So with that, next.

Next slide, please.

So I think tonight we're really seeking feedback from the council on next steps regarding the police facility.

Next slide.

Not going to go through all of those.

The most key one that I would mention is in May of 2025 after alternatives analysis and needs assessment, etc.

We we had a ballot, uh 34-343, and it was not successful.

It was a 47.75 to no 52.25.

Next slide.

So the results of the county elections.

This is just to kind of inform the conversation that the council may have afterwards, is both of those levies were approved.

They were replacement levies.

Normally we ballot the local option levy three cycles ahead of when it expires.

It expires in May, or excuse me.

It expires in June 30th of 2028.

So normally we would ballot for the local option levy in May of 2027.

That would leave two election cycles in November and then the following May, if it was not successful.

That really leaves kind of two election cycles prior to the city levy.

That's uh May of 2026 of next year and then November of next year.

Another consideration, and we do have a timeline, and we can go over that as well.

But uh there was some money that was put into the budget for polling, approximately 25,000.

Typically, you want to try and do a poll as close to the election as you can.

Sometimes you may want to do successive polls, so you may want to do a poll to see when you may want to put it on the ballot, and then depending on when you make that decision, you may want to do another poll to see what it is closer to the election.

For example, for both the public safety and the library levies that were recently passed by the county, each of those were polled a minimum of twice for both of those local option levies.

Next slide.

So if you look at potential timelines, part of the reason we're having this conversation tonight is if you look at either May or November of next year, and if you assume that it takes approximately eight weeks to do polling, then that really kind of puts us to tonight.

If you want to look at potentially the May election, if you want to look at the November election of next year, then that puts the timeline out a little bit further.

Any questions about that timeline?

Okay.

So is Jeff Humphreys available.

If he's not, I think the chief and I know the improvements well enough, we might be able to go through them.

If you can maybe bring up McKinsey's presentation, by way of background, McKinsey is our architect.

They've been the architect on this project from day one.

Um of the things that I would mention prior to getting into this is this really is a conversation about what we call value engineering.

Value engineering is a way to try and see if you can reduce the resource requirement for the project you have without reducing the functionality of the facility that you have.

Um next slide, please.

So this is the draft concept for the police station.

Next slide.

So I don't know that we need to go into that.

Umry, did you want to mention anything about your chief?

Excuse me.

Right.

I would mention that the outside envelope of the building has reduced in square footage through the alternatives analysis, through the needs assessment, and then through the concept and all the way up to 35% design.

The facility envelope has been reduced from 27,000 to approximately 22,000, which or 21,500, which is the same envelope that was ballotted in the May election square feet.

Next slide.

So again, this is just looking at the same building that we had before, really no changes to it.

Um the building design life was really geared toward a 40-year building, and so assuming when the construction dates, so if it gets constructed, say in 2026 or 2028, you can add 40 years to that.

Uh, we are currently at is it 48 years for the existing facility?

Yeah, almost 50 years in our existing facility.

Our existing facility by way of comparison is about 12,500 square feet.

This new facility would be approximately 21,500 square feet.

Next slide.

That's just a rendering of what the outside would look like.

Next slide.

And that would be the east side of the building.

That should be Birch Street going north south.

Correct.

That's just a different kind of coloring and look.

So this one, if is there any way to zoom that slide?

I was gonna say, can you read that for all of us who that's really small?

Don't have it.

So the main part to kind of focus on.

Oh, okay.

And is what do you want us to get out of that slide?

There's two things that I want to, if he's still not available, that's fine.

We we got this.

There's a couple things to take away from this slide.

If you could scroll to the previous slide, I apologize.

The previous slide, if you wouldn't, right?

There you go.

So the overall cost of the project.

If you when we balloted, we balloted for 29,000, 29 million, excuse me, uh 500,000.

Staff and the architect after the uh ballot was not successful.

We went through a pretty extensive value engineering process, and that value engineering process was designed to reduce the cost of the facility, especially in light of some of the recent inflationary pressures, which would push the cost upwards, should the council want to ballot it in the near future.

And so part of staff's goal was just to look at this and there was see if there was anything from a value perspective that we may not be able to take that we may be able to take out of the building and reduce the cost and try to, in essence, kind of make up for some of those inflationary pressures that we were seeing to the cost.

So the total project cost, if if you look at it was 31 million dollars.

Um I want to focus on the next slide, which is the total construction costs, and this is really where the value engineering kind of comes into play.

Um yeah.

So when you look at just the construction costs, it's approximately 23 million.

All the other costs are your design costs, your contingency costs, etc.

If you go to the next slide, please.

So we had some concerns during the um during the ballot measure about the cost per square foot.

And one of the questions was why was the cost per square foot?

I believe it was in excess of a thousand dollars.

Uh and so we just wanted to provide some comparisons for the council and for the community uh about what it does look like and what some recent projects that have come in and what their potential costs are.

Uh if you look at all these ones from left to right, it's anywhere from 885 all the way up to 1,084.

Uh currently the Forest Grove Police Station is coming in pretty much in the median, which is approximately 980 dollars uh per square foot, and that's assuming a 21, uh 845 uh square foot building.

Next slide, please.

So if you could back up, I must have missed something.

I wish Jeff was here.

Yeah, one more, please.

No, one forward.

No, go back to the cost.

Sorry.

There we go.

Next slide.

Okay.

So if you look at the bottom portion of this slide, those were some of the value engineering things that staff was proposing for the council.

Part of the consensus that we wanted to see if the council would reach tonight was whether to accept these value engineering additions, I guess you could say, which would really be subtractions in the cost.

Uh, and if the council was okay with that, the next conversation would be potentially timing of when to do uh a poll to potentially inform when when uh when another ballot may be.

So to go through these really quick, um, and and Chief Ryman, please add anything here as we go through these.

But really, if you look at the alternates one through six, those are really the alternates that we looked at to try and reduce the cost of the project.

So uh the metal decking is a level of finish that was present on the inside of the facility.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it was on some of the corridor walls as well as on the roof, and this would replace that with a different type of uh finish, a lower cost finish.

Um from a look and feel perspective, it would have very similar to the same look and feel, it's just a different type of material than was previously proposed.

The library parking lot update.

Um that's um in terms of looking at that, that's actually a project ad uh that's 139,000.

What we're finding with the parking lot is some of the stormwater requirements uh have increased, and so we're looking at some additional costs in that area.

Uh but if you look at the next three, it's really the exterior facade.

We were looking at some different changes.

Chief, you may want to help me out on this one, but it was going from more of a um, if I recall correctly, not a stucco is not the right word, um, but a different panel on the outside.

And the panel was uh a pretty heavy panel, and that panel required some additional support.

We would be going to a lighter panel.

The look, feel, and finish would remain very similar to what it is now, just a different type of panel.

Did you want to add anything, Chief?

No, I think the rounding changes really a couple things.

The next two are pretty self-explanatory.

The bullet resistant glazing was uh a conversation that we had at length.

What we're really looking at there is previously the windows were full length uh bullet glazing, and this would actually bring some of the windows down from a perspective that if if there was a shooter type incident, the angle of the bullet, if it did end up going through the glass, would not be able to impact anybody, it would simply go into the roof.

So, in other, in other words, the window, the bullet glazing comes down some, but the angle would be sufficient or such that it would not impact the safety of the officers.

Yeah, so we need to do the whole bullet.

Chief, is your microphone on okay?

Let's make sure it's on because for the people streaming it at home.

Just flip the switch.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mayor.

You want me to repeat that?

No, that's right.

And then the last one was just secure parking fencing.

There was a reduction and change in the fencing type, and it's a approximately 150,000.

So if you would, Mariah, could you please go to the last slide again?

So I guess what staff was looking for from council was one, if there's a consensus to accept the value engineering improvements that staff is proposing.

I think we believe it doesn't affect the functionality of the building in any way.

Um it will have minimal cosmetic impacts, and it will have at least in our estimation, no impacts on the longevity of the building.

It's just a different type of finish.

Can I ask a quick question?

Please.

How long is this quote good for?

There is a contingency factor that's built into it.

Um, I think a lot of it is going to depend on economic conditions, of course, and when we would go to bid, but I do believe there's a contingency factor in this that may I'm trying to remember what Jeff said, if it was going to be good for 12 months, I think it was good for six to twelve months.

I thought it was a little higher than that, but I think a construction time was in 2027.

Okay, let me just put it this way.

That's good.

Is this quote going to be the same quote in November of 2026?

Yes, it should be.

Okay, so regardless if we go May or November, it's the same quote.

Yeah, yeah, because it assumes the same construction start time, and the estimates are based on the construction start time, not the ballot time.

Thank you.

Next slide, Mariah if you would please.

Any other questions?

Are you guys done or no?

Do you have more?

Staff report is done.

I think what we were looking for was a consensus on the improvements, and then also a conversation about when to potentially do some polling that could inform uh potentially about it okay.

So let's talk about the recommendations for the reduction in cost.

Are there well first of all?

Are there any questions for staff?

Councillor Guston.

Thank you.

I just have one, and we might have talked about this.

There we go, um, at previous meetings, but is there a way to uh build a new facility that isn't as expansive and use the current facility to accommodate some of the things that would be in one entire building and make sure that the facility that is built is expandable.

Just throwing that out there.

I'm not sure if that would be even feasible or more economic.

You want me to answer that, Jesse?

So when we did our initial analysis, the cost to upgrade our building or add on to the current building was equal to the cost of a brand new building, just because that much infrastructure needed to be done.

In regards to expanding the new building, we would probably be able to expand the second floor by about 1500 square feet, if not more.

So what I'm saying is, and what maybe you're saying, I want to make sure we're saying the same thing.

Would it cost more or not work out if we were to build the new facility smaller for now and be able to expand that later when we have more funds and just utilize the current building for some of the space that we would need in a full-size new building?

So this might be a Jeff question, but my understanding is the footprint has to be the footprint.

So we couldn't shorten the footprint and go up two stories because then we start running into infrastructure problems in regarding to expanding the base footprint.

So we can go up, expand up versus trying to build a shorter platform and then expanding that entire section.

So when, and just to review, like years and years ago when council was initially looking at our options, building like an annex, like that was an option to like renovate the current station, get it up to code, and then having an annex, and it was just as costly, if not more to do that.

I think that's why the direction was for a new building completely.

No, no, yeah, yeah.

I'm talking about building a new building, but for instance, just for an example, we build a new building without a second floor.

And whatever we were, whatever things, spaces that you could put in the current building as it is now and spend less on the new building until we have additional funds.

Two things.

I don't know if it's even possible.

And the the other thing is is it gonna save us any money, right?

Yeah.

Counselor Falconer.

Counselor Falconer.

Uh a couple thoughts about that.

I'm wondering, you know, money doesn't money, it's not going to become less expensive to build.

So I think we're just sort of borrowing a more expensive problem down the line.

It also doesn't give us the benefit of being able to surplus the existing building.

And I understand we could, you know, we could either sell it or and this may be getting a little bit down the road and ahead of this conversation.

Um but I'm wondering if you know, some of the concern that I heard from voters is, you know, why are we doing this?

What you know, what would and I think that the current building could actually prompt a more a bigger conversation about, well, here's what you know, here's what the possibilities are with the existing space if it's not housing the police station.

So I think kind of twofold might like my reaction to that is you know, we can't really even assume that we can afford to expand the you know, the building, the new building that we build, because it might end up costing us more because I think adding a second floor is probably more expensive, even in just not even talking about inflation future dollars, but also just more expensive to add on to a building that way versus building it that way from from the beginning, and then also foreclosing a conversation with community about you know possibilities for the existing building.

Any other questions?

I mean so can we just go around the table and if there's consensus to accept the recommendations from staff with the new cost, do a thumbs up or a thumbs down or a nod of the head.

So I'm seeing consensus for the cost amount.

And then the next question is when do we want to do polling?

But I think before we answer when we want to do polling, is when do we want do we when do we want to put this on the ballot again?

And before I open it up to discussion, I think you know, in to response to the discussion I've heard from community members and the council.

Uh the polling is important, but I also think one of the things missing from the last was a pack, like a political action group that was doing the education about the old building about what was going on.

And so I'm gonna take the opportunity of people being in the audience now.

And if you support the police station and you're interested in working on that, that's something that was lacking in a way you can um engage with this process as well.

Okay, so I'm gonna open it up to the timeline of polling, and then when do we want to put it on the ballot?

Councilor Falkner.

Can I ask a question first?

I'm not, I want to I I just don't know what the poll would sort of look like.

I'm curious to know what are sort of the like kind of the themes of the question.

Are we would we be using it to learn more about maybe why people didn't want to vote for it?

Is that the primary yeah?

Great question.

Uh Counselor Falconer, the polling would be kind of twofold.

It would be to find out some of the themes as to why it didn't pass.

Um, and then it would be to um you know talk about the project itself and find out kind of what messages have a strong resonance, which ones don't.

Um and then ultimately kind of get a feel for whether it would be successful or whether it wouldn't be.

Um normally when we've done polls in the past, we've had uh the poll start kind of um prior to going out and doing the poll, actually come up with some kind of draft questions and draft themes, and we've we've had a work session with council about that prior to going out and doing the poll to make sure that if there was anything that the council would like to have included in that process, we could include it in that process.

But part of it will be yes, trying to seek some feedback as to why it may not have been successful in the first place.

Counselor Schemel, and then you I think I heard you mention two polls.

When's the second poll for each of those options?

That's really up to the council if the council wants to do two.

Um I was simply saying the county did two.

Um in one particular case, they they polled both.

That helped them establish the timing of when they wanted to go to ballot, and then they did another poll closer to uh the ballot to inform some of the educational materials that were associated with uh with the ballot measure.

You have budget for two polls, or would you need to come back?

We we we we do not.

We have budget for one poll.

Typically, a second poll is not as much as the first one because it's going in some cases kind of um it's a smaller audience.

Uh so typically a poll will run about 25,000.

Typically, kind of a second poll is a smaller, more acute audience, and it's typically about half to three-fourths of the price.

So just on a side note, so the public safety um that is most likely gonna pass with Washington County.

Yeah, do we know what the percentage was from the voters in Forrest Grove for that?

They don't have the previous yet.

Okay.

Yeah, we we check.

I would just like to see that to see where we kind of line up with the fact that we're kind of similar to that, but different.

The pre seek results won't be published until um their their estimate is after December 10th.

The county's estimate is after December 10th.

When the final results are posted is when the precinct results get posted as well.

Does anyone have an idea where they when they would like to see this on the ballot or the polling?

Anyone want to throw out an idea?

Oh go ahead, Counselor Shimmel.

Well, I'd suggest doing the polling now to give us an indication of timing and then uh as we approach the budget process or add more money later to do a second poll closer to the election or closer to May.

You know, to pull the trigger and let us know how far in advance we need to do that.

That'd be my suggestion.

Anyone else?

I agree with Counselor Shimmel about doing a polling now, but I'm not 100%.

I mean, I think it's up to discussion if we do a second one.

I think if we do the first one and make sure we understand what like the trends, the themes and the timeline, then I think we can get what we need out of that.

I mean, we can always discuss it later, but I don't want to I don't want to come to consensus about two polls right now.

And I'm seeing head nods about that as well.

Are we so are we okay doing the poll, the first poll now?

Okay.

Do you need anything else from us?

Chief.

No?

Okay, I'm gonna adjourn this work session at 5.54.

And do I have can consensus to start the other excuse me?

I would like to call this work session to order.

If I could have it quiet in the audience, that'd be great.

Thank you.

So this work session is titled Inclusive Community and Federal Immigration Update.

No public comment will be taken, and the council will take no formal action.

Uh, before I turn it over to staff, I just want to share with the council and the community the proposed agenda because we have about one hour before our council meeting begins.

So I would like staff's presentation to be around 10 minutes.

I would like to give the council seven minutes to offer feedback on the how to identify a force growth police officer brochure that's gonna go out or potentially go out.

And then after that, I would like um to provide time for individual counsel and the council as a whole to brainstorm, and I will facilitate that using the whiteboard uh potential action items they would like to see happen.

And then we will end with our consensus and next steps.

Okay, sound good.

So in attendance is our full city council.

Um at the table, state manager Jesse Vandersanden, police chief Henry Ryman, and there's a number of community members in the audience.

So with that, I will turn it over to Jesse.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council.

Mariah, if you would go.

I'd like to also introduce Jody Gallaghan.

Jody is with Barry Elsner and Hammond.

She is the uh city attorney, one of the city attorneys for uh the city of Forest Grove working for Perry Elder and Hammond.

Next slide, please.

Uh part of the slides are going to be mine, part will be Chief Ryman, and then part will be um the city attorney.

Uh this is self-explanatory.

Um we safe community for our values, connected and inclusive spaces.

Uh we want inclusive and accessible spaces for people to gather and connect.

Next slide.

So recently we have seen a pretty significant increase in ICE activity in Forest Grove and neighboring communities.

Um this has led really nonprofits and governmental agencies to discuss a coordinated approach.

The purpose of tonight's work session is to brief the council on current ICE activities, impacts, some responses, and then of course have the council discuss potential response.

Next slide.

Currently, the city of Forest Grove is in a inclusive community that was passed by a resolution in 2017.

Next slide.

So Oregon is a sanctuary state since uh 1987.

The sanctuary state law prohibits state and local law enforcement and government from enforcing federal immigration laws under the state law, which includes the city not to enforce federal immigration law.

The city may not collect information on the immigration status of community members.

The city may not utilize staff time or other resources for immigration enforcement, including investigating, detecting, apprehending, arresting, detaining, or holding individuals.

Next slide.

So regardless of Oregon's status as a sanctuary state, federal officers are permitted to engage in enforcement activities.

Staff recently we went through uh training about what to do if ICE officers enter public facilities or public areas within the city.

The main points of the training include ICE may enter public areas, ICE may not enter private areas unless they have a judicial warrant to notify their supervisor immediately.

Should uh they should not assist ICE.

The city does not use this a side note, does not use electronic license plate readers or are we a subscriber to the Flock data system?

Uh we should not also interfere with ICE agents.

We should not harbor or conceal anyone, and we need to document the interaction uh between the ICE officers and the individual.

So part of our communication plan was to revamp our web page.

We did a blitz with the social media.

The mayor and myself did a PSA as well as Council President of Venezuela to do it in uh Spanish.

And that's kind of an overview of the uh webpage.

And again, depending on uh this evening is we also have our next posting uh how to identify a forest growth police officer.

Next slide.

So some other municipal efforts which are ongoing is Washington County declared a state of emergency on November 4th, um, and they appropriated 200,000 in emergency assistance to address community impacts related to federal immigration.

The city of Hillsborough held a work session on the same day they did talk about and are considering uh 200,000 in emergency assistance distributed through local community-based organizations.

They're gonna have a another work session uh at their next city council meeting.

The city of Portland essentially codified their sanctuary city designation on 1015.

So, what was administratively done by resolution is now actually codified into their code.

Um, and I just found out today the city of Cornelius is also looking at having a work session uh next Monday.

Uh and it'll be on the same topic that we're talking about tonight.

Next slide.

So, nonprofit efforts.

Uh this is generally simplified and probably oversimplified.

Um Central Cultural and Autalenti Mahedrez, they are providing rapid response to the scene.

We're also doing wraparound services post-sene.

Oregon for all and Portland Immigration Rights Coalition, or what's known as PERC, are providing training on ICE interactions, and they're also providing access to services for the detainee and also for the family.

And then the innovation law lab and ACLU are providing legal services for those that are impacted by either a detention and/or the family.

A little bit about an emergency declaration process.

Essentially, it allows for the temporary suspension of procurement rules and guidelines so that you can have an expedited procurement process or assistance process.

So what normally would take anywhere from three to six weeks, you could do in a couple of days.

Sure.

So I am going to talk high level and if you have a question, just interrupt me.

Okay.

Hold on to the question.

Is there a question?

Jody, can you please speak up?

We cannot hear you.

Okay.

Um that's better, thank you.

That was better.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh the question or my question really was if you have any questions, um, interrupt me at any point.

Um, I'd rather you ask the question as we go than wait till the end.

So are there any questions up front?

Okay.

And you can hear me okay now.

I'm gonna assume that's a yes.

Okay.

Uh what it means and what it doesn't mean to be a city in a sanctuary state.

There's a lot of confusion confusion going around about what exactly it is that the state law does to protect undocumented citizens or undocumented individuals in our community.

Um the sanctuary law is really a law dedicated to public agencies and law enforcement.

Uh state and local government offices in the state of Oregon, requiring requiring them to uh abide by certain restrictions on a by on uh federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Um in a nutshell, uh it's a prohibition on government agencies from participating directly or indirectly in ICE actions unless they have a judicial warrant.

Now that sounds great, but it's not as strong as it as it um purports to be.

So the city essentially does not enforce federal immigration law.

We are not a federal immigration agency.

Um the statute uh prohibits the city from collecting information on the immigration status of its community members.

Um this is the big one.

The city cannot utilize staff time or other resources for immigration enforcement.

This includes investigating, detecting, apprehending, arresting, detaining or holding individuals.

So we're not allowed to assist ICE in those actions.

Um then the the one that I think I'll probably get the most questions on is we're prohibited from granting access to ICE to a public facility not otherwise open to the public without a warrant.

Um the city is also required to do well, the law enforcement specifically is required to um submit certain information that was documented whenever they get a communication or a request from a federal agency relating to immigration, they're required to report that to um OGCGC using their reporting system that's established by rule.

So that's all the things that the sanctuary statutes do.

What they don't do is prohibit ICE from engaging in enforcement actions.

There's there's a very as we've already discussed, there's a very clear supremacy law jurisdictional thing happening when federal agents come in to enforce federal law.

Um ICE agents have access to areas open to the public with or without a warrant or a subpoena.

While they might request access to public facility areas that are not generally open to the public, they are required to have a judicial warrant under the law, and they are required to generally comply with uh facility rules.

That's sort of the the crux of what government staff can and can't do in terms of ICE enforcement actions.

Do we have questions on that yet?

No.

Okay.

None yet.

Okay.

Sorry, Counselor Schimmel.

Well, I I think oftentimes we end up splitting hairs on those provisions when we're talking when ICE enforcement, the reality of ICE enforcement is exceeding that language.

So the question or the expectation is that if our police demand require such a warrant, or they decide that they're gonna they're gonna enter into a private area, or whether that's a public building, uh private business or private residence.

So how do we reconcile the that provision on the law as well as not interfering with ICE agents?

Sure.

Sure.

So I can't tell um, I can't tell individual private citizens what they can and can't do if someone knocks on their door and is proclaims to be um a federal agent.

I can't I I don't have any ability to tell folks what to do because I don't have that, I not only don't have that authority, I don't have that knowledge.

Um for government employees, if my perspective is is about protecting the city and its employees, if they have a federal ICE agent attempting to gain access to a private area or an area not otherwise open to the public, and they do not have a warrant to gain access.

Uh my recommendation is to not intervene, not put yourself at risk to not um like there's a very there's layers of risk in you intervening in such an action, even though they may not have legal authority to gain access to an area.

I don't want the employees to risk other things by trying to intervene in what is essentially a legal argument against their access.

Does that make sense?

But don't interject yourself into the into the action from the ICE agent.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, any other questions seeing none.

Okay.

So the city's limited scope of authority.

This is the first two bullets are really basically talking about the same thing.

It's the supremacy clause in the CU in the United States, it's there's a doctrine, and I'm not gonna go too into the legalese on this because I know I'll lose people and I don't want to bore people on this subject.

Um, but in a nutshell, there's case law that has essentially identified the supremacy clause of the constitution as um state criminal laws must give way to valid actions of federal officers acting pursuant to federal authority, and there's a whole case law that's a whole tons of case law that further dive into that limitation on federal actions and what's considered valid and what's not, and what's actual federal authority and what's not.

Um so there's legal arguments to be made when an ICE agent is acting beyond the scope of his granted authority.

That's an argument that can be made by lawyer in a courtroom.

I don't recommend that city employees try to determine where that line is.

I to reiterate what I just said, I think the best course of action for the employees is to step back, not intervene, but document.

And when I say document, I mean write it down.

Um because the defenses that are available, if there are any, they're ones that are really hard to make in the moment.

They're more of an argument you'd make to a judge.

So I don't want to in the meantime have you have an employee at risk of arrest of some sort of civil action or otherwise, based on this idea that this ICE agents acting beyond the swap is authority.

Questions on that one.

Counselor Schummel.

So I know the answer to this, but we've heard uh considerable amount of testimony uh in the county and Hillsborough and other municipalities about the the fear, the terror of the physical abuse, the split families that our Latino community is is living through.

So this the building aspect of it is sort of immaterial.

It's really the human suffering aspect of it that we have to weigh our response, and we have to weigh what we are asking our police department to do.

And I guess I want to hear from our attorney that that the opinion you just shared stands regardless.

Uh yes.

It's hard to defend it's a hard thing to defend against if an employee intervenes in a federal enforcement action.

And it's later determined that the actions taken by ICE was were legitimate, fully authorized, and within the scope of the federal level of enforcement.

I don't want to see an employee get dragged through criminal or civil trials without the assistance of city council because they chose to intervene on something that was ultimately a valid law enforcement action action.

And so that's what I mean when I say trying to figure out where the line is in the moment is a slippery slope.

And I unfortunately don't have a black and white answer for you in terms of how do I know if they're legitimate or not.

It's it's not something that is knowable in the moment.

And so, in the interest of the employees, my advice will most certainly be to not intervene and document as much as you can.

Okay, and this that sort of lends itself to the third bullet, which is the city's duty to avoid creating liability for its employees.

Um putting uh a directive or a policy or or a request to your employees that they intervene when they see something that they don't think is right, that is putting them at jeopardy of both criminal and civil liabilities.

Um there's the issues of I mean, I don't want to go too into all of the rhetoric that's gone on out there from DHS, uh, from the Department of Homeland Security about their definition of what a threat is and what constitutes harassment and violence.

Um but in the interests of the employee, I wouldn't want to put them through having to defend themselves against an action filed by the federal government against them.

So if the employee has to decide between doing its doing uh directive from its direct doing what was it was told to do by the direction of counsel or or its boss or its supervisor or risking some sort of civil or criminal liability, I don't think that that's fair to put them in that position.

And I certainly from a legal perspective, don't think that's wise.

Thank you.

Okay, so uh the last bullet we have is uh considerations about recording.

So there is a First Amendment constitutional right to record law enforcement officers.

It's pretty strong, it's pretty steady.

Um where that line gets fuzzy is when you are when the person doing the recording is seen as interfering with a federal investigation.

Uh or intervening in some sort of action from a legitimate federally authorized action from an ICE agent.

I wouldn't recommend my general recommendation is to not encourage recording.

Obviously, you're going to have certain situations where specific to law enforcement body cam videos will be part of the process because that's just how it works.

I wouldn't change anything about that.

Um, but I would not sort of set out a policy or what have you that actually says when you encounter an ICE agent, make sure you record.

I wouldn't recommend that either.

Um, for the same reasons that I wouldn't recommend intervening.

You know, you're putting the employee at risk of having to choose between following a directive of the supervisor and personal civil and criminal liability at a federal level, warranted or not.

Jody, can I ask you a follow-up question on that?

If a police officer is using a body worn camera and it's per policy, and witnesses abuse of power or something they feel is unconstitutional.

Can it legal for the city to have a record keeping procedure or system to elevate or to document the abuse of power?

So there is a there's I believe it's a website.

I'm not familiar enough with how the Oregon um, I think it's it's just um DPSST maybe puts it on, but there is it's not a hotline, but it's a way to submit information.

And I would assume that a body cam would include information of known instances of ICE enforcement.

Um I don't know enough about the process of how that um reporting happens.

Perhaps Henry does.

But it's legal.

Um it's not like you're not not recommending the city to do that.

That's I I think that's what the clarification question I'm just looking for is.

So, mayor.

Do I recommend yeah?

So George.

So here's where the line is.

Uh, if you do submit it, there's a risk that you could be arguing arguably impeding a federal investigation.

If you don't submit it, you'd be technically in violation of the Oregon Sanctuary law.

Um it's not a easy answer.

I don't I personally don't see how submitting that to uh the state through their uh reporting system could be conceived, could be seen by a federal agent as somehow a harassment or otherwise, but that's the that's the risk is you follow through with the report, federal agents might make a claim that you somehow in intervened in their investigation, and therefore uh in violation of federal law.

That being said, I think that that risk is it's a low risk because of all the things that one could do to intervene, I wouldn't think that a report after the fact to a state agency is really an a good argument for the feds to be making, but it's one that they could and probably would make.

Okay, Chief, did you want to end?

Yeah, I was gonna say under ORS uh 181A 681, we are obligatory under state statute is to record and to record and report abusive incidents, even though ICE is not part of the state statute currently through Department of our Oregon attorney general's office that they're asking us to go ahead and record and report as directed under state statute at this point.

And it's uh the old um Oregon Department of Justice uh federal oversight has a form for anybody in the public to fill out wrap documents and they are tracking uh for judicial purposes any abuses for ICE.

Thank you, Chief.

Okay, we're like running short on time, Jody.

Is there any more questions for Jody or did you is there anything else you need to cover on this slide?

I'm good.

I can answer questions as needed.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So I'm gonna try to get guess back on time a little bit.

Let's can we go to the um while the while Mariah's getting the brochure, uh, how to identify a force growth police officer up.

Can we see just a show?

Is there a consensus from the council?

Uh the city of Hillsborough, and then most recently the city of Beaverton put out information to their community of this is what a Hillsboro police officer looks like.

This is what we don't look like.

It's like non-examples, examples.

And so we put together a little rough draft, but we didn't want to move on it.

And thank you, uh, Chief Ryman.

We didn't want to move forward with that without the consensus of council.

So before we start seeing how we can revise this, our is there consensus to move forward with this information?

It's a brochure, sure.

Okay, and I'm seeing consensus.

So now does anyone have any thoughts about this brochure?

Counselor Falconer.

Um I would hope to see non-examples.

So, you know, the the kinds of things, or maybe for it to highlight, um, you know, here's here's what our police, here's what your local police will not do.

This is here's what they will not look like.

And I think that should be you know, it's responsive to you know, a couple of concerns.

Um, ICE themselves not identifying themselves and covering their faces, but also the the real reports of instances of of non of people uh impersonating law enforcement.

Um, I think that that would sort of be responsive to both of those things.

Um just to nitpick a little bit, but you know, I find the first paragraph to be um, I don't know who the audience is for that first paragraph.

I find it not very helpful.

Um I think the know your rights could easily be plopped into that section and be a lot more helpful to the audience that I think that this thing is actually trying to to speak to.

Um and then I I think I I it just generally speaking, I think there's a whole lot of words on this, and we could do a lot more visually.

I think pictures speak volumes, there's way too much text on this thing, and I think blowing up the pictures, making them much much more prevalent is just really what it needs to be doing.

And then that way, also I don't know what the other side of this looks like, but rather than having a split Spanish and English, maybe just put the same thing on the back.

So one side is English, one side is Spanish.

That's most of my feedback.

Okay, go ahead, Jesse wants to respond.

There were actually two different versions that we could do.

One was exactly what you were mentioning, Councillor Falconer, which is uh just one card with front and back.

Um the other one was a trifold brochure that did have more information, uh, some additional information about sanctuary city, what local police cannot do uh to comply with the sanctuary uh state.

So, but yeah, great great suggestions.

Yeah, I I have a you know, and just to add on, or not to pile on, but to add on.

I think that it is much too wordy, and so bullet points and more pictures, but then just add a QR code to the web to the know your rights, add a QR code like to our website for resources or for all for Oregon or for Echo and you know, law lab, like those are the things that if people want additional, like the goal of this is to be like, this is how you know the difference, this is who we are, and this is who we are not, right?

And go ahead, Counselor Feltner.

Yeah, and I I think also re you know and then if you do think your rights are being violated, what then?

What can you do?

You know, so part of like know your rights, but also if you need our help, you know, we're here to support everyone in our community, you know.

I mean, I maybe uh the non-emergency number for for folks to call and say, hey, I've I I have this concern.

This this happened to my neighbor.

Are there any other suggestions that you would like to see added to the brochure or change?

I'm gonna put council president Valenzuela on the spot a little bit.

I would like to go to the board and write down the ideas that counselors have.

And I would like you to facilitate calling on counselors when their hands are raised to give me.

So what we're gonna do right now is we're gonna move on to potential action items.

And we'll list all the my idea, and you guys can pipe in if you think, but let's go through and get all of our potential action items, and then we'll go through and we can ask the city attorney if it's okay with Jody if it's a legal action.

And if it's legal, it will move on to the next stage, which would be consensus, and then our next steps.

Does that sound like a good way to kind of organize this?

Okay.

I'm gonna grab my yes, Mary.

If I may take just a couple of minutes, please.

Um the most hopeful uh comment that I've heard this evening came from Chief, knowing that they can actually record uh an incident, uh archive it and um and submit it.

But I am appalled at how much has been taken in terms of uh freedoms in terms of humanity, basic humanity to one another.

And I also want to say thank you uh to the community members that took the time to send an email in the visible uh forest grove send um a lengthy email with four suggestions, and that was hope I was hoping to be able to read and bring up as ideas this evening.

But after listening to uh the city attorney, it seems like we're walking on eggshells that there's really nothing we can do.

You know, after 9-11, we would see on TV um members of ICIS, Al Qaeda with their faces covered, and now we have people on our streets with their faces covered, and they're taking whoever looks Latino.

I carry my passport everywhere with me.

And I've been a citizen for almost 48 uh 40 years, and yes, I came here to this country legally.

Now we can write a lot of ideas and provide, you know, maybe support, you know, some kind of support like the city of Hillsborough is doing, like the county is doing.

How do we mend the heart and emotion well-being of a child that got home and his parents were gone?

What do we do about that?

My friends, amigos, what do we do about that?

You know, that's so you know, I'm just really disappointed that they we have such limited capacity um to help, although this is the United States of America, and the lack of humanity on social media when there is a report of someone taking, you know, ice taking people, taking people, go get them boys.

What is that?

You know, where did that come from?

Where is all that hate?

Because I certainly didn't see people running to the farm fields to work on the harvest this summer to get back the jobs that have been stolen.

I didn't see anyone running out there at 5 a.m.

to work on the fields.

So I apologize.

I am just incredibly disheartened, sad, upset that there's not a lot we can do to help our community except document because someday they will be accountable.

Someday we're gonna get our country back, and they will be accountable.

All right.

Thank you, council president Valenzuela.

I'm gonna ask, you know, we're gonna have public comment later.

We have a lot we want to be heard.

I understand you want to appreciate the words, but like we'll I think snapping is fine.

It allows us to still hear and allows us to move on.

So I saw the counselor Schimmel raise his hand to speak next.

So I'm gonna call on him.

Well, I wanted to allow for the moment um for Mariana to finish, but if we're ready to identify some actions, I will one action I'd like to propose is an emergency declaration for the purpose of or as an instrument for accelerating the help that we can provide.

Uh so this would be releasing our public contracting and budgetary processes so that Jesse and staff had the means to to release funds uh to enter into mutual aid agreements and read and redirect some of our emergency funds or our contingency funds.

Yes, yes, it would be.

So I I guess the as a group we can decide how much of our contingency fund to land, say let's I would start at the bidding at 100,000.

Um let's go through the ideas, and then when we if we have consensus, that will go like the details of it will go.

Sure.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, but I mean there's a bunch of details under that.

I mean, there's the the how much, there's the where does it go toward what's eligible?

Um I guess another, well, I guess this could be under that too, is fast tracking some of our CEP payouts to like uh St.

Vincent DePaul, food backpacks, other things that are specific to the emergency.

Uh next through hello, council and um community.

So I'm gathering my thoughts.

Um, our police officers need to be in safe situations also.

And I am I am not asking for our our officers, our law enforcement to do anything above and beyond what they would do if for instance they were witnessing one of our community members be assaulted um by a fellow community member.

I also expect those officers to intervene when an officer is doing something illegal in act in within the actions of their duties.

And I'd like to remind everybody that if officers had intervened when George Floyd was being beaten and murdered by officers, he may very well be alive today.

And that is what I am asking for, and that's what I'm requesting to be put on that action item is that we reinforce the officers' authority to arrest federal agents if they are breaking the law in any way.

Uh the constitution demands it, it is well within our rights, and I realize that that may put our officers at risk, but it also puts our officers at risk when um when they're needing to intervene between another officer.

So I I strongly recommend this.

There are just for notification of council, there are several um counselors and mayors in the cities in Oregon that are gathering together to discuss exactly what we're discussing now.

What what are some ideas of what we can do?

So we as cities in Oregon can move forward together and be a little bit more powerful, right?

Like many sticks together are stronger than one stick.

Um, in addition to that, uh there's DA offices.

The the RDA, DA Barton is in conversations with other district attorneys' offices for the exact same thing.

So it's it's very it's very wonderful to hear that those two groups.

I have a meeting with with him this Wednesday.

So between those two groups, deciding what they can do and kind of their bailiwick, I think will really help drive getting even more ideas on here.

But again, um I strongly I strongly believe that we need to take action.

All of this other stuff that we're doing is correct, and I'm glad, and we should continue it, but we cannot just document.

We must take action.

Sure.

Um I'd like to uh explore the you know, the res a resolution, you know, actually, and then also codifying um the city's sanctuary city status.

I think it should include language um specifically about public and private spaces.

I think that would do um go a long way in in addressing some of this some of the things that you're talking about, um, and also in communicating to our community.

Okay, I'm gonna go next.

Thanks.

Sorry, yeah, me.

Um okay, I would like to replace, and I'll write these up on the board.

I would like to replace resolution 201721, which is our inclusive community uh resolution, and replace it with a sanctuary city resolution that will give us alignment with our other regional partners and has the same wording.

I would like to uh enter in a state of re of emergency to respond to the federal immigration activities.

Um I have an amount, but we can talk about it later.

I would like to create a protect forest grove initiative ordinance that codifies sanctuary city status, requires training of staff, establishes reporting and signage of clarifying public and private spaces, mandates reporting violations, um, and exceptions by city staff, creates a record keeping procedure documenting abuse of power and reporting process to state legislature legislatures, federal delegation, and the attorney general.

I would also like the council to join me in writing a letter to the Washington County Board of Commissioners to suspend and or cancel the contract with Flock.

Uh, that's a company who does license plate reader, and I would like the council to give authority to myself and the city manager to work with other regional uh municipalities, service organization, community-based uh project, um, community-based organizations to continue to do the work we are trying to do.

So that's my and all right.

Why she's doing that, I'd like your question, ask a question.

Um, and Chief, you might you would probably be the one to answer this.

How is the current environment different or the same as it was through Clinton and Obama when we were going through the same things?

I can't remember that hard.

No, I I think what we're seeing is a different attitude in regards to the process that the federal agencies are using because it's more than ICE, there's three other agencies that partner with ICE.

Um that the relationship has changed greatly over the years.

Um we don't get notified um very often when they are in town.

I think we've gotten two calls, but again, it wasn't so much that they were in Forest Grove that they were in Washington County today.

Um and I think that's happened twice last week and the other times we had no notification.

So again, the way they're doing business is a little bit different than historically what we've seen.

Thank you.

Okay.

If I can chime in on that question, Councillor Marshall, one minute, please, Counselor Marshall, you're up next to it.

Okay.

Go ahead, Jody.

Go ahead.

I just wanted to clarify that there used to be um various executive orders that have been under effect outlining what um private spaces constituted and sort of giving a general directive that ICE should not be um enforcing immigration laws and what was seen as a protected area.

And those have those um rules have been in effect since um since Clinton, they've been added to um and amended over the years, but Trump in January um next them all.

So that is a very that is why there's no such thing in the federal perspective is no longer that there's any safe spaces that ICE is not allowed to go into.

So that is a marked marked legal change um that happened this year.

Okay, counselor Marshall I would agree to give you and uh Jesse the authority to work on collaborations, but as well.

Um I would suggest on the as far as the pamphlet to throw the the sanctuary state what what that explanation of that is on there so they actually people have an idea of what that actually is because we could say that all the time and say what it is, but there's going to be people who don't understand what that actually means.

So I think adding that to that would be good, and I think giving you guys the authority to work on behalf of the council, I would agree with that.

Okay, thank you.

Um can council president Valenzuela, will you read the action items to Jody one at a time?

And then Jody, can you just give a simple yes or no if it's legal or not?

Please.

All right, Jody.

Um first action item, emergency declaration.

Yes, I see nothing wrong with that.

All right.

Uh Forest Grove police authority to arrest ICE officers in if they're in uh in infringement of the law, the constitution.

I I don't I don't have a hard yes or no on that because it's not an easy yes or no answer.

I would recommend no.

Just a question mark.

Sure.

Yeah.

I have a question, council president.

Yes.

When legal is telling us she doesn't recommend, does that mean it is legal?

Are we marking that because it's legal or illegal?

Or are we marking it because of advice from from legal who doesn't have a clear advice for legal?

Okay.

I was wondering was it actually it's gonna vary on differences of it's gonna vary on differences of situation, so we can't she can't give an actual like legal answer, not knowing the situation.

So I think that's kind of where it would there's that gray area.

Put a question mark perhaps and my my final statement would be breaking the law is breaking the law, federal laws, federal law.

Can I ask real quick mayor?

Is that okay?

I wonder, Councillor Gustavson, you know, I let's maybe can we skip to authority to council to city manager and mayor for collaboration, municipal and and regional partners, you know, to your point, you know, that that mayors, DAs, others across the state are working on on that very question.

And so rather than us sort of like getting in front of that conversation, can we maybe put that as like a sub-bullet for for for that wider conversation, that multi-jurisdictional, you know, within the state of Oregon.

We're we're grappling with that with with legal experts.

I agree that that's a that's completely appropriate, and you can bunch it up into there because that would be the optimal is having uh an effort that is a group, but I just want to make sure.

Are we going to as council?

Is this an item that will be on, you know?

Are we all in consensus basically of that?

Yes, we just need to get the illegal expert response.

Um because you know, we don't want to put you know the chief in trouble.

I I want to be really clear because by moving it down there for me, I am okay exploring it, talking to other people about it, but I'm not giving consent.

I do not believe at this point, I'm not 100 in consent consensus to ask our police officers to do that because I really did not get a clear answer going over that.

Like it's not okay for me to ask someone to do something that could hurt them or be illegal or put them in a bad spot.

So I'm saying that I'm about learning, but I'm not I don't agree with that action item 100%.

I want to be clear.

All right, so we can put a question mark on it and uh counselor Scheme.

So we're putting a question mark uh, we're saying two things, and I want to make sure I'm understand what we're actually doing because I see an arrow going down to the bottom, and if we're gonna do that, that language needs a complaint change completely.

We we can't.

I'm not gonna put I I'm not gonna endorse putting that statement in a public document that that it's more adherence to state legal authority for law enforcement.

I'm hearing you, and I'm hearing like so.

Let's just say, is there is there consensus from this council?

Because that's what we're gonna do in a work session for uh for this language to be part of our brainstorming our thing.

We're gonna give us a quick thumbs up or thumbs down.

So the the language is forest growth, please to give forest growth please the authority to arrest ICE agents.

Yeah, yeah.

So we don't have a consensus, so I'm gonna take that off.

Okay, but um so it's gone like we're never going to talk about it again because I think there's no consensus for that.

And that's right now there is we have to move this.

Okay.

Okay.

We have to my goal is by the end of this work session that we have we are if we believe, which I believe we are in the state of the emergency, then we have to work.

We have to come to consensus, if we have to take that we have five minutes.

So I trying to be agreeable.

We have to okay.

So the next uh action item, Jody, is codifying a sanctuary city uh status.

Um I see nothing wrong with that.

session that we have we are we are if we believe which I believe we are the state of the emergency then we have to work we have to come to consensus if we have to take that we have five so trying to be agreeable we have okay so the next uh action item jodie is codifying a sanctuary city uh status um yeah I see nothing wrong with that okay next action item um sanctuary city ordinance resolution resolution if this is um replacing the current resolution with I see nothing wrong with that okay thank you and then uh a letter to Washington County um board of commissioners to uh do away to counsel the flock contract uh yes I there's I see nothing I see nothing legally wrong with that all right and then uh the last action item uh to create a pamphlet uh with sanctuary city oh um okay I'm sorry um authority to uh to grant authority to the city manager and mayor for collaboration uh with uh municipalities and community based organizations I see nothing wrong with that just doing all right and then the last one it create a pamphlet oh these are all legal so now we can go to the one to do any more declaration consistent okay so I heard money and then we're gonna decide like who we would like yeah it's it's essentially an instrument for accelerating help by suspending our procurement process that allows Jesse to establish uh mutual aid agreements and as whatever money that we designate that he can he can uh exhaust through through whatever channels we depend we designate so for example rent motel assistance utilities food gas immigration services business recovery and then any you know police reporting response uh tools that uh are needed just to give you a rough range and then also the fast track of at least a few of the CEP payouts that are related in that same camp Jesse can can that can the can the accelerating CEP and the emergency declaration be confirmed I don't think they so we're gonna have to get the committee together for that it's a separate committee okay yeah so but it's okay okay and you know okay so anyone else want to add any I mean is there anything else that we can add Jesse to the emergency declaration or is you have a general idea I do okay and I've heard like I heard a hundred thousand I was thinking start at 50,000 uh based on what the county put and then what Hillsboro put and then we we can always change that amount um but based on the size of forest grove it seems population wise is there consensus for one of those amounts 50 okay 50 good can we add the action item to ask for the CEP grants to be not in the emergency oh so a separate action item in general just add that to that we do that and we have we'll get a meeting we have to go through metro we have to sorry I'm talking without a microphone sorry to people streaming but that's um a metro the CEP grant fund is a partnership with the city of forest grove and metro because of voice management so that we I mean I can just how about we state it like this is it something that would you giving you the authority no because it's still it's still C it's still metro so but this is what I'll say on the set no November 24th we have a CEP meeting so if members of the CEP meeting feel strong about this we can bring it people could bring it up in that meeting I believe the meetings at noon um next week no in two weeks on Tuesday so that there is an opportunity to discuss that okay and then one thing I want to say too about our order just because we share it out in different orders the because I'm just like super kind of bossy but I want the the sanctuary city resolution has to come before the codifying sanctuary city status right so if we have consensus we would bring a resolution replacing resolution 2017-21 which makes forest grove an inclusive city we would change that to a sanctuary city and then following that because order of operations is important then we would do the ordinance saying this is protecting force grove and these are the bullet points on how we're doing it um and to the council the city of Portland has one that has a protecting portland ordinance and so if you're looking for ideas or wanting more information that's a good place to look okay so is there consensus to replace inclusive city with sanctuary city thumbs up thumbs down basically just it's just flop because we're already under sanctuary city yeah yeah exactly so it just is like symbolic and it makes us in alignment with our regional partners in the state so I saw yes and then what about protecting forest grove ordinance codifying sanctuary city status private public spaces okay consensus for that as well

Okay, so is there consensus to replace inclusive city with sanctuary city?

Thumbs up, thumbs down.

Basically, just it's just flop because we're already under Sanctuary City.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Exactly.

So it just is like symbolic and it makes us in alignment with our regional partners in the state.

So I saw yes.

And then what about protecting force grove ordinance?

Codifying sanctuary city status, private public spaces.

Okay.

Consensus for that as well.

Okay, I'm checking those.

I'm just not moving from the microphone.

What about writing a letter to Washington County to suspend their contract with Flock, which is the license plate reader that we have been reported to, like saying that's causing some racial profiling and uptick.

So it had already they were already just continuing.

I don't think so.

I had a meeting with uh Wash the chair plus mayor, and I act I asked some questions and where did you hear that at?

I've read a lot of it.

Yeah, so no, that's not what I got at that meeting.

So if they are, then this will just support that.

So does there consensus to do that?

Okay.

Yeah, I'll take a look.

So consensus for that and then authority to the city manager and the mayor or mayor designate to work.

Uh okay.

Yep, you can I would agree with uh what um counselor angel uh said earlier about reflecting law enforcement direction from at the state level from the state level.

We need we need state direction coordination on I just want to include law enforcement in the scope of what you're collaborating on.

Okay, yeah, got it.

Okay, council president.

I have one more comment on that one.

Um, the request from the couple groups that I'm in, including a group that's meeting about all of this um during the NLC conference this month that'll be attending.

They're asking for council and mayors and city managers and law enforcement and district attorney's office.

So this is a huge collaboration.

So I don't know if you need to add in to that council to give authority to council.

I think we all have the authority to meet with whoever we want, but I don't know if we want to add that to this as well.

Well, do you think we should have should we put it on the agenda as this is like a permanent, like we're gonna have an update work session um maybe once every two months, and then if something, if we have to be reactive to something, then we can move that up.

But like can would it make you feel more comfortable if we had consistent work sessions to collaborate, correlate, and then also share out what we're doing?

I I actually thank you for reminding me about that because I was also going to suggest that we have um are there gonna be situations where we need to talk to each other more quickly than waiting for the next meeting?

Do we need to have uh meetings situated more often so that they can be public noticed?

And then if we do not need it, we cancel it.

Yeah, I don't know.

How about we have staff look into that?

How about I mean I don't know, like you can add that to the list.

Yeah, I know.

I'm just I can't be on the microphone and writing at the same time.

I'm like, so okay, so we can add that and we'll have staff look into that.

Okay, so next steps.

Uh I'm just gonna correct me if I'm wrong, but we'd like staff to bring us back a sanctuary city resolution.

We would like to have a work session where we can as a group draft everyone will have time to look at Portland's protecting Portland ordinance, the things you want it, but let's have a work session if time permits on the agenda next meeting to try to draft this protecting force grove ordinance.

I will bring back a letter to the board to Washington County Board of Commissioners about Flock to the next meeting.

So you can and I'll put it on the consent agenda so you can look at it before we send it.

Um is there uh Jesse, am I forgetting anything?

Emergency declaration resolution for yeah, so next meeting or can it?

I mean next meeting or can it be added to this meeting?

Yeah, you can add it to this meeting if you would like.

Um I think that's up to the council.

It's up to the counselor.

There's additions or deletions.

I can't do that.

Counselors can let's add it from what it's uh we have waited.

It's an American situation today.

Well, you guys have the power to do that.

All right.

Okay.

And we can do that during the regular session.

Okay.

I'm like, sorry, is there anything else I'm forgetting?

Does every counselor feel like they had an opportunity to share what they wanted to share?

Do they feel like we have a plan to start moving?

Hey, do we feel like we're protecting our community?

I don't know, but this is like where we have to start.

Okay.

So I'm gonna adjourn this work session.

You have a four minute bio break, and then we'll reconvene at 710.

Thank you.