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?

Would you like to repeat that?

Okay.

Yeah, so what is the practice that we are going to use?

Are we at this point?

Are we still going to uphold precedent of a judicial warrant being needed for federal agents or to enter a house?

Well, that again became becomes kind of that loaded question where the Supremacy Act where's that thin line obviously for us at a local level, we'll always have a judicial warrant if we're executing to enter a house.

Again, how that applies to in this case, ICE is undetermined, uh whether we can intervene or not.

Again, this is kind of that moving target.

I know there's several lawsuits that are coming out against ICE, and we'll have to see what the restrictions are placed by federal judges in regards to the memo.

Okay, I'm gonna switch to Councilor Falkner and then I might come back with a follow-up.

Can I ask the question maybe with a different framework?

If you know, if if ICE is contending that a judicial warrant is not needed and an administrative warrant is fine, um, and they show up at city offices.

What what what are we following?

Are we following judicial precedent in the constitution, or are we bound to what internal memos at ICE now say?

So we would probably ask to see the warrant first.

If they don't produce one, we would probably object, but we wouldn't interfere at this point.

We would document.

Um again, the goal would be is to accumulate enough information and follow suit with a lot of other cities filing lawsuits against the federal government.

So we would not stop ICE agents from entering private we what we now have marked as non-public internal rooms within the city.

We would not stop them from entering the premises if they produced an administrative warrant.

I think we could seek some additional legal clarification about that, but our understanding is that the internal memo essentially was ICE authorizing themselves to enter into these areas.

That's what an administrative warrant is as opposed to a judicial warrant.

I think some of the considerations we'd have to keep in mind is what is the situation, what's the context?

Is there safety employee safety involved?

Um and what the specific request of the ICE officer is.

It's kind of an uncharted area because the legal precedent has always been a judicial warrant, and all of the training that we had previously was to ask for or asked to produce a judicial warrant, and that an administrative warrant was not sufficient, and now ICE has come out with this memo, and so um I think we need to seek some additional clarification, but it's uh uh we have to then consider our employee safety, uh, but also um consider the situation.

What's the situation that they're requesting it?

Yeah, so I I think my follow-up would be I'm just well lots of things, but that information was leaked, right?

So it wasn't like it was cooperatively shared between jurisdictions saying, hey, we've updated our procedures.

So I mean, at this point, can't you say like, hey, we haven't received that from the federal government?

So we're gonna operate on a judicial warrant.

I'm just kind of curious about that because it's a leaked memo.

Um, but I would definitely like to have more guidance from our attorney, and I and I also think you know, I want to figure out too if we can we need to advocate for a federal an attorney that specializes in federal lawsuits for cities to use.

That's one of the things in my proposal to the uh district or the attorney general, but that's we gotta figure that out because I don't know, I'm just baffled right now.

Counselor Gussen.

I have a clarifying question.

Um Jesse, when you said when we're talking about the administrative warrants, and you said ICE is making ICE sent the memo, who makes the decision on whether there's an administrative warrant or not?

Is that ICE that makes that decision?

And are they boxed into the criteria that there has to be in order to create an administrative warranty?

So the criteria is pretty open-ended in regards to if you're the ICE agent in charge, you can fulfill that administrative warrant how you please.

So there are no really guiding rules in regards to the administrative warrant.

So as a supervisor in an of an ICE team, you could sign that administrative warrant and put it in that you see fit.

That seems to be some of the practice that's going on.

Okay.

I love ambiguity.

Um so in a case like that, what's to stop them from making whatever the if for my house, for your house, anybody's house.

That's the that's one of them.

And then the other one is yes, on the attorney piece.

I would love to hear what that's going to look like, or if it's going to look like right.

Um, because that for me, that take it's already like at a huge level, right?

That just takes it even more over the top.

That's insane.

So I would really like to make sure that we keep close eye on that, and um, you know, even send information to the council if you can so that we have a chance to chew on it.

Go ahead, Counselor Schemmel.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Henry, but what I hear you say is you're delineating the legal question from the situation.

That the situation you to avoid a fatal incident, you would collect information and pass it on to the through the legal process.

But in this situation, you you would you would not cause a lethal action, especially in a public building when there's other people around.

That would be correct.

And I agree with that.

I think it's important to delineate that and that uh withstanding our our codification that I would want you to do what was in the public safety interest and collect the information and let the attorneys work out the rest.

Go ahead, sorry, Jesse for interrupting.

So these are just as the chief mentioned, this is an evolving uh situation, and so we added this slide just to give some current updates on some of the kind of um legal framework.

State of Minnesota versus Christy Nome.

Uh, there's a current lawsuit that was filed by the state of Minnesota.

Uh the basis of the lawsuit was a violation of the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Uh the harm that was alleged was to public safety, local police, and the community, 35 counties and cities across the nation, including Oregon have filed what's called an Amakai Cure brief.

Uh so that lawsuit is currently pending.

Uh we discussed the internal ICE memo that asserts federal immigration officers may enter private homes and areas with an administrative warrant with a final order of removal and without a judicial warrant.

This is a departure from the long-standing practice that previously required a judicial warrant.

And then recently the US Department of Justice issued grand jury subpoenas to state and local officials in Minnesota seeking records and investigating whether they obstructed or impeded federal law enforcement.

Uh there were some topics that were brought up for discussion.

Um, and that's part of the purpose of tonight's meeting is for low law local law enforcement.

What role in evidence preservation investigation made the local uh uh police do?

What conditions, if any, can local law enforcement intervene?

There was some discussion about scenario-based planning regarding communications plans and the role of a large-scale event.

Um, there's a the council wanted a staff update on the sanctuary city ordinance implementation, and then uh I think it was just general updates from from the council on um uh things and and efforts that they may uh be doing as well.

So next slide.

Hand it back to the chief.

So right now we're trying to work with uh Portland Police Bureau as well as the district attorney's office over Loma County on the shooting there and look at best practices.

We'll have this discussion again on what they were allowed to do during that scene, what were the restrictions, and again also look at some of the new rhetoric coming out of the White House in regards to letting Minnesota now do an investigation on the shooting.

Again, there's some caveats if and when they're gonna let them do that or how they can do it.

So again, we're kind of following all these situations and trying to come up with a benchmark for all law enforcement in Washington County on procedural practices if we have a officer involved shooting uh with an IC in any of our communities.

Again, what we're learning so far is the supremacy clause uh keeps us from actively engaging.

I hate using that.

I'm sorry, I probably use that term a lot, but unfortunately it's there and it does definitely circumvent the amount of things we get to do or cannot do uh based within our own legal authority.

And also intervention, uh, we are working on a communication protocols.

I think Jim's gonna cover that.

Again, I just mentioned our own law enforcement council efforts with all that piece of sheriffs again.

Looking at what would be the best practice for us if an OIC officer volume shooting does occur within one of our jurisdictions.

And Jim, I think we have the next one.

Counselor Schemmel.

So it's been trying to move real quickly there, sir.

Okay.

Uh so you our district attorney has been promising this protocol for months.

Is there any some timeline where we're gonna see that?

No.

To be upfront honest, we're working on it.

He's working on it.

I actually had some conversations with uh uh Kevin Barton today.

Again, it's a moving target where we think we're in one place, and then something else happens, and then now we're revamping and restructuring and looking at what those practices or intervention points might be.

So it's not like we're procrastinating at all.

May seem like no, I know it's not you.

It's no, I'm not saying me, but it's in regards to we understand bureaucracy is slow sometimes, but this is much different than the full bureaucratic scenario.

All right, good evening.

I'm gonna try and be as concise as I as I can in reminding the council uh what the EOP is in the EOC and IAP.

Uh really large documents um and a lot of information, but I'll be as concise as I can.

The emergency operations plan outlines the basic strategies, assumptions, operational objectives, and mechanisms through which the city will mobilize resources and conduct activities to guide and support emergency management efforts.

The EOP is an operations, operations-based plan that addresses evacuation, sheltering, post-d disaster response and recovery, deployment of resources, communications, and public information processes.

It serves as the foundation for emergency response within the city and delineates coordination before, during, and after events occur.

The incident action plan, also known as the IAP, is a formal written plan that outlines the objectives, strategies, tactics, resources, and assignments for managing an emergency or event during a specified operational period.

The IAP serves as the central roadmap communicating clear guidance and expectations to all incident personnel partners and stakeholders to ensure a coordinated effective response.

Among other items of the IAP includes an emergency communications plan and a medical plan.

The EOC can be activated administratively, and when activated, the EOC houses all key players who have a role in the operational structure.

The EOC is designed specifically to support the incident.

The EOC is generally composed of what is shown on this slide to include the incident commander, operations section chief, planning section chief, logistics section chief, and the finance section chief.

Next slide.

The information is gathered by the on-seen PIO and provided to the EOC PIO, who then provides and discusses the information with the EOC incident commander who may provide the information to the city manager and the executive slash policy group.

A message is developed and provided to the media by one or more designated spokespersons for the city.

Next slide.

This is the uh executive policy group.

Uh it's important to note that uh the um EOC, the EOP, and the and the IAP, they're there's they're uh they're scalable and adaptable to the incident.

Um it's not a one-size-fits-all.

Uh the executive policy group is generally composed of the mayor, city manager, emergency manager, and applicable department heads.

The mayor and city manager's with the city council.

Uh line of policy succession is mayor, council president, and city manager.

Next city council key responsibilities.

I these are some uh roles for city council, these are examples.

Uh they aren't solely restricted to a response to an emergency and may take place as uh as a component of mitigation planning or recovery.

So these may not be pertinent to just an incident response, they could be before or after to provide uh fiscal support and policy level guidance to the EOC, issue policy statements as needed to support recovery and response, act as liaison to community when uh the EOC is activated, act as a liaison for local, county, state, and federal elected leaders, encourage and assist with resident involvement and assistance, establish strong working relationships with all partners, lead and encourage residents to take preparedness actions, and to continue on.

Act on emergency funding requests, adopt an emergency operations plan or other emergency resolutions.

That concludes our presentation.

Counselor, excuse me, counselor Falkner.

I have a follow-up uh for Chief about concerns that um stem from you know what I'm hearing is that ICE federal agents aren't necessarily communicating with local law enforcement um their plans to to do immigration enforcement anywhere.

Um and if you're not getting those communications, if you're not informed about potential operations here in the city of Forest Grove, um, how do we verify if if there's a call from a resident for assistance because you know maybe they don't trust that the person performing the enforcement is in fact who they say they are?

Um they're wearing masks, you know.

I could go buy the same vest at a store right now if I wanted to.

Um people could impersonate these officers.

And so I guess my question is you know, how are local law enforcement supposed to know either?

And would would would you respond if you know if they're if a call came for help and you responded to you know reported ICE activity?

Um would one of the steps be to verify that that's that they are in fact who they say they are.

So the few encounters that we've had within our police department, they did identify themselves as ICE agents, but you're correct, they don't call us if they're doing a sting or a directed uh target or not notified.

Uh but so far not covered with they have identified themselves and showed credentials at least twice now for us.

Once was during the accident, then one was on uh one of the other scenes.

So the standard officers are requesting that information then when they again they don't have to give it to us, but I again they're lately at least watching videos again.

As I mentioned, I watched a lot of the news feeds.

They are appropriately marked as federal agents to include wearing hard shield because you're right, they can buy a vest, but again, certain insignia that they wear would be difficult for them to get to including a hard badge.

But did I hear you say that they're not required to identify themselves to you?

No.

Um other questions?

And then anyone can interrupt me when so right now within our, I don't know if it's part of our code or ordinance, but is there a code?

So you know, is there a police code that's being used to report ice, like or any situations with ice in Forest Grove?

Like I I guess what I'm asking is how are we tracking?

You know, one of the things I think the goals I heard from the council was to be able to track um ice in force grove.

And so can we create a code?

Oh like digits to search, and that way we can see, you know, law enforcement can share that and say, here's the code, this is how many, this is what's going on, and you can report it to our um partners regionally.

We are if we're notified, we are reporting those our dispatch center, which dispatches for a block.

Now has a drop-down code for immigration.

Is so you is that a regional code?

Is that the same code as Washington County using that same code?

Because our dispatch center is all okay.

Um another or can we just ask questions and say different things about the ordinance if you yeah, if you would like, go for it.

So as part of the sanctuary city ordinance that council passed, it does mandate that staff uh submit public records requests of federal agencies associated with federal ICE enforcement action.

So if we do become apprised of a particular action and we have uh some verification that it occurred, then we will submit a public records request.

I feel like you keep like teed me up perfectly because my next question was going to be I would like to do a public records request right now from our asking of all people, citizens and non-citizens who have been detained in the city.

I would like that information.

And I thought that was through our ordinance.

So thank you for confirming that on my notes.

And I think commensurate with that, yes, we would keep track, obviously, of the public records requests, what the request is for, etc.

Synonymous with what the chief was mentioning in terms of uh available data through Washington County Communications.

Okay, and I have one more question on our code.

Uh I believe the code says that we should not that we're not supporting federal um actions towards immigration.

Correct?

That's stingtuary city.

So I would like to know, I want to follow the money.

And I would like to look at our like go through our auditor's office or reports to see where our money is going, who has our contracts, and make sure we are not supporting any company that is financing or funding immigration or ice activities.

So if we know the company is aiding in surveillance, aiding in financially funding surveillance, doing whatever we have to stop spending city money on that.

Um yeah, and so that's about the ordinance.

Those are my notes.

I had kind of questions.

Are there any other I was not meaning to like start?

Go ahead, Counselor Gustin.

Uh first the website with all the information.

It it's great.

I love it.

It looks fantastic.

And I love your idea about you know who we're who we're spending city money on.

So I just wanted to support you in that.

Um I know Jim, you talked about the emergency plan.

Um, is there anything with and I I doubt it, I think we have everything covered in that plan, but is there anything about the situation that we are in now?

Or kind of tweaks and differences that might happen type of situation to type of situation that we need to kind of micro plan a little bit preemptively, or do you think everything is covered in the plan enough so that when something specific does happen, we're just going straight to the plan and we've got our list.

Yeah, thank you.

Um there is one thing that we could do is we've discussed it is to, and I mentioned it uh briefly here is the incident action plan.

Uh uh the incident in action plan uh has uh several parts to it.

It's a booklet and it's uh uh created for each operational period of the incident.

Uh it's it's scalable.

Uh it uh lists the objectives for the incident, uh the communications for the incident, uh safety briefing uh uh components like that.

There are a few of those components that we could uh prepare in anticipation of of an incident.

And uh it's a little bit difficult uh to to create the entire IAP because it's dependent on what the incident is.

But we could create um a portion of that and then uh if if necessary, uh pull it out and and uh finish the creation of it.

Counselor Schumel.

But she wanted to piggyback on it.

An important point, Counselor Gustave was bringing up is that this is like the pandemic and that it's gonna be protracted.

So that's a more of a pluralistic uh emergency uh is uh it may resemble the same same question of the if it's a multi-year uh how do what's that burden on the emergency management system and your staff and your ability to sustain um other city service, you know, meeting the needs of our city beyond just the immigration piece.

Right now there's there's no burden and there's been there's been no request to open the EOC and and uh no no directive really other there isn't um uh an incident to respond to right now as far as fire is concerned.

Um and I don't see the burden a clarification question going back to the code.

Um if IC makes contact with local law enforcement, is it can we get that reported back to the council or any time local law enforcement interfaces with ICE?

I would like to have like updates on that.

I would like to know.

Is that part of our expectation of the code or can we ask for that?

I don't know if I have consensus on that, but I think it's really important that we know what's going on and that there's a collab, you know, that we're cooperating between the governing body, local law enforcement, what's happening federally.

So I'm not sure if this uh one of the things that the Oregon Sanctuary Ordinance says and what the city sanctuary says is that is that our local law enforcement cannot assist ICE.

And so uh um depending on what that potential interaction may be, I think our local law enforcement would have to be careful to make sure, and and it also the the city code requires us to uh report violations of the Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act.

And so um I I think we'd have to um well that's why I want it reported back to us.

If ICE is contacting local law enforcement, I I want to know about it.

I'm not saying that I want I do not want them working with them.

Yeah, I'm saying that I just want to be made aware of it.

There are reporting provisions in the code that require we have to report exceptions to or violations of the Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act.

We have to report, of course, the public records requests.

Um if there's something that city council would like us report.

No, but so is that my okay, I don't I don't think I'm clarifying what I want.

Is that gonna that report is going to someone else?

I presume.

Can that also be reported to the council?

Is that part of it?

Is that report gonna come to the governing body?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry if I was not clearly asking that.

Go ahead, Counselor Schimmel.

I think you well, you raise a uh a critical gap is data.

Uh I I know just from reading numerous sources that the city's police interaction is is minimal at best if um that awareness comes from external sources like indivisible fork uh and others.

So I don't I don't know how how best to close that gap if if this emergency response system would aid in that.

I I'd much prefer a statewide emergency to activate a whole apparatus that would help improve the the data provision, but the the absence of data is uh a real inhibitor for us making good policy.

Um and I understand and uh counselor Falconer might be a better uh one to answer answer the the idea of data from residential or external groups being accepted as evidence for um uh litigation, but I I know there's there's some distinction between uh a public uh and municipal source versus public source.

I don't know if you know so that the challenge is we're not we don't have data to inform us about what's really going on.

Um and oftentimes it's latent, like we learn in the last meeting or a month later about a serious incident.

Um but that that's one area I hope we can we can explore is you know how how do we shore up some of the data sources that so we have a better awareness of of what's going on in the community, but uh but I I want to understand that from the standpoint of you know staff impact to go pinpoint where sources are and how we can collect that.

Okay.

Um I want to, as we are we have about half an hour left, and so I want to make sure is there any more feedback or questions on what staff reported on tonight.

Is there anything else you need from staff?

Because I would like to be able to spend some time talking about topics for the next work session or things you would like staff to explore or bring back.

Um it's really important, I think, to this council, and I don't mean to speak for the council, but what I've been hearing is that we want action and we want to keep making strategic steps to protect our our community.

And so I want to make sure that we give time to have to give staff direction on what we'd like them to look at and what we'd like to consider for the next meeting.

One more question on presentation.

Go ahead, Councilor Shimmel.

Uh what are the standards or qualifiers for activating the emergency emergency management system?

Th there really aren't any identified standards.

I mean, if if the uh if the incident is going to uh last for more than one operational period, meaning 12 to 24 hours, that could be a reason to uh to open the the uh the EOC.

Uh if there's uh a recovery uh uh necessity, uh then that would be that a recovery necessity or operation that was gonna last for a series of days, that would be a uh a reason why.

Uh if there was uh uh a need to support the emergency workers in the field for a number of days or you know, one or more operational periods, that could be a reason why.

Um so it it's it's scalable and it's dependent on what the incident is.

Well, maybe I'll I'll certain pivot that question to my colleagues is what what are would be our standards.

I hope it wouldn't be body count, that it it would be at least uh readiness to to activate um if if we don't activate it right away, just just to have the the process and system set up ready to be responsive.

I'd welcome some feedback.

So when I brought this, you know, and I'm just gonna speak for myself.

Um, you know, I'm I'm feeling a lot of anxiety for my community and for myself.

And so for me, when I'm anxious, I like to have a plan.

I like to make sure that things that I'm in control of that we have thought it out so we are able to act.

We're able to act to support our community.

And so having the emergency plan and the EOC ready to go was and making sure staff had gone through that was not because I want to have to use it.

It's because I want to make sure that if we are in the terrible situation, we have to use it, that the people who are in charge that we are calm, we are cool, and we're ready to go for our community.

So I I don't know if that answers your question, but that was the kind of the key to making you know my my thought process.

Counselor Falkner.

The way I was reading the report, um, and even some of these slides, I guess my question is, you know, do we do we need or want consensus around sort of you know, like the proposed it looked to me like it was sort of a proposal that this is what one would look like.

Um do you need that?

Do you need a discussion on that for these for these types of activities?

I think it was already the plan is just when to activate it.

Is that correct?

Well, I'll let Jesse say I don't I don't think we do, but I think the intent of tonight's presentation was just to kind of more clearly define what the council's roles and responsibilities are.

Okay how the activation may or may not occur and under what circumstances who would be how the communications plan would work, some flow, any potential medical plans.

I think it's also you know, safety.

So kind of building on the the previous question.

We are already talking about some contingency planning.

Um and and I think in response, oftentimes what a municipality can do in these types of scenarios is do a little bit of tabletop exercises, kind of ask some what ifs because there's different scenarios for different situations, and so it's important to kind of consider what all of those scenarios may be and then do something some contingency planning associated with it.

When would you activate it under what circumstances?

Who would be in what positions associated with the uh emergency operations center more acutely and specifically how would the communications plan work?

I think we've got the framework here.

It's just a matter of doing, I think, some additional contingency planning and maybe tabletop exercise and uh the um become even more familiar with than what we are now counselor shimmel.

Well, I I'd be a proponent of filling in the framework and then leveraging the the mechanism where the mayor can activate it uh in a pinch and Jesse can m move things along and then come back to us for the yeah the but I'd want to have fill in the framework with names or what have you if if there's I don't I'm sorry, I don't mean to take your presiding officer.

No, but are you saying that's my I'm proposing that we haven't filled the framework and that we leverage the latitude that the mayor has to activate?

How does the council feel about councilor Shimmel's proposal?

Is there a consensus to do that?

Thumbs up or thumbs down.

I see two thumbs up or okay, so there's consensus to do that.

Yeah.

Sorry, Nancy.

I'm stuck.

That's okay.

I wasn't up very high.

Um did I just turn that off?

So obviously we're all talking to the community because you're feeling the angst as much as I am, and I know um, you know, we're kind of under a lot of pressure here.

Um and the the community is so strong, you know, we want to make sure that we figure out everything that we can in order to be able to kind of control the situation that's uncontrollable.

Um, but one thing when we're talking about the health of our community, I keep looking at you, but talking to everybody.

Um what else can we do besides this to work on the mental health of our community?

Is there anything else that we can do to I don't I don't want to say distract people, but but to a certain extent increase a positive somewhere, and I don't have a solution, right?

But how can we as a city increase a positive and help people with the um the stress that it's bringing on the mental health, the you know, lack of wanting to go out and have any fun?

It's just something to think about as a city because it's it's health and wellness too.

I appreciate those comments, Councilor Govston, and I, you know, want to shout out the great community organizations we have that do that and our partners.

Um and I think too, you know, I spent a good chunk of the last week and weekend writing the first draft of probably many drafts of the state of the city.

And you know, that's the messaging is that we are still moving their their vision forward.

We're still working with the partners, and we're trying to become resilient, right?

We're trying to do all these things, and I think that um, but I do that.

I won't I don't want to go on and on, but I I do think you're you're spot on.

Okay, I I would like to know if we can um cut you know, any ideas or things that you would like direction for the next work session, things that you would like staff to look at and bring back to the council, things we need to chew on uh with the goal of you know, resiliency.

Counselor Falkner I don't know how much times um it would take staff, but you know, the you know, the Oregon legislature uh you know has sort of unveiled their agenda, you know, for um so I guess maybe my request, and I hope you all will agree is is that you know, we spend some time tracking that legislation and supporting it when when appropriate.

So I think we should add that to the next next couple of meetings as sort of a standing item.

Yeah, so what I'm gonna okay, let's figure out how to facilitate this.

Let's just do it as you go.

So there was a request by counselor Falconer to support uh legislation from the Oregon State Legislature that aligns with our sanctuary code.

And I think you know, it has to do with mask and different things.

Um is there consensus to track that and be ready to support that?

Thumbs up for consensus.

Okay, I see the head nod and force.

So we're gonna move on.

There's consensus with that.

Counselor Falconer, did you have any other thoughts?

Counselor Falconer, did you have any other thoughts or are you good to and I think to um maybe just even bringing back the legislation at the next work session to right now?

They think they're just concept, yeah.

And I think okay, great.

Counselor Council President Valenzuela.

Do you have any I was just gonna go around the no, just uh um just grateful to the people that in this community that are stepping up when they don't really have to because they don't have you know anything to worry about.

Uh but they are stepping up.

And the mental health issue that you mentioned, I'm very concerned about our youth.

Um, because they're having to stay home to go back to pandemic times, studying there, you know, and for for a you for a young person, I mean, for every human being, just having that social life, that interaction, it's immensely important.

So I'm just really proud of everything we're doing, and thank you uh for the work that you're doing to lead us through this.

Thank you, Council President.

Counselor Schemel.

Yeah, the the urgency is just a supplement to counseling Falconer's suggestion about uh to establish some standards for enforceable action that are that we lean into our legislative leaders on.

Um a document I sent late last week on page one includes what I would suggest, at least as a as a draft of enforceable standards involving legality, staffing, compliance, free of municipal liability, operational, realistic, de-escalatory and design, so forth.

So I think it's important that it's not just we're not just tracking, but we're advocating for that they meet standards and we actually score it.

Um because the the consequence of not doing that is unfunded mandates that actually put our community in more peril.

Thank you.

I I'm gonna, and I don't mean to like cut in, but I wrote, I'm just gonna give a little update.

I wrote a letter to the MMC executive board, the MMC, sorry for all the letters, at least it's not all vowels, but um, is the Metropolitan Mayor's Consortium?

And I asked uh, because this like I've been granted some permission from you all to advocate and work in behalf.

So um it was a letter asking their assistance in seeking formal guidance from the Oregon Attorney General regarding how cities should respond to the presence and actions of federal immigration enforcement agents, including U.S.

immigration and customs enforcement.

Um and I had this letter.

I have not heard back from the MMC, but I would ask you, this council if we could send it to the attorney general from the Force Grove City Council, the guidelines, and I would be willing, you know, obviously willing to add things that with consensus, but my specific guidance, and again, I wrote this a week and a half ago, so it might even be a little bit out of date with the speed in which things are happening, was seeking guidance on the following questions.

Local law enforcement authority.

Under what circumstances, if any, may local law enforcement intervene or engage with when federal immigration agents are operating within the city's jurisdiction?

Two, the role of the Oregon National Guard.

What is the role of the Oregon National Guard, if any, in such situations?

Three, evidence preservation.

What does appropriate local evidence preservation look like to prevent federal actions from shutting out local law enforcement or undermining local investigations?

Four, state and local partnerships and protection of resources and rights.

How can the Attorney General's office work collaboratively with cities to represent municipal needs, protect against the loss of local resources when cities are impacted by ICE activities?

So I'm asking you all if it's okay if I send this letter on behalf of the Force Grove City Council.

I support that.

And is there anything, you know, Council Schimmel, I did not want to overstep your comments.

Was there is there anything that you think uh from anyone on this on this group or in this group that I have forgotten?

I think these are some of like talking to city staff, these talking to other mayors in the region.

These are some of the things that we are grappling with.

These are the barriers of protecting our community and following the constitution.

I just have a question.

Um going back a little bit, and I apologize for that.

I'm still a little bit under the weather.

Okay, so um when there is an incident report, uh let's say um you report when if an officer, uh local police uh does not follow the central sanctuary laws, correct?

Where does that information go?

Where do you report it basically?

Any of these things.

We report it to the council.

To us.

The city code requires that if there's any violations of the Oregon State Way Promise Act that we track it and that we report it.

Uh to the city.

And to the attorney general.

Yeah, and to the attorney general.

That's okay.

I'm not gonna finish this.

Sorry, I thought it would be publicly reporting.

We would also submit it to the attorney general.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

The well, the I I would I would still ask if if you want to look through that that document to look at the the enforceability standards suggested the the thing that concerns me when it when our language suggests merely that the police is authorized to do something is that there's no practical way for our current police force to be even be present.

The the time frames when ICE is most active is when we have three officers on deck is is just an impracticable practical ask.

What we need from the state or a county are uh tactical resources or um specialized units to be responsive to a very unique need.

I I hear what you're saying, but I'm gonna like play devil's advocate a little bit.

They're gonna say our staffing limitations is not part of in their, I would assume, right?

Like that's not an like that's up to us to fund immigration enforcement is not in our purview either.

I know, but so what uh what if let me finish?

So that's why what I like I feel like I know government is slow and it's frustrating and there's no time to be slow, but I split up those two questions.

It was what is the role of the local law enforcement?

And then my question four is about uh protection of resources and rights.

So funding, right?

How can we protect against the loss of local resources when cities are impacted?

Like that's the question about lawsuits, about funding, about the cost that's of cities too.

Go ahead, Kill.

Wait, go ahead, Council Shimmel.

And then so what do we stop doing?

What staff gets diverted to law enforcement to to be in a practical way of doing that?

Again, we have three officers on duty when ICE is active.

That and I've I've done a drive drive along.

Uh, I see what where they have not they're not only out on their car, they have to come back and generate reports.

And if we have to divert resources away from the 60 calls a day, people die by other means.

So there's just no practical way we need additional resources.

If if we have to do it within our means, then the question for us is what do we stop doing?

Do we shut down a parks and rec to shift the the financial resource over?

That I mean, those are the tough questions I think we got to get into if we imagine that there's any chance of it.

Do you think that that resource question is not for the attorney general, but because I have another letter, but for the governor?

I mean, is that I think that's a go ahead.

No, council.

That was gonna be my comment is that I think that your the questions that you're asking for us to send to the attorney general are different than what the question you're asking, which is because even the governor doesn't, you know, uh spend money.

The legislature has to do that.

Right.

And so that that I feel like that's that's different.

And I hear you, and I I mean, obviously, I mean, I also think that you know the question about authority is one thing.

How we were to how we would implement that and that we would fund it is a completely different question.

Yeah, it's I hear what you're saying.

It goes.

I can't be concerned what Henry is authorized to do if he can't practically do it and and we we signal to the community that we're we're doing something in no practical way.

I I'm concerned with it because I'm concerned with the legality and what we're allowed to do because when we look at this administrative warrant, when we hear updates, and I'm I don't want to speak for the community, I'm just gonna speak for myself.

Like the very first hurdle, the very first barrier that we have to leap over is that we have to be allowed, we have to know that we're not asking our employees and our law enforcement or city staff to go against the constitution.

Like we we have to know that we are not putting them in a situation where they are breaking the law.

And so for me, again, I have to break it into parts.

I have to slow it down and I have to say, what can I do to answer this question to move us forward?

I'm not saying this is the end of it.

I'm saying this is the the the letter to get this question.

So then now we have the next question of how do we fund it?

How do we you know what I'm saying?

Like, I don't, and I don't know if I'm doing it correctly.

I'm just trying to do something.

And I'm offering suggestions on what that is.

It's it's a tandem thing.

Okay, I'm just trying to figure out who would the letter, who would you like us to write the letter to to state that?

Because I don't think it's the attorney general.

Well, let's say it's to the House and Senate majority leaders, as well as our our local representatives.

So local which I think I would I'm gonna would you want to draft that letter and bring it back to the next work session.

Well, I'm just I don't want to try to do it because I'm not I mean, I'm gonna be like pretty upfront that you know I don't want to try to interpret what you are wanting into my own words when I might not clearly understand and then mess it up.

And so if we can divide up some of the responsibility and then you then it'll be more clear, I also think.

Yeah.

Uh yeah, I can do that, but next work session is too late.

It's the end of the it's the end of the legislative session.

I mean, they they need it now.

I mean, I could draft something.

I sent something last week that provides the standards and some other language.

I mean, I could work with you on it.

Um but it has to be it needs to be done uh this month to to have any effect on the legislative session that because they're already writing bills.

Okay.

Uh go ahead, Counselor Falkner.

Well, I think we said that we would set this standing meeting unless we needed another one.

And so I think we can always add it to the next meeting.

So I don't I don't really know.

I mean, I I think that this council needs to.

I mean, you basically read your little letter.

I think you got consensus to write it.

I think we would need to read your letter.

And so I think that we can add this.

Can we can we do we want to have, I mean, I haven't looked at next month's agenda tread in water.

Um, but can we switch our immigration or standing meeting to the first meeting in February instead of the second meeting in February?

If the council would like to either switch or to add a meeting, we can do that and we can accommodate it on the schedule.

Okay.

Yeah, my suggestion was to simply add that one item.

Just add that one item to the next meeting.

To the next meeting.

Counselor Gussen.

So I agree, you're both right.

Um, but you're gonna continue with this letter because we've all approved it.

And so I think the timing will be good because you do need to kind of know the answers to these questions in order.

I mean, the next phase is finding out how we can um accommodate what we're gonna need to do whatever the answers are to those questions.

So um if we start with that, and I'd love to see counselor Shenwells.

Since you have the mic, do you have the next I'm we'll just do this?

Let's shop your idea and then we'll keep moving.

What?

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, you're good.

Okay, so counselor Martinez.

Okay.

Um in addition to what I already said, and I'm sorry for interrupting you, Counselor Shimmel.

I I would like to see our attorney.

Um, so what my understanding is there's a a legal research portal called PACER, um, which carries all federal pleadings.

And I would like our attorney to research cases brought forward um dealing with federal agents and immigration and ICE.

Uh so find out the attorney suing them, reach out to them and see if we can join.

Like, and I don't we don't need to to see if we can join at this point, but I would like those lawsuits brought back to counsel at the next work session.

Um, so we can see if those are things we want to become a part of.

And Counselor Falconer, while I'm looking at my notes, go ahead.

Real quick, I just want to ask a question whether I mean I I think that that could involve that might require an executive session.

So I just want to be sure about that.

Oh, okay.

Good point.

Well, bring it back and let us know if it does.

Or like look into it.

Um, and then I don't know if you know this is just an idea.

Maybe I'll take it to my Washington County Mayor's group or the MMC, but I don't know if this group is, but I think at some point we should, you know, should reach out to the Minneapolis mayor, see how we can support them, him, and um, if he is has time at any point, what he can help teach us so we can prepare.

Um, just look for like reach out and cooperation.

Um, maybe even just the notes.

I mean, I kind of get consensus to write a letter saying, hey, you know, the Force Grove City Council is with you, we support your efforts to support the constitution.

Um, please let us know if you know if you need anything from us.

Is there consensus from that?

I see one, two, okay.

Those are the things I had, I'm gonna pass it to counselor guffs, and we have like about nine minutes.

We're doing perfect.

Um of the things I wanted to bring up, and we might already understand that.

Uh, one of the previous meetings that we had, we talked about how we're going to react to everything that's going on, what can we do?

And we talked about the risk, you know, the risk of whatever actions that we take, whether positive, consequence, negative, consequence, um, and then what each of those risks, what's the consequence of that risk, and what's our appetite for accepting the consequences to those risks.

So, is that a process we're still going to follow through with when we're really assessing the risks of our actions?

Because we have, and we're talking about you know, enforcing the law while breaking the law to enforce the law.

So when we're talking about breaking the constitution by not following the rules of um supremacy, we're then allowing them to break the constitution and putting people at risk here.

So if we're going to enforce a constitution to combat other people breaking the constitution, what is our risk?

See, there's there's all these different things that we had talked about before where we talked about the risks, talking to the attorney about the risks and then assessing our appetite for those consequences.

Oh, yeah.

So I don't think right now at this point there's any consensus to break the constitution.

I think there's okay.

Okay, I'm well, I'm just not going to say that.

I didn't no okay, put it on.

I did not say that we should break the constitution.

No, no.

And I didn't think I said that.

I just said that there has been no consensus for us to do that.

I think the consensus I'm hearing is that we need guidelines.

We need guidance from the attorney general in understanding how to navigate like this turmoil, this right.

Um, and so I think once we have guidance and we then we make decisions on what best works for us based on the risk, all those things, right?

So for me, it's it's just trying to move forward.

Um, and then being able to you know make the best educated decision we can.

So yeah, I think we just the attorney was on standby tonight, but based on the present, and you know, we can always I mean, if you guys want the attorney here for every meeting, we can, but I think what when I talked to Jesse, it was if there was legal questions or we had some things and pay the attorney to be here to go over them.

But I'm gonna be real honest with you too.

And that's kind of this point about not having someone to resent represent us on this issue.

Our attorney is not used to this type of situation, right?

Like this is not land use, this is not things of that nature.

So we kind of got to figure that out too.

There's lots to figure out.

Yeah, I I I would like to make a comment about that.

I think it's immensely important it that we have the guidance from someone that specializes in, you know, in immigration and you know these kind of uh deals.

This is a whole different thing for all of us, and we need good answers.

We need um, you know, the exactitude of the answers of what the law says.

And uh it's important that we are seeking guidance from you know uh someone that uh yes, yes, that to understand this very well.

Okay, and why is this a risk?

Yeah, for sure.

Um any other comments?

We did really good.

We have 25 minutes left.

So I'm gonna, and you know, and I want to put this on the record because I make mistakes often.

This was a work session, and work sessions are um there's no public comment taken, and the council will make no formal action or take no formal action.

This um uh very well okay risk yeah for sure um any other comment we did really good we have 25 minutes left so I'm gonna you know and I want to put this on the record because I make mistakes often this was a work session and work sessions are um there's no public comment taken and the council will make no formal action or take no formal action I did not say that at the beginning of the meeting so we're gonna say at the end and I'm gonna adjourn this work session and give staff a minute to change positions I was like you're good okay okay we got council president we got 20 minutes then I'd like to call to order this work session of the Force Grove City Council it is the topic of tonight's work session is on the development code we have our city council president and our community development staff please remember that no public comment will be taken and the council will make take no formal action and I will turn it over to our community oh nope I will turn it over to our senior planner Matthew Johnson thank you all right um so some of these slides the purpose the vision plan and background were all uh part of the previous work session um nothing has changed in terms of our purpose and being here uh next slide please um yes thank you um so in terms of our background so we last met our work session on the 12th um and we received consensus on the following items um and stop me please um if this is not correct but from what staff received from council uh we received a consensus on additional uh the addition of comprehensive plan target densities the revised definition of residential building height uh the revisions to the ADU standards to where we are having a greater allowance for ADUs to match the existing allowance for uh non-habitable residential accessory structures and then for attached ADUs instead of that being a percentage of the home for that to be at the max for what would be a detached ADU that's 720 square feet of floor area we consensus on a clarification of townhome setbacks and clarification of historic review for garage standards and as well as an additional statement for private restrictions uh the uh uh covenants restrictions next slide please uh more consensus items these were non-residential use regulations we um are now going to allow office uses in a neighborhood mixed use zone and we will also revise swap the building and structure definitions we also reached consensus uh to allow uh the delay of sidewalk construction in certain cases for subdivision development um we also updated the state revised statute number for cannabis facilities those were all of our consensus items and there are any questions or any questions discussion on the consensus items just a friendly reminder this is a continuation of the work session we had at the last meeting that we just didn't there's a couple things we wanted to think about and come back to okay so go ahead thank you okay so this was the last thing that we did not discuss from our previous um uh work session we are going to revisit some of the other things that we discussed in depth but this is the last item that we did not touch on from our previous work session um so we are going to incorporate mandatory adjustments um so we are going to revise the existing adjustment section to incorporate the required mandatory adjustments and ultimately allow for more flexibility of development standards specific to housing development projects um so SB 1537 from the 2024 legislative session requires local governments to grant adjustments to specific development and design standards applied to the development of housing if an application meets certain standards or certain conditions excuse me um so what is an adjustment it's a mechanism within the code that allows for greater flexibility uh when attempting to meet the requirements of the development code uh so things like height maximums building setback minimums um currently our code allows for adjustments to any development project not just housing but any development project up to 20% of the standard for building height setbacks and lock coverage all right so this is how our A and B is our code today so again those apply to existing uh sorry those apply to any development project it doesn't have to be exclusive to housing um you you can currently request up to 20% of the setback standard height or lock coverage C is what we're incorporating is the mandatory adjustments uh that's specific to a housing development project.

So what that means is a developer that is seeking to develop a housing subdivision or housing complex that has a minimum density of six units per acre, they are allowed to request up to 10 of these adjustments.

And it's it's something that they must justify.

So it's similar to a land use application where you know they can't just ask for it and get it.

They have to prove how it's going to allow a greater production of housing, whether that's in terms of numbers or incorporating an affordability component.

Do they just have to meet one of the criteria to get the adjustment?

Because you said there's like reasons they can get it.

So is it just one and done?

It could like a check they had this one additional unit, so they can have the adjustment.

Right.

They can't they have to prove that the adjustment would allow in a greater production of housing on the site, and not just that, it's just going to be cheaper for them to do uh, or that they don't want to do it.

They have to prove that it is providing more housing or more affordable housing.

So does that answer your question?

Yeah, I think I think so.

It's on it's on them to prove to staff that that it is warranted and not just something that they're just asking for.

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how to staff are decide if it's warranted.

Like, is it just uh they were they showed this one, you know, like is it just a check, or is there a scoring rubric, or is there a percentage, or like do they just have a conversation with you?

Like I'm trying to figure out like if the written narrative, yeah, it's if you have an employee that yeah, if there's an all new employees and this is our code, and and someone comes in, the employees just I mean, is it just a conversation?

Like I guess I'm a little bit like a conversation that is submitted to us through a narrative.

So yes, that they it they are they have the to put the burden of proof on paper and submit to staff when they're requesting this mandatory adjustment.

There is no rubric or scoring sheet scoring sheet in terms of uh and if staff, okay.

Got it very similar to kind of what we have right now where we have you know, A and B are existing mandatory adjustments uh or existing adjustments in our code uh where sort of some sort of justification that would you know require or that would sort of require reduced setbacks or building height or increased building height or something like that.

Um part of a record.

Um if they do go through a type two process under our code right now, that's an appealable thing.

So I mean notes get sent to the property owners around them, um and it's appealable.

Uh so that that justification for those adjustments under existing code appealable projects.

These are a little bit different.

These are a type one process, they are not appealable for property owners, but they are appealable by the applicant uh if they don't require one final, oh sorry, go ahead.

Oh no.

Um I was just gonna say the staff does have the ability to put conditions on these mandatory adjustments.

I was just gonna say, probably something like this, there's a lot of variability, and so we can't the check boxes may not work, but also does does it kind of depend on where we are or where the location is that helps you determine whether you're going to approve one of these exceptions or adjustments.

That's that's a good question.

So no, in terms of location, it's it's just that if it's specific to a housing project and it has to be a minimum of six units per acre.

So it can't just be you know a single homeowner on a single lot requesting these adjustments.

It's intended for larger development projects.

Um that um you know the the state is requiring that we authorize these mandatory adjustments if it allows easier production or more production.

Just to give you an example, you know, I mean that there are sometimes projects that you know uh you know an extra two foot of a building height would allow you know uh 20% more apartment units.

Um sticking rigidly to that building height would sort of curtail the production.

And that's really those sorts of things are where it's intended to apply.

Um unfortunately it's not location specific.

Um you're probably getting at or are these supposed to be sort of smart area in your transit and things like that.

Uh no, it would be city all right.

And this is just a definition that we'll add that states that the housing development project is specific to that six units per acre.

Um everything else beyond mandatory adjustments will be processed just like a city variance.

So going through the public process, um, if you want to vary for the code that is otherwise um prohibited or not allowed through these adjustments.

Any questions?

Yeah, okay.

All right, we'll move on.

Okay, so landscape buffer and screening.

We briefly touched on this last time.

Um, but during the city council work session last time, uh we heard concerns about building setbacks um adversely affecting small parcels and industrials.

Next slide, please.

Okay.

I'll try to be uh a little more clear and concise with this table.

So what we're doing here, so you this is our buffer, landscape buffer and screening table.

This is different than building setbacks.

So when a developing site, a developing use is located next to another abutting use, a type of landscape buffer or screening elements and the allotted space is all dependent on the adjacent use and the developing use.

Currently, this table is separated by both uses and zones.

So you'll notice the uh residential uses, you have multifamily uses, you have town home uses, you have single family detached home uses.

Um, and then currently you have commercial and institutional zones, which also allow residential uses and so on so forth.

There's it's not it's not um appropriately applied here.

Um there could be conflicting elements within here.

So what we are proposing is to have these as uses now.

Again, um next slide, please.

So what we heard from last time was that um we were concerned about industrial, small industrial properties developing as an industrial use, abutting um another industrial zone that has maybe a non-conforming use.

So what we are proposing here now, from what we heard from our previous work session, you'll notice footnote number three buffers are not required when an industrial use is abutting a non-conforming use within an industrial zone.

So not only will building setbacks not apply, but also this buffer will not apply.

That makes sense.

Yeah.

Um we will continue to have the we'll continue to have the the footnote number two.

Um we briefly touched on that last time.

All that is doing is saying that in addition to this table that we must refer to this section of code uh that's cross-referencing this table, it essentially just prescribes the amount of shrubs and trees and gets into the details of what that looks like on which combination of buffer that you may choose.

Okay.

Questions on this counselor Schemmel.

Uh well, first uh uh a comment.

I I appreciate the we're we're giving more latitude for developments or are giving you the opportunity to evaluate the situation and and I understand that the process allows for opposition if if that's uh prudent um uh you know what you know where the last several years I've I've it's been proven difficult for uh builders here to access public money, not just the the housing bond, but also state funds because of formulas and such.

But I I think some of that may start to widen more.

So um, and and I haven't had really taken the opportunity to dive into those policies to see where there's there might be some good alignment between our code and so that developers can access that money uh more fluidly.

Um so that that would just be one suggestion is if if there's time and circumstance the to understand what those those housing funding sources say about the the projects and also some of the limitations are you need a minimum number of units to pencil out.

You know, that that tends to be a problem, but um there I don't know if there's something for us to glean from that over time.

Okay.

All right, so finally the industrial standards.

The during our last work session uh again we expressed concerns about uh buildings have acts adversely affecting smaller processes in industrial zones.

Um the direction we received and heard was to remove setbacks.

Um keep them where they are now, except when industrial development abuts a residential zone.

Um the code is applied zero setbacks, uh zero height, but now we're focusing on when they are abutting a residential zone, and that when abutting a residential zone, that that industrial use should be set back from a residential zone at least 50 feet, and when it is abutting that residential zone, set back 50 feet that it should be at a maximum of 45 feet tall at that 50 foot building set back with the incremental height allowance of an additional feet set back to allow an uh additional foot in height.

Um I think my table will kind of clear that up a little bit.

Next slide, please.

Um we did reach out to uh neighboring jurisdictions.

Oh overall, the consensus was that there really haven't been any major issues.

Um when a civil or architect would submit a uh a site plan initially for review, um they may have to make some changes based on the the buffer requirements.

However, um usually that was just to their site circulation, uh not necessarily the buildings themselves is what we heard.

Okay, so as proposed, um where we're just going to buffer residential zones, uh there are currently six properties within the city that would be affected.

So starting on the right, um this is um um uh Heather Street and Mountain View.

Uh the X is the homestead community, and abutting that is um there's about 18 acres behind uh TTM technologies, and then there's that long kind of slender uh industrial piece there under that.

Um and then on the left, that image is near um Kingwood Street and Oak Street.

The the Oak Street properties, um, those are largely tax lots.

Um so I struggle calling them properties because essentially those would have to flatten uh subdivide and and parcel out for development.

Um but those X's that you see there are the residential properties that would be affected.

Um Council Creek runs there through the middle.

You can kind of see the outline of the the trees there on the south uh western corner.

Um but essentially those are the properties that would receive protection from from these code changes.

Uh so again, this is how our code currently reads and next slide, please.

And now these are our proposed changes on on based on the feedback from what we received from January 12th.

Um so again, uh minimum front setback would be zero.

Um the rear and side setbacks would also be zero except when abutting a residential zone, which would be required to be at least 50 feet, and the maximum building height would be zero except when abutting that residential zone.

Um remember they would be set back 50 feet and then they would be limited to 45 feet tall, but with the provision to allow an additional foot in height for every foot set back from that 50 feet.

And this is how the code would read with those changes.

Okay, any questions?

Any questions?

Seeing none.

So how do we what's the con is there consensus on the updated and the rest of this?

I see two thumbs up, me and Marshall.

Yep.

Okay, cool.

Yeah, you got what you got what you need from us.

We sure did.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council.

We had two good work sessions and then hour and a half.

Good job.

Work session is adjourned.

Team, let's go.

Team, go team go.

Right?

You're almost there.

Okay, I would like to call to order this final work session for the evening.

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

And the topic on this is the police facility.

We've got some polling results and some information.

And we have our police chief.

Oh, do we have a consultant on this is Ben?

I don't know, Ben Pattenkin with President Pattonkin research strategies and RCA manager, Jesse Vanderzannon.

So I'm gonna pass it over to Jesse to introduce and get it started.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council.

Ryan, if you could go to the next slide, please.

So the purpose of next slide, please.

The purpose of tonight's um presentation and work session is to review the polling results.

Ben Patinkin is um with us to present those a little bit later.

And then discuss next steps regarding a potential bond to construct a new police facility.

Next slide.

So where does this fit within the 2040 vision plan?

It really fits pretty directly right under the goal of community growth.

Improved public safety response in Forest Grove.

And then specifically action 2.17, build a new police facility.

Next slide, please.

I'm not gonna go into all of this.

Uh I think the council is well aware of the history of the facility.

Uh the only thing I would review is that in November of last year.

We did have a work session with council, and there was a consensus to value engineer approximately 1.4 million dollars in facility savings.

That really would prevent the bond amount from increasing to 31 million due to inflation and keep it at the 29.5 million that it originally was in the first ballot in May of 2025.

Next slide.

So with this, I'd like to turn it over to Ben uh Tankin and then both the chief and I after that.

Um have some considerations for the council regarding the city operational levy and the connection of this to that or potential connection, and then also just ballot timelines and messaging.

So with that.

Thank you all for having me here tonight.

Tom, I know you all have been at it for a while, so I'll try to get you uh through this as quickly as possible.

It's a lot of numbers.

Um, but they all tell a story.

I can tell you the uh cliff notes of the story right now.

It's that you are starting in pretty much the same position you started uh with the last bond in uh last year.

Um you can move the needle with strong messaging, but that will entail you know, go into all the community events that were mentioned earlier, but also um needing to do the work in terms of an a paid education plan from the city and um a strong uh campaign as well in order to get across the finish line.

Um next slide, let's go to the methods.

So we talked to 400 voters across the city.

Uh we uh asked them a question to make sure that they were likely to participate in a um November 2026 general election.

Uh interviews were conducted January 5th and 8th of 2026.

The margin of error is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

That means that it could be five points higher or five points lower, depending on whatever number we're looking at.

Uh when we talk about subgroups, and there's gonna be a few of them here, um, that you know, just keep in mind the margin of error will increase for those subgroups because there are fewer people behind those cells compared to the sample as a whole.

Um there's a rat rather arbitrary uh age divider, younger's under age 50, olders over age 50.

We do refer to targets for a campaign.

If we always one, um they are uh defined as those who just start out either undecided on a uh hypothetical bond language or voting yes, not strongly.

So a soft supporter.

And we do have uh precinct information.

West is precinct 340, and east is uh precinct 339.

Next slide, please.

This is just a look at the demographics of registered voters as a whole across your city, then a likely may electorate, and we waited the data to also look at a likely May electorate, and I'll just tell you right now there is not a big difference in terms of the outcome, whether we're looking at uh going to the ballot this coming May or going in November.

But there are some things to consider.

Number one, uh, if you look at age, a May electorate is just gonna be older.

That's always the case.

There are more older voters participating in a mail in May elections than there are in even here general elections.

Um so in this case, it's 29% under age 50, 71% over for May election.

In November, on the right hand side, you say it's 44 and 56, respectively.

Um, and then partisanship, and that also is an important thing to be considering when you're going uh looking at this.

Um there are more partisan voters who participate in May primary elections uh than in a general election in November.

So overall, you see on the left hand side for registered voters, um, that's where you see a lot of NAVs.

A lot of people just through automatic voter registration are registered as an AV, they don't take the time to identify whether they're Democrat or Republican.

In a May electorate, you see a uh plurality, uh plus 10 margin who are Democrats, 44 to 34 for Republicans.

And then in November, it's an eight-point margin in favor of registered Democrats with 37% participating versus 29% for Republicans.

Uh next slide.

And again.

All right, so this is the first slide uh uh where we deal with the numbers for the uh survey itself.

Uh at the beginning of the survey, we just wanted to get a sense of what do people know about uh the uh building that houses the police department.

Does it meet the needs of uh the city?

Um 31% say it does, that's on the left hand side, 10% say it does strongly, 21% say they feel not so strongly about that.

Uh you have a plurality, 46% who are already primed and ready to say that the uh uh police department does not meet the needs of the city.

That's a good place to start in terms of public sentiment.

On the right-hand side, you see how that sort of plays out.

Um normally we would expect to have on the far right those who believe that it does not play that it does not uh on the right-hand column that it does not meet the needs of the city.

You would expect them to be a little bit more yes on a bond.

You know, the it's the old saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

These people believe it's broke.

Um, but in this case, only 44% of those are voting yes right now, 32 no, 24 undecided.

This is not typical to what we see in other jurisdictions, so something worthy of calling out.

Um, on the left hand side for those who believe it's working just fine, that is more typical.

You have 27% who say they're voting yes on a bond, 66% who are saying they are voting no.

And I'm just looking back at the bar graph really quickly, as a reminder, there are one in five voters out there who just aren't sure whether it meets the needs or not.

There are a lot of empty heads that need failing, and that takes work.

Next slide, please.

In this slide, we asked at the bottom in the uh purple overall, how worried are you about the crime in your community?

Are you very worried somewhat, not too, or not worried at all?

Uh on the uh uh right-hand side, you have those who say they are net not worried.

49% say they're not worried about crime in the city, 27% believe they're not say they're not too worried, 22% say they are not worried at all.

On the left-hand side in orange, those are the people who say they are net worried.

Uh, 45% as a whole, and then there's 36% who say they are somewhat worried, and only 9% who say they are very worried.

And there is a partisan divide when we look at this question.

On the left-hand side, you can see the subgroups that are most likely to fit into this group.

Um, they are uh right-leaning, uh, so Republican women, older Republicans, uh college educated Republicans.

You do have college educated women in here, um, and older voters more generally.

On the right-hand side in the blue, you see those who say they are not worried.

And these tend to be a little bit more democratic.

There are NAVs in this, um, some older, some younger, uh, and then a mix of genders as well, as well as educational attainment.

This slide does to a certain extent, uh, on the, if you look at the right-hand side, um, indicate um a little bit uh more of uh of an indication of uh um uh vote intent.

So in the middle, um you have those who say that they're voting uh excuse me in the left-hand side you see those who are net worried.

Um 58% of those are voting yes on the bond, 40% no.

On the far right, uh those who are not worried uh about crime, 33% are voting yes, 62% no.

So again, you get that sense.

Well, if I'm worried about Quran, I'm gonna be voting yes on the police station.

If I'm not, I'm gonna be voting no.

If you go to the next slide, please.

Here's the most important question in the survey.

Uh we asked this up front to make sure that there's no real questions for biasing opinion.

Um this uh models a uh a hypothetical ballot language, and it reads uh the 10-word caption, bonds to construct police facility and police facility, improve public safety, emergency preparedness.

The 20-word caption reads shall forwards group construct police facility to improve public safety, emergency preparedness by issuing 29.5 million dollars in bonds.

Uh, I know that this does not read like English, but um, you know, it has to be sort of broken up a little bit in order to try to communicate both what the cost is as well as what people are buying.

Um so if you and we have 20 words in the question to do it with.

When you make the effort, you can actually get there.

It will be close, but you can do it.

Um I will note in the in the grid that's in green at the top, those are just some numbers for a modeled November electorate.

These numbers we're looking at right here for May.

Um that modeled November electorate, as you can see, is exactly the same in terms of the overall uh of vote choice.

Next slide.

So this is looking at the May electorate, that ballot question, and then a breakout of uh uh demographic subgroups uh based on that question.

As you can see here, there is a big gender gap.

Uh women more likely to be voting yes than men.

Um men are more divided, 41 to 44, women are plurality in favor, 49 to 34.

Um, there's not as much of an age gap here.

There's not as much of a regional gap, although I will note that the while the margin on the far right for the yes vote, yes minus no equals margin.

That margin is better for the east side.

Um there is uh uh the yes, the uh vote yes vote on the west side is starting out uh a little bit ahead, which again models a little bit more closely what you saw this past May in the actual uh vote tally.

Uh looking at partisanship, I'll also note there's something that we don't usually see very frequently.

This is something that is almost is very unique to public safety measures.

Um Republicans are more supportive than Democrats of a tax increase.

So Republicans are 57% yes, 32% no, 12% undecided.

That gives you a 25-point margin amongst them.

Democrats are uh leaning a little bit no, 37 yes, 45 no, uh, an eight-point margin uh against uh uh minus eight point margin on the yes side.

NAV voters plurality in favor, 43 to 35.

Next slide, please.

We asked after that question on ballot language, just an open-ended what makes you feel that way.

Why are you voting yes?

Why are you voting no?

Um on the yes side, what you see here and targets again, remember these are soft voters who were voting soft yeses and undecided, and then all voters in the purple.

For both of them, the top reason uh on you know, just off the cuff off the top of their head, is that the building's overcrowded, the tech is outdated.

Um you also have a number of people around one in five of all voters, one in 10 of targets who are saying just be back the blue.

Um, and then you have uh targets bouncing the third one saying that uh new police station is going to upgrade police training, safety efficiency.

There's actually quite a bit of awareness of the need amongst these yes voters.

And think back to that 46% who said that um the building does not meet the needs of the community.

There's still a lot of general awareness from the previous campaign.

Uh it's just a matter of reminding people on that and then doubling down on your educational uh efforts uh should you move forward.

Next slide, please.

These are the reasons to vote no that people uh offered up.

And as you can see here, this is frankly the story that we are seeing in poll after poll after poll across the Will Ammouth Valley, the metro area, and Oregon more generally, as well as frankly the uh nation in terms of our work.

Um you have three in 10 people just immediately saying taxes are too high and they oppose tax increases.

If you combine that with you know, two bars down, can't afford it, uh they're on a fixed income.

Um, as well as you know, this is just not a priority, you're getting um close to a majority saying, I just can't afford this right now.

Um there's also a mix of sort of uh in you know concerns about institution.

So uh the say you should be asking for a small amount, it's too much money, uh reacting to just the overall size of the bond.

Um, and then um they should be able to make do with what they have.

Or more money will be wasted.

Next slide.

All right, go ahead.

That was great.

Um the summary.

So here we asked the summary statement after the questions that we just went through.

We then asked, okay, we've given you the ballot language, we asked your opinion based on the ballot language and what you know, um, you know, why are you do uh voting the way you are?

Now we're gonna give you some background.

So we say the building's old, it's outdated, then we say what people are buying.

They're gonna get an updated public safety center, it will enhance the police sources' ability to maintain public safety, uh securing the facility, adding safety features, ADA accessibility, etc.

etc.

And then we say um the bond will cost the average homeowner an additional 22 dollars per month.

So they get a sense of the reason why, what they're buying, and what the cost will be.

And when we do that, next slide.

Um, the numbers really don't move, which is an indication of the work that we have to do.

We have to do more than you know, just a single explanation.

So we go from 45% to 47% yes.

Remember, margin errors plus or minus uh five percentage points, so it could functionally be no movement at all.

Uh, same thing for the no vote as well as for the undecided vote.

Next slide, please.

Um, so after we did that summary statement, we then provided people with just a general outline of all the different things that uh this bond would do.

Because it's a bunch of you know, repair it's replacing a building, but it's gonna add these things.

So at the very top of the list, ensure ADA accessibility.

On next one down, allows the city to sell the old police facility, use the proceeds to pay down debt.

And again, this is uh hypothetical.

Um could happen.

We're just testing to see what people would how they react to that idea.

Um doesn't set the um anything in stone.

Next one safety ensures the separation of adult and juvenile vendors, updates fire protection, electrical systems, creates a secure dedicated armory.

All of these things, if you look at the far right hand column on a five-point scale, when it's favor strongly, favor not strongly, oppose not strongly, oppose strongly, and don't know.

All of these things are getting six and ten, two-thirds who say when you divorce it from cost, they love the idea and they love the concept.

Um, when you look at the favor strongly numbers, you get a sense of the intensity of feeling behind these things.

And the first two in particular, but also going down even into the um the uh first five um testing extremely well.

Overall, we tested a lot more than these, but these were the top tier.

Voters really in favor of some of the things that you would be able to achieve uh should this bond pass.

Uh, next slide.

Um we also asked a battery, and sorry, I noticed there earlier that the numbers fall off on the slide uh when we moved it over to the city.

So I pulled up on the presentation on the right here.

Um we asked a series of questions at the end of the survey after uh respondents heard all of the information about this thing.

Um, what to get a sense of what their biggest takeaways were when we provide them with uh short statements, positive and negative about the bond.

Um, these are the negative ones, and they go to sort of what we saw in that open-ended question.

Um at the very top, when we say how descriptive is this of the bond that it will put a strain on seniors and struggling families living on a fixed income, 70% of respondents feel that way.

Next one down, uh, you know, how descriptive is the phrase, something you can't afford right now.

52%, uh say that's descriptive.

And that number is eerily similar to where we were in May, which again is not something that is inconsistent with what we've been seeing across the state right now.

It's also boxed in uh orange, which means that based on regression modeling, which is an analytical tool we can use to try and see what's driving a yes vote.

If someone fundamentally believes something, does it make them more likely to vote yes or no?

In this case, this does, which makes sense.

They can't afford it, they're gonna be voting no.

Next slide.

We did ask a series of statements um to try and get a sense of you know, if we provide a little bit more education that's focused on a specific thing, will that move sentiment towards yes?

Um, this is on a five-point scale, so we're looking at how convincing is this as a reason to vote yes.

Is it very convincing, somewhat not too uh not at all, or aren't you sure?

We're only looking at the very convincing numbers here because if it's not very convincing, it's not like they know somebody.

Um in the bar graph.

Uh, but what this shows me, and this is actually not consistent with what we've been seeing.

You have some powerful messages here.

Um, most of the surveys we've been doing lately for our cities as well as for uh school districts and other jurisdictions, you know, we're happy to get into the mid-30s in terms of a very convincing number with the message.

You've got one with all voters in the darker blue at 41%.

That is really compelling, and it's all about accountability, which makes sense.

People are worried about whether or not they can afford this, they want to make sure their money is gonna be well spent.

So talking about how this uh proposal is structured with the cost of taxpayers in mind, volunteers working together, um, selling the old station in order to pay down debt, people like that and see if the 41% of all voters very convincing.

Nearly half, 47% of your target audience, and you don't need to get all of them.

If you look on the right hand side, you can see the net convincing numbers.

For those, just so you know, I'm generally looking for messages that get to about 65% ish as a level of, you know, this is a good message.

And you have a number of them.

Practically, frankly, all of them on the slide are compelling messages.

You're probably not going to be able to deliver all of them as a course of an education or a camp, uh, a normal um political campaign.

It's just too much to deliver.

But know that you have a lot of big messages here, including just talking about ADA accessibility, um, improving the parking situation to facilitate movement to the parking lot in terms of uh um when uh the meeting arises, security perimeter, separating juvenile offenders as well as uh from adult offenders.

Uh I know that was a big uh talking point in previous campaign.

And then just storage, lack of space, uh storing firearms and mission evidence uh correctly, all those things, uh testing fairly well.

Next slide.

So here's positive statements that we tested.

Um for these, uh just note uh you get to uh you know, all of them getting into a majority by the end of the survey saying that it's descriptive of the bond, even at the bottom, accountable to taxpayers.

I guess the 57% to say it's net descriptive.

At the top of the list are the three that are most important to me because not only do they test 12 closures as a whole, 59% or more saying it's very descriptive of the bond after they hear all that information about it, but they also pay regression modeling.

So this police station will make the city safer, it will reduce chronic overcrowding, and address real issues with the existing facility.

Next slide, please.

Um, this is clunky uh pollster speak.

So if you know you were to hire a consultant to uh help you with the campaign, I'm sure they'd finesse this.

But based on all the data that we just went through, the regression modeling, what popped in terms of direct questioning for those messages and those trade items and the descriptors of what the bond pays for, this would be sort of what we want you to focus on.

This proposal fixes real long-standing problems with Forest Grove's police station, chronic overcrowding, unsafe evidence storage, inadequate ADA accessibility, and response delays that put officers and residents at risk.

A yes vote will help keep Forest Grove safe, ensure our local neighborhood police can do their jobs effectively on our behalf.

It was carefully designed with accountability taxpayers in mind, including years of planning, keeping costs affordable, and even selling the old police station to pay down debt once construction is complete.

Next slide.

Here's what the hope.

So, as we, you know, you recall, not a lot of movement after summary statement, we're starting below uh uh 50% to 45.

You do have a seven-point margin on the yes side, so 38 no, 45 yes at the outset.

But after providing a lot of uh positive information about what this bond can achieve, um, and also the negative, what it's gonna cost, which is the negative refrain where we're hearing everywhere, you get to 51%, which is why I say this is gonna be so tough because you're finishing out in the same spot.

You need to do more than what was done last time around because you're finishing so close.

Um the numbers again are very similar when we model in November electorate.

You're at 50% yes, 38% no.

Uh, next slide, please.

And I think that covers it.

So I'm gonna hand it back to you, Jesse.

And before we get on to can I interrupt really quick and have a question?

Um Thank you for the presentation, Ben.

On slides 22 and 24 in the on the bottom.

I'm just trying to figure out if it was a typo or if you did this consulting work for tiger type.

No, it's a typo.

That's a typo.

Is this tiger's data?

Is this our data?

No, that's your data.

It's totally your data.

I'll get that fixed.

Um, I apologize for that.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Jesse.

So these are just some additional considerations, I think, for the council in terms of um looking at either potentially May or November.

These are both the timelines associated with it.

So if the council wanted to look at uh potentially a May ballot, um the polling is now complete.

Uh we would be bringing it back a resolution approving the ballot title, the question in the summary at the next meeting.

Um, if the council wants to do that, I believe at that particular point, that's where staff could no longer advocate for particular ballot measure, but we could uh educate.

Um the last day for the ballot title would be February 27th, and then there's an explanatory statement that gets sent into the county on March 19th, and the last day to file arguments for the actual voters' pamphlet is March 23rd.

If the council were to look at a November uh ballot, then the resolution would be come before council on July 13th.

So in the summer, uh the last day for the ballot title would be in August with the explanatory statement in September.

Last day for arguments September 7th, and then ballots mailed on October 14th.

Any questions about the central timeline?

Okay.

So again, just things to consider for the council.

The city levy expires in June of 2028.

Traditionally, over the past three levy cycles, it's a five-year cycle.

Um the council and uh has put put something on the ballot three cycles ahead, which would be May of 2027.

Um two cycles ahead would be November, and then of course the following May would be one cycle ahead.

So we've traditionally always done three cycles ahead prior to the expiration of the levy.

There's two cycles then available, which is May and November.

Um, and I think one thing to possibly consider is what impacts, if any, would the bond measure have on the operating levy.

Or if the council wanted to look at either renewal or replacement, what potential impacts would it have on either the renewal and or the replacement of an operating levy?

So ballot considerations.

Next slide.

So both the primary and the general are a bigger election, if you will.

Uh the primaries that are gonna occur in May are the county commissioners, uh, the governor, the state senate, and the house, the U.S.

Senate, and the House, they'll be uh the primaries for those.

Um at this point, there's no anticipated revenue measures on in May.

Uh it will be approximately one year since the police facility ballot.

Uh of course it was validated in May of 2025.

Uh, and it'll be one year from the city operating levy.

Uh typically speaking, as you saw earlier and some of the statistics that been presented, it's an older electorate.

However, it is a lower voter turnout.

Um, one thing to consider is the opportunity to campaign and to educate.

Obviously, with the May ballot, there's going to be uh probably less opportunity associated with that because it's much sooner.

Next slide.

So in November, there'll be the general election.

Uh mayor and uh three city councillors will be up for election.

Uh there'll be a county commissioner election unless there's 50% in the primary in May.

The governor of the state senate and the house will be up for election, and of course, the U.S.

Senate and House will be up.

There potential uh tax repeal measure on the ballot, and I guess I should amend there might be a potential tax repeal measure on the ballot in May.

I forgot to add that.

Um so that's still being decided right now uh whether there'd be excuse me, whether the um uh the uh gas tax would be on the ballot in May or whether it would be on November.

So that's kind of up in the air.

Uh it would be one and a half years since the police facility ballot, uh, be approximately six months from the city operating levy, unless the council decided to do two election cycles out, as opposed to three cycles out.

Uh typically it's a younger electorate, it's higher voter turnout.

Uh, there would be potentially more opportunity to campaign.

Message example, uh, I think Ben mentioned some of this.

Um, you know, in terms of looking at a potential campaign, there could be a political action committee, farmers market, there'll be speaking events, facility tours, etc.

So and then I think that concludes our presentation.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Counselor Schummel had a question.

Well, I think you answered on the that transportation ballot measure.

Yeah.

I mean, what I mean, what's your gut on what they pull that in?

Um, I I'm not sure that I have a read on that.

I think the signatures were gathered for a November election, and then there was discussion about a repeal, and then there was some legal precedent.

Apparently, I'm not sure if there's been any kind of adjudication of that uh associated with it not being able to be repealed by the legislature, and now there's been a new proposal to have the ballot not necessarily be repealed by the legislature, but have the ballot be put on in May as opposed to the general election in November, but I don't know that there's been any kind of decision associated with that.

So I think it's at this point it's kind of up in the air.

I I guess the question is whether having our ballot with that ballot in the state.

I agree.

I don't know, that'd be maybe a question for Ben.

If you have a certain measure on the ballot associated with with repealing uh an enacted uh tax and fee measure, what impact if any might that have on this?

I think it's a good question.

I rarely see ballot initiatives drive turnout.

And I, you know, I think it can always happen.

Um, but it's not a frequent thing.

My gut tells me that in this situation you probably see it hardened opinion.

Uh if you are particularly against the tax increase.

Um, but amongst those already likely to show up.

Um but there's a lot of other dynamics in terms of May as well, in terms of uh, you know, Democratic primaries and a lot of polls that we're doing right now, Democrats, Democrats in general are just very fired up because of the political environment.

Um so there's a lot of competing factors, and so I guess the long and short of it is it's hard to say.

Um, but it could.

I don't I'm not confident that it would, but it could.

Any other questions before we start our discussion?

Maybe okay, Councillor Schimmel.

Yeah, similar let's see, can an opinion on the relationship with the current immigration and enforcement impacts and people's perception of the police facility bond.

You know, if there's any thoughts on that that relationship in terms of the survey I in terms of like that, um I think in terms of the work that we've been doing in other jurisdictions, it's more about how you talk about it.

Um, I think that emphasizing the fact that this deals with 911 emergency responders is very helpful because it differentiates between your city police force and then the federal government.

Um and we've seen that work in terms of communications.

Can cancel over here.

Oh no, it's okay.

If you weren't done, go ahead.

So the we were asking questions of them and then we're talking amongst ourselves.

Is that no counselor falconer had a question for them?

No, no, I mean I'm I'm just wanting to make sure I understand the process of the case.

Yeah, we're we're asking questions from staff and the consultant, and then we're gonna decide like give some consensus about when we're gonna put it on the ballot.

That's I guess the question would be for maybe the chief henry is uh maybe the questions for you the that relationship and and whether we can how well we can associate improving public safety for immigration enforcement relation to the facility.

I know that the facility is built out in time uh as far as all the all the the reasons why we're building it, does it improve that condition?

The public is asking.

I think my preference would be that we not go down that road because now we start talking about ideology why we need a building.

Counselor Falconer.

Um there one of the most compelling sort of quite you know uh I don't compelling messaging around you know getting people to get to yes is a is I guess there was a there's an element in that question that I'm a little concerned about, and that is um a sort of a suggestion or a promise or guarantee that on a underaccountability selling the building.

Um and I don't remember us talking about that before, and I never think I remember us specifically not talking about that before because that's not on the ballot, and you might get into trouble when you start making promises that you can't keep or don't intend to keep, or and uh so that threw me a little bit.

Um and I want to make sure that we're real clear on a campaign, an education campaign, and whether that is something that we can you know I I guess I don't want to put too much, I don't want to read too much into that response when that if that's a critical part of the question.

Is that am I asking the question?

Am I do you understand my question?

I don't understand.

Yeah, yeah, and I think we we shared shared some of the similar questions.

Um I I do want to defer to Ben, but yeah, there's been no decision on the old police facility and what the disposition of that facility is.

And so it would be very premature to make any promises associated with that.

And I want to be very clear about that.

I mean Yeah.

Yeah.

And so I I I guess and I I do want to refer to Ben a little bit.

I think the in intent at least partially was to see if there was some resonance there, but it was not to imply that that would also be a message.

And so um and and Ben, I if if you want to chime in on that, but I'm glad you asked the question because I do want to be clear.

Um that uh the the intent there was just to see if there was something that may have resonated, but by no means has there been any kind of decision associated with that, nor was it intended to influence the decision about it.

Uh it was just intended to try and get some information.

Was that the I guess maybe that that was that the question?

Was that included in the question?

So Ben, I guess I would refer to you like how much of that was part of the question and or how much of that um would influence potentially the results of uh of what's been presented.

Um there's a lot of information presented here.

If you went back and asked any of the participants who um uh took the survey what specific facts were, you're not gonna get a lot of uh information back.

Um it's you know, in terms of that particular question, we you know, the suggestion was made, it was important to get an understanding of if it were part of the conversation, what you know, how compelling would it be, you know.

So now you know if that's a road that you do want to go down, it's extremely popular.

If you don't want to include it in your messaging because of the reasons that were given, um, you know, the rest of the statement.

Part of the reason why Tiger was in there is because they were in the field right beforehand, and I can tell you that the first sentence or two sentences of the accountability message tested well.

So like I and it's tested well in other jurisdictions, telling the story of how you got there and the um back and forth that has gone on between the city, its volunteers, selected on how to come to the um proposal in front of voters is a compelling tale.

Um take that out.

I think you still have a very compelling message, and one I'd probably be telling you continue to use, giving concerns around cost uh and just tax sensitivity uh in your city as well as you know elsewhere in the in the uh metro area.

Okay, thank you.

Any other go ahead, Jesse.

I was just gonna say is as uh just another thing to maybe add to that from an accountability perspective.

I know staff is currently looking at if there's other funding sources associated with the police facility that we might be able to tap into.

We have had some conversations associated with a potential capital grant um at the Oregon legislature.

Um it's it's not large per se, but it's something, and if we were successful in in attaining that, that could also be part of an accountability message.

Um I would I'm sorry, Jesse.

I would I would I love that.

That is exactly something that I would slot in in its stead.

That also shouldn't be well.

So but that's that's in process.

I can uh provide provide more details later, but it is something that we are looking into that we are actively trying to pursue, recognizing that this is not the only uh potential funding mechanism if if it's available.

Okay, thank you.

Are we ready to start discussing this or any more questions for staff?

I think we can also ask staff as we discuss if we have questions.

So let's let's start uh two in on it.

Um can we Ray, do you think we can have the slide up that says like our discussion items and what we need consensus on?

I mean, I have it, I think in my head.

No, do we even have one?

We might not have one.

Yeah, I think we just okay.

So first of all, do we want to put this on the ballot?

Is there let's do thumbs up or thumbs down for putting the police station on the ballot?

At all.

But you're you're you're just asking at all.

Let's just make sure we like have something to talk about, like with the date.

So are we gonna put it on the ballot or another talking about we're getting there?

One, two, three, four, five.

Okay, so there's consensus to put on the ballot.

Is there anything I can okay?

Um and then so then the next question is may this May or that's one question for me.

Yeah, can we have maybe the calendar of the timeline of the ballot timeline, please?

Yeah, you got it.

Go ahead.

Well, I guess one way to ask is is there any harm in going down the time a May timeline and and punting the uh November if conditions I I'm gonna interrupt in that and say like I don't even want to do that because like the what I'm seeing is that you know, and based on the last time we put on the ballot.

Well, I guess one way to ask is there any harm in going down the time a May timeline and and punting the uh November if conditions I'm gonna interrupt in that and say like I don't even want to do that because like the what I'm seeing is that you know, and based on the last time we put on the ballot, if you look at the timeline, there's what we need the message I got is that we need a campaign, that we need events to share the story, we need to have mailers, we need to have a a pack, we need to do all these things, and so I don't in order to get it across, I don't want to do something and not be successful.

I want to set it up to be successful, and I don't think we can move the messaging and tell the story by May.

So the way I've run the question, is there any harm in it?

Not that I would do that.

Right.

I mean, obviously conditions are are pretty havoc for just speaking as the elections official.

I think the main thing is once the resolution approving the ballot title is passed, staff cannot use any staff time to like advocate either way.

So it does limit staff's ability to a certain extent.

Well, and then also the other counselor schimmel, we also have a deadline for uh actually submitting the ballot, the ballot title.

And so what is the deadline for pulling it.

Yeah, I look for all the questions.

I mean, I just don't know that we'll get clarity in that's that you end up and I think it's just exhaustion of voters, right?

Like we we brought it, we didn't do anything different, we're gonna bring it again.

Counselor Gus.

That that re repetition, you know, three times in a row would be too much.

But if we do it in May, um the strategy and scope will be very different than if we do it in November because we will have all spring and summer to really promote it, and the city did such a great job with the 2040 and spending the time and patiently figuring out how to promote.

I think we're really good at it now.

So I think letting it go through the summer and hitting November, um, just because I mean I understand what Councillor Schimmel's saying, but it it's gonna be very different doing it in in May than November, just because of that different strategy.

I I do think May sudden the only positive thing about May that I see is that people are not going to be so overwhelmed like they will be when November comes because they're going to be receiving constantly all kinds of messages, political messages for November.

It just because of you know, everything that uh it means but I also know that it the police has um our department has a booth, you know, and they're very active.

They're in the farmers market and they get to talk to the community, and the days are beautiful, you know, it's sunny, and there's all this contact and you know, good energy.

I don't see that happening in May.

I I see May like right around the corner.

And all that is going to be missed, but the only thing is that people are going to be overwhelmed with information from different political parties about different candidates and measures something.

Yeah, I think you bring up a really good point.

And I think that you know, when we scope this out and sequence it, that's like the importance of making sure that education is happening ongoing and that we're not trying to like do the the political campaigning.

We're trying to tell the story, yeah.

It could be the one thing that people will be certain.

You know what I'm saying?

Councillor Shimmel.

In in my exit polling, I mean we only lost by a hundred votes.

You know, in my surveying folks, the reason that a hundred people said no is because we were mired in a debate about field fees for or pool fees for uh nonprofit groups.

We they're easily a hundred people that said no because if we're if we're gonna go for November, you know, the question is are we gonna are we gonna prevent departments from shaking the same tree for the same voter, the same taxpayer for for that long.

I think that you bring up a good point.

I think that's the push pull of what we do as a gu as a city, right?

Is making sure that we see all of it and still like give each department the individual attention it needs.

I think that's a really good point as well.

Um we feeling confident in saying November of 2026 for when counselor Falconer, you see.

Well, and we we don't we're I mean there are question we're we're limited to these two choices.

We didn't really talk about you know picking it down, picking it down.

I'm not sure.

Just saying what about the option of moving it to May of 2027?

Yeah, that is a potential option.

Um the connection to the levy is then the levy would be you could either have the levy on the same ballot, the operational levy, you could have that and the police levy, or excuse me, the police bond, or if the council wanted to, they could put the operations levy two cycles ahead, which would be that November then November of 20 goodness, 20 I had a given dates, right?

2027, I guess um, and then it expires in June of 2028, so there would be the November election, and if it was not successful then, then the council could look at the May election.

So there is another option, uh, but it would require either having the operating levy on the same ballot or pushing the operating levy to the November ballot, the following November ballot.

Oh from past experience, I guess from Milwaukee or here, what what your thoughts on those back to back.

I mean, I I you know it gives you just more time.

I think that the lift of you know, I don't even know who is sponsoring the tax.

We don't have a we don't even have a we don't have a why worry that no matter which options we choose.

We're setting we're not really any better set up for that.

Go ahead.

I'm gonna be supportive of waiting.

If we can wait, I would be supportive of waiting because I agree that I think that would be better.

I think that I would for May 2027 at the latest.

I am it's an option.

I am beyond hesitant to put an operation levy on the ballot at the same time as a bond, and I am even more concerned about morale, about our employee morale.

Um there's a balance of we have to show them that this we have not forgot about it that we are doing the work.

I I'm I'm hearing everything you're saying, and I think that one of the things we can do, uh so if we say November, if we like have a soft thing of November, and then we talk to people in the community and say, hey, would you be willing to be on this pack?

Like there are people, you know, who supported the bond last time who were keyboard warriors fighting for it online, and people who've done it.

So maybe we can chat with some people and I mean what do you think the next like I don't know.

I'm just really concerned that if we keep if we kick it down, we're just costs are gonna go up.

We're gonna have another levy, like nothing's going good financially with the state with the county, and then so we do but there's no guarantee, and then we're also just gonna hurt the morale of our force.

Can we think about it and maybe have a shorter version of this to talk about it next time?

I I think I need more time.

Give me a resolution on what or we're not gonna go for May.

We're not we is there a consensus that we're not going for May?

And this is the work session.

Okay so um what I would can we see what the pack would be, see what backing we can get before we pull the trigger, miss the target kind of thing, and push it off if it doesn't go through.

If you feel like we don't have support from the community, push it off until 2027.

Well I know you're you're worried about it, but I mean we can worry all we want, but if we don't get the votes now or later, it we're just doing this in vain.

Because we can't if we don't get the push, if we don't get support from the community, we're just we're just talking.

And that's that's what we're at.

We're just gonna keep having the same conversation over and over again if we can't get the support from the community.

So if we don't feel like we're getting any commute any any support by you know July, what are we doing?

Gonna put it on the where why would we put it on the ballot if we're not getting any support?

Yeah.

You know what I mean?

So I just if you're not gonna do it.

I know, but we will have an idea then we will have an idea so we can kind of go like we could tentatively put it as we're we want it on December in November, tentatively with support from the community and impact.

But if we can't get that, then what are we gonna do?

Put it on with no no backing.

You know what I mean?

I hear everything you're saying, but I'm gonna also ask you, all my colleagues to do the work to go and talk to people.

Like I don't want to have this thing of like, hey, we don't have support, but I don't have the support of this council asking people in the community, hey, I know you support our police department, I know you support the city.

This is what we need.

We need your help.

We need your help advocating, educating, helping with the mail you're you know, like doing all the stuff.

Like, but I like am not I'm don't mean to sound brutal, but I am not gonna tell the city and I'm not gonna tell the police that we're not gonna go for it because we don't think we can do it when we're not trying.

And that's what I'm that's not how I live my life.

So if we try and we and we fail, then at least we know we tried.

But to say, like, hey, we're not ready when we haven't even asked, like I have two people who are ready to be on a pack.

Oh, that's what I'm saying.

Like that's what I'm saying.

We give that like but we're asking in January to make a decision that's gonna be in um November, or we can get everything, all our ducks in a row and make that decision, pull the trigger by August 14th.

Yeah.

That gives us plenty of time to figure out where we can get everybody, what we can do in the middle of the year.

July or July 13th.

July 13th.

But yeah, that still gives us six months almost to get this ball rolling, and you know, hopefully it's no balls.

But counselor Schimmel.

Well, um I'm in favor of of May of this year.

I I I agree with 90% of the logic for May of 27.

Uh beside the fact, well, beside the the assumption that it's gonna be about 20% more and and that could be a losing proposition.

I'm not following it.

Oh I'm sorry, what's the 20%?

Yeah, okay.

The cost.

Sorry, it wasn't following.

So and to your point, Mayor, if if we if we were to go with it with May, and I would put in at least the the effort that did before, I would I would support the read.

Where there is a pack, we just have to reinvigorate it, right?

So get getting this pack going.

The the uh other than what what I mentioned about uh kicking the parks recovery plan down the road.

The the other two things that you know speaking with with uh other municipalities about what they did to pass a measure, one was of the pack, the other was pulling a list of these likely voters and canvassing them directly.

So you're your canvassing is very strategic and targeted to voters who are expected who are normally vote in May, and you're going to their homes foremost versus trying to hit every door.

That's that's we type besides the pack, that's how they got ballot ballots passed.

So if we were more targeted, uh you're speaking for May of 2027.

May of this year.

Okay, well, there's I'm not trying to shut you down, but I'm gonna shut you down because there was no consensus for that.

No, I I well, we don't have consensus for anything, so I'm I'm we okay.

I couched this as I'm making one last appeal.

Oh, one last appeal to switch it in light of your your vigor about demonstrating that we want we want to we need to show something that there's uh you know there's pros and cons, but I think there's more consequences by waiting based on the cost, based on the political climate, based on the next levy that we're we're there's have a lot of exposure, and and we're gonna probably see if we don't send a positive signal, we're probably gonna see more police turnover at the worst possible time.

Um that I'll that's my final okay.

So there's a proposal to try to get it because we need to if if we want to do May of this year, then we have to file on February 9th.

So or resolution, yeah, sorry, resolution, and then so is there anybody in favor of doing it in May?

Well, no, counselor Shimmel bit any consensus.

I mean, I think all the processes, everything you just well, that's why I'd rather in May either way.

I just think this May we've had to think we have a tendency in May.

So we only lost the last one by 100 votes by uh tactical error.

Uh but now we have a new problem, and it's called federal agents invading our communities, and a large percentage of our population is pissed off that the local police aren't doing anything to support them.

And the another large percentage of people is like, you know, hey, why isn't local law enforcement working with federal agents?

Like they're not being collaborative.

We have been put in a pressure chink.

Like I mean, I like I don't, I don't know.

That's how I feel is that I I feel just frustrated, and I'm so I need to take a breath and I'm sorry, but I feel frustrated for our local our local law enforcement.

I feel frustrated for our community, and I don't know what the right answer is, but why we don't have this tax this fee situation with Parks and Rec.

We have a societal crisis on our hands, and we have our local law enforcement being the scapegoats on both sides.

So I don't know if that's gonna really help bring people to the ballot to support them.

You know what I mean?

In May.

And that may rise these feelings off.

The police hasn't been doing their work, their detection has blah blah blah.

You know, that might come more intensely in November when they have to, you know, vote for the their senators and representatives.

It's gonna go both ways, just like Mary said.

You're gonna have people that want it and people that don't want it.

It either way, either time of the year, it's gonna happen.

November gives us more time to be prepared for it.

That's that's all I'm saying.

It just gives us that time to actually go out, canvas, get the votes.

We all want the same thing.

We all want this new police facility.

Our job is to go out and advocate for it.

We don't give ourselves much leadway if we do it in May.

Giving it November is is still, I mean, we lost by a hundred votes last year, but still we lost.

Like it's whether we won or lose, it's still a loss.

However, many people we have to make sure that we keep the people that we had vote yes for it and have the other people with us.

It's gonna take time to get those.

It's I don't think we can do it by May.

I really don't.

I think we would have to wait until November to get that through.

I think it's gonna take time.

And I think those Wednesday markets, those sunny days when we're out and actually out and about doing things, or the time that we can actually be social and get out and do these things.

Like I I just don't think May is going to be that time frame.

So I'm hearing that we have some work to do, and we don't want to really make I did not say consensus to go for May.

There's a maybe with November.

As I'm working on the state of the city, I would like to put in our need and for a police facility and to support it.

And I'm hesitant.

I'm gonna be honest, I'm hesitant to do that if we're not gonna go for it in November the following year.

Like, right?

I mean, so I'm not trying to push a point, but if we want to this is I guess what I'm gonna propose.

Uh I propose that we try to talk to community members, see if they're willing to support the police bond, the facility bond, if we can form a pack and that we have a work session on this topic in the on the second meeting in February.

I don't know the date, the second a work session, the second meeting in February to decide if we're gonna go for it in November, and if we have just like people in supporting the PAC.

Does that sound does that give you enough time to recruit and convince?

And we need, I'm sorry, how many people for the pack?

How many people do you think we need on the pack?

So the previous pack was formed as I understood to help pass the operational levy.

Um, and after the levy kind of got up and going and it became in every five year and the passage rate, you know, essentially it went from 60% up to 80%.

Uh then the levy largely or excuse me, the pack largely became an active typically mayor.

I think the pack had anywhere from uh five to uh 11 folks on it.

It was filed with the state.

Um I think that registration is still active, but I don't know for sure.

Um so there would have to be a little bit of research into that.

Uh but there were more volunteers.

That was just kind of who was um on the actual committee, but there were more volunteers associated with actual campaigns.

Yeah, a lot more.

Okay.

Well, so if we could each bring like two names or have two people, then that would be a good start.

And if we can't, then we know that we can't.

I don't know.

We'll talk about it.

Is it possible to have a um I don't want to ask more to know from you, but Tessie, is it possible for us to get the information like how often they would meet, uh what time they would meet?

Oh no, no, because that's what that the pack is separate from the city.

Sorry to answer your question.

That would be their committee would decide that those things, right?

Like we can't really we can't really tell them like, hey, this is the cadence and schedule.

It's hey, do you want to be part of a committee?

Yeah, there would be a time that we bring them together.

Okay, you all need to meet at this place or no, no, I don't think so, Council President Valenzuela.

They talk to each other and they talk to each other and that just delays things, so that that's okay.

So you know, I just um all right.

So November we decide in February.

Yeah.

All right.

Is that is there consensus on that?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Maybe I think I don't know.

So the February meeting will be on the 23rd.

Okay.

Staff, do you have what you need from us?

We do.

Is there anything else, Mayor, that the council that you or the council would like us to bring back to that work session in February?

We will have an update potentially on a request for additional funding from the Oregon legislature.

We'll bring back that update.

Okay, cool.

So they'll know about that.

We can have some some more clarity there.

Um, but absent that, is there anything else that the council would like us to bring back?

Any ideas?

I mean, if I do, I'll probably tell you on a one-on-one.

I can't think of anything right now.

Thank you.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

This work session is adjourned.

Thank you, Council.

Thank you.