It was the promise of political drama that packed the house Tuesday evening at the Watonga City Council meeting, but the members accomplished much despite the distraction.
The assembled crowd of about 85 erupted in protest when the topics they were on hand to witness – the proposed censure of council member Neal Riley and the removal of community activist Marcus Wray from the volunteer board of adjustments – were moved to the end of the meeting rather than the 1-2 positions they held. Riley moved to strike the items entirely but was outvoted and the items sent to the end of the agenda.
After hearing the financial report from Dacia Phillips of RS Meacham, the city’s accountants, the council heard a variety of items discussed to address the concerns of citizens.
First up was a requested review of the budget to determine whether the city could reopen roll-off dumpsters for the use of the public.
That option ended in June when a combination of construction at the water treatment plant and elimination of funding closed the gates at the convenience center.
The proposal was brought by Riley, who asked the accounting firm bring back the estimated costs to reopen the roll offs, perhaps at another location. They would not be free of charge, but instead user paid. He also asked that those proposed costs be compared to the cost to reopen the city transfer station.
Acting city manager Justin Woldridge told Riley the city was looking at options already to determine the most cost-effective. Mayor Ryan Bruner asked Phillips and Woldridge to come back to the council in November “With as many options as you can come up with.”
Riley also asked the city to consider changing the brush and limb pickup too once per quarter. The weeks that would be freed from limb pickup could then be diverted to picking up bulk items instead. That notion was tabled to be reconsidered when the roll-off suggestion had been fully investigated.
One of the most pressing matters for the community was addressed by a proposed ordinance change.
Previously, a property could not be considered for placement of a mobile/ manufactured/modular home except on request of the owner. That meant no one could find out if a lot was eligible for modular placement until it was purchased. Additionally, city ordinance required the home to be owner-occupied, eliminating the potential for rental income.
Michelle Mendenhall, who serves as vice chair of planning and zoning, suggested the ordinance be updated to reflect the verbiage used by the federal department of Housing and Urban Development. Further the ordinance would be modified so that placement of a modular home was requested and approved by the code enforcement office rather than city council. When council approval was required, it was not unusual for the process to take months. Mendenhall pointed out moving the approval process to code enforcement improved speed and transparency. If a placement was denied, she said, the property owner could appeal the decision.
HUD verbiage requires placement to be ‘commensurate with the surrounding neighborhood.’
She also noted that more rental housing that was affordable would help the city because there would be additional utility revenue generated.
Riley supported the measure, as did multiple other council members.
“There are house that have burned and need to be torn down and others that need to be torn down,” he said. “This is affordable housing. With 400 jobs coming in here I’m hoping to get 30 or 40 families to move here.” The measure passed handily.
When it came back to the proposed censure, Riley requested the floor. He called the proposal a conflict of interest and a miscarriage of staff neutrality because the city clerk had sent information about a public records request to council member Debbie McGee, who requested the censure. Riely said there had been no notice of the censure, no investigation of the allegations and no chance for him to respond before the council member packet was delivered. In his opinion, his First Amendment rights had been violated, leaving the city open to a lawsuit.
McGee, for her part, said Riley had violated the council code of ethics by sharing an image of a city check with Wray, who posted it online. Giving the information to those who did not request it was a violation.
Riley rebutted that public information was public and therefore releasing it posed no violation.
Further, he argued, it was the job of the keeper of records – in this instance the city clerk – to redact any information that should not be made public, such as checking account numbers.
At that point city attorney Jared Harrison waded into the fray, suggesting that once a public record has been released, there is no chain of custody implied and it can be viewed by any member of the public. Further, he said, those who would attempt to infiltrate the city bank accounts would use a more sophisticated method.
McGee said she just didn’t want to get the city sued, to which Riley roared “You’re doing a very bad job, then.”
In the end, Riley again moved to strike the two items from the agenda. Both Bruner and council member Howard Hursh, who had voted nay on the previous vote to strike, changed their votes to aye and the items were struck from the agenda, meaning they would not be voted on.