Forest Grove City Council Work Sessions on Immigration, Development Code, and Police Facility Bond (January 26, 2026)
Forest Grove City Council Work Sessions on Immigration, Development Code, and Police Facility Bond (January 26, 2026)
The Forest Grove City Council convened on January 26, 2026, for three work sessions addressing federal immigration enforcement and sanctuary city implementation, updates to the city's development code, and a review of polling results for a proposed police facility bond. No public comments were heard and no formal actions were taken during any of the work sessions, consistent with the nature of work sessions.
Work Session I: Federal Immigration Enforcement and Sanctuary City Implementation
City staff presented an update on the city's sanctuary city status, including the declaration of a state of emergency on November 10, 2025, with $50,000 appropriated to community nonprofits, the resolution declaring Forest Grove a sanctuary city on November 24, 2025, and the passage of a sanctuary city ordinance effective December 8 and January 2, 2026. The ordinance codifies the Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act into city code, prohibits assisting federal agencies without a judicial warrant, and bans the use of city resources for immigration enforcement. Staff conducted training and are updating materials; community partnerships with Adelante, Central, ACLU, and other organizations continue.
Council members discussed the treatment of administrative warrants issued by ICE, particularly following a leaked internal memo. Chief Earing stated that local police would ask for a warrant and object if lacking, but would not physically interfere; they would document and potentially join lawsuits. Councilors expressed concerns about data tracking, including creating a specific code for ICE interactions and submitting public records requests to federal agencies. Councilor Falkner requested a review of city contracts to ensure no funds support companies aiding ICE activities. Councilor Gussen raised mental health concerns for the community.
Key Outcomes:
- Consensus to fill in the framework of the emergency management system (EOP/EOC) for activation.
- Consensus to track Oregon state legislation aligned with the sanctuary code and be prepared to support it.
- Consensus to send a letter to the Oregon Attorney General seeking guidance on local law enforcement authority during federal immigration enforcement, the role of the Oregon National Guard, evidence preservation, and protection of municipal resources.
- Consensus to send a support letter to the Minneapolis mayor, as suggested by Councilor Martinez.
- Future work sessions on this topic were planned, with staff directed to provide updates.
Work Session II: Development Code Updates
Senior Planner Matthew Johnson reviewed consensus items from the previous work session on January 12, including additions to comprehensive plan target densities, revisions to ADU standards (allowing larger attached ADUs and matching allowances for non-habitable structures), clarification of townhome setbacks, and updates to sidewalk construction delay provisions.
The major discussion focused on incorporating mandatory adjustments as required by Senate Bill 1537 (2024). Staff proposed allowing housing development projects with a minimum density of six units per acre to request up to ten adjustments to specific development standards (e.g., height, setbacks) if the developer can demonstrate the adjustment will increase housing production or affordability. The process would be a Type I procedure (administrative, not appealable by neighbors but appealable by the applicant). Council discussed the criteria and agreed with the approach.
Additionally, staff presented changes to landscape buffer and screening tables, proposing that buffers are not required when an industrial use abuts a non-conforming use within an industrial zone. Industrial standards were also updated to remove setbacks except when abutting residential zones, where a minimum 50-foot setback is required, with a maximum building height of 45 feet at that point and a ratio allowing additional height for increased setbacks.
Key Outcomes:
- Consensus on the mandatory adjustment provisions as presented.
- Consensus on the landscape buffer revisions.
- Consensus on the revised industrial standards.
- Staff will finalize code language for adoption at a future regular meeting.
Work Session III: Police Facility Bond Polling and Next Steps
Consultant Ben Patinkin presented results of a telephone survey of 400 likely voters conducted January 5–8, 2026, with a margin of error of ±4.9%. Key findings included:
- 45% initially supported a $29.5 million bond to construct a police facility (in a modeled May electorate), 38% opposed, 17% undecided.
- After a summary statement, support nudged to 47%.
- After full information, support reached 51% in a modeled November electorate (with the same 38% no, 11% undecided).
- The most convincing message was accountability ("structured with the cost of taxpayers in mind," selling old station), with 41% of all voters finding it "very convincing."
- Top reasons for opposition centered on taxes being too high and inability to afford the bond.
- Subgroup analysis revealed a gender gap (women more supportive) and a partisan reversal (Republicans more supportive than Democrats, 57% vs. 37%).
- Councilors raised concerns about promising to sell the old facility; staff noted they are exploring capital grants from the Oregon legislature.
Council debated the timing of placing the measure on the ballot, considering May or November 2026, or May 2027. Most councilors felt May 2026 was too soon to mount a successful campaign, but there was urgency to start organizing a political action committee (PAC). The mayor proposed, and council agreed, to not place the measure on the May 2026 ballot, but to begin PAC formation. A final decision on whether to proceed in November 2026 will be made at the next work session on February 23, 2026. Staff will also provide updates on potential state capital grants.
Key Outcomes:
- Consensus to put the police facility bond on a future ballot (tentatively November 2026, to be confirmed in February).
- Staff directed to prepare a timeline, coordinate PAC formation, and research potential state funding.
- A dedicated work session on February 23 will include a decision on the ballot date after assessing PAC viability.
Meeting Transcript
I'd like to call this work session of the Force Grove City Council to order. All city counselors are present. City staff is also present, and we have members of the audience. We have two work sessions for tonight's meeting. Uh city discussion regarding federal activities and development code. So I'm gonna turn that's a full schedule. So we're gonna start right away, and I'm gonna turn it over to our city manager. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. Uh I'll give a brief background. Uh I have both Chief Earing and Chief Ryman with me, so we'll be collaborating on this uh staff background. We hope not to take any more than 10-15 minutes to allow plenty of time for the council to talk. But um Mariah, if you could please start the presentation. I'll just go ahead and start. Uh tonight's real purpose is to provide an opportunity for council to discuss and respond to issues relating to federal immigration enforcement. A little bit of background on November 10th, 2025, uh the city declared a state of emergency and appropriated 50,000 to community nonprofits. That money has been appropriated. That was intended to assist with the impacts of federal immigration enforcement. On November 24th, the following meeting, uh, Forest Grove was declared a sanctuary city by resolution, and there was a consensus to hold a work session every month to talk about what we're talking about here tonight. If you go to slide five on December 8th and then January 2nd, uh there was two readings, and uh city passed a sanctuary city ordinance. It was effective immediately. I'm not going to go over all of the bullets underneath it, but just to highlight a couple, it does codify the Oregon Sanctuary's promise law into city code. It prohibits assisting federal agencies unless there's a subpoena or a judicial warrant. It bans the use of city resources for immigration enforcement activities and it creates policies and training for city staff to manage interactions uh with ice. It was also modeled after the Portland ordinance that was passed in October of last year. Next slide. Staff conducted initial training in October. Our training materials are being updated. Uh we have actually training tomorrow, supervisory training tomorrow. Uh there'll be additional training after that with all the employees in late feb late January and early February. Um we're looking at installing some signage that delineates between uh public and non-public areas. Uh we have immigration resource facilities, or excuse me, immigration resources at all city facilities, and then I'm not going to go into all of this, but we have a very good updated comprehensive website associated with this issue, and it has all of those um uh things in in the website. Next slide, please. I'm gonna turn it over to Henry uh in terms of conversations with some of our community partners and what some of our community partners are doing in response to federal immigration enforcement. Outlined are some of the organizations that we've been working with for the past probably half year now, in regards to the immigration issue. As you can see, it's Adelante and Central. I work pretty closely with Nancy Lopez out of Central, who's their policy director, uh, and is really managing a lot of the observation teams for South Growth so we meet on a regular basis as well as our forest growth resource center. Uh, met with uh uh the PIC group uh through uh Central as well as Alahante uh Adelante and their SOR program as well as ACLU. So we've met uh with all those groups, talk about policies, procedures, their work. Uh again, we developed some of our early uh training for our staff based on those meetings, especially with the CLU, even though that's now be revised in regards to meeting some of the new standards for seeing that as coming out of uh uh Washington again. A lot of this is a moving target for us. If you watch news today and one of the other slides, I'm gonna talk about is this is truly moving target for law enforcement in regards to what the new expectations are, what we're able to do, what's now being allowed? Uh there's been a change in regards to just not having judicial warrants versus having administrative warrants. So again, this is a big moving target. And I'll give it back to Jess. Can I ask a can I do wait? I should check. Do you want us to interrupt to ask questions or just wait till the end? The can I have clarifying question about the change in warrants to enter houses? So my understanding was that that's uh was an internal memo that was leaked and has not been tested by the courts. So then are we still enforcing the constitutional expectation of a judicial warrant is needed for agents to enter a house?
openpublica.com