[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.