[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:04] Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome you to the Gretchen City Council work session. This is the work session, so we don't take any vote, sir, any public comment. We just make sure that we do have a quorum of the City Council, and we do. There are going to be some folks joining us, also online here, momentarily, as we hopefully are able to get that situated. And it's good to see so many people here this afternoon. I know the topic of stormwater is really interesting.
[0:33] So thank you for coming off.
[0:36] I was like the other day I was on a plane to Portland and the pilot said, yeah, we should
[0:40] be landing in Seattle in just a few minutes and you saw everybody's head turn and look
[0:44] at each other like the DC Seattle and then of course the flight attendant corrected at moments
[0:48] later.
[0:49] But as you all know, we have our fire district study follow up in future fire service delivery
[0:54] conversation.
[0:55] So with that, we've got a group of folks right here and I'm going to turn it over to our
[1:00] our fearless leader, Eric Schmidt, with a laugh, maybe I should have said fearful.
[1:07] We are fearless leader, Eric Schmidt, our city manager, and of course, he can introduce
[1:13] everybody else that is at the table with him, which we all know.
[1:17] So Eric, take the way.
[1:19] Thank you, Mayor.
[1:20] And good afternoon, Mayor, Council President and City Councilors.
[1:24] I'm Eric Schmidt, your city manager.
[1:25] And with joining me today for the presentation is to my right is Chief Derek Minard.
[1:32] We also have Larry Morgan, Assistant City Manager and John Horvick with DHM Research.
[1:38] And I guess first I want to kind of say this is our first day back from Council recess for
[1:44] summer.
[1:45] But it's also our first day where we have some new technology within the space here.
[1:49] So hopefully between our mics and our video and things like that, it's going to be just
[1:55] to much more streamlined experience overall for everybody.
[1:58] So thank you for your time this afternoon.
[2:01] This is, as you mentioned, Mayor.
[2:03] This is a follow-up from our July first meeting,
[2:07] but we're going to get into a little bit more detail
[2:09] around fire department service options.
[2:12] And before I do want to stop and recognize everybody
[2:15] that has joined us, but specifically our firefighters,
[2:18] we have a strong contingent of firefighters.
[2:20] I'm not sure I can't see them.
[2:21] What color shirts do they have them?
[2:22] Okay, but I want to thank them all for being here and thank them for their service each day for the city.
[2:30] So for today's meeting, the agenda is going to be as follows. I'm going to provide a brief recap
[2:35] from July 1st work session of what was presented that day. I'll also then get into the summary of
[2:41] the city manager's meetings that we've had over the month of July and into August. I'll then talk
[2:47] a little bit more about options for Council consideration.
[2:51] And then Larry and John are going to present the findings from some additional fieldwork
[2:56] done with DHM research, and then I'll talk about next steps and then open them up for
[3:01] conversations amongst Council and any questions we might be able to answer.
[3:08] So as a recap from July 1, these slides are the same slides that you saw on July 1.
[3:14] I just wanted to say welcome back from summer recess and let me refresh everybody where we were at
[3:19] So council had asked for a fire district analysis to be conducted
[3:24] We did that analysis with Marina and company and this is the scope that was included
[3:32] It really spoke about the again financial analysis looking at administrative and operational cost
[3:39] Property tax rate calculation compression impacts and implementation timeline
[3:45] The analysis assumptions, again, as we mentioned on July 1st, this was illustrative only.
[3:52] This was a snapshot in time that had a myriad of assumptions that went into it.
[3:58] So it was meant to be able to provide a contextual mathematical financial analysis at a certain
[4:04] point in time for certain assumptions.
[4:07] They also, again, it kind of assumed that we would, the model would be Gresham would form a city
[4:14] of Gresham limits fire district and we would continue to provide service contracts to the
[4:20] three cities as well as district 10. It also looked at two different staffing scenarios. One was
[4:26] what we considered baseline that was really current service level and one was looking at an enhanced
[4:32] service model with an additional station, an additional personnel, and equipment that goes with that.
[4:38] It also had an assumption that it was looking at rates that would sustain a 10 year projection.
[4:44] So it doesn't mean it was permanently sustainable, but it was looking at a window of time to be able to come back and say, well,
[4:50] this is probably in the neighborhood of what it would take.
[4:55] The two scenarios, again, it was mentioned, scenario one, baseline operations, current staffy levels.
[5:00] scenarios 2 was what was labeled enhanced future growth.
[5:07] The baseline operations, as you may recall, came back into a scenario where it talked
[5:12] about a tax rate needing to support that over a 10-year horizon of a military of $373 per
[5:19] thousand dollars of assessed value.
[5:23] At the enhanced future growth, with additional station and everything that goes with that, we
[5:29] We're looking at approximately $4.69 for a proposed tax rate.
[5:36] The other thing that was important that we provided on July 1st was some context and information for
[5:43] everybody, really, about how the property taxes work and the formula that goes into it.
[5:49] Because there was a lot of focus on a number, a milligrate, X amount per thousand.
[5:54] And we wanted to make sure that there was context about what that meant.
[5:58] So, if you look at that formula, if you are in a district A, district B scenario comparing
[6:04] that, if you're trying to get to a same number, and this is, again, just an example, $35
[6:10] million, if you have a higher overall taxable assessed value, you have a lower overall
[6:19] milligrate and the converse is true as well. So you have a lower taxable assessed value overall.
[6:27] That means it requires a higher milligrate to generate the same amount of revenue.
[6:37] So as we, that was July 1st, and Council at that time asked for some additional follow-up from that meeting
[6:46] and needed some time to kind of digest everything from the district analysis study.
[6:51] In the meantime, what we also started to do is, in earnest, the four city managers and
[6:57] the fire chief in our respective other budget finance folks, we started to meet regularly.
[7:03] We met four times at all point two here in just a moment.
[7:07] And so I want to first stop for a moment and acknowledge and send my appreciation to the
[7:14] other three city managers that were involved.
[7:16] They are two of them are here today.
[7:18] So Greg Derks with the city of Wood Village, Nathan George, the city of Fairview, and Ray
[7:24] Young, the city of Troutdale, but he's kind of retired so he came this morning for a
[7:29] little bit of a preview, but he's not going to be able to make it today.
[7:33] But nonetheless, I really appreciate the time that we all spent together.
[7:39] And so one of the things that I want to point out is that throughout all the conversations
[7:44] we've had with the cities over the past many, many months, despite any kind of communications, etc.
[7:51] What I'm hearing very clear from the three cities is there is absolutely strong support and appreciation for our
[7:56] aggression fire department, our firefighters and the quality of service they receive.
[8:01] The things that are coming into question are really from a business perspective only,
[8:06] where it's talking about just math and numbers and budgets and trying to make it work in a broader perspective,
[8:13] but absolutely support our fire department
[8:15] and very appreciative of the service they received.
[8:19] As I mentioned, the conversations that we had
[8:22] over the past month had been very collaborative and productive.
[8:26] And I think that while this came out earlier this year,
[8:30] it was emphasized and wanted to make sure and communicate
[8:35] that from the three cities perspectives,
[8:37] and I asked them if it was okay if I made sure
[8:39] they were comfortable with what I was presenting.
[8:42] That there is absolutely a strong desire to partner with Gresham on pursuing a district service model with recognition and interest to explore a further bridge extension of our existing IGA.
[8:53] And that said, the three cities in their own choices, decisions, deliberations with their mayors and councils,
[9:02] they still remain committed to their long-term desire to pursue a district model for their respective cities.
[9:10] So you might ask the question why I have answers so why are the three cities interested in joining a district from their perspective their needs so three primary objectives in their decision making process.
[9:24] One is they're looking to remove the costs for providing fire services from their ongoing general fund budgets to make way for other investments within their respective cities.
[9:35] Secondly, from their perspective, they're interested in having more of a voice and decisions
[9:39] affecting fire service delivery for their communities.
[9:43] And lastly, they're wanting to improve overall response times with, again, potentially an
[9:49] additional fire station or just an overall principle and goal of improving overall response
[9:55] times within their communities.
[9:59] As a summary of the meetings we had, we met on four times, July 2nd, July 24th, August
[10:06] August 6th and August 13th. The July 2nd meeting was our initial meeting. We discuss goals
[10:12] and outcomes and we develop a list of potential service model options. On July 24th, we met
[10:20] with representatives from Fire District 10. August 6th, we met with representatives from
[10:25] Clackamas Fire District 1. And on August 13th, we met with representatives from IAFF. After
[10:32] After that, the city managers then debriefed overall about the meetings that had happened
[10:37] to date and proposed next steps about how we would move forward with our respective
[10:41] city councils.
[10:45] In no particular order, these are the options that we kind of brainstormed on the table.
[10:52] And there may be more, but these are the ones that we came up with, at least that give
[10:56] not about the possibilities, not necessarily the ones that would move forward.
[11:01] So, first option is the Marina & Company scenario that you saw within the July 1st District
[11:10] Analysis whereby we would form our own aggression forms in a new district within its own geographic
[11:16] boundaries and continue to contract services with the three cities and fire district 10.
[11:21] Second option, aggression fire remains with the city and continues contract services with
[11:27] the three cities and fire district 10, basically a status quo model as we have it right now.
[11:34] Number three, Gresham Fire remains with the city and continues contract service of the
[11:38] fire district 10.
[11:39] The three cities would move to their own fire district model on their own.
[11:44] Another option is all four cities agree to move towards the district and explore the potential
[11:49] of annexing with a full service fire district 10.
[11:55] Number five, all four cities agreed to move towards establishing a new district and that new
[12:02] district would continue to contract services with Fire District 10.
[12:07] Number six, all four cities and Fire District 10 agreed to move towards establishing a new
[12:13] Fire District overall.
[12:15] Some of this plays into future research that we have done around Fire District 10 and those
[12:20] kinds of things, some questions that have come up.
[12:22] Number seven, all four cities agreed to move towards a fire district model and explore the potential partnership and future or future annexation with an existing fire entity.
[12:35] And at fire entity could be an existing district, it could be some other model that we haven't fully recognized or brainstormed quite yet.
[12:43] And number eight is the option that we all agree we needed to note that we also agreed we really hope it wouldn't get to that place.
[12:52] But really trying to anticipate the many permutations that could happen if one or more the city's pursue a fire district or even if all four cities pursue a district and only one or or a couple of those cities don't pass the annexation vote or they do so what would happen to those scenarios.
[13:13] So those are those are the eight kind of again brainstorm options that we came up with.
[13:19] From the meetings we had amongst the city managers, the debrief, and knowing where the three cities are.
[13:26] Again, their long-term desire to be able to explore a fire district, et cetera, really those eight options really came down to four.
[13:36] And in some respects, it's really two.
[13:38] So one option is, Gresham remains with the city, sorry, Gresham fire remains with the city, continuing contract service with District 10.
[13:46] the three cities, again, would move to their own fire district model or seek service elsewhere.
[13:53] Or really, it's about either the Gresham fire stays with the city, or we look at exploring
[14:00] more of a district model.
[14:02] If it's a district model, the options are pursuing a district for fire district 10, or a new
[14:10] fire district or potential annexation with an existing fire entity.
[14:17] So that's a lot of information.
[14:19] Let me then just kind of say, I mean, it's kind of the same, but I'm going to flip it
[14:24] a little bit and just say, okay, so, for Gresham Council consideration today, same kind
[14:30] of thing, but I just put letters inside of numbers.
[14:33] So option A. So option A, Gresh, again, city of Gresham retains fire department, our
[14:40] Our existing IGA is effective through June 30th, 2026, so all indications are if we wanted
[14:49] to keep the fire department, the three cities would, again, probably earnestly pursue other
[14:53] options on their own from a financial business perspective.
[14:57] Option B is
[15:00] City aggression pursues a fire, fire district service model. And again, with that, there's three potential doors. Fire District 10, new fire district, or annexation with an existing fire entity.
[15:14] Now, so a little bit of pros and cons, not exhaustive by any means, not full SWAT analysis in terms of each option. My goal today is to present high level, and from here, seek council direction about
[15:31] potentially the next steps that they would like us to pursue.
[15:34] So retaining the city fire department, option A, pros, remains part of city services provided
[15:40] to the community, that sense of pride of ownership.
[15:44] There's direct control and oversight through city council, benefits the economy of skills within
[15:49] city administration and overall internal services for city operations, not to mention ongoing
[15:55] collaboration with other city departments and service delivery to the community.
[16:00] Cons, big one, ongoing reoccurring costs are unsustainable long-term given the current
[16:07] financial model.
[16:09] There's also ongoing budget prioritization challenges between fire, police, parks,
[16:14] planning, economic development, code enforcement, and all other programs that are supported by
[16:19] the General Fund.
[16:21] And with if the cities do choose to go on their own in this scenario, amongst other things,
[16:28] It does definitely create some mutual aid challenges, which could negatively impact public safety and overall service to the community.
[16:36] So, again, high-level pros cons.
[16:39] For a district model, they each get a slide.
[16:43] So, pros of a district model, I appreciate Chief Bernard put some of these together and working with some consultants on this.
[16:50] So, stable, equitable funding, dedicated property tax provides consistent and fair funding across all communities.
[16:56] Local representation of governance, the elected board has a singular focus on fire services with representation from all participating cities.
[17:07] Fiscal autonomy and strategic planning, so again independence from city budget, it allows for some long term planning, capital investment and resource stability,
[17:17] again with a singular focus of fire department and fire services.
[17:23] Operational and administrative efficiency, again, in that vein of a single focus around
[17:28] fire helps consolidate staffing and set staffing equipment and admin support to meet the
[17:34] current and future service demands specifically to fire.
[17:38] Service delivery unified structure could enhance coordination, response times, training, and
[17:43] resource deployment.
[17:44] And public accountability, again, singular focus on fire services related to reporting requirements,
[17:50] open meetings and community involvement to promote trust and transparency.
[17:57] General cons for a fire district model, it is potentially your most certainly an increased tax burden.
[18:03] So establishing a new district introduces a separate property tax levy for residents.
[18:09] It does have a significant start up in administrative costs.
[18:13] Transition requires legal, financial, and operational investments in governance systems and personnel.
[18:19] Revenue growth limitations, Oregon's laws, restrict property tax growth, requiring careful,
[18:27] long term financial planning, reliance on voter approval, formation, and any future levy
[18:33] increases depends on successful ballot majors. So again, that can create some potential funding
[18:39] uncertainty. There can be political and intergovernmental complexities between districts and cities
[18:48] and how they each govern and how they each relate to the community and how they get things solved.
[18:55] And again, it goes with the significant startup and some transition process quite a bit involved
[19:01] with transferring assets, integrating staff, and aligning operations across jurisdictions.
[19:07] It's a little complex and it can be time intensive.
[19:13] So I think what I want to be able to do is really highlight this.
[19:16] From a fire district model perspective, patients is a virtue.
[19:22] Every one, every consultant we have spoken to, including whether it's Marina, whether it's
[19:28] AP Triton, and whether it's other folks that have had a district or be involved in a district,
[19:34] it takes several years for this to really become real.
[19:40] And it can take anywhere from two to five years or more.
[19:44] What I'm showing on the screen here is not an exhaustive list of all the steps that would have to take place to actually realize a district, but I'm kind of highlighting at least some chronological, gosh, what would we need to do to get where we needed to go holistically?
[20:00] So the first line I apologize, it isn't red, maybe it's a little bit different to see.
[20:04] So Council identifies a need for a high level district financial study.
[20:08] That's completed. That was presented on July 1st.
[20:12] Second, some initial engagement polling with the community that will be presented here today
[20:17] in just a few moments.
[20:19] From here, a lot of it really is like there needs to be some additional district financial
[20:24] and feasibility analysis done, and it really depends on the level of that, but we believe
[20:29] that can be done fairly timely to be able to address the four cities needs to make some
[20:35] decisions here in the coming months.
[20:36] But, again, that's really as directed by Council, Councils, in this case because there's four.
[20:44] We also would anticipate an additional work session in conversations with the Councils,
[20:49] all of them, additional polling and community outreach that you have to check in on.
[20:54] There needs to be policy decisions and direction by multiple councils to be able to officially move forward on this.
[21:03] ongoing collaboration needed between the city managers, the city councils, IAFF, and key stakeholders.
[21:10] Evaluation from each entity about respective financial offsets, if any, for a district model.
[21:18] What I mean by that is at the end of the day, each jurisdiction has to have a separate vote around an annexation.
[21:26] And with that, each jurisdiction is going to, in each city council is going to have to answer the question individually about, okay, if I am the city of Gresham, and we want to go out for a vote for an annexation as a community member, what does that mean for me?
[21:47] What does that mean for leveraging an additional tax for a fire district?
[21:54] And is the city willing to do anything else to help offset that increase?
[21:59] So in for a for a Gresham, it would be, well, what does that mean for our existing police fire parks fee?
[22:05] What does that mean for our existing levy that the operating levy that we have in motion right now?
[22:11] And what does it mean potentially for our permanent rate that we have?
[22:14] not that we would lower our permanent rate, but councils can make decisions about assessing less than the permanent rate.
[22:23] So, that's just Gresham, every the other three cities would also have to do that same exercise.
[22:29] So, again, there's just some complexities that just takes the time.
[22:38] Again, ongoing strategic community education information, I'm talking about that here, even more in just a few moments.
[22:44] put forward ballot measures for annexation related to a fire district in all cities, and then if all that's approved, then the real work begins, because there's still a lot of work to do in transition, especially for Gresham, because we have the staffing, the purge liabilities, the assets, the stations, the physical part of things, so it's definitely for Gresham, there's a lot to it.
[23:11] So with that what I wanted to do is I am actually going to turn it over now to Larry to kind
[23:19] of introduce the topic and some additional work that was done and then also to have John
[23:23] Horvick present his findings.
[23:25] Thanks, Eric.
[23:26] Mayor Council, Larry Morgan.
[23:29] We conducted what is going to be I think our third either focus group or fuel polling this
[23:38] last couple of weeks, including here about a week ago.
[23:42] In the survey, we tested a series of questions, ideas, concepts, not just about fire or
[23:49] fire service, but more globally on several items.
[23:53] We also did testing in the three other jurisdictions as well, to get a barometer of where we were
[24:00] at with fire service, delivery of service, and get kind of a baseline globally where we're
[24:06] at.
[24:06] The polling that you will see doesn't guide or steer, it's really designed to really probe and get kind of a backdrop of where we're at globally.
[24:16] And hopefully get inside the minds of voters as it relates to where we're at overall.
[24:22] I would note that as John will go through this, we did the same approach during the levy where numbers may have looked a certain way and we had a different outcome.
[24:32] Ultimately, the policy outcomes and decisions that we will make are in your hands, but this
[24:37] was designed to inform and hopefully get a better idea globally where we're at.
[24:41] With that, I'll turn over to John.
[24:45] All right.
[24:46] Thank you very much, John Harvey.
[24:47] Senior Vice President at DHM Research.
[24:49] It is a pleasure to be back here and to have had the opportunity once again to ask the members
[24:54] of Gresham but also the other three cities about their communities.
[24:58] I'm going to walk through the survey results as Larry just said.
[25:02] I do want to also emphasize what he said.
[25:06] So we go through these, I really, I would encourage all of us to think that not to see these
[25:11] results not as predictive or where things will be in the future, but to be clear right
[25:15] about where we're starting.
[25:17] So if things maybe look disappointing from your perspective or encouraging from your perspective,
[25:23] know that there are opportunities in the days and months and years to come to talk to the
[25:28] community about these issues and educate them and form them, persuade them if it may be.
[25:34] So this is just what we're starting, not necessarily what we're headed.
[25:38] So with that, we're going to walk through these survey results.
[25:41] So just to reiterate what we're doing, we're trying to assess whether satisfaction is to
[25:46] these services.
[25:47] We want to put this issue into context of how folks are feeling about fire, and you're going
[25:53] to see that numbers are really good.
[25:55] But that's going to inform how we think about the rest of the results as well.
[25:59] Then we wanted to create a gauge support for the creation below the fire district and the
[26:02] city's aggression for our view of Trauddale and Wood Village.
[26:06] The small print here, but what we did was serve by 550 voters across the four cities.
[26:14] We surveyed 400 in the city of Gresham and 150 in the other cities.
[26:22] Now, the number is there as a 4.29 and then kind of some other numbers around.
[26:28] The reason that sends that is when we look at the total results, we statistically waited
[26:34] the community's proportion to their size.
[26:37] So, when we look at the overall results, Gresham or Troutdale isn't under or over represented
[26:45] in the results.
[26:46] We did try to maximize the number of completes what we could get across the additional three cities.
[26:53] And aggression's bigger, and so we're able to get more completes in aggression than we are in the other cities.
[26:58] We made a good faith, best effort attempt to hear from as many representative people across the three additional cities as in aggression as well.
[27:06] And hopefully that's reflective in the results here.
[27:08] Of course, we work real hard to ensure the representative sample, so we take all the steps.
[27:13] We set quotas essentially to ensure that we have the right number of people across our
[27:17] demographic groups, areas of the community, age, gender, et cetera, to ensure that we have
[27:22] a representative sample, the margins of error there, if you have questions about the methodology
[27:26] we happen to answer them.
[27:28] But let's get into the results.
[27:30] Anytime you start a survey like this, it's really important to ask some general questions,
[27:34] one, just to get a baseline of the attitudes.
[27:36] How are people thinking globally, generally,
[27:39] about their communities?
[27:40] And then we'll think about how does that inform
[27:42] there are millions of the key questions that we're asking?
[27:45] Also, it's important to ask a simple question
[27:47] at the start of a survey, because if they answer the first one,
[27:50] they're likely to complete the survey.
[27:51] And the first question's complicated.
[27:53] They're likely not to hang on and they're with us.
[27:55] So it's been a bad.
[27:56] The classic question you've seen this before,
[27:58] is we ask where things have been the right direction
[27:59] or they off on the wrong track.
[28:01] If we look across all the communities, 41% said right direction, 33% said wrong track.
[28:07] It is lower in aggression than it is in other parts of the city, or other parts of the community
[28:11] that we asked about.
[28:12] So the other cities outside of aggression were more positive than aggression itself.
[28:17] In the full report and I can go through it today, we did ask follow-up questions about why people
[28:22] felt that the city said in the right direction, or why they felt that things were off on the
[28:26] wrong track.
[28:27] When people who said that things were in the right direction really commented around improvements
[28:31] It's the safety improvements around homelessness
[28:33] or some key issues that they called out.
[28:36] Concerns, again, have also have to do with homelessness
[28:38] and crime, but we did, that's been requested
[28:41] by this council in the past and we did do that
[28:43] in the surveillance and the full report.
[28:45] Just for some context, you know, DATMs asking Oregonians,
[28:48] of course, the direction of the state all the time,
[28:50] this is just some trend lines over the course
[28:51] of the last five years.
[28:53] The wrong track there is an orange, the right direction
[28:55] is in blue, our most recent ceremony,
[28:57] we actually got that right direction above
[28:59] of the wrong track for the first time in quite a while,
[29:02] so there is a little bit of pickup and positivity,
[29:05] but just helps us put in the context
[29:06] for Gresham and other communities
[29:09] how it fits with the rest of the state.
[29:11] We do ask, in this movement of asking other surveys,
[29:15] for folks to just tell us what's
[29:16] the most important problem facing Gresham
[29:20] or track dealer would village, et cetera,
[29:21] wherever they were.
[29:23] This is an open-ended question.
[29:24] People can say anything that they want.
[29:26] We pay attention, listen, read all of their comments and try to put them into meaningful
[29:31] categories.
[29:33] Often, what's important is to pay attention to what's mentioned the most.
[29:36] In the context of our conversation today, I think this is important to pay attention to
[29:40] what's not mentioned, and what's not mentioned is fire.
[29:44] Fire is not one of the things that people have said was the most important problem to address.
[29:49] Being a senior second, I think it's largely because people are very satisfied about the
[29:55] overall results and look at the so the ballot measure questions you know part of
[30:00] What we're asking them to consider in the survey is to change something that they're not identifying as a problem. So, fire did not come up as a top issue. The things that did come up are the sorts of things that we've seen in the past. Grand public safety, homelessness, roads, traffic, transportation. All right. So now we're going to get to fire in a version of these services. So we asked about if they were satisfied, very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or very dissatisfied with some services.
[30:29] fire, police, roads and transportation. Of course, in this survey, we're primarily interested
[30:35] about fire, but to have some other services helps us put into context. And 81% across the three
[30:43] communities said that they were satisfied with their fire service. This is about as high,
[30:48] and 50% said they're very satisfied. This is about as high as you can get. In an environment where
[30:53] people are distrustful and dissatisfied with about government in general, here, we got aid out of
[31:02] So again, this ties back to that open-ended question.
[31:05] They didn't mention fire as a problem to address and
[31:08] 8 out of 10 are satisfied with the service.
[31:11] So again, they're going to answer our questions about a
[31:14] fire district in the context of they're like in what they're
[31:17] getting right now.
[31:19] If we look at the comparisons between
[31:23] aggression and other cities, here I'm not breaking out the individual
[31:26] cities so it's aggression versus the three cities
[31:28] combined, you see that satisfaction for fires a little bit higher in
[31:33] Gresham. That's the purple bar and then police and roads and
[31:39] transportation a little bit lower in Gresham. These differences are not
[31:42] statistically significant, so don't overinterpret them, but that they're
[31:46] important to share.
[31:50] Then we pushed them a little bit and asked about specific
[31:52] fire and emergency services and their level of confidence. So it's
[31:57] indicate how confident or not that your city that you live in, that fire an emergency response
[32:03] would quickly arrive in the following situations. Fire at your home, a medical emergency at your home,
[32:09] a wild fire in your community, an emergency involving hazardous materials. You can see, you know,
[32:16] strong majorities across all of these said that they're confident that they would be responded
[32:21] too quickly. Generally, where we see lower confidence, not because people are expressing
[32:26] that they're not confident.
[32:27] There's a thing they're unsure.
[32:29] This is something that they didn't feel
[32:30] like they had enough information to form an opinion about.
[32:33] But the backdrop, whether we ask about fire services broadly
[32:36] or we ask about specific fire and emergency response services,
[32:40] again, we see a lot of satisfaction
[32:41] and high levels of confidence.
[32:43] Those who have experienced interactions
[32:48] feel really good about what they experienced.
[32:51] So we did ask if they've had any actions
[32:55] with, again, the city that they live in,
[32:58] a fire department in the last 12 months,
[32:59] about one out of five, 20% so that they had.
[33:02] For those who said that they had,
[33:03] we asked the follow-up question, just tell us,
[33:05] do you know, was that a good or a poor experience?
[33:07] 94% so it was good, right?
[33:09] These are great numbers.
[33:11] These are terrific services you're delivering
[33:14] for your community.
[33:16] And so regardless of how people respond
[33:18] to the questions about the fire district,
[33:20] know that you're really performing well
[33:22] in the eyes of your residents
[33:23] when it comes to these services.
[33:26] BS, again, about some tax perceptions.
[33:29] One was a global question.
[33:32] You're getting good at poor value for the services
[33:34] considering the taxes that you're paying.
[33:36] Again, this is the combined results across all four communities.
[33:40] 42% said good, 51% said poor.
[33:45] So the fire district is going to come with a permanent rate
[33:49] or would come with permanent rates.
[33:50] So the context of how this value for the taxes for services is important here.
[33:55] And more people than not seem that they're getting poor value rather than good.
[34:00] And only 6% said very good.
[34:04] So that's about value services.
[34:08] We also asked, are you paying in your community, are your property taxes typically higher than other communities in the region?
[34:18] Are they about the same?
[34:20] Are they lower or gosh darn it, it's not sure.
[34:24] Now I know that Gresham in particular has a low permanent tax rate,
[34:28] but in Gresham 42% of that they're paying higher property taxes
[34:32] and other communities in the region.
[34:35] The other communities that we surveyed 36% said higher,
[34:39] just fewer than one of the tens of that they're lower.
[34:43] So again, when we ask them about a new permanent rate,
[34:45] They're answering that question with the mindset of that they're already paying higher property taxes in other parts of the community, other parts of the region.
[34:55] And then we asked, I didn't not share in here that there's overall results, but we asked to best keep your knowledge.
[35:01] This is, again, the city you live and have the resources it needs to provide high quality fire and emergency response services.
[35:09] So, this is more specific, not just, you know, good and good value or paying higher
[35:12] little property taxes, does your community have enough resources to provide fire services
[35:19] and a majority across all the communities we surveyed, Gresham with 59, 51% across the
[35:26] other three communities said yes, and substantially fewer said no.
[35:30] Of course, some people said they don't know as well.
[35:33] All right.
[35:36] Now, we're getting to the fire district testing.
[35:38] So we asked us a few times where we gave people more information along the way.
[35:43] The very first time we asked, this kind of think of it as like the title in the ballot.
[35:48] You get very little information and not very descriptive.
[35:51] We're just sort of kind of testing people's gut response, okay?
[35:54] And that's what this first test is.
[35:56] So the city's the text here was, the city's aggression, very good job doing the village.
[36:00] May ask residents to vote for the following measure in the next year.
[36:03] Shelter, Shelter Cities, Abgression, Fairview, Toronto, and Woodville just to establish a local district for fire services through a new permanent property tax.
[36:11] The option to work today when you support or oppose this measure.
[36:15] We're starting at 32% support, 51% oppose.
[36:19] Again, remember the context.
[36:21] They think that they're getting good value, excuse me, they're getting really good fire services today.
[36:27] And they don't think that they think that the paying higher taxes in other communities.
[36:32] And so put those two things together, I think it's just logical that someone say, why would I, why would I pay more for something?
[36:37] I feel like I'm getting really good service for it now.
[36:40] So that's what we're starting.
[36:41] But there's very little information there.
[36:44] For example, we didn't tell them about the benefits of the market.
[36:46] We didn't tell them about the property tax rate.
[36:48] There's lots of things that aren't included here.
[36:50] There's just sort of the guts where people are starting from where they've got.
[36:54] If we look at the various communities,
[36:57] Gresham specifically was a 30%. The other community is combined with 41. This is support.
[37:03] Now the margins of error for the individual communities are very large. And so, again,
[37:08] meet them with, you know, some caution, but 38% in fair view, 43% and
[37:16] Troutdale on 37% in wood knowledge.
[37:21] So then we gave them some more information. And I'm at the
[37:25] age where my eyes are not good enough to read that.
[37:28] So I'm going to look at that in my computer
[37:29] if you give me one second.
[37:40] So that gives people our voters some more information.
[37:43] So currently, the City of Gresham is
[37:44] this own fire department, so we're trying
[37:45] to put things in the context for folks.
[37:47] The City of Gresham is a fair-of-you-challot
[37:49] deal in the village, contract the City of Gresham
[37:50] to provide fire services in their communities,
[37:52] local fire services, and each of these communities
[37:54] are funded by allocations from the City's journal fund.
[37:57] These communities are considering changes
[37:59] to how they fund local fire services,
[38:01] one proposals to create a local district,
[38:03] which would be paid for by a new permanent property tax.
[38:07] The proposal would require support from voters in each of the four communities.
[38:10] So this is just trying to put into plain English basically what we saw before.
[38:15] Support increased to 3% from 3 to 38.
[38:19] So, you know, that's not nothing, but still well below 50.
[38:23] Opposition didn't change some of the don't know responses decreased.
[38:29] Again, if we break it out by Gresham and the other cities, you can see that there was
[38:34] a slight improvement in Gresham as well as in Fairview and Troutdale in a slight decrease
[38:39] in wood village.
[38:40] Again, margins are very quite large.
[38:43] Don't read too much into that.
[38:45] But we have the data, so we wanted to present it to you.
[38:48] And then we asked again,
[38:52] oops, with a little bit more information.
[38:56] We said creating the fire district will create a new form of local government with own permanent with student with its own property tax and government by its own elected officials.
[39:05] The property tax rate for the city that they lived and remain at its current rate.
[39:12] The property tax of the fire district will be an additional tax.
[39:15] So this is trying to separate out how this might work.
[39:18] Fiverr service is not expected to receive any additional funding beyond what they currently receive.
[39:23] However, city residents would have additional revenue that they could use to fund other city services such as police and parks.
[39:30] Given this information, we go back to 34% for support, 55% opposition.
[39:37] Still, we haven't talked about rates themselves, and so the last thing we did actually here are the results sort of again broken out by the communities.
[39:46] Again, aggression, 32, and then between 21 and 47% for the other three communities.
[39:54] Um, here we ask people about specific rates.
[39:58] These were intended to be sort of round numbers but consistent with the sorts of numbers that the city manager was talking about.
[40:04] So if you look at the, so that we asked would you support or oppose basically at these rates.
[40:09] If you look at the 350, that's sort of the mid range.
[40:14] We're at 23% support and what 70% opposed 55% strongly opposed.
[40:20] And we did, well, that's where we're at.
[40:25] We look at, it's 4.50, that's the higher, closer to the higher rate the city manager
[40:30] talked about, where it's 16% support and you can see the very large opposition, particularly
[40:35] the strong opposed.
[40:36] We also tested a rate 250, which is below the numbers that the city manager talked about
[40:40] because we wanted to be, we wanted to, like, no, is this, like, is it about cents?
[40:46] like we talk of nickel or five cents to move people or nickel or ten cents
[40:51] recorded in new people or if you drop it even a dollar does that move folks and
[40:54] there is some price sensitivity you can see at 250 you get to three two
[40:59] percent support but still well below the 50 percent threshold and then lastly we
[41:05] asked the regression voters should Gresham keep the current system or creating
[41:13] a new fire district, 60% of that was quo, 19% because that created a new district.
[41:19] Now again, we did, there's lots of information we didn't provide people.
[41:22] We didn't try to tell them all the wonderful benefits maybe you can come from a fire district
[41:26] who supports it and all the reasons why.
[41:29] Those things could be done in a campaign with further research, but also we just wanted
[41:34] to know like where does everybody can be on the same page and be clear about where folks
[41:38] starting at, and this information hopefully gives us that story at all.
[41:44] So my takeaways, Gresham has provided high quality fire services to the community service,
[41:48] and that's not something to minimize.
[41:50] That's a huge blessing for all the communities here.
[41:54] Voters believe that they're paying higher than average property taxes, and the Gresham
[41:58] already has revenue and needs to meet its fire services.
[42:01] And then three, given that people are satisfied with their fire services, and don't believe
[42:05] that more revenues needed, they don't see a reason to make a change, it's like yet, maybe
[42:10] that will be there in the future.
[42:13] Then sort of my bottom line, creating a fire district with a next year would be extremely
[42:17] challenging.
[42:18] Aggressions and its partner cities should view these results as a foundation for future efforts.
[42:23] Success requires sustained, long-term communication with residents to explain both the problems
[42:29] with the current system and the advantages of establishing a fire district.
[42:33] going forward. City leaders must present a unified front with consistent goals and messaging. Without clarity, voters are likely to be unlikely to change what the Army think is working well.
[42:45] And the city can't accomplish this alone. They're going to need a broad coalition of first partners who can elevate public awareness of the issue, collaborate effectively and contribute your own resources towards the end.
[42:57] So, with that, I will pause and also I'll just acknowledge my colleague, David Phan,
[43:01] who's here, who helped me quite a bit with this report.
[43:08] Thank you, John, and thank you, Larry, for that, and so I'll continue on now.
[43:14] We'll certainly have time for Q&A here in just a few minutes, Council.
[43:19] So I think what you heard from John with the research is that what is clearly needed overall
[43:28] Well, for Gresham, I can't speak for the three cities, although I think it's true, is a lot more information and education and outreach.
[43:36] I think we learned that best on the successful public safety levy, the Gresham past last year, where we took lessons learned from the previous time,
[43:48] flipped the communication strategy in a much different way and invited conversations in a different way than we had done before.
[43:56] And that I believe was one of the reasons why it ultimately passed because we brought the community in.
[44:05] I think to John's point right now, probably the vast majority of the community doesn't know that there's a problem because they call 911 and somebody comes.
[44:17] We know that there's challenges about the financial sustainability, but the average community member probably doesn't.
[44:24] and probably even, I'm guessing, a lot of them don't even understand the difference between a city-to-fired apartment and a district.
[44:32] So there's a lot of work that can be done and should be done as we potentially go forward based on council direction.
[44:39] So when we think about a fire district model, so what could we, the big W, what could we do in the meantime?
[44:47] You should have heard implementing a district model will take some time, two to five years if not more.
[44:52] The latest polling suggests that we do have a strong foundation to build from regarding
[44:57] interest in popularity slash quality.
[45:01] So, there is potential, but it will be an uphill climb with an adequate runway of time needed, helped to help build support. And as John mentioned, an effective coalition needed with Unified Keyword, collaborative messaging, visioning, desired outcomes, and goals that were all pointing in the same direction. And again, it's the big W. We. So, assuming our council, city council, because this is what I'm presenting.
[45:29] 74, assuming Gresham City Council ultimately supports advancing a fire, fire district model,
[45:36] what does that look like then?
[45:38] So knowing it's going to take time, one recommendation is to approach the three cities with the multi-year
[45:43] extension of our IGA as a bridge while all four cities earnestly collaborate together towards
[45:50] a common goal.
[45:52] This would help provide certainty and predictability to the four cities as well as to our fire department.
[46:00] If such an extension takes place, we think there are some potential pathways to help address
[46:06] the three cities needs during that bridge or interim time period.
[46:11] Again, what are their main concerns right now?
[46:15] So to that end, just a reminder, these are the three primary objectives that they had in
[46:20] their decision making process about why wanting to move to more of a fire district model for
[46:25] the three cities.
[46:27] So, for the first one, removing the costs, my answer is, well, it's not off the general
[46:32] fund ledger, a multi-year IGA extension does provide a level of certainty and predictability
[46:37] for several years for all four cities.
[46:40] Number two, interested in having more of a voice.
[46:44] One recommendation, this is not exhaustive, this is just, I'm throwing it out there as a
[46:48] suggestion, recommend either exploring a new council subcommittee of the finance committee
[46:54] as something we can talk about, what does that membership of that look like in terms of
[46:58] all four cities and key stakeholders, or is it with elected officials, or is it also
[47:04] or could it be a task force with a similar type of model?
[47:08] So I think that the devil's in the details of how to work through that on the other side
[47:12] based on council direction, and not only from us, but also the three cities.
[47:17] And I think for the third about response times, we're currently setting a lot of information
[47:23] a lot of data, but there could be potentially being able to add or realign service delivery
[47:29] to help improve response times while also helping to balance call volumes.
[47:33] So not prepared to say specifically what that looks like, but we are in the early stages of
[47:38] doing some of that analysis right now.
[47:44] So next steps based on council direction today,
[47:47] as a reminder, our current IGA has a goal that by December 31st of this year,
[47:52] All four cities will make respective decisions about how they each will move forward.
[47:58] The city manager conversations will continue, so my collaboration with the other three
[48:04] city managers will continue based on feedback and direction received today.
[48:09] And please keep in mind that the three city managers are also respectively having similar
[48:14] updates with their councils in the next couple of issue weeks.
[48:18] And then already, I've already reserved October 7th as a potential time for an additional
[48:26] work session conversation with Council, again based on Council's direction today.
[48:31] So with that, that concludes my, I'm sorry, the question is questions for Council today.
[48:36] As first one, does Council wish to direct staff to continue exploration of a fire district
[48:40] model and bring additional information back at a future work session?
[48:45] If so, does council have anything specific?
[48:48] They would like to be, they would want me to bring back in terms of information to help
[48:53] them make an informed decision about the future of fire services.
[48:56] And if so, does council wish to direct staff on any follow-up with the three cities?
[49:01] There are city managers and or city councils.
[49:04] And then, of course, always open to any other direction for staff.
[49:09] So that does conclude my presentation.
[49:12] And happy to answer any questions we can.
[49:13] Thank you.
[49:15] Thank you all for that, that's a lot of information.
[49:20] So appreciate all the work that goes into that chief, you are so vocal during that conversation.
[49:27] Wow.
[49:29] So Council, I'm sure we've got lots of questions that we have in front of us, but I probably
[49:37] do some a little different.
[49:38] I'm going to ask the council.
[49:39] So one of Eric's first questions, if you want to go back, is does the council wish direct
[49:46] staff to continue the exploration of a fire district model?
[49:50] As we ask questions, let's go ahead and as you ask questions, let's go ahead and kind
[49:55] of reference whether or not, you know, based on the questions that we're asking and let's
[49:59] give a little bit of direction on where you're at as an individual council member about
[50:04] what your thoughts are about moving forward.
[50:06] I think as we go through this, I'm sure we can take up the next two hours.
[50:11] We don't have that because we do have a council meeting, excuse me, a business meeting here later.
[50:16] But as we're having the conversation, as we're asking the questions, let's kind of state where we're sitting as individual councillors as we look to give direction to staff as we make the next steps.
[50:26] Okay, you know what?
[50:27] I'm probably going to just go down the line because I'm sure everybody probably has questions, so we'll start with council glad filter.
[50:33] Thank you so much for all of the information, all of the work, and I was listening to you on the phone on the way in, but I've heard every bit of it.
[50:42] I have several thoughts. I mean, it's been a long time coming. I'm so happy that we're all having the conversation together because truly to me the most important piece is not about who has the fire department.
[50:55] It's about our community safety for all of our citizens, right? That's what's most important to me.
[51:01] So, when I think about and I talk about this, this is the scope that I look at it with.
[51:06] It's not about who's going to have the fire department.
[51:10] But truly, I think a key point when I'm seeing and hearing what you talked about today,
[51:15] is people are saying they don't want a district as they think they equate that to more money.
[51:19] But we need to be clear that whichever way it's going to be, it's going to be more money.
[51:24] Because as we grow and continue to build up our services, it's going to cost more money.
[51:29] So my ask is, as we go on the road of finding, is it truly the best decision to go to a district or not?
[51:37] And I am in support of going down that road still, but I don't think I'm not there yet.
[51:42] Because we need to be clear with the community.
[51:44] Yes, we can make that decision of our own of saying we think this is a good idea.
[51:49] But I wouldn't be able to do that without really being really transparent with the community of what that means.
[51:55] because sure it might come off the books for the cities, but I still feel responsible
[52:00] to tell them what that does that mean either way, does that make sense?
[52:05] So I feel like I just want to make sure we're clear on that, that today's service levels
[52:09] are great and that's because we're here but as we grow and as needs grow, where are we going
[52:14] to have to be at if it stayed at the city so that it's a good comparison of what would
[52:19] that look like with the levy, or I'm not a levy, sorry, I'm stuck in my brain on that,
[52:22] with the fire district. Too many times of that one, right?
[52:26] Sorry.
[52:28] But anyway, I just appreciate the work. It's a lot and it's mind-boggling to move through
[52:34] all of those motions that it's going to take to get through it all, but I appreciate
[52:38] how hard you've been working on it. So those are my tickets. Thank you.
[52:42] Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Piazza.
[52:46] I would like to first ask, do you have any knowledge or information of any cities and
[52:52] Oregon or Washington that have done this, that have done multiple cities coming together at the same time to do one district.
[53:03] Thank you, Councillor, for the question. I am not aware of anything right now, but I'm certainly happy to do some more work to see if there's other examples that have done even in recent look.
[53:12] It just seems like it's a complicated situation because of the fact that we have multiple jurisdictions in here trying to come together as one.
[53:21] It does complicate it. Yeah, I'm not familiar with anything that's come together like this in this manner
[53:26] But when we look at
[53:28] Sandy and live stone they just went with Clackamas, but that's yeah, I really have it not coming together as we're trying to do here as one team
[53:35] Yeah, they came in individually after an established district was there, okay
[53:40] What a quick question on that does anybody know the origin of TVF. No, that's so that was multiple
[53:45] What about mayor and kind of looking out in the crowd? I mean it sounds like yes
[54:25] So that's not quite what you're asking to also Valley existed and then they joined so it's complex.
[54:36] Okay, and then on the scenario one, the baseline, you have a tax rate of 373, which is interesting
[54:46] since our tax base is 361.
[54:51] And so if we're saying the current fire operation, this is more of a clarification for everybody.
[54:58] This is higher than our current total 361.
[55:04] And then you go in and you say 469 on scenario 2.
[55:09] So can you just kind of go in and explain this a little bit why it's so much higher when we're
[55:14] already offering it at what seems to be a 361 rate?
[55:18] Thank you, Councillor for that question.
[55:21] I will do my best, but she's on vacation, but I'll do my best.
[55:27] So as you may recall, on July 1st, we talked about this a little bit, because when the numbers
[55:33] first came at 373, all of us took a step back and said, whoa, wait a minute.
[55:38] Our permanent rates 361, what does that mean?
[55:41] But as you break down, and you actually look at our fire department budget, and if you break
[55:47] down all the different revenue sources that go to help support the fire department.
[55:52] There is a portion of the 361 per thousand that goes to the fire department.
[55:57] There is a portion of the police fire parts fee revenue that goes to the fire department.
[56:02] There's a portion of the public safety levy that goes to the fire department.
[56:06] And there's several other kinds of those revenue sources that go to the fire department.
[56:11] When you aggregate that and then reverse calculate and say like, okay, if I took all of that and
[56:17] and put it to an equivalent milligrate,
[56:19] we came up with about 367 ish of a number,
[56:25] so in terms of what it cost to capture our current
[56:31] fiscal year fire department budget.
[56:34] The three, so in some respects, you're like,
[56:36] okay, so we get the 373 more,
[56:39] but keep in mind the 373 was also doing a 10 year projection
[56:44] that it was, in other words, what that would say is on the first several years of a district
[56:50] at 373, there would in theory be a surplus of revenue.
[56:55] But on the out years of a district, there would be a point which the curves would cross
[57:01] each other, and there would be a deficit, a need, a gap.
[57:07] And so it's basically saying, yes, over that life of a 10 year, you need 373 because there
[57:12] there will be highs and lows, and that's an average rate that they came up with.
[57:17] And a similar in terms of the 469 is taking that same methodology, but
[57:22] now including the cost of an additional station, the additional personnel that go in to support that station overall.
[57:30] Thank you.
[57:31] Is there any, I don't know if the word, it would be advantageous.
[57:38] would it be, in your opinion, would it be less expensive for a district to run the fire
[57:44] versus a city to run the fire?
[57:47] I think that's, based on the council direction today, I think that's some additional analysis
[57:55] that we want to be able to, that we would like to be able to run through.
[57:59] So for instance, again, to almost a council or a cloud filters question like, well, okay,
[58:05] So, how would Gresham do this?
[58:08] Again, the discretion.
[58:09] What are the levers that our council can push or pull
[58:12] as it relates to the PFPP, the Levy, et cetera?
[58:17] Our budget and finance team is currently working
[58:20] and getting real close to finalizing a pretty sophisticated
[58:24] spreadsheet to be able to run some different financial
[58:27] scenarios about what that looks like.
[58:29] Not quite done yet, but that would be what I would want
[58:31] to be able to do.
[58:32] Should council give me direction to continue forward today
[58:35] and I would bring that information in collaboration with the three cities, bring that information back to council in a work session here that I'm looking for in early October.
[58:46] Okay. And then have you thought about a process in this of like we would one city go to the voters first or would the three cities go to the voters before question went to the voters because if one does it.
[59:05] approve it. Is there a point of going on? I don't know how that would work, but have you thought about a process in which you would think that would be the best way to do it?
[59:15] I think the, yes, short answer is yes. The longer answer is, again, there's a lot of permutations that can happen with this. I think that, ultimately, if our City Council and the four in the three City Councils come together and agree about a potential direction around the fire district,
[59:33] then I think some work needs to happen about, well, how do we do that together?
[59:38] And what are the different steps in the different decision making points for each respective council?
[59:43] And that gets into a little bit of that complexity, it's not just one city council.
[59:47] And to your point, what does that look like in terms of timing to go to a district?
[59:51] And that might depend on which type of district you're wanting to pursue.
[59:56] Again, a brand new district.
[59:57] Is it something with fire district 10?
[1:00:00] Or is it a different fire, a different fire entity? So, for instance, District 10 has an established rate. We know what that rate is. There needs to be additional analysis that talks about, well, okay, so it's 285,000 going to work, overall to help support current, current, and or future needs of our fire department, and if not, then what does that look like? We would, again, based on whatever direction today, if it is to move forward, then that would be one of the next conversations is to explore that with District 10.
[1:00:28] and appreciate Mike being here, so I think you might,
[1:00:31] but be able to really talk about some of that stuff
[1:00:33] to be able to analyze it.
[1:00:34] And again, bring more information back
[1:00:36] to all four city councils.
[1:00:38] So you can say yes, it is plausible,
[1:00:40] or it's not plausible with a 285 per thousand.
[1:00:43] Is there a gap, is there a surplus?
[1:00:44] What does that look like as it relates
[1:00:45] to our current service budget for fire department?
[1:00:49] And everything we look at is again, a snapshot in time.
[1:00:52] This is like everything we might come in October
[1:00:54] is based on current year, fiscal year, 25, 26.
[1:01:00] And as we have time and we look, to your point about,
[1:01:03] well, is it cheaper to stay with the city or not?
[1:01:06] That would be another scenario that I would plan to bring.
[1:01:09] As I mentioned, that is an option that the Gresham could decide,
[1:01:12] yeah, we want to hold on to our apartment.
[1:01:14] Well, what does that look like?
[1:01:15] Because, again, the three cities for their own reasons,
[1:01:18] may still choose to move on their own.
[1:01:21] But we can talk about the pros and cons of what that looks like
[1:01:23] from a service delivery model, from a peer budget financial perspective, then that is
[1:01:31] a scenario where I would want to bring back additional information specifically to
[1:01:35] that to say, if it is a city fire department, this is what it looks like financially as
[1:01:40] we go forward. Here's the gaps and struggles and opportunities or needs relating to that
[1:01:46] to create a sustainable model. And then again, for a district similarly, there may be a few
[1:01:52] different options around that to bring just more detailed financial information to the council.
[1:01:57] Okay so I'll let others go on and ask questions but I would say that I I'm still in support of
[1:02:05] continuing to look at the district model. I do believe that part of maybe part of the reason we're
[1:02:13] all looking at this today is because of having to negotiate the most recent contract and where things
[1:02:19] were with that, and I understand that when you're, when you have a contract with an organization,
[1:02:28] you don't get, you don't get to decide who, who the head of that organization is being in the
[1:02:33] food business. When I had a contract with somebody like Cisco, I don't get to make any choices on who's
[1:02:38] on their board. But this is a little bit different, and I could see especially where you talked about
[1:02:43] starting another committee and a finance, something to start sooner than later so that we have
[1:02:51] voices talking to each other and working together and listening to each other. So I think that
[1:02:57] would be good even to get going. I think if we're looking at that district model from everything you've
[1:03:03] put in here, it is probably three to five years before it can even go forth. So obviously we'd have to
[1:03:10] about sooner than that, but if they said yes, it's going to take that long.
[1:03:13] So negotiating a probably a two year, hopefully, contract with the three cities why we're in this process
[1:03:21] also would help in cutting back the time that the city is doing.
[1:03:26] It's like if you have to negotiate every year, you're constantly working on something.
[1:03:30] But if you're trying to move forward having a longer term negotiation on that interim contract,
[1:03:36] I believe would be a good idea.
[1:03:40] Thank you, Counselor. Councilor Heatley.
[1:03:44] A couple questions and then I'll share my comments. Number one is I am thrilled with the progression that we've made of all working together.
[1:03:54] I've said from the beginning that there are economies of scale and the interesting thing is having been around here for 30 years.
[1:04:01] This is not a new issue and we are not going to get out of it quickly.
[1:04:04] I also don't believe that it's going to be a one-time vote.
[1:04:08] I think it might be several, so we have to prepare for that.
[1:04:10] But a couple of questions in the survey, and you are the expert, John.
[1:04:15] Thank you for all of that work.
[1:04:17] One of the things that was so interesting for me, I happen to be one that took it, is when
[1:04:25] the question was, do you like the service the way it is?
[1:04:29] Well, the service isn't going to stay the way it is, because it's either going to increase
[1:04:32] in cost, or we're going to reduce services.
[1:04:35] So the question, I just wonder how that skewed potentially the rest of the results.
[1:04:42] It also, in light of everything that's particularly the survey, people have no idea.
[1:04:49] And frankly, they don't care.
[1:04:50] They don't care what color the engine is that's going to come to their door.
[1:04:54] And so that really is incumbent upon us to know as much as we can, and
[1:04:59] to find the best service for the lowest possible cost.
[1:05:04] And I believe that the economies of scale and all of us working together are critical for
[1:05:08] that.
[1:05:08] I do want to mention, and this is something about, I am supportive of this, and I will say
[1:05:15] a little bit about that in a second also, but in regards to what I want to see moving forward,
[1:05:21] I know that the report that we did the financial feasibility was requested two years ago, long
[1:05:26] long before we were in this current situation, the current current situation.
[1:05:30] We've been in a funding situation for a long time.
[1:05:35] When you look at what the projections are, I mean, we're using the number of 474, that
[1:05:42] was because it was adding a new station, and to your credit, I'm not disagreeing with
[1:05:47] it, that we had an engine, a truck, a rescue, a BC, and then all of the backfill for
[1:05:54] have to ease. That's a huge number. The other things that I remember asking the consultant,
[1:05:59] how did you come to the numbers about the internal services, HR payroll? It was an industry
[1:06:05] standard that they used. Totally fine, but that's not going to do it for us. We need to be
[1:06:10] very specific. Do we need a new truck and an engine for a new station? I don't know, but
[1:06:16] let's look at it specifically for that growth. If we're going to use the number, I want to
[1:06:21] really specific about any numbers that we use. And the only other thing is the education
[1:06:28] for the citizens. This is so complicated. I mean, especially with the fact that it's
[1:06:34] Gresham and the three cities, who contracts, who owns it, who is it. And I could not agree
[1:06:40] with Councillor Gladfeldt or any more. It doesn't matter who owns it. It's the citizens
[1:06:45] And I believe they get to say, have a say in this, but it's going to be on us to educate them about what that say is.
[1:06:56] The survey for me is a baseline, but it is almost irrelevant because the questions need to be asked when they know what they're being asked and what the impact that all these decisions make on their literal safety.
[1:07:11] So, I am absolutely in support of moving forward with the comments that I just made.
[1:07:17] And I also would say that the committee, if it's a consensus that we do move forward,
[1:07:24] that the committee is essential, that we begin it right away.
[1:07:28] And I would ask that the council vote on the committee members, because that will really indicate
[1:07:36] our commitment to this, moving forward that we are all one and one for all, at least as we can.
[1:07:42] I think to your point, Councillor Piazza about, you know, what do we do if we fail in the
[1:07:47] others' past? Well, it's again, it's going to be a multiple-step process, so we will figure
[1:07:55] it out, but it might take several iterations before we all get to something. And I also
[1:08:01] I also want to say, and this is a public consumption.
[1:08:05] There are three cities in the state that still have their own fire department.
[1:08:09] Most people work on a fire district model.
[1:08:11] It works for the rest of the state, so I don't think there's anything that we're going to find that it doesn't work.
[1:08:17] It's just how we educate our citizens and whether or not we get the vote.
[1:08:23] Thank you, Councillor Kiivoli.
[1:08:24] Councillor President.
[1:08:27] Thanks, Councillors for all the questions you've asked so far.
[1:08:29] I agree with everything that's been said so far.
[1:08:31] And Councillor Keefe, that was one of the questions I had is, in terms of a ratio, how many
[1:08:38] fire districts are there versus city run fire departments?
[1:08:45] Just three.
[1:08:52] So was the question, how many city fire departments are there?
[1:08:56] Yeah, versus districts.
[1:08:57] I mean, how different is a district versus a city-led fire department?
[1:09:02] I don't personally have the number on the districts, but as far as city departments goes
[1:09:06] Those are seven that we work closely with.
[1:09:08] In the state or in the region, the state.
[1:09:10] Okay.
[1:09:11] That's a Medford band.
[1:09:13] Others?
[1:09:13] Okay.
[1:09:14] Very good.
[1:09:15] As it's been said, the word permutation has been used multiple times, and that is very
[1:09:20] accurate.
[1:09:20] It's like the permutations of a Rubik's cube, and we're just turning this thing around.
[1:09:24] It's going to take us a while to figure that out, because none of us are 12 years old.
[1:09:28] We've got a 12-year-old in here that take care of that, of course.
[1:09:32] Just an operational question, if we're to do this in terms of going to the district, all
[1:09:38] these assets are correction assets.
[1:09:40] How are those real lines?
[1:09:42] Does this question sell that to the district?
[1:09:45] Do we do a contract?
[1:09:46] And how does that work?
[1:09:48] Yeah, thank you, Council President, for that question.
[1:09:51] More to tell you in terms of details that I will continue to educate myself on.
[1:09:55] But the best I can tell right now is that, yes, all of the assets, and that's part of
[1:10:00] of the evaluation as part of the negotiation
[1:10:03] that goes in with the district,
[1:10:04] because not only are there, again, assets that we have,
[1:10:08] physical assets, vehicles, equipment, et cetera,
[1:10:11] they're staffing, but there's also a lot of liabilities,
[1:10:14] future liabilities for purers and things like that.
[1:10:17] So there is definitely a negotiation that takes place
[1:10:20] as it relates to transferring everything over to a district.
[1:10:24] Impers are transferable?
[1:10:25] Correct, that's part of the overall.
[1:10:28] Okay. Great.
[1:10:34] I don't have any other questions. I agree with everything that's been said. And I would agree with the question to continue the analysis.
[1:10:44] Thanks.
[1:10:45] Thank you, Council President. Councils Morales.
[1:10:47] Thank you for all the work that went into this. A lot of the things that I was we're going to comment on have been said.
[1:10:57] I just have one question, when we did the feasibility study, was it just the City of Gresham,
[1:11:02] or did that include the other cities as well?
[1:11:05] Councillor Morales, the study that was presented on July 1st was, again, based on just Gresham
[1:11:14] City boundaries, and the assumption was it would be the City of Gresham establishing a district
[1:11:19] for its own geographic boundaries with the assumption that we would be continuing to provide
[1:11:24] by contractual fire services to the three cities and also fire district 10.
[1:11:29] So again, it was an assumption.
[1:11:31] We didn't want to presume anything from the other three cities or district 10.
[1:11:36] So it was really looking to just keep it to knowns and minimize the number of variables that go with that.
[1:11:42] Yeah, it seems like for a more accurate picture, we might want to look at that feasibility study to include a new district that includes all four cities paying into it, right?
[1:11:53] I think that's part of, again, based on any direction that I'm sensing today, that would be some of the next analysis to bring back additional information that looks at it at a broader financial picture.
[1:12:03] Yeah, I think it's to be important to be able to really talk about the numbers and what's needed in addition to some of the things that have already been said in terms of projecting out that 10 year headway.
[1:12:16] I agree in moving forward I have since I got on council seven years ago to approach a fire district.
[1:12:25] I hope that as we do that, we do work with the other cities to figure out an IGA, that's probably three years.
[1:12:34] So that they know that we're committed to working together on this.
[1:12:38] I would obviously budget in for cola, reasonable cola and whatnot.
[1:12:41] But if we could get something set in stone that I think shows good faith effort that we want to work with other cities to do it, I'd also love to figure out a way to make sure that in addition to the city manager's meeting that there's more communication amongst our councils and the mayor because we are at least I'm not per view to what colleges are happening on the other councils or what the attitudes are, you know, beliefs around the district.
[1:13:11] are, and I think more communication amongst us is important.
[1:13:16] And then the other thing I would say is,
[1:13:22] actually, I think those are all the things.
[1:13:24] So yes, very supportive of this.
[1:13:26] I would aim for like a three-year IJ, or in terms of the survey that was done, that's
[1:13:33] not surprising to me.
[1:13:34] I was one of the people who got the survey, and I was happy with our fire district.
[1:13:39] But I also know, with our fire department, but I also know how much they sacrifice to
[1:13:44] not compromise the quality that the people are getting, even though they're under resource
[1:13:48] and have been under resource and so I don't think the average voter or resident in question
[1:13:53] understands that, the sacrifices that are made for them to get the service and so we voted
[1:14:01] on having a fiscal strategy that was about creating more sustainability and the district was
[1:14:08] one of those options as well as the lively that we passed and so and bonds and so I want
[1:14:13] I want to make sure that we continue with our plan forward.
[1:14:20] Thank you, Councillor Morales, Councillor Browne.
[1:14:23] One of the perks of going last and disadvantages, you guys took all my questions.
[1:14:27] But thank you for all the work and I just want to say thank you to our firefighters for being
[1:14:32] here today to listen in on this conversation.
[1:14:34] I think it's really important that you're here and absorbing this with us.
[1:14:40] One of my just points that I want to address is if we, I mean it sounds like we're all
[1:14:46] agreeance that we need to continue the work on this. But if Gresham ultimately decides not to move
[1:14:53] forward with the district, we have to consider what that looks like for the mutual aid agreements with
[1:14:59] the other three.
[1:15:19] I want to ask about a little bit about the strategy for when we passed the levy and when how
[1:15:29] you guys flipped those numbers because I know that that analysis was similar to this when it failed
[1:15:36] the first time in high grades took those numbers and really got the community more educated because
[1:15:40] that is the writing on the wall, right? Like what city staff for all the four cities have a view of
[1:15:49] is very different than the community, so we need to get the community more educated on,
[1:15:55] You know, ultimately, why we need to go to a district for, to release the burden of all of our general funds.
[1:16:02] So one, I want to know what it cost when you guys did that, like, what kind of money did you raise for that levy?
[1:16:09] And if you could guess what that would cost us to do that type of campaign over the next couple of years and what the strategy would be for that.
[1:16:20] Thank you, Councillor for the question. I guess one thing I need to clarify is that the city did not raise a campaign.
[1:16:26] So I don't have those numbers and that would not be led by the city.
[1:16:32] I think going back to your question about like, so what was different? What happened?
[1:16:36] What was different about the public safety levy in 2024 that was not different in 2023 or even before that?
[1:16:45] I'll give a couple of things and I should ask Larry to weigh in as well as he was the
[1:16:50] chief architect for this campaign in between him and our partnerships with our unions
[1:16:56] and key community stakeholders.
[1:16:59] That's part of what was key to I believe our success.
[1:17:03] I think the other thing is I've been with the city more than a minute and I would say historically
[1:17:11] In my opinion, these are Eric's words, and nobody's also, but in my opinion, I don't believe we city have been as many transparent and open about our, to our community as we maybe could have been about the state of where we are really at.
[1:17:27] Again, it's an education campaign, information campaign, it's complex, city budgeting's complex.
[1:17:34] And so a lot of folks just, they are none the wiser through no fault of their own, but
[1:17:39] they don't understand how the city budgets work and what the problems are and what the potential solutions are.
[1:17:46] So I think when I think about like what was different in this campaign, in my description of it, as I've told folks is we pulled the curtains back more.
[1:17:56] We invited the community in for conversations whether it was at fire stations for the kids or open houses and things like that.
[1:18:06] We are firefighters and our police officers were more of the front presence of communicating with our community about the needs and educating the community about what we go through.
[1:18:19] So, one of the things that I think we learned with some of our helps with our communication
[1:18:26] strategist was, you know, the notion of problems, the unites, solutions divide.
[1:18:35] Well, maybe one could say the 2023 campaign was more about the solution, hey, we need more
[1:18:42] money.
[1:18:43] That's great.
[1:18:43] Just give us that.
[1:18:44] Whereas, in 2024, we flipped it upside down and said, look, here's our challenges.
[1:18:52] And bring folks in for a conversation that was more thoughtful and engaging.
[1:18:56] And I believe that, in my opinion, I think that was a huge change or a pivot point for
[1:19:04] how we think about engaging with our community going forward on all the topics.
[1:19:10] So let me ask Larry maybe if there's anything else that you would like to expand on that as well.
[1:19:15] Yeah, thanks, Eric.
[1:19:16] Thanks, soundsler.
[1:19:18] In regards to the dollar amount, I think public records would show that the coalition raised roughly $100,000.
[1:19:27] John and I were kind of chunking a second ago because I was trying to find the polling from February of 2024 that had a subside down.
[1:19:36] and we moved the electorate collectively with IFF and Kevin in partnership and Matt and our GPA folks 15 points in 75 days which if you were to do an electorate and get a poll that showed you down by a considerable amount in, you know, 70 days, you'd almost just mail it in.
[1:20:00] So, I, though the polling, I think you can speculate on where it's at and where the voters are at.
[1:20:06] I believe very strongly that there's nothing that East County can't accomplish when we do it together.
[1:20:12] And we have, I believe, a couple of years to get this figured out, swimming council and other councilman forward.
[1:20:19] But 15 points in 75 days is herculean effort.
[1:20:24] The other thing that I would note too is we talked about the levy with our partners and
[1:20:29] in the unions, around the value and not about the cost.
[1:20:34] Of course, it should be a cost to save lives and to keep our community safe.
[1:20:38] But the value of saving lives, preserving lives, was essential.
[1:20:42] The last thing I would note too is we have a unique opportunity in this setting
[1:20:46] to talk to the public, educate them, and inform them about the benefits, potentially the value,
[1:20:52] and do that hopefully in some synchronized coordinated effort into the future.
[1:20:56] Again, ultimately, this will, each community may have different motivations that they will go to the ballot around whether it be the no fund or whether it be autonomy, et cetera.
[1:21:06] But I think we have the ability to talk to the public in one voice about the future.
[1:21:10] While I would also note preserving the conversation around what the levy may look like in the future.
[1:21:15] Because, again, the levy was always communicated as a bridge to get into the future and have a stable conversation about long-term investments around public safety.
[1:21:23] always was that. But we also have half of that, which is still police, and the future around
[1:21:29] the funding around there. I would note that the data that John mentioned, the numbers around
[1:21:34] public safety, specifically police, and the need and desire to invest in that, has moved 20 plus
[1:21:41] points in the last several years. So the public's appetite and interest in funding public safety,
[1:21:46] police specifically, is through the roof. Now what that looks like, how that's budgeted is different,
[1:21:52] But those are historic numbers before we see things.
[1:21:56] John, you got it.
[1:21:58] Thank you for that.
[1:21:59] Just trying to wrap my brain around how we go about just getting the community more educated
[1:22:05] and involved in it, especially when they're so satisfied with surface but they don't know
[1:22:10] the ins and outs of the things that we struggle with, budget-wise, and what our fighters are
[1:22:16] actually dealing with.
[1:22:17] If I could mention this one more thing, Councillor Brown to your question about.
[1:22:21] So, how would we move forward?
[1:22:23] Again, ultimately, if our council and the three city councils agree that like, okay, we're
[1:22:28] going to do this, whatever this is, and we're going to pursue this direction.
[1:22:32] Coming together in whatever form with its attached for subcommittee, whatever that looks like.
[1:22:39] Everything that I know is that in that time frame, which is going to take some time, we can
[1:22:44] have those conversations, and we can jointly talk about investing in public education,
[1:22:48] and outreach, et cetera, because that's not tied to a specific ballot.
[1:22:52] We're just really, once we file the ballot, that's when we have to back up and just say,
[1:22:57] okay, now we're just educating.
[1:22:59] But we can, in essence, educate and form, advocate for what we're trying to do.
[1:23:03] But to do it, we would do it strategically together and collaborate on it.
[1:23:07] I will just wrap up by saying I am also in a grants with that we continue to explore more specifically.
[1:23:14] I would love to see the analysis of District 10, because I feel like that's our
[1:23:18] most, it's our best bet moving forward in my opinion, so I'd love to see some more
[1:23:25] tangible numbers on that with their tax rate and all that good stuff.
[1:23:31] And then I am definitely into grants with bringing together some type of board subcommittee
[1:23:38] with all four cities.
[1:23:39] I would agree with Council Morales, there needs to be more counselors from all four cities
[1:23:45] having the same or having a conversation so we're not getting funneled through just our city
[1:23:51] managers or just our mayors that bridge needs to be brought together. So all in all, thank you.
[1:23:59] Good job. Thank you Councillor. Back to Councillor Morales and we're going to look to wrap up so
[1:24:03] that we can get prepared for it. Six o'clock me. I would say that a little more context to how we
[1:24:07] move that needle because that was part of the initial pieces in the second. You know a lot of the
[1:24:13] learning that the community did, we did it by watching and seeing us learn too.
[1:24:19] You know, we went through and talked about different scenarios.
[1:24:22] We moved percentages, and you know, and all of that was done in the public.
[1:24:28] And then the other thing that we did, I think, was we built a really broad coalition.
[1:24:32] And so in addition to the $100,000, our fire department, our GPA, our community groups,
[1:24:42] our chamber, like everyone was out with the same message. And so people who were initially skeptical
[1:24:48] about funding public safety were hearing it from trusted messengers. And so I think that
[1:24:53] that level of coalition will need to happen. We also did a lot of a lot of all of our counselors.
[1:24:58] We went out and did public sessions, hearing sessions, and I think we'll have to do that with the
[1:25:03] other cities as well. But it was a big lift to shift that education and knowledge. But a lot of
[1:25:10] the learning happened, as we were also learning, what it meant to put to Porto Levy, so.
[1:25:15] Thank you, Councillor Morales.
[1:25:17] So I'll cut to the chase.
[1:25:18] I'm, of course, absolutely in wholeheartedly supportive, moving forward, continuing to do
[1:25:24] the work.
[1:25:24] And again, Eric, you already mentioned, you know, next step, what would that next step be?
[1:25:28] Is that that deeper evaluation from a financial perspective of what those actual numbers would
[1:25:33] be?
[1:25:33] I do want to say something in regards to, you know, I am very proud to sit with this council and previous council so I've been able to serve with.
[1:25:44] You know, as we set out to really work shoulders or shoulder with our firefighters, our police department, you know, five, four and a half, five years ago, you know, when I became mayor and many of the folks who were sitting at the dice now, you know, we set forth, you know, things that we wanted to make sure we did.
[1:26:01] The very first thing was that the fire tiller truck, and we were able to work with fire chief at the time to get that pass.
[1:26:08] We were able to work through ensuring that we could get a lot of things done.
[1:26:14] First thing was we got a new rescue unit at that point in time, and of course now we've got a rescue unit that's a pretty significant vehicle over what we've had in the past.
[1:26:24] We've got a three fire trucks on order.
[1:26:26] We've got 72, I passed by there the other day, watching the second floor go on up there.
[1:26:33] We had the complaints and frustrations that were voiced and the previous council said we owned it.
[1:26:40] We absolutely owned it and said, you're right, we're going to go after this.
[1:26:43] And Eric under your leadership, leadership of our facilities team, worked with our firefighters,
[1:26:47] worked with our facilities folks, and made sure that we went in and got things done.
[1:26:51] And we're not nearly where we want to be from a facility's perspective.
[1:26:55] And that's another part of the plan that was laid out roughly about three or four years ago where we said we're going to take all of these steps.
[1:27:01] And then lastly, as many of you know, this was the fourth levy, the privilege of working on to ensure that we could get the right funding for our firefighters and our police department.
[1:27:12] And this one passed maybe four times a charm and we learned something the other three times.
[1:27:17] And that number was a hundred and about a hundred and twenty and twenty five thousand I know because I was the one making all the happy phone calls
[1:27:25] But our community stood up stepped up and and funded this campaign, you know, so
[1:27:31] This I think it's the continued maturation of that plan, you know
[1:27:34] We said that once we got the levy pass. We wanted to move towards this full investigation evaluation of the district
[1:27:40] And that's what we're doing. I you know from the council's
[1:27:44] I believe we're all wholly committed and a whole heartily committed to continue that effort that we promise that we would do, because we keep executing on the things that we've said that we would execute on, left out the dollars that IFF and Kevin's leadership and Larry and his leadership from a legislative perspective, we're able to garner $8 million for station 74, and I can tell you right now, other mayors across the region are completely befuddled about how the city of aggression continues to win.
[1:28:13] at various things, and it's something that we're all very proud of.
[1:28:19] We couldn't do it if we didn't have the support of everybody, not just the folks sitting in this room, but those behind.
[1:28:24] So as you heard, I think everybody's completely committed to continue moving forward.
[1:28:29] And so I think you've got the direction.
[1:28:32] You've picked up all the parts and pieces of what the council would like to see as we continue to go forward and do the full evaluation of this.
[1:28:38] Of course, everybody's fully supportive of the subcommittee.
[1:28:42] For those of you who weren't here prior, we used to have something similar called the Safer Committee.
[1:28:47] And Council of Black Filter was a part of that, and also city councilors of the other cities were also a part of that Safer Committee.
[1:28:53] So I think we're looking at something a little bit different, but
[1:28:56] constituting something that actually has everybody sitting at the table looking at how do we evaluate these things.
[1:29:03] And as many of you know, I don't think it's been said yet, but we have three years left on this levy.
[1:29:08] So let's not forget that there's three years left on this levy and we have to have a funding mechanism going forward.
[1:29:17] So at the end of those three years, we have to have a funding mechanism.
[1:29:20] Whatever the solution is, whether it's district nor other additional levy, we have to have a funding mechanism.
[1:29:25] We do not have the funding structure as we sit here today, if we don't have one of those funding mechanisms in place.
[1:29:32] So we have to have one of those in place.
[1:29:33] We've got to continue working together, similar to how we did to get this last levy pass to ensure that we've got the appropriate funding for our city firefighters, our public safety, our police department, as we continue to go forward with those efforts.
[1:29:47] So with that, I just want to thank you all for sitting through my yacking, but Eric, I think you've got the direction you need and the team here to continue the great work that we're doing before we bring this to a close.
[1:30:00] John, I do have one thing I want to highlight from whenever you present, it's great work, although it tends to drive more questions than answer, sometimes it's a year aware. The thing that bothers me the most is our community members feel like they're not getting the best value for their tax dollar. But yet, their tax dollar, 92% of their tax dollar, goes to police and fire. So 92% of their tax,
[1:30:29] Let me take that back, actually 92% of our general fund goes to police and fire.
[1:30:35] Our actual property tax only is about 50% of that number.
[1:30:40] So 100% of their tax dollar goes to police and fire.
[1:30:45] That feels to me like a significant disconnect.
[1:30:49] It is a significant disconnect, absolutely.
[1:30:53] I don't know if we did a survey, we asked people to give us a percentage of money to city budget,
[1:30:58] that goes to police and fire, it's going to be well lower than 91% or 90% than you just said,
[1:31:02] and if you ask them, you know, just the city waste money on stuff, they'll probably say all
[1:31:07] sorts of things that often won't have anything to do with the city at all. So there's this
[1:31:12] disconnect between both what the city has for revenue. So there's this connect about what the city
[1:31:17] spends the money on. There's also disconnect about what layer of government provides, what service,
[1:31:21] so there's all sorts of disconnects. And that's just the cards that are on the table.
[1:31:28] I mean, there's things that you all in this community and the other communities can do to address that,
[1:31:35] but that's never going to go away. That is, we've made government, not the folks in this room,
[1:31:41] but over the course of Oregon, Cestry, we've made government pretty darn difficult to understand.
[1:31:46] And then some folks, you know, just, they really truly want to hand off the decision making to
[1:31:51] the leaders, and they don't want to be too engaged, and they see the quality of service, for example,
[1:31:55] with fire is, one of the great things about living in aggression, they don't have to worry
[1:31:59] about that.
[1:32:00] But it does then create the challenge about going to ask them for more money for the
[1:32:03] thing that they think that they're getting service as well.
[1:32:06] So I just empathize with you, Mayor, it is true that those this connects to exist and those
[1:32:10] are things that we just have to manage going for a best account.
[1:32:13] Well, we would need, I mean, we would need continued advice and guidance on how do we
[1:32:18] breach that gap?
[1:32:20] Because it's a significant gap, only reference one, but there were multiple gaps in kind of
[1:32:24] how people feel and essentially what's being delivered.
[1:32:28] So I appreciate that.
[1:32:28] I'm going to end by just saying,
[1:32:30] and I'm sure I reflect every single person on this council
[1:32:33] to our firefighters.
[1:32:34] Thank you for everything you do all day, every day.
[1:32:37] We can't even imagine the things that you have to do.
[1:32:40] Every time I tour a fire station,
[1:32:44] and I see the plethora of tools and things
[1:32:46] that you have to know how to use it.
[1:32:48] I'm just an awe of all the things you do on a day-to-day basis.
[1:32:51] And of course, on Friday, many of you are out in the searing heat, battling a tire fire which is a very dangerous situation.
[1:33:00] And I just want to continue, again, the voice this council, our community's support of you.
[1:33:06] You saw the numbers, we're very, very happy with the great work you're doing.
[1:33:10] And I will say that there was a business in our community that they were on LNG trucks.
[1:33:16] and they were overly, overly effusive of praise to our firefighters when you responded to a LNG truck fire where they heard in other communities they've had problems and our firefighters showed up and we knew all the exact things to do in this specific specialty situation and they were incredibly, incredibly impressed with your work and I told them that's our team all day long.
[1:33:44] So with that, I just wanted to continue to say thank you for all you do every single day to keep our community safe.
[1:33:51] So with that, I think we've given the direction, and we're excited about what comes next, and looking forward to taking that next step and understanding specifically how do the dollars and sense look like and what they look like and what order some of the plans of how we would move something like this forward.
[1:34:09] All right, appreciate you and there are no objections, we'll move to adjourn because you have about 20 minutes before you have to be at the Dias meeting adjourned. Thank you all.