Council debates MOU change requiring notice when developers hold public engagement meetings

Council members on Feb. 3 debated proposed wording changes to the city’s economic development memorandum of understanding to clarify how and when the council should be notified about developer- or administration-hosted community engagement meetings before a development agreement is reached.

The proposed addition to item 1 would require that “if there are any public engagement opportunities by the proposed developer and/or the administration before a development agreement is reached, council and the council clerk shall be notified in advance of such a meeting.” The author of the change also added a parenthetical advising councilors not to participate in those meetings to avoid inadvertent deliberation and to preserve the city’s negotiating position on pending deals; council discussion expanded to include whether the clerk should receive separate notice (the clerk was added to item 6) and how notice should be transmitted.

Supporters said the notice requirement would prevent council members from inadvertently missing outreach and would create a uniform channel for communication. Several council members noted scenarios in which developers request small, neighborhood‑focused meetings that explicitly ask elected officials not to attend; the council debated whether notice in that circumstance should still be provided and whether the administration should pass along a developer’s request that councilors not attend. Participants suggested an administrative minimum for notice—direct email to the clerk—so the clerk can forward or post the notice to all councilors rather than relying on a city e‑news blast alone.

Members expressed two separate concerns: (1) that multiple council members attending an informal meeting could constitute a quorum or an improper serial discussion; and (2) that early comments by councilors could affect negotiations for a pending development. Councilors asked for clarity about expectations when a developer initiates outreach directly with a single council member and about reciprocal obligations if a councilor meets privately with a developer.

Staff said the city will attempt to notify council and the clerk of any such public engagement and that developers who host a private or narrowly targeted meeting (for example, with immediate neighbors) may instruct the host list; councilors asked that any such instruction also be communicated to the clerk so the council can understand whether non‑attendance is at the host’s request. No formal vote was taken; councilors directed staff to produce a redline of the MOU language and agreed to circulate a word version for review.