City Council - Special Meeting

You're not clear. I'm just there.

I'm live, Brad.

You are. Kevin.

That's Alright. We're live, folks.

We're here.

No. You're fine. Gotcha.

Okay. Yeah. K. Come see.

Alright. Welcome, everyone, to the, April 7, 05:30PM. City council session. Yeah. 08:13. Got a couple couple items on the agenda tonight, for the work session at least. We have a police department staffing, fund that our chief is gonna present. Welcome, Kai. Well, thanks. Yeah. And we have, police department policy updates. Did we we decided to keep that on the agenda?

So I thought after we went through the staffing plan, if there was any questions from what I'd sent out since Okay. Chief's here to answer that. Awesome. Was a mayor, there was a couple changes in the slides I sent out from Friday. We took Seaside out just because they responded back through people actually have to respond back when we reach out. We did get chief got today, Oregon cities as well as Milwaukee's, I think, is on there. So that's changed. There was a, chief will point it out when we go through. There was a an error on the overtime. It was doubled, and, so that has changed.

So there was a couple things we've changed today that you'll see different than what you got. I just wanna let you know. Alright. I'm hoping that this work session will take care of, one of the council goals under public safety is proactively review law enforcement. So I'd like to make sure that that's what we're doing tonight as well, the goals.

That's crazy. Yeah. It's, We'll get into that. And then, just before we get going, the only other item we got tonight too, it'd be the only other item we have in discussion on Sherwood West and. So with that, Achieve, take it away.

So we wanna start with policies. Was there any questions on that? So I guess, secondly, the format I sent. I know I've sent a bunch of them. Just trying to streamline it. Was this good? Was this, easy enough to read and and kinda clarifies some of the changes of the firm.

We're Yeah. And we're basically just adopting this. So we're required to adopt. Yeah.

This is all legislative cases, federal, all those things, flexible. That's very transparent

and obvious. That's all good stuff. Yep. K. Cool. Where's? Yeah. Oh, maybe he has it here. Yeah. Nothing. Oh, there you I got it. So

we've talked a lot about, obviously, the the crossroads that we've been facing with the funding and and some of the options that need to be considered just moving forward, obviously, now and in the future with the potential of Sherwood West coming. So this relies heavily on a levy, but there is documentation in there that you've seen just on a fee based, option as well. So we can go through this. Obviously, stop me at any time that you have questions. You saw the overview here.

We're just gonna talk about some of our workload and the comparisons out there. I know that's we always wanna know what our neighboring agencies are doing and and how do we stack up. I wanna spend a little time on mental health because that's a big topic in law enforcement right now, and it it's taking a lot of our resources for calls that are not necessarily criminal in nature. They're not law enforcement. We're just, we're dealing with people in in mental health crisis on a lot.

So, you've seen these before over the years. We typically are just using the three year, comparison. Obviously, one of the things here is about, point oh, I'm sorry. '23, '24, and '25. So left to right, we're pretty steady in calls for service, you know, over the years averaging around 6,000.

'24 was a bit of an anomaly in a drop, but, this year, it's it's picked back up. One of the things that you do can see continue to see is our rise in proactive policing. What that means is that includes everything other than somebody picking up the phone and calling 911. So that's all our traffic stops. That's all our extra patrols.

That's all our community contacts that we're out there, having. What that says to me is that those higher numbers drive down, crime in the city. Case in point, last week, patrol contacted a couple individuals off of, Galbraith with a tow truck, And they had no business being down there. We know that it's inherently ridden with burglaries and thefts over the years, and it's just dark. And so knowing that in evidence based policing, which they do a great job of, is we know we need to be in these areas in certain times, and it worked out now.

Did we arrest them and charge them with anything, related to burglaries? No. Because we actually contacted them with the

Brian, could you share that?

Because I I put it in share on the Zoom. Well, no. I didn't think it's the answer.

Thank you. Sorry.

I didn't know how to share. It's okay. So I'm here. So, my point my point with that was sure. The other one.

Oops. The what? Oh, No.

We're not in business. Okay. So

the point was that we were able to contact these people. Undoubtedly prevented burglary steps that the next shift didn't have to take the next day. So we don't pick typically get to, add to our our calls for service because we prevented it. And that's just what we, inherently do a really good job of that. And I'm gonna show you over whoops.

Click on the screen.

Yeah. Let

me show a bit.

Another graph for our calls for service and what we are continuing to trend. This is month by month, but as you can see, short of, twenty twenty three, we, are staying up there around the 1,700 calls, per month. And keep in mind that we have 20 patrol officers, and that includes our sergeants. I think we've talked about this before that our sergeants are part of minimums, whereas a lot of agencies, they're separate because supervision's just a different being. But for us and it just happened Friday night, I believe.

Our two that were on were supervisors. That was what was working the road. It's not a bad thing. It's just that's what we had available, and so that was what was who was working the road.

Sorry. Can you go back to the slide real quick on the, this one? One more.

The the increase in the 10,000 to 15,000 of the non calls versus this, What if what would what's makes up most of that? Like, what kind of categories of I was gonna say, too. Do you have, like, a breakdown of what those calls are? Calls your calls. Well, they're they're just self initiated calls.

So they're considered proactive policing, welfare check or community context. So we go out with somebody, we engage with them on the roads. We see something. Traffic stops are on that. I think we have 5,500 traffic stops that are a part of the proactive side of that.

So I just know do you know what's driving most of the increase, or is it pretty much, like, uniform across the board of all the categories? They're all increased.

It's uniform across the board. Okay.

And there's something to rate. Yeah. It'd be great to kinda see that broken out a little bit. Like, is it traffic soft? This kind of was staying on Historically? Yeah. Okay. Know, what makes up the yeah.

Like, year by year, how would

you break down the the self initiated? But that could be a follow-up. Okay. You mentioned that mental health calls, are those a part of the self? They can be. Yes. Okay. So I'm gonna talk a little bit about that and

just and so how sometimes it's not captured in Okay. The way we'd like it to be. So one of the things that we always gauge ourself against and is just neighboring agencies, agencies of like size. And one of the things that we have historically crossed, law enforcement is tried to gauge how many people we need. And there's been this, equation of officer per thousand.

It's been long standing. Lots of people use it. Over the last probably ten, fifteen years, they've tried to integrate response times, different kinds of call types, and there's really no magic formula other than this one's just been standardized for us. So we want to get it compared to the agencies that are around us, those that we compare with, our conference. So you can see up there, we're in about the middle of that at 1.33.

Oregon on average is 1.5. Nationally, it's 2.4. So, Oregon is probably one of the lowest police states in the nation. But, for what we have, we do a fantastic job. And I don't want that point to be missed because they do knock it out of the park with what they do with the resources we have.

The one thing that we don't ever get to quantify and talk about is just the impact it has, and I'm gonna talk about our schedule. It's just on burnout and the the ass that we have of them. But right now, you'll see the asterisk next to all of those, agencies, and that just indicates that they have a levy or a fee that supports public safety, in one form or another. And so it's the majority of it. And as you can see up here, probably one of our most, close neighboring agencies, Westland is at 1.04, and they're struggling at the moment. If you watch their social media, they're they're in a similar need as we are.

Yeah. I apologize. It is November. I'm just looking into staffing numbers too. Alright. Thank you.

So this is just a different version of what you saw as far as our calls for service, but this just compares to, Westland Forest Grove, and then Tiger. So and Tiger are obviously our neighboring agencies. And, actually, I'm gonna go back to some information on another slide that we can talk about in a sec. But, comparatively, we're taking more calls for service than Westland and Forest Grove. You know, we're right up there against call, twelfth, and but I I really wanna point out again our proactive stuff that we're doing. We're we're out there. We're engaged on a continuous basis. We're talking to people, and I think that's what this community wants. They want us engaged. They want us out there talking to people that technically probably shouldn't be here.

And I don't have the stats, and I'm trying to find it because we talked about it, is how many people we engage with that are out of I shouldn't say out of state, out of city that do not live here. It's it's probably I'm pushing probably 90%, I'm guessing, when we're dealing with people. I've seen a lot of head nods with the pro people back here.

If you weren't having as many, proactive, then I would assume your calls for some probably go up.

Yes. Exactly. If we're sitting waiting, then it's we wait until something happens. So You're This and like I said, my example before, where we're engaging these people out in, some of the the industrial parks out on the streets here, We're not just driving by with a blind eye. We're actually wanting to engage with them. Equally so, we, step up in a in a lot of ways to give resources to people who are in need. So the the homeless, the the people, the mental health capacity or the, interactions we have, we do a great job of finding resources for them. Obviously, Tigrid has a ton of them, and and so we can redirect them there. But

we yes. What's your what's the the statistic about out of towners? I'm sorry. I missed it. I was

Purely purely guessing and speculating, but it's gotta be 80% or higher when we're engaging or harassing people, for crimes.

It's out of towners.

Yes. It's out

of towners.

Thank you.

And I and I was getting the head nod from the officers.

Thought that's what I was heard heard, but I wanna make sure. Thank you.

So if I'm reading that right, if you adjust that for population, and I'm just trying to do that in my head. Like, just write Tiger does 17,000 calls, but they're also more than twice as large as those. Yeah. So if you adjust that all that out, we're slightly on the higher side based on population for calls for service. Would that be

That would be correct. Yeah.

It's I mean, I think they're all within about a thousand based on my mental med. But It

would be higher than Dualatin, lower than PEG. Right.

Per four or some days per capsule. We're consistent in in terms of the cost for service per. Would you agree with that? Yeah. I would. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

One of the things. So when we talk about this thing and and I know I've said it over the years is how, we reciprocate help with Tiger and Tualatin and King City and how important that's been and how valuable it is, especially when we get jammed up on calls. But what's interesting, and they didn't know this until and I don't know why I accidentally stuck it on the slide, but, down here so we're back here at our 21,000 calls for service. Total hours for that, according to Cab, we utilize 9,883 to service all those calls. What's interesting is of those Call per resident? Every Per call. Yeah. I I'm sorry?

One call per resident? Well, again, it's it's it's it's it's Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I guess you could break that down. Total calls and self initial. But, actually, within the city limits, it's 19,000. What's interesting is that we serviced 1,417 calls outside the city last year, which equated to eight hundred and one hours of our time.

Is that, like, a neighboring jurisdiction requesting your help?

Yeah. We're we're either going there. It's yeah. What happens is somehow, if something's going on in Tualatin or they need help, we jump over into their CAD system, and so it it shows us within their system. But somehow, thanks to Captain Gents, we were able to capture, that data, which I think is really important because people so they're they're spending a lot of time here, and they're also in the same crunch that we are. They're down officers. They're trying to find funding. And so although this is fantastic and valuable to know that we have those agencies, you know, it's it's also equally important that we know that we can sustain ourselves in town. But do

do we have Does it wash, actually? I don't know if it washes. I don't

I haven't seen their numbers. I I just know. I'm guessing it probably does. I mean Okay. And and there again, you got the true true people back here to tell us how often they're in here. I I'm not out there.

There's no reason.

Gotta be somewhere, right, as to where a call originate. It would just again, it makes it easier to make the case. I would if we say, hey. It's going the Sherwood officer is not Sherwood officer's policing tool.

I would just spend

I mean, we're only only 8% of our hours are being spent, I know. On outside things, which is pretty low. Yeah. And I wouldn't want it to be zero.

I would think that's what our community would want. Yeah. It's the reciprocal.

I'm saying just saying get the numbers in the direction. That's the thing. It's it's probably Yeah.

If it's if it's in the ballpark of washing, then great. If it's ten hours and

we do 800, that's Now we only do I suspect that there's a higher than ours.

I suspect they're here. That's fine.

Yeah. Or Then we aren't there because we're we're always needing the assistance. They're just their manpower's greater to handle these things. So it's a great thing that maybe we can try and drive down and look at Corey because he's

Corey's like, yep. We can work on that.

I've got a question on the hours as well. Yeah. When we're transporting to Hillsborough, would it cross buckets then, or is that part of our jurisdiction? That's still in it because the incident originated here, so it'll stay with that incident.

So, chief, I know it's not a huge amount, but, like, some of the right alongs I've done would serve warrants. You know, when you only have two officers on Yes. You're basically tying both up for within the hours. And I'm just curious how how much of when we get an outside request, the SERP warrants. I mean, how do we have kind of stats on what that's doing to our availability and man hours as well?

Outside what if? Like, when I

was on, dude, I think I don't know. Don't ask me all the acronyms and stuff, but my impression was we got a request from, like, Washington County or someone to serve a war. But and then we went through that. I'm just I'm just curious how much time that's taking off the the books. You know, I it's probably a small amount, but I just what surprised me was, you know, during when it was being served and that whole process, you know, basically, that's all we were doing for that.

And were they seven?

No. No. No. I'm just I'm curious what it looks like.

Yeah. I I I mean, I know we have warrant service numbers. I'd have to

probably dig those up a little. And if it if it's a minimal, then it doesn't matter. Probably serious. Yeah. Well, I'll just add one thing. It also it makes the case, you know, when you only have two sworn officers on duty, you know, actually out on the road. It's amazing how one little thing put your things on.

I think you have the slide. Yeah. I know how to talk about that.

Yeah. Yeah. So I know there's a this is a busy slide, and I apologize for that. But I I think it's really important that we, dive into kinda what it looks like for us. So on the left, you're gonna see 30% of our shifts start at minimum. That doesn't mean all three shifts in one day are starting that. Obviously, that's sporadic throughout the year. But that means that the start of whatever day, Sway or Greg, there's only two people on the road. And that's problematic because about 31% of our calls that we service require a minimum of two officers just to go. We're gonna talk about what you you spoke to, mayor, just the time constraints of that.

Coupled with that, 17% start, below minimums. So you're about 55% of the time that you're at minimums or you're below it, which we'll talk a little bit about, the shift coverage and some of the overtime costs that, are incurred. And I'm gonna go back to the comment I made earlier about how we're always asking basically 14 people I'm not I'm sorry. Not 14, but the 20 people that were patrolled to continually cover these shifts over and over again. So, you can see that a lot of this is just, whoops, is, just driven by, you know, federal leaves, sick time training, court time, just life in general, impacts us.

And I wish I could say it's an anomaly, but in all the years I've been here, it's just historically. It was just something that continues to come up with either personnel or or sick or retirements. It's just it's as we speak today, you know, we have a handful of officers that are that are out on extended leaves, for one reason or another, which we're asking the crew that's sitting behind me to fill in. They do a great job of doing that, but, it's just been continuous. So, you can see, day shift starts with two officers and a sergeant.

Swing shift starts with three officers and a sergeant. The anomaly to that is we have attached the canine unit to one side of swing shift, and then we've attached MHRT to the other side. Both of those, obviously, into your point earlier is we service outside agencies with that help and vice versa. Dogs come in here. MHRT comes in here. So some of that can be a wash. It's just the other help that we need. The OIS we had back in July, That was the entire shift to Tualatin, Tigard, and whoever else showed up. And it was very appreciated in that fact, but there was a lot of people that came. For us to have handled that by ourselves, it it couldn't have happened.

So graveyard, again, starts with three officers. The the difference to this is we have no sergeants on graveyard. So this is all, officers. I know I've talked about this before. It's usually our least senior officers, our least experienced officers because of the way the contract is.

They bid by seniority, and so they kinda get what's left over. And we're asking them to make pretty high stress, decisions in the middle of the night. Usually, those are the most volatile calls, you know, the DUIs, the the weapons calls, incidents that just sometimes need well, I shouldn't say sometimes, need experience and supervision. And we've tried to minimize that because our sergeants work until 01:30, so there's a smaller gap at the moment. But, it's still been a problem. It's it's nothing new. It's it's just been inherent with us for twenty years.

So is there a reasoning behind the decision to not have more sergeant coverage at graveyard and less during day shift as an example?

Object.

But that well, want Well,

the problem by contract, is it?

Well, the problem is with that is just calls for service. We're trying so that's why we've we've moved the sergeants to 01:30 because, you know, eight to midnight, eight to one is our heaviest Sure. Followed. So those are those those are big decisions and a lot of decisions. Same with day shift. It's sometimes you're just trying to minimize your your liability. To your point, yes, we could have them at night, but then we're gonna give up coverage and other gaps. I know there's conversations about, you know, can captains and and even myself cover that? It's incredibly difficult to listen to a radio all day long while you're doing all your other things and and be engaged in what does what happens. We've done it. We're doing it now, and we're moving people around to make adjustments and coverage. But that's the reason

that we've done it that way.

So, chief, a question. I'm trying to understand the scheduled line. So is that when you say, like, for instance, three officers scheduled for swim trip, that assumes we're fully staffed, everyone's healthy and available. Are you factoring in, like, training and other things into that schedule? So that schedule is like no training. You're just on duty. I'm just trying

to understand what schedule is. So, in in down at the bottom here, I'll talk about that in just a moment. Yeah. That's on paper. If everybody's here and everybody's working a 100% of the time, that's what we would look like.

So there's no training or anything else?

There's none none of that is factored in here. Okay. So what factors in here is we now know that an officer in FTE is truly available about 70% of the time. So that's what gives us this 38% availability at minimums or the 17% because we know to the to your point, training, sick, PTO, whatever else comes up that this officer is only gonna be available on schedule 70% of the time.

Court.

Court. Yeah. Yep. So there's all sorts of factors, and it's been like that. I went back when cheap growth was here, and and it hasn't changed. It's it's been just a steady 70, and I think even the national average sits around that as far as an FTE. So But it sounds very reasonable.

Right. But in hospitals, you never wanna staff to a 100% capacity because then you've got some people standing around too. And so is there a accepted number that's like, well, we don't need to staff to the busiest we're ever gonna be. We need to staff to, like, whatever 80% of that number is or nine is there a number like that where they say, hey. This is the right staffing so that everybody is engaged and still able to do emails, still able to do training and all of that?

I don't know. I mean, I know where we'd like to get that would give us the best coverage. Okay. What we need what I think eventually we're going to need is that we have that we have minimums of three on every shift. So what that means is probably four that are assigned to this. So day shift and graveyard would have an additional officer per side. And our So then that means that people have the ability to take time off. Yeah. And we still have enough coverage. Two is just not enough.

Okay. You've got yeah. So you had four sworn four patrol personnel to cover each shift so that you would have three three effective at any one point in time using your seven that'd be 75%, but close to your 70% rule.

Yes. Yeah. On mental health

resource team,

mean, that's a that's an officer in the mental health Clinician. Clinician? Yes.

Are there I don't even know the term for it,

but are there, like, mental health paramedics or something that are that are can can handle certain calls at a lower cost? You know what

I mean? Like, again, I don't I I don't

know this as well. I'm just are there other options that other agencies are

at least more they're like, hey.

If we get somebody on the phone who's having this thing, we can shove him this direction versus that seems like a very expensive and totally needful way to do it.

I'm just wondering is are there some creative ways we can

do the mental health? Because you just said that that's one of the escalating call volumes. Are there other ways to do it besides sending two people on a call?

But I think when you say mental health, that doesn't that doesn't mean it's always the MHRT team that goes out. Our regular our troll officers also just deal with the mental health calls.

Right. But I'm saying if we let's say, to Doug's point, we had to add

four people,

we get more bang for

the buck by adding two more mental health people that can handle those calls and taking those calls away from people that are trained more broadly.

Well, here's and I'll speak to this a little bit. Here's the challenge to to the mental health in this. They don't come in always as that. They come in as suspicious people. They come in as suspicious circumstances. So they come in as law enforcement related deals going on, and it's not until the officers get there that they realize, well, this is more to it. Okay. And and then you have to, determine is there a criminal element that has to be investigated, or is it strictly mental health? Yeah. And then if it that's the case, then we do utilize we do utilize whoever's on, if we can, on the MHR team.

We've seen some of those models and heard about them. I know what you're what you're saying. I just for us and the way we respond and, unfortunately, because you can't a 100% guarantee every time that your call comes in, you know whether it's mental health and separate just separately that. And here's my other concern, and, with the mental health component is we've known I've known it for thirty years is that today you can be as compliant, as nice as high. And tomorrow, I come out to see you, and you're agitated and aggravated and want to be physically, assaulted towards us.

We just we don't know these things, and that's what that's what makes that part of this job difficult is we can't be complacent. We can't just hope that, you know, Susie or Sally is gonna be Yeah. Okay. Super. So, we're always open, obviously, to ideas and ways because I said before, it's not a law enforcement necessarily deal. It's just that's what's been asked of us and tasked

Yeah. For us

And there's gonna be some there's a there's a little active lawsuit in the county

There is about

how who gets dispatched on mental health calls. And that's working its way through the courts. I have no idea how it's gonna spit out. And if we have to have more as a county and collectively, cities and the county, if we have to have more mental health, you know, on staff collectively or what? We just don't know why I was gonna shake.

Bet that Go ahead. Sorry, Doug.

Go ahead.

No. No.

You

bet. I'm changing a topic. So

Oh, I was just gonna say I also wouldn't think it's fair to the a clinician to send them out by themselves. Like you said, to your point, you don't know what they might encounter.

Believe it not, that's that's the literally core of the lawsuit, because they they want the clinician only.

I I think I mean, the the reality is when you're running a reasonably small That's organization, it's very hard to be specialized. Yeah. No matter what specialization we're talking about, whether it's mental health or something else. Right? Like, because you have you have when you're specialized, great. You have specialized skill sets, but you also have less, flexible skill sets. Right? So you need you need people that can answer a variety of calls when you only have two or three on the road at a time versus if you have one specialized person that can only do a subset of calls, they may be idle and your other two may be over overtaxed. So it's the reality of a smaller organization. Right?

It is. I mean, just even in the MHR team within South Cities, we're on when I say we the team is on from one to eleven. We're learning now, and I know I've talked about this, is that there's a lot of mental health, calls that come out early in the morning because people are getting up. Have they taken their meds? Are they coming off of some meth use or heroin or whatever the case may be? And then can we can we benefit from the more teams? And I know I've talked about it. Yes. But it's still people resource driven. And so that's to your point,

we have to

prioritize. So, chief, can you I'm sorry.

Yes. Just Go back. Go back.

Just on that slide. I think, as we move forward with this, it'd be helpful to understand. Like, we got the green and orange blocks there for scheduled and at minimum. It's as we're thinking about this, there's a staffing level, then there's a scheduled level that are already contemplates the known things, like PTO, training, things that are quantifiable. You know what those look like. And then you have what's actually occurring because you have the unknown things, like an officer, you know, help from his injured or, you know, those types of thing. Bereavement, whatever those things are just so we can kinda understand that a little bit better. Does that make sense? Yeah. I think so. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. It really it really almost relabel the schedule to be optimal. Right?

Like, this is in the ideal state world. This is what we have, but that rarely happened or happens 45% of the time. And then you kinda have a second bucket, which is reality, and then you have the minimums, I guess. Yeah.

And and just being able to kinda quantify what those all those things you have in that blue box, you know, of that 30%, what's what does that look like? Okay.

I know we've we've already been down this track, so we don't necessarily have to, continue with it. But one of the things, that we're seeing is about 20 25% of all our calls for service have a mental health component to it. I talked about it before is that these don't always just come out crystal clear that it's a behavioral health issue. On occasion, they do. It's it's pretty clear.

There's people in the community that you just know. But as I said before, there are suspicious people, suspicious circumstances, you name it. Then it's not until we get there that all of a sudden we're trying to dissect this. And the problem is with a lot of this, although there is a mental health component of it is, you know, there's potentially the criminal stuff. And so as I said, you know, you're trying to separate separate that and navigate it is it's been the challenge.

I have two questions. Yeah. One, would drug abuse be considered in the mental health category? Okay.

Either psychosis or

yeah. Yeah. A drug induced or or Yep. A drug related mental health issue. Okay. And then second question, I'm guessing now over time, you alluded to this, but I'm curious. Do we have numbers on what percentage of these are oh, it's Joe again. Or, you know, it's a repeat call to known or at least when you

pull it up, you're like,

oh, yeah. We've been there seven times this year. Right? It's like I'm guessing we're starting to see a lot of those repeated patterns and probably not as many, maybe still a lot of never been, never encountered this person or this address before. Like, what's that breakdown start to look like after a couple years?

Yeah. That's yeah. I you're right. I I can say definitively that we know there's a there's a good handful of people and residents that we know have that and when we respond. And the one thing that I'm gonna go back to before is is the complacency. We can't just go because it's been Jim, and we've been here there five times because he's been nice four times. And so even though we know he's probably gonna be nice, we can't go alone. We don't wanna send a clinician just by themselves. We're gonna have to send two people to deal with whatever that is. I can't say for sure what those numbers are, but I just I know the everybody behind me can tell you probably 10 people they know.

Yeah. So I I

get that you

can't you can't be complacent. Does the opposite hold true where, okay, we're gonna send two people. However, after we assess it, we're gonna say instead of both of us staying here for one to three hours, we're gonna peel off one and just have a mental health clinician stay here for three hours it takes to I Is is that does that

not happen? I don't know. If it's so if you're there and and an officer's determined that there's a police officer hold component to it where they're not able to care for themselves, so that that, kicks off a whole another beast in the fact that now they have to go to the hospital. We most likely, we're gonna have to go to the hospital with them. We sit at a hospital, we wait. So we just stand yeah. We just stand around and wait at the hospital for hours, a spare couple hours. You know? And it's unfortunately, them holding them is very rare. You know, they're out and back on the streets in a in a a pretty short time, and it's it's not uncommon for us to be over there again the next day.

Yeah. But to your point, yes. There are circumstances and times where we can cut free if we feel like it's it's it's safe. But, usually, when we get there, those things are pretty dynamic and evolving, and so it's not likely that somebody's just gonna walk away hoping that everything's gonna stay stable. Okay.

And what happens if you one does peel away? Well, first of all, that the clinician rides with an officer, so they're in the car.

So the MHRQ team will always stay together. Yes. Right.

I just I know when I did my ride along with the fire department, and it was 99% mental health calls that day, there were a lot of people that were not the mental health person that we were just standing and observing what they were doing. Right? And so I again, I'm not saying that it's the wrong thing to do or anything else like that. I'm just like, well, if I can if I can have somebody who specializes in mental health talking somebody down for three hours, especially if they're in a hospital bed or something, is that the best use of having another officer there? Again, I don't I know that there's a right way to do it, and I wanna do it the right way.

I'm just saying is there a type of person that's a mental health person that might magnify our ability to handle this increase in calls that is not a general and I get Doug's point that generally is probably good because you can respond to more kind of calls.

But if these calls are taking three hours,

well, we might need some more mental health people to stick on those. But I don't know. I mean, again, I just I I'm just trying to think my mind, trying to think of the case I've gotta make for doing a public levy, and these are questions that you'll be asked.

You know, chief and I'm going off on a slight tangent here, but, like, the numbers on you know, when you say that the vast majority of those calls are are a small group of people, That's great data, you know, when we're at the state lobbying for more mental health, services in our community. And Oregon ranks, I think, forty eighth in terms of mental health funding and services as a state. You know? So if we could do a better job of taking care of those those repeats, you know, that's another way to reduce the number of calls company notes. Yeah. It'd be great to get some see what that looks like. Sorry. I'm a data person.

We've we've already talked about this. So, you've seen that you've seen the slide in the sense of our conversations of just how quickly we can beat to zero. This is just a hypothetical of of how this responds. I'm gonna give you one that is, just happened here a few weeks ago. It was a mental health behavioral health issue.

So, actually, our clinician was or I'm sorry, clinician. Our MHR team member was on it, and, there was a sergeant. So it was, her and the sergeant. They were dealing with, this person, and it had to become, or it went to a POH. So, basically, as I said, they took her into custody, and now, they're gonna have to be transporting, the person.

At the same time a call came out, it was a a 911 call. Essentially, I believe it was disconnected or unknown. Long story short, they had to track this 911 call back to a residence. And anytime those come in and we don't know what's going on, we're gonna try and figure out what's going on. Essentially, the sergeant had to go and and determine that the person who had called 911 was down in their home, and he could be seen by the officer.

So all of a sudden, now we have a whole different dynamic situation. At one end of the town, we had a behavioral health issue with the custody at the other end of the town, and both of those people were offline immediately for an extended period of time. Thankfully, both of them, turned out fine, but that's how fast it can happen. And so and that's and I know we rely on our neighbors if something else comes out, but they're ever they're only gonna come out on priority ones or priority twos, life threatening kind of calls, calls that are hot now. But I like I said, I know you guys have, seen that.

So we talked about the financial impact of this. Obviously, 2021 are kind of anomalies. They don't really get to come into play, but shift coverage has always been a big issue. And then, all the other overtime, obviously, is the significant part of it. In 2024, was our probably our biggest year of, twenty five hundred hours of overtime, and that was just a compounding of retirements, shifts. I know we had injuries of people being out. We had FMLA leaves. And so all of a sudden, you start losing three, four bodies like we are right now, and your overtime is is going to go up.

I totally understand what drives shift overtime. What drives the other overtime?

Training or court is a big hit. Some of it is training. Some of it's community events, and some of it's late late call and investigations. Like, you're on your shift,

but you're

you can't just pack up

and leave. You gotta write your report. You gotta finish the call. You're on transport. You gotta finish it out.

Yeah. And that's and that's the problem is is we don't you can't hand off to the next shift. Right. The 01:00 DUI and you're off at 01:30, well, you're not gonna

get I'm out of here. Yeah.

We're getting out of there till four. Right? You know? And so and it does happen. It's just I mean, that's part of that proactive thing is that we really wanna get after it. We wanna be proactive. And I can promise you, although they don't mind the overtime, they're not looking for overtime. I hear it. You know?

They're like, that call comes in at 01:20. 01:30.

So Well, it was almost a percentage of this would go away with the new hires you're proposing? Have we done that analysis?

You're not gonna like my answer. I don't think it's the ship coverage would probably go down. I can't give you a definitive number, but just the blue is probably gonna stay consistent because you're arresting people. You're going to court. You're in training. You're having late shift calls. It's just the nature of this job.

All of it isn't yeah. You can't go away.

I mean, assuming some of the training stuff, maybe you could get it nudged down a little bit if you had enough coverage for shifts and stuff

like that. Don't say that'll advocate on that just because I your statement is factual correct. I totally agree. But if we done the analysis of what instead by using overtime to cover all those things we know we're gonna have to do, like court and stuff like that, that's a premium we're paying. So we have have we done an analysis of how much that is? Because if you you bring more staff in to make sure you're covered for those types of things, there's an offset savings there. Right? Does that make sense?

No. Like, you'd schedule someone deliberately less than full time so because you know they would also have court time and training time and other things. Yeah. And so then those things would go toward regular time instead of work.

So, like, in engineer in software engineering, plan for my engineers to have 80% of their work week available in code. All the rest is administrative tasks, all that to keep my numbers in line. And so if we did something similar where we said, hey. We're gonna you work your forty hours, but I'm only really booking you for thirty two. You know? And those other eight hours is all of this other stuff.

That I mean, it wouldn't account for the bleed over. Yeah. Predict, but you could could presumably take some of the training and We'll sort stuff off. Just overtime and put it on regular time.

So that we have a common training day so that we could address overtime because everybody works on Wednesday. So half the crew is working the road and the other half is in training, and then it flip flop flip flops. If we were to spread out those days and when they worked and trying to, give them that mandated training, our overtime would go through the through the road. Plus, we also have a contract that we have to abide by. They're working ten hour shifts and within those hours I mean, I understand what you're saying. I just I'd have to see it. It would be a bit of a challenge, I think. I'm not saying that Yeah. Overtime is gonna go through the roof. I'm just saying that if we're doing our job, overtime is gonna continue to be there. It's just gonna be I know what

it is. Team might lead but where I'm

coming from. I'm just talking raw numbers here. Was not simply mad. Back in 2025, that four thousand hours of overtime, that's a significant dollar amount. You know? And That's go for fees. It could work for FTE. So when we think about how we staff all that, if, you know, if we're scheduling for some of those known items, your some of the increases in staffing is offset by reduction over time. That's what

I'm trying to get.

Question. If we if I'm we just the chief of the

sub Oh, no. I can I was just gonna say I and I think we've done that? That's that's the problem is we've tried to condense, like, our known. I mean, that blue is all unknown. It's like, you know,

that's court. Like, what was different about 2021?

Oh, that's Yeah. The

Nobody went to court. We didn't arrest anybody. It was Right.

But, like, taking this point further, if we said, okay. Let's double the number of staff, You wouldn't you wouldn't expect overtime to still be at the same level.

You would because they're gonna still work their forty hours and still have court.

No. Because you would schedule them for less I mean, the hospitals do this all the time. Nurses work ten hour shifts. They do I think we've all made our point. Okay. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Alright. I'm just this is a solvable

thing. There's such thing as Let's stop completely. Such thing as flex time? Like, if

you didn't go to court, you

can come in two hours late?

That that's the problem. You overlay a contract with work hours and schedules, and it makes it incredibly difficult. Well, and we can talk about it more. I'm I'm obviously more than happy to have that discussion, but, it's just it's just a different beast. And and it's also I I understand, nursing's twenty four seven, but they don't go to court.

They don't have, like, these last minute arrests, so it it just makes it a little bit more challenging. So one of the things, that we've talked about and and so one of things we've talked about with the growth, you know, we're about 1%, one and a half maybe is the last I've heard. Just it's pretty slow. It's it's not, on a upward trajectory unless, Sherwood West comes in. And that's still a big unknown, when and and what that's gonna look like. But you need to still factor in what that impact's gonna be on us 10 down the road because the challenge is is we have to start dealing with it here sooner than later, and I'm gonna talk about that here in just a sec. But

what's your assumption for the growth there? 1%. But you heard it then.

Yeah. 1.5. Well, I I went at one, but I've heard 1.5. Yeah. So just on that 1% assumption, you know, in the next five years, we're gonna still need those. And that I put that there, the organic growth. Doesn't talk about Sherwood West and what that's potentially gonna look like. And I don't think here it's in here. But, you know, when that starts and what that looks like, if that's going to start draining our resources, whether there's a house built or not. The one thing that people have to remember is even during construction, just because there's not a body in there, we're still dealing with it because people like to go steal from those houses and those construction sites.

We dealt with it down on Brookman, We've dealt with it in every construction zone. So once that kicks in, we're gonna need resources to address that. I don't know when that's

gonna be, but we need

to at least have a conversation about what that could potentially look like. But what we do know now is is where we're at and what the next five years are gonna look like for us. Since I've been in this position, you know, I've been trying to ask for bodies to cover those shifts. I I also get the budgetary constraints. I also get the challenge with technology, and that we're butting up against, making sure that we have all the tools that we need.

But at the end of the day, we still need the personnel to to deal with people. And technology, although it's incredibly valuable, it's we can't offset that by reducing or not adding the the needed people. So you'll see down at the bottom, I've asked just over the last few years. This is not something that all of a sudden has just popped up and we think we need it. So and it goes back to, you know, getting to four people on a shift and and then being able to run at three minimums.

Ironically enough, 38% is more where we're at in the general fund as well. It's it's what we take. We know that, that's a big chunk of the general fund. We know our costs are going up, so we're we're gonna continue to go up in that. And we're gonna, you know, we're gonna need more and more money out of the general fund, unfortunately, and that impacts the entire city.

We've seen it over this last year, and we know that the horizon is not looking great. So how do we offset it? And that's really the big question. And I just talked a moment about, technology and what that looks like. What I have on here, you know, all of these gadgets aside from a drone, right now, we're at about a $600,000 contract for five years, and that's gonna be coming up in another year. And if we, add any drones to it, we're gonna be pushing a million bucks on a five year contract for that kind of technology.

Is that the TCV or the annual cost?

That's the five year The total? Yeah. Total. Yeah. That includes first responder and all these things. And we know Axon, is about 5% every year. So that's it's pretty easy to predict what we're gonna be paying. Obviously, that goes up with personnel costs as well for everybody we have out there. They need a camera. They need a taser. They need a radio. They need all the things that I'm wearing. So trying to factor that in is is where we're gonna have to figure out exactly what that's gonna look like or what that ass is gonna be if that's where we're gonna go.

So so she just time check. I do need to get to the next Oh, yeah. Item here pretty quick.

Okay. I'm gonna get through it. Thank I have a clock. I wasn't even looking at it. You know? Sorry. No worries.

I think we one we've done the ones that

have Yeah. It's not you're not the problems. So

real quick. I know you've seen these numbers. There's been a lot of discussion about the levy and what that's gonna look like and the compression, which, we had the opportunity to to look at. So that's not an issue. I went off of 350 on an assessed value. I know back when school district did it four years ago, five years ago, I think it was at $2.80. I just rounded up a bit just to kinda give them

More realistic Better number of

potentially what we're gonna be. So as you can see, it starts at 50¢, and it goes all the way up to a dollar and what that will give us. And then on the right, because we've talked a lot about a public safety fee, what that amount would look like, essentially, an EDU. And that's based off of 7,200, EDUs in the city. I know there's some discussion about what that looks like. So on an, like, an apartment complex, they would account for however many There's a problem with the building, obviously, and then just divide it out with them on that. So

As a as a side note, chief, when Craig and I were out in DC, one of the federal earmarks we're trying to get is money for, technology for the PD. You probably know that. Yes. Yes. I just wanna make sure everyone knows that. Knowledgeable. What?

Go ahead.

By looking at this, like, the comparable amount we would get through a levy versus or what I'd pay per month for my house. You know? Like, if you if you go, like, with the $20 a month, let's say, you get more out of a levy than you do out of the fee. True.

Yeah. I agree. Oh, there's a lot of other reasons. I'm like, levy better. My question, I I don't know if you have it on the next slide or or I guess what this last time. What do we need to accomplish the goals that we're asking for? Do we need a dollar rate? Do we need a 50 set rate? Do we need somewhere between what if we get if we do a dollar per thousand, what does that bias as far as towards your plan, and what is the 50? Like, you know what I'm saying?

Yeah. So I'm just doing napkin. An officer is probably about two twenty on average, fully loaded a year. I'm gonna break it down to two because that's easier for me. So if we brought in four, let's say, 100,000 today, that's not gonna account for and, you know, all all the things, the contracts, and all the things that are gonna compound over the years. So you add our technology and where we're at, you gotta be at least a million.

To add four?

Yeah. And to cover some of that technology. And and the mayor touched on it a bit that they, went back and were looking at a grant that could catapult us in that arena, but it's not gonna sustain it. So we gotta make sure we have a mechanism that's gonna sustain that.

Well, I think the point the point there

is we should always be looking for those opportunities. Yeah. Yeah. We we also could say, alright. We would love to, but we're not

gonna do bros. And I know or we're

not gonna do whatever x y z. Like, the AI report writers, would expect to see a report that says, hey. They're cutting our

overtime down because our people have to spend less time writing it, or they're able to

do more you know what I mean? But That's

not our decision, though. No. I understand.

But I but if I'm spending money on a tool or a technology, I would be able to also say, well, we're gonna accept the reduced, functionality or features of that because we can't afford it. Right? We can't afford a helicopter, right, or whatever it is. You know what I mean? Though, we should be able to say, yeah. I wish we could, but we can't.

That the AI report writing allows reports to get done faster and allows our officers to get back out on the streets Right. Citizens want

I understand. Yeah. But but, again, we should be able to say that. And, I mean, a million seems fine, but I also say that the other option is with what we all do with our personal budgets is to say, yeah. Is that gonna affect our hiring, or is it gonna you know, someone else if we just say, we're not gonna we're not gonna have drones or we're not gonna have AI cameras or we're not gonna have whatever. Yeah.

Let me and I'll address I'll address that. I I don't I don't disagree with you on that, but there's an expectation now of what communities want. They want transparency. It used to be a report written was great. Now the expectation is every one of us wears this. Uh-huh. I would be happy to get rid of all this. That would save us $600,000, but I can't. If I came to you and said, I wanna dump the cameras, and I wanna dump the tasers, and I wanna dump all that. I just wanna go back to old school policing.

You're gonna

say, heck no. Because this is what we want. I understand your point with the drones. It's an invaluable tool that eventually there's gonna be a demand and an expectation. We've seen it happening in Washington County, the officer safety component of it. And I'm gonna give you the example. The bank robbery. It the drone for search for one went up and watched it go watched the suspect go right into the bus. Talk about resources. Talk about time. Yeah. Nobody had to spend a bunch of time. Didn't have to use outside resources to find containment and bring dogs in. They knew where he was and where he was going. Followed the bus. Took him out.

So so that would

be my counterargument to that. I understand exactly what you're saying. Yeah. But I'm just telling you what the expectation of the community is and what the expectation of people that come in and sit down across and wanna work here. They wanna know what we're doing and what we have. I totally agree.

So yeah. So On the drone front,

I'm sorry. Let's let's make it fast because

we have Yeah. I'm general generally in support. I my only question would be, is that a resource that makes sense for every every jurisdiction to own and operate themselves, or does it make sense to have a a central collaboration where everybody pays into the fund, everybody gets to use the drones, and they go where they need to go instead of having a drone when I was sitting over here, but you got three over there that need to be used or what you know, I'm just it's a question. I don't know the answer.

I think it would be great. I just don't it's not gonna happen anytime soon. It's kinda like MHRT, South Cities. Twelfth And Tiger, Sherwood had drones, and somebody could put them up when needed. Because right now, here's the reality. Two people on and we need a drone up. We're not pulling one person off the road to set that drone up. It's gonna be either somebody at home that can tap in, or it's gonna be twelve, and then it's gonna make it go. So

So our saver's about partnering on drones.

Yes. Anyways, I I'm out of time. So I've just I threw the slide in from, 2223. We did our just our our quick, online poll about what people wanted and what they would, support. And I still think this stands true. We can't do it now because we have nearly 80,000 followers, and we just wouldn't probably get a real true value out of, Sherwood residents. But, it's still 89% that support that. Ironically enough, it's 89% that live in the city. So I'm gonna say it was a 100% that probably supported some kind of thing. So

I think those online polls are great, but it's basically your followers taking it. So Yeah. It's it's not it may not completely represent the community. But I I we're out of time. We gotta have we got another work session here.

Yeah. Through a presentation with an authorization.

Well, then I'm gonna discuss that we have if we we need to have

to be making a recommendation or something.

No. But we we do need to have a

follow on. I I have questions and some data requests that I can get you offline, but we should probably schedule a follow on work session with the Timmy List. So Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Steve. Great job. Very appreciate it. I think that's the first time I've

heard the. Thank you all

for coming.

That was all mine. Thanks.

Thank you all for coming and supporting us. Thank you. Okay.

Wonderful. That's now time for conversation.

Alright. Well, are moving on to our second item for our session. Or, actually, it's the third item. We just need to this is a discussion of the Sherwood West Conference of Planning, and we have, Eric Rutledge from our planning department, our director, here to, chat with us.

Thanks, mayor. I'm also joined by Sean Conrads, our company manager. So we're here to talk about Sherwood West, and I have a just a very brief presentation. I wanted to leave most of the time for discussion. In update, well, let me start with a little bit of background.

So in in December 2024, Metro approved the Sherwood West UGB expansion, 1,300 acres. So that was brought in in at the 2024. We received, one appeal for the first appeal to the director of the development, DLCD, Department of Land Conservation and Development. The decision was upheld. It was appealed further to the Land Conservation and Development Commission, and that's where the slide starts here so that here in on the second appeal was held in September 2025.

LCDC, for short, upheld the UGB expansion decision again, in favor of Sherwood West and the Metro decision. And, just a few weeks ago in March, we received the final written order from LCDC. The, opponents, if if there are any there are there are some, would need to file, any further appeal by April 14, so coming up pretty quick here. And we we have, heard there there has been communication, and we understand that there there will be a further appeal. So we should fully expect that, and this time it would be to the works court appeals.

We do suspect that Right. Yeah. There's there's there would probably be multiple parties, to

the to that appeal. And we'll send

that out once we get the actual official notices. We'll we'll let you have all that information. We do suspect that that process would move

somewhat quickly. They're gonna be on a specific the court of appeals will be on on a specific timeline, to to, continue to to make that decision. And so we suspect by the 2026, we would have that decision in hand from the court of appeals. The final appeal potential appeal would be to the Oregon Supreme Court, and I'll turn it I'll let Ryan kinda chime in on, I guess, what that process would look like. I'm not the expert there. Yeah. So there's

no right of appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. You have to submit what's called a petition for review. They grant about 5% of those, sometimes less. So my take on this is it's fairly unlikely you have to present a novel issue of law. The court of appeals is a rule correcting court. The Oregon Supreme Court is a rule announcing court, and so they take cases where they need to announce a change in the law or a new interpretation of the law. My my perspective is I don't see that here, so we'll see we'll see what happens.

So each of these appeals, they haven't had to make a case for something that is different than the original appeal? I mean, it the same?

So a lot argument? Yeah.

A lot argument each time? Repeat the

argument.

And sometimes they'll you know, I'm not sure what they're gonna argue here, but a lot of times they'll argue procedure. Right? They'll they'll argue deficiencies in due process, things like that. So we don't know what it's gonna be until we see it, but that that's what we can suspect.

So that's where we're at in terms of process. And

the A week from now.

The main discussion item for tonight, what we wanted to get feedback on was, really to get feedback, on whether we should take the next steps in terms of short request planning, and that would be comprehensive planning. So we have the the concept plan approved. Of course, the UGB expansion is approved subject to appeal, and the next step is comprehensive planning. Just really big picture, once we get through comprehensive planning, the land still is not in the city. Property owners would still need to petition the city for annexation.

Once they get through that process, then we could accept a land use application for development. So comprehensive planning, then annexation, and then a land use application, for, for actual development. So what we're looking at, in terms of the next step to get to comprehensive planning, Sean and I would need to scope out that comprehensive plan. Frankly, we've already started. We have a draft of that.

We have conditions for metro that we need to comply with, state law that we need to comply with, and then the local preferences for how we go about zoning and development code and master planning. We would need, an IGA, inter intergovernmental agreement with Metro. So we would need to have a have a a draft scope and put, approximate price tag on that. We would then get a, very likely get a grant from Metro through the IGA for that scope of work, and then we would do a competitive RFP to select a consultant. So that's the really short of what the next steps look like.

Of course, once we have a consultant on board, then the the final process will start in earnest. And three years is my best kind of middle ground estimate. If we're really moving, we might be might be able to get it done sooner. Some cities have taken frankly, they've taken more four to five years. Some cities have taken to get through comprehensive planning after a comp plan. But so middle ground, I'm estimating about three years.

When do you estimate the time from the first part that you just stated?

The RFP.

Yeah. Getting to the RFP. Yeah.

From now until getting to the RFP? We could do that fairly quickly. That's just just a just a few months. So the scope we just need to scope it out. It just take a few weeks, and then, really, we need to get, NIGA, you know, established with Metro, have it adopted by you, of course, as one party and then Metro as the other party, Metro Council. So Am I misremembering? I thought

maybe there was talk at

the maybe I misremembered that we had we already had a grant for this for Metro or conditional grant or something. I don't know.

I think it's very they've indicated that they're going to fund it. Without speaking for Metro, there has been a change that, there's essentially an automatic automatic funding with a UGB expansion for comprehensive planning. The process used to be that you get a UGB expansion approved, and then you still had to apply for what was essentially a competitive process for what the what was called metro twenty forty planning grants. I think you were a shoo in if you already had a UGB expansion approved, of course. But now they're essentially saying, look. If we if we give you approval of a UGB expansion, it comes with funding for comprehensive planning, but we still don't have the IGA.

Word on the street is they're they have plenty of money in that bucket. So Okay. Yeah. They they tax. Yeah. It takes to

So, really, the the question in in front of you in the discussion is, you know, are we ready to take the next step? Would you like us to begin scoping? Do we wanna wait to get through appeals or or anything else?

So that's the question.

So when we originally talked about this, we talked about and I think you mentioned it, but I just wanted to make sure on the same page about master plan and the whole thing in current and because that under h the original HP 2001,

that gives us a little

bit more control. And, we definitely wanna maintain as much as control in the face of all the preemption we're seeing from Salem in terms of the hitting, the the goals of that concept plan and what, you know, what we promised our community. Is that still where you're thinking that we'd master plan this at

the same time? Absolutely.

I think, you know, I

think it's an open question. To be transparent, think it's an open question as to whether we can fund both comprehensive planning and master planning under the Metro grant. We have a approximate number that I think they're thinking of. You know, if they're willing to fund more for master planning, great, and we can get it done. Otherwise, it would be up to the city to fill them.

I'm less concerned with the funding component of the master planning. I'm more concerned with the viability component of master planning. Have they done any work around how viable master planning still is in light of all the legislative changes over the last few years? I know we've had this dance around this conversation a few times over the last couple of years, but I don't

know if we've done dug in deep with our latest attorney maybe and and kinda

I I remember the attorney saying it hasn't been tested. We don't know.

And so We we won't let

you We won't won't know.

Let test case.

Okay. We won't do anything.

But I also but I frankly, I like the idea of us saying, hey. We're not dragging our feet.

We are try we're going ahead with what we said, which is we as a community are planning this area,

and we're doing it according to our values. We're trying to get a different you know what I mean? Like, it shows we're not doing the ten year version

of this comprehensive plan. I think I think a developer would be be making a mistake to try to test the law and our projected process. Yeah. But I Express process. I I I think it's worthwhile having this flex point, having those conversations with our attorney just based on what I know my hunch is. We're in a better place, not probably not as good as we thought it would be when we first talked about this dude three years ago, But we're in probably the better place. But you're right. We should have So so Gary to take a look

at that. Look at that because I I seem to recall we have a memo on that somewhere. So let me it's been a year or so since we've dug that

up, but let me look.

Yeah. The question at the time, the original sort of fundamental question was about HB 2,001 middle housing and master planning. And there are there is a provision in in the ORS or OAR about master plan communities. And and if you recall, there was a number of options that the city could take to have more control over the location and and design, etcetera, of middle housing outside not outside of HB 2,001, but within HB 2,001 because that master planned rulemaking was under the under HP 2,001. One of them was, getting 20 units per acre, I believe.

One of them was incentivizing middle housing. One of them was providing a variety of, two or more housing types other than ADUs and duplexes. So there's sort of some there's some options there. And from what I understand, that has not changed. I guess my caution and concern would be that even since that last conversation, there have been additional housing bills that have passed. That's okay. Those Are are going through rulemaking. Some of them are going through rulemaking now. Some of them are in effect now. And, of course, as we get through comprehensive planning another three years, there will be three more sessions, of course. And so We can't predict the future.

We can't predict the future.

We also have our our our process for annexation and annexation agreements we can leverage. But, you know, on the the master planning, I yeah. I it's it's a tough one. I I I'm sorry. No. I was gonna say, but didn't we initially say, though, that by putting our flag in the ground first, we have more standing because we were saying, hey. We've already started this. Well, no. We absolutely do. Okay.

Alright. That's fine.

But, yeah, that there's been a lot of changes since 2001. Yeah. I I just think that, you know, we're our thesis and our concept plan to drive the housing choices that we want, like middle housing and and cottage clusters and all that stuff, is basically like zoning for each, right, which is a little different from how the state looks at it and how other communities are doing it. Other communities are just saying this is a zoned area developer. You choose what you wanna do. You know? And they kinda allow everything in every zone. Is that kind of a correct generalizing. So we are taking kind of unique path here with our concept plan. So it's it's it's I think it's current to be very and work with Carrie. But but I also believe

I think Keith, you just

said something. I think we should be bold and drive for it and fight the battles when we need to fight the battles.

So going back to your original question about whether or not we should move forward with some of this plan, is it are we dependent upon what the appeals court says on this next go around? Can we go forward move forward and and hire somebody to do the RFP and all?

We would need to confirm with Metro that they would be willing to fund the, fund the comprehensive planning. I suspect they would be, not to speak for them, but I suspect they would be if you in just my opinion, if Metro never funded the next steps because there was an appeal, it would be a very effective delay tactic. And so I I suspect they'll be willing to fund this in light of the appeals. The Metro approved this. Right? And I think they have a lot of confidence in their decision as well. So Okay.

I think they'll Sorry. Finish up.

Go ahead. No. Go for it.

Just kind of dovetails

on that. So in that in light of that, in the risk, should the appeal somehow get overturned, would be staff time spent and Metro's money spent. Yeah. Correct.

Correct. Yeah. Reasonable. Yep. And and just put it all in context, these these groups and thousands of friends is kind of the ringleader, they appeal everything. It's this has been the track record over probably the last five, ten years, and they rarely, rarely over a phone or

given their name.

I mean, I think their their objective is delay.

Well And, recall, an appeal doesn't say you're not allowed to do this. An appeal normally looks like a remand to the agency to apply a different set of

So so could there and

make that It it's impossible to predict what's gonna happen with that, but it it's not the court of appeals saying, absolutely not. You're not allowed to do this. It would be the court of appeals saying,

hey. Listen. You to take a second look at this.

I just

this data set

and put it on.

What do you see as

the chances of I don't know. You know, I I don't know. I I'd love to answer that. I I

So, you know, the last one that was some something they had to turn around and have a public meeting process again. They're, you know, of of a they have, like, of a hearing.

And hearing of the same

The same fucking result. Yeah. Yep.

Yeah. I just I feel like we so far, we've been good on the appeals, and they've been going our way. So, I mean, you never know. But if but our our staff are are are already very busy, so I don't know if it's worth having staff spend time on something until we know a final answer. However, then we're at the 2026 possibly before we do anything. Correct?

Charge. Charge him. I was just I was

just That's like stolen.

This is part

of the budget. Me. We already have time allocated to this project, so it's not hasn't been it's not something that hasn't been budgeted for.

And to Eric's point, only the first part of this is our staff time, and then it's our PR and out to consultant. So, you know, Doug's question, I think, was insightful of saying it's not that big of a risk if everything goes against us in the appeal. We've lost a few weeks of staff time, which I know is valuable, but then Metro's money Yeah.

And if Metro's willing to fund it.

Yeah. And so but it also makes us look like, hey. Our charter says this. We amended it to say that, and we are being good partners because the state needs housing, and we're we're trying our best to get it there. And so please, people in high places, pull the levers to help us get housing in place. You know? We're doing everything we can as a city to get more housing.

Anyway, the question is, do we wanna move ahead? Yes. For me.

Yes.

Sounds good. Sounds like a consensus to me. Anything any other direction or thoughts for staff as we charge ahead?

Have have fun. And I just if I could just add one thing, and it's less for this room and more for because I know there's a lot of people watching this in person sitting right there. You say, look at me. Looking at you. No. And I I just wanna say because there's been a lot of, I call it FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt out with developers and different groups because of the charter amendments we passed that we're not we're not interested in planning this thing and making it work for our community and and and building much needy housing. We are very interested in that. We're we're open for business. We're not, you know, come talk to us about your projects. I know it's still early, and we got a lot of planning to do, but we're going through

We have a very well thought out concept plan that we're just hoping

It's a great plan that our community bought into through a long process, and we did. My main goal is that we live up to that plan, but it's not to delay or stop or not do it. So

We've got if we got a we if

our end result ten, fifteen, twenty years down the road is substantially

Complete?

Come well, I mean, substantially

aligned to the plan. Yeah.

Then I then

that's a

home run. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. That's my goal. That's my goal too.

Awesome. Thank you. Eric, do you have anything you need?

We do. Right. We do.

We'd like to Pablo, I do still wanna have the conversation specifically with you and maybe the land use attorney and everyone about after planning and, you

know Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Those pieces for that. Thank

Thank you. You. So, awesome, Eric. Guys, thank you so much. Great work. Been a long time doing it. So with that, we are adjourned. We'll pick up our regular meeting, Alpha Chambers, in ten minutes at 07:00. Gotcha. Thanks, everybody.