[1:22] 2026 to order at 7 p.m. and ask the city recorder to call the role.

[1:26] » Council President Briggs >> here.

[1:28] » Councelor Bantos >> here.

[1:30] » Councelor Blosser >> here.

[1:31] » Councelor Fitzgerald >> here.

[1:33] » Councelor Holesapple >> here.

[1:35] » Councelor Jance is excused. Councelor Schilling

[1:38] » here. Councelor Shane >> here.

[1:40] » Councelor Spivey >> here.

[1:42] » Please join me in standing for the pledge of allegiance.

[1:47] Pledge >> algiance to the flag of the United

[1:51] States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under

[1:57] God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[2:04] » All right. Thank you. Have any introductions tonight?

[2:07] » No introductions tonight, Mayor. Okay, I have a script I read before we do public

[2:11] comment. For the record, please provide us with your name and whether or not you

[2:14] live inside the city limits. You have up to 3 minutes. It's your turn to talk and

[2:18] ours to listen. You are responsible for the content, even if it was written by

[2:22] someone else. Please direct all comments to the mayor. Do not direct your

[2:25] comments to individual counselors, staff members, or the audience. Defamatory or

[2:29] lielist comments will not be accepted. It is expected that you'll maintain

[2:33] decorum and respect for each other. A wide variety of viewers watch these

[2:36] proceedings. Therefore, we would kindly ask you refrain from the use of

[2:39] offensive language and name calling. Distractions take attention from the

[2:43] speaker. The audience, city council members, and city staff are asked to

[2:47] focus on the speaker during their time by respectfully being quiet. We have

[2:51] anyone who wants to testify tonight? We have anyone on the phone?

[2:56] Not then we'll close public comment and move on to the consent agenda.

[3:01] We have uh four items on there. the July 2026 financial report, approval of the

[3:07] work session minutes and council meeting minutes for July 20th, and a street

[3:12] sweeper purchase. Does anybody want to move anything off of the consent agenda

[3:15] tonight? >> Move to approve.

[3:18] » Second, >> sir Schilling, seconded by councelor

[3:22] Shane. All those in favor? >> I passes unanimously.

[3:27] All right. Reports or comments from mayor and council members. Any council

[3:31] members have any reports tonight?

[3:36] All right. If not, we'll move on to reports from the city manager.

[3:40] » Thank you, Mayor Slack. Um, so we just have the one report tonight. Uh, and is

[3:45] identified in the packet. It's the League of Oregon Cities, uh, legislative

[3:48] priorities, part two. So, at the last meeting, um, we gave everyone the 2026

[3:54] member voter guide in your packet. Um, so hopefully you brought that again

[3:57] today and had opportunity to review it. um asked if the council had any

[4:02] questions between meetings to go and send those to me. I didn't hear from

[4:04] anyone, so hopefully you all had an opportunity to review this. Um so

[4:08] tonight is just another opportunity to begin the discussion. Um if there's

[4:12] topics that you like or if there's things you feel we could cross off or if

[4:16] there's questions that you have, we can certainly um attempt to answer those

[4:20] tonight. or if not get an answer, at least identify those questions to ask

[4:23] the the leaked policy uh analysts and lobbyists um kind of

[4:28] maybe some background or history to any of the topics that you want. Um and but

[4:32] if if you don't have any questions, we can certainly just get to the the voting

[4:35] tonight and go through that process uh to select our top five. Again, the goal

[4:40] is by September 25th to identify our uh top five priorities of the 27, noting

[4:46] that the league staff, the lobbyists will um certainly advocate um for or

[4:51] against depending on the topic. Uh all of these 27 items as priorities going

[4:56] into the 2027 session. Um but our input uh to the league board um is gathered

[5:03] with all the other cities that vote. Um and uh they when they meet in October um

[5:09] during the league conference, they will uh take all that feedback and identify

[5:13] the top five priorities for the league lobbyists. So those will be kind of the

[5:17] areas where we'll put a lot of emphasis, a lot of lobbying into those. Um and

[5:21] then everything else as bills come up that address these certain topics, um

[5:24] they will focus on those priorities as well. So with that, I'll kind of pass it

[5:29] back to you, mayor, and facilitate a discussion amongst the council.

[5:33] » Jane, quick question. So the 25th is when we have to have our stuff back to

[5:38] them. >> Is when I have to submit our voting

[5:41] ballot. Um so our last meeting, I believe, is that earlier that week. Uh

[5:47] and so we can, you know, continue this discussion for the next uh two meetings

[5:51] in September. Um, but by the second meeting in September, the council has to

[5:55] pick your top five. >> Given that that you know it's not

[5:59] crushingly urgent, I'd like to have a little more time to go through some of

[6:02] these in depth.

[6:07] » Councor Council Briggs >> wanted to ask a few questions about the

[6:12] infrastructure funding on page 37.

[6:18] They have a uh >> what's the page number at the bottom of

[6:20] the page? 18. >> Okay.

[6:26] » And I guess the question I have is would this help us in any way with our

[6:30] finished water or our raw water and our dam? I don't really see it would help

[6:34] that. It might. There is some aquafer language in here, but how how do you see

[6:39] that affecting our situation with our water?

[6:43] » Yeah. So, um there's kind of two components to in all the infrastructure

[6:47] bills. So the state has a special public works fund and we always advocate the

[6:51] league always advocates to uh retain that and and retain its funding and and

[6:56] increase the amount of funding that gets put towards that. So that's one thing

[7:00] that they'll do here. But they're also looking for um expanding, you know,

[7:04] different uh funding streams, adding some funding streams from the state, um

[7:08] being a little bit more flexible with that uh requirements within the

[7:11] infrastructure funding that's given. Um, so yes, I do believe that with our

[7:15] infrastructure projects, whether they be the water with our finished water like

[7:19] the James H tank or the dam project or any of our sewer or storm water

[7:23] projects, that's all encompassing within here. Um, so if if that was a priority

[7:28] and infrastructure funding tends to be one of the league's priorities, at least

[7:32] has been the last couple sessions. Um, and it may be again this session because

[7:36] it continues to be I know a need throughout the state of Oregon and many

[7:39] of the cities. um then that's what we would really target keeping the existing

[7:42] funding streams uh alive with the funding hopefully increase that if

[7:47] possible and then look at maybe some other funding sources that the state can

[7:50] create as well. I would just advocate that that would be one of our five.

[7:55] » Certainly would be. Sure would be for me.

[8:00] » One of my five. So, >> well

[8:04] that as the number one priority. >> Great. So, it sounds like we might get

[8:10] some consensus around that particular topic.

[8:11] » Sounds like we just about do. >> Yeah. Are there other questions or or

[8:16] thoughts that council wants to share at this point?

[8:21] I uh I'm kind of interested in the uh public

[8:27] meeting law clarification because there are some warts in there that don't

[8:31] really make anybody any safer or better

[8:35] protected and and there's some stuff in there that really

[8:39] is from where I sit bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. So I would I would I

[8:44] would put some muscle behind that if I could.

[8:49] No, [laughter]

[8:53] » governor said she vetoed the bill that was passed the last session. Um, but I

[8:57] will say that that is a topic that I think um with the Oregon government

[9:00] ethics commission and their implementation of uh in their

[9:04] interpretations of public meeting laws. um the League of Oregon City and the

[9:08] Oregon counties, the association of Oregon counties, the special districts

[9:12] um and others throughout the state were really pushing uh for some uh clarity in

[9:17] the public meeting laws and uh we received that through the the House bill

[9:21] that was passed this last session. Um but that was one of the few bills that

[9:24] the governor did veto. Um and so while uh we felt we had a good win, um it

[9:29] didn't survive the the governor's desk. So um I think that there will be a push

[9:33] for that again. um maybe some refinement to the bill that was passed this last

[9:37] session so that it does make its way through the governors this time.

[9:40] » And although it's it's labeled as clarity, I think part of it is

[9:43] streamlining also and that's part of what I'm interested in.

[9:47] » Great. >> I didn't mark this as one of my

[9:51] priorities, but I did have a question about um an acronym

[9:55] uh on page four.

[10:00] It's row r o wide of way.

[10:03] » Right ofway. Yeah. So like your streets or trails, the the rideway.

[10:07] » That makes sense since it's transportation. Like what's row?

[10:14] » Um under the broadband and cyber security.

[10:19] The last one was supporting municipal uh cyber security proficiency. Since we

[10:23] contract with the county for that, would we benefit from

[10:28] support municipal cyber security proficiency?

[10:38] Do we contract with the county? Do I ask for?

[10:41] » Yes. Yeah. We contract with the county benefit us.

[10:45] » Yeah. I was just reading the the kind of recommendation. So the LLC opposes

[10:49] unfunded mandates and will advocate for technical support and funding to give

[10:52] all cities access to innovative technology, enhanced state programs,

[10:55] cyber security notification resources and assistance protecting critical

[10:59] infrastructure and data during cyber attacks. Um, and I was reading the

[11:03] background on it and it didn't really give me um, I think some good context. I

[11:07] don't know where this is coming from. So, for the city of Dallas, uh, we, um,

[11:13] have purchased cyber security insurance through our insurers. So, we have that,

[11:17] um, as as a tool, uh, if we were subject to a cyber security attack. We contract

[11:22] with Pulp County for our our um information technology work and uh they

[11:28] put in a lot of protections and securities to ensure that we're safe um

[11:31] and do a lot of testing to make sure that we don't make mistakes or that if

[11:35] we do we get trained to not make mistakes um when they're real. Um so

[11:39] we're I think as an organization on top of cyber security pretty well. Um, but I

[11:43] can find out more of the the context to this if there was a specific example or

[11:48] maybe a specific statute that is preventing a city from being able to

[11:52] access something on the cyber security side. I'm just wondering if this adds or

[11:57] assist in protections if in case we uh fall prey to a cyber attack and we

[12:04] get like ransomware or something that holds up our uh infrastructure in the

[12:08] city if that all gets covered through the county because I'm guessing that if

[12:12] it happens to us, it happens to them. U maybe not there's potential with that.

[12:18] Um the county also has their own cyber security uh insurance that they've

[12:21] purchased. Um, so again, because if if the

[12:25] security issue occurred because of something that a city of Dallas employee

[12:29] did, right, through our system, um, the potential for it to reach into the

[12:32] county system is there. Um, so it could impact them as well, but our insurance

[12:36] would be liable because one of our agents caused that attack to occur. If

[12:41] the county employee, say, opened up a a cyber security issue and that made it

[12:46] way into the city of Dallas, their insurance would cover the claim towards

[12:50] the city of Dallas. So, um, that's how the insurance aspect of that would work.

[12:53] Um, but I don't know if this it doesn't I don't know reading it doesn't seem

[12:58] that it's saying that the funding would be for like those cyber security

[13:01] attacks, but it would be more funding for um preventative measures, right? To

[13:05] prevent, you know, and and build up the the infrastructure to uh reduce the risk

[13:10] of a cyber security attack. um the the city's ability to uh respond to a cyber

[13:17] security attack with you know ransoms and and things like that that's going to

[13:20] come through the insurance that we can purchase which again the city has

[13:23] already done. So I think this is more about funding to you know give cities um

[13:28] access to tools and uh systems that will help prevent cyber security attacks. I

[13:34] can find out more of kind of the context of this if you want before the next

[13:37] meeting. This was also my number two. And I the question I have is I know the

[13:41] county handles a lot of our internal [gasps]

[13:44] uh technology, but I don't think they're involved at all in our wastewater

[13:48] treatment plant or our water treatment plant and those are all susceptible to

[13:52] potential hacking. >> So they are they cover all of our

[13:55] systems. So the county does. >> Yep. The county does. So the county

[13:58] covers all of our IT from our water treatment plant on the the west side of

[14:03] town um to our wastewater treatment plant on the east side of town and all

[14:06] of our facilities in between. Yes, >> I heard the word unfunded mandates

[14:11] somewhere in that discussion. >> Yeah, I mean at the beginning is that

[14:13] cons is there are there some issues there that a are there issues there and

[14:17] b would this address them? >> That's what I need to find out. Again,

[14:21] there's probably a a specific, you know, uh ruling or a law uh that came out that

[14:27] was an unfunded mandate towards cities. Um I don't know what that is. So, I'll

[14:30] to do some research and find out. >> Hoping my colleagues would give some

[14:36] thought to number 19. That's the emergency communication system

[14:41] resources. And what we're really talking about is uh dispatchers, the dispatch

[14:47] centers. And what I can tell you from my training experience is uh those folks uh

[14:54] if not volunteering, they're mandated to work double shift uh or long hours. Um

[15:02] the folks there are a lot of them call in sick a lot because they're so

[15:08] overworked uh and they're the um unsung heroes of

[15:15] 911. We always we talk about the police officers, the firefighters, the EMS, but

[15:22] the whole 911 system is a critical function of the emergency management

[15:29] system. And what they need is obviously more staffing, uh more uh technology,

[15:37] um and and things like that to better operate that 911 system to make it

[15:43] better than what it is right now. So, if you haven't looked at number 19, maybe

[15:49] then take a look at that. Give it some thoughts and I'd be interested to hear

[15:53] what other people think. This address that directly this the way they have it

[15:58] worded. >> Well, I believe it would. I mean, I

[16:03] I believe it's addressed to um look at the dispatch services, the

[16:10] fundamental system that supports a public safety. Yeah,

[16:16] » Carlos, that was my number two on my list.

[16:19] » Um, >> thanks for that. I'm going to read up on

[16:21] it in detail. >> And that was number five for me.

[16:25] » 13. Are you're saying 19? Which page? >> Page the bottom of page 13.

[16:30] » It's page 13. Bottom of page 13. Yeah. >> Yeah.

[16:33] » I just uh called out as number 19. If that's a little bit easier to follow it

[16:39] that way. >> I just don't Where are you getting 19?

[16:41] He he numbered himself. Yeah, >> I follow the 19th one down here

[16:47] » in the Carlos numeration system. >> Yeah, in my world

[16:51] » it it matches my enumeration system as well, Carlos. So,

[16:55] » okay. All right. We don't all >> Great way to do it,

[16:59] » too. Brian, on page 10, uh there's the uh

[17:05] discussion about community energy resilience and disaster planning. And uh

[17:10] could you talk a little bit about how that would impact Dallas? I know we

[17:13] occasionally lose power and other infrastructure items and would this be

[17:19] beneficial to the city.

[17:36] » Yeah. So um the recommendation from the league here is to uh engage in some

[17:41] efforts to provide planning resources technical assistance and funding um for

[17:46] those uh natural disasters which cause you know energy shortages or

[17:50] disruptions. Um so yes uh the city of Dallas has um you know been impacted

[17:55] through natural disasters and you know ice storms, wind um you know other

[18:00] events that that cause uh power outages you know in and around Dallas. And so,

[18:04] yes, I think anything that would give additional resources, technical

[18:08] assistance, you know, some funding to be able to kind of harden your system, um,

[18:12] could be a benefit to Dallas. >> Councelor Spy, did you look at uh,

[18:17] maintaining affordable energy while supporting grid hardening and

[18:20] modernization? I would I would think that I looked more

[18:25] at that one than the one that you just talked about. It's on page 11,

[18:31] my eye, too. It had a little bit more teeth in it than the and a little more

[18:35] direction.

[18:39] 14 is more directed towards the the hardening of your systems where the

[18:44] first one that council sp in includes more the planning piece and you know

[18:49] thinking of it that way.

[18:55] » I could be sued

[18:59] since I have your attention. So, um, back up to general government committee.

[19:05] Uh, I don't did everybody look into the administrative procedure act reform.

[19:10] Um, the administrators that act took place in 1972 and has not

[19:16] been updated in many years. And we've noticed this dealing with the reservoir.

[19:22] The the rules that govern the different agencies throughout the state play by

[19:27] different rules. And we get different answers from every agency. And that's

[19:30] what that one is looking at is trying to put the agencies under one playing field

[19:35] so that if they're making a ruling, they're not ruling against something

[19:38] else, they have to communicate a little bit a lot more.

[19:42] » Sounds like it might help break down some silos a little bit, too.

[19:46] » So limits the u use of emergency orders. It helps a little too.

[19:54] » Well, and that's the big where I've kind of gotten back to it. Um

[20:00] The regulatory breakdown directly impacts local governments when

[20:03] uncoordinated state agencies issue overlapping conflicting rules, cities

[20:07] are left trapped in the middle, forced to navigate a ma maze of contradictory

[20:11] mandates that drain municipal staff of time and stretch city budgets.

[20:16] Furthermore, recent court rulings have stripped away traditional checks on

[20:20] administrative reach. Cities have lost the ability to challenge flawed

[20:23] one-sizefits-all state regulations that ignore local realities. And the other

[20:28] part of this is it brings the public back into the commenting instead of it

[20:32] just being an emergency act.

[20:37] » Obviously, I don't have a vote, so I'm not going to comment on whether or not

[20:40] this would be in my top five, but um this is certainly something that Dallas

[20:44] has had to encounter. Um, and in other cities I've been in where, you know,

[20:48] you're working with a state agency on uh, you know, maybe they're the ones

[20:51] that are offering the permit, but it's being reviewed by four other agencies

[20:54] and the other agencies give conflicting information with what the agency are

[20:57] trying to get the permits from. So, it can really be a challenge um, working

[21:00] through this. And so, uh, this this act, while I think well intended, has not

[21:04] been touched in many years and could probably use a refresh.

[21:07] » That sounds vaguely like some stuff we're dealing with right now.

[21:30] So, if you don't have anything else, um I'm glad that you've dove into this

[21:34] document. Um so, our next meeting is on September 8th. I'm not here that night,

[21:39] but um Emily will be um staffing the the council that night. So, uh certainly get

[21:44] your questions to me. I will be here up until the 8th. I'm I'm leaving that day.

[21:49] Um, and so, uh, but, um, I will work to get those answers, um, to any questions

[21:56] that you have between now and then. Um, and then Emily will come with those

[21:59] answers, uh, that night. So, anything else on this for tonight?

[22:06] All right. Are we ready to move on? >> Sounds like it.

[22:08] » Okay.

[22:14] All right. We're ready for first reading of ordinances.

[22:20] Ordinance 1926. >> First one is ordinance 1926.

[22:24] » Ordinance 1926 is an ordinance pertaining to the granting a

[22:28] non-exclusive franchise agreement to Spectrum Pacific West LLC, an indirect

[22:33] subsidiary of Charter Communications Incorporated.

[22:40] to go >> is so this is um a renewal of a

[22:45] franchise agreement with uh Spectrum or charter uh however you whichever way you

[22:50] want to look at that. Um and so during the committee uh meeting there were two

[22:55] uh uh things that they wanted to have us look at and and negotiate um with this

[23:01] agreement. Both of those are included in the agreement. Uh the first was um

[23:06] getting the insurance uh rates um to mirror better the the other agreement in

[23:12] that we're going to consider tonight. And so the movement that we were able to

[23:16] get was under the commercial general liability. Um the proposal that the

[23:21] committee looked at was a $1 million per occurrence and a 2 million general

[23:24] aggregate. They increase their general aggregate to 3 million which marries up

[23:28] with the other document. Um and then the other section was section D under

[23:33] insurance. This is on page 60 where it says the grantee shall require

[23:37] contractors and subcontractors working on granties behalf to maintain adequate

[23:41] insurance related to their work in the franchise area. So um the committee was

[23:46] uh this provision did not initially exist but we wanted to make sure that

[23:49] the subcontractors um of the franchisee also maintain insurance uh for the work

[23:54] that they're doing. So, um, so that's the language that, uh, staff and the

[23:59] company agreed on.

[24:03] » Questions on that ordinance? If not, I'll declare it pass it first

[24:08] reading. And second, next one is ordinance number 1927.

[24:14] to 1927 is um an ordinance granting to Forged Fiber 37

[24:22] LLC the right to construct, operate, and maintain telecommunication services in

[24:26] the city of Dallas, Oregon. So, this was another franchise agreement uh that the

[24:31] comm admin committee looked at just a few weeks ago. Um the the there wasn't a

[24:38] change to the insurance uh limits in this one, but the uh committee did want

[24:43] the similar language uh regarding the contractors to be included here. Um when

[24:48] this report was written, we were still working with the the company on some

[24:52] language uh that they were agreeable to. So if you go to the insurance section on

[24:58] page uh two and three um

[25:04] under uh section

[25:09] yeah under section 4 subsection two we'll add section E um or no sorry after

[25:19] subsection three under four. So sub so section 4

[25:24] subsection 4. So after section subsection 3 we would add this language

[25:30] which um we agreed to today which is companies shall require contractors and

[25:35] subcontractors working on this company's behalf to maintain adequate insurance

[25:39] related to the company's work in the right of way. So again allowing um

[25:45] contractor requiring contractors and subcontractors working on the company's

[25:49] behalf or the the franchisee uh to maintain adequate insurance related to

[25:53] the company's work in the rightway. So that's the language that we would

[25:57] include before your second reading. >> What is adequate?

[26:02] Shouldn't there be a number there? 100 1 million 2 million.

[26:06] » That's fine. So in this one it says 2 million per three in the aggregate and

[26:11] in the other contract we had 1 million and three. Why the difference

[26:18] state contracting rules are one and two. >> So I'm just

[26:22] » and this is two and three and the other one is so my yeah I get that they're

[26:26] higher but why are they different is my question.

[26:28] » So because that's what they offered right and that's what we agreed to. So,

[26:32] um, the initial agreement in the other agreement that we looked at, um, the

[26:37] initial proposal was 1 million and 2 million, which is the state minimum

[26:40] requirements. Um, we're trying to move all of our contracts to at least one and

[26:46] three or two and three. Um, the company on the other agreement, um, Spectrum was

[26:51] willing to increase their aggregate to three, but they wanted to keep the 1

[26:54] million for per occurrence. Um, I felt [clears throat] that was fine. Um, so

[26:59] that's what we just did on the first reading for they already offered two and

[27:03] three with this company here. Um, so we weren't proposing a change. Um, I don't

[27:08] think that we need to include the language under contractors and

[27:11] subcontractors. Um, because that's really between the contractor,

[27:15] subcontractor, and the franchisee. Um, so whatever the franchisee is going to

[27:19] require for the work that they're doing for them is what they they will require.

[27:22] Um, we're going to require the insurance to be the two and three. So if there's a

[27:27] claim from us on the franchisee, we would be under the 2 million 3 million

[27:32] limits um with this agreement. >> The other thing is the the reason we

[27:37] talked about the subcontractors and the their push back on that and I think it's

[27:42] it's correct is the subcontractor's insurance kind of depends on their scope

[27:46] of work. If a subcontractor is doing a, you know, a very small job, they

[27:50] wouldn't necessarily require the same insurance limits, which is why that one

[27:54] is a little more um ambiguous. But the the key thing is it's ambiguous, but

[28:01] it's on the franchisee to make sure it's enough

[28:03] » and it still satisfies the state requirements.

[28:07] » Our reaches to the franchisee, not the subcontractor. Their reach is to the

[28:13] subcontractor because we don't have a contract with the subcontractor. So if

[28:17] they don't want to in increase it higher, that's their prerogative. They

[28:22] would have to cover it up to two to three.

[28:24] » I think it's good for us to have language that, you know, puts a nod to

[28:28] the franchisee saying, "Hey, we want your subcontractors to make sure they

[28:32] have insurance." Um, but it's really up to them on the limits that they're going

[28:35] to require. Um, you know, if we didn't have that language, you know, there's

[28:39] nothing that says that the franchisee would uh tell a subcontractor they had

[28:42] to get insurance. Um, so I I feel good knowing that we're requiring the

[28:47] subcontractors to have some level of insurance and leaving it up to the

[28:50] franchisee based on based on the scope of work for the project that they're

[28:53] doing. >> If legal thinks the word adequate's

[28:56] fine, I just I'm concerned about these [snorts]

[28:59] vans from out of state license plates rolling up in front of your house to put

[29:03] your service in. And these guys are contracted from, you know, they're who

[29:07] knows whether they're licensed or not and who knows whether they're insured or

[29:10] not. If if we if if you say that our agreements with the franchise and that's

[29:17] the number that we can go after if they cause damage, then I'm okay with that.

[29:21] But I'm really concerned about all the non

[29:24] » and and it is and if if there's a drop there, then they would be the franchisee

[29:30] would be liable to the city for not ensuring that the insurance was proper

[29:35] by their subcontractors. >> Franchisee that would be on the hook.

[29:39] » Yes. Any

[29:44] more questions on that ordinance? >> So, just before you declare it to pass

[29:48] it first reading, so we will incorporate that language um under subsection

[29:53] uh four of section 4 for your second reading.

[29:59] » All right, we'll declare it to pass it first reading. Then let's move on to

[30:04] ordinance number 1928. >> Thank you, mayor. Ordinance 1928 is an

[30:10] ordinance related to background checks for city employees, volunteers, certain

[30:14] vendors, and participants in city programs. So, this is the first time the

[30:18] council um any council members are seeing this uh ordinance. It's um coming

[30:24] before you because there's uh some rules within the law enforcement database

[30:29] system um which is uh the system used to do criminal background checks and and

[30:34] things of that nature. Um, so in order for us to uh conduct background checks

[30:40] for these purposes, um, because you're supposed to only use leads for law

[30:43] enforcement purposes, you have to have an ordinance on the books to to do these

[30:47] types of background checks. So um, that's really what the ordinance is

[30:50] about is just enabling us to continue to do background checks the way we have um,

[30:55] for these certain types of checks.

[30:59] And this would be part of the municipal code if it were to be approved by the

[31:03] council. Are we exposed in any way because we don't have this on the books

[31:08] now? >> Uh I don't think there's um any risk of

[31:12] anything that we've done. Um but it would be something that if we don't pass

[31:15] an ordinance then we can no longer continue to do background checks for uh

[31:20] uh employees who have um we we can't do a background check on someone that makes

[31:25] application but we can do some a background check on someone that has

[31:28] received an offer from us right for employment. So that would be the

[31:31] employee side. um you know, volunteers, certain vendors who will work with uh in

[31:36] areas that do law enforcement, you know, data, have that information there. Um

[31:40] so, yes, we want to we want to be able to continue to do that, but in order to

[31:43] do that, we have to have this. I don't think there's any liability moving

[31:45] backwards, but if we don't pass this, then we'll have to stop doing those

[31:48] background checks. >> The difference between how we've been

[31:52] doing them in the past and what we're expected to do in the future. Chief

[31:58] Mont, I don't know if you if if I say anything wrong, feel free to come up and

[32:01] and correct me. I don't think the process of doing a background check will

[32:05] change. Um we'll continue to uh you know, pull the the same information. Um

[32:11] what what we will do is uh and I specify in the agreement here a little bit. Um

[32:17] you know, there are certain things that we will look for. or we will craft an

[32:19] administrative policy that will say, you know, if if we find these things through

[32:24] the criminal background check. Um then the police department will give a

[32:27] recommendation of um recommend or do not recommend um to the uh you know hiring

[32:33] manager if that's what we're doing the background check for. Um and so the the

[32:38] specificity of that is going to be outlined in policy. Um but yes, we'll

[32:43] » Is that is that not how we're doing things? So now

[32:46] » it's it's similar. Chief, you want to maybe come up and I'm probably maybe

[32:50] missing a new one. >> This appearing simply for a because

[32:52] there was a change in the ORS and O. >> It's a change from the leads policy

[32:58] itself. So, >> afternoon. This is housekeeping. Um,

[33:04] every year we get audited by leads and for the past couple decades they had no

[33:08] problem with us doing these backgrounds along with numerous other cities. Um

[33:12] this time they decided we need to have an ordinance and we need to have a

[33:16] defined criteria for a recommend or do not recommend to pass our leads audit.

[33:21] If we don't have if we don't pass our leads audit that could theory strip away

[33:25] our ability to access leads. So we either have to have this ordinance or we

[33:29] have to stop doing criminal histories on backgrounds. One of the two

[33:36] » choice there really >> choice. What is uh certain contracted

[33:40] vendors and appointed city volunteers? What would that entail?

[33:44] » So if we if we have a contractor come in to

[33:48] work in the buildings, especially on the siege side on the police side, we do a

[33:52] criminal history check on them to make sure they're okay to be in that area and

[33:57] access that area unsupervised. That would be a type of vendor that we do.

[34:01] Another one would be an IT person from the county. We we have to do criminal

[34:06] history background checks on those to get them authorized to access our

[34:09] systems as well. Vendors would be the ones that we do uh criminal histories on

[34:13] like all CC uh vendors. So when we have a vendor doing work, we ask their

[34:19] employees to fill us paperwork out. They know ahead of time we're doing the

[34:22] background check.

[34:26] » Yes. Everybody that's exposed to this fills out a document, agrees to it, and

[34:30] signs for it. It's the ride alongs run here. That is

[34:33] that new? >> It's not new. If we let someone do a

[34:36] ride along in our patrol vehicles, we run a background check on them.

[34:43] » So, it really is just housekeeping. >> It's exactly what we've been doing with

[34:47] a ordinance that goes with it.

[34:53] » Right. We're and we're not the only city. There are a bunch of us out there

[34:57] that have to do some housekeeping on this this audit cycle.

[35:03] » Just for clarity, chief, anyone that has any access to a terminal that has sieges

[35:09] information has to be cleared. Correct. That's why you have to do it for right

[35:13] alongs because you have NDTs in the cars and have to be cleared to be access in

[35:18] the same access point as that terminal to actually access the terminal. It it

[35:22] goes beyond what this does. Um, this wasn't wouldn't affect that, but we

[35:25] fingerprint them and and do all kinds of stuff. So,

[35:28] » guess my concern is are we telling these folks, we're going to do a background

[35:31] check on you? >> Yes. Yes.

[35:33] » So, they know like, oh, maybe I don't want to work in your building,

[35:36] » right? Yeah. And we've had that. That's okay.

[35:40] » Don't want to go on a ride along. >> We've had that, too. And that's okay.

[35:44] » Okay. >> Hearing is that we're not really

[35:46] changing anything in the way we do business. We're just putting in writing,

[35:51] » right? We're just uh they've they've decided that we weren't in we're not in

[35:56] compliance along with a bunch of other government entities,

[36:00] right? And we're getting into compliance. If we don't comply, then we

[36:03] can't do it. If we continue to do it, they take away our access to that

[36:07] system, which means if something was stolen, we couldn't put it in the system

[36:10] as stolen. So,

[36:13] » and how many years or months and how many how long do you have to hold on to

[36:19] this paperwork? >> I'd have to look at the ordinance. It's

[36:22] it's written into there. >> Is that something new, too?

[36:26] » The the retention's not new. >> Okay.

[36:33] » Other questions for Chief Mock?

[36:38] » The retention's three years. Councelor Bus

[36:41] for a for a non non-hire rights for forever for a or for

[36:46] » Okay. >> Yeah. So like for a vendor or volunteer

[36:49] is three years. For a hire it's permanent.

[36:56] » Thank you.

[37:03] » All right. Any more questions on ordinance 1928?

[37:08] Not all declare it passed its first reading. Let's move on to resolutions.

[37:12] Uh resolution 3577 repealing resolution 3440.

[37:19] » Yep. Thank you. Um so resolution 3440 was a resolution that established the

[37:25] stop sign on northbound 11s at the intersection of Ellendell. Um so you

[37:31] remember when we did a temporary measure to uh help the traffic flow there before

[37:34] we signalized that intersection. Um we adopted a resolution to install that

[37:38] stop sign. Uh now that the signal is there um there's no need for the stop

[37:42] signs. In fact the stop signs don't exist anymore. So um we're we are

[37:46] repealing the resolution that established that northbound stop sign.

[37:50] We don't have a resolution for the east west stop signs. Um those have been

[37:53] around long enough uh that they didn't have a resolution. And so, uh, this

[37:57] resolution simply repeals 3440. Um, we're just doing some cleanup work on

[38:03] the records. >> Questions? If not, I'll ask the city

[38:08] recorder to take a roll call vote. >> Councelor Spivey,

[38:11] » yes. >> Council President Briggs,

[38:14] » yes. >> Councelor Berentos,

[38:16] » yes. >> Councelor Blosser,

[38:18] » yes. >> Councelor Fitzgerald, Council Holes

[38:21] Apple, >> yes.

[38:23] » Councelor Schilling, >> yes.

[38:24] » Councelor Shane, >> yes.

[38:27] All right, it passes unanimously. Is there any other discussion tonight?

[38:32] Not, we'll declare the meeting closed at 7:37.

8/17/26 City Council Meeting

Transcript