02 2024
Analeis Weidlich: [00:00:00] [00:01:00] [00:02:00] Before we get our meeting started, um, those of you guys who have just first names. Like we see Renee, we have [00:03:00] Michael, if you guys can put your last names on there, just so for record keeping. Then we can keep track on our notes. Who attended the meeting since we’re on Zoom
Alan Stonewall: and Analeis, this is Alan. I can’t tell what I’ve got. Yeah, you’re
Analeis Weidlich: good. So I think it’s just Michael and then Renee doesn’t have a full name.
Alan Stonewall: All right.
Analeis Weidlich: So I think in your settings, if you can type in your last name, then we have a better record of your, your first and last name.[00:04:00]
Michael Salch: And I do that through Zoom, right?
Analeis Weidlich: Correct. It’s just in your settings.
Michael Salch: Yeah. Right. That’s what I think. I got into that mess when I, uh, got on this new computer and I’ve never gone back to fix it.
Analeis Weidlich: Oh. What you do is you right click where it will say, ask to unmute, and there’s the three little dots. And then on that dropdown menu, it says, uh, rename. At least that’s what my computer shows as the host. I, I don’t know if it’s the same for you guys. So like, in the middle of your picture, in the top right corner, it’ll like toggle and then go to the three dots. Yeah.[00:05:00]
Alan Stonewall: Okay.
Chris Barhyte: All right. Well, I think we have everybody here, so let’s, uh, call the meeting to order.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay. Uh, sorry. Um, everybody, uh, hold on. We got more people coming in. I’ve got moving tiles on me. I’m, I’m getting, uh, lost there a little bit. Uh, okay. Let’s do, go ahead and do roll call for city council meeting on Monday, February 12th. Uh, Chris Barhyte,
Chris Barhyte: uh, here.
Analeis Weidlich: Rachel Schafer
Rachel Schafer: here.
Analeis Weidlich: Uh, bill Tuttle
Bill Tuttle: here.
Analeis Weidlich: And let’s see, one last person.
Doug McClain. Where’d he go?
Doug McLean: Here.
Analeis Weidlich: Oh, there you are. Okay. Sorry. When everybody starts coming in, the, the pictures all move on mean I can’t see you.
Doug McLean: Mm-hmm.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay. So tonight we, uh, four city councilmen present.
Chris Barhyte: Yeah. Okay. So next, uh, business center priority is the [00:06:00] resignation of Mayor Williams. So we received an email, I don’t know, maybe week and a half, half ago, that the mayor was immediately resigning.
And that’s really all the information we have on, on that. So, uh, nothing to add. Uh, so I guess we just need to go pick a new mayor. Um, I would put my name in the hat for mayor, um, if the council is inclined for that.
Bill Tuttle: Uh. Are you nominating yourself or should I I’ll second that.
Chris Barhyte: Okay. Um, so, uh, I guess I nominated myself, uh, councilor Tuttle seconded. So, uh, any discussion on that motion? Anybody on council? Bill, you have your hand up? I assume you want it. Probably, yeah. I gotta, [00:07:00] okay. I gotta find the Lord.
Uh, hearing none, uh, roll call.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay. Let’s, uh, take a vote on Chris Barhyte as the mayor of the City of Rivergrove. Uh, Rachel Schafer.
Rachel Schafer: Um, yes.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay. Sorry. I called on you first. Maybe I should have waited less. Uh, bill Tuttle.
Bill Tuttle: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Doug McClain?
Doug McLean: Yes.
Analeis Weidlich: And Chris Barhyte.
Chris Barhyte: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay. So four to zero. Chris Barhyte is the new mayor of the City of Rivergrove,
Chris Barhyte: yo.
Yeah. Okay. Um, so next on that would be filling the council president position, which moments ago I held. So do we have any, any interest? Obviously one of the other things we still need to do is fill the position for the vacated council seat, um, which we’ll have to take interest in then discuss that at the next meeting if we have [00:08:00] anybody.
I’ve had a few people email interest, so, um, I can reach out, interview and then bring some people to the council meeting at the next counselor. Uh, if anybody else on the call is interested, feel free to send me an email if you’re interested. Um, and being on the city council. And then, so back to the vacated council.
President position, is there anybody who wants to take that vote?
Bill Tuttle: I, I can do it if nobody else will. And then subject to if the fifth person wants to come on board and, and do that. I know Rachel had said she would happy to serve as council, but did not wanna be council president, so I assume a month later that still holds true.
Doug McLean: Anybody else? I could do it also, but if Bill would like to do it, that’s [00:09:00] great.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay. Do we have a second? And uh, bill being the council president.
Doug McLean: Second.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay, let’s take a vote. Chris Barhyte.
Doug McLean: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Doug McLean.
Doug McLean: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Rachel Schaefer.
Rachel Schafer: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Bill Tuttle.
Bill Tuttle: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: So four to zero, uh, bill Huddle will take the council president position.
Chris Barhyte: Okay. Move on to outside agencies. I don’t believe we had any, have any outside agencies this evening, so hearing none, we’ll skip that topic and we’ll go to the planning commissioner report, uh, from, uh, commissioner Stonewall.
Alan Stonewall: I am here. Can you hear me okay?
Analeis Weidlich: Yep. Yeah. Okay.
Alan Stonewall: We, um, had our most recent meeting last week and I would describe it as a routine meeting. And all of our meetings of late have not been routine, so we were very happy to have a routine meeting. We did, uh, address a [00:10:00] couple of couple of applications and approved them both.
And we also discussed the fact that there’s been more than one or two people who have gone ahead, cut down trees and then applied for a permit to cut down the tree after the fact. And we’ve approved those. But we’ve also noted that they’re acting without prior approval. And in particular, there’s been one arborist who’s done this many times.
So we are letting the public know that in the future we’re gonna start assessing fines, even if the, um, application that’s ultimately approved, if the proper process isn’t fault, if people are ignoring the city’s rules and just doing whatever they want. Now there is this provision that if you’ve got an emergency, you can get your tree cut down right away, but you’ve gotta have a bonafide emergency and you still gotta make contact with the city.[00:11:00]
So we’re we considered assessing a fine at the last one we looked at and decided we would assess the fine, but waive it because we’ve not been en enfor enforcing this in the past. Uh, and we will going forward, but we thought we’d not spring it on somebody, um, from left field. So we’ve got other things on our agenda on our plate, not on our agenda yet.
We’re still looking at changes to our internal procedures as that when, how we will address applications, what, what needs to get to us by what dates in order to be considered at the next meeting. I won’t, uh, go through, we really don’t have anything to, to present at this point anyway, but at some point we will come back to the city council and let you know what we’ve got in mind.
It would be something that doesn’t require city Council approval or anybody else’s approval. This would just be internal operational issues or [00:12:00] items. But nonetheless, we wanna keep everybody informed. Annise, anything you wanna add to that report?
Analeis Weidlich: Uh, no. I think other than the tree permit, um, we’ve just had a slew of over on Dogwood Drive.
Yeah. It was the same arborist company, which I’ve spoken to him, you know, even if, so I think part of what the problem was is that. We can’t have people send an application and go, oh, I have an appointment in five days. And then think that the permit’s gonna get processed. I mean, it takes us 30 days to get to the next 30, at least 30 days to get to the next planning commission meeting.
So people can’t just willy-nilly. If you need an emergency tree permit, you know, it truly has to be an emergency. It can’t be a dead dine and disease tree, ’cause that’s a different category and all tree permits and arbor reports actually need to be sent to the city of the arborist first. So there’s kind of a process that we look at.
I mean, we’re trying to protect trees as necessary, so, um, not be a hindrance on residents, but, um, just making sure that we, we follow the protocols. [00:13:00]
Bill Tuttle: Uh, I have two, two questions. Uh, I’m assuming that none of the uh, uh, tree cutting before asking for permit was an emergency. Is that correct?
Analeis Weidlich: No. No.
Bill Tuttle: You mean it None of them were emergency.
Analeis Weidlich: Yeah.
Bill Tuttle: And then, um, per, if we’re gonna start enforcing, maybe we should, uh, put a notice in the newsletter or set it out with the next email blast that from now on, uh, fines will be assessed if you do not, uh, ask for a permit before cutting a tree. Now, I, I, I don’t know how much, even though they aren’t quite emergencies for dead dying or disease, uh, I don’t know if we wanna include impending, uh, falling on that.
You know, you, you see [00:14:00] dead dying and disease does not include potential hazard,
Analeis Weidlich: right? I mean, at least when I’ve read the code and I spoke to the city arborist, he said, an emergency tree situation in any city, right? Not just Rivergrove is if. You have a tree that’s partially cracked and half of it’s already fallen, say, or it’s on the ground and you’ve gotta eliminate it, or it’s fallen on a house.
Um, you know, or it’s already started to go down. I mean, his take is, is that, you know, a dead dying and disease tree, if it’s been there for a long time, it didn’t just die overnight. It’s, it’s been that way for a long time. So homeowners need to get on there and actually manage their trees better, um, and not wait until the last minute and they go, oh shoot, I need a tree permit.
Well, no, I mean, it didn’t just die. So you, you have to manage your trees and you have to go through the proper process. So an emergency truly is that, like we had a storm and half the tree fell off and now you gotta cut. It
Bill Tuttle: was just thinking if, if somebody’s, [00:15:00] somebody may be a healthy tree, but it’s leaning because of wind and loose soil, that, that would also, uh.
Be, uh, uh, qualify for an emergency permit.
Analeis Weidlich: Right? Yeah. So I think, you know, the good thing is, is we have a city arborist, so all of that stuff gets sent to the city arborist and they can also, you know, make a professional determination for us of, no, it’s gonna be fine, send it through the planning commission, or Oh no, it needs to go out in two days.
Yeah.
Alan Stonewall: We don’t wanna get in the way of somebody cutting down their tree. I’m not sure if you’re aware, there was a request for cut to cut down a tree in, I think it was Portland that was denied and the tree fell over the next day. I mean, they, some of these trees do fall and we don’t want cause uh, put anybody at risk or have property damage.
So we’re gonna be careful how we address these things, but there’s been enough abuse. And I would just say more just ignoring, just not paying any attention to, uh, [00:16:00] notification than is reasonable. And we’re gonna start putting a stop on that. And Bill, we do intend to. Advise citizens of it in advance.
Analeis Weidlich: Right. So I had a question on the chat about the city arborist is Bartlett trees, um, and his name is Nick. So they are the, uh, contracted city arborist company.
Alan Stonewall: Bill, do we address your questions?
Chris Barhyte: Yeah, I had a, um, and I had a quick question. So on the agenda tonight is a issue about changing, uh, completion for a permit. So I’m just wondering what you guys, if you’ve talked about that and what your opinion is or advice.
Alan Stonewall: Yeah, we, we have talked about it a lot and it’s just getting a complete application is sometimes difficult.
Um, the councils or the permissions asked to determine the completeness. And that’s often a [00:17:00] technical, technical matter. We’re not really qualified in some cases to do that without input from staff. And we now have a city planner, a new city planner, and he said we are the only city that he works with that doesn’t assigned the responsibility to determine if an application is complete or not to staff.
We’re the only one that makes that a responsibility of the commission. I’m sure the commission’s got some authority in the other cases, but they do rely upon staff for that I initial determination. So we are very much in favor of that. We will, you know, listen to and, and, and pay attention to these. Um, lemme back up a minute.
I don’t know that that still won’t mean that we’ll vote on whether we still can vote, whether or not to accept the staff recommendation, but the initial recommendation being done by staff is something that we support.[00:18:00]
Chris Barhyte: Okay. Any other questions?
All right, let’s move on to standing items. Um, if there’s any members of the public that would like to talk about an item that’s not on the, we’re gonna change this up slightly just ’cause it seems a little confusing. So if it’s on the agenda later, you’ll get another opportunity.
This is, if it’s a, not an agenda item, so if it’s one of the four items below you, you’ll get another opportunity, but, okay. So I, uh, right now it’s Colleen Nyberg. Um, you have three minutes. State your name and address for the record. Oh, was Suzy up? Suzy? Yes.
Colleen Nyberg: Colleen Nyberg. 5638 Southwest Dogwood. We are on the west side of the boat ramp and we have very strong concerns that our private property is eroding away with the lack of protection by the city.
I have pictures of when you first tore into the boat ramp and [00:19:00] now, uh, the inability for you to do anything. The heavy rains are taking away our property. You can see roots for the first time. You can see, um, plastic, you can see underneath the little edge. Um. I do note also that our property is the only part that does not have waddles, although waddles are not known to be successful, to stop erosion, especially send it since it just goes over the waddle.
Um, I think that the council is being very derelict in their responsibility to address other citizens, especially citizens, where the city is causing damage. And I think that something needs to be done before it reaches the point where it just slides down the slope. Thank you.
Chris Barhyte: Okay. Uh, [00:20:00] Susie,
Susie Lahsene: thank you. Um, I have actually two concerns and maybe one suggestion for a language change. Um, one concern is the attention, uh, that. Some of the counselors are paying two your own regulations. And I will note that there was a tree that was cut down in Lloyd Minor Park that’s a coastal pine, that was a historic tree that did not go through the permit process.
And in fact, uh, there was a report given on the park the month before and there was no indication that that tree was going to be removed. I think that if we are expected to follow the regulations, uh, we would expect our council to do the same. My second concern, uh, has to do with the council appointments.
Um, when all is said and done, 40% of our council will be appointed. [00:21:00] Um, I don’t think that’s good government. Um, this concerns me because the citizens are not able to weigh in on the appointments. And um, unfortunately what happens or what we’re seeing happening is that like-minded individuals are being brought onto council.
So you don’t have any sort of public discourse or different perspectives held, and I just don’t think that that’s really good government.
Uh, the last thing I’d suggest on your agenda, it has to do with the land development ordinance revision. I think that last sentence, uh, under existing business it says this new language, if adopted would place the responsibility of deeming an application complete in the hands of the city of Rivergrove staff.
I would clarify that and say in the hands of the city of Rivergrove staff planner, because I think that’s what you’re really saying. [00:22:00] And I think that is the process that’s used in every other city. So, um. That is all I have to say. And I’m at 5582 Dogwood Drive if you need to reach me regarding my comments.
Thank you.
Chris Barhyte: Uh, okay. Anyone else?
Uh, okay, no hands. I think the next thing are the, I close my thing. I think it’s minutes. So, um, yeah, approval of the January minutes, which I believe were emailed out to Councillor Tuttle. Any questions on those?
Bill Tuttle: Uh, I think, uh, Rachel Schafer had a couple of typo corrections, which I assume went to, uh, the city manager also, so she can probably stuff those in before it gets posted on the [00:23:00] web.
Analeis Weidlich: Yeah, it was just a couple of name typos. So yeah, we can uh, definitely get that correct.
Chris Barhyte: Okay. Any other comments or uh, motion to approve?
Doug McLean: I make a motion to approve.
Analeis Weidlich: We have a second.
Doug McLean: A second.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay. Uh, let’s go ahead and vote on the minutes for January, Chris Barhyte.
Chris Barhyte: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Bill Tuttle
Bill Tuttle: Aye
Analeis Weidlich: Rachel Schafer
Rachel Schafer: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Doug McClenan
Doug McLean: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Four to zero to approve the January minutes from the meeting.
Chris Barhyte: Okay. So let’s move on to the city financials, which were emailed out. Um, any questions on the city financials?
No.
Bill Tuttle: To approve as submitted? Yeah. A second.
Analeis Weidlich: Have a second. Okay, a second. Uh, let’s go ahead and take a [00:24:00] vote. Chris Barhyte.
Chris Barhyte: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Bill Tuttle.
Bill Tuttle: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Rachel Schaeffer.
Rachel Schafer: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Doug McLean.
Doug McLean: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: So four to zero, uh, on the city financials for the month of January.
Chris Barhyte: Perfect. And I was also gonna say something, um, budget season’s coming up.
So starting, um, Analeis is gonna work on some dates to probably get that process kicked off in early April. Um, so we are ready to go for, have everything adopted for the June meeting for next year’s, uh, budget. So we’ll get that going. So probably send out just some emails asking if dates work so we can get it on the calendar and there’ll be, uh, budget committee members too.
We’ll have to get that, we’ll have to send stuff to the budget committee members for dates and I can get you those names of people that run last year too. So I’ll get those to you, Analeis.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay, great. Thanks.
Chris Barhyte: Um. Gimme, gimme one minute. Let me go to the agenda here. [00:25:00] Uh, okay. Existing business, uh, again, we can have public comment up to three minutes in the front of each of the items.
So the update on the Lloyd Minor Park. Is there any public comment on this particular topic? Okay. Hearing none, I can give you an update. We’re still waiting for the benches to be placed in there. Just waiting for it to drought. Uh, hopefully that’ll be done in March. That’s what we are waiting for. Uh, we haven’t paid them the full amounts.
We’re just waiting for that to be done. Uh, boat ramp design. Any questions on the boat ramp design project prior to a report? Anybody? All right. No one really what We’re waiting. Oh, sorry. Uh, Mr.
Bill Tuttle: Yeah. Uh, did, we’re waiting on the, uh, water survey topographic survey. Is that correct?
Chris Barhyte: Yeah, so obviously one of the things that’s happened is the river, as you know, has been very high.
So that’s been a little bit of a holdup now, just trying to [00:26:00] get it back down a little bit. It has gone down a lot. I think it’s down to about a, it’s probably a couple feet above normal right now. Maybe two and a half feet above kind of the summer run. It’s dropped pretty fast, which is nice. So, um, yeah, we need to get, so as you know, the first we, we contracted with someone to do it who said they could do it.
They sent a report in, they actually did no different. There was nothing different from what they sent in the first time. So now we’re having to get our money back from them and find a, and I think we’ve contracted or we’re in contact with a new, um, survey company that does in water work. Um, and so that, you know, we’re waiting for the water to go down so they can deal with that.
What we’re trying to find out is the slope, once it hits, once we get down to that. About 102 feet above sea level, you know, what’s that slope going into the water? That’s what we need for the Corps of Engineers and, and the, uh, for the different permit. People wanna see that. So we have it going in a little bit, but we just don’t have it going far enough out into the water.
So that’s what we’re waiting for. It’s kind of a bummer. It’s a hold up, [00:27:00] but we wanna make sure that, that it’s completely done correctly so it doesn’t kick back. Um, so I did hear Wayne Berg. I’ve been down there. We have pictures of the boat ramp when we did the initial work. We have pictures when the Waddles were put in.
We have pictures from about three weeks ago when the water was high, all go down and take some pictures tomorrow now that the water’s gone down. And I think we actually do have some already, but I’ll go down and take some more. Uh, so we are definitely watching that to see, um, what’s happening. I, if anything, we have uh, we have a lot of dirt that’s on the ramp now that needs to be removed off.
’cause when that high water comes up, it leaves like. Six inches, a muck all over the ramp and usually the sides of the ramp and everywhere. So it’s nice, fresh silt that we, uh, we’ll have to get off the ramp, obviously. So, um, that’ll be something that’ll have to be done in the spring. Usually as a volunteer event, people go down there and clean it off and do all that good stuff just to get it off the pavement.
[00:28:00] So, um, yeah, that’s the boat ramp update. Okay. Land development ordinance revision. So any comments on this topic from the public? Any comments from the public? So what this is, just so everybody knows, we are gonna just, we’re looking at changing completeness of an application, so I don’t hear any, uh, no one from the public has requested speak.
So any counselor discussion on this motion? Or not a motion? It’s not a motion yet, but discussion on the topic.
Bill Tuttle: Uh, Councillor Tuttle di didn’t, uh, Annalise send out a proposal from the, uh, city planner? I, I forget whether it related to the planning commission, uh, operation or not. I think it did. I thought it did. Yeah,
Analeis Weidlich: [00:29:00] it, it did. That was actually, I just sent that as a repeat ’cause Rachel didn’t have it. That was from back in November when they came and made the presentation.
So that’s what that was for, is a text amendment change. Um, so one, one comment on this, I, I know that, uh, one of the residents brought up about city staff. So normally when an application comes through is it actually gets reviewed by the city manager, the city engineer, and the city planner. So it’s not just the planner who reviews that for completeness because there’s.
Potentially three different parts on an application, if it has engineering stuff, cut and fill requirements, you know, there’s a permit application, you know, just the basic stuff that comes through on that. Did they pay their fees? And then the planner looks at it from the, the code, you know, aspect. Um, and it’s a coordinated effort between all city staff at this point.
So it’s not just a planner issue, it’s all three entities. Look at every application that comes true and everybody kind of has their part on it. [00:30:00] I,
Bill Tuttle: I think, just a point of clarification, I think the planning commission is the one that officially has to deem it complete. But, uh, there would be like a preamble or something based on information, uh, from the city planner, the city engineer, and somebody else.
Uh, the planning commission finds the application to be complete, and I think that would be the proper verbiage.
Analeis Weidlich: Well, but that’s what currently happens. And so based on discussions with the planning commission and our current city planner, that completeness step needs to be actually backed up before it ever gets to the planning commission.
And the city staff are the ones that need to review the whole application, deem a complete, like every other city in the state of Oregon does. And then it’s submitted to the Planning Commission for the rest of the process.
Bill Tuttle: Okay. But I’m, what I’m saying is I think technically the Planning Commission has [00:31:00] to approve the report from the, uh, city planner.
Analeis Weidlich: Well, they at that point, so this, let’s just say at the end of the day, the city staff, right? They’ve said, okay, the application is complete. You know, it, it has all the, you know, crossed all the T’s and dotted the i’s, it has everything that’s required based on our requirements. That’s a double standard there, or a double thing.
And then at that point, it goes to the planning commission and then they start their process of review, and then they approve and deny the actual application as yes or no. Whether it’s we’re gonna give you the application, go ahead, start your project, or no. So now the completeness thing is taken away from the planning commission.
And partly what’s happened is, is that, you know, we had a history con or we had a look at kind of the history of it all. You know, doing a lot of work in the floodplain and a lot of engineering stuff is very different than it was 30 to 40 years ago. And there’s a lot of technical requirements. IE like the cut and fill the topo stuff.
And so for the planning commission to have to get hung up on. [00:32:00] Is all that stuff there or not there? And it actually, it, it just kind of bogs down the timeframe, the legal timeframe in the state of Oregon. Because what happens is, is when the state of Oregon, in the state of Oregon, based on the current law, is an applicant submits the application to a city.
The city then has 30 days, the start, the clock starts ticking. You have 30 days to actually approve that or say that application as complete. Well, based on our meeting schedule, we only meet every 30 days. So it adds this rushed process in there. If they submit it, say seven days before the planning commission meeting, we have to make a decision at the next meeting.
Is it complete or not? Because all of a sudden that 30 day clock has started and we’re not gonna meet again if you kind of start tracking the timelines. And so all the other cities, what normally happens is, is an application comes in, city staff look at it, they work with the applicant to say, okay. All of this is done.
Then they send a letter to the applicant within 30 days and say, okay, you got all your paperwork in and now we’re gonna [00:33:00] go ahead and deem it as complete. And then the 120 day clock starts to get it through the process of the planning commission. So it’s that 30 day window upfront that starts to mess with us as a planning commission, because we only need every 30 days.
And so again, if we have an application like 48, 10 was a good example of where they submit it a week before the next planning commission meeting. That puts a huge pressure on the planning commission. Now they have to make a decision, is this complete or not complete? And it just starts the ball rolling and it, and it just gets messy.
Chris Barhyte: Yeah, just, yeah. And I mean, look,
oh, go ahead Alan.
Alan Stonewall: I’m sorry. Just assigning the responsibility to determine whether an application is complete or not is no form of approval. It just means it’s to a point where the commission’s willing to take a look at it and consider the application. So there’s no reason why that can’t be done at the staff level.
And I think the fact that, repeating what I said and what Annalise said, we’re the [00:34:00] only city that doesn’t do it that way. Um, we’re, we’re swimming upstream. There’s no reason to do that, especially as small as we are. So, um, that’s why we are in, in favor of this change.
Chris Barhyte: Yeah. And the other thing I was gonna point out is my understanding, talking to the planners, they’re slightly, they get slightly frustrated because they, they know in a meeting that maybe a certified survey didn’t come in or the tree report wasn’t done. Some of the basic things that. If someone turns the application in, the engineer planner, city manager could say, by the way, you didn’t give us this document for the file so that when the actual planning commission gets a file, it’s a complete file, and they’re not wasting their time by having a 45 minute meeting with an applicant.
Pretty upset that they’re at the meeting and the planning commission’s like, well, we can’t really help you because you didn’t do that. It just, it causes, it doesn’t make applicants to the city who [00:35:00] are trying to do a project feel good about us as a city. It doesn’t make the planner happy. It doesn’t make the planning commission members happy.
It just not a good situation. So in my mind, this just solves that. Now, I, I don’t think we’re actually setting the, I don’t think we’re recommending the language, so. I would agree with Suzy who said, you know, planner, engineer and city manager. I guess any three of those. But that would be language. I think that this would be done.
They would write the new org. You can’t see it, but the Rivergrove City coach scope would have that language in it from the planner. They would put the actual language that they recommend a change to do. Right,
Analeis Weidlich: right. The planner. That’s right. They, I mean, they would take on that project to do a text amendment change and go through the public process with us.
Chris Barhyte: Yeah. So we’re not, as a count, all we’re doing is say, look, we’re voting to move this to the process of creating an ordinance that we can adopt. Um, and then we’d have to go through the formal adoption of an ordinance [00:36:00] process. But we tonight need to say, okay, do we wanna spend the money to do that? So we have $2,000, we need some more money.
It’d be, you know, contingency money we’d have to use for that to get this. Ordinance written and then moved on to a ordinance, it would be an ordinance change. We would’ve to go through the process of, uh, being an adopted ordinance. Is that correct, Andy? Y Yes.
Analeis Weidlich: Correct. So that’s what they basically, they gave us a scope of work, submitted a, you know, a proposal to us if this is what they think it would take.
Um, and so yes, we already have a grant for 2000 and we need, uh, the additional money.
Bill Tuttle: So, and is the additional,
Chris Barhyte: oh, go ahead, bill.
Bill Tuttle: Basically we’re creating, as suggested, an ordinance that defines the roles, responsibilities, and operation of the planning commission. So when we propose this ordinance for adoption, we need to remember as [00:37:00] Mr. Salch has always reminded us to delete the provisions in, uh, the land development ordinance that refer to it. So we don’t have two documents. Defining the same thing.
Analeis Weidlich: Well, correct. And that was one of the things that we, I talked about with Ben, the city planner is, is that, you know, he’ll go through and he’ll find through all the code, he’s gonna figure out where it’s got that language in there and we’ll make that adjustment.
Bill Tuttle: Sounds good to me. Do we need a motion to approve funding
Chris Barhyte: and quarter amount? Yeah, we need motion. Uh, yeah. Analeis, what is the, is it 4,000 additional?
Analeis Weidlich: So the proposal? Yeah, so for $4,000. Yeah.
Chris Barhyte: So we need a motion to request city manager engage with the planner to do the code revision. And we need the $4,000 additional funding to match the $2,000.
So it’d be a 6,000 total project, 2000 from grant money, [00:38:00] 4,000 from contingencies.
Analeis Weidlich: Do we have a motion on this? And
Bill Tuttle: at some point there’ll be citizen input into it.
Analeis Weidlich: Oh yeah. I mean, it follows the normal public process, you know, way, I mean, it’s not just gonna happen next month. We have to do whatever we gotta do.
Bill Tuttle: Nothing happens next month.
Analeis Weidlich: No, this is the city of Rivergrove. We, we have public comment.
Chris Barhyte: Yeah. So the next time we see this, it’ll be, it’ll be an ordinance, public hearing from an ordinance presented to us from, uh, it’ll probably, I don’t, I, I actually don’t know the process. It goes, if the ordinance would go to the planning commission to review and then they’d recommend it to us. I don’t know.
I actually don’t know that process, but I’m sure the planner knows that process and that’s in their scope work. So, but we would definitely have a public process. So.
Analeis Weidlich: I think a lot of the leg work’s already been done because Alan was, you know, two last month’s meeting, so not the one last week, but the one prior to that.
We already had a pretty lengthy [00:39:00] conversation, you know, with the planning commission about this aspect. So.
Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a motion to approve and a second
Chris Barhyte: it would just see a motion or approve in a second. Who wants to make the motion? I’ll, I’ll make the motion.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay.
Chris Barhyte: To request city manager engage with the city planner to write an ordinance change and, uh, $6,000 funding 2000 from a grant and 4,000 outta contingency.
Bill Tuttle: I’ll second it.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay. Let’s take a vote. It’s Chris Barhyte.
Chris Barhyte: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Doug McClain.
Doug McLean: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Rachel schaefer.
Rachel Schafer: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Bill Tuttle.
Bill Tuttle: Aye.
Analeis Weidlich: Okay. We have four to zero to approve a text amendment change with the city planner.
Bill Tuttle: It’s not a text. A proposed new adjo—, a proposed new adjoin— ordinance, isn’t it?
Analeis Weidlich: Well, it, yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s, they’re gonna, they’re gonna amend the current ordinance, [00:40:00] so Yeah, it’s like amending the, the current text of the ordinance,
Bill Tuttle: except we don’t have a, we don’t have a separate ordinance at the moment.
Analeis Weidlich: Right. So it’ll be a language change, correct.
Doug McLean: Hmm. We’ll still need to go through all the processes, public input, and then come back to city council for approval, right?
Analeis Weidlich: Correct.
Doug McLean: Hmm.
Chris Barhyte: Okay.
Doug McLean: Okay.
Analeis Weidlich: So four to zero.
Chris Barhyte: Okay. So, uh, the next topic is the park advisory Committee formation. Uh, any comments from citizens on this?
I can say we did get an email from, uh. Landon, I believe on this. Uh, just talking about a few different aspects. I don’t know if he wants to speak to that tonight or just have the email that he sent to the group out there, but there is an email, public comment email on it that he sent. Does he, do you want it, talk Landon about that, or just leave [00:41:00] the email as the public comment.
Okay. So we’re just gonna go with the, the email. So the park advisory Formation Committee. So there was, there’s been two ordinances around the park committee. There was an initial ordinance that, uh, I think had, and I may ask Michael S he doesn’t mind to help me here, but I think there was an initial ordinance that had five people and then it was up to seven on a second revised ordinance.
It just changed the number. Is that correct? Michael, if you don’t mind. Is that, is that right?
Uh, so there
Michael Salch: was a little confusion that people Yeah. That, yeah,
yeah, that’s correct.
Chris Barhyte: But so
Michael Salch: yeah, with a population of 174 people or something like that, at the time, um, seven people, and unfortunately the ci there’s so much history. The city council doesn’t, is not aware of. [00:42:00] That was a really critical time because the city council was trying to demonstrate to, at that time, LCDC, that in fact that the little city of Rivergrove created by volunteers would also have citizens involvement.
And the Park Commission as it was defined at that time, would be one, one of the processes by which it would be citizens involvement. There’s, there’s like, I think it was like one of three or one of four. Thank you.
Chris Barhyte: Yeah. So, okay, so ordinance 16, uh, was an ordinance passed in August 12th of 74. And it had that ordinance put five people on a park committee.
There was another ordinance 28 that passed four years later on June 12th of 78. That, but that everything was the same. It moved that committee to five members. The, uh, ordinance, it’s a, [00:43:00] uh, I mean I’ve, it just basically says there’s a park committee with a certain number of people on it. It’s, it’s silent on, it talks about a chairman and a secretary, but it’s silent on basically everything else on what that committee would do.
Uh, obviously amount of times they would meet, things like that.
Michael Salch: So, and, and lemme lemme lemme just say that back then, the park was less than minor park is now, and the boat ramp, in other words, there wasn’t a lot of park land.
Chris Barhyte: Got it. Yes. No, I understand. For sure. So we want to get back to this. Uh, Microsoft’s brought this up that we had this, it hasn’t been around in the city for a long time, so, uh, I don’t remember it being around in my 11 years in the city.
11, 12 years in the city. So what we want to do is get this thing going there. I, I sent AI a just kind of a guideline of what the committee would be and a, a basic application which researching many cities do applications for, um, [00:44:00] to be a volunteer on a committee. They’ll just have an application which has your name.
We can debate if we, if that’s all we really want is name and address, if you want any other information that we’ll want to provide. That was on a, um, an email I sent out previously, and then there was some stuff on, do we do, um, do we, do we have. Um, any basic rules for the committee? Like are they allowed to have youth on there?
I did look at other cities that have ordinances and we as a council can pick anyone. We want to be appoint anyone. We want to be on that committee. I just thought guidelines of saying, Hey, we’ll have a youth member. Many cities have that. We don’t, we don’t have to. Um, and it’s not bound by any future council can really commit, have whoever they want.
Um, and then it just had some basic things because people were asking in emails that I saw that Jeff received, how does this committee meet? What does this committee do? So what does the [00:45:00] commitment, so the little do, the document that I put together for Jeff at the time was basically to say, look, this is how the minimum amount you’re gonna meet, this is the commitment you’re getting yourself into.
So I did have people say, we shouldn’t have any document. We should just. Say, you’re on the committee and that’s it. But there are a lot of people that wanna know what they’re getting into. So I thought it was fair to say, you’re gonna meet a minimum of X number of times, or as you know, minimum. Then we, again, we don’t have to do that.
That was just a thought, uh, because people ask. So, um, that’s how that whole form came about. Bottom line is we, we definitely need to have an application process of some sort, even if it’s just name and address to move people to, so we know who we’re, who the people are, where they live, all that kind of stuff.
So, um, yeah, that’s my comments on that. And if, I guess just take comments from the council and decide we want to do,
Bill Tuttle: I, I think [00:46:00] they’re, excuse me. Um, two, two instances where they need to meet, uh, number one, if any of the committee members feel there’s a, there’s a need to meet. And then number two. If the council, uh, uh, sees an issue with the park that needs addressing, uh, they need to ask the, uh, committee for, uh, guide or suggestions, I guess, you know, where do you wanna plant trees?
You know, do you, do you want another slide? Uh, something like that. So, so there are two things that, that provide input. One, uh, the city council says, Hey, we’re thinking about this. Uh, what is your consideration? And two, they can come up with some considerations on their own. Say, Hey, you know, city council, we, we think there’s a need for, you know, a [00:47:00] second water fountain or a bandstand.
Or a gazebo or something.
That’s my comment. Mm-hmm.
Chris Barhyte: Yeah. Any, anything else?
Does anybody wanna make? I, I mean, I, I guess where we’re at here, we have a part that, we already have a committee, so we have a couple choices here tonight. Do we, how do we want to get people’s interests? We do have some names already. Um, we didn’t do anything with those names. I mean, we need to do something with the people that have asked.
Do we, do we want to have a basic form someone fills out that has some basic information? Right now the way it is, is people are just sending an email saying, I’m interested. So we gotta decide, in my mind, is that, is that what we wanna do? Uh, and then do we want any, if you look at the park Advisory committee ordinance, this just said some basic, maybe we don’t wanna do [00:48:00] any of this.
Maybe we just do what Bill said when the committee wants with the council, asks for a meeting. Or if the committee as a whole gets together and wants to have a meeting. We just need to get the thing going and kind of rolling and figuring out what you do. I, I, I’ve heard some people don’t want as much, um, they want it to be not as, or I guess organized, that’s not the right word, but they want it to be so formal, scares people away, but then sometimes the informality of it can scare people away.
So you’re kind on both sides.
Doug McLean: Sometimes get too much structure, but we also don’t have any framework yet put together as to what we might expect. Committee, I mean, just even a framework of guidance to begin with. Um, you know, we can’t really get a committee together and expect the committee to come up with that.
Something that we probably need to do a little bit ahead of time on our own. Um, you know, like Bill said, you know, [00:49:00] maybe the committee’s gonna have certain aspects that. You know, we can’t, and if we have a committee, it’s like you’re saying, call ’em together when we need them, rather than have a once a month meeting or once a quarter or whatever.
Um, I don’t know. I mean, that was kind of the, it was really too bad ’cause the one we had before a long time ago kind of fizzled out right after it got started. Um, but it, uh, I don’t know. I think we kind of need get a little bit of a, just a general little framework together if we can. That’s just gonna take a little brainstorming, I think, from city Council.
Bill Tuttle: Hmm. Couple of thoughts. Number one, uh, it’s pretty straightforward if the council just sends a, uh, an email or a decision to, to say, Hey, committee, we want to see a suggestion of, of where you would like to locate [00:50:00] the new bandstand or something. Uh. Then the other one, uh, I don’t think the committee needs to meet monthly or quarterly or whatever the committee should meet as needed.
Uh, it should be obviously, probably have a little email group with them and then they can, uh, do their little email group and if one of ’em thinks of something that they want the city council to address, then they can call a meeting of the planning, uh, or the park committee. So, so they kinda operate kinda loosely in one sense, in that they would, hey, if they see something that needs to be doing, they can, uh, hold a, a meeting and, and uh, uh, discuss it and then bring it to the city council.
Uh, the second part I guess is maybe with the application forms, maybe we, I don’t know if the city council wants to approve everybody or what. [00:51:00] I would suggest that maybe at next meeting we have a list of candidates
and I think, I think one of the things we’re missing as, uh, Mr. Sal has pointed out and uh, uh, prior city council is we don’t have a park plan. I mean, we’re just sort of randomly placing trees and proposed, uh, uh, place structures, et cetera here, there and everywhere.
Chris Barhyte: Okay. So how about we do this? Um, oh, was someone a, Doug, did you have something?
Doug McLean: I was just gonna say, you know, the last time we had a park plan, it was told elaborate, but there was no way to do it. Part of the issues we run into also by having a master plan is that people to do it and how to fund it and things like that.
Um. I [00:52:00] almost think in a sense that a park committee, like sort of the gist was going a moment ago was to have one that is a group of people that has volunteered that we can have, you know, give input and like, get ideas from. Um, I don’t know if it’s as needed or as changes come along really. Um, and like you say, if they do have ideas that they wanna bounce off and send in, that’s great.
We can certainly talk about those and so can they.
Chris Barhyte: Okay, so here’s what we’ll do. Uh, we’re gonna take the application that we did that, that was sent out all and all we’re gonna have on there is name, phone number, address, email address. Why are you interested in the committee? What skills, training of interest qualify you for this position, if you want.
I mean, something like that. And then what past experience. That’s all we’ll have. Everything else on this form will be gone. Um. We won’t [00:53:00] require any age restrictions or anything on it right now. We’ll just send this out that we already have. Some people that have done, they would fill this out, that way we know their address.
Bring this list to the next meeting. If we think we, we could appoint some, if we have enough. Um, is that good with everybody to do that?
And we’ll use Bill’s idea and just make it just if the council wants to send them something to do or they decide they want to get together and have an idea. Okay. So I’ll get this to the city manager. I’ll change it just so it has these very basic things on it. Um, yep. And then we’ll send it out to the people who are interested and then try to get more people to join.
And
Bill Tuttle: then at some point in the future, like planning commission report, we can have park committee report as part of the standard agenda. I. Which may be, which may be nothing to report [00:54:00] a significant number of times.
Chris Barhyte: Right. Okay. So we don’t really need a vote on that. We’re just gonna move forward as we just talked about.
We’ll get that going. Okay. Uh, new agenda item. So, Lloyd Motor Park, we’ve had a few people bring up, um, a tree that was removed on the, uh, southwest corner in the park. Not tree a shrub. Uh, we think it’s a shrub is what I’m understanding from some people. But, uh, I don’t know if Annise or or Doug has anything to talk about on this.
Um, it, I mean, basically the next thing ties into this where we definitely need to do a protocol for anything that we’re doing in the park. I think what we just need to do is if there’s any work in the park, we, I mean, mow obviously you can do mowing, Rinking leaves, any of that. If there’s anything that, um.
We need to notify the city manager what’s gonna be done. Then she’ll, if, if she believes it’s [00:55:00] really maintenance, which would be ba basic maintenance in the sense of like, fix the, you know, if we have something broken that needs to be fixed, things like that. But any removal of things or planting of things or any work like that, we just need to, that needs to be brought up at the council level just to have a conversation about, uh, so this kind of ties into both one and two.
Uh, we, we don’t, there, there’s no doubt that there’s been things done at the park over the last 20 years where it just kind of happened. Um, and we just need to get, I guess, get that under control and make sure that we as a council know what’s going on and create goodwill with the residents so they’re, um, happy, not upset.
Um, so I mean, I think it’s important to, that it is a sensitive topic. Obviously parks are a sensitive topic, so we wanna make sure that everybody’s. Happy, um, and doesn’t feel like we’re doing things that cause bad will in the community. So, [00:56:00]
Bill Tuttle: uh, one, one of the issues I think is, uh, we’ve heard people say it’s a tree.
People say it’s a shrub. Uh, I don’t know that we’ve made a determination. Uh, you know, the usual, the, with the, since it was multi trunked, I think there’s a, uh, a method of, of determining, uh, if it was a tree or not. Uh, and I, I think, uh, some citizens, uh, we have had input from that. Think we should have applied for a permit before we removed it.
Uh, so.
Analeis Weidlich: So just to clarify, ’cause I, you know, I, I took all the pictures and everything. I went to the Clackamas, you know, extension service. They said it looks like a, a logo, pine shrub because of the way the trunk, it [00:57:00] didn’t have one trunk and then branched out. It was like multi branching off the bottom.
And they said a lot of it is that because of the way it was pruned through the years or it’s, it’s old or whatever. And also, um, on the pictures, they’re serious rod in every single trunk. So in reality, just from an arborist viewpoint on the shrub, is it, it was a rotted tree. I mean a rotted tree, a shrub, or whatever you wanna call it, it, all the trunks were rotted on the picture.
So, and they said they classified it as a mugo pine shrub is what the data that they gave me. So,
Alan Stonewall: well, I’m, I’m gonna ask who decided to cut it down? Did there’s a, we there, what we.
Chris Barhyte: Actually there wa there wasn’t a, we, I think there was a request. My understanding is there was a request on a branch that was hanging over the road, uh, and that branch was cut and there was, and I, I guess I can let Doug speak [00:58:00] to it, but I guess that branch was cut. There was some dry rot in there, had dry rot, but just rot, which caused the other three to get cut.
I look, I think I agree. We shouldn’t have, if there was one we took down because of safety over street, we should have just come back and said, Hey, we got some issues with this. What do you want to do? Um, it probably may have been the same outcome, but still the should be the protocol.
Alan Stonewall: Yeah, I think that’s the bigger issue.
There should have been some process, so somebody other than an individual should have decided that that tree should come down for whatever reason and is documented. And like you said, the result may have very well been the same, but it sure doesn’t look very good.
Doug McLean: Okay. Well to start with, it’s not a tree.
We, I looked at the city’s ordinance, uh, the tree cutting ordinance, the tree’s, definitions of a, the city’s definition of a tree. It does not meet the tree definition. [00:59:00] Um, also compare that to just what I looked up on the internet, a Google search as to what is defined as a tree. And it still didn’t meet that.
Um, I went down with the intention of cutting a branch that was hanging out over the street that was nine feet off the street level. And I cut that off. That was being hit by trucks going by any vehicle that was exceptionally tall at all. And once that one limb was cut off, there was also another one on the opposite side that was facing north.
That was hanging down far enough now that it was starting to create an obstruction of the view from people coming around the corners. Um, that one especially created an obstruction when you were coming down to wall mirror [01:00:00] to make a left hand turn onto Dogwood. Um, with that view of the obstruction of the view, that’s just not a safe situation to have on a corner of a park where kids are running around.
Um, the other one that, and both of those, when they, well, I should say yeah, both of those when they were removed, presented some serious rot in the centers of them. There was another one that I took off last year when the major boat ramp cleanup was being done. And I took it and put it into the pile to be disposed of that one.
It also leaned itself all the way down, so it was just a few feet off the ground. Um, and prior to that, there was another one that I had taken off. I can’t remember exactly when that was, but these are branches [01:01:00] that have been continually becoming lower and lower and lower. And it’s simply because the growth that’s on them is now at the very top of the branches.
And the weight of that is bringing them down closer to the ground where it’s obstructing the views. And a lot of that is because the center of that is now rotting out. There is no solid structure to continue to, to keep them up at some point. This had to be removed anyway because it was being, uh. Taken out, taken on its own.
It was just dropping and it, I guess it’s also kind of boils down to when do you do it? Um, is one thing.
Chris Barhyte: Well, I mean, I, I think, I think the point is though, going forward, we just need to have, nothing can really come out of a [01:02:00] park until it goes to the council and the council looks at it and comes to an agreement like, Hey, we have an issue with that tree that needs to be taken out.
Um, and then we, the council, I guess at that point would figure out, does it, is it a treat? Is it an arbor report? Is it a shrub? Uh, people would be in the public meeting so people would comment on it. Um, I just, I don’t know. It seems like it would just be better. I mean, there’s no doubt that, I mean, I’m looking at pictures of that tree from, or that shrub and it, it clearly leans out over the street.
I’m looking at it, I see the pictures of the, the rod in the, in the shrub, which I think people can see now if they go there and look. So, um, it’s just probably, it, it definitely shouldn’t have happened the way it did where we took it out without having a meeting.
Doug McLean: So there’s a prob that’s on a corner that’s blocking [01:03:00] visibility and it’s been continually leaning down and rotting away, and we have a thing in place to do park maintenance.
Um, you know, and in this, I had forwarded plenty of pictures on to Analeis ahead of time and explained, uh, let’s see.
Chris Barhyte: Yeah, look, I don’t, I think,
I think the biggest issue is we had, we had a branch that people were complaining about that was hanging over the road, that, that got removed. But I think the shocker is to everybody or some of the neighbors, is that the tree came down the rest of it. Now, I guess the, you know, the, the argument is that there was a good, you feel there was a good reason for that?
’cause the tree was, had significant [01:04:00] shrub, had significant rot, so you thought it needed to come down. So, um, I’m just saying going forward, we need to make sure that we let the citizens know that. So everybody’s up and we all agree that we have, I mean, this could be at any, I mean, there were a bunch of, as you know, when I first got on council, I think we took out a ton of trees down at the end of Dogwood on the east side.
We just, those got taken down also. Now no one. Complained about those. ’cause they weren’t really near anybody, but they got taken out without a council meeting also, and there were, I think 10 trees on a lot. City owned lot at the end of Dogwood on the east side of Dogwood. They were taken out. We ended up paying for those.
There was no permit. No, I mean this has been an ongoing issue that we need to just fix, um, to people. Right? I mean, I
Analeis Weidlich: think that, you know, at least my understanding is, is it would’ve never required a permit. It’s just, you know, good public steward to, you know, discuss it at city [01:05:00] council. I mean, I look at it from the city manager.
It was a public safety as well, because if there was, based on the pictures, there was a lot of rot. So a kid climbs on those trunks, down it goes. And then we have an accident with the kid because the trees or the tree shrub, whatever, everybody, the shrub, technically what they’re calling it is, it’s a hazard because now all of a sudden you have a trunk that falls.
Alan Stonewall: I mean, I’m gonna interject here from the planning commission standpoint. I’m not gonna make any decisions for the planning commission. Planning commission. We might have an emergency and something needs attention, but it’s not just one person looking at it. No offense, Doug, and deciding, I think this should be fixed.
It probably should be, but not universally, uh, unilaterally. If the decision of one council that’s not appropriate, nobody’s arguing whether it was a good decision or a bad decision. It was just an inter, it was just one that should not have been made unilaterally. That’s my objection.[01:06:00]
Bill Tuttle: Well, the address follow up on, on Alan’s perspective, I think, uh, this is, the park is not like a particular homeowner where, you know, uh, uh, one of the spouses can cut something down and the other one kind of gets angry. But like we said, the, the council needs to council or the. If it ever gets done, the park committee and the city arborists, uh, need to have some input on this.
So, uh, you know, uh, I think it, it, we can’t do some things unilaterally, uh, even though it may be in the best interest of safety or whatever. So, uh, I think the lack of communication was the issue here.
Chris Barhyte: Look,
I mean, look, I agree. So I think what we do is, uh, obviously there’s a [01:07:00] fine line on what maintenance is and what’s not maintenance. I mean, you make, there may be a branching over a play structure that can easily be cut as maintenance. There can be things done. I just think the, I think the bright line for us is just, uh, like Doug’s done a lot of good work on the ramp, blowing the leaves off, getting the mud off, um, a ton of good work.
So I’m not trying to take that away, but I just wanna make sure that we don’t step on ourselves and get a. In a position where, you know, all the good work gets washed away because we had this happen and it made, you know, a lot of people upset and we didn’t bring it up. So we want to just make sure that doesn’t happen.
Um, and so we just need to make sure that we already know that that doing work in that part causes community issues in the, is in the neighborhood. So we wanna make sure that we notify people and let ’em know what we’re gonna do. It doesn’t mean we won’t do have a park cleanup if we need one, but, um, you know, just, I guess let ’em know [01:08:00] and make sure everybody, as many people as can get on board and hopefully everybody gets on board with making decisions.
So I think that’s it. Does anybody else have any other comments?
Nothing. All right. That was super fun.
Uh. So, uh, council reports, I’m just gonna start at the very front of this as kind of being, I guess, the new mayor instead of going at the end. I just wanna say on communication, I have, I’ve seen a lot of emails in my two years on this council about communication decision process.
So just so you know, and I don’t want people to be frustrated. I, I actually won’t email a lot of people back when they send me emails. And you know what? I don’t actually feel bad about that because they become public documents. People get mad if they didn’t know some email went out and not everybody does.
So I prefer, I’ll tell everybody who I think at a meeting. I mean, if it’s a pretty easy email, I’ll send it, but I’m not gonna get into any kind of policy discussions on an email. And I would actually [01:09:00] encourage all of my fellow counselors to not get into any policy discussion emails, um, with anybody just because you cause issues where not everybody’s involved.
I personally think it should just all be done in a public meeting. Um, I mean, obviously you can answer some basic questions, but just going back and forth on policy can. It can really go. It’s not, it is, it’s public can be argued. It’s public record. So, um, I guess just when we have public meetings, bring your comments to the meeting and we can, if it ends up on a, uh, new agenda item, we can talk about it.
But I do think there’s a lot of things and some we’ve been actually pretty good about it. ’cause I, I know probably people think we do a lot of it, but there aren’t a lot of meetings going or things going back and forth where people are making decisions.
But on another note, there’s been some misinformation about counselors getting together.
We as a council can go to parties, we can interact with people, barbecues, we can do [01:10:00] things together. We just can’t talk city business. So if we’re at a neighborhood party and we’re talking about youth sports or we’re talking about what’s going with the high school, or we’re talking about. New construction, just kind of anything.
We can do any of that. This really goes for any, even the planning commission. We can talk about it. We just can’t have a side meeting. That’s what we can’t do. I remember when I first got people said we couldn’t have three of us together at any one time. That’s just not, that’s just not true. So, um, if you do see three people together at the park, it doesn’t mean that they’re making a decision.
It’s really the public meeting laws. You’re not supposed to make a decision without the public being involved. And so we, and we can’t have this deliberation on getting to a decision also in public. So I just kind of wanted to lay that out. ’cause I’ve, I’ve seen a lot of emails go around about that and people being frustrated that they think, uh, the, we had a previous mayor who said he couldn’t go to the neighborhood party because there would be three counselors there, and that’s just not true.
You can go to a neighborhood [01:11:00] party if I want to go over to, uh, counselor Tuttle’s, uh, beautiful Garden Show in the spring, and there’s other counselors there that’s not violating public media law. So. I think that’s important for everybody to understand that,
uh, go to Councillor McLean.
Doug McLean: No report.
Chris Barhyte: All right. I have nothing to, uh,
Councillor Tuttle.
Bill Tuttle: Nothing as Sergeant Schultz would say. Can you hear me?
Those of you that remember Sergeant Schultz.
Chris Barhyte: I do. I hear. Can you hear people hear me? Very good
Doug McLean: show.
Bill Tuttle: So Rachel’s up.
Yes. Chris, your video’s frozen. [01:12:00] I think we’ve lost him.
Bill Tuttle: Oh, okay. Well, as council president, I’ll ask, uh, councilor Schafer if she has anything to do. So
Rachel Schafer: well, I just have one comment. I, um, I just applaud the new Stark boat ramp sign. Um, looks great. I’m glad to see it return to its proper space and, uh, kudos to everyone who is involved and bringing that back in the restoration.
Bill Tuttle: That’s Byron Kibby. I don’t know if anybody helped him. Did you help him, Doug?
Doug McLean: Uh, no I did not. He, uh, did all that himself.
Analeis Weidlich: Hmm. Maybe Chris is back. He just texted and saying he lost his internet. Um, okay. So maybe he’s still working himself out. I’ll do the city manager report. So, uh, I have [01:13:00] reached out to Marissa, the webmaster slash email person. Um, I’m actually gonna take over the whole email system myself. The templates because I just kind of felt like it was inefficient to go to her with all the stuff, and then she creates it in MailChimp and then it goes out.
I might as well just plug it in myself to MailChimp. So I’m gonna start that transition over. Um, her and I are still working out because she actually had been building it on her own kind of professional service subscription. So we’ve gotta work out getting everything she’s done, transferred over to another, um, for me to do it on MailChimp for the city.
So, um, that’ll make it a lot more efficient and we don’t have to wait many, many days to get anything posted, um, on the website and everything else. So that’s, that’ll be nice progress.
Doug McLean: Yeah. Uh, that’ll be good.
Analeis Weidlich: Yeah. A lot better. So we can kind of get the communication going back again. Um, okay. Chris is still saying his internet’s down, so we just need to finish the meeting.
I [01:14:00] guess we’ve lost time. Yeah. I dunno if I’m Oh, you’re back now. You’re back. Oh
Chris Barhyte: yeah. I think you did your report. So, I mean, any, anything else? I guess we’re done. No executive session.
Analeis Weidlich: Yep.
Chris Barhyte: All right.
Analeis Weidlich: So the next we can actually just make a quick announce. When’s the next meeting? Uh, the 11th of March. Next meeting.
March 11th. Extra
Chris Barhyte: time. Okey doe That’s it, I guess. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank.