Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Procedure Notice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates expanding notice radius, agenda bundling and remote participation rules
Summary
Board members and staff discussed whether to expand mailed notice from 300 to 500 feet, the feasibility of bundling or rescheduling single-item agendas, and rules around remote participation after a city commission resolution; staff said ordinance changes would take time and staff tries to bundle when possible.
Board members used a short meeting largely devoted to a single case to raise procedural questions about public notice, agenda management and remote participation rules.
One board member said the city currently requires mailed notice to property owners within a 300-foot radius and asked whether the radius could be expanded to 500 feet to reach more stakeholders. "Right now, we we require a project to send letters of the North South to a 300 foot radius... Can we expand that to 500?" the member asked. Board members and staff noted that many interested people who attended a recent meeting were located beyond the 300-foot radius and that site posting and direct notice practices vary across bodies.
City staff told the board it actively tries to bundle items and will ask applicants to move to another meeting if they are the only item on an agenda, but that applicants and state timelines can limit rescheduling. Staff said changing the notice rules or city code would require an ordinance change and a multi-step process that could take about two years.
Members also asked about participation by telephone or video. Staff noted the city commission has passed a resolution allowing members to participate through communication technology for certain matters but said the board must meet the procedural requirements included in that resolution and ensure an in-person quorum or required forum is present for public hearings.
Board members discussed posting physical signs at project sites to increase public awareness, noting some advisory bodies and associations found mailed notices did not reach all members. No formal changes to policy were enacted during the meeting; the discussion produced staff direction to continue bundling agendas where feasible and to confirm notice and posting practices with applicants.
