Keizer advisory committee reviews draft emergency operations plan, requests clarifications and a pocket guide

Keizer’s Emergency Operations Advisory Committee spent its June 17 meeting conducting a line‑by‑line review of the draft Keizer Emergency Operations Plan, asking consultants to clarify data sources, correct cut‑and‑paste errors and produce a concise pocket guide for elected officials.

The meeting opened with introductions and a review of the committee’s charge: to implement, test and refine the city’s emergency policies and advise the city council on plan adoption. The chair said the group’s goal is to gather questions and produce a short pocket guide that lists the most important actions, flowcharts and contact points for officials who may need quick guidance during an incident.

Committee members approved the minutes from the prior meeting by a voice vote after a motion to approve; a roll‑call tally was not recorded in the transcript. The group then began a detailed review of the draft plan (document dated November 2025), with members instructed to use the page numbers printed at the top of the consultant version rather than inconsistent bottom pagination on different printouts.

Several substantive points drew sustained attention. Members flagged a table on page 15 that lists households with limited English proficiency but contains no source data; the committee asked consultants whether that figure is available from the American Community Survey or local school district statistics and requested the table be updated or annotated if data are not available. On hospitals and medical facilities, members recommended listing primary hospitals in the plan while placing smaller clinics and changeable facility lists in an appendix that can be updated more easily.

Long‑term care, nursing homes, hospice and dialysis centers were identified as priority facilities to highlight because they are vulnerable during power outages and other hazards. Marion County staff recommended the plan include those facility types in a critical‑facilities appendix and asked that the pocket guide call out which locations need prioritized support.

The hazard matrix drew questioning as well. One participant noted landslide risk is marked “very high” in a portion of the plan despite Keizer’s largely flat terrain; county staff said the matrix may be statewide and asked the consultants to verify whether hazard scores were tailored to Keizer or copied from broader regional analyses. Members also identified clear cut‑and‑paste errors, including references to other cities in the terrorism/analysis section, and asked staff to ask the consultants to correct city‑specific language.

The committee discussed human‑caused incidents and recommended adding language to distinguish civil unrest and mass demonstrations from terrorism. Members emphasized coordination with the Salem‑Keizer School District for school incidents (reunification, active threats) and agreed the plan should reflect the district’s lead role while clarifying how the city supports school response and the location and contact of the school district emergency manager.

Speakers described the Red Cross role in mass‑casualty events (shelter and reception centers) and noted the organization’s typical target for opening a shelter is within roughly two hours of notification; the Red Cross representative also emphasized that transportation to shelters is not a Red Cross service and noted the city recently approved a mutual‑aid transit agreement with Chariots, with plans to seek a similar agreement with Salem‑Keizer Schools.

Operational details raised included hazmat response (Salem Fire and regional 'Team 13' were cited as the technical hazmat resource), the location of the primary EOC (ballroom labeled 'IRS A') with Keizer Fire District serving as a backup, and the value of including code citations in the plan. Committee members asked that the plan explicitly reference local ordinances and the city succession authority for emergency declarations; a speaker cited city code section 16‑24 as outlining a line of succession (city manager, emergency manager, chief of police, public works director) and noted that curfews or other orders typically must be ratified by the council at the earliest opportunity.

The chair left the record open for additional comments for about 10 days (the group discussed a June 30 deadline) so consultants and subject matter experts could receive compiled questions and provide responses before the next meeting. The committee agreed to compile a bullet‑list of comments from this meeting and the open record, circulate a strikeout version from the consultants, and aim for an early August follow‑up meeting (or September if schedules require). The meeting adjourned by motion and second.

What’s next: the committee will collect written comments through the open record deadline, forward them to the consultants and subject matter experts for response, circulate the consultants’ strikeout draft, and schedule the next meeting to review consultant replies and finalize changes before recommending adoption to the city council.