April 7th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Thank you.

That's okay.

Hello, everyone.

Welcome to the April 7th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Thank you for joining us and adjusting schedule so we can attend the grand opening celebration of the new Hillsborough Hops ballpark this evening.

To begin this meeting, I invite you to join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mark will display the flag on the screen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under liberty and justice roll.

Thank you.

Amber, can we please have a roll call?

Yes.

Mayor Pace?

Here.

Councilor Alfair.

She's absent the teaching.

She's absent this evening, yes.

Excuse.

Counselor St.

Clair?

Here.

Counselor Case?

Here.

Counselor Harris?

Here.

Counselor Amory.

Here.

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

Thank you very much.

Okay, so uh we have a limited agenda this evening on our next person or next in-person public comment time will take place during the April 21st City Council meeting, and we will jump straight to the consent agenda.

Items on the consent agenda are normally considered in a single motion, and any item may be removed for separate consideration upon request by any member of the council.

Is there a request to remove any items for separate consideration?

I'm so sorry.

Okay, you good?

No, can you say that again, Mayor?

Is there a request to remove any items for separate consideration?

Uh pertaining to consent to the consent agenda.

No.

Okay, great.

Um all right.

Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved case.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Uh second hares.

Is there any discussion?

Please have a roll call.

Counselor Case.

Hi.

Counselor Ambry.

Aye.

Counselor St.

Clair?

Aye.

Counselor Harris.

Aye.

Excellent.

The motion passes.

Um moving to item seven, new business, consider adopting a resolution revising the city council rules and repealing resolution number 2876, resolution number 2913 is available.

Do I have a motion to adopt resolution number 2913?

So move case.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Is there any discussion?

Yes.

Um, I would like to request that we remove both 7.1 and 7.2 from the agenda.

Um, and have a continuance on May 5th, uh, to where our public can be together.

I initially said the 21st, but per talking with uh Chad Jacobs, he suggested the fifth for me to suggest the fifth.

Um I know we have our council retreat and discussed items on rules of con uh council rules and conduct during meetings, but both resolutions in my mind contradict one another when it comes to um complete staff reports and consensus from council, and then I very much feel like it it censors the council.

Um I would like to make a suggestion recommendation that we have a continuance.

May I ask how it censor how you believe it censors the council.

Yeah, so if you look at 2913, excuse me, I apologize, 2914 uh agreement three mandates to assume positive intent or maintain decorum are highly subjective and can easily be weaponized to silence innovative solutions or sharp necessary questions.

Um sorry.

I'm so sorry.

I have quite a few notes.

I'm so sorry, I'm off.

Um decision making incomplete information.

So 2914.

Could you which one are we looking at now?

I'm sorry.

Number five on my notes that I shared with council today.

Okay.

Decision making with incomplete information.

Resolution 2914 item four.

Item four.

Yeah.

Resolution 2914 item four encourages making decisions even when information is incomplete or uncertain.

However, resolution 2913G dot one and q dot three a restricts the very questioning and deliberation needed to address those gaps.

It is inconsistent to ask counselors to navigate uncertainty while similar while simultaneously limiting the tools like open dissent and critical inquiry required to resolve it.

So for instance, when we had the resolution, excuse me, our priorities for state priorities and SB 1586.

I'm using as an example.

So would this then limit counsel in for myself to dissent?

Even though we didn't have language before us prior to making that consensus.

So then would I be limited as a counselor to say to the public X, Y, and Z.

Because as a council, we all have consensus together at voting that said yes, even though I disagree and didn't have the full language, I perceive it to be different.

I don't believe that it would um make it so you couldn't say that.

Is that correct, Chad?

That she could Yeah.

So I believe when you're talking about Q3, um, the language that is in Q3 is currently in the council rules, right?

And so what that language says is that when you're appearing in certain situations, so when you're appearing before another government organization, you're appearing before a community organization or appearing before the media, you need to first state what the city's official position is, and then you can state what your position is.

So in the example that you are providing, you could say the city council reached a consensus to support Senate Bill 1586, but I oppose Senate Bill 1586 for these reasons.

So it wouldn't preclude you from saying that.

It would first just require you to say what the city's official position was.

Yeah.

And so in addition to that.

Well, wait, on that issue though, you can say right.

You can say but what I'm concerned about in the languages, for instance, this council was in new council less than two years ago with four new people.

That will happen again in two years from now.

And that to me groomed these two resolutions that I'm asking to be tabled to have further thought on it and include the public and that to provide testimony.

I believe that it grooms our council to further not dissent on if they oppose uh specific agenda items.

All of these stat together that I gave as an example in my email, I believe that it creates a culture of censoring us as a council.

Even though you can say what you want to say.

Well, that was one item.

That was one example because in the retreat, it was used as an example of being disrespectful as a council to go before another governing body opposing our city.

But you can still do it.

Yes, you can.

But what I'm saying to you, it's you can.

So that was an example.

That was one example.

It contradicts because in staff reports, we don't always get all the information.

And you're right, I can still say it.

But what I'd like to further understand is what are the consequences if a counselor is confused and they don't state it because they're not sure what the city's position is on it, and they didn't receive all the information prior to trying to communicate with the public.

So the council has the ability to enforce its own rules.

And so part of that process is a public reprimand if the council chose to do that.

Um, I would think that in most situations, at least in my experience, uh, the council reprimands come in situations where there was sort of like a willful violation of a rule and not just because someone was confused.

Having said that, you know, I think if someone says that I'm confused, I'm confused, I'm confused all the time, the rest of the counselors may get frustrated with that and still may do a public reprimand.

So we don't know for certain, it's really up to the council as a body in the future as to whether to what extent they think enforcing the rules through a public reprimand versus some other mechanism would make sense.

I would sort of like look at it to add to that.

I would sort of look at like this like a lawyer, I guess.

And um, there's the act and there's the mental state, like what was the intent, what was the intent at the time, like if you accidentally walk out of a grocery store with a hamburger with a with a deli sin, which you forgot about it.

That's not a crime, right?

Because even though you took it removed from the store, you didn't have any intent.

And I would all these notes that you made, and I looked at them this afternoon.

I would definitely number one, I any anything that restricts someone's speech, I would construe extremely narrowly to apply.

And uh secondly, uh, I would say, like, like our attorney did that uh for me personally, I can't speak for others.

Uh, there would have to be an intentional nature of violation of these rules, not an act and or an oversight.

I actually sent a letter to um the legislature during a hearing about the uh jobslash farm act.

And um I I neglected to put in there that I am representing you know, I only represent this is my opinion on the council.

I neglected to do that.

Um technically, someone could look at that and say, ha ha, there it is violation rules, but it's unintentional.

Um, and uh and I didn't say I represented the city.

So I think anyone looking at this would construe it extremely narrowly.

You could always come up with a scenario.

Well, why can't I do that?

Because maybe I couldn't do this under the rules, but I think as a body, I was I would guess that we're all going to construe it relatively narrowly.

Um, and these have been pretty much from what I understand the language in our rules, even though I wasn't here for some time, and I don't know, I haven't been here, but no one's made a motion to censor anybody for anything they've done.

Not that your concerns are about, by the way, but in a lot of times you're looking at these rules and statutes or whatever happens to be, and you can come up with a scenario or or an example, but in real life, it's probably not gonna happen.

Not that we shouldn't fine-tune it necessary.

I get that.

Um but I'm and obviously I'm gonna say what I want to say.

Um, but notes taken, but I I I don't I don't share your concerns about this language sense.

And I I appreciate everyone giving me uh space to voice these concerns.

And I'm sorry, I came in hot because the transition, I wasn't used to the transition over here, like it in there.

Um for resolution 2019 13, the extraterritorial that is a new rule.

Uh that I have concern about.

How does that play out in other government aspects?

Because we have intergovernmental agreements.

Clarify uh, that one's not a new rule.

It's been in there for many years as well.

And I think going back again, that predates me.

Um I think, and I think other cities usually have something like that in there.

And the the point of that rule is that the city council should be focused on city business, not to say we don't talk about things that are state we do all the time, right?

But our focus is typically going to be of our meetings and our agenda items is going to be city related items.

Otherwise, we could be meeting and talking about county and state things all the time because there's always things going on.

But that language has been there for a long time, and that's that was the intent of putting it in there, my understanding originally.

Yeah.

And so why is this coming back up now?

It's just part of the council rules.

So the council is the council's adopting the council rules because there were a couple of changes made to the council rules.

This was not one of them.

And I think that's what I find most confusing is that we've been serving under these rules for years, and you have as well.

And um, we sat in um, you know, in the retreat, and we discussed all of these, and we all agreed to these.

And then from February to April, nothing was brought up.

And then two hours before this meeting, that's when you bring it up.

And so I was just a little confused because it's they've been in the council rules for years.

And I just I'm like, why now?

Also, it hasn't dissuaded you or others from speaking out against it.

You you did.

So what I'm what I'm concerned about right now is that yes, we did talk about things at the retreat.

Okay.

Uh to me, it was more about the conduct of counsel to one another while we're in meetings, and it wasn't so much focused on a resolution.

Uh more this feel this feels to me like the resolution is being created.

And I'm gonna be honest, to put me in check is what it feels like.

Or someone like me who has dissent, but it's been on the rules for years.

So what I'm wanting clarification on, right?

So exactly.

So why are we focused on this again?

What is there an additional consequence of following these rules?

Yeah, I could I answer that, Mayor.

So um, so every um you mentioned, you know, we get a new council in, you know, in January.

We always go through this and the new council will go through these rules and adopt them because they're your rules, how you want to come, you know, uh interact with each other.

Anytime we make a change to that rule, we have to bring it back to council for adoption because we're changing it.

So that that's and we do that by resolution.

So we do this every time.

So there's no, this is just the same process that we've always used anytime we're going to adopt council rules that have a change.

In this case, I think there were only a couple of changes that actually came into the council rules.

One was um uh when you uh communicate with city manager, but this one that you're referring to, this one has been there and in there for a long time.

So there was this is just the mechanism that we always use to bring it to council because you all have to approve these council rules, and that's why it's through a resolution.

Anything else you wanted to add on that, Chad?

Yeah, I think it's just important to stress the one point that Robbie made is that um, you know, we typically bring these rules back to every council to review and you all can review these at any time you want as well.

So to the extent that you know there's a rule in here, whether it's been in here for a long time or if it's language that we're just changing, and you all as a body say, you know, this just isn't working for us, these are your rules, so you can change them whenever you want.

And so you could add this to a future agenda and say we'd like to really go back and discuss rule Q3 or whatever it is that you want to discuss because we just don't think it's working for us.

So, you know, this is not something that is set in stone, it's not something that's binding on future councils.

It's not frankly even binding on you all in the future.

You can make that change.

Um but what it is meant to do is provide an opportunity for you all to come together and say, as a council, we agree that these are the standards we're going to hold ourselves to.

So when people aren't adhering to those standards, you can call them on it because they've agreed to adhere to those rules.

And so that's why we always bring it back for every council to address.

So it's not something that they're saying, well, I never agreed to abide by those rules.

We want everyone to basically say, yes, we've agreed to this.

Okay.

All right.

Any other discussion?

I want to again echo our attorney, I guess, in that um, you know, I wouldn't be adverse, uh, Council Sinclair, if you wanted to create some alternative language and bring it to us in the future.

But there's a lot of stuff in here that's not, I don't think you have a problem with that's important for us to run our meetings.

And so my preference uh and what I won't be sucking your your request is that um we adopt these, and then you can work on some language and we can do a work session on that if you think, if you want to.

Um, and we can go over it in detail, particularly, I guess, as you go forward.

Because I know we're at some issues where there's some major issues that we don't necessarily all agree on here, and um more than willing to listen to improve this to make sure that everyone's rights to speak out on their personal opinions is guaranteed.

But I would just like to my desire would be to pass these things now and then work on that next work session or however long it takes you to um offer some alternative amendment language for us.

I think that's a good compromise.

I um I'm open to that.

I I know that I don't see I'm not in agreement on certain topics within our community.

Um can you before we say yes though, move on with the vote?

What items are new here that I brought up to of concern in my one through five in my email concern which ones are new?

Yeah.

So for the depend on certain mining.

So based on what I saw, uh Council Sinclair, I when I looked at your sorry, I don't have your email up, but numbers two, three, and four, those were items that are in the council rules that were already in the council rules.

So there's no changes.

We're not proposing any changes, they've been in there, my understanding for years.

Um, the number numbers one and five, and I don't remember what those were specifically.

I think those has to do with the group agreements.

Yeah.

The non-undermining gag order.

And again, that was we base those as a reminder off of our equity leadership uh council that kind of put together just trying to create some uh ways for that equity leadership council to talk openly about challenges, right?

And be willing to talk about hard things.

And so that's why we use this as a basis for the council retreat.

So numbers one and five, those are new because those are just group agreements that you all talked about at the council retreat of how to interact and treat each other in those conversations.

Two, three, and four are ones that were in the council rules already.

So there's no changes on those.

But the one and five.

The one and five are new because they're part of the uh group agreements.

Okay.

Okay, counselor Harris.

Can I make a recommendation that the staff send all of the counselors a red light version of the items were changed from last year?

So we're all aware of what it is, and then we take a vote on these two resolutions, and then the counselor see any counselor can go ahead and if they want to make some recommendations going forward to do an amendment to what we talked today, that'd be my recommendation.

Yeah, yeah, I'm okay with that.

I'm okay with that.

Okay, and were there was there a comment from you, Counselor Ambry or Counselor Sergado?

No, I was just obviously okay.

Great.

Clarifying question.

I mean, I think I was good to approve them, and you know, because we were all at the retreat, but you know, going back and rereading them after uh counselor sinclair's uh questions.

I just want to clarify uh, you know, there's a word in there called undermine counselors avoid actions that would undermine the council's adopted direction.

So I'm hoping that you know we could just talk about what that means so it goes on the record because that's something that could be misinterpreted by different people about undermining means.

And so as somebody who's an advocate and likes to engage the community, I want to be cognizant of what what we mean by that, because uh if I you know, just so I wonder if we can have that conversation or if there's a definition that we have somewhere we can use.

Um I don't have a definition off the top of my head, but um uh I'm wondering if we can move forward with these and then get back to you, counselor Salgado, about the definition of undermined.

Is that work for you?

I got a thumbs up from you.

Okay.

Do you mind acknowledging verbally that that's okay?

That is okay, but the reason that I'm bringing it up because it's one of those words that can be interpreted depending on who you are, right?

And where you're at.

The fact that we're we're saying we're acknowledging that diversity is important, that a difference in opinions and perspectives is important.

So we need to have that protection in place and make sure that we all understand what we mean by undermining.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you for saying that.

All right, so I have a second that's I have a first and a second on 7.1.

We've had a discussion.

May I please have a roll call?

Counselor's case.

Hi.

Andrew, that's yeah, hi.

Sinclair.

Hi.

Hi.

Salgato.

Hi.

Resolution number two nine one three is adopted.

Moving to item 7.2, consider adopting a resolution adopting the city council group agreements.

Resolution number two nine one four is available.

Do I have a motion to adopt resolution number two nine one four?

So move case.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Is there any discussion?

We've kind of already had it.

Okay.

Um, but pausing.

Okay.

May I please have a roll call.

Counselor's case.

Hi.

Anbury.

Hi.

Sinclair.

Hi.

Harris.

Hi.

Sellado.

Hi.

Thank you.

Resolution number two nine one four is adopted.

Moving to item 7.3.

Consider finance committee's recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the qualifying properties for the nonprofit owned affordable housing property tax exemption program for the 2627 tax year.

Resolution number 2915 is available.

Do I have a motion to adopt resolution number two nine one five?

So move case.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second, Harris.

Thank you, thank you.

Oh, we got second from Harris.

But thank you, Counselor Amory, for jumping in.

I appreciate that.

Is there any discussion?

Yes.

Oh no, I'm gonna abstain, but we need to explain the extension.

So do we do it during the discussion or after the vote?

Uh right now.

Well, actually, no, during the vote, right?

Yeah, during the vote.

During the vote.

So hold hold tight, please.

Um, may I please have a roll call?

Counselor's case.

Hi.

Annary.

Hi.

Sinclair.

Hi.

Harris.

Sorry.

Salgato.

Abstain.

And can you state your reason why you're abstaining?

I feel like this is a really important decision that we're making as a city council.

We've had uh housing 101, we've had a lot of one-on-ones, and I feel like this is a very important topic that we should have covered in the one on ones, and we should have gone through the process of how this is done.

Because I I went through a couple of the documents, and one of the things that I noticed is that they're not completely uniform.

We're asking questions, uh, but there's no way to like prove that that's the case.

And so I have to be mindful of what's going on in places like the city of Portland.

You're seeing a situation where you have affordable housing uh property managers that have empty uh you know, housing, they have over a thousand units empty.

And one of the main drivers for that is that the market rate apartments are more affordable than the affordable apartments.

So I feel like there's this is a uh this is an opportunity for the city council to influence that trend.

And so that's why I'm gonna abstain from that because I feel like we needed more time to discuss this and go through that.

And I don't feel like we I have enough information to vote yes or no on.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh, we still have we'll go to resolution number two nine one five is adopted.

Thank you, Councilor Salgato.

I'll turn it over to Robbie Hammond.

Do you have a city manager?

No city manager for today.

All right, and then uh we will not be reading the proclamations listed under advice and information, but I'd like to acknowledge Arab American Heritage Month, Fair Housing Month, Volunteer Week, and Arbor Day.

Thank you very much for all coming to the meeting or all of you coming to the meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for me.