City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. Welcome. This is February 2, New York City council meeting. I call the meeting to order. Can we have a roll call, please?

Certainly. Councilor McBride?

Here.

Councilor Wheatley? Here. Councilor Yarnell Holloman? Here. Councilor Kilburg? Here. Mayor Rosacker?

Here.

Councilor Turgeson?

Here.

Councilor Carmen?

Here.

Thank you.

Well, it's good to see everybody here. Thanks for coming. Would you all please stand and join us in the, pledge of allegiance? Well, I'm not sure what it what you did to attract a lot of people here today, but they're obviously here to hear your narrative. So let's move on with that.

It it's probably the news of the new design for our street sweeper, which Emily created a very complex vector object composed of leaves that can be scaled to any possible size for application and it looks absolutely stunning. So you'll be seeing that driving through your neighborhood soon. I don't have the oh, oh gosh. Thank you. Thank you. I got the clicker. I was worried there for a minute. Here we go.

Just like you're not holding that. Tell

me when I can do the clicky.

And

this is the events of January 2026 from the only fiscally stable city within driving distance of Portland. Recently I highlighted the work of our Stellar Safety Committee from working on policy to make inspections and recommendations to keep us safe, but today I want to take a moment just to refresh everybody's memory about the Strive Committee and you know this is something I do once a year just like I do with the safety committee and the people on the Strive Committee wear many hats, so I want to cover what they do and our excellent results. The Strive Committee does three things. First, the Strive Committee, which other cities do not have anything like this, serves as an ethics watchdog for the city and is made of the number two person within each department. The strive committee meets to select the member of staff that has most recent recently shown our values and the committee chooses from eligible nominations for the annual city awards, such as the George Lehman award and the Rookie of the Year award, and you may or may not know that this includes things like service, teamwork and responsibility, integrity, value and equity, which we defend with these values.

The committee therefore rewards the positive actions of our staff by way of the award and recognition, but also serves as a neutral space where members can go to report any senior member of staff suspected of sexual, racial or physical harassment or ethics violations such as theft or misappropriation of public funds or resources. This provides an independent reporting channel that staff can use that is available to them separate from HR, so there is more than one way to report these sorts of things. Significantly Strive both reinforces desired behaviors and serves as a strategic deterrent against negative ones of the sort the city used to have frequently before four and a half years ago. We are incredibly happy with the results from the committee, This has been shown by our stellar insurance loss record, which has changed dramatically from the way things were before 2021. I'm equally proud of the Strive Award winners.

If you would like to take an opportunity, and you can do this on the city website, to look at all of the people who have won the STRiVE award and the reasons why they have won it, this would be a very wonderful thing. Recent award recipients like Elias, Cynthia, John, Emily, and Gabriela, you have been an example to all of us. And now over to regular news. Hawaiian Brothers opened January 19. TV and F and R has submitted engineering documents for the rebuilt Station 20, including some temporary parking.

16,000 square foot has been added soon for flex industrial buildings at Hancock And Elliott. 40,000 square feet of flex industrial for planning review at the corner of Winooski And Sandoz, and Rennie Field project meetings have been occurring ongoing with CPRD to discuss improvements to Blaine Street and possible coordination with the city's transportation utility fund work. We've considered and may well move forward part of our tough work so as to be good partners with CPRD on their frontage improvements. And more things, highest engagement post and community engagement was boys night out, the actual mouse statue for the mouse on the move. Moving from the Butler property and also the relaunching of our photo enforcement at Villa And 99 West, now with a company that is capable of doing the work.

Working with the city recorder to put out information about city council updates and many more things, including winter safety kits and information about how sidewalks in Newburgh are managed. And there is some of the amazing work that Emily has done. Emily is not only our public affairs officer, but is also a fully qualified graphic artist and designer. And there is the hottest post which was connected to a mouse on the move. Now the incipient battle between the Arts Council and the librarians has been headied off, and both parties have been able to come together to find a place where the mouse can live, where both parties can accept it.

Now I can't say too much about it yet, but very soon the home location of the mouse will be announced, no doubt with much fanfare. NDPD has reported a relatively quiet month. Great work officers. And here's officer McDonough letting a kid sit in the patrol car, just one of the many things that we do to help community relations. And in the city recorder realm, we are working on hiring a new emergency management coordinator, but it's not too late.

If you work in the field of emergency management, you could apply too for this position. It's not been filled yet, and as you know our emergency manager moved up to Washington State to be closer to her kids. We also completed a detailed review of the municipal code, welcomed a guest for mayor for a day experience, and did a massive shredding project. Yes, once again the shredding truck came to Newburgh and collected up more boxes of dunnage and shredded it all very efficiently, meaning that we are now almost entirely paper free. Think about that, from where we were four years ago when we were drowning in paper, and now we live in a digital world.

Engineering events, groundwater treatment plant filter covers, the fabric covered steel buildings that enclose the contract basins are anticipated for delivery and final completion date is allegedly going to be April 16 if Cedar Mill construction can stay on their timeline, which we hope they will. Other things, the Main Street waterline replacement, 90% of the design has been submitted and the ODOT right of way permit is coming soon. Engineering, we have begun to look into artificial intelligence powered androids to supplement our current staff and we will be looking at those and we will be field testing them, and we're thinking that we will probably start with a field tested android at the library first because it's a dry place, although we're not down to which model we're going to look at, but we are, as you know, on the cutting edge of technology and so we will be looking at that. For the month of January finance did the following things, issued the w-2s, adjusted some rules about overtime to match the big beautiful bill regulations, issued ten ninety nine's, did interviews for our new public works director, had rate review committee meetings on wastewater, and the red light cameras went live at the end of the month.

Public works maintenance. There was a strong focus on downtown cleaning and sweeping, cleaning debris, installing meters and ordering new signs along College Street to replace the ones that have been delaminated, which really belong to ODOT, but the email that they said that we could replace the signs on 1st Street, we are choosing to interpret that as meaning that we can now do all ODOT signs if we should choose to do so until we are told otherwise. Peshunk. A three inch water leak on East 9th Street was quickly addressed by this crew, this water leak you see here. This issue caused minimal disruption and no significant damage to the area, and traffic in nearby businesses were unaffected.

New water meters in the process of being installed in the new housing development at Kalina, and that's rolling out right now, and public works maintenance water crew replaced a water valve on Centre Street as part of routine maintenance. And public works facilities work, we have had a really rubbish kitchen in there for a really long time and we are doing a kitchen remodel, including some fresh new paint in the halls to make things a little better than they've been for the last ten years. Also at the same time in other facilities work, we're adding additional fall protection in other buildings, new bathrooms at the library and several other upgrades. So that is the astonishing and rather smashing events of January 2026, and I wonder if there are any questions especially about the hotly debated mouse journey. So

I do have a comment about your the you saw that Will had a talked about the water treatment plant basin covers. Last Monday, I got a call from Andrea Salinas, representative Andrea Salinas, that, she wanted to let us know that we had received a grant for $850,000 to help defray the cost on that particular job. So that was, Will had applied for that some time ago, so thank you. And Yes, sir. To let

you know, that represents about 90% of the total expenditures for this project.

So the next item on our agenda is gonna be public comments. And before we start, I prepared a statement that I'm actually gonna read. Over the past several meetings, emotions in this chamber have run high. Many of our residents care deeply about the issues affecting their lives, and I respect that. But a significant portion of recent public comments has focused on matters outside of the authority of city government.

When that happens, it strains our staff, disrupts the work of the council, and increases the risk of escalation. The tension in this room has reached a point where there is legitimate concern that a motionless escalation could become physical, and that's not acceptable. Tonight, our staff will recommend limiting public comment to items on the agenda. This public comment period is your opportunity to demonstrate civility before the council deliberates. The city council exists to represent you, the residents of Newburgh.

Each councilor will speak for themselves this evening, but I can say with confidence that we all support open public comment when it is conducted with respect. Public comment is the one of the most efficient ways for residents to communicate their wishes, concerns, and critiques to their local government in public. But that openness only works when it's paired with respect, respect for one another, respect for this chamber, and respect for the work that we're here to do. The responsibility rests with all of us to show that we can disagree respectfully, keep the chamber a safe, orderly, and constructive place for everyone. We are a caring community.

We are neighbors first, and I believe we can demonstrate together that civility will prevail in Newburgh. So next item on our agenda is public comments. For those of you, anybody that that isn't aware, we divide public comments into general comments. That's what we're gonna do right now. There's only four people that have signed up, so they will get a full five minutes apiece to express their their comments.

Everybody else that has signed up has signed up to speak on an item that is on the agenda tonight. So after staff has made their presentation, that is when you will have your opportunity to, make your comments. We have enough of them. They won't be five minutes. We're probably gonna shorten them down to about three minutes, So please, adjust your your comments in your head as you can. So all that being said, thank you for being here tonight. It's good to see everybody, and we're gonna start with our public comments. First item or first person up is Jim Tull. Hi, Jim. Good to see you.

By the way, we're gonna talk about council rules today. I personally think that it's pretty much impossible to peep stop people from expressing themselves in the form of clapping or applause. Please be considerate of everybody else and understand that what we don't want is things that are gonna disrupt the meeting, cat calls, and so forth. But, anyway, thank you. Go ahead, Jim.

Jim Taltz speaking. I have two comments on two topics. The first is about sidewalk repairs. Many homeowners have side walks that need repair, but they don't know how to find a reputable contractor, or they get such high quotes that they decide not to fix the problem. Alternately, they might ask their landscape maintenance person if they can do the work.

The answer is often yes, but it usually gets done without permits and with widely varying quality. I'm here tonight to ask you to consider arranging for Newberg homeowners to have access to the concrete solutions contract and standard pricing for repairs to sidewalks abutting their property. Having Newburgh's preferred supplier do the work at the city standard pricing would facilitate timely repairs and ensure consistent quality. This would not preclude the homeowner from using a different vendor, but it could help them with one easy option. This could be a great customer service to residents and align perfectly with council goal number one.

Maybe it could become a resident sidewalk repair program or some some such thing. It's possible that concrete solutions would welcome the additional business, or maybe not. In which case, I would want us to strongly encourage them in that direction. Anyway, please give that some thought. That's topic one.

Topic two tonight is about the Hayworth And Springbrook Intersection. That's a dangerous intersection. I think I heard that Newburgh considered or wanted to perhaps put in a traffic signal at that intersection, but ODOT may have said no. However, someone thought of adding those flashing lights at the signs. That was an excellent idea, and whosever idea that was, well, they deserve public recognition for that.

Great idea. It's helping. You know? And for all we know, it may have or maybe will save a life because that is a super dangerous intersection. Anyway, I I thought whoever idea that was, apparently yours, Russ, good idea. That's it. See you on see you on agenda item, I think, at seven point two.

Thank you, Jim. For those who don't know, that's Russ Thomas is who they were, given credit for that. He is our public works director. For how much longer, Russ? How much how much longer are you gonna be public works director?

One month.

One month. So thanks, Ross. That was a good change on on that particular intersection. Next up is Chris Irwin.

Well, I think, we've had a lot of complaints, coming from our city lately, and I just wanna say that I I think we should all be proud to be living in this community. We have a city council that has worked very hard to balance our budget. They're paying off loans to make us debt free. They've worked to keep utility bills low. They've created a plan with the city budget to maintain our roads, resurfacing, giving our roads a longer life, and also putting ADA sidewalk ramps to assist our citizens in need of a little extra help.

They've lowered the time involved for building permit processing. We have a city manager that has run our city very efficiently. We have a great library and a very responsive fire department. And aren't the lights ringing around our city downtown? What a great addition for our downtown.

Newburgh may be one of the very few police departments that is fully staffed. This is due to the leadership of our police chief and our team of police officers. Our local police are very responsive to our citizens' needs even though they are restricted in working with ICE officials due to Oregon's sanctuary laws. Newburgh may not be a perfect town, but what city is. We should all be very proud to be living here. Thank you.

Thank

you, Chris. Next, we have Jess Jesse. Welcome, Jesse. It's good to see you tonight.

Thank you, Jessica. I appreciate it.

Hi.

Good evening, mayor, council, community. Thank you for allowing me the space and the time again. As some of you know, this is not my first public comment and likely not my last when it comes to calling out civic access barriers in Newburgh with appreciation, with respect, with love. You've heard from me before about disclosure hurdles, mechanized voices, and what it feels like to risk coming here at all in a wheelchair while gravel is kicked up at my chair or people yell out of windows. It's not hypothetical.

It is my lived reality. Just trying to show up here is already a fight for some of us. Tonight, I wanna speak to a deeper concern, not just about policies, but about behaviors and structures that normalize exclusions and how we might work together to start shifting that. This part isn't in here. Thank you, mister Mehr, for your comments before we started this meeting.

I truly deeply appreciate it. Really sincerely. I watched this room stand in solemn recitation of the pledge, yet I hear until now recently, no mention of what comes after. I listen as expressions of fear, like neighbors saying that they're scared we're becoming similar to Germany and how we're treating each other, that are met with open booing. The booing was not condemned, and in fact, many of the same voices were later batch appointed to city volunteer positions without pause.

Meanwhile, disabled parents and low income residents can't get any words read into the record unless they disco disclose personal diagnosis or sacrifice paid hours to show up here at all. That's not an oversight. It is a pattern. It is who this system was built to center and who is still expected to navigate it without breaking. I'm not here to shame.

I'm here to name and maybe even help each of us understand why this matters before we get to tonight's agenda item. Because public comment isn't just a checkbox. It's often where people like me find voice for the first time. Eliminating that opportunity, especially for those who can't predict which agenda items might impact them, isn't efficiency. It's silencing.

Some of us are still trying to trust that showing up matters. Please don't make it harder. Also, before I close, a reminder for you, for anybody listening that might listen later. One in four adults in The US is federally defined as disabled. You don't need to be in a wheelchair.

You don't need a formal diagnosis on file. If you are living with chronic pain, fatigue, ADHD, anxiety, old injuries, or any condition that affects your daily life, you already qualify for ADA accommodations. Having one disability does not mean needing only one accommodation. Many disabilities affect multiple areas of life, and ADA protections apply to functional impact, not diagnosis count. Most people don't know they can ask.

There's a stigma. There's a shame. That's by design. But you can, and you should. Access isn't just for other people. It's for you too. Thank you for your time and your energy. I truly do appreciate each of you. And I dropped my hat.

Hey, Liz. Could you help me?

Your name's not Liz,

but Thank you, Jesse. And last but not least, Bill Cole.

Two items that are are somewhat related. The first one is to echo what the mayor had stated earlier that we need to speak with everybody with decorum and respect and appreciation. We all have our different opinions, and that's what makes it interesting. I under also understand that the concerns of staff, that, you know, what if things get out of hand, and and that that certainly factors into the mix. But when you are are making your decisions, if if you could think about transparency and, you know, it's not an issue of free speech.

It's just an, it's an issue of our our republic. You know, the people people should have an opportunity to be heard. And, whether you like it or not, especially if you don't, it's a, it it's something that we should encourage. I leave that to you to to make that decision, but that's that's my my two cents on that. The other thing is just generally, and this isn't necessarily to the council, but this this microphone has been used, with with, an awful lot of enthusiasm, to talk about issues that are are federal in nature.

We all know what they are. I don't have to go into it. But it's it's important to remember we have a limited amount of time here for speaking and for you to do your your, your professional actions. And if, if maybe we could focus on comments again, I seem to be echoing what the mayor said originally. If if we could make our comments mostly about those things that we we this this council has his jurisdiction over, And, you know, let let, matters over which we have no control at this, administrative level, those can be addressed in a different forum that's more appropriate.

So I thank all of you. This is only my second council meeting, and, I'm very impressed with everyone around here. And and as as, I think Chris Erwin mentioned, this is a very nice town. And and they say you can't go go back. Well, I I couldn't go back to the hometown I grew up in. It's very different, but this is the way I remember it. So thank you one and all, and you're doing a good job.

Thank you, Bill.

Well, thank you, sir.

Alright. Here's my agenda. I guess so. We go. Alright. Our first presentation is gonna be, the Northwest Accreditation Alliance.

So, that's has to do with the police department. So if you guys are okay with sergeant Ronnie and I presenting from here good evening, honorable mayor and council. My name is Jeff Kosmicki. I'm your chief of police. Sergeant Ronning is our administrative sergeant. He's the one that actually does all the work, so I won't take any credit whatsoever for that. And on the phone is, Scott Hayes. He's the executive director of the Northwest Accreditation Alliance. Sorry. Zoom.

I'll just provide a little brief, statement, and then, I believe Scott's gonna present us with the award. We'll try to answer any questions you have. But I wanted you to know that the Newberdundee Police Department has maintained accreditation since 2004, providing independent verification that the agency policies meet modern professional policing. The accreditation ensures continuous self assessment of policies, procedures, and operational practices in compliance with Oregon law. In 2021, the state of Oregon passed a law that all agencies above 35 sworn police officers will be accredited.

I believe it's they have until 2027, I think. But for us, we were about seventeen years early, which is good. The key benefits for this, and hopefully I don't steal Scott's what he was gonna talk about, but the key benefits are reduced civil liability exposure, decreased potential for costly settlements, possible reductions in liability insurance premiums, and enhanced service delivery to residents throughout the community. So that's kind of, what touches those are the high points. And with that, is Scott able to speak?

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Super. Good evening, mayor and councilors and members of the community. As introduced, I'm Scott Hayes, the executive director for the Northwest Accreditation Alliance. I appreciate the opportunity to address the council and present the Newburgh Police Department with its award of accreditation under the leadership of Jeff Komenecki. Law enforcement is experiencing a changing society with increased demands for police accountability and transparency.

As in our past, our profession must face these challenges and work with our communities to address their concerns. Accreditation is one step towards building community trust. The Northwest Accreditation Alliance was formed under the direction of the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police, the Oregon State Sheriff's Association, and the Association of Public Safety and Communications Officials. We currently provide accreditation services for 115 law enforcement and communication centers in Oregon. Accreditation goals are straightforward, to support the continued improvement of law enforcement services, to establish best practice through professional standards, to promote agency accountability and transparency, and to enhance overall operational management.

For the Newburgh Dundee Police Department to become accredited, it had to adhere to 110 law enforcement standards. Compliance is generally in the form of policies and procedures and adherence to Oregon revised statutes, Oregon excuse me, Oregon administrative rules, and city policy. Our standards are established through best practice nationally and through changes in federal law and Oregon law. In addition to each of the 110 standards, the agency must demonstrate proof of compliance ensuring it follows established policies and current best practice. Then reaccreditation occurs every three years.

This is a monumental step for any agency to be evaluated by an outside independent organization and have their policies scrutinized. I'm aware that there are several members of the department staff involved in the process, but I would like to acknowledge sergeant Eric Romine, the accreditation manager who worked diligently to prepare the agency for the assessment. So chief Komenecki, on behalf of the Northwest Accreditation and its board of directors, I can like to congratulate you on receiving your award of accreditation.

Thank you. Thanks, Scott. And I didn't know, mayor, I didn't know if anyone has any questions or you don't have to. I was just

I just wanna make a comment that, I honestly believe, and I state this at any chance I get outside of our community, that we have the finest public safety department in the state of Oregon. So thank you guys very much, and Thank you. We appreciate it.

We're very fortunate to have the team that we have, the council that we have, the city manager that we have, and a lot of direction. It's it's it's a great, team to be a part of, honestly, and it's got a great culture.

There any other questions or statements for the chief? Alright. We'll move on. Next is our stormwater master plan. We're gonna start with a presentation, and then we will move into a, an action item. So

I will. Hello again. And as you know, I am not an engineer, but very occasionally do play one on television. And I'm gonna wear that out, am So this was an item which as you know we cancelled the council meeting recently because we didn't have enough agenda items, so this moved over to tonight's meeting and this is about the stormwater master plan update and its function and some small changes that are coming soon which will have a positive financial effect actually. Let me try again, Cushunk.

There we go. First, a few quick stormwater basics from Newburgh, and if I got any of these wrong, Russ, I apologize. This public works team manages 67.9 miles of storm pipes. In addition, the city's stormwater infrastructure has approximately 3,287 catch basins minus any that Rusty's team have just put in. We also have approximately 7.14 acres of swales and basins and we need to plan for repairs to this system where new lands might be required in the future, where flooding might start to emerge, all future tense.

What is the purpose of the storm water master plan, which as I've learned engineering calls swamp planning, which is kind of cool. Currently the municipal code requires updates every five years, this accounts for growth such as Mountain View Drive, increased hydraulic modelling used to inform about problem areas and without doing this work we can't know what needs to be on the capital improvement list five, ten, fifteen or even twenty years into the future, and that is the main point of this type of planning. The stormwater master plan has been included in the approved capital plan and has been budgeted for. The current Newburgh municipal code requires an update every five years and the last one was completed in June 2021. Significant developments have occurred since the last plan and phase one of the plan, which was involving a lot of flow monitoring, has been completed.

Drainage concerns such as Springbrook Road do remain outstanding and as those of you who are long term residents know this is an area that is prone to hydroplane flooding and that's a part of the stormwater issue. The current capital improvement plan is based upon uncalibrated modelling, not because it was anything wrong in 2021, but because it's out of date. Current plan outlines 9,500,000.0 in needed improvements over the twenty year horizon, not anything that will hit all at once but will steadily occur through that horizon. There are currently 26 separate projects on the planning horizon and the focus and optimization is needed to prioritize which things come first in future CIPs. Results of data gathering to date, phase one tasks include data review of problem areas and our buildable lands, GIS that's the graphical interface system for mapping, we've done some updates, real world flow monitoring, Danette and the rest of the team have had 10 flow monitors constantly out in different places all around town collecting data and analyzing it, engineering design standards and code review which are all coming to fruition, and preparations to get the flow monitoring data ready for a calibrated model.

That's a model that can take account of where things may go wrong in the future. Also optimizing city engineering standards and municipal code to meet regulatory needs, but to remain development friendly, updating the model as listed and evaluating current infrastructure, leading to updated CIP planning, preparing a maintenance plan, evaluating staffing levels and providing comprehensive planning information. Direct benefits of an updated swamp provide fiscally responsible planning for city funds to manage long term infrastructure needs, providing short term recommendations for staffing levels and maintenance activities, and prioritizing project areas to eliminate, to alleviate problem areas. Also factoring in possible future state regulatory requirements. Timeline and budgeting, the twenty year planning period scoped '26 through '46 and here is one big change that will probably come, not probably, this will come with your approval from the stormwater master plan work.

Our current engineering team feels that the cadence of frequency represented in municipal code thirteen point two zero point zero three zero set to five years is too frequent and it is their opinion that based upon our 1% growth rate and the way neighborhoods are coming in that they would like to shift to only having to do this once every ten years and that's an engineering recommendation not one purely from KD and finance and so on, just so you know. Phase two effort is expected to be 237,000 based upon the data already in hand and three fifty was already originally budgeted. We've made some considerable savings based upon doing a whole lot of data gathering ourselves and we're very glad that we hired Danette from Intel to join our engineering team. Now I just have to throw this out here, it is entirely possible that this is the last time we will do all this data gathering by hand, that means people manually going out and placing flow meters, calibrating by hand, downloading all kinds of CSV and other data files, compiling it into engineering data. It may well be the case that if we do this again in ten years, that we may have automated robots in our pipes collecting data and doing repairs as they do in some other places around the world.

So anyway I wanted to just throw that out there and that, oh that is the end of my presentation, and if there are any questions that go over my head I can either defer to Russ or possibly back to engineering if there is anything.

Wow. You, you did a thorough job. By the way, I appreciate that, we're looking at actually doing it less often. That's not usually the way things work in government, so that's good news, provided it's prudent, of course. Are you gonna you're taking care of the, we might as well move right into the new business, which is the stormwater master plan approval.

I shall stay right where I am. You're right, mister mayor.

I forgot. Let you get up and walk over to your chair.

So as you know, normally, when we bring these things to council, we like to do them on two separate nights, but we approval from the mayor to bring it together for tonight and so I am seeking a resolution granting approval to initiate the stormwater master plan update, bringing it all the way to fruition and staff does recommend this. During the first biennium, the committee work and CIP work for the stormwater master plan was introduced and approved by council. This resolution authorizes this work to begin and go through completion and as an attachment from Keller, as a memo explaining the scope of the work, the fiscal impact is listed and we are always seeking to maintain a high level of transparency with our residents to build trust on what we're doing and we also hope to not be back here asking for this again for ten years.

If if nobody has questions, would anybody like to make a motion? Mister mayor? I move we approve resolution twenty twenty six four zero zero six.

Second. It has been approved, moved and seconded that we approve, ordinance number two thousand twenty six four thousand six. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So the next item on our agenda is item 7.2, council rule changes to public comments for safety and decorum.

Welcome, Rachel.

Hello. As you all know, I'm Rachel Thomas, your city recorder. I was asked to draft these proposed changes, on behalf of several staff members and others who are concerned and wanted to look at what it would look like if general comment was removed and what it looks like to add Decorum statements into our, council rules. So I'm here to bring that to you guys. I do not have horse in this race again.

So I'm here to talk about this. We have, tonight, it is here just for you to discuss and come up with ideas and thoughts. And then after this, I'd love some feedback from you guys. There's basically two decisions to make here. Does council council desire to add DECRM standards to our council rules, and does council desire to eliminate general comment and only receive comment on items, on the agenda?

So you guys know basically why we're bringing this to council. As the mayor stated at the beginning of the meeting, there's been an increase of really impassioned public comment. We're exploring the idea of removal of general public comment as it is not a state requirement that we allow it. And there are some concern that it might lead to more efficient meetings if it is removed. Decrum, we're exploring adding that in.

These are already standards that we have had in place for many years. They are part of the handouts that we give people when they come in the door, but it was thought wise to add them to the council rules. So in my professional opinion, I highly support the DECRM standards, and general comment is your decision. So while DECRM's always been part of our policies and procedures, we wanna create more transparency through this. Removing general public comment as an option does not remove people's ability to talk to counsel, but it does remove one avenue.

If we if you did choose to eliminate that, then we would really be highlighting ways to connect with counsel on the website, encouraging people to speak with you in other avenues because it's real as we know, it's very important to hear from the public. So that's basically it's a very simple proposal in front of you. So I think you've got more to hear from the public than me tonight. So I think I'd love to step out of the way, and then we can come back and have a further discussion and get feedback from you if that works.

Thank you, Rachel.

Thanks very much.

James, before we get started, we would why don't you let us know what the legalities are behind both removing public general comment and trying to eliminate trying to put sideboards, if you will, on things that people are talking about.

Thank you, mister mayor. Yeah. Just to give the the council some guidance. So, obviously, city council meetings, recognizes limited public forums. So there are kind of two components when it comes to engagement with members of the public and and and public city council meetings. One is with respect to attendance. Right? And part of the, requirements, starting with our, public meetings and record statutes is that, you know, the public meetings need to be accessible by the public for attendance purposes. The the next piece of that is participation. Right?

And so the, public meetings law does not require, broad across the board participation on any item on the agenda or otherwise in a public meeting. Now there are exceptions to that. Right? When you have certain, land use hearings, for example, council is required to conduct a hearing that involves a public comment in those instances, but that applies to, certain sets of or certain types of items and not necessarily broadly across the board. When it comes to restrictions on on public comment, because it's a limited public forum, there are, time, place, and manner restrictions that can be placed in connection with the you know, that that participates in their speech, so long as those restrictions are content neutral.

We can get more into the depths of that. There are questions from counsel, but but there's a pretty robust body of case law that that that speaks to that. When it comes to general public comment, you know, obviously, it's not in my office's obligation or responsibility to comment on the policy components of that, whether that's something counsel wants to wants to do or not. When it comes to whether legally you're required to include general public comment in your meeting, the answer to that is no. You're not required to, at every meeting, include general public comment, but you do have to include public comment on those certain types of or certain sets of items as I've referred to earlier.

Is that responsive to your question, mister mayor and council?

I think that's a good basis to to, start with before we have our public comments. I'm sure that there will be more when we begin to deliberate. So very quickly, I'd like to take a five minute break.

I'll I'll One clarifying question. A legal question. Is there any specific case law or examples that specifically call out if there was a change in council rules post perceived as retaliatory to an incident or a section of comments. I totally understand that it's within state statute for us to make the determination of public of general public comment, but I do feel like that is a gray zone as to if it's retaliatory towards a specific subject. If that that could be claimed as I've been.

Thank thank you, counselor Yarnell Holloman. Know, I'm not aware off the top of my head of particular, like, case law responding to that specific issue. I do know that, you know, that could be a narrative or or or a claim that's raised in response to a removal of general public comment that it's it's certainly possible that the timing in which it's removed could be used as, as a attempt to to curb speech. It it could be I could see that argument being made.

Alright. Well, we good? Okay. Let's take a take a very short break, maybe five minutes, and we'll get come back and get started. We have nine people signed up to speak.

Our meeting is going to be short enough today that I think it would be acceptable to let people have the entire five minutes if you, if you can. If it's possible, please be brief, and and, we'll get out here a little sooner. This is an important measure. We're very interested in hearing what you have to say. So let's take a quick break. We'll see you in five minutes. Alright, everybody. We're back in session. Our first commenter is gonna be Jesse. Absolutely.

In fact, it is customary that Jessica, do you have a common form in here as well?

Yes. I do. I should.

Then the two of you can combine your time if you choose.

Your choice. Two separate

That's that's right. So you between the two of you, you get a total of ten minutes.

Oh, yeah. We don't need that.

I don't

need that.

Hi, counsel. I did say I was not gonna provide public comments again after last meeting, here I am, partially because of agenda 7.2. And I actually just wanna read out the text, and you have a cop you should have a copy in front of you of the petition that has circulated around the city. And I just want to read it out loud, and then I'll go on to how many signatures we have. But the petition was petition to preserve unimpeded public comment at Newburgh City Council public forums.

On behalf of ourselves, our community, and our First Amendment rights, we, the undersigned, request Newburgh City Council to not limit the content of public comment to agenda topics during public forums. And then I hyperlinked the agenda so everyone can learn if they're interested. And then here's the text. Foremost, limiting public comment defies both the letter and the spirit of our constitutional first amendment. The US Supreme Court upheld this inviolable democratic principle in the case of New York Times v Sullivan 1964 stating as such, profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be inhibited, robust, and wide open.

That it may well include and I might pronounce this wrong. Vehement. Vehement. Thank you. Vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

This president from the Supreme Court holds the right to make public comment on governance to not be impeded, shaped, or barred in any way. While a governing body has the ability to set a limited public forum, it is coded into First Amendment law that any such restrictions placed on speakers must be placed on all speakers equally. If this is not adhered to, such governing bodies are liable to litigation as seen in the case of Baca v Moreno, again, might be butchering all these names, Valley Unified School District nineteen ninety six. Despite the ability of Newburgh City Council to equally limit public comments based on time, content, or both, limiting the content of community speech will disservice the whole

of

Newburgh. Working in tandem with city leadership is a bipartisan right that connects community to leadership. Limiting public comments to topics only on the agenda will be perceived as leadership closing their ears to their constituents who elected them and may send the message that council is filtering participation and will only deepen the divide within the community. Public comment is not just a courtesy. It is a civic safeguard.

This limitation creates additional barriers for disabled residents who rely on flexible formats or varied timing to engage, caregivers and working class community members who can't track shifting agendas in real time, and community members unfamiliar with local procedures who often only discover relevant issues after attending or through a neighbor trying to stay involved on their behalf. On behalf of ourselves, our community, and our First Amendment rights, we, the under sign, request Newburgh City Council to not limit the content of public comments to agenda topics during public forums. This petition was released Thursday night, and was put together by me and community members, including Jesse here. And we had 203 people signing from Newberg and 84 additional signees from surrounding cities, 43 from McMinnville. And then we had 16 from Dundee, five from Hillsborough, two from Sherwood, and then a bun a bunch of twos and ones from other cities as well.

But I wanted to share that the I I was amazed by how quickly people found the petition and chose to speak up about this, and hope you all take that in consideration today for the decision that you make.

Did you have the chance to print out any of the public comments that you wanted to share?

I did not. Oh, yeah. Thank you for reminding me of that. So I did not print out the public comments. So as long with the petitions, some people provided comments to the petition to share. I didn't print those out ahead of time today. But if you all would like access to those or, like, want a list of the ZIP codes of people who sign, I'm happy to send that out as, like, an email attachment as well.

Hi.

Thank you for the opportunity and the chance again to speak, mayor, council body. I'm speaking in direct response to item 7.2. And to clarify, I did submit a joint ADA accommodation request regarding this item as it directly impacts how disabled residents are able to participate in future meetings. There is a petition circulating signed by over 200 people asking that general public comments not be removed from council procedure. While tonight's agenda references a petition received, it does not include the full text or signatures in the public packet if it is the same petition that I have been able to find reference of, which would be this one.

That exclusion limits transparency and denies residents the ability to speak in context. Let me be clear. If that petition is the same one we circulated that's referenced in our public forms, then it should be entered into the public record in full. If it's not, then that admission still requires correction because a significant portion of this community has spoken and they deserve to be heard clearly, not by implication. As for the proposed rule changes, eliminating general public comment creates a structural barrel barrier to civic participation, especially for disabled or low income residents who may not have advanced access to agendas or who face fatigue, tech issues, or caregiving barriers that make written submission impossible.

Time restrictions with no flexibility for pacing is not ADA compliant. Even the current rules already allow for reasonable accommodations. Add and decorum rules that allow removal for disruption without defining how disability related communication will be handled, that risks turning neurodivergence into cause for silencing as well as potential legal implications for any parties involved. This is not just a procedural tweak Under title two of the Americans with Disabilities Act, these changes constitute a programmatic access change and require formal ADA review before implementation. I urge the council to pause this vote and to initiate a transparent interactive review with impacted residents.

With clarity on the record, no one is asking for special treatment. We are asking that when decisions are made about how the public can speak, the public cannot always speak easily is included in that conversation too. Thank you once again for your time. Thank

you to both Jessies. Next. K. Brendan Slater.

Good evening. Brandon Slater, resident Newburgh. Thanks to mister mayor and council for having us. Thank you to the staff. I normally am much more prepared for my public comments, editing speeches, such, but I figured I'd just kinda come and speak off the cuff a little bit.

For one, I would like to make sure that the citizens can understand why this was drafted for transparency sake. You know, when when staff and this is mostly speaking to the the citizens, but when staff draft stuff like this, you know, I can see how they're really focusing on the safety and time for the staff. So I'm I'm hoping that opponents of this can at least understand, you know, that side of things. That being said, I I do think it's very important that we don't cut out the opportunity for our public to be able to sit here in front of all you. I'd much rather be here talking about trees and recreation trails, sister cities rather than, you know, perceived first amendment rights.

And yeah, when I first learned about that it's not a legal requirement for special districts or city councils to have general public comments. I was kinda surprised because it seemed like something that should be the law, should be required. That being said, I I can't help but worry that if you were to remove that, that there'd be the perceived notion of, you know, getting rid of your free speech, getting rid of our free speech regardless of the facts. You know, we live in a world of sensationalized exaggeration where people take one headline and run with it, which is unfortunate. And I I know that we had a rather unfortunate incident with vulgarity and interruption and hurling insults.

And I I pray that it never happens again and certainly never gets any worse than that. I don't know if you've ever watched, you know, Portland City Council meetings can get much less, you know, we won't get into that. But I just ultimately, just speaking off the cuff and bringing up the the proposed rules, I think it is important to add decorum. That seems perfectly reasonable. Just put it in writing.

But to only to speak onto agenda item seems like a disservice to our parents that have to pray that their spouse will watch the kids while they come up here and talk or to our neighbors and friends who have to ride their electric vehicle or their electric wheelchairs for hours at a time to get here hoping that they could talk about something specific. Hoping that, you know, the alternative if this is axed, do we just hope that one of you guys responds to an email? Do we just hope that the city manager puts something on the agenda that we're passionate about instead of bringing it to the attention so that it can hopefully be agendized at a future meeting. I normally wouldn't offer suggestions because it's not really my wheelhouse, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps there's a potential amendment where you have potential for you don't get rid of general comments, but if staff really needs a temperature reduction, there could be a potential for, you know, for the next three meetings, we're gonna pause general comments. Something that's very clearly defined that the public knows about it in advance and there's a clear ends to it rather than public comments are gone.

Who knows if they'll be back? Lastly, and I think this is covered under Oregon law, but one concern I had was, you know, any mayor having discretion to reduce time allotted to each speaker. I would hope that obviously that means every speaker has the same amount of time. But just to make it clear, we don't want anybody thinking that one specific person gets three minutes, another person gets five minutes. Yeah. I won't take up any more time, but that's all I got for tonight. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Brandon. Next, we have Casey Banks. Hi, Casey. Good to see you again.

Is red on? Red's on. I'm Casey Banks, a resident here in Newburgh, and I'm just myself tonight. I have what I would call suggested edits for this proposal. I support the effort to promote decorum, so as long as it can be reasonably enforced with, that appropriate care for folks with disabilities.

But I did notice in the proposal that only one person, the current presiding officer, would have the discretion to dismiss an attendee for language or conduct. So to make things as neutral and fair as possible, I'd love to see that amended to at least three members of council agreeing before ejecting someone from the audience. Regarding the time limits for public comment, I would like to ask you all to please consider naming a minimum time limit because if you make a rule that speeches will never be restricted to less than three or four minutes, then we commentators can prepare in advance accordingly. It is really frustrating for those of us who do like to write down our speeches to prepare for five minutes, knowing it could be restricted to four minutes and then being prepared for that and arriving and, oops, it's three. And I'm grateful that now it's five again.

But, you know, if I had to speed read through this, that would not be good for folks who have hearing loss or those who may be on our Zoom call using the language translation tech element there. So if you would consider creating a minimum, then we could prepare a little better. Regarding eliminating general comment time, I'm against that entirely. The rationale mentions it being a time of inflamed passions. I like passion, and I know that it can get a little out of hand.

But, I noticed we always have an officer with us, and we've got cameras. And, that's how most of us get through by day to day for regards to our safety. And so I don't think that impassioned times would be the time to limit public comment. That seems to be the time when people most want to use this tool. One of your goals is to create and maintain a high level of transparency in order to build trust.

But I do think that removing or restricting this opportunity to provide our perspective, our advice, and feedback would do the opposite, might erode it, not build it. As my family in the South would say, eliminating public comment for non agenda items would throw the baby out with the bath water. Here are some general comments that I have that I would not be able to share tonight if we were using these proposed rules. First, I really appreciated as a new homeowner the city's explanation for who must maintain sidewalks in front of homes. Didn't know that.

Now I do. I would love to next see the city clarify the traffic rules in our downtown district concerning when it is okay or not okay to turn left at a red light because I witnessed two incidents in this past month that felt a little dicey. Second, a few weeks ago, you received public comment, from our, dear friend Jesse who relies on a mobility device. And I later learned that mayor Roziker and, I believe councilor Wheatley went on a tour of Newburgh to see what it's like to navigate our sidewalks and crosswalks with a wheelchair. And I thank you for taking that time to walk a mile in someone else's shoes because those of us who don't have, differently abled bodies, it can just be really hard.

We're blind to those things until someone helps us to see them. And lastly, in my role as chair of the Affordable Housing Housing Commission, I got a question this week from a resident, who watched last meeting's presentation about the Hive Cottage Cluster. And I realized that they were confusing Hive with Spark, so I just wanted to pass on that feedback that as we're communicating about them to try to do our best to let residents know which project we're talking about when. So those weren't connected to any of tonight's agenda items, but I think they still deserve some time. Eliminating this opportunity for feedback for the sake of efficiency, feels unwise to me.

And if, you know, there's any way that this is an attempt to limit criticism, that, again, would not be, improving our transparency or building trust together. Thank you.

Thank you, Casey. Several things to put some thought to you there. Next is Joni Zimmerman. Hi, Joni. Welcome back.

For thirty seven years, I shop locally and participate in activities in the city. This is my community. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Government exists to serve the people because there are functions that are more efficient collectively than individually. For example, it makes more sense to pool our funds to create a trained, efficient police force than for each of us to hire our own security guards.

We elect representatives to see that those functions are carried out properly. For example, to make sure that the police force we created and armed doesn't turn on the people. We intend those we elect to be representatives of the people, not to be overlords or dictators. The people consent to being governed by representatives who fulfill their duty to always act in the collective best interest. The people of this community have repeatedly asked you to join other towns in Oregon in issuing some sort of statement acknowledging the current danger and fear some of our residents are living under because of the rogue criminal actions of the federal government.

We want you to show your commitment to representative democracy and the rule of law by vowing to stand on the side of We the People. Instead of responding, you now propose to disallow public comments unless they relate to something you have deemed deemed uncontroversial enough to put on your agenda. This will further limit opportunity for the people you serve to bring important issues to your attention. Already, you refuse to hold public forums to let people ask questions and get answers about issues important to the community. You don't even allow comments on your Facebook posts.

What's next? Closed door meetings? Zero public accountability? Let's not start down this slippery slope. I have been in this room when a current member of this council made comments as a citizen that I would categorize as disrespectful and verging on threatening to a previous council because a council vote didn't go their way.

Now you want respect and decorum. These dark times require elected representatives with extraordinary ethics, courage, and strength. If the ability to stand strong for all the people in this community, including being willing to hear criticism and suggestions, feels like more than you signed up for, we, the people, would certainly understand if you decided to resign, which would decidedly be a better way out for you than limiting free speech and usurping representative democracy. Thank you.

Thank you, Joni. Next, Jim Talt. Thought you were against double dipping here, Jim.

Jim Taltz speaking. Those public comments that I and others made earlier this evening, I won't be able to make them in the future if you move forward with the changes on this agenda. Residents will not be able to come before you, the entire council, and voice concerns or make suggestions on Newburgh City services, matters of public safety, or anything else unless it's on the agenda. You will severely restrict our access to be heard by the entire council with its full spectrum of differing personalities and differing empathies. And that's important because if I, for example, must go through my counselor or the mayor with an idea and they don't like it, or maybe they forget about it, then the idea is dead in on in committee, a committee of one.

But if I can bring the comment before the entire council, maybe councilor Kilburg or maybe the mayor doesn't like it, But maybe it will find traction with councilor Yarnell, and as a result, get further discussion and consideration. I'm here to ask you to try some other approaches before before you employ this, I'll call it nuclear option or extreme measure. Here's one suggestion. Instead of changing the rules to read, the city council will not accept public comment unrelated to agenda items, make a change that reads instead, the city council may may accept public comments on items not on the agenda provided the comments pertain to subject matter within the jurisdiction of the city. I believe this is a better approach at least for now.

I'd like you to give something like that a try. Thank you. That's it.

Thank you, Jim. Next is Soovan Delventhal. I hope I got that right. Delventhal. Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Susan Delmenthal. 21300 Northeast Bald Peak Road, Hillsboro, Oregon, 9700123. I'm a Yamhill County resident, voter, and taxpayer. And I'm also one of the two or five that signed the petition from Hillsboro, so was my husband.

So I have a Hillsborough address, but I am definitely a resident of this wonderful community. Good evening, Mayor Rosacker, city council members, and Newburgh City Staff. I am grateful to have the opportunity to attend an evening city council meeting and make a public comment. Thank you for scheduling the Newburgh City Council meetings in the evening. I believe one reason you have evening meetings is to increase the opportunity for the public to attend city council meetings to learn about ordinances, the annual budget, taxes, and city policies.

I also believe the major reason you allow time for general public comment is because you recognize the value of hearing from your constituents. Providing the opportunity to make public comment, just like scheduling evening meetings, allows access to you as public officials, to you, our community leaders. Public comment is the cornerstone of civic engagement in city council meetings here in Newburgh and across our country. Public comment provides a means for constituents to share their views, concerns, and experiences, and hope that elected leaders will listen closely, understand them, and support the commenter's viewpoint. Letting officials know opinions on topics that directly impact members of the community helps officials understand how proposed actions will affect communities.

The review and consideration of public comments promotes a more democratic process in decision making and can enhance the quality of public policy. Sharing different perspectives and experience should not be viewed in a negative way by city leaders. New perspectives, even those shared with strong emotions, are how humans express their frustration, their fear, their anger, and their desperation. It is their cry to you for help. It is their cry to you to listen, to act, and to stand up for the community.

It is the community's way of asking for policy based on public safety and health and democratic and fair treatment. Your job is not easy. I recognize that. But each of you are courageous enough to run for office because you are committed and care about our community. So I ask you to be courageous, to be fair, and to be supportive of the existing general public comment policy, allowing us to continue to make public comment on any topic we are concerned about.

Blocking, limiting, and narrowing public comments send the message of obstruction of individuals' First Amendment rights and will tarnish the city council's transparency and accountability, as well as erode public trust. I do not want that to happen for any of you, and I do not want that to happen for our community. Thank you for the time to speak to you.

Thank you very much. Next is Robert Soppy. Good to see you. You haven't been here in a while.

Good evening. My name is Robert Suppy and a local resident. While I've already provided written testimony on this item, I'd like to add a more comprehensive perspective with my spoken testimony. As I've expressed before, I've been concerned about council's limited response to public comments. Proposal before you to only allow comments on agenda item takes that to a greater extreme, which current concerns me far more.

I'd like to provide a historical perspective on this. Years ago, a citizen could raise an issue before the Newburgh City Council during public comments, and it would receive more than just a thank you. Council members may have responded with questions to clarify the citizens' concerns and often would direct the citizen to a way to a solution, such as which staff measure member to bring the issue to. This ticket typically took very little time, and a citizen could feel that the council really cared about really cared that their concerns were important to the council. At one point, there was a policy read by the mayor at the start of public comments each meeting that clarified this.

I've handed out a copy of that tonight. I think it did a reasonable job of expressing the council's commitment to address requests received from a member of the public. Somewhere along the line, that idea got lost. Oh, contrast that to how the present council manages such requests. It is typical that no more than a thank you is offered to the member of the public, and no follow-up is likely.

With the change proposed tonight, the citizen wouldn't even be allowed to bring up the matter if it's not on the agenda. How does that fit with council goal number one, which is, quote, continue to create and maintain a high level of service, end quote. Do you think that citizens who get nothing more than a thank you feel like they are getting a high level of service? I don't. The made it the mayor made it clear to me a couple of years ago that I should have known better than to think my public comments testimony might result in any effort or action by the council.

I was more than a bit surprised. Before his comment, I actually did think that the council cared about addressing the concerns of constituents. My hope is that the council will move in a different direction and take comments seriously and act accordingly. I'm sorry. I I reedited this couple times.

I found it tough to identify the motivation behind eliminating all comments on non agenda items. My presumption was that council is looking at shorting the length of meetings. I suggest that better preparation before meetings could be far more effective at reducing meeting times. I've witnessed numerous examples where, for example, clarification or educational questions by council members could have been asked of staff outside of the meeting and made the process much more efficient. My request to you tonight first to is first to not make the proposed restrictions on public comments, but also to go much further.

I would like the council to give serious consideration of applying council goal one to public comments and to make some effort to either address such comments or to advise the citizen as to who should they should communicate with to get their issues addressed. This need not take up much of a beating. Some very relevant comments were made tonight in the general public comment section. Why would the council want to prohibit these items being made in your public forum? Lastly, the mayor stated earlier, and I'm gonna try to quote it, we all support open comments when they are done with respect.

If that is an accurate statement, then the council obviously will not restrict council, public comments to agenda items only. The last one I wanna throw in, which I had in my written testimony, but I think it's very important. Years ago at a budget committee meeting, a mayor objected to the organization chart that was in the budget. The mayor and council were at the top, and everybody else was below. And the mayor said, wait a minute. You missed one of the most important parts. Why is there not a box at the top that says citizens of Newburgh? And she was absolutely right. I think it's since been removed. I don't think the org chart is in there at all.

But my my real issue here is I think that hierarchy is being lost. I think you all have to remember who is really the boss here. It should be the citizens of Newburgh. We appreciate your efforts, but you gotta remember who you work for. And thank you for consideration of my testimony.

Thank you, Robert. Rob Leslie. Welcome. Is this your first time?

Yeah. I was gonna open with that. This is my first city council meeting and the first time I've ever given public comment. I told my seven month old daughter before we came over here that I was coming to participate in democracy, although I don't think she really understood what I was saying. I do find it a little ironic that I'm here to give my first ever public comment on the subject of public comments, but here I am.

I have been following Newburgh City Council meetings in Newburgh, which I appreciate that they have been covering the City Council meetings, but it's good to be here in person for the first time. Like some of the other people who have spoken before me, I'm here to object to the limitation on general comments, even though I've never made one before. But over the years that I've lived in Newburgh, it's definitely been on my mind at times that there perhaps is a local issue that if I wanted to, I could come here and share a thought, a concern, address something to all of you, not just via an email, but in person, look each one of you in the eyes, have you hear my voice, and know that for just a few minutes at least I had your attention. When you send an email, it's hard to know what kind of attention was this given, but here to know that I was truly being heard. I appreciate it tonight.

I will say that it was easy to sign up for public comment. The the very idea that it's it's relatively easy to come here and and speak to you is a pretty cool thing. I also think that this is the level of government at which it is most possible for us to do this, to look one another in the eye, to hear one another, in part because we truly are neighbors. And it's although it's not trivial to come down here on a weeknight after work, it is a lot easier to do that than it is to go to Salem or go to DC. I think hearing some of the discourse tonight, I have a better appreciation for

some of

the reasons that have led to this proposal being brought forward. I wasn't here for those contentious meetings. It sounds bad, and I'm sorry that that was happening here. I don't personally have any objection to the decorum rules as long as they're fairly implemented, but I I would urge you to consider striking this part about cutting out general comments because I think they're important, as was mentioned, some of the comments that were made here tonight. I wanted to use the same metaphor someone else did.

Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think it's really important for new progressions to be able to come here and speak their minds on whatever they have to talk about and not just what makes it to the agenda. So with that, I'm gonna head home to my wife and daughter, but thank you very much for your time, and thank you all for the hard work that you do. Mayor, counselors, employees, really appreciate everything that you do for our community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thanks for coming. Please come back again. So give me a minute. I wanna redo what Robert gave us.

Alright. Rachel, you're up again.

Alright. Well, I'm glad we heard from everyone because, like I said, they had more to say than I did on this topic. So you've got a couple of things that we'd like direction on. We'd like to know if council would like to add the DECRM standards to the council rules, and we'd like to know if council desires to eliminate general comment and only receive comments on items listed on the agenda. I wanted to let you know procedurally, once I receive this direction from you, we'll revise the council rules as proposed. However, with whatever direction I'm given, then it goes to our legal team for review. If you have any other thoughts for this, happy to hear those ideas as well. But those are the two main items I'd like direction on.

Yeah. Have a couple of thoughts. I agree that we should not eliminate general comments altogether. Jim's general comment tonight, mister Taltz, was a perfect example of that talking about an idea for sidewalk repairs, and there would have been no way to do that. The the part or the area I would like to limit our general comments is to topics that the council has jurisdiction over, areas we can actually do something about.

I guess the biggest extreme that isn't that would be talking about president Trump. We can't fix him being in office if that, you know, if that should be I get it. It's very it's it's upsetting to a lot of people, but there's nothing we can do about that. So I really would appreciate public comments general being related to Newberg relevant issues.

Mike?

I totally agree. I mean, it's unfortunate that some of the comments that have been said here has brought us to this to this point. But mister Talt brought it up, and I that's what I was thinking is that I don't wanna limit public speech at all. But I don't wanna listen to a bunch of garbage either coming from people that we can't change something about president Trump or the or the feds. So I would like us somehow, again, those that come to this meeting is gonna have to, be willing to adhere to those new council rules that you wanna talk about about something as long as it's about Newberg.

You've got an issue with safety or something like that. Let's talk about Newberg things that only we can affect or we have control over. I don't wanna listen to political stuff on on things that we don't have any control over. Yep. It wastes my time, and my time is valuable, and it wastes the time That's not what people, I think, elected us to. Because I've got a whole lot of people that have been saying, why are you guys allowing those comments to go on? Let's talk about Newberg stuff. Mhmm. That's what we are elected to handle.

If I can respond to those two comments briefly. Is that okay, mister White? So there's there's a real challenge with that because Oregon law does not allow us to restrict the content of public comments. So saying that it has to be limited to local is a very challenging thing. Now let me throw this to James because you know, you know, you agree with this statement. Oregon law, yeah, wouldn't let us say that.

Shall we shall we allow the city attorney to weigh in on what he's heard so far?

Sure. Thank you, Rachel, and thank you, mister mayor. Thank you, council. Your city recorder is very sharp, and, it's right that the general public comment, this is something that's not frequently discussed, but it oftentimes can operate as a as a bit of a defensive mechanism for the city as a public as a public entity. And the reason I say that is because, when it comes to speech rights, the con there are limitations obviously on restrictions on the content of the speech.

And it can be very tricky depending on the nature of a comment when to make certain decisions about whether something is permissible or not. So general public comment was introduced, in part because it allows for an opportunity for the public to communicate with the city, but it also keeps council out of and city personnel out of the position of having to adjudicate what is this what is a appropriate comment with respect to content and what is not an appropriate comment. So it does it does serve as a bit of a shield. I think that the the limitation on that is is a time restriction, right, in the five minutes, and that's neutrally applied across all comments where you have the five minutes, and that that tends to be the mechanism that puts, frankly, a bit of a box around the nature of a of a comment.

Yeah. So that's that's the challenge with applying it that way. It doesn't mean we can't ask and say, please, but, we can't really restrict that.

Given that oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you for that clarify I apologize for my voice, y'all. I appreciate the decorum components. I'm I'm curious if there's value in that that respect should be communicated bidirectionally, that we should also not have individuals in the audience making comments towards other members in the audience, but that that respect is across the board. One of the things that's really important to me in my role is that I represent the entirety of the community and that I shouldn't be imposing my personal beliefs. Like, I represent my District 3 of Newburgh and that there it's essential that there is space for individuals to come and communicate what their perspectives are.

And I while I I hear that we can't necessarily maybe act on larger national concerns, I've I really get concerned that we should be able to sit and hear the comments and the concerns of our constituents regardless of what those are, and that for these individuals, they do have a direct impact on their perception and safety. Honestly, I think sometimes where we get into trouble is that we maintain what we're supposed to maintain this neutral space, and we're not responding in the moment. And so we had maybe week after week after week of a thematic concern that came up, we never made any kind of response. And so that creates the space that individuals feel that they're not being heard and so they need to come back. And so even if we put out a statement to say, we hear you.

We hear your concern. What we are able to do as a city council is a, b, and c. Please talk with chief Kosmicki if you have questions for the police department. Talk to the Department of Justice. Like, redirect people to the right space, but for us to maintain the space of nonresponse, at best.

And then I think I would encourage us as counsel in the year that I have been here, I have heard many, many opinions that I agree with and disagree with, and I try to make sure that I am intentional in hearing everybody regardless of the frame of the concern. And so I also do feel concern when there are council members who are maybe sighing or guffawing or not hearing our constituents. And so I think I really value this space for respect. I think we need to maintain space for open, intentional communication regardless of the topic. And if Newberg is not the right space to hear that concern, then it's on us to redirect people to where they can get that need met.

This one is kinda loaded for me. I I wanna just be upfront that I I did have a a number of conversations with community members and a department head staff that I respect a lot and very much understand the concern. And I understand the intent behind what's being brought forward today. I also think let me sure how I say this. But, I do think the irony of this also is that this council also was elected during a very contentious time.

And almost every single person up here, with I think the exception of Peggy, came to and Derek came to their seat through public comment, including myself eight years ago. Fun fact. Go figure out what it was. And same with I was looking at Brandon in the audience. He ran for CPRD because of his public comment here around trees.

And so I'm one, very concerned at the perception that it gives to just accessing government. You know, as Mary Stewart says, I'm the government. I'm here to help. Are we? And I think that this is the access point to government. Good, bad, and good, bad, ugly. Right? Like and we've all all of us have been on the receiving end of public comment. There have been public comments that make me sweat. And, you know, I've been called my name and labeled a communist by a lot of your friends.

You've been not Derek, but by a lot of I I'm making it by a lot of Derek's friends. But I'm saying that because I've been called a communist, you've been called a fascist. Both are inappropriate. And I'm gonna say that loudly. I do not think that labeling any council member when you have you have not met them, know them, each person up here loves and cares about Newburgh deeply. I don't question that. We have differences in not the end state, honestly. I really don't believe it. I don't believe that the end state, we believe differently. It's the path to get there and the voices along the way and how we and how we listen and what spaces we listen listen in and what voices we elevate and what which ones we center.

Right? So I say all that. I'm sorry. Like, I didn't mean, like, your friends call me a communist, but I get called a a commie. Okay. I was just making a point. But I don't think I'm very supportive of decorum. I think that that should be included. I think that we could even get more granular if we wanted and get really clear on naming on naming and labeling counselors up here. I would be happy to speak up in those circumstances because I know it's not it's not helpful to the conversation.

I think it does quickly shift into what councilor McBride brought up of concerns, and councilor Kilburg brought up of concerns with federal administration that we some of us may feel like we don't have direct impact over. But I would agree with Rachel, city recorder, is that there are, you know, a lot of issues that have been brought forward that may seem like federal administration, but there have been local asks. Some of those ask we can't do. There are a couple that we could. And I think the city of McMinnville demonstrated that last week in their city council meeting.

So there are specific things that I think are reasonable and deserve community members to be able to have have the space to do it. I'm gonna say this so you don't have to keep hearing from me multiple times. But I just want I also my overall is also the perception of when a group of people, whether they're, you know, within or without or outside of decorum, come persistently as councilor Tergeson said, and our response as is to limit their freedoms. Councilor That's concerning to me. I would like us to move back to what was done in the past.

I'm not I don't know which council it was, but I do recall at some point in my tenure here, we had a very prescriptive way of responding to public comment. And it has made me very uncomfortable over the years of when there's a persistent comment or trend come that's coming or a very egregious public comment like that we are like, oh my gosh. I wanna address that. It feels strange to not address the person. And I think it's totally appropriate for the mayor or whoever, even just one of us, a notetaker to take down the notes so that we can at least at minimum follow-up over the two week period and then report back at the next council meeting of, hey.

You know, that stop sign that Jerry keeps tripping. Yeah. It's fixed, you know, whatever it is. And I do just wanna leave us with I am hopeful that and I'll humble myself. Like, I I know all of our views are based on our algorithms. K? And I do believe that. I do believe that our views are crafted by our algorithms, and I'm lucky enough to know each one of you. And not everyone in the community is lucky enough to know each of you personally. I would hope the same would be said about myself.

And I just really want to challenge us that we are a good enough council. We are a strong enough council to weather this together and to figure out the parameters without limiting speech. And whether that's more guardrails guardrails around decorum, whether that's one of us walking out and having a conversation with someone in the hall to try to de escalate if one of us has a relationship. There are lots of tools that we have at our disposal that we can demonstrate what civility looks like when our country is a shit show.

Well, you were brought into this. Would you like the opportunity to respond? First of

all, yeah, those people you're talking to are not my friends. I don't know. I don't have friends that would talk to you like that at all or about you like that. Yeah. I I don't feel like getting rid of public comment totally is the right thing.

I like Brandon's idea of a pause. I think that, you know, you take the temperature of what's going on, and you have the power of the agenda to set public comment or not do it. I feel like, people think it's right. Clearly, we've heard tonight that it's not alright, and, that privilege has been abused in this chamber that is named after, you know, councilor Bacon, who probably wouldn't have put up with this. I only got to know her for a little bit, and it's it's disheartening.

And I've heard that, you know, we need to realize who we work for. I do realize who we work for, and anyone can reach out to me. I've never turned down a meeting. I go to all meetings that I'm asked to, attend. So you said that, you know, we're cutting off access. We're cutting off this could be one point of access. Anyone can reach out to me. I'm happy to meet with anyone. I answer all my emails to the community, and that's the way we should all be operating people aren't left in a lurch. I also like the ideas of, you know, if we do continue public comment that we do have some kind of response for people.

I think that is important. But we need to have some adults in the room. And if it's having public comment every once in a while, I think that's better than spending thirty minutes every meeting or more to have people come in here and be rude to various members of the council. It's not productive. It does nothing for the city of Newburgh.

So I like the thoughts on adding decorum. I think that's important. I like missus Banks or miss Banks' idea about having a minimum time. Mister Taltz said if he came to one or two counselors and no one wanted to listen to him, it'd be dead in the water. That's not true.

You can contact all seven of us up here. You should be contacting all seven of us up all seven of us up here. Missus Zimmerman said there's no forms. I don't know what you mean by no forms. I'm happy to meet with you anytime, anywhere, and everyone else should be happy to meet with the community.

Again, it's our job. That's what we get paid so much money to do. That $200 is, you know, it's it's it's what we should be doing, and I'm happy to do that. Anyway, I don't think that, if you were to pause public comment general public comments once in a while, that does not infringe on anyone's rights. If it did, the state of Oregon wouldn't allow it, but that's where I'm at.

I guess I'll say when this first when I first read that this was an agenda item, I knew that I did not support it. Oh, sorry. I knew that I did not support it. I really wanna hear from my constituents. Anytime anyone emails me, I thank them because I feel like we don't hear enough from the public. Whatever we do, whatever's going on in Newberg or what's important to people, I wanna know. I tell that to people all the time. I answer all my emails. I will meet with people. I talk to appropriate staff.

Yeah. I I answer all my emails, and I'm happy to meet with people. In fact, the mayor we're planning on having a coffee with to talk with the mayor and counselors because I I would like to know what you guys want us to do in Newburgh. That's really important to me. Decorum rules, yes. I am support in supportive of that. After the last meeting, there was a little issue that happened that had staff pretty concerned. We've never had that happen before. At all the council meetings, the public has always been super respectful just like tonight. So I you know, it's possible.

Also, why I want to continue public comment, general public comment is because I have learned a lot of different things going on in the community that I wouldn't otherwise know. Like Robert Soppy, we do hear you and we have Robert, I don't know where he went but there yes. Robert, yes. We've we have changed a lot of the stuff that we have done because of you, especially your tree policy. So we do hear you.

It's government. It takes time, but I greatly value your public comment. We've had gentlemen come here talk about real estate, and we followed up with them. Issues with businesses and immediately I will go and email that person. So I I want to hear from the public. I don't hear I don't feel like we hear enough from the public about what they want us to do. I suppose I do support minimum time limits with public comment. And, Casey, yes. Just the stuff that you said about the spark project, getting confused with hive. I wanna hear all those things.

I I am accessible. Email me anytime. I will meet with you. I'm meeting with a constituent this week. So, anyway, that's my thoughts on that. So thank you guys for showing up, and I appreciate it.

Well, I'm really glad that we that we put this item on the agenda tonight. Meetings were getting a little raucous. We have what I've already described as the best public safety department in the state, and their job is to well, when they can, if they can prevent crime, that's easier than having to solve it. It's easier easier than having to do anything else. And that's exactly what our staff is trying to do, is they're trying to prevent an incident from happening that none of us wants.

I think that the audience today has shown very clearly that they are capable, that we are capable of acting civilized, of acting like a community, and and speaking to people rather than at them. I really do appreciate everybody's comments. I think it's pretty clear that the citizens consider this a valuable forum. And Elise was right that, I had spoke from that side of the podium a few times before I got elected. And I also believe that it's important for a citizen to be able to come in and address the council this way.

She's other folks are also right. The best way to get ahold of any one of us is is by email and, to get a more direct response. But I think this is very valuable that people can come here and say what's on their mind. I guess, oh, I wanted it let's see. Minimum time.

Most of the cities in the state allow three minutes for public comment, and I guess we can call that the minimum time. I I would never cut time beyond that. But if we have fewer people that, we can, then I like the five minutes. I like people being able to, say all of their thoughts. I, you know, I don't know what to say. I mean, sometimes when there's more people, we've got thirty minutes to do public comment. I have no choice. So I would consider that minimum time three minutes. Casey, thank you. If we get so many people that we can't finish at three minutes apiece, then we will suspend public comments.

And depending on the item on the agenda, either come back to next meeting and and reopen it, or, for general comments, we'll just, of course, have comments at the next meeting. So Nobody at this table is interesting is interested in stopping their citizens to take part in local government. We do represent you. We represent those of you who agree with us, and we represent those of you who don't agree with us. I take that serious as does every member of this council.

I truly believe this is one of the greatest councils that I have seen at these for this city for for some time. So I am definitely not in favor of restricting the rights. However, as councilor Carmen and and Brian Brandon and some other have alluded to or or said outright, I do think that there may come a time when we have to take an action for a very temporary period of time to, remind folks that, you know, things are getting a little bit out of hand. So I really appreciate everybody that came tonight. I appreciate that you've talked to your friends about this, Jessica, and Jesse.

I really do appreciate that, you're concerned enough to come here and talk to us. If this if this audience would have been empty tonight, it would have been a grave disappointment to me because I think this is more important than that. It deserves more. I think we've made that pretty clear.

Yes. Thank you.

Do you have slides with the other changes?

I have slides with the other thing. I'm up for the next item too.

You want you wanna say something else? Go right ahead. Yeah.

Just And to clarify, once, you told us that we can't limit topic or whatever, then I would on the side of any public comment is fine, as opposed to eliminating public comments.

Great. Do you mind if I state back what I've heard to make sure that we're clear? You know well. You've trained me well. So I have heard that we are in favor of, implementing the Decarum standards in the council rules, and there's some there were some proposals to get a little more granular, so a little more detail in that. Is that something desired or k. The Decarum standards. Oh, you wanna get into them right now? You know what? I don't have them in front of me. Me pull them up. Actually, I know where I do have them. Just a second. Yeah. That'd be great, Elise.

Okay. The red line for decorum under section three.

Do we not have them that we can put up so that the audience can see it as well?

There. I don't have them as a slide tonight because this was a a quick item as you're aware. But Elise has them in front of her. I can also run over there and pull them up really quick. So you wanna give me a pause? I can pull it up.

Do want me to read it, or do you wanna pull it up? Okay.

K. Let me go grab that.

Well, we don't have any elevator music. Would you like to to the audience while she's

That would be well, no. That'd be boo boo boo. No. That's not right, is it? That's a that's a game show. That's an American game show. It's Jeopardy, isn't it?

Alright. Let me let me participate from over here so we can scroll through. Let me get to the section. Well, that's not it. Let me zoom us in here so we can actually read it together.

Scroll up to the top. Alright. This is the decorum section that we have prepared. So the first rules that we see are conduct that is unreasonably loud, disruptive, or profane.

How? Okay. I can we remove efficient? I I don't I don't feel like the reason for decorum is efficiency. I feel like the reason is safety. Mhmm. But I I don't understand why efficiency would be a goal of decorum. Like, why that had why why is that? Effective, I'm fine with. Effective and public and safe.

Effective? K.

Efficient just comes across as, like, this is taking too much of my time.

Oh, yeah. 100%. Alright. As far as the the standards for Decaram that are listed here, are there any changes that you desire for that?

Can we call out not labeling? So personal remarks or and not I thought that it was included, and maybe I'm thinking of a different document that you couldn't call out a counselor by name.

So that's in the rules for counselors.

It's okay.

But I think it's great for, you know, members of the public too. I no objection to that.

Yeah. I mean, I I don't know if it's helpful to conversation to label anyone on the council. What do other people think? Unless it's positive. I agree.

Just kidding.

Labeling as, you know, profane labels.

Maybe maybe I could make an an exception. By the way, to everybody in the audience, we have to do this business in in daylight in front of all you all of you. We cannot have these conversations among ourselves between meetings. And that's why sometimes when we get here like this, we sound like we're not prepared just because we haven't talked about it. So I wonder if we should, consider postponing the rest of this until the next meeting. And in the meantime, everybody could now that they've had the benefit of of hearing this, make changes that they want to do, get them back to Rachel. It would have to they'd have to have them to her by next or

by this

Friday Yep. So we can put them on the agenda, and then we can take a look at it again. Does that make sense to anybody?

Mister mayor, I'd I'd thank you, mister mayor. I'd like some direction too from the council. So tip typically, as Rachel already called out, you know, language gets to legal kind of as a last stop for efficiency purposes and for for cost savings. So, even if the council word of wordsmith is today, it could look different once legal works through it. And so if it's, my question to counsel would be, I know that, obviously, counsel has a lot of great input on what counsel wants its rules to be, but at what point do you want legal to weigh in on this process?

Would you like that on the front end in this particular instance given what's come back, or would you still like it on the back end after there's been sufficient time for input and having the the meetings as the mayor's called out where you're able to talk about it together and collectively.

I, for one, think that is a great idea to let James wordsmith this first. I mean, I I don't have a problem with the idea of what's up there. I I'm not sure I agree with every word that's up there. So maybe we should let legal take a look at it. Anybody else?

Rachel, should we go through the rest of them real

quick? I would say, so do you wanna go through it right now, or do you wanna have counselors email me input? And then we can I can work with legal? If we're doing that, I think it's gonna need to be two meetings before it comes back because we will not have time to do that this week.

Yeah. And you can blame that on me, Rachel.

Oh, it's not just you. We're busy. Or

we could get consensus for themes that we're all trying to address for them for them to work through.

I'm happy to take whatever you need. Sorry.

I think I think to be both both efficient and effective, maybe we just review this stuff, email suggestions, and let them work on

it. Okay.

Does anybody disagree with that? Well, then let's just go ahead and do exactly that. You guys get ahold of Rachel with any proposed changes, and she can work with James, and we'll bring it

back whenever it's done. Go ahead, Will. And, of course, people who want to communicate with counsel from the general public can also forward their suggestions for inclusion in this body of work.

Thank you. And the second thing I heard on this is there is no interest in limiting general public comments. I think that was pretty clear, so we will eliminate that portion.

So the next item on our agenda is the code update direction, and I'm guessing, Rachel, you're gonna handle that.

That's me too. And this one's way more fun for me. I have to tell you, when you're asked to handle the most contentious thing on an agenda, it's always like, oh, fun. This is let's make good time. Oh, Will, my clicker is off. Can you go on my computer and press the PowerPoint? I have the clicker.

You just have click on the PowerPoint. Did do an amazing job.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, guys. Oh, I'm always happy to face the hard stuff with you guys. You know it. So alright. Should work now. Let's see.

Yep. Before everybody leaves, I, Robin brought up that I'm going to start having a, something that I've been calling, meet with the mayor. It's actually gonna be the mayor and selected city councilors, two at a time because that's underneath three of us can speak, four of us are a forum, and we're having an illegal meeting. So, I plan to do them on Monday nights at 06:00 on the second and fourth Monday of the month. I'm going to announce that we're gonna have the the the first one next week at Social Goods.

Unfortunately, I did not get an opportunity to talk to them today. If they decide that they don't want us there, I will let people know. Somebody brought up that we don't take comment on our website or our our Facebook page. My Facebook page does allow comments, so you're welcome to talk to us. What's that?

No. Well, that's Newburgh mayor, the Facebook page. Go ahead, Rachel.

Alright. So this next thing is a very fun project I've gotten to work on. I have done something that I don't believe anyone else in Newburgh history has done, and I read our city code line by line from the top to find things that we need to work on.

City recorder ever.

I know. So the here's the situation. Our city code has been created bit by bit over the last a hundred and thirty five years, And that statement there reminds me that I need to give you a history lecture again soon one of these days. You told me I should do it regularly, and I haven't. So I need to get back to that.

So it has been created piecemeal to meet the needs of the city. So the very first ordinance passed was about swine running at large in the streets. So to to give you some history, things have changed. There's been quite a bit. So as I did this review, my goal was to find things like the DAMs code we've discussed and the cigarette vending machines and the the cable commission that we've eliminated that that are past due for being removed from Newberg's code.

We don't wanna have some funny things on our books that we don't really wanna enforce anymore. So I wanted to go over this project with you. This is going to take time, and I'll be bringing you things a bit at a time to clean up our code and get rid of things that are completely outdated. So this is a broad overview of how it's going to work and my plan for bringing this all to you. And I wanna make you one promise. I will try and bring you one humorous code piece every time I bring you a chunk of code. Okay? This is my goal because honestly, was pretty funny. My my colleagues will tell you I kept running in and out of my office going, oh my gosh. This other code I just read is so funny.

So the problem is we have outdated codes, codes that are no longer needed sometimes because they're covered by state laws or something and there's really no need to have our local ones or times there are. Some things are irrelevant or there's just changes needed. There's an edit that needs some other problem. The process we're going to go through, like I said, I went through it line by line to identify potential issues. I will admit, I haven't done all of the development code yet, but I'm gonna read through it.

But that's mostly gonna be handled by our CDD team. They're amazing at it. I've also worked with our city prosecutor who's identified some obvious changes that she would like to see, and I'm working with sergeant Ronning to get a police perspective. I'll be working with relevant departments on some specific details too. There's some code related to library fines that I'll definitely work with the library on. But the biggest thing is I've identified over 100 changes that we might consider making. And some of these, you won't wanna make any changes, and that's fine. But there are things that I think should be reviewed from time to time. There are some things that are very clear cut removals that we will get rid of. Some things are very small wording changes to clarify things.

Others will be major council policy decisions or rewrites, and there are larger cleanup projects. This is gonna take some time. I don't even know if we'll finish it this year, but we're gonna start. My plan of action for you all is I'm gonna bring it to you a little at a time. I will ask for general direction on that section of code, kind of like I've done tonight. Just how would you like to proceed with this? Then I will draft new code, work with legal to get it all revised, and then bring the final ordinances back to you for final revisions and approval. So we're gonna have a multistep process on each piece that we change. I'm going to try and bring them in batches that make sense together so that it's not too onerous of a task. And like I said, I'll try and make it a little bit fun.

And after all these major changes are finished, we will likely do a which is where we take our code publishing company and we have them reassign numbers and just clean everything up to make sure it's nice and clean. And I'm actually really excited about that because I like things to be crisp and clean. So here's some things you can look forward to in our discussions. There are frequent references to dance halls halls, billiards parlors, and card playing by youths. We've got lots of code sections already covered by state law.

There's not a lot about e bikes. Although I heard from chief tonight, they've got some good good stuff on that. So that might change. There are some rules about spitting in public, and I want you all to know, please don't. Also, you have to cross streets at right angles is in our code. I have the power to pardon rabid dogs according to our code. There's a lot of ice boxes and privies mentioned in our code. So there's a lot of funny stuff in there, and a lot of it's just because it never got removed because council's busy doing other things. So this is actually a beautiful thing to note that we're at a place with city business that we're paying attention to little details like this. That's a really amazing slot to be in, and I'm actually having a great time.

My historian hat is really loving this project. So next steps is I'll be bringing the first bunch of code for discussion and direction. I had my first meeting with sergeant Ronning the other day, and we started saying, yes, no, what are we going to really dig into? Items that simply need to be deleted, I'm gonna try and just get out of the way first. Say these are huge sections of code that are not relevant anymore. It's time to go. And any feedback and ideas are appreciated. The moment this was posted, I got two emails from members of the public saying, can you change? And they had two ideas right off the bat. So we wanna hear from members of the public.

And and, of course, this is code set by you all. So if there's something you think we should be addressing that you haven't heard anything about, please bring it to my attention. I'll be happy to have those conversations. My role is to shepherd these things through and to see what the will of counsel is. I'm starting to sound like my boss saying the will of counsel all the time. Alright. If you have any questions yes. Questions, please reach out to me. So

you're doing two things just to make sure I understand. You're cleaning up old ones, but you could be taking new, could be writing new codes too. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah. So we're taking the old code. At times, it's just stuff that needs to go. Other times, the code is still relevant, but it might need some modernization or updates. So sometimes we might be deleting it. Sometimes we might be updating it, and there might be new code that we need to add to. That's something we're always doing. But if it's something that comes up as we're discussing portions of code and we said, do we have anything about x y z subject? Well, then we can look into it while we're doing this. If I'm deep in this project, might as well go all the way in. Right? So happy to work on this. And if you wanna hear lists of the funny things I found, please just reach out anytime. It's been fun.

Well, just to add to your enjoyment, as you're looking at those sections about, children or, young people and billiard partners, Sammy's billiards existed in Newburgh for many, many years, and it was a billiard billiard parlor for young men young boys, I should say. So, it was not only sexist, but anyway.

Yes. There was specific code sections written to allow that billiard parlor to exist the way it was. Yep. It doesn't name it by name, but the way it was written. It wasn't a carve out by name. It was like, it has to exist in these ways and have these parameters met, and Sammy's did meet those parameters. Yeah.

Well, we've had a you're you're through. Yeah. Thank you very much. We've had a great meeting. Thank you, members of the public, from coming and taking part in this. And, as of now, this meeting is adjourned.