City Council - Regular Meeting

April council meeting. Thank you.

Sorry.

That's okay. Hello, everyone. Welcome to the April meeting. Thank you for joining us and adjusting schedules so we can attend the grand opening celebration of the new Hillsborough Hops Ballpark this evening. To begin this meeting, I invite you to join me in the pledge of allegiance. Mark will display the flag on the screen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag and to The United States Of America and to the republic for which

it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Amber, can we please have a roll call?

Yes. Mayor Pace?

Here.

Councilor L. Pair? She's absent this evening.

She's absent this evening. Yes. Excused.

Counselor Sinclair?

Here.

Counselor Case? Here. Counselor Harris?

Here.

Counselor Ambry?

Here.

Counselor Salgado, we expect him to join, and, I will let you know when he has arrived.

Thank you very much. Okay. So, we have a limited agenda this evening, and our next person our next in person public comment time will take place during the April 21 city council meeting, and we will jump straight to the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda are normally considered in a single motion, and any item may be removed for separate consideration upon request by any member of the council. Is there a request to remove any items for separate consideration?

I'm so sorry. Okay. You good? No. Can you just say say that again, Mayor? Is there

a request to remove any items for separate consideration?

Pertaining to consent agenda?

To the consent agenda. No. Okay. Great. Alright. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved, Case. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second, Harris. Is there any discussion? May I please have a roll call?

Councilor Hayes? Aye. Councilor Ambry? Aye. Councilor Sinclair? Aye. Councilor Harris?

Aye. Excellent.

The motion passes. Let's see. Moving to item seven, new business. Consider adopting a resolution revising the city council rules and repealing resolution number two eight seven six. Resolution number two nine one three is available. Do I have a motion to adopt resolution number two nine one three? So move, please. Thank you. Do I have a second? Yes. Second. Is there any discussion?

Yes. K. I would like to request that we remove both seven point one and seven point two from the agenda, and have a continuance on May 5, to where our public can be together. I initially said the twenty first, but per talking with Chad Jacobs, he suggested the fifth for me to suggest the fifth. I know we had our council retreat and discussed items on rules of con council rules and conduct during meetings, But both resolutions in my mind contradict one another when it comes to, complete staff reports and consensus from council.

And then I very much feel like it it censors the council. And I would like to make a suggestion and recommendation that we have a continuance.

May I ask how it sense how you believe it censors the council?

Yeah. So if you look at twenty nine thirteen, excuse me. I apologize. Twenty nine fourteen, agreement three, mandates to assume positive intent or maintain decorum are highly subjective and can easily be weaponized to silence innovative solutions or sharp necessary questions. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. I have quite a few notes. I'm so sorry. I'm off. Decision making, incomplete information. So twenty nine fourteen

Could you one are we looking at now?

I'm

sorry. Number five on my notes that I shared with counsel today. K. Decision making with incomplete information. Resolution twenty nine fourteen item four.

Item four.

Yeah. Resolution twenty nine fourteen item four encourages making decisions even when information is incomplete or uncertain. However, resolution twenty nine thirteen g dot one and q dot three a restricts the very questioning and deliberation needed to address those gaps. It is inconsistent to ask counselors to navigate uncertainty while sim while simultaneously limiting the tools like open dissent and critical inquiry required to resolve it. So for instance, when we had the resolution excuse me, our priorities for state priorities and SB fifteen eighty six, I'm using as an example Mhmm.

We didn't receive all the language, but yet there was consensus amongst counsel. So with this then limit counsel and for myself to dissent even though we didn't have language before us prior to making that consensus, so then would I be limited as a counselor to say to the public x, y, and z. Because as a council, we all have consensus together and voting that said yes. Even though I disagree and didn't have the full language, I perceive it to be different.

I don't under I don't believe that it would make it so you couldn't say that. Is that correct, John, that she could?

Yeah. So I believe when you're talking about q three, the language that is in q three is currently in the council rules. And so what that language says is that when you're appearing in certain situations, so when you're appearing for another government organization, you're appearing before a community organization or appearing before the media, you need to first state what the city's official position is, and then you can state what your position is. So in the example that you are providing, you could say the city council reached a consensus to support senate bill fifteen eighty six, but I oppose senate bill fifteen eighty six for these reasons. So it wouldn't preclude you from saying that. It would first just require you to say what the city's official position was.

Yeah. And so in addition to that

But wait. On that issue, though, you can say.

Right. You can say. Mhmm. But what I'm concerned about in the languages, for instance, this council was a new council less than two years ago with four new people. That will happen again in two years from now.

And that, to me, groomed these these two resolutions that I'm asking to be tabled to have further thought on it and include the public and that to provide testimony. I believe that it grooms our counsel to further not dissent on if they oppose, specific agenda items. All of these stacked together that I gave as an example Mhmm. In my email, I believe that it creates a culture of censoring us as a council.

Even though you can say what you want to say?

Well, that was one item. That was one example. Because in the retreat, it was used as an example Mhmm. Of being disrespectful as a council to go before another governing body opposing our city.

Mhmm. But you can still do it.

Yes. You can. But what I'm saying to you, it's you can. So that was an example. That was one example. Mhmm. It contradicts because in staff reports, we don't always get all the information. And you're right. I can still say it. But what I'd like to further understand is what are the consequences if a councilor is confused and they don't state it because they're not sure what the city's position is on it, and they didn't receive all the information prior to trying to communicate with the public.

So the council has the ability to enforce its own rules, and so part of that process is a public reprimand if the council chose to do that. I would think that in most situations, at least in my experience, the council reprimands come in situations where there is sort of, like, a willful violation of a rule and not just because someone was confused. Having said that, you know, I think if someone says that I'm confused, I'm confused, I'm confused all the time, the rest of the counselors may get frustrated with that and still may do a public reprimand. Okay. So we don't know for certain. It's really up to the council as a body in the future as to whether and to what extent they think enforcing the rules through a public reprimand versus some other mechanism would make sense.

I would sort of, like, look at it to to add to that. I would sort of look at, like, this like a lawyer, I guess. And there's the act, and there's the mental state. Like, what was the intent? What was the intent at the time? Like, if you accidentally walk out of the grocery store with a hamburger with a with a deli sandwich, you forgot about it. That's not a crime. Right? Because even though you took it removed from the story, you didn't have any intent. And I would all these notes that you made and I looked at them this afternoon, I would definitely number one, I any anything that restricts someone's speech, I would construe extremely narrowly to apply.

And secondly, I would say, like like our attorney did, that for me personally, I can't speak for others, there would have to be an intentional nature of violation of these rules, not an accident or an oversight. I actually sent a letter to the legislature during a hearing about the job slash farm act, and I I neglected to put in there that I am represent I'm you know, I only rep this is my opinion on the of the council. I neglected to do that. Mhmm. Technically, someone could look at that and say, There it is.

Violation of rules. But it's unintentional, and and I didn't say I represented the city. So I think anyone looking at this would construe it extremely narrowly. You could always come up with a a scenario. Mhmm. Well, why can't I do that? Because, frankly, maybe I couldn't do this under the rules. But I think as a body, I would I would guess that we're all gonna construe it relatively narrowly. And these have been pretty much from what I understand the language in our rules even if I wasn't here for some time, and I don't know I haven't been here, but no one's made a motion to censor anybody or anything they've done. Not that your concerns aren't valid, by the way.

But in a lot of times, you're looking at these rules and statutes or whatever happens to be, and you can come up with a scenario or or a example. Mhmm. But in real life, it's probably not gonna happen. Not that we shouldn't fine tune it if necessary. Get that. Mhmm. But I'm and, honestly, I'm gonna say what I wanna say anyway to people. But notes taken, but I I I don't I I would have to I don't share your concerns about this language as it sits.

And and and I I appreciate everyone giving me space to voice these concerns. And I'm, like, sorry. Came hot because the transition I wasn't used to the transition over here. I'm like, get in there. For resolution twenty nine and thirteen, the extraterritorial, that is a new rule, that I have concern about. How does that play out in other government aspects? Because we have intergovernmental agreements.

Clarify, that one's not a new rule. It's been in there for many years as well. And I think going back, again, that predates me. I think and I think other cities usually have something like that in there. And the the point of that rule is that the city council should be focused on city business, not to say we don't talk about things that are state we do all the time. Right? But our focus is typically gonna be of our meetings and our agenda items is gonna be city related items. Otherwise, we could be meeting and talking about county and state things all the time because there's always things going on. But that language has been there for a long time, and that's that was the intent of putting it in there, my understanding originally.

Yeah. And so why is this coming back up now?

It's just part of the council rules. So the council is the council's adopting the council rules because there were a couple of changes made to the council rules. This was not one of them.

And I think that's what I find most confusing is that we've been serving under these rules for years, and you have as well. And, we sat in, you know, in the retreat, and we discussed all of these, and we all agreed to these. And then from February to April, nothing was brought up. And then two hours before this meeting Mhmm. That's when you bring it up. And so I was just a little confused because it's they've been in accounting rules for years. And I just I'm like, why now? Also, it hasn't dissuaded you or others from speaking out against it. You you did speak

against it.

So What I'm what I'm concerned about right now is that, yes, we did talk about things at the retreat. Okay. To me, it was more about the conduct of counsel to one another while we're in meetings, and it wasn't so much focused on a resolution. More this feel this feels to me like the resolution is being created, and I'm gonna be honest, to put me in check is what it feels like or someone like me who has dissent. But it's been on the

rules for years.

So what I'm wanting clarification on right. So Mhmm. Exactly. So why are we focused on this again? What is there an additional consequence of following these rules? Yeah.

If I could I answer that, mayor?

So Go ahead.

Every, you mentioned, you know, we get a new council in, you know, in January. We always go through this, and the new council will go through these rules and adopt them because they're your rules, how you wanna, you know, interact with each other. Anytime we make a change to that rule, we have to bring it back to council for adoption because we're changing it. So that that's and we do that by resolution. So we do this every time. So there's no this is just the same process that we've always used anytime we're gonna adopt council rules that have a a change. In this case, I think there were only a couple of change that actually came into the council rules. One was, when you, communicate with city manager. But this one that you're referring to, this one has been there in there for a long time. So there was this is just the mechanism that we always use to bring it to council because you all have to approve these council rules, and that's why it's through a resolution.

Anything else you wanna add on that, Chad?

Yeah. I I think it's just important to stress the one point that Robbie made is that, you know, we typically bring these rules back to every council to review, and you all can review these at any time you want as well. So to the extent that, you know, there's a rule in here, whether it's been in here for a long time or if it's language that we're just changing, And you all as a body say, you know, this just isn't working for us. These are your rules, so you can change them whenever you want. And so you could add this to a future agenda and say, we'd like to really go back and discuss rule q three or whatever it is that you wanna discuss because we just don't think it's working for us.

So, you know, this is not something that is set in stone. It's not something that's binding on future councils. It's not, frankly, even binding on you all in the future. You can make that change. But what it is meant to do is provide an opportunity for you all to come together and say, as a council, we agree that these are the standards we're gonna hold ourselves to. So when then people aren't adhering to those standards, you can call them on it because they've agreed to adhere to those rules. And so that's why we always bring it back for every council to address. So it's not something that they're saying, well, I never agreed to abide by those rules. We want everyone to basically say, yes. We've agreed to this.

Okay.

Alright. Any other discussion? Go ahead.

I wanna, again, echo our attorney, I guess, in that, you know, I wouldn't be adverse, councilor Sinclair, if you wanted to create some alternative language and bring it to us in the future. But there's a lot of stuff in here that's not I don't think you have a problem with that's important us to run our meetings. Mhmm. And so my preference, and why I won't be sucking in your your request is that, we adopt these, and then you can work on some language, and we can do a work session on that if you think if you want to. And we can go over it in detail, particularly, I guess, as you go forward.

Because I know we're at some issues where there's some major issues that we don't necessarily agree on here and, more than willing to listen to improve this to make sure that everyone's rights to speak out on their personal things is guaranteed. But I would just like to my desire would be to pass these things now and then work on that next work session or however long it takes you to offer some alternative amendment language for us.

I think that's a good compromise. I I'm open to that. I I know that I don't see. I'm not in agreement on certain topics within our community. Can you before we say yes, though, move on with the vote, what items are new here that I brought up to of concern in my one through five in my email concern? Which ones are new? Yeah. So So those depend on Certainly. The money.

So based on what I saw, councilor Sinclair, when I looked at your sorry. I don't have your email up. But numbers two, three, and four Mhmm. Those are items that are in the council rules that were already in the council rules. Mhmm. So there's no changes. We're not proposing any changes. They've been in there, my understanding, for years. The number numbers one and five, and I don't remember what those were specifically. I think those has to do with the group agreements. Yeah. The the nonundermining gag order. And, again, that was we based those as a reminder off of our equity leadership, council that kinda put together. Just trying to create some, ways for that equity leadership council to talk openly about challenges, right, and be willing to talk about hard things. And so that's why we use those as a basis for the council retreat.

So numbers one and five, those are new because those are just group agreements that you all talked about at the council retreat of how to interact and treat each other in those conversations. Two, three, and four are ones that were in the council rules already. Mhmm. So there's no changes on

those. Mhmm. But the one in five?

The one in five are new because they're part of the, group agreements.

Okay.

Okay. Councilor Harris.

Can I make a recommendation that that the staff send all of the councilors a red light version of the items were changed from last year so we're all aware of what it is? And then we take a vote on these two resolutions, and then the councilor councilor can can go ahead and, if they want to, make some recommendations going forward to do an amendment to what we'd hoped today. That'd be my recommendation.

I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that.

Okay. Any any were there was there a comment from you, counselor Anne Marie or counselor Sargado?

No. I was just I was just going. Mhmm.

Okay. Great.

Yeah. Clarifying question. I mean, I think I was good to approve them and you know, because we were all at the retreat, but, you know, going back and rereading them after, counselors and Claire's, questions, I just wanna clarify, you know, there's a word in there called undermine it. Counselors avoid actions that undermine the council's adopted direction. I'm hoping that, you know, we could just talk about what that means so it goes on the record because that's something that could be misinterpreted by different people about undermining means. And so as somebody

who's an

advocate and likes to engage the community, I wanna be cognizant of what what we mean by that because, if I you know, just so I wonder if we can have that conversation if there's a definition that we have somewhere we can use.

I don't have a definition off the top of my head, but, I'm wondering if we can move forward with these and then get back to you, counselor Salgado, about the definition of undermine. Does that work for you? I got a thumbs up from you? Okay. Yep. Do you mind acknowledging verbally that that's okay?

That is okay. But the reason that I'm bringing it up because it's one of those words that can be interpreted depending on who you are, right, and where you're at.

The fact

that we're we're saying we're acknowledging that diversity is important, that a difference in opinions and perspectives is important. So we need to have that protection in place and make sure that we all understand what we mean by undermining.

Okay. Sounds good. Thank you for saying that.

Alright.

So I have a second that's I have a first and a second on 71. We've had a discussion. May I please have a roll call?

Counselors Kate. Aye. Andrew? Aye. Sinclair?

Aye.

Harris?

Aye.

Salgado? Aye. Great. Resolution number two nine one three is adopted. Moving to item 7.2, consider adopting a resolution adopting the city council group agreements. Resolution number two 914 is available. Do I have a motion to adopt resolution number two 914? So moved, Case. Thank you. Do I have a second? There are a second. Is there any discussion? We've kind of already had it. Okay. But pausing. Okay. May I please have a roll call?

Councilor Spayes? Aye. Ambry? Aye. Sinclair? Aye. Harris?

Aye.

Salvato?

Aye. Thank you. Resolution number 2914 is adopted. Moving to item 7.3, consider finance committee's recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the qualifying properties for the nonprofit owned affordable housing property tax exemption program for the 2627 tax year. Resolution number 2915 is available. Do I have a motion to adopt resolution number two nine one five? So moved case. Thank you. Do have a second?

Second, Harris.

Second, Thank you.

Oh, we got second from Harris. But thank you, councilor Anne Marie, for jumping in. I appreciate that. Is there any discussion?

Yes. Oh, no. I'm gonna abstain, but we need to explain the extension. So do we do it during the discussion or after the vote?

Right now. Oh, actually, no. During the vote. Right?

Yeah. During the vote.

During the vote. So hold hold tight, please. May I please have a roll call?

Councilor Case? Aye. Anne Marie? Aye. Sinclair? Aye. Harris?

Aye.

Salvato? Abstain. And can you state your reason why you're abstaining?

I feel like this is a really important decision that we're making as a city council. We've had housing one zero one. We've had a lot of one on ones, and I feel like this is a very important topic that we should have covered in the one on ones, and we should have gone through the process of how this is done because I I went through a couple of the documents, and one of the things that I noticed is that they're not completely uniform. We're asking questions, but there's no way to, like, prove that that's the case. And so I have to be mindful of what's going on in places like the city of Portland.

You're seeing a situation where you have affordable housing, property managers that have empty, you know, housing. They have over a thousand units empty. And one of the main drivers for that is that the market rate apartments are more affordable than the affordable apartments. So I feel like there's this is a this is a opportunity for the city council to influence that trend. And so that's why I'm gonna abstain from that because I feel like we needed more time to discuss this and go through that. And I don't feel like we I have enough information to vote yes or no on.

Okay. Thank you very much. We still have we'll go to resolution number two nine one five is adopted. Thank you, councilor Sargado. I'll turn it over to Robbie Hammond. Do you have a city manager?

No

city manager booked today.

Alright. And then, we will not be reading the proclamations listed under advice and information, but I'd like to acknowledge Arab American Heritage Month, Fair Housing Month, Volunteer Week, and Arbor Day. Thank you very much for all coming to the meeting. For all of you coming to the meeting, the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Then we'll Great. Thank

you. Bye. Thank you for helping me