[0:00] Good evening.

[0:04] Tonight is July 18th, 2023. And this is the question of city council business meeting. We'd like to call the meeting to order. First order of businesses are roll call. And we will start with Councilor Danucci, Councilor Morales. We do expect him momentarily. Council President Piazza, Councilor Jones Dixon. We do expect Councilor Jones Dixon. Councilor Dixon.

[0:28] And Councillor Gladfaltor is excused.

[0:30] See, it's under the weather this afternoon.

[0:33] So, we wish her the best.

[0:36] With that, we'll move to item A2,

[0:39] which is our moment of silence.

[0:40] This allows the Council to seek guidance in its own way

[0:43] as we deliberate the city's business.

[0:46] Please join us.

[1:19] Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity

[1:22] to seek guidance in our own way.

[1:23] And I do want to reflect that Councillor Morales is with us.

[1:26] Thank you.

[1:27] good to see you.

[1:30] All right.

[1:31] Before we move to the population,

[1:32] I always like to make sure that we recognize

[1:36] our folks that come and watch over us in tonight.

[1:38] We have Sergeant Mani Hernandez.

[1:42] And usually I just say,

[1:44] Hey, thank you.

[1:45] But I just want to go step further this evening.

[1:47] He has been with the Christian police department

[1:50] for 26 years.

[1:53] So thank you for your service.

[1:55] Thank you for being here.

[1:57] today because it's we started at 230 and we'll go all the way till we end at 1130 or midnight.

[2:05] I'm just just kidding folks. We won't go that long maybe 10.

[2:11] So with that we're going to neutral our population. It's our Americans with disabilities act day.

[2:16] Don't want to recognize everybody as we think about how do we ensure that everybody has opportunity within our community.

[2:22] So, whereas the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, was signed into law on July 26,

[2:31] 1990, establishing a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination

[2:35] to ensure the civil rights of people with disabilities, and whereas the ADA has expanded

[2:40] opportunities for Americans with disabilities by reducing barriers, changing perceptions,

[2:45] and increasing opportunities for full participation and inclusion in community life.

[2:49] and whereas continues commitment to the principles of the ADA is necessary to help individuals

[2:57] with disabilities reach their full potential. And whereas on July 26th, 2023, our city,

[3:04] state and nation will commemorate the 33rd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act

[3:09] recognizing and celebrating the progress that has been made. And whereas the city of question

[3:14] encourages people to reaffirm the principles of equality and inclusion laid out in the ADA

[3:19] and recommit our efforts to reach full ADA compliance so that every person in our city has the opportunity to succeed.

[3:26] Now that for I-Traveler Mayor of the City of Crescent, do hereby proclaim the 26th day of July be Americans with Disabilities Act.

[3:34] They did this 18th day of July 2023.

[3:46] Item A4, one of the things that we've want to make sure that we do is thank our team members and just like we did with Sergeant Hernandez.

[3:55] as 26 years. He's not retiring, but we do have a retiree that we want to recognize and that's

[4:01] Laura Kelly. Please record specialist 18 years and eight months. So I don't believe Laurie is here,

[4:09] but let's give her a round of applause for her service to the city of Gresham because yeah, 18 years

[4:15] and eight months, that's a long time. We appreciate that service because it's all about people at the end

[4:21] of day and the great people that work with us on a day to day basis.

[4:23] So with that, we're going to move to our section B, which is our community member comments.

[4:31] And if community members wanted to testify either verbal or written, we asked if they submit their testimony or their request to give testimony to the city recorder.

[4:41] Rachel Gangelhoff, by 6 p.m. Monday, July 17, 2023.

[4:45] Rachel, did we have anybody sign up for testimony and also do we have any written testimony that was provided?

[4:51] Thank you, Mary, yes, we had one written testimony submitted which is on the website currently and first up here and

[5:00] Members, we have Joseph and DIA.

[5:14] Good evening, City Council and Mayor. I want to start with the correction from the July 11 meeting regarding the Oregon State Constitution. It was implied that 60% is needed to amend that document. However, per article 17 of the State Constitution be the citizens' initiative process, only a majority of electors voting has required.

[5:33] Separately, any amendment to the Constitution may be proposed in either Chamber of the Legislative Assembly and if it's a great cheap buy majority of members in each of the two houses, the amendment passes.

[5:43] Also, no other similarly sized city in Oregon requires 60% approval to amend their charter's discretion as the only one.

[5:50] Additionally, the Council has expressed a desire that the ballot language for this amendment only be factual.

[5:55] I believe it is relevant to add to the summary section the factual impact of the current

[6:00] language in the charter that was removed by Council on July 11th from the Nobore

[6:05] Posture.

[6:06] I am referring to the two amendments that have failed because of the current 60% requirement,

[6:11] the addition of a city auditor position and adding a non-discrimination statement to the charter.

[6:16] I concur with the Council that this information does not belong to the Nobore section

[6:19] and should only be factual in nature.

[6:21] I believe with some revision, the factual history of these two amendments could fit the 175-word

[6:26] limit for the summary portion, and I've drafted sample language that fits all requirements

[6:30] that would be happy to provide it with a Jane Leo or to Council.

[6:34] Moving on to my main point, I am appalled by comments made in this chamber by Councillors

[6:39] during the July 11th meeting when referring to the 60% charter amendment.

[6:44] The amount of time the capital WL of the capital M majority was referred to as a whim

[6:49] A fringe idea, an easy hurdle to clear, or blown by any wind or tide, was disparaging.

[6:55] It feels like this legislative body has forgotten what the word majority means.

[6:59] In America, at all levels of government, we believe in majority rule.

[7:03] The fact that 41% of voters can override the will of the majority means we are living under

[7:08] minority rule with respect to charter amendments.

[7:11] The current requirement to amend the charter is un-American and undemocratic.

[7:15] I would encourage officials elected via a majority vote to respect the will of that same

[7:20] majority with regards to modifying the charter and throw their full support behind this

[7:24] amendment, as they did with the safety lovely.

[7:27] Thank you for your collaboration regarding this issue.

[7:29] I look forward to voting on in the near future.

[7:37] And then we have Wayne Albert.

[7:55] Mayor Sol, Council President and Bill of Counselors will be a C.A. made their presidential

[8:02] to Council on 14th of this year, they said they were forced out in the newspaper version.

[8:08] Times are matching this year, it could be eliminated.

[8:11] I think this could be plus for the hate crime and the civil war and does have this.

[8:15] This is under the federal laws and statutes.

[8:18] This pertains to people with all types of bias categories of people with disabilities.

[8:23] Bias means injustice.

[8:26] I believe that some Council rules are not being followed properly, trust.

[8:29] All elected officials and appointees shall protect the rights of all citizens, number

[8:34] five.

[8:35] All elected officials and employees shall ensure that all citizens are given a fair and equal

[8:40] opportunity to express their views, failing on both.

[8:43] Accountability, open government allows citizens to make an important judgment to hold elected

[8:48] officials accountable.

[8:50] The Council of Crease Valley Health people and seniors says this is disgrace.

[8:55] Why this is a council that cares only about itself and no one else?

[8:59] I'll also tell the two of them out white. As a citizen of Gresson, who is a serious citizen

[9:04] of the mental health issues and disabilities, I've been, I've been desperate to have

[9:08] been no respect for my age, but I'd say major in marriage office, I've held an ambition

[9:12] and lied to by council, and to also please some far-reporting. Plus, the C.O. Attorney's

[9:18] Office. I'm doing the far-reporting with a bar in place to be doing as a citizen. I believe

[9:24] Public opinion has to be my way of expressing my thoughts and views because this council doesn't care.

[9:31] Will citizens don't ask questions?

[9:32] Will citizens can't ask questions about something that they can't don't understand?

[9:36] When a razor hand may or so that they're in all the public comment at this time, this shows this respect

[9:42] of because our famous speech has been by they'd be welcome regardless of what you say.

[9:46] I was tempted to read all the books with respect.

[9:49] Council has a feeling great in this also.

[9:52] I'm clarifying and losing about all the people I mentioned.

[9:56] You never get an answer straight answer about anything.

[10:00] And I will move the life of extreme abuse, mental health issues on my life. I will learn to take care of myself and became a person who is doing and helping others.

[10:09] I can be helping this having what you needed to accomplish, but your actions are telling me that seniors aren't smart enough, and that's all this observation and your actions and facial expressions.

[10:19] This council and city employees should remember that your public servants have represented the city and its citizens. You work for us, we don't work for you.

[10:27] I'm not going to need to three minute mark, which is insane for making an issue up to this council.

[10:39] And my concludes our public comment.

[10:42] Thank you Rachel.

[10:48] With that, we are done with our public comment, and we'll move to our consent agenda.

[10:55] We've got one item on the consent agenda.

[11:06] Before we move on, one to thank our people who gave testimony today.

[11:11] And for your work on the charter committee, Mr. and I, but for Mr. Wayne Albert, this is like me speaks to us every week,

[11:24] has how do we get resolution?

[11:26] What has been done to follow up with him?

[11:30] So I will speak to a little bit.

[11:33] We have multiple people.

[11:34] to speak to Mr. Ober. I've spent considerable amount of time with a chief Goldberg spent

[11:40] a considerable amount of time. The folks within the city's managers office have also spent

[11:47] considerable amount of time. So we're not quite sure how we answer the questions, but we have

[11:55] actually many of us have spent a lot of time with Mr. Ober to no avail. So it's not something where

[12:03] We haven't actually tried our best to answer questions and give feedback and try to understand exactly what we're, you know, where the, where the, where the notion is that we're falling down.

[12:13] I know Chief Goldberg has spent considerable amount of time with the questions that have been asked of our police department has been very thorough and clear, including other individuals and those conversations also.

[12:25] So, we've done our best, and if there's anything else that we can work on, then anybody else here's we're happy to do it, but I've spent a considerable amount of time with Mr. Over myself personally.

[12:42] Yeah, that's a great question.

[12:44] I appreciate the question.

[12:49] All right.

[12:51] Councillor James Dixon.

[12:56] Thank you.

[12:56] Thank you, Mayor.

[12:57] I'm here.

[12:58] And I'll put it on just a few minutes.

[13:00] I just want to say again.

[13:00] Thank you to Chair for concerns.

[13:03] And everyone else on the Trucker Review Committee.

[13:06] And I'm warm.

[13:07] It's also a couple.

[13:08] Councillor Hinton and I, I know we might volunteer quite a bit.

[13:12] Maybe we can sit down with Mr. Oberg and again here.

[13:16] It's concerns, and then also seeing where they should interpret is that, but the things

[13:20] that we're going to be focusing on over this next year, especially since we're going

[13:24] to be also in the East County, but can you say that some of them are coming up to our next

[13:29] few months.

[13:30] That's all welcome to be going to our start, the world and track over here.

[13:36] I'm sure we can make that happen for the two of you.

[13:42] Any other comments?

[13:48] All right.

[13:48] With that, we're moved to our consent agenda.

[13:51] We have one item on this consent agenda, and that is the order to private this

[13:55] purchase of lifesaving equipment, cardiac monitors, defibrillators, and chest compression devices.

[14:01] Council, do we have any questions or anything in regards to this agenda item?

[14:08] I would love to move the considered agenda.

[14:11] See one.

[14:12] Excellent.

[14:13] Thank you very much.

[14:14] Oh second.

[14:14] Councillor Morales has the motion and Councillor Junirchi has the second any further discussion.

[14:20] Councillor Jones, Dixon.

[14:23] So what I just said, one question and we go to everyone I'm not participating in, in this council, we're in this agenda item.

[14:31] I know it's not all in two groups.

[14:33] And let's list it.

[14:34] And then the other staff members.

[14:39] So what's the question?

[14:48] Councillor Jones, the executive is still there.

[14:52] Yes.

[14:53] On the second page of the agenda item, it shows everyone what we're participating.

[14:59] I did really show that.

[15:00] Secondary law read the view to the general item of the code that is spoken from.

[15:04] Is it a whole other place of all sorts of citizen, peak news is lame and within Judge Review by General staff?

[15:10] I would say, the case I'm going to notice that sentence specific.

[15:15] It's not a big language, support it, but what you don't fear if there's a reason why.

[15:20] I think we weren't specifically noted on who participated in the review.

[15:29] Got it.

[15:52] Nina Vetter City Manager. On the specific agenda item, CRI that's being referenced, we listed

[15:59] the offices that the item went through and not the individual people, such as an inconsistency

[16:04] from how it was submitted, but it did still go through all the appropriate permits.

[16:12] Great, thank you. All right, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Jones, Dixon. Are there any other questions?

[16:19] All right, we've got the motion. We've got the second to approve. All of us in favor, please

[16:23] the fact that I'm in the opposite side.

[16:29] Motion carries unanimously. Thank you so very much.

[16:33] We'll move now to our council business section. We've got a number of items on the council

[16:38] business section, but it actually doesn't look as daunting as it actually is. So without we

[16:44] will start off on item E1, which is our financial roadmap update. But before we get started on that,

[16:51] There is a request that we take item E10 before items E8 and 9.

[17:01] So council item E10 which is resolution dissolving the 2021 is the 2023 city of

[17:09] question, city, charter review committee, move that up to just after C7. So take C10 and then

[17:17] C8 and C9 to have that discussion. I mean, E, I apologize, that's right. E 10 move up before we

[17:26] this have the next two discussions.

[17:32] I don't think it was a mistake. It was the order I think they

[17:34] were presented, but having the dissolution conversation is probably more appropriate before we

[17:40] to the other resolutions.

[17:43] So I see you, yes, this is Safe Thumbs Up.

[17:45] All right, we'll make that a, make that adjustment.

[17:49] Now we'll go to item E1.

[17:50] Again, which is the financial work map update.

[17:54] We're also going to have an update on the Gresham Safety

[17:56] Levy.

[17:57] So I'll turn it over to Sharon Monahan and,

[18:00] John Horick.

[18:01] Thank you.

[18:02] And good evening, Mayor and members of Council.

[18:04] I'm Sharon Monahan, budget and finance director with the city.

[18:07] And I'm joined by John Horick

[18:09] from DHM Research.

[18:15] And we have two main topics that we'll be covering tonight. First, I'll be

[18:18] providing some quick follow-up information on questions that Council raised when we met last

[18:23] month on the financial roadmap. Then most of our time we'll be spent talking through the post-election

[18:29] analysis that has been done by DHM.

[18:33] Most questions were from the June 6 meeting. First off,

[18:37] there's a question about how much funding is received from the county for homeless services and whether

[18:42] secure additional resources. For fiscal year 2324, the total for from the county for

[18:49] homeless services is 573,000 and a little bit of change. That covers staffing for

[18:55] two homeless service specialists positions plus a little bit for an outreach

[19:00] program cost for client assistance and additional program cost for rent assistance.

[19:06] Staff have met with the Joint Office of Homeless Services and initiated

[19:09] conversations to see if we could secure additional funding to cover the two positions that

[19:14] would have been included in the levee. However, no conclusion or further information is available

[19:19] at this time. There was also a question about whether the county could fund the mobile integrated

[19:25] health positions that would have been in the levee. AMR has provided some funding that is available

[19:31] to support the capital and materials and services associated with the program. The ongoing revenue

[19:37] was not enough to support additional positions.

[19:41] There's also a question about whether the county could fund the police department but

[19:45] behavioral health unit since it is mental health related.

[19:48] Conversations with chief Goldberg and others indicate that this would be highly unlikely

[19:52] as a county-spacing budget cuts and are trying to secure grant funding for their own BHU program.

[19:59] That said, they're happy.

[20:00] We have been discussions about possible coordinated efforts for combined BHU grant and program. These will continue to see if there's a mutually beneficial model available.

[20:11] Additionally, there's a question about whether we could secure funding from the state to support youth violence prevention.

[20:17] Prior to the fiscal year that just started, we were funded at $2 million per by NEM. We had asked, but were not approved for an increase to $4 million.

[20:27] We were approved, however, to continue funding at the $2 million level, which was good news.

[20:35] Cancer also had questions about the availability and usage of grants.

[20:39] The city has a strong track record of securing grant funding for many different program areas.

[20:45] The actual amounts can vary widely from year to year, and specific reporting can be challenging as a timeline between grant application, grant award, and actual receipt of grant funds,

[20:56] can span multiple years.

[20:58] And while most grants operate on a reimbursement basis,

[21:01] some like Arba provide revenue upfront

[21:04] and allow for expenditure across multiple years.

[21:08] Total grant revenues received in recent years.

[21:11] For fiscal year 2021, we received $10.9 million in grant revenue.

[21:16] For fiscal year 2122, we received $19.4 million in grant revenue.

[21:22] And for fiscal year 2223 were at least over of 21.5 million dollars and still closing out the fiscal year so that number might change slightly.

[21:34] Primary sources have been the American Rescue Plan Act and prior to that from CARES Act funding.

[21:41] Additionally, the CDBG Home Programs and various transportation infrastructure grants make up a good portion of that.

[21:48] Each year also includes a number of specific police and fire-related grants, collectively those have recently been running around $600,000 to $800,000 a year.

[22:00] What we do seek out grant opportunities as much as we can, there are various elements to consider.

[22:06] First and foremost, is simply what is available.

[22:09] But also what ranking criteria may apply, and whether that aligns with our goals and priorities,

[22:14] Also, what match obligations may be required, and what reporting, tracking, and other compliance-related activities may be involved.

[22:23] Other considerations are generally though rules against what is called supplanting.

[22:28] That is the grant provider won't typically pay for something we were already funding.

[22:34] Usually they do require a new program, which may not help us when it comes to addressing our current funding challenges.

[22:41] Also, there may be strings related to program implementation that may not align with

[22:45] their goals and priorities, so we do have to understand what requirements come with

[22:50] any outside funding.

[22:52] There was also a question regarding what funding we receive from or through other governmental

[22:57] entities.

[22:58] This could include federal, state, county, metro, and other cities, and in addition to grants,

[23:05] this could include revenue such as state shared revenues from alcohol and cigarettes, gas taxes,

[23:09] are shared to the county business income tax and payments that we receive from other cities for services provided to them.

[23:17] All 12, these revenues have been totaling $60 to $70 million per year in recent years.

[23:25] For fiscal year 2021, this was actually 25% of all of the revenue that came into the city that year.

[23:36] We also wanted to touch on a few activities that are underway regarding elements of the financial roadmap.

[23:41] Now that the budget adoption has been completed, we're looking further into other areas

[23:46] addressed in the financial roadmap, and these include the three topics listed here.

[23:51] Regarding districts, we have done an initial assessment of potential impacts to residents

[23:56] through the Equal North Wester Report, as well as the Parks Long-term Funding Study

[24:01] has also looked at districts.

[24:03] This included research into the steps that needed to be taken and the timeline.

[24:08] Staff has contacted the Special District Association of Oregon for further guidance and will be reaching out to vendors to ascertain costs of a potential feasibility study, which would be the next logical step for us in analyzing what a district could mean.

[24:23] When we find out the budget impact of that study, as well as a required involvement of staff, we will be able to determine the timing of that work and we will let you know what we find out on that.

[24:33] We'll also be updating cost analysis, cost of service analysis related to the various contracts with other jurisdictions.

[24:40] And that concludes the comments I had to share, and I wanted to pause briefly if there's any questions or feedback,

[24:46] and then turn it over to John for this presentation.

[24:50] Thank you very much, Sharon. Any questions for Sharon at this point on that date?

[24:58] Seeing none.

[25:02] So, just a question on the special district's discussion, trying to understand what the steps forward the years talking about in this special district's association, in finding out what are the next steps looking like, are they going to be implemented one way or another to be doing a feasibility study, et cetera, or what are we looking at there.

[25:25] Understanding the timing of the amount of work and the cost of a feasibility study is really the next the next step

[25:32] That we would be looking at with vendors to understand what that cost would be and understand how that fits into our budget and and over all timeline

[25:40] Okay, there's definitely some significant work involved in in doing that so at this point there is not it is not like on the plan

[25:48] We are doing a feasibility study period. It's Gregory to look into the costs and whether this is something that can be done

[25:55] Correct, and where that fits within the budget, yes.

[26:02] I'm going to actually give you a little clarification there.

[26:05] It's actually in our plan, so I mean, I think the timing of the budget item is something

[26:12] that needs to be discussed.

[26:13] I mean, as we do on everything, but it's actually in the plan, actually identified for this year

[26:19] in our three-year financial sustainability plan, so I mean, you know, we can't just prove

[26:26] something without finding out what the finances are going to be, but the council did approve

[26:33] taking a look at doing the deeper guidance and potentially the feasibility study of a fire

[26:38] district or additional districts, because I think fire districts are both going to identify

[26:43] but Nina, I'll let you fill in to make sure I didn't say anything that was not correct.

[26:49] Well you jumped in exactly where I was going to say we had council that asked us to look into

[26:53] fire and parks and recreation district. So that's on the financial roadmap is to research both

[27:00] and like you just stated that's our next step is what is the cost of this of the feasibilities

[27:05] that you're going to be? Do we have existing budget dollars for it if we don't? How do we figure that out?

[27:10] So that's where we're at with the district aspect of the financial roadmap right now. So it is moving forward

[27:15] per council direction. We'll follow back up on me no more.

[27:20] Yeah, I just want to make sure that that we are moving forward with the feasibility.

[27:26] I know a few two years ago we had actually allocated dollars in the budget for feasibility

[27:33] study.

[27:35] That was under our previous city manager, actually two city managers go, you have David.

[27:47] Yeah, two years, three managers ago, I remember a discussion about having allocated some

[27:55] resources for that. Did anything come out of that? Are those resources available still?

[28:03] And there was talk about maybe getting grants, I think Metro government has funds to help cities

[28:10] cover the cost of feasibility, so I don't know if there was fall-up done there.

[28:17] I don't believe we would still have funds from several years ago for the dedicated to

[28:22] a specific project.

[28:24] There was a work done last year as part of the initial financial roadmap process, the Equal

[28:29] Northwest study that we recent to you, this past week, so there was some preliminary work done.

[28:35] And then I haven't heard about the Metro Grant Opportunities are happy to look at potential

[28:38] grants to cover the cost, we'll see what's available.

[28:41] Yeah, I do the time it was Councilor Shirley Credit who had told us about those grants now it's obviously

[28:48] Councilor Aston since then so I think we should follow up.

[28:52] So what's the timeline for this?

[28:58] We are currently doing the research talking to the vendors to get the cost estimate so that

[29:03] will take us at least I would say through the next month to identify with this cost and what

[29:08] the scope is going to look like of the feasibility study because are understanding from

[29:13] And the preliminary work that was done by EcoNorthless is this is quite the undertaking,

[29:19] particularly do a full comprehensive feasibility study and unpack all of the financial

[29:23] and logistical implications of moving to a district.

[29:27] So it's a big project.

[29:28] So it's a, we need at least the next month to figure out what the cost and scope is going to look like.

[29:32] But once we have a little bit more information, we'll be happy to update Council as we're going towards the next step.

[29:38] So keep you informed as we move through the process.

[29:41] I think my last question, maybe, or suggestion is, or both, are we engaging the cities of

[29:49] child health, wherever you would village and unincorporated?

[29:54] And the current, I think there's a current special district that exists, yeah, I'll be included.

[30:00] Putting them in the conversations around the feasibly city and cost sharing of what that would cost.

[30:05] We continue to have conversations with them. I think the three cities and ferry to September but having conversations about this for a long time.

[30:12] So those conversations continue from the perspective of doing the analysis.

[30:18] We need to look at the city of Gresham's impact on the city of Gresham in particular.

[30:24] So while we can also, as a group, talk about impacts to other cities, that could be done as a supplemental project.

[30:35] The first and foremost, we need the feasibility study and the comprehensive analysis to focus on the impacts of the city of Gresham and the city of Gresham's general fund.

[30:43] So that would be what we will prioritize as the impact to us.

[30:47] But certainly there will be further steps that will include if Council was wanting to move forward would include other entities in that conversation, but it really should start with the impacts to us as an organization.

[30:59] Yeah, I just know that it'll currently were contracting for those who may not know we're contracting our fire services to all of these different areas.

[31:08] And it's not always not everyone's paying the same, I think we may be paying a larger share to that.

[31:18] So, when we're accounting for the impact on our residents in question,

[31:24] if people were paying a more equitable amount,

[31:28] I'm assuming that we get some benefit out of that as well.

[31:30] Our residents would, if the other cities were paying.

[31:33] So I guess what I'm saying is other cities do impact what the impact will be on our residents

[31:40] and so I hate to not have them in the conversation.

[31:45] Certainly that is one of the items I mentioned that we are working on updating our

[31:49] cost of service analysis so that we do have a true understanding of what it is costing us

[31:54] to provide that service and can update those contracts accordingly.

[32:00] Those contracts are actually up in 2025 with the other cities, so we will be starting negotiations

[32:07] here shortly and certainly understanding that timeline of a district from the consultant

[32:14] who did the preliminary work, it's about 24 months, so we will need to address the contracts

[32:18] of the other cities before we are able to move forward with any other district or anything else,

[32:24] so we will be addressing that first and foremost.

[32:27] I'm just a brief response, so I do get an opportunity to meet with the other three mayors

[32:34] regularly.

[32:35] This is one of the key topics that you can imagine, because the initial economic

[32:40] less study that we had recent to us shows that if we were to look at potentially going

[32:47] to the same structure or similar structure has probably just returned our cost would go up by

[32:51] percent. The other three cities go up anywhere from 70 to 80 percent. So that's when the other

[32:59] mayors heard those numbers that you're going to imagine. Those numbers were quite substantial

[33:04] for them. I talked about roughly $2 million increase and very roughly about a million dollar

[33:11] increase over what they pay for our current contracts based on the eco-nothless study. So they were

[33:21] setting us for the same services, so it's interesting, it'll be interesting to see all the

[33:26] information once we are able to do a full feasibility study at Pasadena Uchi.

[33:31] So getting all the deeper into this topic, I'm aware that there was a surfer council at

[33:36] one point that was just banning apparently not maybe as effective for a question as a tool

[33:42] as we had hoped at the time, but feel like most jurisdictions were at the table during those

[33:51] discussions and that the recommendation at the end of that was to move forward on a feasibility

[33:57] study, I am just curious if that information is still available to us versus like reinventing

[34:06] the wheel on some of those discussions or understanding what the other cities want to do,

[34:11] what we're being completed and whether many of that time was potentially put aside for

[34:16] feasibility study. Sure, I could speak to a little bit of the kind of results of the

[34:24] safer council. You received a presentation, I can't remember, but here at this

[34:30] point, it's been a while from our former Fire Chief Snyder that had some of the

[34:34] results of the analysis from the safer council. There analysis on that part was

[34:40] mostly focused on response times. They didn't do a district feasibility study, so

[34:46] that was what the data was, that was presented to Council.

[34:49] The other thing that was completed was an analysis

[34:53] of the condition of our facilities, and that is going to be

[34:56] very useful when we begin work on another piece of our...

[35:00] Financial Roadmap, which is the bond initiative to address our fire facilities. So there is some preliminary work that was done on that front as well that will be helpful.

[35:13] All right. Any more questions before we move to John Hoverick with the agent?

[35:19] All right. John.

[35:22] Thank you, Mayor and Council. Let's see where we're queued up here.

[35:29] Okay.

[35:29] I'll pause.

[35:31] Well, while we'll get this up, I'm John Harvard D.H.M. Research, where an independent public

[35:34] opinion and policy firm is different ways to describe what we do, one would be Emma Polster.

[35:39] I'd like to say that my job is to ask people what sort of communities they want to

[35:42] live in.

[35:44] We are fortunate to be able to work on all sorts of different issues, education, transportation,

[35:48] healthcare, and of course we work at many communities on local funding measures.

[35:52] D.H.M. has worked with the city of Gresham many times in the past, on funding measures

[35:58] as well as other community satisfaction and priority surveys and research, DTM was not engaged

[36:04] at all with the safety level. So coming to this review analysis from the outside, we have

[36:12] certainly experience and knowledge about the city, but we're not engaged with the, with the

[36:19] level. I'm going to spend just a few days, this deck is about 60 some slides and I'm going to skip

[36:25] a lot, I'm not going to go through everything but I'm going to try to highlight a few things

[36:28] that I think are most important for this evening.

[36:32] One, just to ground you, what was the research purpose here?

[36:37] The public safety level was close.

[36:39] That's right.

[36:41] And so, disappointing didn't quite get over the hump,

[36:45] but also, I need to then look back.

[36:48] What can we learn from this last election to be able to apply

[36:52] to future policy making and potential future elections to be successful?

[36:58] This analysis, like I said, came from the outside, from independent review, looked a lot

[37:04] at the election results here in Gresham, geographic poison turned out, each turn out, considered

[37:12] how potentially the multiple county capital gains tax influence turned out and the result

[37:24] And additionally, I've conducted a number of stakeholder interviews with individuals who

[37:29] were engaged in one way or another with the efforts in this lovely sum, to see staffers,

[37:37] members of the various committees and coalitions that supported the effort to union representatives.

[37:44] The list is in the report, there's been some additional conversations I've had since.

[37:47] This was provided to Council, so it's been, this will be updated.

[37:52] So just quickly some historical context, this is questions, at least this 2020, the funding

[37:58] measures that have been on the ballot. The cannabis tax is certainly the outlier, every

[38:04] cannabis tax and all are going to pass and pass overwhelmingly. It did here in Gresham

[38:08] 2, but if you take that one off, the last year, every single funding measure in Gresham

[38:20] has passed in Gresham. And so, you know, you can look at this,

[38:25] why do I think a couple different ways? One is the end-in-game majority. Obviously, that's

[38:28] what matters. Before it, I present to you know, the highest you've been.

[38:33] So lots of things concerning historical context had to go while we put into place

[38:38] effectively to get to that rate. Things are difficult to pass in Gresham.

[38:44] Certainly history would suggest so. And this was the case here too.

[38:49] These are just quickly public safety, I'll walk you through all these public examples and just one second.

[38:55] We've got a couple of questions, but I'd like to ask these questions, but try and hold that question to the end.

[39:00] So John, because some of the questions may get answered, but we have a couple of questions really quick.

[39:06] Thank you.

[39:07] Thank you.

[39:08] When you say taxes have it, city property tax hasn't passed in the last two decades.

[39:13] Did you account for the Metro bonds or the high school bond that we used?

[39:17] So these are specifically city of Gresham measure.

[39:20] So I haven't done an analysis of all the other funding measures in the bout for other jurisdictions

[39:25] and overlap with Gresham.

[39:27] But so these are only Gresham measures.

[39:29] There could be certainly probably some measures that got majority support in the city of Gresham.

[39:34] But just not at the city at the city level.

[39:37] That's good question.

[39:39] We go through all these, but there were 28 public safety measures on the ballot in or

[39:43] cost Oregon this last election, you can see most of them did pass, you can take a look

[39:48] at it more or closer than you have time.

[39:52] The thing that I would want to emphasize, you can't see it on the screen if you're in the room,

[39:57] because of the images there.

[39:58] But these are the measurements though.

[40:00] We're on the ballot that it costs ore again, across ore again, this last election from a 2023 that failed, and in the

[40:12] column at the right, you'll see, was it a new money ask? Was it a new levy? Was it a levy rate increase? Was it a bond?

[40:19] Every single measure that failed was a revenue increase. So no renewals, those past,

[40:28] fly from driving past, but just to say, getting new money is really hard. It's not just

[40:35] hiring a question that's hard across every community across the state. Once the

[40:39] loveiest pass, the likelihood is going to pass again is very high. But getting that first

[40:45] ask done is a real challenge. This is just to give you a little context about what your 49%

[40:51] means, what it means compared to other public safety levies and what it means for other

[40:55] communities that ask for new money. So little geographic analysis. So this is the results

[41:02] by precinct. The most important thing to my eye about these results is that the support

[41:13] went from 44% to 53% across the city. Now that's a difference. So it's three I think

[41:25] that is the one part of the community is 20% and another part of the community is 80%.

[41:30] Okay, so there was relative parity across the city.

[41:35] I'm not sure if that was kind of obvious after immediately after the election, but that is the sort of defining here.

[41:42] I will tell you in this, and I also, you'll see it in the foot, and I'll still look at the report.

[41:46] There is one tiny, tiny little precinct that only has about 180 voters.

[41:51] I've not included in this analysis because of those things off without providing some meaning.

[41:57] So just, if you think hate is one more precinct out there there is, but it's very, very tiny.

[42:02] And so it's, it's can confuse things.

[42:05] But broadly, support is fairly even across the city, which does make some of the analysis a little challenging,

[42:13] but I'll start to show you what's most important.

[42:14] Turn out range fairly considerably across the city from 17% to 37% special elections, you know, turn out around 30% free typical.

[42:25] There are some variation which I'll show you in a second, but that's what you should expect.

[42:32] Turn out in anything but a general election tends to be old, and here you can see two tones of the voters in this special election over 55 and older.

[42:43] Okay, so you think about a special election and the voters are going to turn out the values interest priorities of that demographic group are going to dominate and whether or not something successful or fails.

[42:55] This is not unusual to question about unusual special elections, but this is the reality of who turned out to vote.

[43:03] This is the most impactful variable and predicting whether or not something was successful.

[43:10] That's a partnership. If you look at, in the last side, partners turn out percentage by

[43:16] party that's a percentage of Democrats for Republicans on affiliated voters, the NAV and

[43:20] other voters, Constitution, green, other parties, that's a turn out percentage. At the right

[43:28] side, you can see the vote share. So what percentage of the electorate were Democrats for

[43:32] Republicans on affiliated and other? You'll see that on the left, Republicans turn out more

[43:37] than Democrats did. 40% versus 33. Democrats still made up a plurality of the electorate,

[43:44] so 43% versus 34% for Republicans.

[43:50] Turn out, this is turn out of special elections

[43:53] since 2017. I choose 2017 because in 2016, Oregon initiated automatic motor voter registration

[44:00] that makes some of the partisan and it also is more complicated if you go before that time.

[44:06] The gray line is total turnout, so turnout among all voters, a total turnout was 25%.

[44:12] If you look at the Democrat, that's blue versus the Republican versus the Red.

[44:17] There you can see that historically the gap was larger this year than other special elections.

[44:27] Ingression was unusual.

[44:29] So this is the turnout percentage.

[44:32] The white blue bars are aggression, and then I wanted to have some comparisons to other communities.

[44:38] Importantly, communities did not have the Multnomah County capital gains tax on the ballot.

[44:44] Question, turn out, well, this is Republican turnout, and then I can talk to why I'm choosing that.

[44:51] The question Republican turnout was 31% and 2017 and 2016 and then 20, then 40.

[45:00] A big increase in Republican turnout for aggression, but if you look at blackness in Washington counties, you don't see a significant increase in Republican turnout.

[45:10] To me, this is as Republican's turn in aggression turned out, most likely in the action to the capital gains tax that was not on the ballot in adjacent communities.

[45:23] You can see demographically where Democrats and Republicans all sit that for now.

[45:28] This is just a trend line.

[45:33] So this is how well the lobby did by precinct looking at the share of voters in that

[45:41] precinct that were registered Democrats, but the line goes up means it did better in precincts

[45:47] with more Democrats.

[45:48] The important number at the bottom, I can, for it won't do a stats class, but that 0.2956,

[45:56] that tells me that 30% of the variance, 30% of the dots belong above of that line, can

[46:02] be explained by the power of the ship.

[46:06] When you look at the report, you can see lots of lines that are flat, which means that variable

[46:12] didn't explain anything or explain very well.

[46:14] Well, this is the one variable that explains something.

[46:20] And just one other way to look at this, if you look at voter shares, this is the percentage

[46:24] of voters who turned out, but the share of the electorate who are Democrats, Republicans

[46:28] are not affiliated in third party.

[46:31] You can see in 2023, there's a nine percentage point gap between Democrats and Republicans,

[46:36] 43 percent Republicans, or it's a 34 percent.

[46:40] We, excuse me, 43 percent Democrats versus 34 percent Republicans, and compared that

[46:45] previous special elections. In 2019, for example, there's a 22 percentage point gap between

[46:51] Democrats and Republicans. This was an unusually, Democrat, excuse me, usually Republican

[46:58] leaning or less Democratic electorate than special elections and Christians passed.

[47:04] And it's more Republican than adjacent communities in Congress in Washington County,

[47:10] so there's something unique that was happening here in this election.

[47:13] Let's skip a bunch.

[47:17] The capital gains tax.

[47:19] So I think capital gains tax encouraging anti-tax orders to turn up to about more conservative

[47:24] Republican leaning turn up to about however the caveat to that.

[47:30] So here's if you look at the vote for the capital gains tax compared to the vote for the

[47:38] You see that line is basically flat, and you see that R squared is 0.0409.

[47:46] That means just 4% of the variance is explained by how precincts voted in for the capital gains tax.

[47:54] So I think the capital gains, I think it caused Republicans to turn out, did not motivate progressive voters to turn out.

[48:01] But if you look at the precinct level, that relationship really isn't strong, and so I say that with some caveat.

[48:10] The other thing you might be wanting to know is, we're crying a curse across the community.

[48:16] The dad had an impact on support for a lot of the or not.

[48:21] These are crying incidents.

[48:22] The number of crying incidents by precinct that I got from a city of question.

[48:26] You can see the number of incidents very quite a bit across the city.

[48:31] But again, if you look at that, just plot it out on a line and see the trend line, very little

[48:38] relationship between crime rates and the vote, meaning that places that were most impacted

[48:45] by criminal activity were only marginally more likely to support a levee, the primarily

[48:51] or largely funded public safety place.

[48:55] Okay, it did not cause those voters to be more likely to support things.

[49:02] So that's kind of the numbers.

[49:05] Then I did a number of stakeholder interviews.

[49:07] These are the ones that I conducted when I put together this report.

[49:10] There are a couple of names not on here, including Hugh Harris and Shirley Cretac.

[49:15] I'm hoping to have at least one more.

[49:17] I will say that these are advocates, these are stakeholders, these are not everyday community members.

[49:22] Okay, they're also not racially demographically

[49:27] income-wise represented the community as a whole.

[49:30] So I'm going to acknowledge that,

[49:32] but these are also people are well informed

[49:34] about how the campaign unfolded

[49:36] and did lots of community conversations.

[49:38] I'm going to skip all of that sort of analysis,

[49:41] kind of the things we heard,

[49:43] and just sort of get to some key takeaways

[49:44] and all pause for questions.

[49:47] So what went well,

[49:48] there was a diverse coalition of supporters

[49:49] trusted among constituencies.

[49:51] As you had a number of different coalitions together to do an advocacy and they represented

[49:55] different parts of the community, they will willing to do work, they will willing to

[50:00] Ladies, money and no willing to do outreach. Not every community has that advantage when they're going

[50:06] for funding measure. There's limited organized opposition. That is the most damaging thing to

[50:12] ballot measure when there's organized opposition. And I think that the wealthy funding generally align with

[50:17] voter priorities. We can discuss that. But certainly, you know, concerns about safety, concerns about

[50:24] But emergency response times are consistent with other priorities.

[50:29] The strongest predictor of why we support wise parties in turn out and this was a particularly

[50:33] conservative election, even for special elections in Krascham.

[50:37] It is challenging to know exactly why Republicans or conservatives are motivated to turn

[50:42] out or say the other way around, like progressive and Democrats were not, but I might best

[50:46] My best read is that it was a mobile-mechanic capital gains tax.

[50:54] It is notable that voters were suspected by crime were not motivated to turn out of work for this measure.

[51:03] I do think that that requires and needs more community outreach to understand why.

[51:08] Whether that's research or community engagement or working with leaders within those communities, but that's notable.

[51:15] that that relationship didn't exist.

[51:20] I'd say the other thing is that I did hear from some stakeholders that perhaps conservative

[51:24] voters were distinct client to support a public safety lobby that funded police.

[51:30] Because of a belief or concern, the Muslim accounting district attorneys are not willing

[51:36] or able to prosecute those who are committing crime and so they didn't see a valuable connection

[51:43] between more funding for police, if there wasn't going to be ultimate accountability.

[51:55] The other thing I heard quite a bit was the late decision to put it on the ballot made

[51:59] a very difficult for the city and for advocacy organizations and groups to do the community

[52:03] outreach necessary.

[52:06] That was one of the most consistent themes among the individuals who I talked to.

[52:13] Another consistent theme on stakeholder is the community was confused and certain about what

[52:18] happen to the police, fire, and parks fee if the lobby had passed, an inability to answer

[52:24] that question directly to voters, cause some who have been inclined to vote yes on a measure

[52:32] like this, to vote no or to not turn out due to that uncertainty. And finally, some recommendations,

[52:38] one is to invest in community outreach and public opinion research. Turn out, again, 25%

[52:43] percent, not only do we need to know who voted no, but we need to know what we know

[52:46] people to turn out or to vote yes for those who didn't. It's a particularly among diverse communities,

[52:52] communities of color. I think that is the audience that we know least. I'll say that I know

[52:58] have less confidence to know why they voted or didn't vote the way that they did.

[53:06] I would recommend

[53:06] rating until at least 2024 to go up to voters again if you choose to go up to voters again. You

[53:10] technically would have time, at least on a, you could put something loud in November. The turn

[53:16] and November is likely to look very similar to the turnout in May.

[53:19] It's hard.

[53:20] It's would be difficult for me to say confidently could be successful

[53:24] with that same mix of others.

[53:27] I think it's more here from the stakeholders at least

[53:30] that a clear decision needs to be made about the future

[53:33] of the police fire and parks fee,

[53:35] and that needs to be clearly communicated to the community.

[53:37] So they have confidence within how much tax and fee burden they'll have

[53:41] in the future.

[53:44] $1.50, which is substantial as you got to 49%, I don't know if it was $1.25 or $1.90

[53:54] if I could see it if 50% plus $1 or not, but more likely than not, it helps gain support

[54:01] rather than a road support, although less funding could change the mix of coalitions

[54:08] who would be willing to support a funding measure, and that's difficult to know for sure at

[54:13] coin. Colors in management is going to remain critical in challenging. I certainly heard from

[54:20] the folks that I talked to, you know, concerns about what was put on the ballot, concerns

[54:23] about what potentially could be put on the ballot in the future, and differences in what their

[54:27] expectations and desires are. Gresham is close to a 50-50 community in terms of funding measures.

[54:36] The city must be in blocks up in unison in order for there to be community for voters to

[54:43] yes, everything needs to go right in question. A divided community, a divided council with

[54:51] signal that things aren't going right, and I think without that it'll be very challenging

[54:55] to get something passed no matter what it is. Without it probably took more time than you're

[54:59] .

[55:00] And so I'll stop and I can't any questions as long as I have me.

[55:05] Thank you, John. Greatly appreciate that. Looking at it in the London Mission just on paper is really good enough

[55:13] and what you've added to, for us to consider actually helps out considerably.

[55:19] With that, let's open it up for questions council.

[55:25] Councillor Piazza.

[55:26] Thank you, thank you for the report. I really think that it would be important to find out to do the next step of finding out the people who voted no and why they voted no and going that step forward and in talking to many different people from many different areas.

[55:43] A lot of what we heard here is why they voted no. I didn't want the PFP. I didn't know what you were going to do with that. I was confused. I was confused about.

[55:54] The homeless services that was in there, I didn't understand why should I vote for more police when the DA is not going to, this is their thought.

[56:02] The DA is not going to prosecute them.

[56:05] So many of these things, but I still need to know, I think we need to know as a city, why people voted no, and then we need to figure out how we can educate or revamp revitalize something later down the road.

[56:22] And of course, obviously we can't do it this November, and it sounds like you're saying don't do it in May, because we'll get the same amount of vote, but do next November when you have all these people voting because of the presidential election.

[56:35] If I said that, my intent is to say, this will be the number of 2021-23 electorate will likely look very, if you want to about it,

[56:43] would likely look very similar to the May 2023-23 ballot.

[56:46] The May 2024 electorate is much more difficult to predict, because turnout in that election,

[56:54] this presidential primary years, is highly variable depending on what's happening at the top of the ticket.

[56:59] So it's say 2008 was very different when the 2012, when 2012, when 2012, you have a Democratic incumbent running in a competitive Republican.

[57:10] So November is more predictable.

[57:13] I'd say either of those electorates have a likely to be more favorable to aggression than November 2023 or what not May 2023 was.

[57:22] Either one, May of 2024 or November 24.

[57:25] So you weren't choosing one. I was choosing one. I think that we both more favourable. It's harder to know how much more favourable may

[57:31] We'll be because it's the presidential race well

[57:35] Impact, turn out so great. And I just want to step in and remind folks there is a difference from when we would receive

[57:41] Web a new. So from the financial standpoint, we would receive revenue in May

[57:50] In one year, but if we went to November, we would wait yet another year before we would receive that revenue.

[57:56] So definitely from a financial standpoint, there is a significant difference.

[58:00] And I have no expertise about that.

[58:02] And I understand that that's why I was trying to clarify if there's no difference between in your opinion,

[58:09] May of 24 and November of 24, then obviously it would be who the city to be able to do all this in the timeframe of May of 24.

[58:18] But if there was a big difference, and you thought more potential for it to pass in November

[58:22] of 24, then we have to consider that also.

[58:26] All else being equal, all else being equal.

[58:30] This measure would have passed with the turnout, a reasonable,

[58:37] looking at May 2024 in the kind

[58:39] of look at past even in a more conservative electorate for a presidential primary.

[58:43] All of us been equal, this measure likely would have passed with a, with a, with a, may turn out.

[58:50] It also would have likely passed with an November 2020 for a turn out.

[58:53] All of us won't be equal, I mean, that, but yes, it's like measure would have passed with a more favorable electorate.

[59:04] I have a quick question about the answer to that, some of them are the seemed chief of police.

[59:11] I'm a crew of incidents, you know, I'm still puzzled by that whole concept of the,

[59:19] did our team articulate whether or not these were responsive, type incidents,

[59:26] or some of the proactive things that we do with those included, because I know some of our

[59:32] statistics that include the reactant and the proactive work that we do, and if the numbers

[59:38] are proactive, then that could be a little bit of the explanation. It could be that

[59:44] could be a potential analysis that could be done. This was me just looking at the total numbers

[59:50] of reports that were provided to me. I did not try to be analysis of the different types

[59:54] of instance in the file. So that's that that may

[1:00:00] I help provide clarity, but I haven't done that.

[1:00:03] Next slide, I just got another quick question, you guys, too. Just a little bit of sentiment.

[1:00:07] I think, I mean, you do work all over the state and other places. I mean, so you get to, I know,

[1:00:12] DHM does, historically, it's done kind of an ordinary sentiment study, and it's always been something that's very

[1:00:19] informational about, you know, what folks are. Is there any part of the process, as if we were to look at the next level,

[1:00:26] that can inform us of how better to communicate with our community members.

[1:00:31] Because I sometimes see this as, yeah, we've got this issue, but there's also a pretty significant disconnect sometimes,

[1:00:37] with what we're trying to communicate and what's being heard.

[1:00:41] Is there any part of this process that would better inform us of how better to communicate with our community members

[1:00:47] so that we can articulate exactly what we're seeing?

[1:00:50] because many times I get the question, well, we don't trust government. Why are you wasting

[1:00:53] all of our money when, in fact, we, as everybody knows, we have one of the lowest permeate

[1:00:58] rates of any similar society in the entire, in the entire state of some of the societies

[1:01:01] and when we look at just Trabbell and Sandy, upper capital general fund revenue is substantially

[1:01:06] lower than theirs. I mean, so what we do with our dollar is substantial and comparison

[1:01:10] to just cities that are here in the region. And so those are misconceptions. I'm just wondering,

[1:01:15] How do we get informed as a city and as a community those of us who are that are very well and that are very

[1:01:23] I shouldn't say informed very well connected in regards to making trying to make stuff happen

[1:01:28] How do we get better at the messaging?

[1:01:32] It's a big question that I have two thoughts.

[1:01:35] One is perhaps a big industrial-wide global cynicism.

[1:01:41] There is a temptation I think of mine, community leaders, city leaders, to want to educate the public about the limitations of a property tax system, the fundamental challenges with the way we do revenue raising and limitations we can have on spending.

[1:01:56] And I get that, I would not use my time or energy to try to educate voters about those challenges.

[1:02:08] More than I spend much time talking about the city's problems.

[1:02:13] But do you best articulate the outcomes that are going to be delivered?

[1:02:18] The service benefits provisions that are going to be experienced.

[1:02:25] That's what voters primarily care about.

[1:02:29] It's what they're going to receive, the lives of how they are also going to improve.

[1:02:33] The challenge is with the questions that are going to put into you, the program that

[1:02:37] tax rates, or the fact that there's multiple jurisdictions that are taxing that are in

[1:02:43] question, and it may be confused about that.

[1:02:45] I wouldn't spend much time that communicator next that's such a big lift and hard and

[1:02:51] not only now, why voters are going to vote yes or no on something, and there's a broad

[1:02:56] general statements, but it's sort of as a principle from which to build upon, that's

[1:03:01] what I'll be keeping in mind.

[1:03:03] That, in general, but extremely helpful, thank you.

[1:03:06] Appreciate that.

[1:03:07] Pastor Jones, Dixon.

[1:03:07] So you get close to the microphone.

[1:03:09] You want to go next?

[1:03:09] I'm just going to say the same exactly.

[1:03:11] You said.

[1:03:12] I'm joking.

[1:03:12] Thank you.

[1:03:13] I don't have any other additional comments.

[1:03:15] Thank you.

[1:03:17] Any other questions, your comments at this point?

[1:03:19] I want to add a comment from a constituent that sent me this letter and it goes just right

[1:03:27] along with what you said because what they said is winning voter approval, believe it

[1:03:32] not, it's not about you, city, it's about them, it's about your constituents and the decision

[1:03:37] comes down to what the constituents want, not what the city wants. So you kind of went along

[1:03:43] the same lines there. We portrayed the wrong kind of message, it was all about, oh we're going

[1:03:48] You're not going to have this and we're instead of the value of what this would do for people, so I just wanted to acknowledge and thank you because I mean I already knew that this was probably right, but it's right in line with that.

[1:04:05] All right, anything else?

[1:04:07] Well, thank you very much. Great, we appreciate the presentation and talk about what those next steps are.

[1:04:15] You're in your future. Actually, the city manager need a better.

[1:04:20] Can I ask for the council direction because I heard one council I mentioned that they're interested in us following up on John's recommendation to do for their public outreach and public opinion.

[1:04:33] I want to make sure that we're comfortable with that as a next step.

[1:04:37] I actually said yes, I want to go to the next level of myself.

[1:04:43] I guess I'll answer that by I just shared also some of the observations from the reported proposal that we could have done better with young people.

[1:04:54] We could have done better with Democrats.

[1:04:58] And we could have done better with committee.

[1:05:00] Is it impacted by crime? And so I would really focus our time to energy there and not continue to talk to the same

[1:05:09] precincts and neighborhoods that we normally talk to, but to really go out and do community engagement with the

[1:05:17] of no voters, but also people that decided not to vote. This is not motivate them to even vote on the issue.

[1:05:25] And those are the three kind of constituencies that I heard, and maybe with the Republicans who voted against it to understand why, but it seemed like there was a big deficit amongst young people and Democrats to get the votes we needed.

[1:05:44] We have agreement, the condition, right?

[1:05:47] Yes.

[1:05:48] So you have direction at this point.

[1:05:50] Thank you very much.

[1:05:52] Thank you, Chairman.

[1:05:52] Thank you, John.

[1:05:53] Great.

[1:05:53] Appreciate it.

[1:05:58] All right.

[1:05:58] with that. We're going to initiate some Title IV comprehensive

[1:06:02] final minutes.

[1:06:05] So I believe we've got Ashley Miller

[1:06:10] and this is

[1:06:12] actually going to cover items E2 through E7. So E2 through E7.

[1:06:32] Hi. Oh, thank you very much. Maristof on City Council. Good evening. As

[1:06:36] you mentioned, her name is Ashley Miller. I am Gresham's interim urban

[1:06:39] design and planning director. I'm joined tonight with by Tara Wilcoxon.

[1:06:44] She is our comprehensive planning manager.

[1:06:46] We also have Jim Wheeler here, hiding out over there.

[1:06:49] These are development planning manager

[1:06:51] for the city of Gresham.

[1:06:54] So we're here to provide a brief presentation.

[1:06:56] I related to the initiation of six comprehensive planning projects.

[1:07:00] Typically, projects are initiated

[1:07:02] one at a time via the consent agenda.

[1:07:05] Comprehensive planning is actually at a unique point right now.

[1:07:08] We're staff of tackle the significant body

[1:07:09] of work over the last several years,

[1:07:11] And now I have some capacity to take on new projects.

[1:07:15] So the majority of the work over the past several years

[1:07:17] has really been related to state mandates

[1:07:20] and related code updates that we had to make.

[1:07:23] So as a result, many other Russian priority projects

[1:07:25] have been really put on the back burner.

[1:07:28] And we've had to shift staff resources around.

[1:07:32] So in light of new capacity and relatively limited

[1:07:35] state mandates at this time, knock-on wood,

[1:07:39] we've really been evaluating local priorities

[1:07:40] and how given our limited resources, staff can strategically tackle projects of the next few years.

[1:07:47] So this is I think the first time that Urban Design and Planning has taken a unique approach and initiated a multitude of projects at one time

[1:07:55] to really serve as a roadmap and a work plan guiding the work of the department over the next several years.

[1:08:01] So tonight we'll share preliminary plans for the upcoming projects and ask Council to consider initiating those projects.

[1:08:09] So, we just want to start by taking, you know, step back and really looking up the big picture.

[1:08:15] What is urban design and land use planning?

[1:08:17] Why is it important to the city?

[1:08:19] Urban design and planning is a process of collaboratively shaping how place will grow.

[1:08:23] It tackles big questions and big visions.

[1:08:26] Like, how do we improve and protect a place for residents?

[1:08:29] Workers, visitors that come to our city.

[1:08:31] How do we plan parks for all to enjoy?

[1:08:33] streets that are safe for everyone, including people with mobility issues, how do we regulate

[1:08:38] where, how and what buildings can be built and really everything between those buildings?

[1:08:46] The Comprehensive Plan is a question of guiding land to your documents.

[1:08:50] It contains the question of land use regulations and processes and when staff update policies,

[1:08:55] standards and processes we do it by updating this plan. There are five volumes within the plan.

[1:09:00] Volume 1 is called findings and it contains the description of Gresham's physical features,

[1:09:06] land use history, and background. Volume 2 contains land use policies, goals, and action measures.

[1:09:12] This volume provides really a framework for the basis of all land use actions.

[1:09:18] Volume 3 is what's most frequently updated and discussed, the development code.

[1:09:22] It contains the standards and processes for development and preservation.

[1:09:26] It's used dozens of times per day at a planning counter that we have at the city.

[1:09:30] and by our planners and reviewing permits, and also this is what developers that are seeking

[1:09:35] to develop and aggression are generally looking at. Volume 4 regulates the city's transportation

[1:09:41] network, and then volume 5 is a capital improvement program, and it describes the city's

[1:09:45] facilities needs and they're relative importance over a five-year period. So comprehensive plans must

[1:09:51] comply with the state land use laws and goals, and then any changes that the plan must

[1:09:56] apply with the state law on the schools, but it also has to

[1:10:00] To comply with Metro Regional Policies, and then the policies that are in the comprehensive plan itself.

[1:10:09] So this is a long range or comprehensive planning team focuses on updating this plan. Since the plan is intended to really reflect the community's vision for the future, it's most important that urban design and planning has a collaborative process.

[1:10:22] So each time the plan is updated, input is gathered from a variety of stakeholders, including city council, planning commission, community members, staff from multiple departments at the city and developers, and then staff also provide a notice to Metro as well as the state any time we make any updates.

[1:10:42] So, when we update the plan, it's called a comprehensive plan amendment or CPA, so this slide covers the general amendment process and all of the red tiles are opportunities for council touch points.

[1:10:55] And as a project starts, it starts with the council initiation, such as tonight and staff completes the project scope of work in the analysis alternatives and holds a one to two work sessions with council and the planning commission.

[1:11:07] A discussion or a draft amendment is produced, and then after a refinement a final draft is created.

[1:11:13] And then the adoption stages of the process, the Planning Commission holds a public hearing where it makes recommendation to city council.

[1:11:20] The City Council holds a public hearing and votes on whether to adopt the amendment.

[1:11:24] And if council adopt the amendment, it's a bit of a process.

[1:11:27] 30 days later, it will enact the amendment amendment and then 30 days after that, it is effective.

[1:11:32] And then there are various types of public outreach and involvement really thrown it throughout this entire process,

[1:11:38] but it's definitely pretty heavy in the alternatives and analysis stage.

[1:11:45] So the comprehensive planning team currently consists of four planners.

[1:11:49] Over the past three years the team has had the focus on this state legislation and mandates.

[1:11:56] And new laws of driven significant changes to our comprehensive plan and of stretch staff capacity pre-thin.

[1:12:02] It's been a substantial accomplishment that we've been able to keep up with the new regulations for

[1:12:07] middle housing, housing capacity, housing production, and affordable housing, definitely a theme from the state.

[1:12:14] Then we've also begun the important work related to the state rules I'm climate-friendly and equitable

[1:12:18] communities. And amidst all the other mandated work we've been doing other work and we've increased

[1:12:24] collaboration across departments and we've reached out to the community. Transportation is a large piece

[1:12:29] long-range planning and planners not only work with development code related to transportation,

[1:12:36] they work with our partners in DES engineering and they coordinate to identify the best ways

[1:12:42] to meet transportation priorities and they coordinate with Metro and update the regional transportation

[1:12:47] plan or TSP and provide a lot of services to our community members as well. So for example,

[1:12:53] the summer will be the fourth year of the summer bike repair hub because bike amenities are really

[1:12:59] helpful community members have safe bikes. Additionally, we were successful in obtaining a grant

[1:13:05] at a traffic playground amenity to Davis Park. Traffic playgrounds are small versions of the city

[1:13:10] streets with travel lanes, crosswalks, and stop signs that provide kids and families a fun place

[1:13:15] to practice road safety. And you can see a photo on the bottom of the slide there that is a temporary

[1:13:21] traffic playground that was installed during the pandemic. The program that playground project will

[1:13:27] include educational programming as well as safe routes to school.

[1:13:31] And so we increase our capacity and service the community

[1:13:34] by pursuing outside funding.

[1:13:36] So our staff really do double as grant writers.

[1:13:39] So you can see on these past two slides that the department has been

[1:13:43] pre-successful on obtaining grants over the past several years.

[1:13:47] And the transportation related grants are really typically

[1:13:49] to bring programming from different organizations to the city

[1:13:52] as well as amenities such as the traffic playground.

[1:13:55] And these grants are often from the state and Metro.

[1:14:01] So as we look forward, we have limited staff capacity in many large-scale projects that need

[1:14:06] to be completed.

[1:14:07] So we've been increasing our pursuit about side funding, so we can strategically take on

[1:14:12] more in the next few years and really pivot to look toward those local priorities.

[1:14:18] And I just want to note that this ties well with Sharon's presentation earlier that

[1:14:21] grant funding generally doesn't cover staff time on projects.

[1:14:25] They definitely range from, you know, contracting the third party for a technical report, or

[1:14:31] sometimes they are, indeed, kind of helping with our code writing process, or providing a code

[1:14:36] audit as well. And then, you know, so as we run to these proposed projects, you'll notice

[1:14:42] several themes, definitely. So how can we reduce their land use review complexity, processing time,

[1:14:48] and cost, both for developers and for city staff? How do we make the best use of our limited resources?

[1:14:53] So the grants definitely will assist with that and how we work on integrating multiple

[1:15:00] Priorities, not from either all perspective. So, integrating the city's goals related to environmental protection, inclusion, housing access, transportation, and economic development for small and large businesses. And also, you know, how do you meet those local and state priorities as well.

[1:15:16] So, that I'll turn it over to Tara to provide a high level overview of the projects that we're asking Council to initiate tonight to really form that work plan.

[1:15:24] Thank you. So as Ashley mentioned, staff is proposing that council initiate six projects this week this evening.

[1:15:32] The three have an environmental focus. The first is overhauling the city's true regulations.

[1:15:38] This project is an opportunity to really look holistically at the city's true management priorities.

[1:15:44] So it will engage the public and work across departments to evaluate citywide true preservation, planting, removal, and care.

[1:15:51] It'll look at the environmental, the social, the development, and the administrative perspectives,

[1:15:57] and then update the development code and related documents.

[1:16:01] The second project is in response to the state's climate friendly and equitable communities

[1:16:05] or see-fek rules.

[1:16:07] Staff has been briefing council over the past year,

[1:16:10] and planning is currently implementing phase one parking rules by the administrative policy,

[1:16:15] planning is now looking to include these rules and regulations in the development code.

[1:16:20] These two or require city council make choices between removing all parking minimums or implementing parking reforms and outing paid parking before the end of 2025.

[1:16:32] The third project will amend the city's environmental overlays.

[1:16:35] The project will address implementation challenges with the city's standards.

[1:16:39] It will also address new federal floodplain management requirements.

[1:16:46] Staff is also proposing that council initiate three projects that have an overall land use focus.

[1:16:50] The first is the Pleasant Valley District Update, the 2004 District Plan Invasion Housing

[1:16:56] Traces, Transportation Options, Schools, Parks, Account Center and Employment Opportunities

[1:17:00] in that area.

[1:17:02] After 20 years, the area is partially developed in difficulty with the land use plan and

[1:17:06] infrastructure delivery have been coming to the city's attention.

[1:17:10] This project will propose updates to the plan and might of the current market conditions,

[1:17:15] land constraints, and what we know about it's aggression housing needs.

[1:17:18] The second project is the development code process updates.

[1:17:23] This project will focus on revising the city's design standards and its residential land use regulations.

[1:17:30] Over the past seven years or several years,

[1:17:32] staff has received input from a variety of different sources about challenges with code complexity and lengthy review processes.

[1:17:41] The project will include policy conversations about the desired quality and character of development

[1:17:46] and then take this into account, we'll make it easier to progress through the land use process.

[1:17:52] And lastly, we have a full update to volumes 1 and 2 of the comprehensive plan.

[1:17:59] The last full update was in the late 1980s.

[1:18:02] Gresham has grown significantly since this time.

[1:18:04] Whole volumes 1 and 2 of the plan have not been holistically evaluated and amended.

[1:18:10] As a result, recent development history, the current community vision

[1:18:13] and associated lane use goals are missing from the plan.

[1:18:16] This creates challenges when staff rely on the comprehensive plan document to make lane use

[1:18:21] determinations.

[1:18:23] The project will update volumes 1 and 2 of the comprehensive plan to add recent history.

[1:18:28] It can see the intersectionality of city priorities, such as climate action, transportation

[1:18:33] access and equitable development.

[1:18:35] This is a large scale project that is outside of current budgetary resources to fully implement.

[1:18:41] However, Dr. Miller is working closely with Assistant City Manager Schmidt and the City Manager's office with the goal and hope of utilizing some are befitting to facilitate moving this project forward.

[1:18:57] So currently, the scope sir working timelines for these project are very preliminary.

[1:19:01] Staff is in the process of applying for grant funding for the majority of these projects and the status of funding will impact both the scope of the work and the timing.

[1:19:09] However, this is a rough timeline for each of the projects.

[1:19:12] The length of the project is based on its complexity, staff resources, and capacity, and then also how much outreach is needed for that specific project.

[1:19:22] For CFX Phase 2, we have used the state required end date, but ultimately the arc of that project will depend on council determinations.

[1:19:31] So staff is coming back to council in September to give you more information on this and gather some direction from you.

[1:19:37] The comprehensive plan volume 1 and 2 update is shown with dashed lines around it.

[1:19:44] That is in order to indicate that the timing in the timeline will be refined as funding is finalized.

[1:19:52] And also, we are looking to add another complementing member to our team.

[1:19:57] We currently have a position at the vacant.

[1:20:00] We're looking to add staff to. If also important just for us to remember that this does not capture the full breath of the comprehensive planning teams work.

[1:20:09] So this is new projects that we are looking to initiate. However, we have a number of other projects that are currently on our plate.

[1:20:17] And a good example of that is the transportation system plan update.

[1:20:20] We are looking to order out for a launch date for that, but that is also another large project that is on the transportation portion of the team's plate.

[1:20:31] Thank you, Tara.

[1:20:32] So that concludes the presentation in the overview of the Urban Design and Planning Department and Comprehensive Plan and Amendment Process and the Projects before Council tonight for initiation.

[1:20:42] and staff are here to answer any questions that the Council has, or discuss any of these projects further.

[1:20:48] If Council chooses to initiate each of these projects, it will span volumes 1, 2, and 3 of the comprehensive plan.

[1:20:57] Because Project Initiations are a less formal process, I checked with the City Attorney and confirmed that if City Council wishes you can avoid a mouthful of a motion or

[1:21:07] six separate motions and you can just simply move to a

[1:21:10] pre-vigenda items E2 through E7 if you'd like.

[1:21:13] If you'd like to take the motions differently, certainly staff can help

[1:21:18] craft those motions for you tonight. Thank you very much.

[1:21:21] Thank you. Thank you, Ashley, to every

[1:21:22] we appreciate the presentation. Count's many questions.

[1:21:27] Count's more else. I noticed for the

[1:21:31] tree code that mentioned of the part of what trees

[1:21:35] friends, friends of trees, trees of friends. And I'm curious if our urban forestry subcommittee

[1:21:43] will be engaged in any way through that process.

[1:21:48] Thank you very much Councillor. Yes, so right now

[1:21:51] the city actually has a funding application in with through the federal government and a partnership

[1:21:59] with friends of trees and hopefully part of that funding ask is specifically assistance to assist

[1:22:05] the city of Gresham with our tree code update as specifically looking to have an

[1:22:09] arborist that is consulting with us on that which is one of the things that UFS is

[1:22:14] certainly recommended and I think we are looking to the future to see you know CCSE

[1:22:20] is whether it be UFS or if that were to evolve into some sort of task force certainly

[1:22:24] looking toward the community to form a group that helps inform the tree code update

[1:22:30] our process is moving forward. Thanks.

[1:22:36] Thank you Councillor, additional questions. I can make

[1:22:38] you a question. Councillor Morales.

[1:22:44] Councillor Pazzle, we'll move to a pre-regent items

[1:22:47] E2 through E7.

[1:22:51] Councillor Pazzle, the Pazzle got the motion. And we've got Councillor Morales

[1:22:56] as the motion. You further discussion. Councillor Jones, Dixon. Thank you. Good

[1:23:02] of great presentation, as always, anything that has to do with housing and development.

[1:23:08] We're within the plan, we're planning on adopting any form of technology to help with the

[1:23:13] process if, as far as processing, permitting and things like that, is that included in the

[1:23:18] role plan?

[1:23:20] Thank you, Councillor.

[1:23:21] We implemented Intergov to help with the development review process.

[1:23:25] I think it's been a couple of years, maybe at this point now, so we are still working with

[1:23:29] that system we definitely can work to refine it as necessary I think over arching throughout

[1:23:35] especially at the development code and but all of the updates are looking to improve our

[1:23:41] efficiencies anywhere we can so whether that's implementing a new map layer that we're able

[1:23:46] to put online that helps inform people so they're not having to contact pod you know can't find

[1:23:52] information they need you know webpage relux stuff like that is definitely part of our overarching

[1:23:58] department work that we're doing and then this the other these different amendments are looking

[1:24:04] where we can find efficiencies and processes as well.

[1:24:08] Good to hear.

[1:24:09] And then just a second question just for our community members on page one of if it talks

[1:24:15] about just quality construction I guess I can really help this is help appropriately balance

[1:24:20] multiple local priorities such as multi-modal transportation access, climate responsive design,

[1:24:27] access to open space and quality construction. Could you just define it for everyone?

[1:24:33] The telequality construction?

[1:24:36] Certainly, thank you, Councillor Jones-Dixon. So there are components in our development code,

[1:24:42] which focus on equality of construction from perspectives like the durability of materials.

[1:24:50] And so we have heard from the planning commission, as well as it's come up in multiple

[1:24:54] then you say it's very important that our bill environment is built, is built to last.

[1:25:00] Our buildings are going to maintain the test of time that our codes and our processes ensure that we are

[1:25:10] pursuing the quality of construction as well as aesthetics and architecture. So part of this conversation is what standards need to be maintained.

[1:25:21] So we have the look and feel that aggression is desiring. And then what can we record so that processes are more efficient?

[1:25:33] Thank you, Councillor.

[1:25:36] Any other discussion?

[1:25:40] Here you're in seeing none.

[1:25:41] Let's call the question matters of favor.

[1:25:43] Of the motion to provide him's E2 to E7.

[1:25:47] Please signify by saying aye.

[1:25:50] Any opposed same sign?

[1:25:52] Motion carries unanimously.

[1:25:53] Thank you very much.

[1:25:54] Greatly greatly appreciated.

[1:25:56] Look forward to the process and the progress.

[1:25:59] So thank you for that insight.

[1:26:05] I'm back with another request.

[1:26:09] One of the things that Tara referenced was for our cop plan in particular, that is a fairly

[1:26:15] expensive project or a current cost estimate is about $350,000, but it's quite the undertaking

[1:26:20] and as she spoke to you, it is really the foundation of how our community adults.

[1:26:27] If you're open to that tonight, we would take a head-on from Council on using Urban Funds

[1:26:34] to move forward with that project as was referenced.

[1:26:37] So, Council is comfortable with that.

[1:26:39] We will also take that direction tonight.

[1:26:44] Council.

[1:26:45] Council.

[1:26:45] Yes.

[1:26:48] Oh, you just think, yes.

[1:26:52] Yeah.

[1:26:52] you're taking part in this is you know some unfriendly mandates we won't say

[1:26:57] about who to say but ultimately unsupport or if it's as like we do have

[1:27:04] support so yes yes of course how much is left in this arp of funds will we keep

[1:27:11] drawing fine good question we can get you the exact number are but here's

[1:27:16] some context and I'll have the exact numbers with me we had 12 million for the

[1:27:21] second round of our pod dollars that we are essentially waiting to dedicate because of our

[1:27:26] budget gap. Council approve using the ring million to fulfill our budget gap. So we still

[1:27:32] have a significant balance left. We will be returning to Council this fall to talk about

[1:27:38] the use of the remainder of the our defense.

[1:27:42] Thank you.

[1:27:45] All right. We've got three other items on the agenda and we're going to actually

[1:27:50] Like I said, jump to item E10, which is going to work with us on this, and then we will go to items E9 and E8 here in a moment.

[1:28:14] Mayor Council, I'm Jane Leo. I am a policy analyst in the City Attorney's Office, brought on specifically to a manage and complete the charter review project, which is mandated by your charter.

[1:28:29] I am bringing to you today a resolution 3567 dissolving the 2021-2021-23 charter review committee.

[1:28:42] Before we asked Council for their decision, I'd like to do just a very short history that there are a number of events, very much outside of Council's control.

[1:28:55] The Toronto Review Committee was adopted in a resolution in October 2021 and the council appointed the members to the committee pulling from members of the citizen.

[1:29:10] In compliance with that requirement that was in the resolution that created the committee, the Toronto Review Committee met 16 times in a subcommittee met 32 times.

[1:29:21] I will attest as well the members of the committee who are here tonight will attest.

[1:29:27] The majority members' meetings were close to three hours, if not four hours.

[1:29:33] So a great deal of time in energy and devotion went into review instead of the charter.

[1:29:40] In April of 2023, the charter review committee submitted their final report to Council,

[1:29:46] recommending six amendments to the charter.

[1:29:53] I'd like to acknowledge the members of the committee, that, and so

[1:30:00] We have a member here tonight. We have a chair, Joseph and Ia. Vice chair, Jack Artner. Excuse me. Can we have this stand-up when there needs a call?

[1:30:11] I have a very nice name.

[1:30:16] Vice chair, Artner. Shall we denison?

[1:30:23] We have Jack Hollis, who is subcommittee chair.

[1:30:27] And I don't believe I'm going to miss anyone, but I'd like to review the names, also serving

[1:30:31] on the committee were Christopher Dressel, Tim Fear, Amanda Gaiken, Kathy Kiefley, and Dana

[1:30:39] Stroud.

[1:30:41] Kathy has been at many of your meetings, however she was unable to make it this evening.

[1:30:48] So, with that, I think we'll take it just a second to recognize the folks that are here.

[1:30:54] And all of them incredible work.

[1:30:56] That really is.

[1:30:58] Just running a quick application of the hours, that's tremendous.

[1:31:01] Absolutely, tremendous.

[1:31:02] So, thank you all.

[1:31:09] So, with that, I bring to the committee, or actually to Council, excuse me, a request that you approved

[1:31:16] Resolution 4567, acknowledging the committee.

[1:31:21] as you've done this evening and dissolving them and leaving them from their duties as committee members.

[1:31:29] Thank you very much, Jay. Council. Comments, thoughts?

[1:31:36] Cousinucci. Yes, so first of all, um, just the clap and the recognition that um is nowhere near

[1:31:43] the understanding of how much time and I tend to hear those and then find out there was going to be

[1:31:49] Like another three hour meeting or something very soon, I know you guys were so hard and

[1:31:55] had so many very deep discussions and did you very best for all of us and we respect

[1:32:01] your decisions, Chair and I know that your comments were appreciated today and I feel

[1:32:08] some time that perhaps we should ensure that you all deserve the respect for the knowledge

[1:32:16] and the recommendations you brought forward.

[1:32:19] So, I thank you all for your work.

[1:32:21] I hope to be able to be able to work with you going forward as we bring some of these items

[1:32:26] forward to the balance.

[1:32:27] Thank you.

[1:32:29] Thank you, Councillor.

[1:32:30] Other comments?

[1:32:32] Councillor Ross.

[1:32:33] Just join my colleague.

[1:32:35] I'm saying gratitude to the quite a moment of work that would into this.

[1:32:41] I think I like number 181 hours which is pretty significant and I think the recommendations

[1:32:48] you all brought forth were really thoughtful and know that the work you all did to go out to

[1:32:54] the community.

[1:32:55] I think you had listening sessions in different parts of our city with different constituencies.

[1:33:00] It was a really, really great community engagement and I really trust that you brought back

[1:33:05] the interest of the community.

[1:33:07] Thank you.

[1:33:09] Thank you, Councillor Morales.

[1:33:11] Thank you.

[1:33:12] Thank you.

[1:33:13] Thank you very much.

[1:33:13] A lot of committee members should say.

[1:33:16] Thank you.

[1:33:17] I heard that you've told me in your contributions.

[1:33:20] I think I watched a few of the meetings and to see you guys come to consensus.

[1:33:24] Or if you all come to consensus on the recommendations.

[1:33:27] It's truly amazing.

[1:33:28] And that's what we're about.

[1:33:30] So thank you again for your commitment in 180 hours.

[1:33:33] That is quite a bad thing.

[1:33:35] You work harder than this.

[1:33:36] or the last year and a half, just give them the things to go.

[1:33:42] And I concur, like I said a few moments ago, wow, that is an incredible dedication and time and attention and expertise.

[1:33:48] So yeah, we can't thank you enough for that effort that you put forward,

[1:33:53] and I just want to again extend a tremendous sense of gratitude, not just for the council myself,

[1:33:58] but also for more community.

[1:34:01] Because you were here on, you know, warm afternoons, when everybody was out doing other things.

[1:34:06] So we want to thank you for your time and attention and your efforts.

[1:34:10] So thank you. Thank you.

[1:34:12] Council.

[1:34:14] What do you want to consider for a resolution number three five six seven.

[1:34:19] Council.

[1:34:19] I am ready to meet the motion if you would like.

[1:34:23] Okay.

[1:34:25] I would approve resolution number three five six seven.

[1:34:29] is solving the 2021-2021-23 City of Gresham City Cheddar Review Committee.

[1:34:36] All right, we have the motion and then Councillor Rollins has the second report.

[1:34:40] The discussion.

[1:34:44] How are you hearing, then?

[1:34:45] Let's call the question.

[1:34:46] I wasn't very deeply signified by saying I, I, in your post-same sign.

[1:34:51] Motion carries you, then.

[1:34:52] So thank you very much.

[1:34:53] Let the record show that Councillor Hinton did have to leave at 730, so he is he's

[1:34:59] gone.

[1:34:59] Thank you.

[1:35:00] That's why he did not vote on that one. So, with that, we've got measures E9 and E10, or, actually, technically, items E9 and E10, which have different measures, and I believe E9 and E10, E8 and E9.

[1:35:19] And we have Assistant City Manager Eric Schmidt that has a little bit of information for us in conjunction with these potential measures. So, Assistant City Manager Eric Schmidt.

[1:35:35] Okay, I was waiting for that to key up.

[1:35:37] Thank you very much.

[1:35:39] Good evening, Mayor, Council President and Councilors.

[1:35:42] Thank you for the opportunity to see you

[1:35:43] to present for your consideration.

[1:35:45] Resolution number 3566 related to recommended amendments

[1:35:49] to the city charter regarding over renewal.

[1:35:53] I'm Eric Schmidt, one of the assistant city managers

[1:35:55] and joining me remotely tonight is Brian Mobberg,

[1:35:58] our director of over renewal.

[1:36:00] I will do the presentation

[1:36:01] and then any questions Brian will answer.

[1:36:05] So Brian, thank you for being here.

[1:36:09] Just a quick background technology of where we have been.

[1:36:13] We talked about this last week, but on February 21st,

[1:36:16] we presented to you in a council work session,

[1:36:18] some background around potential urban renewal charter changes.

[1:36:23] And so we presented that,

[1:36:25] received direction at that meeting.

[1:36:27] From council to develop a plan for the charter to match

[1:36:30] Oregon State Law, ORS457. Last week on July 11th we had an follow-up work session, where

[1:36:38] we reviewed some draft ballot title and ballot summary language. We received some feedback

[1:36:44] and direction from Council that leads us to tonight with Resolution 3566 tonight's council

[1:36:51] business. And a reminder from last week's work session, if this is ultimately, if Council moves

[1:36:58] this forward and this ultimately approved by the voters, these changes would revise the

[1:37:02] charter to provide city council flexibility to establish new urban renewal plans or make

[1:37:08] substantial changes to existing plans consistent with existing state law.

[1:37:17] Just to remind

[1:37:17] you again about why this is needed or current chartering, which is some of the most restrictive

[1:37:22] language for urban renewal plans in the state of Oregon, and as Brian mentioned last week

[1:37:28] virtually a change other than a typo must be currently approved by voters.

[1:37:36] By matching

[1:37:36] an Oregon revised statute or S457, it allows a city council to form an urban renewal area

[1:37:45] on its own after a robust public process which includes consulting and controlling with the

[1:37:50] other taxing districts and city-wide notice of the public hearing on the adoption at any

[1:37:57] The vast majority of other municipalities over rural plans use this provision and matching

[1:38:03] or S457 does preserve public outreach involvement and review.

[1:38:12] The language, the actual proposed language for ballot title and explanatory statement

[1:38:17] is included within your packet.

[1:38:20] I am adding these slides as just a reminder graphically of what we discussed last week

[1:38:25] And also based on the feedback received by Council,

[1:38:28] revised to some of the language to reflect consistent

[1:38:31] with state law, and previously

[1:38:33] had the words of a line of state law.

[1:38:36] So we modify that per council direction.

[1:38:40] We have reviewed, within our board limitations,

[1:38:44] as it relates to the language that's before you

[1:38:46] have received it, as it relates to a ballot title,

[1:38:49] summary, and explanatory statement.

[1:38:56] With that, the staff recommendation is to move

[1:39:00] approved resolution number 3, 5, 6, 6, submitting a city of

[1:39:04] city charter amendment to the aggression voters, and many charter section

[1:39:09] 36A, urban rule, and adopt an ballot title and explanatory statement to be placed

[1:39:13] under the November 7th, 2023 ballot. Also, within your council agenda items and on

[1:39:20] the slide, there are a couple of alternatives if council chooses to take a

[1:39:23] different direction. In terms of next steps after this evening, should council

[1:39:29] pass the resolution 3566 this evening. We will move forward with public notice of the ballot title and voters

[1:39:36] pamphlet explanatory statement. We'll submit the final measure to Momentum Accounting Elections,

[1:39:42] let the asterbs that I'll talk about here in just a moment. We'll certainly coordinate with

[1:39:45] communications and keep Council informed as we proceed. The asterbs are what I need to

[1:39:51] just touch base in that day, Council on this evening as you deliberate your decision this evening.

[1:39:56] So as I go to the next slide, we receive some information.

[1:40:00] As we finish the council agenda items, the submitted materials, we learn to submit additional information from all number county elections that could have budgetary impacts related to this election.

[1:40:13] So again, since we got this new information, we learned that elections and odd years are considered special elections, and they're special for a reason, and even years are the norm.

[1:40:26] And the special elections really, and I'm sure it needs a lot of things, but it also means

[1:40:30] elections are held in the special election year to odd years.

[1:40:35] They are paid for by how many taxing districts submit measures or things to the ballot.

[1:40:42] So it really depends on how many taxing districts move something forward on a given election.

[1:40:47] The example of most recent May election, we received an invoice for a moment of

[1:40:54] the county elections for our part in that election, which is around $13,000.

[1:41:01] And so that led us to ask you some questions and learning more working with the City

[1:41:05] Recorder's Office as our elections officer.

[1:41:08] We had some conversations with Director Tinscott with moment of the county

[1:41:11] elections to including this morning to understand this information a little bit more

[1:41:17] So there are potential budget impacts to the city of Gresham, depending on how many other districts put measures on a 2023 election.

[1:41:26] The hard part was estimating what that number might be to be able to give council some assurances as it relates to budgetary impacts.

[1:41:36] worst case, what we're hearing, and again this is approximation with a lot of asteroids on it,

[1:41:43] and is that if Gresham was the only district that put something on the November 2023 ballot,

[1:41:51] the potential impact for both measures together, this one and the one you're going to hear after this one,

[1:41:58] could be in the approximately, please don't let me do it, approximately $100,000 or range.

[1:42:06] Again, that's hopefully worst case, conservative estimate.

[1:42:11] What we are working on right now is we're communications with Multimak County elections.

[1:42:17] We've agreed to stay in contact over the next couple of weeks, as they learn whether

[1:42:21] there's other districts that are going to be putting things forward, which will change

[1:42:26] the equation and we believe that number significantly down.

[1:42:31] So, the options for Council this evening, as we've outlined here, is should Council wish

[1:42:38] to you, you could approve resolution number 3566 this evening, and we would complete all

[1:42:44] required noticing, but we would return to Council at your August 22nd Council business

[1:42:50] meeting with an update from the Multnomah County elections that would help inform you in terms

[1:42:56] receiving more of a formal go-no-go as it relates to filing the ballot measure with

[1:43:03] Mundo-Itani elections by the deadline. So that's the initial staff recommendation.

[1:43:08] As we would, you know, council wants to move forward. We would move forward, but we would

[1:43:12] come back for that final just check in. Okay, we've done what we need to do to meet

[1:43:17] the necessary deadlines. This council still wished to move forward based on updated information

[1:43:21] from Multnomah County, what we know who else might be putting any type of measure on the ballot.

[1:43:29] Second option is council could choose to move forward tonight if you approve the resolution,

[1:43:34] but choose instead to place it on the May of 2024 ballot, in which case our understanding is that

[1:43:40] there would not be a cost as it relates to that. And then secondly, the council could choose to take

[1:43:47] no action on resolution 3, 5, 6, 6, 6 this evening.

[1:43:51] So that's my update information from a visual perspective

[1:43:53] and that concludes my presentation.

[1:43:55] I'm happy to answer your questions.

[1:43:57] So actually, Brian's happy to answer your questions.

[1:44:00] Thank you, Eric.

[1:44:00] Greatly appreciate the presentation and the update.

[1:44:04] What is the, what is the noticing calendar

[1:44:09] that we have to meet for a November 2023 election?

[1:44:14] Rachel, do you have that?

[1:44:15] with you.

[1:44:23] September 7, this might as our timeline that we have to file with Multimak County,

[1:44:29] that's our deadline to file. It's also the deadline to withdraw. That's correct. That's correct.

[1:44:35] But there is some noticing pre-noticing that we have to do in terms of allowing a challenge to come

[1:44:49] is the absolute deadline that we would be able to put the posting in the newspaper for the

[1:44:59] So...

[1:45:14] Okay, and at this point we don't have any projections as to the cost outside of that kind of more conservative projection that we have, saying some work, close to 100,000 potentially. Close to approximately, please don't hold me to that.

[1:45:29] Yeah.

[1:45:30] So yeah.

[1:45:31] I'm sure that unfortunately not at this time here.

[1:45:34] I think one of the reasons that staff is before you today as it relates to asking

[1:45:38] for council approval for both of these majors that you're seeing is because upcoming council

[1:45:43] recess your next meeting isn't scheduled.

[1:45:46] Your next regularly scheduled meeting is not until August 22nd past that August 18th

[1:45:51] deadline.

[1:45:51] So that's why we are here tonight.

[1:45:54] Now I get that, I'm just thinking in terms of the cost effectively and how do we find out

[1:46:01] what that potential cost is going to be as we look to make the no-go decision.

[1:46:09] So, that's the other side of the challenge.

[1:46:11] The other thing that we understand in Richard Kurtman for a long time, but I think based

[1:46:15] on the information and the conversation we have with the record Scott, it seems like we don't

[1:46:19] get the final bill until after the election, when everything is reconciled, they have a pretty

[1:46:24] complex formula that I frankly could explain to you right now, but they have a complex formula

[1:46:28] about how they put all that figure out. And a lot of it's based on what's the voter turnout

[1:46:34] and there's some other factors that come into this that don't play out until the actual election

[1:46:38] itself. So even on August 22nd, should Council move forward as I suggest the staff recommends,

[1:46:46] We're still going to come with you with the estimate we won't be able to have to give you a firm number.

[1:46:50] It'll be hopefully a more, you know.

[1:46:54] Better estimate, but it still will be an estimate.

[1:46:59] Councillor Jones digs in and then we'll go to Councillor Morales.

[1:47:02] Thank you.

[1:47:03] Thank you.

[1:47:04] Is there a difference between what if we wait until May if it's how would that impact the city

[1:47:09] without impact this in a negative way?

[1:47:12] Thank you for the question, Councillor.

[1:47:13] I think that I'll answer for the measure that I'm before you as a relates to our overall renewal.

[1:47:21] I think there are reasons I think the question was asked last last meeting last week about, you know,

[1:47:26] is it up should we wait? Or do we need to go?

[1:47:30] And I would say at that time I suggested to move forward if Council wanted to.

[1:47:35] That's again before this new information came forward as a relates to budget impact.

[1:47:39] I would say at this point in time while I would still love to see it move forward, I understand the budgetary impacts, and I think from staff's perspective we could certainly wait till May of 2024.

[1:47:53] All right. Thank you, Councillor Jones. Thanks for your concern.

[1:47:56] Okay. Perfect. How's that energy?

[1:47:59] So as I'm thinking through this, the option of putting on May 2024 election is potentially going to be when we are also looking at putting, if we're to do the levy,

[1:48:10] when you potentially be looking at putting that also on the ballot.

[1:48:15] And then now I wish I had the agenda back who's experts to say,

[1:48:18] is that a good thing is a bad thing to have

[1:48:21] question asking for two things on the same.

[1:48:26] So I'm tending to lean toward the first option

[1:48:30] with an understanding that it says you're going to come back

[1:48:33] with an update to us as to whether to go or no go.

[1:48:38] And obviously at that point, if we decide on a no go,

[1:48:40] that we can still decide to go to May 2024 or do whatever, but also understanding that the

[1:48:46] newspaper published has to happen by the seventeenth for the challenge, August 17th, and

[1:48:54] so we will be spending whatever revenues though I don't expect them to be that high to go

[1:49:00] in the newspaper before we have made a decision and does that create any issue whatsoever?

[1:49:06] I don't believe it creates an issue, it is a minor cost in terms of that notification, but

[1:49:13] I think, you know, again, should Council decide to withdraw, that happens as well.

[1:49:18] Those things happen and the notice gets pulled back.

[1:49:21] All right.

[1:49:22] Thank you.

[1:49:24] Council President Piazza?

[1:49:26] I think in being prudent with staff's time and city citizens dollars that we just should

[1:49:35] towards doing it in May of 24. It's going to cost something. We don't know what if we do it in this

[1:49:41] off year and I did ask the question last time about what it make a difference if we waited to tell

[1:49:47] me and it was no we would like to go now but it wouldn't really make a difference which you just reiterated.

[1:49:55] But if we say, oh well let's do this and go with the assumptions and maybe it won't be so exciting.

[1:50:00] Census of a maybe we'll have a better idea. You have staff doing all this stuff, just in case. You're already overburden and trying to do things. I would rather just see us say, let's pass it for me in next year, and burden you with that, have no cost for it. That's just my thoughts.

[1:50:22] All right, you know, I think I agree with much of what

[1:50:28] Conspiracy Piazza just said in regards to

[1:50:33] the flexing of staff time, and yeah, there could be some way to what

[1:50:38] Conscious Dmitri said, asking about what DHM would say, we don't know, but

[1:50:42] based on kind of some of the numbers that they shared, it made me more

[1:50:45] advantageous to go in May of 2024 for both items, I don't know.

[1:50:52] Yeah, this is a situation where again, we won't know what the cost would be, even as we

[1:50:59] look in the decision.

[1:51:00] I mean, this cost is 50 grand, we don't know, where we would have some insight by the time we

[1:51:08] would have to withdraw it is how many items could be.

[1:51:11] So we could extrapolate to say, if this is very similar to the May election of 2023, the number

[1:51:18] items that disperse across all of the municipalities in the county, maybe in Metro, maybe

[1:51:25] you know, they could give us, you know, some type of perspective of what that's going

[1:51:29] to look like.

[1:51:31] But, I mean, it's, it's really, you know, I feel like we're wearing some dice here to say,

[1:51:38] okay, let's, let's roll the dice and we're figure out afterwards what might be the, and

[1:51:43] then, I wonder if we haven't even touched on, is if there's a recount, because we're

[1:51:48] accounts require us to actually pay the cost of that recount. So if any of this is relatively

[1:51:54] close and it kicks into a recount because I believe even with measures they can trigger

[1:51:59] the automatic recount then that's even that's an additional cost associated with because we

[1:52:04] pay that regardless of if it's a special election or non regular special election. I mean those

[1:52:10] that we still have that cost. So I was just concerned about the what it is as we look at this and

[1:52:15] begin to evaluate the possibilities of what the cost could be, which is sad.

[1:52:20] I mean, you know, democracy, because I'm like comes down to dollars.

[1:52:24] Since Council, Councilor Morales.

[1:52:28] So just to make sure I'm hearing this correctly, we're going to incur a cost by putting it on the ballot.

[1:52:34] This year, regardless, if there's two, three, four or five, we're going to pay for something.

[1:52:40] That's great.

[1:52:40] If we wait until May of 2024, we don't pay for it.

[1:52:44] that's correct.

[1:52:49] So I'm going to go ahead and make a motion and there's no projects that are being

[1:52:55] impacted by us waiting until May of 2024.

[1:53:02] Councillor Marales, that is correct. I think for this

[1:53:05] measure should Council wish to approve the resolution but to place it on the May. I think

[1:53:11] Rachel, I think we would need to get that. Do we have a May election date that we could amend

[1:53:15] make a, if council wants to make that motion, we need to give them a deal.

[1:53:20] What do you mean, let me say this, if we're not going to be, if we're going to discuss

[1:53:24] these two, we're not going to place them in the November ballot, there's not a huge

[1:53:29] need to make this motion decision this evening.

[1:53:33] I mean, I'd rather make sure that we've got the resolutions like we want them with their

[1:53:38] right dates and right information rather than trying to figure out what it should be

[1:53:42] right now.

[1:53:42] I mean, there's we can bring this back in short order.

[1:53:46] I'd rather not have it back here.

[1:53:50] I think it's going to be 24 dollars.

[1:53:54] I think it's going to be 24 dollars.

[1:53:55] Okay.

[1:53:55] I'm being with that.

[1:53:57] I was thinking we had to get like down to dates and things like that.

[1:54:00] But if we, if we can say just make 2024, then we're good.

[1:54:07] Great.

[1:54:07] So I move to move this to the May 2024 election.

[1:54:16] All right, Councilor Morales has the motion, is there a second?

[1:54:20] Second.

[1:54:21] Second, Councilor Jones, Dixon.

[1:54:21] I need to put the resolution number in there.

[1:54:24] I might ask Councilor Morales, I just put the slide back and I might suggest that if you

[1:54:30] wouldn't mind reading, making a motion again, but just substituting the November 7th, 2023

[1:54:36] to May 2024. So go ahead and withdraw the current motion. Thank you. And then make the new motion.

[1:54:47] And you with your second. Yes. Great. Thank you. I move to a proposal. Number three, five, six,

[1:54:52] six, submitting a city of question. City charter amendment to the question voters.

[1:54:57] Mending Charter Section 36A.

[1:55:00] Open renewal and adopting a ballot title and explanatory statement to be placed on the May 2024 ballot.

[1:55:07] All right, we do have the motion. You back in for the second. Thank you very much.

[1:55:11] Councillor Jones-Dixon is in for the second. Eighty-four of the discussion.

[1:55:16] All right, hearing none.

[1:55:18] All those in favor, please signify by saying aye, aye, in your post same sign.

[1:55:23] We've got one note and that note is Councillor D'Nigie. So, motion carries. Thank you very much.

[1:55:29] Thank you.

[1:55:35] Yes. If you have another question, would you like us to we're still under contract with DOHM?

[1:55:41] Would you like us to ask an inquire regarding having multiple initiatives on the same ballot up next year and bring that back and for me bring that information back to Council with that be helpful.

[1:55:52] I would be supportive Council.

[1:55:57] Yes, I see that.

[1:55:59] And consensus. Thank you.

[1:56:02] All right.

[1:56:03] again

[1:56:53] I'm Jane Leo, policy analyst in the office of the city attorney. I am bringing

[1:56:58] me before you today one of the six charter amendment recommendations that came from the Charter

[1:57:06] Review Committee. This is to amend the city charter such that amendments to the charter are

[1:57:13] approved by a majority, rather than as it's currently stated, which is a 60% vote threshold

[1:57:21] in order to pass.

[1:57:24] Resolution 35, 65, was brought to you in April at a work session, the final report from

[1:57:33] the committee was delivered.

[1:57:34] In June of 20th, again we came back before work session and discussed the recommended amendments.

[1:57:44] A week ago, July 11th, there was discussion again at a work session regarding the draft ballot measure,

[1:57:52] and we received a directive to forward amendment to the ballot measure to forward resolution 3565.

[1:58:04] Again, the ballot titles for this measure would be to amend charter amendments require approval by majority of voters.

[1:58:14] Prove the council's directive, the, uh, not the summary statement.

[1:58:22] But the exploratory statement was amended to remove any reference to the elections

[1:58:29] to the ballot measures that did not pass because of the 60 percent of threshold.

[1:58:35] That was removed from the language that is before you today in the resolution.

[1:58:42] Stop recommendation very much.

[1:58:45] This falls absolutely in line with the measure you just debated regarding urban renewal.

[1:58:51] Stop is recommending that you approve resolution 3565 submitting to the question voters amendment

[1:58:58] to the Gresham Charter Section 45A and adopting the ballot title and explanatory statement

[1:59:07] to be placed on the November 7th 2023 ballot. As in the discussion you just had, there

[1:59:15] is the issue regarding the expense to do so. Alternatives to approving the motion before

[1:59:21] for you is to adopt resolution 3565 for placement on the May ballot.

[1:59:31] There are also the option to re-evolves resolution 3565.

[1:59:36] The explanatory statement on the ballot measure, and there is of course council always

[1:59:41] has the option of taking no action on this.

[1:59:52] All right, thank you, Jean for your presentation.

[1:59:55] I know.

[1:59:56] I'm headed into wordsmithing.

[2:00:00] And so I'm not going to get too carried away on this. But under the question, shall the charter be amended such that changes require the approval of the majority of electors voting on the measure?

[2:00:14] I'm not sure that makes sense, because it says the approval of the majority.

[2:00:20] What I'm wondering is it shall the charter be amended such it changes or the results are approved by a majority of voters because right here

[2:00:31] It says it's going to be approved by the majority of the voters. I'm very happy crazy. I'm right on here

[2:00:43] It makes it sound like it's going to be approved if the majority of voters do it

[2:00:48] it's not like it's not going to be approved if I'm feeling it should just say that the majority

[2:00:57] of the voters will determine the outcome of this.

[2:01:02] Is there any else feeling this with me?

[2:01:04] I don't know.

[2:01:05] Listen up.

[2:01:06] No.

[2:01:07] No.

[2:01:07] Counselor.

[2:01:08] Do you think there is a specific reason why the wording is proposed the way it is and for those

[2:01:14] who are watching, I'll go back.

[2:01:15] This is where you see the both the language. I believe you're referring to this, the change the voter approval requirement to a majority of votes cast on the proposed measure.

[2:01:29] There's a very specific reason.

[2:01:30] No, she's actually talking about the question that's on that one right there.

[2:01:35] Actually, the question we're more aligned with that phrase, you just gave it a bit more sense to me.

[2:01:47] I do want to explain that there is a reason that there is reference to the electors voting on the measure because in elections it is entirely possible.

[2:02:02] It has happened. We all know it has where you have a voter turning in a ballot, but they don't vote on that measure.

[2:02:11] So you're only looking at the majority, not of the total number of voters who voted, but

[2:02:19] all you're looking at the majority of voters who voted on that specific measure.

[2:02:25] And so there's a difference, and that's why it's specifically worded majority of electors voting

[2:02:30] on the measure.

[2:02:33] I think like a place I'm having a problem is with the word approval, because it would,

[2:02:39] should have a tertiary amendment, is such that the change is required, then the majority of

[2:02:45] electors, or that the results be determined by the majority of electors voting on the measure.

[2:02:50] I just, when it says approval, it's also the opposite. It's also not approved.

[2:02:58] Well, whatever the results are based on how the majority of electors vote.

[2:03:05] I'll just leave my comments there. If anybody wants to consider that, that's fine.

[2:03:09] And if not, then I'm fully willing.

[2:03:14] Well, to be honest, council duty is here.

[2:03:16] I am not following the change in what the concern is.

[2:03:21] So let's try to be a minute such that change is required.

[2:03:24] The approval of a majority of electors voting on the measure.

[2:03:32] And this is, this is post this being approved.

[2:03:36] So I'm just, I'm going to try to explain that well,

[2:03:39] I see it saying, and then maybe that will bring you some quality

[2:03:42] But you're request is, because I don't understand it, so basically what this is saying is, in the future, if this is approved, all that's required is a majority of the voters approving whatever that change is to the charter, rather than requiring 60% customers for sure help me to understand, I think you're just trying to streamline it by getting rid of extra words to make it simple.

[2:04:07] So if you remove approval of, it still reads the same thing.

[2:04:15] And really approval would just confuse us things,

[2:04:18] because the next people think that it's going to be basically

[2:04:22] a measure can only be approved by a majority of elections,

[2:04:28] but a measure can also be not approved,

[2:04:31] but I'd just assume that it just gets in the way

[2:04:33] and it's going to make the question less clear.

[2:04:36] But just a suggestion,

[2:04:41] can I read this to you without that, because to me it did change the meaning, just the well, I heard it.

[2:04:46] Shall the charter be amended such that changes require majority of electors voting on the major.

[2:04:52] So now I was saying it's the majority of the voters that have to have been voting versus approval by the majority of them.

[2:05:00] The electors and people that actually placed their vote. So if you take that out, now it becomes a whole different question.

[2:05:07] Did the majority of electors voting on the measure? At least the way I look at it.

[2:05:14] And that's what I was trying to say, regardless of the approval of the disapproval, it's just not saying majority of the electors voting on the measure.

[2:05:21] That's a whole different question now because it's like, well, the majority of the voters voted, so it should pass, rather than, well, if we have 500 voters, 251 have to vote it, otherwise it's not fair.

[2:05:36] This one says it's a 250 voter, but so shall we try to be amended such that changes

[2:05:42] require them majority of electors that that results are approved by a majority of the electors.

[2:05:51] I'm just, but you know what, nobody has to agree with me, but if it, I don't think as a simple voter would look at that and necessarily understand that.

[2:05:59] That's what exactly that sentence means, but I could be wrong.

[2:06:02] So, we don't have some suggestion, let's move on.

[2:06:07] Okay.

[2:06:08] Council, Council, Council, you have your end up next.

[2:06:12] Well, I wanted to say, although, so one and very supportive of this, that would have left

[2:06:19] us take action on this.

[2:06:21] You know, now, because of all, Tanya, all the work that went into doing this.

[2:06:25] And also, it'll help us with other measures that we're trying to pass.

[2:06:31] Given that same financial impact of winning until May, the wanting to actually make a decision today,

[2:06:39] I'm going to make a motion.

[2:06:42] Can we put that back where it?

[2:06:49] That we moved to approve a mutual approval resolution number three, five, six, five, submitting a city of question.

[2:06:55] City charter amendment to the question voters, amending charter section 45A charter amendments.

[2:07:01] and adopting a valid title next winter,atory

[2:07:04] statement to be placed on the May 2024 ballot. Would

[2:07:08] you have the motion? Councilor

[2:07:10] Ross, thank you for your second.

[2:07:17] If you're

[2:07:17] getting a second motion, that is. If you think

[2:07:19] you're always saying it, okay, a second,

[2:07:21] thank you. You also have

[2:07:22] the same state scenario, you can do

[2:07:23] the opportunity to have a discussion. Yes? Councilor

[2:07:27] Daniji?

[2:07:29] So, once again,

[2:07:30] this one gives me great concerns if we can do putting

[2:07:33] this off.

[2:07:34] Also, we'll be in a time that the Charter Committee has worked in the further we go on, the further this can drag on until we get to the other historical information and timely issues that they had raised that's going to put all the other charter amendments even further out.

[2:07:53] That is a concern to me and the other question that I did have was the one request I did have is Sharon Dias that he had a,

[2:08:00] It's a little bit, just like you, but like you, it's a little bit perhaps to you, Jane, I would

[2:08:06] really appreciate it.

[2:08:08] If you've got a chance to look that over with his experiences also, just my thoughts.

[2:08:13] Thank you.

[2:08:18] It's great.

[2:08:19] We have the motion of what's been presented.

[2:08:23] So at this point, we're not able to consider additional language on this motion.

[2:08:27] So just a form of process and we will go forward, we would have to, this most will not have to pass and then we could reconsider additional language.

[2:08:41] So I want to make sure, I want to make sure, so there's no misunderstanding.

[2:08:45] And I mean, if we're going to consider additional language, we want to effectively see the additional language.

[2:08:51] That would be prepared in a resolution going forward.

[2:08:54] Yeah, I don't any discussion. I just wanted Jane to get a chance to see what he had in case later on.

[2:08:59] I'm not asking for any proposal at this time for any changes. I just thought it was great.

[2:09:03] When he imagined in comments that he had some suggestions, that would be great if she had them as we go for it.

[2:09:09] Got it.

[2:09:14] So, Jane, I believe you have the information that was suggested that you receive.

[2:09:26] I have the envelope.

[2:09:30] All right.

[2:09:31] So, any further discussion at this point?

[2:09:36] All right.

[2:09:37] Here, men?

[2:09:39] Oh, question.

[2:09:40] You can just one.

[2:09:41] So, last week when we updated the verbridge,

[2:09:44] could we give us a synopsis again,

[2:09:46] so why we updated the verbridge,

[2:09:48] as far as, on the, or to those two sentences out?

[2:09:53] So, effectively, actually,

[2:09:56] I'll turn it over to Council President Piazza, Chief.

[2:10:00] We have the request and then I'll add to it if there's any additional conversation.

[2:10:04] I asked for them to be removed because I wanted it to be a non-biased statement.

[2:10:10] And I felt that those two sentences were very biased and that we shouldn't have biased one way or the other.

[2:10:15] The city's bringing this to the people and the people just need to know the fact and make that decision.

[2:10:21] That's all.

[2:10:24] So effectively, I've just highlighted certain things that did not pass based on historical information.

[2:10:30] So, it was said to let's just ensure that the in the explanation and responsible type statement.

[2:10:39] It just says, hey, here's the, here's the, here's the situation in here's what we're moving forward.

[2:10:49] Right, but still supportive from moving forward. Just a few community new members asked me a lot.

[2:10:53] with me. We're concerned that we were removing history out of just our journal history and

[2:10:59] information for community members. So it's no shot on. I just want to bring that up because

[2:11:05] I forgot.

[2:11:07] Yeah, I was one of the quick things that we talked about last week. I think in the middle of

[2:11:12] the trial of amendments and anything that we're changing with the trial of the I think

[2:11:15] part of it's just going to be the kind of the big picture of, you know, the landies a little

[2:11:20] different, but I'd be something that, you know, we're all squirting off. I think as we move

[2:11:23] these things forward, there's going to be potentially disagreement as to what fully gets

[2:11:28] moved forward. And I think that, you know, as we move it as we have an opportunity to move

[2:11:32] this forward, I think as a council, you know, it's really about how we'd be, how do we be

[2:11:38] fairly agnostic, you know, and ensure that the voters have an opportunity to vote on many

[2:11:44] these items that the committee works so hard to bring forward.

[2:11:49] So, all right, with that, let's call the question,

[2:11:54] all those in favor of resolution number three, five,

[2:11:57] six, five, placing the five by saying aye, aye,

[2:12:01] in the opposed same size.

[2:12:03] So we have one more because they're denucci.

[2:12:05] Thank you very much.

[2:12:07] So I'm motion carries, I'm looking to everyone.

[2:12:10] With that, I will now move to the final agenda item, and that is the, well, final

[2:12:18] business item.

[2:12:19] It has the city manager report.

[2:12:24] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:12:25] Attached in your packet for this evening is the July City Manager's report.

[2:12:33] So our question is great for this month, comes to come to my community member, and it's

[2:12:40] Several other parks in recreation staff for community members said thank you all and everyone at the city for updating our community park

[2:12:48] It's shaping up great and my neighbors shared. They have been going since improvements started

[2:12:52] Thank you for helping us take pride in our community. So thank you Johnny Renee Cody and James from Parks and Recreation for their great work

[2:13:02] Also have a

[2:13:04] extra special aggression great today. We like to celebrate wins every day when they come

[2:13:09] our staff does phenomenal work every day and Eric and I just recently learned that

[2:13:14] really our homeless services specialists had a personal record today. He permanently housed four

[2:13:21] people, two households and also placed four people into a low barrier shelter all in the

[2:13:26] work. Pretty awesome. So, thank you really.

[2:13:34] Also, in the first page, as usual, we've

[2:13:36] highlighted some data trends. I don't know if something interesting that you

[2:13:41] actually don't see on here. You do see an increase in shoplifting. We have

[2:13:46] experienced year over year when you compare 23 to 22. Of course, if you have the

[2:13:51] data from 2021, 2020, that's clearly impacted by COVID and stores not being open.

[2:13:56] But actually if you go all the way back to 2019, our shoplifting numbers are actually

[2:14:02] similar in comparison to pre-pandemic.

[2:14:05] So it's just an interesting note.

[2:14:06] If you put in context beyond just looking at the previous year, we had seen, you know, a

[2:14:12] fairly significant amount of shoplifting before that as well.

[2:14:15] But I'm just going to scroll down to the second page, the bottom half, because for this

[2:14:21] month, I wanted to highlight some of the great innovation.

[2:14:26] that we do here at the city. Our staff are always looking at how can we do things

[2:14:31] about it, how can we respond to our community with the limited resources that we have,

[2:14:35] other technologies that there we could be leveraging. So I highlighted in this month's report

[2:14:39] two initiatives. One is our drones as first responders program out of a police permit.

[2:14:45] And the second is this really cool small innovation that our parks permit did.

[2:14:49] Our police department, thanks to leadership of Sergeant Amen and Archief, have begun a pilot to join this first responders program.

[2:14:58] We will be only the...

[2:15:00] 16th program in the entire country, which is pretty cool. It's a very excited about this. The FR and user

[2:15:08] ML operator to launch the drone from within a control room. It's autonomously flown, so we're

[2:15:14] not driving it autonomously flown to the location of a call for service. When it gets to that location,

[2:15:20] then we manually take over and are able to direct how we're using the drone. We have clearly

[2:15:26] have it piloted, launching here at City Hall, so we are able to go within a one-mile radius,

[2:15:32] I believe it is, with two miles with our drone, we're able to respond to calls quicker than

[2:15:39] an officer can get there in a vehicle, so we have eyes on situations faster than we ever could

[2:15:45] within our two-mile radius, as an example within our two-mile radius is a downtown. So the other

[2:15:52] day, there was incident downtown, we were able to fly the drone there, try to get eyes on

[2:15:55] was happening in the situation, but also it's helpful for both officer and firefighter

[2:16:02] safety. We have already deployed the drones to several fires. It provides Eisenhower,

[2:16:08] the ability to track things is really an amazing program. They excited about this and really proud

[2:16:15] of our police for rent for this school new innovative program that we're trying. And our second

[2:16:22] small innovation is our main city park bench improvements. What can you remember reach out who uses a wheelchair?

[2:16:29] Yeah, and we're trying to find an accessible picking table in Main City Park.

[2:16:33] We don't have any. So there's such a parks and Mags that were so disappointed.

[2:16:37] You know, to me, something is successful.

[2:16:40] You know, some governments who say, oh, that's going to cost money.

[2:16:43] We have to do, you know, we don't have anything right now.

[2:16:46] We can help you. We'll put it on the list. We'll get back to you three years from now.

[2:16:49] Not all parts team, they're even out that same day

[2:16:52] to try to look at what can you do to make one picnic table

[2:16:57] at least accessible to somebody in a wheelchair.

[2:17:00] And so they took a look at the infrastructure

[2:17:01] and thought, why don't we just remove

[2:17:03] because there's kind of four benches around the table?

[2:17:06] We have the tools that are doing our vehicle

[2:17:08] to remove one of those four benches

[2:17:10] so someone can literally roll their wheelchair

[2:17:11] right up to that picnic table.

[2:17:13] So they went ahead and did it, email the community

[2:17:15] and remember back, they're absolutely delighted

[2:17:17] that were able to solve this problem really quickly.

[2:17:20] And so thankful for the staff who,

[2:17:22] I got the limited resources, finds ways

[2:17:24] to just solve problems and help our community.

[2:17:27] Every day, I answer one to point out a few innovations

[2:17:29] for this month, City Manager's part, and that's all I have.

[2:17:34] That's all.

[2:17:35] That's all.

[2:17:35] That's a lot.

[2:17:38] God still, the team will work that they do every single day

[2:17:41] in the community.

[2:17:44] Any questions for any stranger?

[2:17:45] And

[2:17:48] here in that, we're not going to allow us to do that, which is legislative proposals.

[2:17:53] Council, legislative proposals can't.

[2:17:57] Council, President Biason.

[2:17:58] I just want to commend the citizens that, well, first, the citizens that help stop the gentleman

[2:18:05] that broke the 12 business windows and downtown Russian.

[2:18:08] So first, for him, for being a great citizen.

[2:18:12] And then for the downtown business community that came in on the morning of July 4th to help

[2:18:17] that class and help the other businesses that have been hit by this person and then the community

[2:18:23] that came out and cleaned up downtown Gresham right before the art festival. It just shows

[2:18:31] what a wonderful city we have and how people pull for each other and then thank you to all

[2:18:37] the volunteers and the workers at the city that put on our art festival which I believe was another

[2:18:42] successful about for the city.

[2:18:45] Thank you, Council President.

[2:18:47] And the measures are proposals.

[2:18:53] Councillor Jones, Dixon.

[2:19:00] Okay, I'll go.

[2:19:01] Just for a minute, I'll clear.

[2:19:04] Just wanted to say something.

[2:19:05] You know, the volunteers that helped out.

[2:19:07] It was a hot one this last weekend.

[2:19:09] So especially the ambassadors.

[2:19:11] Everybody was out there.

[2:19:12] It's a police department, fire department.

[2:19:14] So thank you.

[2:19:14] Thank you, fire department.

[2:19:15] You guys got me hydrated.

[2:19:17] Got witch firefighter gaming water.

[2:19:19] But the beautiful thing is a lot of everyone.

[2:19:21] attendees all there was hot they were extremely appreciative of just the support from the volunteers

[2:19:26] and just coming into this space so hats off to City of Gresham and also just wanted to

[2:19:32] give a shout out to the Hope Center at Opportunity to they had their first day of summer camp

[2:19:37] yesterday so I had an opportunity to work out with the kids and the youth and run through the rockwood

[2:19:43] it was extremely therapeutic and great so they're doing great work and I had an opportunity

[2:19:50] other nonprofits as well. When we have the heart of our

[2:19:53] conversation, I was going to wait till tomorrow to talk to you about it. If we can discuss

[2:19:57] additional funding for CBOs,

[2:20:01] I'll be great sometime this fall. Those are my only updates. Thank you, Councillor Jones. Thanks and thank you for running yesterday.

[2:20:11] I appreciate that. I'll have to take a lot for the 30 years of football and I wouldn't have made it. A fourth grader. He said, you got a fence. You got it. You'll make it.

[2:20:18] And that ranch will lock with the hope center,

[2:20:22] all the way to the 90th, yeah, it's free.

[2:20:24] I know you're, I know you do throw running.

[2:20:27] But I get some encouragement before you have today as you

[2:20:30] got this, we won't share the water pipe for you.

[2:20:33] And I'll give it to the fire department for saving my family.

[2:20:36] And I'll give it to the fire department for saving my family.

[2:20:37] And I'll give it to the fire department for saving my family.

[2:20:37] It's another aggression, they're the fire department.

[2:20:39] We don't provide it, they help you out.

[2:20:41] Can I send my audience?

[2:20:43] Well, I know we had a lot of discussion earlier today on the

[2:20:46] and we talked about the districts and I just wanted to make sure that we are moving forward

[2:20:53] with exploiting feasibility, study on the fire district.

[2:20:58] And do we need to give any more direction around that?

[2:21:06] All right.

[2:21:08] Did

[2:21:12] you hear something?

[2:21:14] Just one other thing.

[2:21:15] When can we come, check out the government with the DFR team.

City Council Business

Agenda

Transcript