City Council - Regular Meeting

If you'll please rise, we'll pledge allegiance.

It was really good to do what I did. It's very good. It stands one thing under God indivisible with our liberty and justice for all.

Please call.

Thank you, Mayor Dunbrough, for the councilor to forge. Now, Sir, Megadorn presence. Now, Sir, you got a message. Now, Sir, Warrington by some. Now, Sir, Weber.

Right. All right. This time I will entertain a motion on the consent agenda and the previous minutes.

Just one small correction. I think it says on the beginning of the minutes that there was this, I think the mayor canceled or deferred the special session. The executive session. I'm sorry, I'm saying it wrong. My understanding is that came after the consent agenda, not before the consent agenda. Okay. So for clarification now, if somebody, I looked at the video, but if anybody Okay, so can we approve as amended?

I'll accept the motion to approve as amended.

So moved.

Councillor Weber?

Second.

Moved by Councillor Weber, seconded by Councillor Warrington. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, before we go to public comment, I do have a brief statement on previous meeting. So I'm just gonna read this so there's no confusion and I will, sorry, I'll send you a copy so you have it for the record. I meant to do that earlier, sorry. So on Wednesday, May 13th, 2026, Council Warrington informed Council that she would attend the meeting, the May 18th, 2026 Council meeting by Zoom. Immediately prior to the council meeting, I was approached by a city councilor expressing concern that the council was going to conduct an executive session for the city manager to review with one council remote on Zoom. After obtaining legal counsel from the city attorney, I, as the presiding officer of the council meeting, made the decision to postpone the executive session until the following meeting, based on historical precedent of not conducting executive sessions over Zoom and the sensitive nature of the topic. At the beginning of the meeting, I announced that the executive session would be postponed. Council did not object and therefore gave it to implicit consent. Moving forward, when adding or removing an item from the agenda, I will explicitly ask whether anyone on council objects. All right. Moving on, we'll now take public comment. As a reminder, we will do three minutes. Please state whether you're a resident, rural resident, or non-resident. and please come up state your name and you will have three minutes. So we will start with Cindy Hurst.

Mayor and council members, actually I submitted two of them there. The first one was about Memorial Day. the Memorial Day event, and then the second one is about city manager. So I just wanted to say that I thank Councillor, I'm sorry, Ugarte. Yes, thank you. I'm so used to the other. Councillor Weber and Councillor Warrington for joining us on Memorial Day. It was a great day. We've got great pictures. They're going to be up on the chamber website if they're not already. And I want to thank the city for allowing us to have that event again this year. It was sponsored by the Knights of Pythias. And also on the Saturday before the Knights of Pythias, we spent about, I don't know, four hours, five hours cleaning up the park. And this was In addition to what some of the public works people did, we told them that we would do some things. They did a few things. But anyway, I want to expressly thank the Knights of Pythias for everything they've done. They have also sponsored the event. And that is through their Support Our Troops Foundation. So we need to remember that they do have that foundation within their organization. So if anybody hears of any veterans who live here in North Plains who needs assistance, that is a good place to go. Thank you. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend your last council meeting, but I did hear some comments being made, and I just wanted to address a couple of them. First of all, Bill should be removed because people disagree with his decisions. Bill Reed carries out the direction of the city council and administers city operations within the budget, policies, and authority established by the council. Disagreement is a normal part of local government. Public officials and staff should be evaluated based on facts, performance, professionalism, transparency, and results. not whether every resident agrees with every decision. North Plains deserves decisions grounded in evidence, not accusation. The other comment that I heard is that Bill is the problem. Well, as city manager, Bill implements the policies, goals, and budget adopted by the city council consisting with the city charter, municipal code, and state law. Residents may disagree with policy decisions but the city manager's role is to execute council direction professionally and transparently. The public record shows Bill Reid consistently reporting on city business, responding to challenges, and working through difficult issues in a public setting. And then the last one that I wanted to address is governance. The comment was Bill is not accountable. Bill Reed reports directly to the city council and works closely with the city attorney while providing regular updates on finances, audits, infrastructure, grants, development projects, and city operations. Accountability occurs through public meetings, council oversight, budget approvals, audits, public records laws, and performance evaluations. And I hope you give these all consideration when you GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION THIS EVENING. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT IS JACKIE HUNT.

I'm submitting a table in response to a number of claims made during public comment in the last City Council meeting. Reasonable people can disagree with growth, taxes, development, housing, transportation, and the future of North Plains. These conversations are important and healthy deep disagreement is part of local government. What concerns me is the increasing tendency to replace facts with accusations. Over the last several months, residents have heard repeated claims that information is being hidden, that the public is being ignored, that developers are controlling the process and the UGB processes and pathway for data centers, and that city staff are acting without accountability. These are serious allegations and serious allegations deserve evidence. I have submitted a table that I believe you have that is not to tell people what to think, but to provide factual context that residents can review for themselves using public records, meeting records, council packets, budgets, audits, and publicly available information. Whether someone supports or opposes growth, supports the UGB process or opposes it, we should all expect public debate to be grounded in fact rather than speculation. I want to acknowledge that city staff, volunteers, commissioners, committee members, and elected officials dedicate counsel countless hours to serving this community. They deserve to be evaluated based on their actions, professionalism, and results, not on rumors or repeated accusations that are unsupported. North Plains is a strong community. We do not all have to agree, but we should be able to disagree respectively, assume good intentions on solving the problem. I encourage residents to review the attached information, examine them, public record for themselves and to continue to participate in the process. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next up, Mr. Kendall.

Good evening, Butch Kendall. Butch Kendall, City of Northland. I'm a 52 resident of Northland, here in Northland. I'm here tonight to say that tomorrow night we'll be winding down, hopefully, the original committee that will be moving forward. And there's been times where I've heard people say that the developers are directing the current planning process. Well, I don't know of any developer, and hopefully none of you know of any developer that would make that statement. But I don't know that all of her has been in the project for approval and all of it has been presented showing that the developers are directing the current concept line process. The process is being guided to public advisory committee meeting. It's all analysis. I'm going to be on the city council or say. I don't want to be supported by that but I'm going to get information and look forward to you. The your job is going to go up there pretty shortly on the TV so. Oh you make the right decision. Thank you. And Sir.

And finally we have her and they're.

Good evening, your number and counselors. My name is Tara Van Dyke, and I'm a resident of North Lane. I'm speaking today as a resident and a concerned citizen of our local government. I'm here to discuss a matter of fundamental fiscal stewardship. Regardless of current administrative discussions or personnel decisions, we must return to the foundational principle of our council-managed reform of government. The City Council holds the ultimate fiduciary responsibility for the City's financial compliance. Under Oregon Revised Statute 297.465, the governing body is legally charged with ensuring that audited financial statements are completed and passed. An audit is not merely an administrative task, it is a vital expression of the trust the citizens of North Plains place in their local government. It serves as a definitive source of truth, empowering this council to verify that the budget field through are executed as intended and ensuring that robust financial controls are firmly in place. When these audits are missing for years, as is the case with the 22, 23, 24, and 25 filing, the council loses its primary tool for oversight. On the 20th, the city manager estimated that the 2022 audit would be completed within a couple of weeks. And given that that timeline has passed, the council should ask for a definitive status update on this audit. Regardless of who sits in the city manager's office The council's responsibility is to prioritize the review of these reports, remain a foundational duty of that duty that we owe our community. I would like to see the city of North Plains operate within transparency that transcends any single employee's tenure. If we are to move forward, we must stop treating compliance as an internal staff project and start treating it as a core governance priority. I urge this council to commit to a permanent process for financial health, and state reporting are treated with the transparency. They deserve our community deserves to know that no matter who manages our city operations, the council's oversight is reliable, consistent and fully compliant with the law. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. Thank you everyone for being there. I'm sorry. We need to stick with the process. Ask him in early. Ask him in before the council meeting.

I'm in here since 6.

I'll leave it to the council. One extra one or not? The rules are it needs to be in before 6 or before 7. So.

Yeah, I think we need to stick with it.

I'm sorry. I have to stick with the rules.

But...

I apologize, you can send it in.

Okay, next up we have Budget Committee Quarterly Report. So I believe we have Chris, are you there? Yes, I am.

Good evening. Oh man, I'm stretching into the lemon. All right, I'm going to get closest. We'll get close. Good evening, Councilors, Mayor, City staff, and my fellow residents. The Budget Committee recently met to review the City's financial position and discussed several budget-related items. Overall, the City continues to perform well. Relatively adopted budget, City staff continue to be good stewards of the resources entrusted to them, and expenditures are below the budget in several key areas. There have been no instances of overspending that would require the budget committee action or recommendation to amend the adopted budget, which is a significant good item. In addition to reviewing the city's current financial performance, we discussed several items related to the budget and city's long-term to wellbeing, which is good to hear that others are concerned with that tonight. One of those topics was future library funding. Beginning in FY27, the city is expected to receive an increase in county library fundings. While no formal recommendation was made regarding what to do with those funds, one option discussed was using the portion of the additional revenue to reduce the library's reliance on the general fund support. We also reviewed options for addressing the roof at the Jesse Mays Community Center, which we're all enjoying our time in tonight. This was an unplanned expense that requires attention due to the active leaks in the existing roof. Staff presented two different options, repairing the existing roof or replacing it in its entirety. After discussion, we reached a consensus in recommending full replacement. Given the city's long-term investment in the facility, we felt replacement represents the better long-term investment option. The proposed metal roof would also align with the aesthetic of the new Public Works building, so creating a consistent look throughout the city. A significant portion of the discussion focused on the city's long-term fiscal outlook. During the adoption of the current biennium budget, the budget committee recommended approval of the budget while also charging council with exploring additional sustainable revenue sources to address the rising service costs, the ongoing expense of additional police coverage, and the general fund's increasing reliance on the transfer from the water fund. To date, no formal work session or structured process has been undertaken on that recommendation. We also noted that the city does not currently have a formal fiscal sustainability strategy in place. As a result, the Budget Committee recommends renewing that charge and beginning a more structured discussion around the city's long-term financial sustainability. Specifically, we recommend scheduling a work session on June 18th to begin evaluating options and developing a plan. As part of that discussion, we reiterate that a concern raised during the last budget process If these issues are not addressed during FY26 and FY27 and FY28, budget cycle may require more difficult policy and budget decisions. That concludes my portion of the report. I'll turn it over to Vice Chair to see if she has anything to add.

Anybody have questions?

Since we were all at the meeting. I just wanted to talk a little bit about the budget process. I was a member of the budget committee and resigned in 2016 because I felt that the committee was being used as a rubber stamp for the administration. Suggestions and questions by the budget committee were ignored and there was no future outlook discussed. The seated city council in 2017 brought in a new city manager who brought in a finance manager who was Bill Reed. I applied for the budget committee again in 2020 because I could see that Bill brought the professionalism and knowledge to the budget process as the finance manager. He moved the city to a biennium budget. He changed the manner in which department heads could plan for their future and aligned the budget so it can be understood by anyone. During the past two years as city manager, Bill has continued in the role of finance manager because the position that was advertised could not be filled due to the divisiveness on the city council. At the last city council meeting, someone testified the city finances are out of control. That's not true. Having been mayor, working on budgets without a city manager many years ago, and also on the budget committee for two years, and then again for six, I can say that Bill has brought the city finances back to the professional standard expected of a city with annual resources of $16 million. That's a lot. Financial reports continue to be presented publicly, and city leadership has openly discussed challenges, corrective actions, and audit recovery efforts. Financial challenges deserve attention, but their existence is not evidence that information has been hidden from the public. Bill is extremely knowledgeable about the finances of the city, and he can quote you chapter and verse about the revenue and expenses. I want to take this opportunity to thank Bill for everything he has done these past two years as the city manager overseeing the biennium budget for the city. It is now up to the city council to rapidly move forward to address the financial concerns voiced in the budget committee last month. Specifically, number one, how to fund additional police services that's been discussed for a couple of years. Number two, solve the problem of the general fund being propped up by the water fund because it's not going to get any better. So I hope that we can, you mentioned the date of the budget committee meeting. I hope we can all meet on that date and start the discussion for those two issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? All right. Next we're moving on to resolutions. So I have 2345. And Bill, do you want to take this or do you want me to?

I'll tell you what. There are three here that are the three resolutions that a city does preparing for a new fiscal year, which starts July 1st. So, Mayor, you're more than welcome for you to take them over, but they're very procedural. Yes. I just want to make sure we got the procedural part.

We just do this every year because you walk me through each one.

Exactly. Yes.

So this is just something that we do every year. We did it last time we approved budget. This is just the we're agreeing to accept the rates or set the rate to accept the share revenues, so on and so forth. So At this time, are there any comments or if not, I'll entertain a motion on 2345-2627 at Valoran Backstreet. I have one question. On the 2347, the clearing is... 2345, we'll leave it at that.

Okay, thank you. I thought you were wrong. No.

I move to approve Resolution 2345 to declare a

$2.17 per 1,000 taxable assessed value at the Loram tax wedding to fiscal year 2026 to 2027.

Council President Hagan-Loram took the long way to get to making the motion. Do I have a second? Councilor Weber, I second. Councilor Weber seconds. All those in favor of approving Resolution 2325 say aye. Aye. All opposed? All right. Motion carries. 2346, establishing eligibility to receive state shared revenues for FY26 and FY27. Or sorry, for FY26 through 27. Any questions or if not, I'll entertain a motion.

Councilor Ugarte, I move to adopt resolutions approving and certifying the state shared revenues for North Plains in the next fiscal year.

It's a chance are you going to use for approval or something on 2346. Council president or second all in favor say aye. All right and you both. Motion carries all right now it's going to work in 20 to 47.

Thank you. Bill can you please tell me I believe you must go to public hearings on the possible use of the revenues or distributions for these state share revenues. Have those two been done?

Council Warrington, yes. Because we're a biennial budget agency, those meetings, yes, the budget process that resulted in the biennial budget that was adopted last year, that budget included budget and authorization to seek shared revenues from the state, the second half of the biennium, this FY27. So it's technically already been done.

OK. So the two budget meetings are being used for this 2347. And in those budget meetings, did it talk about the possible use of these distributions?

Yes. That's correct. The revenue that we get from the state that are called shared revenues go into the general fund as unrestricted revenues. And they help fund various general fund departments. So that was part of the conversation back during the budget process last year.

I want to make sure we're all one.

So any other questions or comments? I'll entertain a motion.

Councilor Ugarte, I move to adopt resolution 2347 to elect to receive state-shared revenues for fiscal year 2026-2027. Okay. Councilor Ugarte moves for approval 2347. Do I have a second?

for four seconds. Councilor, to four seconds. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. On the 2348 law enforcement IGA amendment, Bill, you want to give a quick?

Sure. Thank you, Mayor. The nutshell here is that with adoption of this resolution 2348, city council approves a new fiscal year FY27 contract with Washington County Sheriff's Office to provide the same service level we have now. One sergeant who is our police chief and two deputies who are two patrol officers, deputies in addition. So for a total of three officers dedicated in town to the city of North Plains. So that same service level as last year is what would be approved with this contract amendment with resolution 2348. The only thing to add is that in the, staff report, it goes into a little bit of length, but if city council chooses in the future in the coming months in this next fiscal year to add an officer or add some more patrol time or overtime or whatever, that's within your purview to discuss and then authorize me to change the contract with Washington County Sheriff's Office. But to get us to July 1, this is

So effectively no changes, just maintain. So any questions, comments, or not all entertain a motion?

I'm on a roll tonight. Councilor Ugarte, I move to adopt resolution 2348 to approve amendment number seven to the July 1st, 2022 Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County Sheriff's Office for Public Safety Services.

Okay, Councilor Ugarte moves to approve 2348. Do I have a second?

Councilor Warrington will second.

Councilor Warrington second. So all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Next is 2349. I know we did discuss this, but Bill, is there anything you want to add?

Yes. So it approved the resolution allocates pre-approved contingency spending in the general fund to pay for roof and under structure repair on the building. And I just want to note that when a city, but when a budget's adopted and it has like the general fund, a contingency amount, what that means is that that spending is preauthorized. So by authorizing us to spend up to $100,000 of the $200,000 in contingency funds, It doesn't increase spending to the general fund budget. It just means we're moving that $100,000 of pre-authorized spending over to into an account that didn't have it before, but it doesn't increase how much the fund spends.

Any other questions? I have one, but I'll let everybody else go first.

Go ahead. Council Warrington, what about the $72,000 from the library? Is that in The general fund already? Are we going to use that for this?

The $72,000 that the county, Washington County Library local auction levy that was approved will get to us. That won't arrive. Well, that won't begin to arrive until November. And then it will trickle in mostly through March with monthly property tax payments. So Because we need to do this now, that's why we're using contingency funds. Later down the road, if the general fund has other things that come up, we know that those funds will be arriving more than expected. So we can talk about what they might be needed for if they're needed for anything. But the contingency allowance, the contingency fund transfer lets us immediately make repairs.

Anyone else?

Councillor Webber, we're authorizing a little more money than we hope the roof is going to cost. I don't know if it would be feasible. I don't know what the cost would be, but we've got a lot of damage to the drop ceiling. And I imagine the roofers might need to do some internal repair. Is it possible to even examine whether we still need the drop ceiling or as part of that fixing of the...

Some of that is included. It has to be removed to access, and then we'll figure out after the fact. And that's why it's up to $100,000. As we mentioned in the budget committee meetings, Dustin's already gotten some quotes. And the metal roof that consensus arrived at by budget committee, on average, was $80,000. And this gives us some contingency.

And it might need to include that. Yeah, so that's why I'm saying just an analysis of whether the drop saving needs still be there.

committee, I definitely think the metal roof would be a nice upgrade if it works out. I'm just saying I think it would be in line with what we had discussed. Let's put it that way. Okay, so with that, any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Councilor Ugarte, I move to adopt Resolution 2349 to offer as $100,000 of general fund operating contingency to fund repair of the Jesse Mays Community Hall roof and related structural components.

Councilor Ugarte moves to approve 2349. Do I have a second? I would second resolution 2349. Councilor Weber? Councilor Weber seconds. All those in favor of approving resolution 2349, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Great progress. Final is resolution 2350. And Bill, is there anything you want to add?

This looks familiar because you authorized 2341 of the last meeting and that resolution, ultimately what it did was it authorized the special procurement method that we used on the contract. The full body of the new contract was in the agenda packet for this meeting. And so since you've had the opportunity to review it, 2350 would technically be authorizing me to execute it.

So any comments or questions? I believe the council is pretty

I just want to call out that I think this is a band-aid approach, and I'm going to approve it, but I really would like to in the future try to find an FTE finance director so we don't have to continue this contract. Just look, just to look for one.

I think everyone would love that.

Yes.

I think there's complete concurrence. But yes, I appreciate that. Anyone else?

Is Marina attending the meeting tonight?

No, they will need to know all of the stuff that you do not have been.

They know that we'll get a question to her.

And you know that not only are you looking.

I would make a motion for approval of resolution. 2350 uprising city manager to execute the marina contract.

Councillor Weber moves to approve Resolution 2350. Do I have a second?

Councillor Warren can second.

Councillor Warren can second. All those in favor of approving Resolution 2350, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. Moving along. Next, we have not had a UGB PAC meeting, so Council report shouldn't be any updates, I'm assuming.

I do want to say that there is a public meeting of the events tomorrow.

Tomorrow, correct. Yes. Okay.

Audit update, Bill. Audit update. You ready? Okay. I asked both Marina, Matt from Marina and UVF, the auditors, to attend tonight. And at 4.30 today, I heard from UVF that their managing CPA on the project wasn't going to be able to make it. And then two minutes later, they sent a draft audit to So we have a draft at Y22 audit in hand. Haven't had the chance to even look at it yet. So Matt has begun reviewing it. So that's why he's not here tonight. They don't need to discuss audit status. We have a draft. So we'll be responding to that with UVF starting this week sometime and then certainly before the next meeting. And then once that's all wrapped up, UVF will make a formal presentation about the report to them.

So can we assume that there'll be some form of an update in the next meeting during the financial audit or financial report, sorry, or this one of the six?

My hope would be the way it should work is the auditor has an agenda item and they give you accreditation and walk through everything. So it's their own thing.

Okay, so we need to add an agenda item is what you're saying. That would be, that's how we think it would, yep. Council, yes, wants to add an agenda item. Yes. Thanks. You have consensus. Great. Thank you.

Question. I'm sorry. I was having trouble hearing your mic. So you're saying the audit, the first audit was submitted to us. Yeah, we received the draft audit report document today at 430.

The draft audit, what does that mean? That's their draft report before it's finalized and we have a chance to review it. So

But yeah, that's what the process, the draft audit comes, you review it, then they, out of that, do a final audit.

Yeah, Marina and staff will respond to any comments or questions in the body of the document. They'll have questions or highlight numbers that they want us to double check. And then once all that's verified, they'll finalize the document. And then that's what they come and present. Is a draft audit something that the council would receive a copy of? I'll have to ask how they like to handle it, but typically we coordinate with them on making sure all their questions and verifications are done first.

I mean, is that allowed if we requested it?

I would have to ask them. It's not the process I have been through previously here. Maybe it just kind of boils down to how they like to do their business.

I think it would be better to let them finish because we don't want to get in the way if we need to finish. Yeah.

I'm sorry, yes, or is just a draft. So they need to work out the details. And then the final one is the one we wish to do that.

They're number four. So, uh, counselor guard, they brought up a nice point last time is that the perception in the public was landing unfaithfully on staff, you know, they're bringing in Marina and together at the same time. So to discuss management company audit. So I thought that was what we were going to do tonight. So I just want to make sure that we can have that conversation the next council meeting in addition to any sort of audit discussion. So I think there's something to discuss there.

Agreed.

Okay.

Agreed. Let's request them next week.

I mean, I don't know if there's a possibility, Councilor Weber, if they can't come, if they can give us some sort of written report or something, just so we get firsthand information from them each time, I think would be helpful.

Councilor, from the auditors, from Public Financial? From both. So when the audit is finalized, that, as you heard public comment about, is kind of the master document that you all use you know, for leadership on the city's finances. And so Marina will step back as virtual staff on this and UVF will have the floor on the topic of audit. So at a future date, maybe after that, at the next meeting, UVF and Marina can be there to talk about audit process moving forward with 2023 or however you would like to address that. But on the topic of FY22, when it's finalized, UVM needs to walk through everything so that you know everything you need. Without Marina elaborating or what have you, the auditors really kind of have the floor and should get all of your attention.

All right. So let's see. Anything else, Bill? On that note, thank you. Next is Council Rules Amendment, Government Agency Procedure. either by city council or the league we table this. But you have a plan of what they'd like to do with this.

I would like to discuss abolishing the whole thing. I think that the topic was brought up because of discussion. I think Councillor Ugarte mentioned this whole thing was brought up regarding a conversation Don had during his time on a, not the council, but the commission.

Actually, this was brought up because WACA, the Washington County Dispatch, received a request from a city councilor from an undisclosed city, a request to classify information. So that's why we either need a policy or a change to council rules. I believe it was what, Emily, that you suggested was maybe a change to council rules or something. I'd be happy to hear how you'd word it.

Yeah, I don't, my opinion is a policy is not necessary. A rule would be better. However, I think because of what I said last week that I don't think that councillors under the council manager form of government have a independent any individual authority to act I would be fine if you just decide not to amend the rules.

Okay. So what would you like to do or is there any other comments, commentary?

Councilor Weber, I would probably not do the council rules and they're done. Anybody else?

Binions?

Councillor Ugarte. Again, I don't want to beat a dead horse, and I respect everyone's opinion here. Again, you know, as Mayor Debra had mentioned, the reason why this was even brought forward is because another jurisdiction had, you know, attempted to get information at WACA regarding, you know, essentially for their own benefit, but using their title, essentially. And, you know, the What I had mentioned at the last meeting is we have an exact concrete case of that happening here or allegedly happening here in North Plains from a member of this council within the last seven, eight months. And that is why I think when we are looking through the lens of reducing risk and reducing liability to the city that we need to have something concrete because it has already happened in other cities. It has allegedly already happened in our city on a different board or commission. And I do not personally think that it is hindering any of us in our official capacity by having this rule in place.

Counselor Hager, my understanding is that the next steps as a follow up for this amendment or rule was that we were going to receive amended language options from Emily that were a little bit more neutralized to not inhibit individual counselors from doing their due diligence to research topics, but also billing rules to not overly exploit their individual rules for information collecting. I could have, Remember that and frankly that that was my understanding from the last meeting we have.

Apologize I can do that for the next meeting if that's the council's consensus.

It was counseling about that.

Also working again I I think my that is telling me we're just spending real hard on somebody made a mistake and we're making a big rule over a mistake and I think that people make mistakes. They learn from them. We're all adults. Let's just not do it again, right?

The problem is, Councillor, when you make mistakes here, you're subject to public meeting laws and there are no revokers. Those are, you go to the Oregon Ethics Commission and they are not elected. They're appointed. And if you're personally liable, the city cannot develop liability if you misrepresent yourself. So it's my opinion that having rules is what keeps us out of jail or out of the city out of trouble. So I will agree with councilor Garci that I think we need something and I would be fine with seeing options, but I think that this is something that's important because there's been numerous issues with not following council rules and not following the laws or allegedly not following the law. So I think that this is important that we acknowledge and put guardrails because obviously they are necessary or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Also, Garte, I would be curious amongst this body to hear the other perspective of why we wouldn't want to have an official rule in place. It is my opinion that Over the last few months, there has been so much concern from this body regarding getting reports and having a say or a checks and balances for basic city administration. But when we talk about having a rule that is implied, we really shouldn't even have to have it. This is implied by all of our rules. And we talk about just having it in writing and there is, there is this opposition. I just am having a hard time understanding the perspective because I'm just hearing, well, we should just leave it alone versus, okay, I want all of these reports. I want all of the receipts. I want to know every single thing city staff does before they act on it, but we can't have the same integrity for ourselves. So I'm just curious about, what the other perspectives are and why we wouldn't want to have a dedicated place to live out of the gray, to have a black or white scenario.

Anyone? All right, so what does Council want to do? I need a consensus on something. Or we can table it and bring it back again next meeting.

Now for work and I would like to follow the direction our city attorney was provided and not address this as a rule.

Anyone else.

Just to clarify comes to your day to the city at my understanding of the attorneys that to address this as a resolution, but instead of the whole point of clarification.

Yes, not address it as a policy a separate policy, but rather to address it in the council rules if you want to address it at all.

Thank you. And I think, again, I'm opening this up for discussion of why you think we should have or should not have this rule. And I'm, you know, not hearing, I'm not hearing discussion amongst my peers. So I'm really, I'm just going to put it out there again for discussion. And I, you know, again, want to come to a consensus and agree. And if that means that we table this for our future meeting and Emily brings option A, B, or C of a potential rule added to council rules, I'm okay with that as well. I just I want to hear the dialogue of why we are in such opposition over adding a black and white rule.

Councillor Warrington again. I'm going to try to say this delicately and all of that, right? I understand what you're saying. I appreciate it. Again, there are two sides. I think that what I'm trying to convey is when we ask for... reports, color codes, whatever, we get feedback too, saying it's too much, it's too expensive. We don't get that either. So it's a two-headed beast kind of a thing. We want something from them and we're not getting it. They want something from us and we don't want to give it. So I think that for freedom of speech, I don't want to I don't want to take her voices away. I want to have the council be able to ask questions in a thoughtful way, not run around and say, I'm a big counselor. I need, I need this, but in a thoughtful way, be able to ask some questions for whatever it is that we're doing. So I don't want to, you know, blow up the city or the county, of course, but I don't want to be silenced either. I want to be able to freely ask what I need to ask in a respectful and legal way.

Absolutely. And I, I counsel you, I appreciate, you know, giving that insight and thank you for participating in the discussion. Um, and I, I want to echo, you know, I don't want any of us to lose that right of freedom of speech, but I, I do think given the nature of other jurisdictions, pass events here in the city, that having a clear, clear guideline of we direct questions through staff is that to me leaves any risk or liability out of the picture because we are directing it to staff. But we can still ask those questions of staff. And frankly, staff is probably going to have better connections than we would as counselors, right, to different people. So I appreciate you adding that insight.

Anybody else? Councillor Forge?

Yeah, Councillor Forge, weigh in. I think that the existing rules cover our behavior adequately. The thing that I would be most concerned about as a councillor would be if we went off to someone and we misrepresented ourselves as the city wants to do this or try and enter into a contract or try and direct staff. And I think that the rules are already very clear on that. And I think we've already had previous conversations about our staff is, has a high workload and this process is direct more work towards them. Okay.

Anyone else?

Councilor Ugarte, I hear you and I agree that city staff is at capacity until we add to FTEs that this is going to continue to be the scenario. However, again, I think us asking those questions to staff allows all of us on council to be able to get the information at the same time. We're not violating any public reading laws. And I also would just echo the sentiment that, you know, we As a body, we make discussions in public. We can gather information and read things on the internet, but we discuss those things in public and we discuss it usually on an agenda item, which goes through city staff. So I don't want to belittle this. I know we have a full night, but I, again, just do not understand why this body doesn't want to have a black and white rule given our history and liability. and with members of the Council.

Councilor Weber my understanding is this came up there was some kind of question if I remember correctly or somebody had reached out with questions about ice arrest wasn't that one of the original comes for a good one. I mean and my my thing is I'm not as bothered when people seek information. And I think built into people seeking information are others on the other side who have the right to say, sorry, you're not allowed to get that information because that's not public. So I think I don't have a big problem with people who seek information. I have a big problem if they're seeking to try to influence a decision, trying to create financial gain. Simply seeking better understandings is not something that bothers me. But I'm also not bothered if somebody on the other end of the police or whatever say, I'm sorry, that's not public or appropriate for you to ask. So I think within the world we live in, there already are built-in rules. So that's why I'm saying I'm not sure we need more rules.

So I'm just going to respond and remind the council that if you represent this, if you claim that you're representing the city without authorization from council, any correct or wrong, Emily, the city attorney will not represent you. You're on your own. if you are charged with anything criminal or civilly, as I understand it, that is on you, correct?

So if you act ultra viris or outside the course and scope of your role as a counselor, then that is correct. And I'm planning to email y'all about that in the near future, just so that you understand the contours and what is at stake. But it is true, if you act outside the course and scope of your role as a counselor, the city will not defend you if you in her liability or monetary status.

So to have something in writing, what's guardrails around? It's just like a budget for your self. So again, I think that this is important. But again, if we do not have consensus, we're either going to need to table or let it die, I guess.

I would be in support of reviewing alternative language options from legal. I think there would be nothing wrong for us to see different options. And until we see these options, there's really, it's hard to say no before we see something alternative options.

I think the council president makes a wise point. Any comments or questions? thoughts on that or can we get consensus to look at that.

I think Councilor Weber, I think that makes sense.

Some options would be a good idea.

One last thing. I might be missing some data here. I only heard one thing, the WACA thing or whatever. If there's more than that, can we also include privately or something, an email of what we're talking about other than that one thing? Because I'm hearing a bunch of things, but I only know of one. So can we get on the same page as to what exactly we're talking about?

We're talking about any violation, anybody seeking information on behalf of the council without authorization from the council.

Correct.

The past violation was. Councillor Ugarte. Councillor Warrenton, to answer your question, I know you were dialing via Zoom last meeting, so I don't know how well it's broadcast out. However, if you go back and listen to the audio at the last council meeting, I actually read an excerpt from the meeting minutes that's part of public record from Parks Board last year. So that can give you some context as well there if you're interested in that one. Okay.

Councillor Ford. Josh Triplett- With Emily bring some. Josh Triplett- Language. Josh Triplett- And so that consensus, yes, looks like that meter request Council. Josh Triplett- Okay, yes, so Emily if we can try to work out a couple of.

Josh Triplett- You know what I mean yeah I will bring back some options, thank you so i'm trying to say okay.

Thank you, counselors. With that, we're going to take a very brief, let's call it five minutes, and then we'll come back to City Manager Report. Okay, we are back in session, and now we'll move, no new business, we'll move on to City Manager Report. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay, let's start.

Okay, let's go through a few things coming up that are important. Council to Forge already beat me to it. Tomorrow night 6pm here the UGB community meeting. So that will just kind of be a bunch of tables and discussions and consultants and some staff walking around helping to answer questions, but not really trying to, you know, talk to people too much. It's meant to be conversation by people. in the community with one another. So that's tomorrow night. We look forward to it. Thursday, Ice Cream Social, 6 o'clock, Commercial Street. That will be a lot of fun. I think the weather is supposed to be not too hot. I haven't looked. I haven't been yet. June 10th, there's going to be a joint work session about progress on the UGB concept planning project. Joint work session with the Planning Commission. So June 10th? I believe that's correct. Wednesday, June 10th. Yeah, the works at the Planning Commission. Wednesday, June 10th. What?

Say that again?

Wednesday, June 10th. Unless Roman's on and contradicts me. June 10th, joint work session with the Planning Commission about the UGB concept. Just a progress update.

I think there's a Planning Commission meeting on that. That's it. There's a work session before it.

Oh, okay. At six. I mean, the work session will be first at six, I think. Yes. And then they'll hold a regular meeting after that.

That's the way, Stuart. Yes, I was visiting with Stuart about that today. June 11th, Appalachian Elementary School and Appalachian Ridge Elementary School OPB's Think Out Loud show. That's the date at six o'clock. They're going to have just a big community meeting and have different people giving different perspectives on a variety of things. That will be taped and then broadcast the following day, I believe it will be June 12th on OPB. So will everybody please come out for that? That should be a good conversation. And then we want to confirm the vacancy on city council was in the paper last Friday. So we're accepting applications officially from residents of the city of North Plains who have been a resident at least one year prior to applying and registered to go to the state of Oregon. Those are the only qualifications required. So people interested that meet those requirements can apply and we're accepting applications through Friday, June 12th at noon, and then we'll have those in the agenda packet for the Mondays at June 15th meeting for you all to consider an appointment for the vacancy. So that's kind of the schedule moving forward next couple of weeks at least highlights. Okay. So one thing I wanted to talk to you all about is the fact that we have gotten an application, the city has gotten an application from a proposed downtown association to basically take over the city's affiliate membership in the Oregon Main Street program. State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Department manages the Oregon Main Street Association And that's really kind of the statewide affiliation of downtown associations or local business associations and communities that run downtown programs, fund their own facade improvement, beautification projects, grants, business assistance, marketing plans, that sort of thing. So it's a network of affiliated nonprofit business associations in each community that's focused on the main street of the community. North Plain, pardon me, the city of North Plains right now is an affiliate member of that organization. And what that means is that we're waiting for the community to generate a new 501c3, if I could be wrong. But anyway, a new nonprofit that can apply and become part of the Oregon Main Street Association in place of the city's membership. Getting... becoming the local Oregon Main Street Association affiliated downtown association or downtown group. With it, when you get into the program, you get access to pretty quick access to state and federal resources for grants and assistance and technical assistance and that sort of thing. So it's kind of a due diligence process that's involved that the state goes through. And we've been working with Department of Parks and Recreation, State Parks and Recreation kind of go over this and understand what the process is like. Part of it is just assessing how well do the stakeholders of the community's economy like the organization? Do they work well together? And are they representative of what should be in the Oregon Main Street program? So that's part of it. The other part is you have access to federal and state money. And so there's kind of a... with the city as the affiliate program now, and for the city to hand over its membership, we need to be careful about who we authorize to join the program as a downtown association. And so the downtown, the group that is formed is called the North Plains Business Alliance. And it's headed up by Linda Gallus-Merton, and I believe, or Dex Heimer, who is also with North Plains Food Bank, is also involved. And I haven't seen their membership form, so I don't know all the businesses that are in it, but they have a number of businesses that apparently are interested in being part of that. But that brings up the issue of the city turning over our membership to a downtown association that then has state and federal money access brings up the point of the city has to have assurance that who we give that membership to There are no liability issues. We can trust that that's going to work well and fit within the program. And so this kind of brings up the fact that, and I'm returning to something, and I think some of you have new city councilors, so maybe they're not aware of this. But last year, excuse me, on August 18th, on behalf of Strong Towns North Plains, Linda Nogales-Burton gave testimony that they called our surety bond company and asked a variety of questions about the status of our city manager surety bond account, whether we paid, was the city covered, you know, those sorts of questions. And they used, Linda, the caller Linda, used information in the packet about the city's account. And to be clear, city council, did not authorize, nor did the city staff authorize Strong County North Plains or Linda to contact the surety bond company and try to ask account questions. Later in October, so we got testimony along the lines that after conversation with the surety bond company, the bond was not paid, it was late, it wasn't covering city risk, and there was willfulness in not covering, not having the surety bond. And I took, we got a memorandum from the surety bond company's general counsel from Western surety, CNA surety's general counsel, primary attorney for the firm, refuting the information that was given in public comment by Linda Gallant's murder. The company didn't give much of any information, didn't answer a number of questions substantively. So the comment that was made by Linda about the city not having coverage laid on its payment, the city manager putting the city at risk even willfully and worthy of being reported to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission for the willfulness, none of that was true. One might say it was deliberately false. But either way, we have a situation here where I reviewed this with council. Council didn't directly address this information. And I want to point out that in the memorandum from the general council of CNA Western surety, um, and I quote, Linda gave the impression that Western surety company, that she was authorized by bonding agency, the city to make the call and obtain information on the billing status for the bond. And again, city council, more staff did that. So this was all unauthorized, um, not transparent behavior, not clear, transparent behavior. So at this point, without any kind of action to clear this up, the city cannot sign over our membership in the Oregon Main Street and its access to state and federal funds with this cloud. I will say that in review of all this, I visited with former police chief Nick Jones, our insurance broker, and our auditor. And the auditor, I asked about this, have you ever heard of a situation like this? And they said, no, we've never heard of such a thing, that somebody would call and get information and then turn around and make the comments that they did that were not true. So I'm reporting to you all this in the context of the Oregon Main Street Association request that we've gotten. But I also want to state that after visiting with the insurance broker, our insurance broker, former Chief Jones, and, well, primarily those two, I would say. Oh, and they didn't say it's fine. But it is my suggestion to you all that the recommendation from former chief is to go and get the call, a recording of it. And we can do that, but just to understand what happened. And so I'm putting it to you all to decide whether you are okay with that.

Council.

Councilor Weber, for clarity, my understanding, I think I ran into different people that went to a meeting that was organized by Rowan and she would start trying to get them to start a business alliance. This was done at her encouragement. Is that correct?

Right. So Roman, part of, yes. So Roman began the process of trying to get businesses and downtown interests together to start some kind of downtown association. That's right.

So I would suggest a simple solution, which would be see if we can get a second person to join Laura that represents a business from within town. I mean, that would make more sense to me that the leadership team would be Laura's representing Food Bank, which is a nonprofit, find somebody else that's on one of those and have them be the core team rather than spending too much time debating the other person. Anyway, one person's thought.

Council Member DeForge here. I would vote against spending city resources investigating seven-year-old woman for accessing public information. I would also be supportive of the city supporting the Northern Plains Business Alliance and allow them to get access to grants and funds so that we can support our local businesses.

Senator Warrington here. So if I'm understanding the cloud of issue is somebody doesn't think that you have a surety bond. And you're saying you do. Do you have one through Western Surrey?

I'll take this. Council, this has already been dealt with. Last year, the city attorney investigated this. We have both a surety bond and an insurance policy. So we're double covered because council didn't want to take any risks. And it's a matter of record. This was all found to be false. The, or sorry, the comments, one of the gals' comments were all found to be inaccurate.

Understood. Okay.

Councilor Ugarte, you know, I, I've been on council for a few years now, and I've seen many different sides of this equation. And, you know, I want to assume positive intent and without getting that recording and having factual proof, either yes or no, this didn't happen. I don't want to assume that are making an allegation, but I do think it's important for us to clear that record because it's crossed into many different boundaries now. And if, you know, let's just say that this person doesn't pursue a specific alliance, maybe they come to the city at a later time and want to participate. Let's not rehash it then. Let's just once and for all find out the truth, get the recording. And, you know, if anything, who knows, but who knows if this is a scenario where the person, and I'm just going to say this hypothetically, but what if the person, um, or the insurance company lied, right. And now it's being cast negatively upon the community member. So, um, you know, I, I, don't know the cost. I would be curious to know how much it would cost, if anything, to get that reporting and set the record straight. And then, you know, I think the other part, again, is just public trust. And the reputation that this particular, well, both individuals have on social media is not something I would want to represent our city. There's been public humiliation. There's been slander. And I just don't think that that is someone I want to be a steward of our city resources and especially with access to money.

I think this is an interesting topic. Councillor DeFort or Weber brought up a really good potential option to add a different business owner if they issue is having representation in a more broader representation to this organization. And I think that would be a quick, healthy way to point the ship forward and advance a critical resource that we need to move forward for the city to. I think we need to point the ship forward and throw the rearview mirror over the shoulder.

I, Counselor Ugarte, I hear you. Counselor Hagedorn, I think also, you know, given the information that was in our packet a few weeks ago regarding Linda Gallus-Merton dropping items off on your doorstep, and I don't mean this in an accusatory way, but then, you know, you including this, and it's in public record, makes me feel like you might even have hesitation with trusting this individual or being associated with them. And so I, again, just think that we have to be transparent and we have to have the trust of the community and the community is extremely divided right now. And I am so ashamed to say that. But how can we put someone that has been such a strong voice in opposition of the city and the city council and the progress of moving forward, how can we give that to Linda Gallus-Merton?

Fighting fire with fire just creates more fire. It's not moving forward. I think that healthy solution to do, and this is my own assessment, is let's find an alternative person to replace out this organization that would solve the problem and move forward with a resource resource gap that we need in the city. That's my recommendation.

So I will say that this was investigated by the city attorney and was found that, well, it was unfortunate and it was inappropriate. There was, from a legal perspective, there was nothing when Ashley was the city attorney. So as much as I would like to get to the bottom of this, I don't know what that is, where that's going to get us. I also am not comfortable handing this over to Linda Gales-Martin based on the comments that she's made and the false statements that she's made in public comment as well as online. So I'm going to say that, you know, I think there needs to be a better solution and I don't think this is something that we have a solution to today, but my suggestion would be that we need a better solution than just moving forward with this as is. And I would also like to send this to the CDC if possible, because that's who should be advising us on this. It's my understanding. Go ahead, Councillor.

Councillor Ugarte, just a quick question for Bill. In the sake of compromising, is this something that we can You know, again, want to be mindful of not adding more on to staff, but can we find a middle ground with creating some sort of advisory committee where, you know, community members want to come forward and they want to participate and they can advise the EDC, but don't have access to state and federal funding? Is that a potential?

Well, it's a good question, Councillor. So it's my understanding that there is another group form. We might have another group come and apply. And so we have dueling groups. And so this is the first request we've gotten. I'm pretty sure it won't be the only one we get. And I think that there's division in the business community over this issue. You know, it might come down to making a decision about which entity we partner with, because we can't have two. My understanding is we can't have two in the Oregon Main Street Association. We'll have to pick one. So that's kind of the situation, at least right now.

So I think that supports my suggestion of maybe giving it a little more time and allowing others to come forward. And EBC could then be the Well, it kind of takes the first pass at it. That would allow us to send something to them that would allow them to do some kind of develop because it's really where this should be sitting at this point because it's still early.

So that's my two cents. Is there a reason we couldn't say the business alliance, the whatever we call them, the executive team, whatever they are, that they come from local businesses here, but then North Plains? Why wouldn't we just say that and then?

Well, I mean, I don't have all the very specific qualifications of what qualifies the business to be in a downtown association. My understanding is that one of them is that the properties or businesses have to be contiguous to one another. It can't kind of be a patchwork of businesses. Like geographically, they have to be touching because one of the things that they can do is form a downtown association. improvement district with businesses in a geographic area and collect self-imposed fees to also fund things. So the bottom line is, ultimately, yes, it would need to be downtown area property owners, businesses, nonprofits. Food bank technically could be one. You don't have to be a for-profit business, but you would need to be in this downtown area representative in presence.

So there isn't any legal thing going on here. There's nothing illegal about what she did or said. She wrote a letter, freedom of speech. We all have it. And then they're asking for an approval to have this plan, the business alliance that will help our city. So are we going to penalize her because of her freedom of speech? Are we just going to process or report? Let them make our city better.

Well, the point of my ask, Council Mornington, is that the insurance company's council let us know that Linda, who called, misrepresented herself in her representation of having the authority to ask those questions. So that is the issue. a private individual taking information and potentially allegedly misrepresenting themselves with a city's insurance account and getting information or trying to get access to information about it is the issue. It's kind of, if you got a text one day saying, from your bank saying, we've identified that somebody has tried to access information about your account, your bank account, that would alarm you probably. Um, that's what the, the, the general counsel of the, of the surety bond company is said in her memo that, that happened with this call, that the columnist represented themselves about their authority to call on behalf of the city. So there's a misrepresentation problem.

So this is a council or sorry, this is a city manager report. So We don't have to meet, there's no, unless we have consensus tonight, there's not really anything for us to do. But again, I would say that the logical thing to do would be to wait and allow other opportunities and look at who applies and then make a decision based off of who applies. I think that's a much wiser decision than just, well, we're going to take the first one because Again, there's a lot of issues and this person has done a lot to divide the city. So I don't think that it's wise to just jump and say, yeah, we're going to have this individual managing this. I think that we should look at all the options and then make a decision. So that's my input. What does the council want to do?

Councillor Weber, clarification. So my understanding is Rowan met with a group of business people, encouraged them to start the business alliance. Some of them decided to do that. But what you're saying is you're hoping another group of people will start a different business alliance, and then the Economic Commission can pick the second alliance?

I'm saying if there's options for multiples, then we have a good- Multiple business alliances? Bill said that there's a possibility that there are others that are going to employ.

So- Competing business alliances. I think there's going to be. My understanding is that a different group of businesses are talking about being a downtown association.

There.

So what does council want to do?

It's worth getting long on this. My only thing I feel strongly about, I think the investigation is not warranted and not helpful. Beyond that, my personal opinion, I think the easier route, which is have the business alliance, the current group be expanded, the local businesses inside the city.

Yeah, me too.

So bill looks like I guess bring back an item on this for future agenda. All right we'll move on to council reports. We'll start with council Warrington.

I had a great vacation in Niagara Falls so I don't have any report.

Council Weber. I have continued to attend back and they are still in executive session. The next meeting is public and I'm working with the other person that's on that board, may attend the next one. I attended the library board. They are doing a wonderful job, A plus in every way in running the library. My grandkids are very excited about the summer reading program and I'm very impressed with staff. I attended the veterans celebration that Cindy and her group ran and that also was an A-plus and just a wonderful way to honor the veterans. I was really touched by the 102-year-old man that served in World War II, where my own father did, and that was just very touching. So that was just a wonderful place to be. And I have been going to the gym training for ice cream scooping on Thursday.

That's it.

Councillor Borg?

Thank you, Mayor. I attended Metro PEC online, and I did want to bring up the housing needs analysis just to see if that was a quick topic you guys want to discuss. Bill, can you help?

No, if you want to add it to an agenda, you can, but we're not going to spend much time on it right now. This is not a perfect time. It needs to be an agenda.

Could I request an agenda item for discussing the housing need analysis at some point? It would be a quick five-minute to get. What I'm trying to understand, and I'm happy to take this offline too, is the status of the housing loans analysis. It's been agreed and how it informs the Eugene bill.

Actually, Mayor, Councilor DeForge, I think that we're probably due for an executive session, an update on that legal issue. Say it again. We can update you in an executive session. BEH is working on that. But that topic is something that's of attorney-client privilege. And so, but we can, we can do that.

Okay. So let's add that to all of this council for this. Okay. So let's add an executive session. One that makes sense. Thank you, sir. That's it for me. Counselor, regard to.

Council Uncarte, I have not had any ex-officio duties, but I do want to say just thank you to the Chamber, City First, and the Knights of Indias. It was a great, great Memorial Day celebration, and the park looks amazing. So thank you so much.

Council President's Neighborhood.

Hello. I have no ex-officio duties to report to date, but I am excited for my planning commission meeting on the 10th. I would like to request a future agenda item. I think that in support of transparency, advancing business faster, collaboration, enhancing trust amongst the council and the public, I think that We would really benefit from a parliamentarian for, you know, three to six months. And I would like to ask for a future agenda item consensus with my partners to talk about that at our next city council meeting.

Okay. I'm going to ask you to say yes, reporting.

Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, obviously. So can we add that to a future agenda item to discuss this?

Thank you.

Anything else? OK. And I had EDC. I believe it was between the two meetings. And it was mostly, I think, a work session, which was a lot of fun. I had my super thrilling WCCC meeting And then I also had the new Washington County transportation meeting, which is even more exciting. If you haven't sat through a transportation meeting, you haven't lived. And let's see. Oh, and I also, Cindy, did a evening event at Memorial Park as well to remember people. And I just want to say thank you. It's not a great day for me, so it meant a lot. And with that, I believe that was all of mine. I just want to remind everybody, please be at the Ice Cream Social. And hopefully you get a cool apron or bring an apron, one or the other, because you'll get ice cream everywhere. And with that, we will move to executive session. Lori, I think this is your part.

Council will now be in executive session.

Or is 19.6602 friends to consider information or records that are exempt by law for public inspection.

and also under ORS 192.660 to review and evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer who does not represent the hearing. Only news media representatives and staff designated by city council are permitted to attend the executive session. News media representatives, staff, and council members are respectfully directed to not report on any of the discussion that occurred during the session. except to state the general subject as previously announced. The council will return to regular session if there is need for action on the executive session item. No final action or decision may be taken in executive session. Any materials distributed will be collected at the end.

Thank you.