Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Keizer emergency planning committee begins section-by-section review of revised Emergency Operations Plan
Loading...
Summary
The City of Keizer Emergency Planning Committee reviewed a grant-funded draft Emergency Operations Plan that shifts to FEMA 'community lifelines' and decided to take detailed section-by-section review offline before a follow-up meeting in mid‑June.
The City of Keizer Emergency Planning Committee met to introduce members, elect leadership and begin reviewing a revised Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) produced under a federal grant. The committee heard a brief history of the draft and agreed to take detailed review offline before reconvening in mid‑June.
Council President Jane Star opened the session and read a volunteer-recognition proclamation. Tim Wood, assistant city manager and finance director, said staff prepared a crosswalk comparing the 2009 plan and the new draft to help the committee identify substantive changes. "I am the assistant city manager, also the finance director for the city of Faison," Wood said during introductions, explaining his role supporting the review.
Members were introduced by name: Daryl Fuller identified himself as a volunteer government liaison for the Red Cross covering Marion, Polk and neighboring areas; Rhonda Rich identified herself as president of the West Keizer Neighborhood Association; Brian Butler said he is division chief of operations for the Keizer Fire District; Krista Carter said she is a program coordinator with county emergency management; Andrew Copeland identified himself as Keizer police chief; and Carrie Blaylock identified herself as Keizer’s director of public works.
Staff explained the draft was developed using a Homeland Security grant and by a contractor referred to as ASG, who condensed the older plan into the current format. Committee members noted the new draft replaces the older Emergency Support Functions (ESF) framing with FEMA’s community lifelines graphic and asked whether that change affects coordination with county and state systems. Committee members were told the community-lifelines approach aligns with state and county guidance while remaining NIMS-compliant.
Several members pressed for clarity on data and content. Council President Jane Star questioned why specific demographic measures appear in the draft’s Community Resilience Challenge Index, such as the percentage of unemployed women, and asked whether such indicators belong in the plan body or in an appendix. Staff and the consultant representative said the dataset was developed for multiple cities and reflected standard indicators intended to inform local planning.
The committee also raised the need to confirm and, where appropriate, update local contact lists and the medical-care listings in the draft, because those items can change frequently. Staff recommended maintaining high-level content in the plan and placing details that require frequent updates (names, phone numbers, clinic lists) in an appendix or an externally maintained directory.
Members asked whether recently released state hazard data (from the Oregon geological authority, Dogami) were reflected in the draft; staff said the draft likely predates the newest Dogami report and that committee members or county staff should flag any outdated hazard information for correction.
After discussion about process and page-number inconsistencies in distributed packets, Council President Star moved to adopt the introduction and scope (section 1.1). The motion was seconded but later withdrawn so the committee could agree on a review approach (section-by-section or a longer work session followed by a single adoption motion). No adoption vote on the section occurred that evening.
Committee members emphasized the importance of obtaining acknowledgement or sign-off from mutual-aid partners and listed agencies (utilities, health providers and regional transit) and asked staff to circulate MOUs or template language for review. Staff offered to collect suggested edits and to coordinate questions to the contractor if needed.
The committee agreed to take time for individual review, collect written feedback, and reconvene in mid‑June; staff said they would circulate calendar options and suggested a tentative meeting the week of June 15–20. The meeting adjourned by consent.
The draft plan remains under active committee review; the committee did not adopt any plan sections at this meeting and directed staff to gather corrections, partner acknowledgements and updated hazard data ahead of the next meeting.
