Forest Grove City Council Work Session: LOC Priorities and URA Properties - July 13, 2026
Forest Grove City Council Work Session: LOC Priorities and Urban Renewal Agency - July 13, 2026
The Forest Grove City Council held a work session on July 13, 2026, to discuss two main topics: the city's top five legislative priorities for the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and the Urban Renewal Agency's (URA) next steps for three developable properties. No public comment was taken, and no formal action was approved during either session.
Discussion Items
LOC Legislative Priorities
City Manager Jesse presented background on the LOC process: every even-numbered year, member cities submit their top five policy priorities, which are tallied to form the LOC's advocacy agenda for the upcoming legislative session. Staff conducted an internal poll and recommended the following five priorities: 1) Transportation package and infrastructure funding, 2) Land availability and land use streamlining, 3) Public meeting law clarity, 4) Support municipal cybersecurity proficiency, and 5) (tied) Full funding and streamlining for housing production. Councilors shared their individual lists. Councilor Schimmel initially deferred to staff's recommendations. Councilor Falconer included housing production, land availability, water/wastewater infrastructure, transportation, and public meeting laws. Councilor Martinez agreed with staff. Councilor Marshall included transportation, infrastructure, land availability, public meeting laws, and housing production, but also expressed interest in alcohol revenue modernization. Mayor Wenzel noted that the fifth priority was a point of debate: staff's fifth was cybersecurity, but several councilors preferred full funding and streamlining for housing production. Councilor Falconer argued that cybersecurity was vague and that housing production directly aligns with the city's 2040 action plan and housing needs. Councilor Martinez emphasized cybersecurity's importance given AI and hacking threats. Mayor Wenzel noted two council members were absent and asked if the group wanted more time to research. Councilors agreed to decide that day. Councilor Schimmel changed his vote from cybersecurity to housing production. Councilor Marshall proposed alcohol revenue modernization instead. After a show of hands, the mayor declared a 3-2 consensus in favor of replacing cybersecurity with full funding and streamlining for housing production. The final five priorities are: 1) Transportation package, 2) Infrastructure funding, 3) Land availability and land use streamlining, 4) Public meeting law clarity, and 5) Full funding and streamlining for housing production. The city manager will submit these to LOC by September 25.
Urban Renewal Agency Work Session: Properties and Marketing Pathways
Assistant City Manager Kim and City Manager Jesse presented an overview of three URA-owned properties: Site B (~1 acre, sloped, two failed RFPs for a grocery store), the Woodfold lot (~2 acres, with month-to-month leases for storage buildings and food carts), and the theater building (town center core, requiring retail on ground floor, with potential for a boutique hotel of 14–31 rooms, but needing seismic and HVAC improvements). The presentation covered URA milestones (established 2014, debt issued twice, $7.27M of $15M maximum indebtedness used), case studies from Beaverton and Bend, and financial metrics: annual revenue ~$1M, annual debt service ~$577k, $370k for grant programs, $175k for operations, and ~$1.5M in unappropriated fund balance. Two hypothetical scenarios were discussed: (1) if the boutique hotel feasibility study recommends $2M in incentives, and (2) if the grocery store study shows insufficient capacity to attract a downtown grocery store.
Councilor Falconer asked about city code barriers (e.g., height restrictions, floor area ratios) that may increase incentive requirements and suggested proactive code changes. Councilor Marshall asked if the URA could level Site B to make it more marketable (staff confirmed site preparation is an eligible use). Councilor Falconer also noted the decoupling of Pacific and 19th streets study could affect developer interest. The board discussed pausing some grant programs (e.g., storefront improvement) to focus resources on these properties. The mayor expressed openness to flexible development options beyond the original grocery store and boutique hotel visions.
Key Outcomes
- LOC Priorities: Council reached consensus on the top five priorities (see above). The city manager will submit the final list to the League of Oregon Cities by September 25, 2026.
- URA Properties: Staff received direction to proceed with marketing assistance, particularly for the theater/boutique hotel property, including engaging a real estate professional to develop an offering memorandum and identify market barriers. Staff will also update the grocery store feasibility study and complete the boutique hotel feasibility study. A second work session is planned for August 2026 to review feasibility studies and discuss development pathways, including potential incentives, code changes, and site preparation. No formal action was taken at this meeting.
Meeting Transcript
Good to go. Okay, cool. Session of the Forest Grove City Council. Um, the topic is we so the topic is on our LOC priorities. There's no public comment will be taken. The council will take no formal action. And with that, I'm gonna turn over to Jesse. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council. I'll try to keep my staff report brief so that council could reach consensus on the city's top five legislative priorities. Um, but a little bit of background, the city is a member of the League of Oregon Cities and League of Oregon Cities every even numbered year appoints policy committees to go over various policy proposals that they will in turn advocate for down in Salem during the 27-28 legislative cycle. As part of that process, they ask each of their members, of which we are one to come up with their top five priorities. Once we come up with our top five priorities along with all of their other members, we submit those priorities to the League of Oregon Cities. Those votes are then tallied at the League of Oregon City level and the LOC board of directors uh will review all of those votes in the top prior and the top five priorities for the League of Oregon Cities um uh by September 25th, and then that will become essentially the League of Oregon City's policy agenda or advocacy agenda for the upcoming legislative session. So with that, um I did submit the um what is called the uh the LOC member voter guide, which has I think 27 different uh legislative policy priorities that came from all the various committees within LOC. I submitted that to all the department directors and we did a little bit of internal uh polling and the results that came back from uh city staff, which are are certainly just uh city staff's opinion are on the memo that was submitted to the city council. But um with that, I'd be happy to uh answer any questions. Once council reaches consensus, uh then as the city manager, I will submit to the League of Oregon Cities on a ballot what the top five priorities are, and then it gets certified by LOC. So with that, unless there's any questions, that's my report, Mayor. Okay, great. Thank you, Jesse. So let's go over the process for how uh we're gonna do this. I you know, I I would like to thank Jesse for sending this out in advance. So we had a chance to look at it, I think a couple weeks in advance, not just with the normal packet. Um what I was thinking we could do is maybe I probably should wait to eat. Maybe we'll go through and say what our priorities are and I'll just tally them and we'll see we'll do like we'll start the discussion there. And then if there's some that are on the bubble or you know, competing, then we'll we can make our case. Does that sound like an okay? Okay. Counselor Schimmel, do you mind if I start with you? Sure. Well, I had uh selected seven or eight to see where where the staff guidance was, and all five of theirs were in that group. So I I will concede to staff's recommendations on those five. Okay. So one counselor's saying agreeing with staff, and I think staff's was transportation package infrastructure, land availability, public meeting laws. What was their what was their fifth one? Cybersecurity. Cybersecurity. Okay. Great. Um I'm just gonna say staff rec one. Okay, and then uh Councilor Falconer, are you good to uh my top five were um two from the housing, full funding and streamlining for production, um, housing land availability and land use, uh, water and wastewater infrastructure, 2027 transportation and public meetings law. Okay, thank you. Councilor Martinez. Yeah, I felt that there's the recommendations by staff. Okay. Okay, and same with councilor Marshall. So what I had put on mine um is similar to staff and similar to Councilor Falconers. I had transportation package, infrastructure funding, land availability, and land use streaming, public meeting laws, clarity, and full funding and streamlining for housing production. And then the one that I put on there that I was curious about, and um, I'm not gonna like die on the sword, but is the alcohol revenue modernization.
openpublica.com