of the Eugene City Council to order and I will turn things over to our city manager to introduce the first topic, which is a work session on the parks and recreation bond and levy update.

Uh thank you, mayor, members of the council. Well, uh, this is an annual update provided to council about the accomplishments made using the bond and levy funding. Uh, staff will provide project updates related to numerous park projects completed and upcoming using the 2018 capital bond funding. At this point, I'll turn it over to staff.

That better. All right. a red light.

Uh again, I'm Craig Carnegie. I'm the parks and open space division manager. I'm here with Peter Siobhan, the recreation division manager, and Emily Proudfoot, our principal landscape architect. And as mentioned, we're here to present the outcomes of the past fiscal year related to the funding provided by both the 2018 parks and recreation facilities bond and the 2023 5-year operating levy. The 2018 $39 million capital bond was passed by voters with strong support and was intended to begin work on priority parks and recreation facilities projects identified in the parks and recreation system plan. The system plan approved by council in 2017 set up a 30-year vision for our parks and recreation system and represents an extensive public engagement process. The 2018 bond covered a portion of the projects in this vision with an approximately 10-year uh completion horizon. The 2023 5-year operating levy succeeded a prior levy passed in 2018. Both measures passed with strong voter support and were intended to provide the maintenance required for the 2018 capital bond projects as new parks and recreation facilities were built and to help close a long-standing park maintenance funding gap for existing park system assets. The 5.3 million in annual operating dollars allows us to keep six existing park restrooms open and increase park maintenance services across the system. stand up a robust park safety program, increase trails and natural area maintenance, and provide facilities maintenance and recreation program funding at several recreation centers. There are two formal oversight mechanisms for the bond and levy measures. A parks and recreation citizen advisory board reviews progress on both the bond and levy, and an annual independent fiscal audit is run for bond expenditures. A letter of support from the advisory board for the work performed to date as well as an audit report for fiscal year 25 was included in your packet. And now we'd like to provide you with a brief overview of the outcomes of the bond and levy over the past year or so.

Bond projects prioritized from the system plan were geographically spread out across the city. There was a total of 38 projects to be completed with these funds and to date 35 of those are now done. We leverage other funding opportunities with bond dollars to be able to do more with these funds. We've spent approximately $34 million in bond funds to date, but have built $74 million worth of projects using a combination of grants, system development charges, and other capital funds such as storm water and transportation funding. Over the course of the bond, we've received 2 million this year alone in grants for Arley uh Suzanne Arley Park and Mattie Reynolds Parks uh and 8 million in total grant funding since 2018. The community is now enjoying newly built and renovated parks and recreation facilities at sites like Echo Hollow and Sheldon pools, UMSO and Berkeley parks, our new downtown riverfront park and plaza, the Delta Ponds Loop Trail, as well as numerous other sport courts and fields, paths and trails, and lighting and safety improvement projects. Over the last fiscal year, we built Santa Clara Community Park phase 1, which included a large playground, spray play, restroom, parking lot, and picnic shelter. It also included a new pedestrian bridge and pathway connecting the north and south sides of the park site, as well as soft surface walking trails. Bond funds helped support the rewing of Amazon Creek near 24th Avenue, a project that removed a concrete box channel with a meandering naturalized stream with native repairarian plantings. All of which help improve water quality, stabilize stream banks, and improve wildlife habitat. Ongoing habitat restoration work is also funded by the bond measure and recently has focused on removal of highly invasive species and replanting with native species

throughout the ridge line at sites like Amazon Headarters, Bllandon Ridge, Spencer But Suzanne Arley, and Wild Iris Ridge. plantings are designed to be low density and not recreate fuel loads. Bond funded work has also focused on Skinner but Park removing invasive species and fuel loads on the south side of the but adding native plantings uh both to the but in the repairarian forest of the Wamut River in the eastern portions of the park. We also renovated Martin Luther King Jr. Park after an extensive public engagement process. Improvements included updating the playground and plaza, added game tables and seating, accessibility improvements, a looped walking path, and beginnerfriendly skate curb. And now I'd like to play a brief video of the opening of that park to give you a sense of the fun, community, and meaning these places bring to residents. Hear the audio.

Welcome to the reopening of Martin Luther King Jr. Park. Hey everyone, my name is Mao Cotier Oakan. Um, I served as the public involvement facilitator for the design of MLK Junior Park. Um, just feeling really blessed and grateful to be here. The design of this process began back in 2022. Um, and we just really came together and co-designed and co-visioned. Um, and so it's just really great to see the fruits of our labor come out in this product. Um, and so just just really grateful. Thanks so much to all the folks that were involved, the committee members that share their stories and expertise. Um, so just gratitude. So great uh fun that we have at those grand openings and we're going to have another one uh later this spring for Santa Clara Community Park as well as University Park and and Suzanne Arley Park this fall. So we hope that each of you can come out and join us. And so upcoming projects um includes the opening of the newly renovated University Park this fall as well as Suzanne Arley Park which includes an extensive mountain bike skills park with 13 miles of new riding trails. Other projects remaining to be built include Matty Reynolds Park in Southwest, which is the final in final construction uh document phase and should begin construction early next year. We're also working on train song renovation, uh Alton Baker Park renovation planning, and more irrigation and lighting improvements. Remaining projects not yet started include the renovation of Ferndale and Westbank parks. The final design for Golden Gardens Community Park is also near completion. This park will include playgrounds, paths, protected natural areas, sport

courts uh for pickle ball and basketball and a regional sports complex for soccer and softball, baseball. Um and over the last three years alone, these new projects have added a lot of maintenance or a lot of amenities and physical assets to the park system, all of which must be maintained. The 2023 levy projected full maintenance cost requirements for new bond projects as they came online. But as many of you may recall from discussions in 2023, the full amount needed for park maintenance was not included in the measure. At that time, we forecasted a funding gap for maintenance likely to occur in 20 late 2026 27. We're now starting to see that gap occur. Uh we're looking at many options to close this gap, including lowering some maintenance standards and gaining greater efficiency through resource optimization and possibly delaying some projects until additional maintenance funding is secured. And additional funding options for park maintenance could come from storm water funds or a renewed levy in 2028. And now we're doing a lot with the levy dollars that we do have. Um, the levy has been vital to keep up the maintenance for new amenities as they're built as well as existing assets in the system. The levy allows us to keep things cleaner, greener, and safer. As I mentioned earlier, we reopened six park restrooms that were previously closed due to budget cuts. We've increased daily maintenance service at all of our parks. Litter and trash pickup, restroom cleaning, graffiti abatement, and higher levels of turf, tree, and landscape care. In our natural areas and trails, we're resurfacing more trails, repairing fences, roads, and signs. We've added portable restrooms at trail heads, and we're doing more to maintain native habitat and reduce wildfire risks through proactive vegetation fuel reductions. Our park safety team includes four park ambassadors, two cleanup staff, two EPD park resource officers, overnight park security patrols, and two guardian

camera trailers. This team very efficiently and effectively monitors our parks, reminding folks about park rules, removing graffiti and large areas of garbage assoc associated with illegal camping and responding to residents safety concerns. This team recently received an award from the Oregon Recreation Parks Association for their work and I want to show this video presented at the awards ceremony. The city of Eugene's park safety team has transformed the way the city cares for its over 4,800 acres of parks and natural areas. Formed in 2018, the team pioneered a unique three-legged stool model combining park maintenance staff, Eugene police park resource officers, and park ambassadors. Together, this team works to address elicit activity, provide cleanup, and help ensure parks remain safe and welcoming. Instead of relying on complaints, they use innovative GIS mapping to proactively patrol parks, track campsites, and direct resources where they're needed most. This approach has reduced service requests by over 40%, improved response times from days to hours, and removed 20 to 30 cubic yards of debris daily, all while protecting sensitive habitats. Their impact is lasting, restoring the north bank of the Wamut River, activating Skinnerb Park for recreation, and earning strong community support, including levy funding. The park safety team is redefining public space management with innovation, compassion, and measurable results.

Right. Uh we routinely survey the community on how satisfied they are with these levy services and every time the results show very high mark high marks for the park maintenance and safety services provided with uh our levy dollars. So I want to thank the community for that. Um, and with that, I'm going to pass it along to my colleague, Peter Shioan, uh, to talk about recreation work with levby dollars.

Thanks, Craig. Uh, good evening, mayor and counselors. Uh, appreciate the opportunity to talk about recreation. Um, as Craig mentioned, the 2018 bond expanded programmable space at three of our recreation facilities. Community Center, Apollo Pool and Fitness Center, Sheldon Pool and Fitness Center. The levy also provided funding to expand access to recreation uh services across our system. So, beginning with Campbell Community Center. Can I get a click, Craig? Um what you'll see on the screen are the increase in programmable space at Campbell Community Center, total attendance and the total number of volunteer hours operating out of that facility. And then just below those total hours, you'll see the um total attendance and volunteer hours that are attributed to levy funding. These numbers acrew to the provision of traditional recreation classes. So fitness, arts, crafts, foreign languages, um workshops, classes, and presentations related to senior planning. So think about retirement, social security and Medicare navigation, senior living options and community building activities. So you can think about the lunch bunch or the Campbell bazaar. Taken as a whole, the levy has enabled us to expand uh continue and expand important support around decreasing social isolation, increasing lifelong learning and wellness, and helping older adults navigate important quality of life decisions. Moving on to our two pools, um Echoh Hollow and Sheldon. Another click here, Greg. Um, as you can see from this slide, Sheldon and Eco Hollowo pools and fitness centers hosted more than 285,000 visits in FY25.

34% of that total number is attributed to the levy. The diverse mi mix of swim lessons, recreation swims, on your own, and low impact fitness enliven some of the most welcoming community gathering places where people regularly encounter the diversity that Eugene has to offer. Adding to that the role our pools play in supporting high school and competitive aquatics in our city. Levy funding better positions our aquatics program to support communitywide water safety and lifelong fitness for the whole family. Levy also supports uh five of our athletic supervisor position responsible another click please. who's responsible for coordinating our city athletic leagues and coordinating access to to community- based organizations to I broke out the attendance on this slide into three categories to highlight the dual role that a municipal recreation provider has in our of course many people think about the direct service we provide our programs our services our sports leagues but we also fulfill an important administrative and coordinating So, in looking at the total attendance for FY25, just under 90,000 of that attendance are folks that are participating in our programming in our sport sports leagues. Um, the number just below that, you'll see that just under 40,000 youth participated in youth recreational sports through our partnership with local nonprofit community organizations, LYSA or Eugene Little League. Those organizations certainly don't have fields themselves and so coordinating a a scarce resource that we have in our community and distributing hours across those community- based organizations.

And then that final number 20,604 those are rentals to private entities. If we have a moment of space that's available on these fields, uh individuals can rent them through us. And you can think about uh a group of friends that may want to organize a pickup soccer game uh on a Sunday morning. And so um I want to emphasize that in addition to our direct service, the coordinating and administrative function recre municipal recreation provider is a key feature. Um, finally, the levy funds a a full-time fitness programmer to expand health and wellness programming across our system and as well a um half of our centralized booker whose role it is to expand access to our facilities across the so um in FY25 we provided 618 general fitness classes across 17 locations. the attendance in those programs was just over 4,300. Um, and then in terms of our centralized booking program, we we booked just over 1,800 reservations in FY25 across 11 facilities. The vast majority of those reservations were for individuals looking to rent space in our buildings. So, you can think about weddings, class reunions, family reunions, birthday parties, etc. uh a smaller subset of that 1,800 rentals were um to either community partners which are partners that uh span the recreation division. So a big community partner for us you can think about school districts um and then you can also think about program partners who have specific relationships with

pine tree production that that works with a autism community. They have a program partnership with Hillyard Community Center. Um so not only has the levy financed specific recreation programs and activities, more importantly is it has fortified our recreation infrastructure such that we are better able able to fulfill our roles as both stewards of public assets and providers of recreation services. if you have questions.

Thank you so much staff for that presentation. I'll now open the floor to council discussion. And I saw councelor Evans, councelor Groves. Councelor Evans.

Uh thanks mayor and and thank you Craig and and and staff um for the work that you've done most most particularly with Echo Hollow Pool. I know that was a long stretch. Um we opened that uh what it was a year and a half ago um to you know parties and other things that uh were present over at Amazon um and that our folks over on the north side were uh really anxious to have and now that we have it we're we're very pleased with the facility and what's going on there. Uh two quick questions. One is um Craig, you and I have been in contact over the last week or two about um State Street Park and uh Irving. Uh what category do the maintenance of those parks come under? uh in terms of um I know we do bond for you know improvements in in in facilities but the levy what is the levy covering in terms of security and maintenance and that kind of thing because again you know our issue with the lights in State Street and then um the constant use by people who are um using our parks for illegal activities, particularly drug use and alcohol use. Um, and how we're we're dealing with that because I was in Straight State Park on Saturday and ran across a couple of the needles.

Yeah, our our levy provides a great deal of resources I mentioned for our park safety team as well as supplementing a lot of our maintenance activities. um for the specific issues that you were mentioning at State Street and Irwin Park. Um that is what we call like smaller capital level projects. Those that wasn't a bond project um or for bond funding. It's really comes out of our routine capital operating dollars that we have. So our operations section would manage that pro that project in conjunction with limit Emily's staff of landscape architects and such. And so, um, we have a we do have a kind of a suite of smaller capital for routine maintenance like lighting and irrigation and such. Um, but that was not a particular bond project, but the levy is um is critical for for that day-to-day operation. Um, as well as that park safety team, which, you know, we'll we'll sending out our our park ambassadors more frequently out to that park now. And our our guardian camera trailers when they're available, they'll be out there to help out. And then hopefully we'll get that lighting um uh started up here within sometime in this summer. So,

a lot of people are really expecting that. And that that was on order that's been on order for a couple months. Just waiting for the shipping and the materials. Sometimes that takes a little while, but uh that we'll get that up and running. And then, you know, we've, as you know, we've worked with uh EPD as well and our park resource officers on getting a little bit more patrols in that area for some of the issues that we're seeing related to. Say, I appreciate you guys coming out to

councelor Zelena. Yeah, thanks. That was an awesome presentation, especially Emily's part. Um you all have been most important part answering the hard questions. So

you all have been very busy uh and very impressive at 35 of the 38 projects are 92% left in the in the great example of promises made promises kept. This is just really two of the projects in my part of town that were particularly impressive. Both are underway now. Laying back the concrete walls to uh swimmer. I just have to point out that the 285,000 attendees at our two pools, uh, twice the attendance of athletics, making the point again that we are way underpled. Also, what was really impressive was uh in 2025 alone, park staff had almost 800 instances of graffiti removed. 330 dump trucks loads of garbage. That's a lot. And then uh but most impressively is just the the park safety from 22 to 25. Quests have decline for park safety have declined 30%. Camping in parks has declined almost 43%. Operating the system and it's really effective. And u last point I'll make is that in the in the packet one of the things in the surveys 90 over 90% of our residents consider our parks extremely

or very important quality of life. As we go into this uh sess into the next phase of our economic development parts we need to focus on what our competitive advantages are. Our competitive advantages are parks and recreation. The number of people that go that use this, the number of people that say that this is 90% consider very important to their quality of life. That's our competitive advantage. One of one of many. But we need to make sure that those things get the things that we end up investing in so that they maintain.

Do want to just add on that rewing of the Amazon. I got to give a kudos to our engineering division. I mean, we provided funding and we certainly helped with the the natural um uh plantings and such, but our engineering division did a most of the leg work in terms of getting that done. So, great job to them. Yeah, I watched it get built. It wasn't a simple process either. Councelor Gross.

Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Craig, Emily, and Peter for the presentation. Um, I I agree with a lot what of what I've heard already. The the kudos for the good work that's being done. Our parks are feeling safer. They are cleaner. Uh, the lighting makes a huge difference as I've shared with you, Craig, on the uh, um, Fernidge bike path uh, goes through my ward. We've had a lot of problems down there, and that's helped quite a bit with it, as well as cutting the sight lines down into the the creek itself. It takes away some of the hidey-holes. So, we really appreciate that. On the negative, we're still the only quadrant in the city that doesn't have a community center, doesn't have a pool, and does not even have a dog park. So, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least point that out. Um, constituents in in W 8 would would like those amenities as well. I realize there's no money at this time. I know we've secured some property for both a park and a community center, but uh is that something we'll see in my lifetime? Yeah, you're going to have a very long life, so we'll get it done at some point. Um,

livability is high in this. So, you know, we did did purchase the property and the park adjacent to that uh property will be developed and that might give more impetence to some sort of community center. And then we did hear recently from the community on the dog park. And so, as we move into our system plan refresh process, um, we'll that will definitely be a project that'll be on the list. So,

great. I appreciate that. I I I just my favor I have a very favorable opinion of our parks and the work that you all do and and it's it's really appreciated and I would agree with that. I think the community has come to expect and appreciate this. I also appreciate the work that you've done up in Wild Irish Ridge which that area uh from a fire protection standpoint has always worried me. That's that's ripe for a place where a a confilration could start that would run the whole ridge line. So, uh, I know you've been active up there and helping as well, and that's that's appreciated. U, the lighting on the end of, uh, Bailey View Drive, um, has helped as well. I'm still wishing we could get BLM to take responsibility for their easement through there. Uh, that's an UPS slope steep grade with the southwest exposure. Again, it's ripe for the communication and spread of fire. So, um, I don't know if we've had any more inroads on that. No, not recently, but that's a good reminder. We can probably probably ping them here soon and keep going with that conversation. But we will be up there also around the 4th of July to make sure we can do everything we can to keep eyes on that. And I know people like to shoot fireworks off in that area and we'll do what we can to help quell that. for my colleagues, what what Craig's talking about, we have uh a number of young people that like to go up there and build bonfires in the middle of summer in the tall dry grass. And it it's scary. It scares the neighbors. Uh it should scare all of us, especially uh you know, in the the hills. Um because that gets moving, it's going to go very fast. I see we have our fire marshal in the office. I know he's aware of what that could look like. So, um, thank you for that and, uh, we'll we'll try and keep it under wraps. I know the neighbors are very interested up there in participating and helping however they can. They've offered to put work

parties together, but I know there's always concerns. So, anyway, overall, um, very enthusiastic and appreciative of what you do. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention at this moment that people lighting off fireworks within our park spaces, that is not legal activity in our community based on ordinance passed by this council a few years ago. And while um the process of uh following up on that law with uh EPD is challenging, it remains a focus of our work and it's not something that we want to see. So, thank you for raising that point, counselor. And and part of the problem with the Wild Irish ridge, you can't get there very easily. It's it's beautiful. It's gorgeous and a natural area and we'd like to keep it that way.

Uh, Councelor Leech,

thank you. Thank you so much for the work and for the presentation. I think the thing that struck me the most today is I I I hear a lot of frustrations about a lot of our systems and code enforcement and um that is complaint based and the fact that you've been able to um be more proactive and send teams out and reduce the number of complaints that come in. so dramatically um is really really impressive and appreciated and it's it's very evident. Um you know our parks and our pathways are just um could uh we get an update on Skobert Garden. Um Emily, I know the construction supposed to begin this summer um but I haven't heard anything for a little bit.

Yeah. So just to be clear, it's not a bondf funded project. Um so yeah, we are um we're doing got to be quite an important historic site. Um and so we've had to do um some pretty serious archaeology work and um that's uh delayed our our process some and um and then we've also gone out for some grants that we're um waiting on and so I think by the time we hit this time next year. So um I think it's good to wait a little more to really bring this project together in a in a really solid way. So I'm excited about that. But it's been a long process and you've worked really hard on it. So I appreciate and we appreciate your support councelor

and I'm looking forward to the Santa Clara Park opening as well. Councelor Keading.

Thank you, Mayor. When we passed the bond in 2023, uh I recall u a great many of us advocating for increased lighting um for safety reasons. And uh so it's it's nice to hear that that's around the corner. Um, but I would be remiss if I didn't also advocate for a partnership with our dark sky partners. As councelor Evans brought up in in previous council work sessions, um, is a formal request from council to to engage in that activity or embracing some of those best practices. Is that something that's already on your uh on your team's to-do list? Is it already part of of your plan? I'm not familiar with the process to get it become a designated night sky or dark sky community if that's what you're referring to, but I do know and Emily can talk to this better than I can about a lot of the things that we do to light and provide safety but also down light so that we're not, you know, providing more light spillage out into our community. And I don't know if you want to mention not, but it's definitely a value that we have and it's something we consider. So under city code you must uh you must your lighting must be cut off lighting. So it cannot be uh can't so that's under city code right now. So we certainly follow um that code. Um in addition you know when we're working in natural areas in particular. So think about like the Westbank path um and it kind of goes up through some pretty um well at night it's dark. It probably feels a little bit scary, but it's also some pretty significant that's quite valuable. Um, and so what we've worked really hard on is to really focus the lights just on the path, right? And so we do some sort of houseside shielding or just really, you know, we have abilities within our, you know, specifications to focus the light where we want it to go. And then we've

also, um, done a lot of work on reducing light or sort of reducing how bright it is. So, um, like the warmer the light, the less impact it has. And so, there's like, you know, 2700 Kelvin if you want to get really nerdy, um, is, you know, a number that we use a lot to light paths and natural areas. So, we're having a lower impact on, you know, habitat around, you know, our light fixtures. So, it's a balance in urban areas obviously to provide lighting that provides safety for park users at nighttime and to consider um what's a pretty high value for our community I think is is is conservation. So, conservation values are also in the mix. Um, and we did some additional work recently um around nightlighting at the plaza and we're responding and working with uh adjacent neighbors in the uh Hartwood um because it was pretty bright for them and it was actually the reflectivity of that light that was pretty bright for them at night and so we um we turned down the lights a little bit and then at 11 o'clock we turned them down more and then in the morning. So, lots of thoughtful work actually around lighting in our park systems and trying to balance a lot of different values. Great. Thank you. I see on um I guess slide three um the 35 of the 38 bond funded projects are are complete and underway. Well done. Tugman Park is one of them. And I I walk my dog in and around Tugman Park daily. And there's still some in progress pieces to to habitat restoration at at Tugman Park. Um, is am I to understand then that the in progress part just aren't bond dollars and or are they connected to the volunteerism that the Tugman Tuggers are doing? And if I could use this time to amplify the great work of our Tugman Tuggers in war 2 and what's your relationship with the Tuggers or with other volunteer groups

to kind of keep the that we may have invested bond dollars a shameless plug war two sorry I know gentlemen I know but uh what's what's the what's the the engagement with volunteers so once throughout the the system once we've invested and we've completed these bond projects What's that handoff like to keep the the project moving?

I'll talk about the bond piece real quickly. So we um initially right off the bat we had a um right when the bond measure was passed it was the first project we did was to renovate to take part of those bond measure monies and renovate the playground at Tugman Park which I think was um it was so great that we were able to respond so quickly to the passage of this measure um and provide really a quite visible renovation to the site. We have bond measure funding left over that we're looking at um how best to spend it. Um I think the natural area um enhancements are largely in part to due to our volunteer work and um that group has been super active for a long time and they're very engaged in the park and we consider them an important uh stakeholder when we're talking about what kind of renovations we would do there.

The Tugman volunteer piece and I mean we've got a pretty extensive volunteer program annually. It's about 25,000 hours of volunteer labor throughout the system. We've got all sorts of groups like ones you mentioned in other friends of groups that help us supplement all of this maintenance work. Um, and we're very connected and interrelated with all a lot of these folks that want to come and help with our parks. And we've got a program that uh is always ready and excited to to work with with the new groups, but also long-standing existing groups. Um, and so I would say the handoff is relatively seamless to make sure that we take advantage of people that really want to get out there and work in our parks and help take care of the places.

Cool. Thank you. And finally, I'm gobsmacked when I hear 20 to 30 cubic yards of refuge are removed daily. That's wild. So, thank you to the teams who are doing it. Are they are they instructed on the front end like, "Hey, this is something you're going to be getting into like and how are they trained and and for their p the workers personal safety?" Do they have the the the proper equipment, the right PPE, the right the right footwear, the right

what what what if anything can we do to ensure their safety while they're picking up so so much of of this debris? We've got a highly professional team of our folks that clean up and our park ambassadors and work with our resource officers and we coordinate with the state on training from safety to you know actual um working in terms of how to relate with other folks that are having in crisis and there's just all sorts of of training that people get and we definitely give them upfront information of what you're getting into. And interestingly enough, um there seems to be a real deep passion to to do this work and they're excited to do it. And um I can't tell you how many times that I've just been amazed at the extent that they'll go to to make sure that they're taking care of our parks and they're taking care of the people out there in our parks and doing the best job that they can. We have a very very I'm very very proud of our team and then the the the competency, the professionalism, and the the passion that they show out there every day.

Cool. Is is there a a program like a solve like a beach cleanup that that occurs locally for our parks? There are many there are dozens um dozens of groups like that. So that I mean in in specific parks and that's pretty much what our volunteer program does is work with those groups that you know want to to go out and clean up and work in our parks. And so we've got a a myriad of different types of um opportunities for volunteers to help out, whether it's with cleanup or whether it's with with plantings and other improvements. Um there's just a full range of of opportunities.

Thank you. Okay. Finally, for real this time, Mayor, um Parkatch, uh reporting a safety issue at eugene-.gov. Is that does that come out of bond dollars? I've been amplifying it recently to to um constituents who've noted some issues in the in parks that they wanted to res report. Um if it doesn't come out of bond dollars and that's a conversation for another day, but I just wanted to give credit and kudos to the team who are monitoring the park watch program.

U it does not come out of bond dollars. Um it's a program that we stood up probably 12 13 years ago um just to allow people to you know get in touch with those QR codes and digitally when they're out there in the park system and it's been very very effective for communication. The more we know what's going out there in the parks the better we're able to get out there and respond to it and so it's been really really allow us to perform our work. So, councelor Yay. And then I'll add a few comments and we'll head into our second agenda item.

Great. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you guys for being here. Um, I will never stop saying how thankful I am for the UMSO project and the engagement that you did with the community. People will still talk about it. Every once in a while, they'll bring it up. So, um, I will just keep telling you how amazing you are because I'm sure that that same amazingness went to the next park and the next park and the next park. So, thank you so much. I have a question about recreation that might be I'm not sure if you'll be able to answer today, but you know, one of the great things that city governments are able to do is find those gaps and fill them in our community of what people need. And so, I'm wondering if you could share with us some of those places where folks are underserved or maybe not served at all that we're able to use our funding to fill gaps for them. Yeah, I think largely I mean the needs and I I want to um combine needs and wants um to make sure that we we appropriately position recreation within our community. Um and and certainly the needs and wants that are out there um span the diversity of of programming that we offer. Where we really notice gaps is in terms of access to those programs. And so that could be geographic, that could be language, that could be financial ability. So we're in the middle of restructuring, reimagining recreation. And part of what we're looking at is the the portfolio that we offer and who's accessing those programming. We very recently um added a new tier into our scholarship program. Previously, we scholaripped folks at 25% or 50% registration fee. We just this year introduced a 90% scholarship rate. One of the things that we were seeing at the 20 25% and the 50% rate is that

scholarship, that subsidy still didn't provide enough access for a lot of families that are out there trying to get into recreation programming. So, I think probably financial access and then as well just our ability to offer programming. Um, we're bumping up against capacity in our pools. You saw some of the numbers related to pools. Certainly, our sports fields um our summer camps are full. We just registration day was last Thursday and uh our Amazon community center camps filled on Thursday. And so we're beginning to think about what are our high volume programs and can we expand those and as we review our total portfolio there there are other programs that aren't as in demand and so starting to shift our portfolio to more accurately represent the demand that's out there. But I think um capacity in the in terms of these high demand programming and then our facil we just don't have the facilities to offer all of the things that people want. Camel community centers bursting athletics. You talk to anybody who's involved in in youth sports and they will tell you we don't have fields. We don't have enough pool time. Uh thank you councelor Zelinka. Um so those are the two things that that we're really looking at um as we move Great. Thank you.

Thank you all for this presentation. I would be remiss if I didn't say something to you all that I shared with several federal agencies last week when we were in DC for our United Front trip. And that was a reminder of the really great work that our parks and open space uh division has done on uh fuels mitigation um and removal from our parks and natural areas. and I think 1,200 acres and 25 different parks uh and open spaces and natural areas that that fuels reduction uh work has touched over this past several years. And it's uh a really great example of how we are connecting our parks and open space work with our community's work to be more resilient and to be uh better prepared for a future where wildfire is a very present condition uh within and around our community. And that's related to an opportunity that I'm curious to hear more about the next time that we talk with you all. And that has to do with the westward and south of the be expansions of our trail systems. Um partnerships with amazing organizations like Mackenzie River Trust and conservation areas that they have, but also with the Eugene Parks Foundation. and that the opportunity to think about how our recreation access, which I do believe is a central component of our economic development opportunities and our differentiation as a community, how that connects with our efforts to expand access and and offer a generational contribution as we're planning this next uh cycle and couple of cycles of work. So, thank you for all of your efforts to help us connect the dots and make our parks and open spaces accessible to everyone in our community and to help us accomplish a lot of different goals at the same time as we're thinking about uh what we might do next. And I'll be be delighted to thank you all for this time today. Um, with that, that concludes our first agenda item and we'll now move on to our second agenda item and I will turn it over to the city manager for a work session on our city council operating agreements and additional topics as needed. City manager.

Uh, thank you, mayor. Uh, this is going to be a continuation of council's prior discussion on operating agreements from last February. There were two additional topics that were raised but were not discussed. uh one was the unplanned substantive motions and council discussion and the other was discontinuing the randomization of speakers for quasi judicial land use public hearings. Uh Katie will take it away when she gets set up and council one request also for our listening audience. Uh when any of you turn on your microphones if you could please move your microphone closer to you so that people are able to hear online. for having a few people whose voices are are pretty quiet. Thank you. So sorry I am shortly. It might be karma for all of the room issues.

Huh? I could read. Yes, that um everyone has the slides in front of them. So, um we could do it that way. Sure. All right. That plugged in in case it decides it wants to work. Um thank you, mayor and city council. Uh I'm back to talk about uh council operating agreements. Um the last time I was here um had um a couple of additional topics that were raised but ran out of time to discuss um and council expressed an interest in revisiting those for discussion. So we did update the operating agreements on March 9th based on previous decisions. Yes. Oh no, that Rose is doing it. All right. All right. Um, so we'll just dive into our topics. So topic one, unplanned substantive motions and council discussion. Currently, counselors can make unplanned substantive motions at any time during discuss during discussion. And uh a possible change that was raised would be to allow for a full round of counselor discussion before introduction of an unplanned substantive motion. The other topic that was raised but not discussed is removing randomization of speakers for quasi judicial land use public hearings. Uh currently uh all public hearing speakers are randomized for quasi judicial land use public hearings. Um speakers are organized by their stated position and then randomized. And so the possible change that was raised would be to maintain the speaking signup order after being sorted into the stated position. That's all I have. I'm going to turn it

back over for a discussion um and decision points. I do have the motions available for these two if council would like. Thank you staff for that brief presentation. I will now open the floor for council discussion. I have councel clerk and then councelor keing and then councelor Groves and Zelena. Thank you mayor. I I know that the the choice of wording here was probably to facilitate a good discussion amongst council, but I am wondering how you're defining substantive.

Uh this was not how I defined it. This was brought forward by councelor Groves and so I have nothing more than what he provided which is unplanned substantive motions.

That seems forgive me I apologize that seems like a subjective word that would be difficult to put parameters around if we're going to try and make a general rule that applies. That would be my only comment, I guess, unless someone has a really good definition for substantive that's a little more meaty about what that motion uh would require. It's more than

I I heard three people talk. I just didn't hear anything you said. Councelor Keing and then councelor Groves and then councelor Lanka. So, Councelor Groves, I believe you'll have an opportunity to answer that question in a few moments, but councelor Keading.

Thank you, Mayor. It's my understanding uh reading Robert's rules that a substantive motion is considered a main motion. It's a main motion when no other motion is is pending. So, it's defined in in in Roberts. Um, it requires a second. It requires debate and it requires a majority. I I I I I hear where my my colleague is coming from. Um, and we're going to hear in 2 minutes and 25 seconds again where you're coming from. Out of um respect, I I disagree. Um, I I think that any motion that's brought up by any member at any time can and should be recognized and if it's out of order for whatever reason, that member has the ability to bring it up again and get twothirds of of the body to um to agree that it should be considered. Um, any one of us can vote to end debate at any time. Um but ensuring that there's a full round of uh of of us providing an opinion before we even uh entertain an action is contrary to the very rules that are established in in Robert's rules of order which are the guiding principles that this body has embraced. Um so I would urge my colleagues that it ain't broke don't fix it. And if if if folks think that there are elements uh that are broke, um I think there are better ways to encourage spirited debate rather than mandating that each one of us um have a full round before even the introduction of a main motion. I think that that's um it's a

little unwieldy and it's a little unnecessary. Um, so I'll I'll be voting no and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Councelor Groves.

Thank you, Mayor. And, uh, for councelor Clark, uh, councelor Keading explained kind of the difference between the two. Um, I brought this up and it it occurred at a council meeting where we had an issue that we were discussing and there were myself and I believe two other counselors that were in the queue to speak. We wanted to ask questions. We wanted to understand things. And a motion was made. And once the motion was made and seconded, we could only discuss the motion, not not the issue. And I don't think it leads to a good question. I certainly don't want to stifle another counselor's voice. Each one of us represents roughly 22,000 people. And essentially, the three counselors that were in the queue, we just stifled 66,000 of our residents. their representative and I don't think that that's right. And as far as Robert's rules of order, we've got issues where we deviate from Robert's rules when it makes sense. And for this, this is about us having a voice at the table. It it's not going to postpone it long term. A person can certainly say at the end of the first round, I intend to make a motion on this issue. It's not taking away their prerogative to do that. At the same time, it's allowing us to have a full dive into the issue where we can ask questions and have them answered. And by shutting it down before the rest of us could even talk, and again, we had been in the queue for quite a while, I think it's it's something that we should fix. I'll just stop there. Thank you, Mayor.

There's Alinka.

Yeah. Um, of course we need to be able to make motions and have flexibility during meetings and the discussion. Ry's motions substantive to me means not problem is that as as Rain described the conversation stops and you have to pivot and turn only to that part of the conversation that that particular counselor I like hearing what everybody has to say problem of stopping it means we don't get to hear with everybody else to stay and we don't hear other things. Maybe a happy compromise is that people we can create a cue the mayor can keep the queue by ask when it's your turn to speak you ask or signal that you're going to make a a motion describe it and then uh and that preserves the order just like before any and but it but we have the full discussion then we have motions and that's like in a more orderly So maybe we can add that as a as a friendly amendment or or understanding.

Councelor Kashinsky and then councelor Clark for a second round if there are no other councils who'd like to be in the first round.

Uh thank you and what I will uh and uh thank you both everyone for their comments so far. Um I I understand sort of the the intent with this, but um I think one of the things that that does need to be kept in mind is that we do have time constraints on these meetings. Um that if we're talking about a a fully discussing an agenda item, which isn't defined in here either, as to what that means, is it one round? Is it until people stop wanting to be in the queue? Um what that could mean is particularly for a complex item the motion gets put pushed off till a unscheduled future meeting. Um and so I think that there are tools within Robert's rules that that counselor uh Katy mentioned that mean if you know someone has made a motion and you really want to continue discussion you can. I'll also note that a lot of times when we have motions connected to an agenda item, they are related to what the agenda item is. And I've seen in the past that when we say speaking to the motion, that's usually still broad enough for someone to ask questions they might need to ask in order to make an informed decision about the about the topic. And so I think I think it's sort of a a general rule as a general vibe a sort of courtesy. Um, yes, I agree like someone should make the the motion at the time after everyone's had a chance. And I think uh councelor Groves, you know, this is motion that you discussed was one that I made and I think you and I have discussed how how that sort of came to be and why that came to be and how in the future maybe I would have waited having having had some of these conversations. But I think writing it into the operating agreements

um as as opposed to just being sort of a a courtesy thing, which as I said, I could have done better. Um uh gets us to a place where it puts restrictions in place that may disenfranchise people in different ways in the future. Oh, and are we talking about both items now or just the one? Just the one. We'll come we can come back. We'll come back to both decision points shortly. Councelor um councel Clark and then councelor Zelena.

Thank you mayor. I want to agree with my friend and I understand the reasoning behind why you're why you would like to make this rule. But I do think that sometimes we get into issues that are complex enough that it they may have multiple different types of um resolutions that require multiple votes and a successive iterative sort of discussion and series of votes. And so I would I would hate to have us have something drag on too long to o for the sake of discussion if we could move through it more expeditiously and maybe so so like Alan I'm trying to think of like a good halfway here and maybe uh city attorney you can tell me if I'm right or wrong here but I think the mayor does have some latitude with the conducting of which when a motion is in order or out of order to some degree to make that choice. Could the mayor keep separately from a discussion queue a motion queue? And that way you preserve you preserve order and say I'd like to get in the queue for motions.

Certainly could. Yeah. Nothing nothing would prevent two separate cues. Um, I think gives everybody a chance to speak and then motions at the appropriate time as decided by the mayor. I

think it I it doesn't I'm just trying to think about problems that could it's solving and problems that it could create. Um because motion cues are interesting in the sense that when there's a main motion then if somebody wants to amend that motion you've got to have the main motion on the table and you actually often have a trickle effect and you have amendments that amend amendments and things like that. So keeping a queue will potentially have a limit on actually the desired um actions that you're seeking to take. At the end of the day, we want Robert's rules and the actions to actually just be facilitating your actions and be able to get you to where you want to go. I mean, that is kind of the big picture. We're not trying to use Robert's rules as an obstacle or um you know, anything else that would prevent you from taking the actions you want. So I think that a a motions cue has the potential of causing some problems when actually a motion somebody would need to come out of that queue to actually facilitate the action they want to take because they want to um do a friendly maybe

under under Robert's rules is currently written in our currently operating agreements. If a counselor makes a motion and someone shouts out second, what are the mayor's choices at that moment for what to do next? Is the mayor obligated to take to change the discussion at that point or is the mayor say the vote and the discussion of to the motion is subject to completion of the previous queue of discussion? Generally speaking, the mayor can call a motion out of order. Um, typically the way that that has worked within um, your council has been when it's just off topic. I mean, it hasn't typically just been used from a procedural standpoint.

You have something. So, we're talking about kind of two different things. A motion that is kind of coming out of the blue versus motions that are amendments. you do have some rules that speak specifically to amendments. So when a main motion is put on the table that your operating agreements currently provide that everybody gets a chance to speak to that main motion before an amendment can be made. So that's already in your in your operating agreement. So we're just talking about a motion that may potentially end the discussion. Could the mayor call that out of order? I think is your question. Yes. um that hasn't been the practice. It's usually been if it's just completely off topic.

Well, it it is my opinion that we have a mayor very skilled at being fair about doing this, but we've we've had past mayors who who were not and and for whom that chair was a a tool to accomplish an outcome. And so I want to make sure that we're

agreed and I know exactly what you're speaking of or at least I've been in meetings where it has motions. So which is why I think having either you have a rule or you accept a practice where that's not the case. I think leaving it up to um just general this is generally how we want to do it leaves open the ability for motions to be shut down in ways that are actually guiding a conversation versus this is the way we as a council want to actually run our meetings which is kind of the intent of your your operating agreements. It's um I don't think you want it to change based on who happens to be sitting with the gavvel.

Uh I'm going to move counselor yay ahead of councelor Zanka so that she can have a first round and then we'll come back to councelor Zelena. Councelor Yay. Yeah, thanks. Um, I appreciate Mike's line of thinking to where he's trying to like solve this problem in this way. And I'm wondering, isn't it po So if someone makes a motion and someone seconds it, that's two people who want to stop. There's there's a lot more than two people in council. So my assumption is that someone could just say, "Hey, I want to table this to continue the discussion." And if the majority of us are like, "Yeah, we we're not done." That that would be the way to solve the problem. Is that true?

It is. So I think part of what we see happen is a m um all of these tools are there and we think and talk about them after the meeting ends and we're like wait we could have and so those things happen because some momentum starts rolling. You are exactly right. Um someone makes a motion it gets sented. Somebody could then you got to get in a queue and get called on, but then someone could make a motion to postpone action until everybody has had an opportunity to um speak to the substantive item. Then you vote on that. Yes, absolutely. Um I think sometimes what happens in the meetings is we're all wrapped up. You all are are in on the substance and some of these procedural things get forgotten. there's a momentum that happens, but maybe like as a team we could just be more aware of, you know, of these are our options and maybe, you know, I think that might be a better way of solving than creating a whole another rule that is kind of a little fuzzy to me and and complicated, but that's just that's where I'm kind of at.

Moving to a postpone until a date certain or tableabling it so somebody has to is always a tool within your toolbox. um moving postpone um until after discussion get does require a second. You can actually then speak to that. It is debatable. Um and so that would certainly accomplish that.

Thank you, city attorney councelor Leech. I'm also going to move you ahead the queue before councelor Zelinka and councelor Groves have a second round. Mayor. Um I just wanted to say I I'm as council president potential maker of the motion today that I'm not intending to make the motion. Not seeing um as much interest as would be needed to pass it um unless I hear um otherwise. So I was going to allow kind of more discussion if that was um uh changing that in any way. But that's that's my take um at the moment. Thank you. And now councelor Zelinka and then councelor Groves and then councelor Keading.

So I I agree Jennifer is is a bit fuzzy. I'm going try to add a little clarity here to what's I agree with what you said Eliza. This should not be a tool to delay uh or or push things off, but should also while we still should try to hear what everyone has to say at least through the first round. Still want to preserve the order of speakers. So a motion cue in this case said that this was that motions are in order after the first round. Uh I think that would work. It would allow everybody to say the piece go to to motions and you know any subsequent round the same rules as we have now. So if we just changed this Uh I'm reading notwithstanding section 701 generally substantive motions not on the agenda should be made after strike fully a opportunity to discuss the agenda item through the first round. Everybody gets to say their peace during the first round, then the regular rules apply. Way that we do uh the queue is if you're first in line in round one, you're first in line in round two. If you ask preserve that that Councelor Groves and then Councelor Keading on where we are with this motion.

Thank you, Mayor. And I I like what you just described, Councelor Zelinka. That's kind of what I'm looking for. Not a prolonged approach, but just at least to get through the first round. We should all have that opportunity, and we should want each other to have that opportunity. Um, in in the case when this happened, there was an opportunity given to withdraw the motion and remake it and that was declined by the person who made the motion. And so there was there was nowhere to go with this. And that is true. Eliza, watch it. Watch it on the video. I did too. Thank you, Councelor Keading. And then councelor Kosinsky.

I'm going to paint a bizarre scenario so bear with me. If an unplanned motion is brought up to discuss that the sky is green be a gross waste of time even that if that motion has a second for all eight of us to discuss whether the sky is green until one of us moves to amend that the sky is blue don't necessarily need a whole another round of each one of us weighing in on whether the sky is green or the sky is blue If if one or more of us has their say and and and it seems as if debate is coming to a close and we move forward with a vote, um that's an efficient use of our time coming to a a reasonable conclusion. the way it's currently written would allow for a full round of council discussion before introduction of the sky is green and we would allow for a full round of council discussion before introduction of the unplanned substantive motion to substitute the sky is blue that is clunky uh inefficient um so I would greatly appreciate embracing some of the spirit of what we're we're hearing to allow for conversations to breathe. I think if we adopt um what city manager alluded to and Katherine, if you don't mind reading that into into the record, please um if we adopt this piece that is already in our operating agreement for amendments, the spirit of that for motions, then I think that that gets us to where we need to be without codifying this unplanned substantive motion piece, which I think ties our hands and elongates and extends our meetings unnecessarily. So, um, section 7.02 speaks to motions and then specifically to amendments. It says, "The mayor and council will be limited to commenting

only on the main motion prior to discussing any proposed amendments. If an amendment to the motion is made during the initial round on the main motion, substantive remarks, subsequent sorry, remarks on the amendments will be postponed until all wishing to speak on the main motion have done so. No, it's not up there. So, this is existing and you haven't always followed this practice. I'll just be perfectly honest with you. I've watched a lot of meetings where this isn't happening. Motions, amendments have been made during the first round. You then move and talk about the amendment and then go back to the main motion. So, but again, this you you're you're operating in agreement. It's in your agenda item summary, but it specifically says um if a main motion um the council will be limited to mayor and council will be limited to commenting only on the main motion prior to discussing any proposed amendments. If an amendment to the motion is made during the initial round on the main motion, subsequent remarks on the amendments will be postponed until all wishing to speak on the main motion have done so. So that's when there's, you know, move to adopt a resolution saying X, Y, and Z, and then somebody gets in the queue first to talk about um the resolution, moves to amend the resolution. What this operating agreement says is you're going to put that everybody still gets to speak to the main motion before they're then required to speak to the amendment. So,

so to clarify, if I wanted to amend that the sky is blue, I would have to wait for all of us to have a say about the sky is green. So, I think that what councelor Groves's motion about is not that there's a motion on the table yet. It would be um that you have an agenda item summary and it has a discussion. It's an agenda item and then as you're talking about that agendaized item, somebody makes a subsequent or a substantive motion that potentially can end that will end the discussion um and it's before everybody has had a first round or um ability to speak.

So if we just adhere to that more strictly, would that satisfy the the concerns that have been brought up today? It doesn't get at C what councelor Gross is concerned about because for what is what is already existing in your council operating agreements there has to be a main motion put on the table for this to get triggered and you have agenda item you have agenda items where no motion is planned at all but somebody can still make a motion um that potentially ends the discussion um and this wouldn't touch that at all. This is that your current operating agreement only relates to when you have a main motion put on the table and then a subsequent amendment needs to wait until everybody's had an opportunity to talk about the main motion on the table.

Thank you, city attorney council. We're going to drop these down to one minute rounds as we're moving into the third and fourth on this operating agreement discussion. And I have councelor Kosinsky and then councelor clerk in the queue. Was there another hand? I just missed councelor Zelena.

Uh yes, I just want to share some math. Um that uh we have typically our agenda items are 45 minutes scheduled for 45 minutes. Uh typically or frequently the presentation can be 15 minutes or more. Um there are eight of us with three minute rounds each. That is 24 minutes. If you add in the mayor and the answers to questions, uh, we don't always have time to even get through a first round for some of these agenda items. I think that that to some degree saying that's going to be the rule is saying that we're not going to allow or we're going to say that whether or not you're able to introduce a motion on a time-sensitive matter is going to be very dependent on uh whether or not people choose to delay and take their full time. Um, and so that's a little bit where I see a challenge with this.

Councelor Clark, I I just wanted to have clarification in what you were reading, Katherine. Is is that in the case that there is a suggested motion from the manager or if uh for It's simp your operating agreements simply say main motion. So it would apply whether it's a motion that like organically arises from the council during items. I make a motion that the sky is in fact purple.

Right? That would then be considered the main motion. The main motion is always the primary motion that has yet to be amended. That's what's considered a main motion. We're not talking about motions that have not been made but are suggested by the manager under the item itself. That would be considered a main motion as well before it's made. Not clear on your question. The ma the the council president makes the suggested motion that that a manager suggests in the AIS

before the motion is made is a discussion time period in most cases. So that does not apply to this or does the discussion that takes place everybody gets one round is before the motion is made or after.

Right. Well, so technically under Robert's rules, you're not supposed to be having any discussion until there's a motion put on the table. um that has been a practice that you all have chosen not to have because it completely limits your ability to ask questions and have the dialogues that you all enjoy having prior to taking action. And so in the situation where what we're talking about with counselor Groves is that you are just having a discussion. There has been no motion put on the table. You're having a discussion and someone just puts a motion on the table. um that is substantive in nature no matter whether it's a council president or someone else

council I mean the practice has always been um that the council president that that you that motion does not get asked to be put on the table until you're done with the rounds or we're at time that's a general we're talking about the rule there is no rule specifically to when we're talking about making a rule it's it's it's not that you're talking about two different things. What he's speaking of is a and I believe it says not on the agenda. Substantive motions not on the agenda is his requested motion.

So the motions that you're speaking of and I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that. The motions you're speaking of that the council president would make, those are motions on the agenda. So he is speaking to motions, different motions.

Thank you, Councelor Zelinka. I think this is actually pretty simple. Um the whole question before the council is should everybody get to speak before we do a motion kind of been our practice. Um and be and now any counselor can short circuit that discussion and questioning putting a motion out if they're the first conversation. I think it's a better practice to have us all go through round one, say our piece and ask questions, clarity, and then have someone put a motion. Either it be the one that's in the agenda or one that someone has. So by by simply saying deleting fully and say and opportunity to discuss the agenda or an unplanned substantive motion. That is yes that is the

l the motion that's proposed that you see up there is notwithstanding section 7.01 01 generally substantive no motions not on the agenda should be made after all counselors have had an opportunity to fully discuss the agenda item and that is because the otherwise the practice is and so and what councelor Zelinka has suggested is it's it read had an opportunity um to discuss the agenda item through the first round. the the main motion technically in Robert's rule is you have to make a motion then you speak to it. We don't do that. We've never done that in my 20 years. We always have a conversation first then the motion gets put on the table. That allows for a more full and robust conversation about any topic that any council wants. So, uh, in the spirit of that, having everybody allowed to go through the first round would then allow then have a motion the one that's in the agenda or not. Councelor Yay has

Yeah, I just have a question about how this would play out. So, I Okay, so in this scenario, this is not a planned motion. So there is a possibility we won't know the motion is even happening or what it's about. So in I would guess this in practice the mayor would then maybe know that it's happening. So someone would be like hey I'm going to make this motion and she would have to be like hey does every because we don't always talk all everyone doesn't always make a comment on a topic. So then you would be like does any okay we have a motion coming we don't know what it is. Does anyone like like who didn't talk want to talk? I mean, I get I get what people are saying and I c and I understand everyone should have an opportunity to be able to say what they need to say. I do think it's going to waste time. And I also think there's a perfectly acceptable way to just be like, I didn't get to talk. I want to table this. I'm happy to give pe someone an opportunity to talk if I if they didn't get a ch opportunity and a motion came out and was seconded. Like, why would I stifle discussion? So, I think there's already a solution to this problem. we just didn't use it and mistakes were made and that's fine and we will do better in the future. So adding extra layers of complexity to this our job that is already complicated enough I I'm going to vote no. I think it's just unnecessary.

So council president has indicated that based on temperature from the table not be bringing this motion forward for topic one and I would confirm that we do not have a council majority interested in moving this forward. Any other council would like to take make a motion at this point in time? Councelor Groves. I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion as uh suggested by councelor Zelinka. Move to add the following sentence to section 7.02 of the operating agreements notwithstanding section 7.01. Generally, substantive motions not on the agenda should be made after all counselors have had an opportunity to discuss the agenda item through the first round.

Further discussion from council. Seeing none, I'll take a vote for this motion. All in favor, raise your hands. Three hands in favor. All opposed. One, two, five opposed. and the motion fails by a vote of 5 to three. We have a second topic of discussion for operating orders which is removing the randomization of speakers for quasidial land use public hearings which we've discussed. There is a motion included for discussion from your packets um and that our council president could make. Um councelor Zelena, I'm gonna ask if you'd like to be first in this discussion too since it was your topic.

Yeah, sure. Thank you. Um the land use quasi judicial issues are very complex and they're hard to follow. Um and it takes a concerted effort and concerted organizational effort to make your case. The instructions for the applicant just in the last hearing said that you can spend your time any way you want in any order. For the opponents, you don't get to do that. You're randomized. You cannot make your case by organizing your testimony. And it goes item 4, 6, 7, 4, 1,2. And it kind of takes the the the punch out of the um the process is already structurally stacked against the opponents. This just makes it harder to make their case. And it's I think it's was blatantly unfair. What's the rationale for randomizing the opponent's com uh testimony and not randomizing the the proponent's testimony? When it was institutionalized to randomize testimony, it was sort of the gaming we were seeing in public comment. And I think this is a completely different animal. uh the unintended consequence of how this was applied was we applied this random to only part of the quasi judicial uh land use proceeding for the opponents and not the proponents. So we should allow the opponents the same rules as the proponents in these very complicated quasi judicial and allow them to spend their time any way they see fit and in any order of speakers they see fit. It levels the playing field. It doesn't put them at a disadvantage in a process that already has a disadvantage. So, it doesn't make sense to put them at that disadvantage. It's already complex enough. This is a very different type of testimony, completely different purpose than is the public comment. So, I'm not worried

about precedent setting. They're completely different things. So, I don't think we should apply a random testimony uh order in this instance to only one party in the proceeding, not the other. That seems blatantly unfair. So I will support the um tend to bring forward the motion that's in in the in the packet to eliminate that randomization for the opponents. Thank you councelor Zelanka. We have councelor Clark for one minute in the queue and council I want to observe that we have moments two minutes before the end of

madam city attorney. Thank you mayor. Madam Senate Attorney, can you give any kind of legislative intent as to why there is more time for the uh applicant in this way and the way that it's structured? It's definitely in your city code for quasi judicial land use proceedings. It may also be in state law. Um but that's what I'm asking. Why is it structured so that it's different? It is different. Quasa judicial land use proceedings are very are structured different because so it's opponent and it they get a certain amount of time. It's in your city code that way. It's um now the component about randomizing the um

forgive me I'm asking a very specific question. The the reason why the structure of an applicant's ability and length of time to speak is different than an opponent's would be. Is is there is there a reason the legislature thought it was wise to have an applicant have more time? I don't have the answer to that. I don't have the legislative history. Thank you, council. I have to apologize. I'm following a clock on the wall that is not the actual time. Um, and so we have fewer minutes than I thought we had to continue to say. Um, he's still got the floor, mayor.

Oh, sorry. You have 16 seconds, counselor. I'd like to say yes to you, counselor, but I don't I actually didn't like the organized up opponent, you know, presentation in a row. And I don't know why the state legislature decided to set it up differently, but before I make that decision to to to do that, I I'm kind I kind of would like to know why.

Well, I mean, I could speak generally to that, which is the proponents have the burden of proof. So, the proponents are the ones that have to carry the day. So if you're they're the ones that have to establish the compliance with the criteria. So generally speaking, that's why the proponents would be given more time and they go first and they have the opportunity to rebut. That's generally that's generally speaking why it would be structured that way. Council, do we have a motion to extend this meeting for 10 minutes or 10 minutes?

Ne Oh, thank you. We have staff that need to res to set up this room for our meeting at 7:30. We do not have a lot of time between these meetings as you all well know. So we will have to continue this agenda item at another point and look for a place at our schedule. Thank you very much Katie for your work and city council for your make one clarification comment. Um council we are out of time today so we're going to wrap it up. Um I now close the April 27th 2026 city council work session and we are adjourned. Mayor