Monmouth council picks written public comment and staff to decide HB 3395 shelter applications

Monmouth, Ore. — The Monmouth City Council on Nov. 19 voted 3-2 to direct city staff to process emergency shelter applications under HB 3395 using a written public-comment period and to have staff make the final determination on whether the application meets the narrow statutory criteria.

The motion, made by Councilor McKeel, followed a work session in which staff and city attorneys described HB 3395 as a state law that limits local governments to six specific review criteria focused on public health and safety and removes a local appeal process (appeals instead go to circuit court). Suzanne Dufner, the city's community and economic development director, told councilors the application from Church at the Park is currently under staff review and that the work session was intended to decide whether there would be a hearing and who would decide the application.

"HB 33 95 is a state law that governs siting of emergency shelters in Oregon communities," Dufner said during her presentation. She told the council that the law does not require a public hearing and does not specify which local body must decide applications, leaving some procedural choices to the city.

Several residents urged the council to allow robust public input. Jody Russell, who identified herself as a Monmouth resident, asked the council "to select city staff to be the decision maker on HB 33 95 emergency shelter applications and to ask that public comment be in writing," saying written submissions allow staff to investigate and verify facts. Diane McBurnett, a longtime volunteer with Family Promise, urged transitional housing and described the human impacts she has seen.

Council discussion focused on tradeoffs between public engagement and legal risk. City attorneys warned that the statute creates a one-way fee-shifting penalty if a city improperly denies an application that meets the statutory criteria. As one attorney put it during Q&A, "If it meets the criteria, then it needs to be approved under the statute." Several councilors said that written testimony tends to be more focused on the statutory factors and less likely to devolve into repeated emotional testimony.

Councilor Kerrey opposed the motion, saying a hearing would also let the applicant present its plans "on the record" and allow the public to hear the applicant's commitments. The motion passed 3-2. Councilors who voted in favor said staff would publish a completed application packet, open a written comment period for a set window, solicit agency reviews (police, fire, public works), and then make a staff recommendation and determination.

The council and staff repeatedly emphasized that HB 3395 limits local review to specific safety and health standards and that the city's role is to determine whether an application meets those statutory criteria, not to impose requirements outside them. After staff makes a determination, the statute allows judicial review: an applicant or other party can take the decision directly to circuit court.

What happens next: staff will finalize a written process to declare an application complete, publish the application materials, open a written comment period, collect agency findings, and then issue a staff decision. Councilors said they expect opportunities for community education and follow-up discussions after a decision is made.

Quotes used in this article were taken from the public transcript of the Nov. 19 Monmouth City Council meeting.