Portland City Council AM Session 02/25/26

Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Jamie Dunphy 5:46 - 5:58
5:46Good morning.
5:48I am now convening the, uh, Wednesday, February 25th morning meeting of the Portland City Council.
5:57Please take the roll.
Keelan McClymont 5:58 - 6:00
5:58Good morning.
5:59Avalos?
Candace Avalos 6:00 - 6:00
6:00Present.
6:01Smith?
Angelita Morillo 6:02 - 6:02
6:02Aye.
6:02Kanal?
6:04Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 6:05 - 6:05
6:05Here.
6:06Ryan?
6:08Koyama Lane?
Loretta Smith 6:10 - 6:10
6:10Here.
6:10Murillo?
6:11Here.
6:12Novick?
6:13Here.
Olivia Clark 6:14 - 6:16
6:14Clark?
6:16Here.
6:17Pierce?
6:18Green?
Mitch Green 6:19 - 6:19
6:19Here.
6:20Zimmerman?
6:22Dunphy?
Steve Novick 6:23 - 6:23
6:23Here.
6:24And I see Councilor Kanal.
6:26And Councilor Kanal has also joined us, yes.
6:28And can we please read the, uh, rules of decorum for the chamber?
Rebecca Dobert 6:33 - 7:08
6:33Good morning.
6:34Welcome to the Portland City Council.
6:36To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda At www.portland.gov/council/agenda.
6:46Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.
6:50Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.
6:55Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
6:58The presiding officer preserves order.
6:59Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed.
7:08Thank you.
7:09If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
7:12Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
7:15Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
7:19Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
7:23Your testimony should address the matter being considered.
7:26When testifying, state your name for the record.
7:28Your address is not necessary.
7:30If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
7:33Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
7:37Thank you.
7:37Thank you.
7:38Thank you very much, colleagues.
7:40First thing on our agenda is approval of the agenda.
7:45Are there any, uh, requests to amend the agenda, to reorder items, or reschedule items for the future?
7:51Do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda?
7:56Uh, Council President?
7:58Yeah.
7:58I had heard, and perhaps I'm incorrect, that we might be holding an item over because some of our colleagues were absent today.
8:07I had also heard that.
8:08I heard Councilor Zimmerman was going to be introducing a motion to postpone, and he's not here.
8:13Okay.
8:14Um, would you like to introduce it?
8:16I think out of respect for my colleague Councilor Ryan, who's not here and is one of the co-sponsors of agenda items 11 and 12, I'd like to ask that we take those up at the next council meeting when he is present.
8:32Um, I don't want to delay this significantly.
8:36If we're not able to do it at the next meeting, I'd ask that you let us know that.
8:40I think this is important to move as quickly as possible, but I do know that he was hoping to be able to weigh in.
8:46Absolutely.
8:47I have no objections to scheduling this for our next council hearing.
8:50Is that a formal motion to postpone, or how do we do that?
8:54I have a point of information though.
8:56It's at the end of this agenda, right?
8:59Or towards the end of the agenda.
9:00Towards the end of the agenda.
9:01So which could mean it could be already moving to tomorrow.
9:05Like, can we make a decision later if it's going to be like— can it already be pushed to tomorrow?
9:10Does that make sense?
9:12I would like to— I'm hoping to move it now a full week.
9:16Yeah, I'd like to move it to next Wednesday.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 9:19 - 9:20
9:19I don't consent to that.
9:21Okay, we will.
9:23So I think since we are changing the agenda, we will need to make a motion, a second, and vote to change update the agenda.
9:33Okay.
9:35Uh, I would move to— it's a little awkward because it sounds like we have co-sponsors on different sides of this.
9:42I had heard the request from co-sponsor Councilor Ryan to move it, and I'm hearing the request from co-sponsor Koyama Lane not to.
9:49But I think, um, I'll put the motion out there that we postpone items 11 and 12 to next week.
9:56Council President.
10:02Second.
10:02All right, motion by Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, seconded by Councilor Clark.
10:08Avalos?
10:10No.
10:11Smith?
10:12Yes.
10:14Kanal?
Sameer Kanal 10:15 - 10:17
10:15Point of information, is this not debatable?
10:18I don't know.
10:19Is this a debatable— is a motion to postpone a debatable motion?
10:22I would need to look really quickly.
10:25I just have—.
10:25It is.
10:26I just have a point of information, which is our are they absent for the whole day, or is it a— is there a chance they'll be here later?
10:32Councilor Ryan is traveling, and I think out of— not able to call into the next couple of meetings like today and tomorrow.
10:40Okay, we'll see.
10:41I didn't see a virtual participation or anything, or even an absence put in.
10:49I think I did see an absence, but I don't know.
10:52I'm hearing about any of this.
10:53Council President, it is debatable.
10:55Okay, this is a debatable motion.
Tyler Fellini 10:58 - 10:58
10:58Councilor—.
10:58And we are in the middle of a vote, so—.
11:01I think we moved to the vote a little early.
11:03Okay, okay.
11:04Because Councilor Kanal had a—.
11:07I mean, I, I think I got my, my question answered, but I'm seeing that the absence includes next week, or at least next Wednesday, so I'm going to vote no.
11:17All right, would you like to continue with the vote, Council President?
11:20Thank you.
11:21Pirtle-Guiney.
11:21Aye.
11:24No.
11:25No.
11:29Aye.
11:29Aye.
11:31No.
11:34Aye.
Eric Zimmerman 11:37 - 11:37
11:37Aye.
11:38The motion to postpone those items fails with 6 yes votes, 5 no votes, and 1 absent.
11:47Okay, colleagues, do I have consent to approve the remainder of the agenda?
11:53No.
11:54Okay, can we take a vote on approval of the agenda then?
12:01Do we need a motion for that?
12:03Okay.
12:09Avalos, I'm sorry, point of information.
12:12If we don't approve the agenda, what happens?
12:17I don't think we can meet.
12:23Okay.
12:27All right, I'll continue with the vote.
12:30Avalos?
12:31I'm sorry, is this a debatable motion?
12:34Agenda approval?
12:35Yes, because I have some things to say.
12:40Councilor Murillo, go ahead.
12:42Okay.
12:45We—.
12:46I understand that maybe there are some differences in a single amendment in this policy.
12:51We have city business to get done that needs to move forward.
12:57We do not always get what we want, and negotiations are very difficult in this building, and I'm not entirely happy with how everything went down on many sides.
Unidentified speaker 13:08 - 13:08
13:08Councilor Smith.
13:09But we have an agenda with a lot of important items to fulfill.
13:12Yesterday, the Housing Committee already got stalled because someone didn't file an absence and let us know they weren't going to be there, and we lost quorum.
13:19We cannot have a Republican-lite legislature here that has walkouts or doesn't vote to approve the agenda for us to meet and get our work done because people are unhappy with individual items.
13:32I would really like for us to just get our work done.
13:35Thank you, Councilor.
13:39Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
13:41Thank you, Council President.
13:44I wanna be clear that my motion to remove something to the agenda was not to stall for any purposes having to do with the amendments on the table, not to delay the important work that we have on today's agenda.
13:58There are many other very important things, but simply to where is his absence from?
14:16He has an absence filed online.
14:26Okay, Councilor Smith.
14:29Thank you, uh, Council President.
14:32And I agree that we have to get business done, but we also can't have councilors who engage with unpeaceful protesters stopping our meetings either, which happened last week.
14:55Thank you, Councilor Smith.
14:56Councilor Koyama Lane.
14:57Last week, multiple councilors up here said they wish this could move forward quickly.
15:04To clarify, this package has been ready since August, and the previous council president stalled that.
15:10So would love to keep this moving.
15:13Councilor Zimmerman doesn't want this to come to an evening meeting.
15:16It seems like there are a lot of different tactics to stall things.
15:20Community has spoken really clearly.
15:22That's who I'm here for.
15:23I'd like to get back to business, please.
15:26Thank you, Councilor.
15:29Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please move to the vote on approval of the agenda?
15:38Aye.
15:39Uh, aye.
15:41No.
15:42Aye.
15:43Aye.
15:46Oh nope, sorry.
15:47Koyama Lane?
15:49Aye.
15:50Murillo?
15:51Aye.
15:52Novick?
15:53Aye.
15:54Clark?
15:55Aye.
15:55Green?
15:57Aye.
15:58Zimmerman?
15:58No.
15:59Dunphy?
16:01Aye.
16:01The agenda is approved with 9 yes votes, 2 no, and 1 absent.
16:06Thank you.
16:07Can we please move to public communications?
16:11First up, we have Guy Frankenstein.
16:21Good morning.
Guy Frankenstein 16:22 - 16:22
16:22Morning.
16:22Identify yourself for the record.
16:24Uh, my name is Guy Frankenstein.
16:26That is my real name.
16:28That's not a joke.
16:30Uh, my pronouns are he/him.
16:35Good?
16:36Yeah, yeah, please.
16:37Thank you.
16:38In 1932, Prussia, the largest state in Germany, saw SA and SS forces march through neighborhoods, provoke confrontation, and destabilize life.
16:50Initially, Prussia fought back.
16:52They supported and enforced bans, they restricted permits, and they used police authority to stop mobilization.
17:00Then the bans were lifted.
17:01It was argued that accommodating these forces would mitigate harm and prevent escalation, which would provide a better long-term outcome than resistance.
17:10So state government stepped back.
17:13If you need me to explain what happened to Prussian government officials a few months later, then you shouldn't be sitting in those seats.
17:20Here is the truth about the situation with ICE.
17:23It will escalate.
17:24This council and everyone in this state are not outliers.
17:28Repeating the mistakes of the past will lead to the same outcome.
17:32You can resist and have a chance at success, or you can do what you're currently doing, Thank you.
17:37With confidence that you will fail.
17:39You are a government of a city that is in the crosshairs of this administration, and acquiescence isn't going to buy you time.
17:46It's only going to ensure your demise.
17:49In the past 2 months, I have personally witnessed ICE tear gas children and union members, and on the day that ICE murdered Alex Pretty, watched Portland police throw protesters to the ground and laugh in their face, with one officer daring me to do something about it.
18:05Councilor and the response to all of this is hollow words from Keith Wilson and opportunistic moralism from this fucking council.
18:13I don't know if the mayor and this council are scared or incompetent, but you were elected to exercise power, not narrate its limits.
18:22If you are waiting for the perfect opportunity to take action, you are waiting for something that is not going to arrive.
18:29Portland has autonomy and legal authority to govern ourselves and rein in the actions of Gestapo agents within our walls, and you have you have abandoned that responsibility.
18:39Portland is one of the most populated cities in the most powerful country in the world, and the inaction by its government belies the importance of what is taking place here.
18:49The president is threatening to illegally federalize our elections within months and have ICE agents at polls, yet you sit here and shuffle responsibility between departments.
19:01When ICE goosesteps through those doors on order from Kristi Noem, it will be the thousands of people you are failing that will stand between between you and them.
19:10Not PPB, not Keith Wilson, not Tina Kotek.
19:14Us.
19:15Because we do our part even when you don't do yours.
19:18This November, I, along with many others, will be running for city council to replace you with the express purpose of ending illegal federal actions within our city and pushing hard accountability for anyone that enabled ICE.
19:33You are not built for the actions that this moment demands.
19:36Thank you.
19:36And cannot see the end of the path you're on.
19:40We are fighting back because there will be no second chance.
19:44Fuck this council.
19:45Fuck Keith Wilson.
19:47Thank you very much for being here.
19:48And fuck ICE.
19:49Point of order.
19:50Could you please explain the rule of decorum?
19:52Yeah, colleagues, we cannot— or the public, we cannot tolerate, uh, profanity.
19:59We have an FCC license.
20:01We are broadcasting live.
20:03Please try to maintain rules of decorum in the chamber.
20:09Next up, we have Holly Brown online.
20:14Hi, yeah, can you all hear me?
20:16Yeah, we can hear you.
20:17Go ahead.
20:18Um, yeah, my name is Holly Brown.
20:19I'm a resident of District 2.
20:20I'm also a member of Portland Contra las Deportaciones.
20:23That's interesting, uh, Councilor Jamie Dunphy, you say that we cannot tolerate profanity.
20:27What about councilors threatening to shoot peaceful protesters like Loretta Smith?
20:31Do we tolerate that?
20:33Why is she allowed in the building today?
20:35I'm here to speak about the violent suppression of First Amendment rights that occurred last Wednesday during the evening meeting of council.
20:42Protesters are rightfully upset at the council's profound lack of action on ICE.
20:46You are the legislators of Portland, and yet even the most progressive of you pretend that you have no power and capitulate in advance to ICE and Trump.
20:54So it should come as no surprise to you when people disrupt your meetings.
20:57When you do not listen to the demands of the people or work on the things we are begging you to work on, there's nothing left for us to do than to make sure that you can hear our message and that you hear how serious the situation is with ICE here in Portland.
21:10In response to people simply chanting and holding up a petition with 19,000 signatures demanding that you put forth legislation to shut down the Portland ICE facility, Council President Jamie Dunphy called the police on protesters and all of you hid away in your offices.
21:24Interesting.
21:264 People were arrested that night, and you all stood by in silence as the mayor and police chief Bob Day put out statements saying our protest was violent and that we vandalized City Hall.
21:36This is simply a lie.
21:372 Of the charges— or 2 of the protesters have already had their charges dropped, showing that these are sham charges meant to perpetuate a narrative that you are under threat when actually it is us who are under threat.
21:47In response to a petition, Councilor Loretta Smith There is no other way to interpret this than a threat to shoot protesters who get out of line and to try to silence us with violence.
22:02Shame on you, Loretta Smith.
22:04You should resign.
22:06Where were the denunciations from the rest of the council to this threat to shoot peaceful protesters?
22:11Councilor Kanal, simply saying that you would vote it down and would not bring a gun is not enough.
22:16Councilor Morillo saying that these protesters are annoying but that Loretta Smith's position is nuanced is a shame.
22:22Why could none of you say that we denounce this threat of violence?
22:26And those are just the councilors who said something.
22:29Most of you were completely quiet while Councilor Loretta Smith threatened to shoot protesters and continues to now smear us by saying that we are violent.
22:37What a lie.
22:38It is very clear what side you are on.
22:41We demand that Council President Jamie Dunphy commits to no longer Aye.
22:45We demand that Mayor Wilson stop calling the police on protesters and that he changes security protocol to ensure the safety of the public in meetings from the police, from security, and now from the councilors, because I guess we have to worry about that.
22:57We also demand that all councilors denounce Loretta Smith's threat of violence.
23:01We want you to say this very clearly, that you denounce her threat to shoot protesters.
23:06We also demand an end to the practice of banning immigrant rights protesters from entering City Hall, because that is what is happening.
23:13It is illegal.
23:14We also demand that the charges are dropped against Susan Anglada-Bartley and Henry Roloff.
23:20Walking up to you with a petition does not deserve charges or to be placed in jail.
23:25We also demand that the Portland ICE facility is shut down immediately and that the permit is revoked.
23:30Stand up, do your job, stand against ICE.
23:32It's pathetic, honestly.
23:34Thank you for being here.
23:36Next up, we have Cole Donahue.
23:48Morning.
23:48Last Wednesday at the last full council meeting, I and—.
23:51For the record.
23:52Oh, oh, sorry.
23:53Cole Dunnehue is my name.
23:54Last Wednesday at the last full council meeting, I and more than 50 other people showed up to protest and exercise our First Amendment rights by calling for the facility to— or for the city to act and shut down the South Waterfront Ice Facility.
24:06What followed was a disgusting response from the city, its private security goons, and PPB, in which 4 people, including me, were arrested.
24:14Today, I'm gonna focus on my particular experience of that night.
24:18When we were gathering outside of City Hall, one of the private security guards came up to me specifically and said that I had been trespassed from City Hall and that I would not be allowed entry.
24:26I had been there for a total of about 5 minutes by that point and hadn't even attempted to enter the building yet.
24:30A few minutes later, I was able to get the attention of that same security guard and ask what the legal justification for that order was.
24:36He initially didn't even give me He never came back outside.
24:43Without any documentation, I couldn't reasonably believe his words had any actual legal authority.
24:48So when the doors to City Hall opened, I attempted to enter the building to attend the publicly accessible meeting.
24:53I was once again told that I had been trespassing and that I wasn't going to be allowed entry.
24:57This time they did give me a sheet of paper, but it was not documentation.
25:01It had no charges listed on it, no cease and desist, nothing.
25:03Councilmember Wilson, you're under arrest.
25:03I was essentially being told I wasn't allowed in this public building because they didn't feel like letting me in.
25:09I'd also like to take this opportunity to call out how slowly everyone was let in that night.
25:14The doors opened several minutes later than usual, and by the time they did open, well more than 50 people had 10 minutes to make it through security before the start of that City Council meeting.
25:23The security process seemingly intentionally was extra slow for a large evening meeting.
25:28Usually they let in about 2 people at once and check them, all of that.
25:32This time they were just letting people in one by one.
25:35More than a dozen people were still waiting to be let in at 6:30, half an hour after the meeting was scheduled to start.
25:40That is shameful.
25:43And while I was never let into City Hall that night, Thomas Allen, a known right-wing agitator who has assaulted dozens of people with pepper spray, both at City Hall and down at the ICE facility, including 5 people earlier that same evening, including my own fucking sibling, was allowed entry into City Hall like it was absolutely no problem.
26:01After being— after I was shown no documentation stating why I wasn't allowed entry into the building, I was told that the police were on their way and that they'd have the documentation I was looking for.
26:11I stayed in the doorway waiting for their arrival to see it, and when the police did arrive, I left the building and was immediately arrested by police.
26:18It is appalling that the City of Portland treats protesters the way it does by ignoring demands, suppressing peaceful— look at me, Loretta Smith— peaceful protesters, and then demonizing those same protesters in public statements afterwards.
26:30Councilmember Smith.
26:31PBB should not be mobilized to this end.
26:33They are the ones who escalate things.
26:34They are the ones who put people in danger.
26:36They are the ones who hurt people.
26:38City Hall— City Council would not be disrupted as often if people felt like they were actually being listened to.
26:44The way you fix that is by taking real action to impede ICE's reign of terror, and the way you do that is by shutting down ICE's facility on the South Waterfront.
26:52Revoke the permit immediately.
26:54Thank you very much.
26:57Next up, we have Tyler Fellini.
26:59Just a second, Councilor.
27:04Members of the council, Council President, my name is Brian Behman, the project manager for Allied Universal.
27:09Uh, the testimony today will have some evidence that he wants to, uh, bring and show you guys.
27:15Being that they are spent incendiary rounds, they're going to remain in security control during this presentation.
27:20You guys have any questions, Captain Truman will be able to show you guys.
27:23Okay, so she's grabbing that right now, and I turn it back over to I'm just going to wait.
Robert Taylor 27:34 - 27:36
27:34Mind just setting the bags out so they can see?
27:37Okay.
Tyler Fellini 27:50 - 30:53
27:50Councilors, for the record, my name is Tyler Fellini.
27:52I'm a registered lobbyist, uh, and the executive director of Portland Jobs with Justice.
27:56These are spent munitions that were collected on the 31st of January and the 1st of February.
28:01This is just 2 of the 4 bags that are in there.
28:06On the 31st, I reached out to the mayor's office to speak about what had happened.
28:11Our organization was one of the organizations that planned the massive peaceful rally and march that marched down and past the ice— the McAdam Ice Facility and was teargassed.
28:21I have not heard back.
28:22It's been almost a month.
28:23That same day, I checked in with Councilor Green's team because I knew he'd been impacted by the gas, and I expressed our desire to speak on the actions of federal agents that day, and they recommended that I request public comment time.
28:34Now, since the mayor has authority to enforce the fine that city councilors passed last month, I believe it's most important to get before him with my concerns, and I've been trying to get on the regular council agenda in the hopes that you would invite him here so that I could speak about that as a member of an organization that planned that rally.
28:48Councilor Sameer Kanal.
28:49I've been told that the proper way to get on the full agenda is to go through a committee.
28:53I reached out to Councilor Novick and Councilor Kanal's staffs to try to get before the Public Safety Committee.
28:57Still waiting to hear back.
28:59At this point, I've spoken to many of you about our concerns, and I've expressed a desire to speak.
29:04I have still not heard back from the mayor's office, so I'm now here before you all since this council has public and accessible meetings.
29:10I'm concerned about the mayor's comments at a 5051 event in which he alleged that federal agents used tear gas in response to a handful of agitators.
29:17Seeming to justify their actions, and I'm concerned about his office's lack of response to our request.
29:22Again, I reached out on the 31st to his office.
29:25As a registered lobbyist, I have the privilege to be here during the day that many other working Portlanders do not have.
29:31I'd also like to think that I have a good grasp of how local government works, especially because of how often our organization engages with the city.
29:38And if it's been this challenging for us to get before the mayor, especially as an organization that directly played a role in organizing the event on the 31st that the mayor has spoken about multiple times since, As well as the governor and the attorney general, I can only imagine how many other constituents must feel.
29:53This is not a sign of an effective and responsive government, and despite the best efforts of you all to be accountable to your constituents, to have district talks, etc., the actions of the mayor's office have unfortunately put you all in the crosshairs.
30:06Now, while some may disagree about the tactics that were used last week by constituents, I can certainly recognize the frustration that they must feel.
30:13I feel that frustration.
30:15Um, I want to close by saying this.
30:18In a speech, Dr. King once said that a riot is the voice of the unheard.
30:23That was not an endorsement for riots.
30:25That was him saying that when change becomes impossible through ordinary measures, the people will turn to extraordinary measures.
30:32I understand that you all are not the mayor.
30:35I cannot get a hold of the mayor.
30:36I am before you all.
30:37I would urge you all to I would urge you to correct the mayor's record that a few agitators led to ICE tear gassing thousands of innocent people, because you and I both know that's not what happened that day.
30:53Thank you.
30:58Next up, we have Seth Todd.
31:10Seth Todd.
31:16Okay, we're gonna call the alternate since Seth isn't, uh, present.
31:20Tobias Goldstone is joining us online.
31:31Thank you.
31:31Tobias Goldstone, resident of Old Town.
31:35I just want to thank the City Council for allowing me to speak in this forum today, and thank you for working together to help solve some of the fundamental problems that our wonderful city is experiencing.
31:48I'm here to provide some awareness around a small infrastructure project that impacts over 1,000 residents in the Old Town neighborhood.
31:57This is the NATO Flanders Crossing project.
32:00It's to upgrade the train signals and alter the intersection to allow for safer pedestrian crossing under the steel bridge.
32:09One outcome of the safety upgrades is to submit for a train horn exemption and allow for a quiet zone in the Old Town neighborhood.
32:19This effort's been ongoing since 2010.
32:21Thank you.
32:23With an administrative order that was issued requesting that this project be started in 2021.
32:28This effort gained traction, and City Council voted to approve to move forward in 2023.
32:35Subsequently engaged with ODOT and PBOT to get a project moving forward and reached 95% complete plans completion.
32:48Unfortunately, due to the length of time it took To get to, uh, to get the plans completed.
32:54Prices went up, and we have a shortfall of about $750,000 to complete this project.
33:02Uh, we are looking for a win in the Old Town neighborhood, especially on a project that has gone on for this long.
33:11And I'm hoping that City Council will be able to provide some options to be able to fill that funding gap.
33:18Thank you.
33:18And ultimately get this, get this safety crossing built.
33:23And it will also support a safety— safer crossing for the, for the skate park that is planned in that area as well.
33:35So there's a lot of, there's a lot of unlocks by, by doing this.
33:41So I urge the council to reach out to PBOT and please request to find alternate, some additional funding sources To be able to move this project along.
33:52It certainly will help over 1,000 residents that live in that area that have experienced this problem for a long period of time.
34:00So a very small thing that would be a big win for the city of Portland, and I urge the council to, to push this forward.
34:13Thank you.
34:14Thank you very much for being here this morning.
34:16That completes communications.
34:19Council President, can I take a moment for a point of personal privilege?
34:22Sure.
34:23I just want to thank you for working with our security team to allow the former speaker to bring the spent canisters here.
34:31I've attended dozens, maybe hundreds of labor-led rallies over the years, and even if the situation were, as the mayor described, a few agitators, which I don't believe is what that rally was, And even if one believes that chemical munitions are an appropriate response in our neighborhoods, which I don't believe it is, that amount of chemical munitions is far beyond what I would have expected to see.
34:54I think it was impactful to have it here.
34:56I think it was important for us to see that and for our fellow Portlanders to be able to see the extent of what was deployed that day.
35:03And I appreciate you working with our security team to find a, a safe and reasonable way for our the former speaker to bring those into the building.
35:10Thank you.
35:11Thank you.
35:15Okay, our next item is the committee referral report, and as normal, colleagues, I'm not going to read it, uh, but I will encourage you to look at it online.
35:24A number of items have been referred to committees.
35:26Some have already been heard.
35:27Those items are listed in the committee referral report, which is available online at portland.gov/auditor/council-clerk.
35:38Council.gov/committee-referral-list.
35:39Keelan, can we please call our time-certain item number 4?
35:44Item 2026-037, adopt the Affordable Housing Opportunities Project amendments to the comprehensive plan map and the official zoning map.
35:55Colleagues, this is a land use item, and I am required to close testimony on the record before we vote.
36:01So I am officially closing the oral and written testimony on this item.
36:07Uh, before we move to a vote, is there any discussion on this?
36:11Is that a legacy hand?
36:14Can we please call the vote?
36:18Aye.
36:21Aye.
36:21Aye.
36:22Aye.
36:25Ryan— oh, sorry, Koyama Lane.
36:27Aye.
36:29Aye.
36:32Aye.
36:33Aye.
36:34Green.
36:35Aye.
36:36Zimmerman.
36:36Aye.
36:37Dunphy.
36:37Aye.
36:38The ordinance passes with 11 yes votes and 1 absent.
36:42Thank you.
36:42Could we please call item number 5?
36:48Item 5, document number 2026-063, adopt the Public Infrastructure Environmental Code Project to streamline environmental zoning regulations to accommodate needed infrastructure projects Thank you.
37:05Claire Adamsick from Council Ops is available online to give us our committee staff summary report.
37:12Thank you, Council President and councilors.
37:14Uh, for the record, Claire Adamsick, council policy analyst and staff to the Climate Resilience and Land Use Committee.
37:20The ordinance before you, document number 2026-063, was heard in the Climate Committee on February 12th, 2023, and moved by Councilor Yes.
37:30The ordinance amends Title 33, Planning and Zoning, as specified in the Public Infrastructure Environmental Code Project Recommended Draft, which is Exhibit B.
37:40The ordinance also directs adoption of the findings of fact report and commentary found in Exhibits A and B as legislative intent and further findings.
37:48The code changes amend the standards and procedures for development in environmental overlay zones, to clarify requirements related to the maintenance, upgrade, and replacement of public infrastructure.
37:59The amendments also modify the approval process for natural resource management on public property.
38:04As part of its recommendation to council, the Climate Committee approved a BPS staff-proposed technical amendment that's posted online, and the amendment is also summarized in the committee staff summary.
38:16The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts economic and real estate development impacts, community impacts and community involvement, and the city's 100% renewable energy goal.
38:29One person testified during the committee meeting on February 12th, and 2 people submitted written testimony via the MAP app prior to committee action.
38:37The general themes of the testimony included the urgency in modernizing aging climate-resilient flood safety infrastructure, ensuring environmental codes align with the physical constraints of public infrastructure and do not impede development, inclusion of the Port of Portland in proposed code changes as an owner and manager of flood safety infrastructure, which include the Vanport Wetlands and Vanport Pump Station.
39:00And finally, a request from the Urban Flood Safety and Water Quality District for the removal of a code provision related to the use of code standards in wetland areas.
39:09And that concludes the committee staff summary.
39:10Thank you.
39:11Thank you, Claire.
39:12Uh, Councilors Novick and Murillo, I'm not sure who was I think I was.
39:23Do you remember, Councilor Morillo?
39:26I feel like we always have this problem, Councilor Novick, but, um, yeah, the staff summary was great.
39:30I don't have anything additional to add.
39:32Thank you.
39:33Yeah, I would add that basically the point is when, um, as I— that when the Water Bureau is like doing routine work they have to do around pumping stations, they're not going to be able to do that.
39:45Stations, um, there's standards that they should have to meet as opposed to going through a whole new review every time they do it.
39:51That's the— that's the— I think that the, the gist of it, uh, have set standards for them they have to meet, uh, cut down on the amount of individual review they might have to do every time they have to do work in a pump station.
40:03Excellent.
40:04Thank you, Councilor Novick.
40:07Colleagues, are there any technical or clarifying questions about this item?
40:15Yeah, Councilor Clark, Vice President Clark.
40:19I would just—.
40:20A question for the co-sponsors.
40:21Is this a, a streamlining measure, would you say?
40:27Yes, I would.
40:31Removing roadblocks?
40:34Yes, acknowledging there's some work that has to be done routinely, And rather than sort of revisit how it's done every time, establish standards that have to be met every time.
40:46Excellent.
40:48Thank you, Councilor— or Vice President Clark.
40:50Uh, Keelan, is there anyone signed up for public testimony?
40:53No one signed up.
40:54Okay, colleagues, is there any debate on this item?
40:59Councilor Avalos.
41:01Yeah, I just wanted to say, um, since I sit on that committee and I asked a lot of questions of the presenters at the time just around making sure that this is going to be used as more loopholes to bypass protections for climate.
41:17I understood that their intent is to make it easier to make things more climate resilient.
41:23So I felt satisfied by their answers.
41:25I can't remember exactly what I asked, but I remember feeling like, okay, that was what my concern was and why I ended up supporting it.
41:31So just wanted to let my other colleagues know.
41:34Thanks.
41:35Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
41:38I put myself in the queue.
41:39I have just a couple brief remarks.
41:41You know, first, I do want to just start by thanking BPS for their hard work on this.
41:45I'm largely very supportive of all the sort of efforts towards pragmatic reform and streamlining of our zoning code.
41:53I do want to flag a couple of concerns.
41:56The ordinance itself acknowledges that due to real-world physical constraints on public infrastructure, Many of the intended benefits of environmental review are not achievable.
42:06In practice, discretionary review can add significant cost and delay without delivering corresponding environmental or public benefit.
42:14This reality points to a code problem.
42:17It's not an applicant issue.
42:19We shouldn't rely on individual operators like the port to seek project-specific exemptions.
42:25Instead, our code should be written in a way that provides councilmember Herbold.
42:28Thank you, Mayor.
42:28I think it's important that we have clear, uniform standards with appropriate flexibility so that the review effort is focused on outcomes, not process.
42:36I'm also— I have some concerns with some of the provisions specifying some of the administrative details, like which bureau administers the reveg fee fund.
42:44It feels a little outside of the scope of a zoning code update and might have some future unnecessary complications.
42:50But, you know, my intent is to continue pursuing zoning process reforms that align with We need to build housing.
42:59We have to update our aging infrastructure, and we have to allow for adaptive reuse of commercial spaces without unnecessary delay and conflicting requirements.
43:07I think this is a step in the right direction, absolutely, and the way our city should be moving.
43:12And I will be supportive today, but just wanted to flag a couple of additional things on the record.
43:20Seeing no one else in the queue to discuss this, Second.
43:24This now moves to second reading.
43:28Can we— is that right?
43:36Yes.
43:37And yeah, there we go.
43:39I have a script to read.
43:42The oral and written testimony is now closed on this item, the Public Infrastructure Environmental Code Project zoning code amendments as amended in the Climate Resilience and Land Use Committee will be continued to March 11th at 9:45 AM, time certain for a final vote.
44:02Keelan, can we please move to the next item?
44:07Uh, next up we have the consent agenda.
44:10No items have been pulled.
44:13Colleagues, I move to adopt the consent agenda.
44:16Are there any objections?
44:19Oh, you know what, I'm so sorry, consent agenda does require a roll call vote.
44:24Okay, I would move to adopt the consent agenda.
44:33Yeah, and we don't actually need a motion, we'll just call the roll.
44:37Let's go.
44:38Thanks.
44:40All right, uh, Avalos?
44:42Aye.
44:43Smith?
44:43Aye.
44:43Aye.
44:45Aye.
44:47Aye.
44:50Aye.
44:51Aye.
44:52Aye.
44:52Aye.
44:52Aye.
44:54Aye.
44:54Aye.
45:06Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Council Thank you.
45:11Can we please move to item number 8?
45:19Document number 2026-040, accept the 2024-2025 Parks Levy and Parks Levy Oversight Committee annual report.
45:32And I believe— is Claire also here?
45:35There we go.
45:35Claire Adamsick.
45:35I'm here.
45:36From Council Operations is here to give us a Thank you again, Council President and councilors.
45:43Again, for the record, Claire Adamsick, Council Policy Analyst and staff to the Climate Resilience and Land Use Committee.
45:48The report before you, document number 2026-063, was heard in the Climate Committee on January 29th, where it was referred to council with a recommendation it be accepted.
45:58The report requests the acceptance of the 2024-2025 Parks Levy Annual Report and the 2024-2025 Parks Levy Oversight Committee Annual Report.
46:10The Parks Levy Annual Report provides information on the allocation and implementation of funds in the fiscal year 2024-2025 in alignment with 15 parks levy commitments passed by voters in the 2020 Parks Levy Ballot Measure.
46:24The Parks Levy Oversight Committee Annual Report offers a review of parks levy actions in 2024 and 2025, including adherence to the original ballot measure language fiscal accountability and transparency.
46:37The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement.
46:43No one provided written or verbal testimony prior to committee action, and that concludes the committee staff summary.
46:48Thank you.
46:49Thank you, Claire.
46:50Councilors Novick and Murillo, I will again look to you as the chair— uh, chairs of the committee, if any further comments.
46:58Nothing to add.
47:01Yeah, I don't have anything to add on the Parks Annual Report.
47:04Excellent.
47:06Colleagues, we have a number of our folks from the Parks Bureau here if there are any technical or clarifying questions at this moment.
47:17Or, oh, Councilor Knoll.
47:19Yeah, in a moment I'm gonna move to approve the report 'cause I think we need that motion.
47:24But first I just wanted to point out one particular part in there.
47:27The report was great and thank you to both Claire Adamsick And Claire Flynn, who does the levy coordination at Parks.
47:33But there was one piece in here that I wanted to highlight, which is that the report cautions about reliance on the parks levy as the primary funding source, or as a larger funding source than it already is, to fund Portland Parks and Recreation, and specifically notes that general fund cuts would erode the levy's impact.
47:51And I just wanted to take the chance to remind everyone that in the context of the new levy passing, that we made a commitment to voters not to use levy funds as an excuse to cut general fund services, and that the purpose of the levy was to ensure maintenance of services at Portland Parks and Recreation.
48:09And any cuts to parks and recreation that reduces service levels would be a breach, a violation of that commitment, and I intend to uphold that commitment.
48:17So I think it's worth noting that that was a commitment we made in the last levy, and we're continuing it to this day.
48:21Thank you.
48:21And looking forward to having that conversation in more detail when we get to the budget.
48:25But in the meantime, I'll move to adopt the report.
48:28First, we have public testimony.
48:29Oh, my apologies.
48:33So colleagues, are there any technical or clarifying questions, or is there an interest in having any of our parks team come and give us additional information?
48:44Okay.
48:44Can we please move to public testimony?
48:46We have Tim Williams.
49:00Welcome.
49:00Please introduce yourself for the record, uh, if you prefer to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
49:05Thank you.
49:06Uh, good morning, councilors.
49:08My name is Tim Williams.
49:09I'm a resident of Southeast Portland and a member of the Parks Levy Oversight Committee.
49:14We are a committee of 5 community members, and in conjunction with park staff, we meet quarterly, and our role is to review information to verify general compliance with the 2020 Parks Levy.
49:25Our meetings are open to the public, and we accept public comment.
49:29In year 4 of the 2020 Parks Levy, we found Portland Parks and Rec adhered to the ballot language and made continued progress on all 15 commitments.
49:39The department was fiscally accountable in tracking dollars in a transparent, audible, and effective way.
49:44Thank you.
49:44And was clear in their communication of the parks levy impact, particularly with the use of visual communication methods.
49:51We commend Parks for a clean third-party audit of the parks levy, which had no findings or recommendations, and we saw this as a validation of Portland Parks and Rec's framework and implementation.
50:02We encourage Portland Parks and Rec to continue to share how parks levy funds are essential to a healthy Portland.
50:08Without the parks levy, basic service levels such as park restroom cleaning, trash pickup, or open community centers would not be possible.
50:16Thank you.
50:17The 2020 Parks Levy was approved by Portland voters to be additive funds for park and recreation services.
50:22And as mentioned before, any cuts to general funds means that the Parks Levy is relied on more heavily to support Portland Parks and Rec operations.
50:30That would undermine the ability of Portland Parks and Rec to fulfill commitments made to voters.
50:34So we caution the council about a potential reliance on the levy, which would erode the impact of the Parks Levy.
50:41But overall, we were very pleased with year 4 of the 2020 Parks Levy and emphasized the critical nature of this funding for a functioning parks and recreation system.
50:50We would also like to take this opportunity to remind the council that 2020 Parks Levy is only for operational funding, and the 2025 levy includes a small portion for capital projects.
51:01The combination of the 2 levies do not address the sorely needed funding of capital projects within the Portland Parks system.
51:08I want to thank City Council for continued support of the Parks Levy, and we look forward to future years of success I would also like to thank Claire Flynn and Sarah Huggins for all their work with the committee in making sure that it functions.
51:20Thank you.
51:21Thank you very much for being here this morning.
51:25That completes testimony.
51:28Colleagues, we now move into discussion of this.
51:33I want to thank the Oversight Committee for the continued work and for bringing forward this year's report.
51:42It is great trust that the public puts in us when they vote for a levy, and the oversight that this committee has provided is critical.
51:53I appreciate the, the role that they've played in keeping us on track with delivering on all 15 commitments that were in the 2020 Parks Levy.
52:02I'll also note that there were stronger commitments made in the levy that voters just passed.
52:07Thank you.
52:08And my colleague in District 2, Councilor Kanal, beat me to the punch on noting some of those commitments, including ensuring that we continue to fully fund our parks system.
52:20I think it's important to say that over and over again as we near the, the budget season.
52:27And as we look to build the next oversight committee, I hope that they continue on the strong work of this oversight committee and ensure that we continue to meet our obligations to Portland voters with room to spare.
52:42It'll be a difficult budget year, and the services provided by our parks are critical services that we will need to maintain.
52:52I just really am grateful to the current oversight committee for all the work that they have done in helping us to continue to have the trust of Portland voters to deliver, to deliver on the commitments that we make and that Portland voters ask for as they approve these levies.
53:11Thank you.
53:12Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
53:15Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, I would accept a motion to accept the report.
53:20So moved.
53:21Second.
53:21Councilor Kanal moves, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney seconds.
53:25Can we please move to a roll call vote?
53:31Oh, sorry.
53:34Uh, Avalos?
53:34Aye.
53:35Smith?
53:36Aye.
53:36Kanal?
53:37Aye.
53:38Pirtle-Guiney?
53:40Aye.
53:40Koyama Lane?
53:41Aye.
53:43Murillo?
53:44Aye.
53:45Novick?
53:46Aye.
53:47Clark?
53:47Aye.
53:48Aye.
53:49Aye.
53:49Zimmerman?
53:56Good work all.
53:56Thank you.
53:57More to come.
53:58Aye.
53:59The report is accepted with 10 yes votes and 2 absent.
54:13Document number 2026-071, amend council committee code to allow for the creation of a committee to review the Colleagues, this is the second reading of an ordinance that we heard last week.
54:28This code enables our ability to do the work that we already approved for our new committee structure.
54:34Is there any council discussion of this item before we move to a vote?
54:43Seeing no one, can we please call the roll?
54:44Aye.
54:45Aye.
54:45Opposed?
54:48Aye.
54:50No.
54:53Aye.
54:57Aye.
54:59Aye.
55:01Aye.
55:01Aye.
55:07The ordinance passes with 9 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 2 absent.
55:19Are you—.
55:20May I have a brief point of personal privilege?
55:22Absolutely.
55:23Just wanted to note 2 things.
55:24Thank you, colleagues.
55:25I didn't say this last week because we hadn't created the committee yet, but now that that is created, I appreciate it.
55:29And to everyone who testified about much of the issues with protests, we will be looking forward to discussing that in the Committee of the Whole.
55:37Thank you.
55:40Item 10.
55:42Document number 2026-052, authorize Bureau of Transportation to acquire certain permanent and temporary property rights necessary for construction of the Northeast MLK Boulevard Safety and Access to Transit project through the exercise of the city's eminent domain authority.
56:05We have Christopher Hare with Council Operations here for a council Council committee summary.
Christopher Hare 56:10 - 58:07
56:10Thank you.
56:11Good morning, Council President and councilors.
56:13For the record, Christopher Hare, Council Operations Policy Analyst, and I serve as staff to the Finance Committee.
56:18The ordinance before you, document 2026-052, was considered in the Finance Committee on February 9th, where it was referred to council with a recommendation that it be passed.
56:29The ordinance declares it necessary to acquire property interests across 12 property owners, including 5 permanent easements and 12 temporary construction easements, as described in Exhibits 1 through 37 for the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Safety and Access to Transit Project.
56:45The ordinance further authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Transportation, PBOT, or a designee, and/or the City Attorney to acquire necessary permanent and temporary rights for the project under eminent domain.
56:57The ordinance grants PBOT and the City Attorney's Office the authority to negotiate and offer just compensation for the required property interests.
57:04If negotiations are unsuccessful, the ordinance authorizes the initiation and condemnation proceedings to determine just compensation through the judicial process.
57:13This authority does not extend or alter the jurisdiction of the courts beyond what is appropriate or reserved for the City Council determination.
57:20PBOT is authorized to determine the continuing necessity, propriety, quantity, quality, and locality of the acquisitions and may reduce or abandon any authorized acquisition.
57:29The ordinance further authorizes the creation of a subfund in the amount estimated to be the just compensation for each interest property, which, if necessary, shall be deposited with the clerk of the court where an action is commenced.
57:41The full impact statements on this includes financial and budgetary impacts and analysis, community impacts and community involvement.
57:47One individual provided verbal testimony in committee acknowledging the need for additional safety improvements at intersections along the boulevard.
57:54And expressed concern regarding a perceived discrepancy between intersections improved with enhanced safety features and those predominantly used by communities of color.
58:03No written testimony was submitted prior to committee action.
58:06And this concludes the committee staff summary.
58:07Thank you.
58:07Thank you very much, Christopher.
58:09This came outta the Finance Committee and I was looking to Councilor Zimmerman who has stepped away from the desk.
58:15So colleagues, I will open it up now to technical or clarifying questions.
58:20Before we move to see if there's public testimony, is there anyone signed up for public testimony?
58:28No one signed up.
58:29Okay, colleagues, is there any discussion on this item?
58:35Councilor Green.
58:37Yeah, uh, thank you, Council President.
58:39Um, one of the areas of discussion during that committee meeting was whether or not, uh, it's appropriate to, um, Focus on enhancing and building out the ADA-compliant intersections when you do a job like this.
58:56And I just— I had noted in that committee, and I want to raise for the full council, that when we are dealing with scarce resources and also a legally binding settlement to get so many ADA-compliant curb cuts done on a timeline— I think it's like 1,500 per year that we're supposed to do.
59:131,500 Curb cuts per year.
59:14Then you have to make hay while the sun shines.
59:16So you have to do these projects while you're doing other projects and kind of blend together that funding.
59:20And so I just needed to make sure that the public understood that and that this body as a whole understands that as well.
59:26Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 59:31 - 1:00:32
59:33One of the first things I heard about when I was seated as a councilor representing District 2 in this part of MLK were concerns about the dangers of some of these crossings.
59:44And I am so excited that we have this before us today.
59:48I want to thank my constituent Keith Edwards for continuing to push for further improvements along this corridor.
59:56My understanding from staff is that this is phase 1 and we will see even more safety improvements for pedestrians coming forward in the future.
1:00:06This is It is a difficult stretch of road.
1:00:09It is a main thoroughfare and also heavily used by pedestrians.
1:00:13One of the crossings that will get an upgrade is a crossing I know well because one of my kids' close friends crosses it every day to get home from the school bus.
1:00:22And it's an intersection where cars frequently run red lights and we need some improvements there.
1:00:27So I am excited to support this.
1:00:30I am optimistic for my community.
Keelan McClymont 1:00:32 - 1:00:33
1:00:32Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 1:00:33 - 1:00:42
1:00:33That this is step one and continue to appreciate the work of pedestrian safety improvements on corridors like this.
1:00:41Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:00:42 - 1:00:44
1:00:42Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
1:00:43Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal 1:00:46 - 1:02:24
1:00:46Thank you, Council President.
1:00:47It's a D2 meeting today in many ways, going back and forth after parks on here.
1:00:52I'm going to vote yes as well.
1:00:54Safety is critically important in District 2 broadly and in this stretch of MLK.
1:00:59I also wanted to acknowledge and thank Keith Edwards for bringing this up in committee.
1:01:03And to praise the staff for going through a difficult meeting on that at PBOT.
1:01:08We are in the top 5 streets for high crashes in D2.
1:01:14There are programs that have been targeted to other districts that have not mentioned us, and no one from District 2 has so far been in the conversation.
1:01:20I am so grateful to my colleagues for putting a member of D2, it happens to be me, on the new Public Works Committee and looking forward to working with Chair Clark and the members of the committee on On issues related to D2 starting in a few weeks.
1:01:34I also wanted to name that there have been a lot of conversations related to this area.
1:01:38The Boise neighborhood has been bringing up some of the other neighborhood associations as well, improvement to crosswalks on Northeast 7th, on Irving, Skidmore.
1:01:47And I think that there's a lot of work that's been done on planning, but not necessarily on implementation.
1:01:52I'm looking forward to collaborating with folks in the administration administration, who I know share the desire to implement all of those, uh, types of improvements as well.
1:02:01So I'm looking forward to, um, to that conversation.
1:02:05I did want to note that, uh, I, I would love it if in the future the administration could be consulting more with the district councilors when talking about specific projects in our districts.
1:02:15I think in particular around PBOT, but I think this applies just around everywhere.
1:02:19So looking forward to continuing that conversation when we're on on the committee in a few weeks.
Steve Novick 1:02:24 - 1:02:24
1:02:24Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:02:27 - 1:02:39
1:02:27Thank you, Councilor Connell.
1:02:30Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this item will now move to second reading.
1:02:36Keelan, can we please call items 11 and 12 together?
1:02:42Item 11, document number 2026-073, amend Civil Rights Code related to sex sexual orientation and family status definitions and amend nondiscrimination clauses.
1:02:53Amend Code Section 14A.50.110 and Code Chapter 23.01.
1:03:00Item 12, document number 2026-074, declare the City of Portland will defend the rights of transgender people and all of the LGBTQIA2S+ community.
Jamie Dunphy 1:03:13 - 1:03:26
1:03:13Thank you, Keelan.
1:03:14We are currently in debate on an open amendment to the resolution.
1:03:19Before I move to colleagues in the queue, can I— can the clerk please recap what the amendment was that we are debating?
1:03:26Do you have that?
1:03:32Let me open it really quickly.
1:03:36This is a proposed amendment from Councilor Koyama Lane amending Exhibit B, Section D, to add the following at the end.
1:03:50I'll, I'll read the whole thing with the addition, the proposed addition.
1:03:54Family or relationship structure means the actual or perceived involvement, or lack thereof, of consenting individuals in intimate personal relationships.
1:04:05The proposed addition is intimate personal relationships include but are not limited to multi-partner or multi-parent families and relationships, stepfamilies, multi-generational households, diverse family structures, consensually non-monogamous relationships, and consensual sexual and/or intimate relationships, including asexual and aromantic relationships.
Jamie Dunphy 1:04:32 - 1:04:36
1:04:32Thank you, Keelan.
1:04:34Councilor, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
1:04:38I would make a motion that we lay these items on the table to pick back up next week.
1:04:44May I speak to that motion?
Jamie Dunphy 1:04:45 - 1:04:45
1:04:45Yes.
1:04:46Colleagues, I am the councilor who asked us last week to move these items quickly.
1:04:51That was referred to previously today.
1:04:54But I am also the councilor whose team spent hours, literal hours, trying to find a path on these measures that would allow us to bring you a proposal with co-sponsorship from all of the members of this council who are out members of the LGBTQ2IA+ community, and I think that matters.
1:05:13One of our colleagues who is a co-sponsor of this measure and whose family is directly affected by some of its provisions is on a plane flying to meetings he is attending on behalf of the city.
1:05:27Yes, Yes, he, like me, was not notified of the last-minute amendment last— at the last meeting.
1:05:35And I'll have things to say about that amendment when we take it back up.
1:05:38I was prepared to talk about it today until I was notified that Councilor Ryan could not be here and had requested that he be part of the continued conversation and vote.
1:05:47My motion here today is not about that amendment nor any of the content before us.
1:05:53It is simply about respect for our colleague who has in fact asked to be present.
1:05:59He informed me that he will be back for next week's meeting.
1:06:03His chief of staff has confirmed that.
1:06:06I would ask us to allow our colleague the courtesy of postponing the next 2 items until next week so he can be part of the conversation and vote.
1:06:15If it were any of the other queer councilors asking for this, If it was our other co-sponsor, Councilor Koyama Lane, I would be asking for this same courtesy.
1:06:27It is simply not acceptable to me to deny him the right to be a part of this discussion.
1:06:35Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:06:37 - 1:06:44
1:06:39Councilor Koyama Lane.
1:06:41Oh wait, I'm sorry, was that a motion?
1:06:43Did you make a motion?
1:06:44That was a motion.
1:06:45I would ask for a second.
Jamie Dunphy 1:06:48 - 1:06:54
1:06:48Councilor Pirtle-Guiney has moved to table the conversation.
1:06:52Is that the formal motion?
1:06:54Sorry.
1:06:54The formal motion is to table the conversation.
1:06:57I believe I am allowed to request that it be until next week, though that would be at your discretion.
Jamie Dunphy 1:07:01 - 1:07:01
1:07:01Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman 1:07:01 - 1:07:02
1:07:01Absolutely.
Jamie Dunphy 1:07:02 - 1:07:05
1:07:02And Councilor Zimmerman has seconded the motion.
Rebecca Dobert 1:07:05 - 1:07:20
1:07:05Council President, if it is laid on the table, it will be taken up at the next scheduled meeting, which I believe is tomorrow.
1:07:11So It would be possible to then table it again, or you can have a motion to move to a time certain.
1:07:21Point of information.
1:07:22If tomorrow's meeting is a continuation of this meeting, wouldn't the next meeting be next Wednesday?
Loretta Smith 1:07:30 - 1:07:31
1:07:30Let's—.
1:07:31It'll be our attorneys debating.
1:07:34It appears if you lay it on the table, it will stay on the table until you take it back up.
Jamie Dunphy 1:07:39 - 1:07:54
1:07:39Okay, is that acceptable?
1:07:41All right, Councilor Koyama Lane.
1:07:44Uh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, uh, is this a debatable motion?
1:07:49Is tabling a debatable motion, or do we move to a roll call?
1:07:56Is this a debatable motion?
Jamie Dunphy 1:08:00 - 1:08:03
1:08:00We really need a professional parliamentarian.
Robert Taylor 1:08:03 - 1:08:13
1:08:03Hi, uh, Robert Taylor, City Attorney.
1:08:06A motion to lay on the table is not debatable.
1:08:08You might— you may allow debate if there's no objection or you suspend the rules.
Jamie Dunphy 1:08:15 - 1:08:24
1:08:15Okay, uh, colleagues in the queue, if anybody wants to get, uh, to the, to the motion— are you the motioner?
1:08:23Okay, Councilor.
Candace Avalos 1:08:24 - 1:08:41
1:08:24I just have a point of information just to clarify on the tabling thing.
1:08:27So are we gonna— if this is approved, do we have to then make another motion at some other point to untable it, or are we saying that the council president can just put it on the next— no, it has to be another action.
1:08:40Is that what we're saying?
Robert Taylor 1:08:44 - 1:08:58
1:08:44That is correct.
1:08:45If you— if the motion to lay it on the table carries today, the item will be on the table, and it can be taken off the table at any time in the future, but a motion to take from the table is necessary.
1:08:59And that could just happen like what, we would go to the next, like say next week, and then somebody would at the top of the agenda just make a motion to untable it?
1:09:07Is that the procedure of how that would happen?
Olivia Clark 1:09:09 - 1:09:09
1:09:09Correct.
1:09:10Okay, thank you.
1:09:11Council President, I'm happy to amend my motion.
1:09:15My colleague Councilor Kanal keeps a handy copy of Robert's Rules at the dais, and I would amend my motion to a motion to postpone this item to a time certain, or to a certain time rather, which is an official motion in Robert's Rules, and to postpone it to next Wednesday's meeting.
1:09:33Okay, I don't know if that creates more comfort for you, Councilor Avalos, but hopefully that simplifies it.
Jamie Dunphy 1:09:40 - 1:09:48
1:09:40Councilor Pirtle-Guiney has amended her, her motion and checked with Councilor Zimmerman to make sure that it's acceptable.
Robert Taylor 1:09:48 - 1:10:16
1:09:48Councilor Zimmerman seconds that new for the record, sorry, everybody loves a pedant, so let me do, let me do my part here.
1:09:58Uh, the, the motion to lay on the table is distinct from a motion to postpone to a date certain.
1:10:04They're different motions.
1:10:06So Pirtle-Guiney withdraws the motion to table, makes a new motion to postpone to a date certain.
1:10:14That has been made by Pirtle-Guiney, seconded by Zimmerman.
1:10:16Second.
Jamie Dunphy 1:10:17 - 1:10:18
1:10:17That's what I heard for sure.
Sameer Kanal 1:10:19 - 1:10:19
1:10:19Thanks.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 1:10:19 - 1:10:20
1:10:19Exactly.
1:10:19Speak to that.
Jamie Dunphy 1:10:21 - 1:10:22
1:10:21Councilor Koyama Lane.
1:10:22Yeah, thank you, Council President.
1:10:24And I do appreciate wanting to do what we can to make sure that as many councilors who are invested in this are here.
1:10:33I do just want to point out that we do have members of the public here and many people watching, people who have taken time off work, who have gotten childcare for their kids.
1:10:44I am prepared to continue this discussion.
1:10:49I strongly believe all families deserve civil rights, nondiscrimination protections, and that can't wait.
Jamie Dunphy 1:10:58 - 1:11:06
1:10:58Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
1:11:00Councilor Avalos, are you in the queue to the motion or to the underlying?
1:11:05Okay.
1:11:06I guess I just have a follow-up question maybe.
1:11:09So am I understanding that the reason for the motion is that the ordinance is not clear enough?
1:11:12This action is because Councilor Ryan just wants to be here to vote for it.
1:11:17Is there any other, like, is it to be here to vote for it for X reason?
1:11:22Or like, I just wanna understand the intent because, you know, people miss meetings all the time and, you know, I think it sounded to me like people were pretty supportive of this legislation.
1:11:33So I'm just trying to understand why.
1:11:36I don't know if that's for the, maybe the sponsor of the motion.
1:11:38President, would you like me to speak to that?
Sameer Kanal 1:11:39 - 1:11:39
1:11:39Please.
1:11:42Councilor Ryan made a request to me and potentially some of the other co-sponsors.
1:11:49I'm not sure that he'd be able to be here for this vote and debate.
1:11:53He was disappointed that we were not able to move forward with the vote on the resolution last week and continue the progress here and wanted to be a part of that.
1:12:06I don't know what his motivation was.
1:12:07I think he's just disappointed.
1:12:09I just would offer that courtesy, like I said, to any of our colleagues if I were co-sponsoring a motion with them and they made that request to me.
Jamie Dunphy 1:12:17 - 1:12:43
1:12:17And I will affirm I did similarly receive that request from Councilor Ryan's office that there was an interest, not a procedural change, but rather just the interest in having the councilor be here.
1:12:30Councilor Maria, are you here to the underlying motion or to the motion or to the no, I appreciate the motion.
Angelita Morillo 1:12:43 - 1:14:51
1:12:43I understand that he would want to be here for a vote.
1:12:48I will say, when I have been out for matters that are profoundly important to me on a personal level, I log into the Zoom because the city business doesn't halt because we are unable to attend.
1:12:58Unfortunately, the public is not able to attend.
1:12:59Councilor Smith.
1:13:00Councilor Novick has been waiting for this for quite a few sessions.
1:13:04They have testified.
1:13:05And I think just to, like, name the elephant in the room, I think that what's really happening is there are different opinions on the underlying amendment.
1:13:13And most of our communities are not a monolith, including the LGBTQ community that is voted and elected on this dais, right?
1:13:23So sometimes there are differences in opinion that our policy I think people here all have that same intent.
1:13:35I have zero questions about the motivations of my colleagues with that regard.
1:13:41And I think that this is a really important discussion to have because I— the amendment that we were discussing before that enumerates certain additional families that this would apply to.
1:13:55I think one, it applies a lot to the queer community because of the way that we, you know, our community ends up having different types of relationships, and it protects for housing and zoning things.
1:14:07So I would love for us to have that discussion.
1:14:09I think it matters a lot, and I think that there are philosophical policy reasons for why there's discussion on the amendment.
1:14:17So I value Councilor Ryan.
1:14:20He's done work for decades for the LGBTQ community.
1:14:24I mean, it's— we can't really compare that type of work before, but I'm also disappointed for our queer community that came and testified and told us what they need, and that this is being halted over one amendment when let's just have the discussion, vote the amendment up or down, call it a day, move the policy forward.
1:14:42You know, that's the process of legislating.
1:14:45So I would like to move forward with it if possible, but I understand the feelings around it.
1:14:51Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 1:14:51 - 1:14:54
1:14:51Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Sameer Kanal 1:14:55 - 1:15:46
1:14:55My understanding is that in the event that we postpone this item without voting on the amendment, that should we come back to it in a week and then vote on the amendment, it would require a subsequent reading after that.
1:15:07So we'd actually be delaying it for 2 weeks in that scenario.
1:15:11Is that— can I get a clarification on that?
1:15:14I'm seeing the thumbs up from attorneys in the back.
1:15:16Thank you.
1:15:16So I'm uncomfortable with that because that would mean 4 meetings going to this item, which we all thought was a pretty straightforward item, I think, coming into this.
1:15:25I understand that the amendment has complicated it.
1:15:28I would be open to having the conversation around doing a courtesy for a colleague, for sure.
1:15:35I definitely want to take a vote on the amendment.
1:15:36Thank you.
1:15:37Today though.
1:15:38Um, and I think that to me is, uh, a tension point that I think we should resolve, um, and then know what we're getting into next week.
1:15:45Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 1:15:46 - 1:15:48
1:15:46Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
1:15:47Councilor Zimmerman.
1:15:50Thank you.
1:15:53Um, I think the delay is for me less than about the amendment that was proposed.
1:16:00It is— I think that at times symbolism and representation matters, and Dan Ryan is one of those symbols.
1:16:11I'm not going to share anything that he has not shared very publicly with everybody, but Dan Ryan represents a generation of gay men who generally are not here, and that matters to me as a 41-year-old gay man who is largely here because of I would ask you, all of you, to— if you don't understand our reason to ask for the delay, then be deferential to the delay.
1:16:56Because when I don't understand a thing about another minority in our community, I'm not going to speak on behalf of that minority.
1:17:01Councilor I try to be deferential to that, even if I don't understand.
1:17:07And so I am just simply asking for the delay for those reasons, that Alana Pirtle-Guiney and I, an out lesbian and an out gay man who serve on this council, are asking for that.
1:17:22Dan Ryan, an out gay man, is asking for that.
1:17:26I hope that If it doesn't quite make sense to you, or if it causes you some pause, that you will at least lean on the side of deferential to those who are making the ask.
1:17:40Symbolism matters.
1:17:42Represent— representation matters.
Jamie Dunphy 1:17:47 - 1:17:52
1:17:47All forms of families matter.
1:17:49Please, this is not an opportunity for disruptions.
1:17:52Thank you.
1:17:54And so as one of the authors of this resolution, it has been a privilege to write it with my other out colleagues.
1:18:06And I would like to think about how we would respond if this was about another group in our community, and if a member of our, of our dais was a part of that community, if we would want to.
1:18:20Take action without them there when they specifically asked to be a part of it.
1:18:23So that's just a request for me.
1:18:26I'll just note that the debate on the amendment, just in our form of government, let's remember that an absence is the same as a no, right?
1:18:35It doesn't, it doesn't change anything in terms of— we don't know where he'll be on, on any of that.
1:18:40But this is about having Dan here at this dais to represent a part of this population.
1:18:46Thank you.
1:18:49Point of information again, sorry.
1:18:54If we pass the amendment today, then it has to go for another reading.
1:18:58If we don't pass the amendment, then do we just go right into voting for the ordinance today?
Jamie Dunphy 1:19:03 - 1:19:03
1:19:03Yes.
1:19:03Okay, thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 1:19:06 - 1:19:07
Loretta Smith 1:19:09 - 1:21:28
1:19:12I just want to remind folks that Council President moved to postpone, uh, the Slow the Flow to Homelessness last week, um, in my opinion, for no good reason.
1:19:27And if I'm comparing the two, I think this is a great reason to postpone.
1:19:35Okay.
1:19:37You all can't have it both ways.
1:19:40When you don't want something to pass, you want to postpone it.
1:19:42When you don't— when you want to steamroll over someone, you don't give them a postponement.
1:19:47I mean, it's just ridiculous.
1:19:50You all know that Councilor Ryan was very instrumental in putting this together.
1:20:00Um, I wish that we could have had the same consideration, Councilor Koyama Lane, For the constituents who came here last week, which there were 25, and more than half of them will probably not ever come back to this body again because of the violence that took place and the disruption that took place in this council chambers.
1:20:26So I would ask you all to use the same kind of compassion that you used last week.
1:20:37Well, the reason was because you all didn't understand the memo that city administrator had put out on February 6th.
1:20:46But this is an easy one.
1:20:47This is something that we can do for our colleague, and he asked you to do that.
1:20:55No one asked us to postpone last week.
1:20:58We did that just because.
1:20:59Councilwoman So for me, I would urge my colleagues to either vote for this, or if we— if there's some way that we can hear the testimony that we have in the room and not vote on it, if there's a way to do that, because I do believe that if people came here today and they made it their business to come here to testify, we should at least hear those voices but not take a vote.
1:21:26Is there a way to do that, Council President?
Jamie Dunphy 1:21:28 - 1:21:37
1:21:28Council President, uh, no, there is not at this time.
1:21:35Testimony is currently closed on the item.
Loretta Smith 1:21:37 - 1:21:56
1:21:37Okay, so there was some, there was some concern I heard that people are here to testify.
1:21:44So who's here to testify?
1:21:47Okay, okay.
1:21:49Again, I urge all of my colleagues to, um, vote to postpone this until next Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:21:56 - 1:22:18
1:21:56And, uh, thank you, Councilor Smith.
1:21:58Uh, I would like to clarify, Councilor Avalos, I gave you incorrect information.
1:22:01We are technically in a continuation of the first reading.
1:22:04We are not at a second reading.
1:22:06And so, uh, and the amendment is to the resolution.
1:22:10And so, uh, the ordinance will still— oh, I'm backwards on that.
1:22:15But regardless, we are still in the first reading of the ordinance.
1:22:18In other words, no matter what, we're not voting on it today.
Jamie Dunphy 1:22:21 - 1:22:27
1:22:21The resolution could be voted on today, but the ordinance will be voted on in a future council session.
1:22:27So either way, Councilor Ryan would be able to vote on it because we can't take any action today.
1:22:31That's what I'm trying to get at.
Jamie Dunphy 1:22:32 - 1:22:33
1:22:32On the ordinance.
1:22:33Right.
1:22:33Yes.
1:22:34Okay, sounds good.
Jamie Dunphy 1:22:36 - 1:22:40
1:22:36Councilor— yes, uh, Councilor Koyama Lane.
1:22:41Oh, I was just sharing, I had shared with Council President that as a courtesy, I am— my team is open to postponing the resolution to allow Councilor Ryan to vote.
1:22:55Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:22:56 - 1:22:57
1:22:56Councilor Morillo.
1:23:01Yeah, I really appreciate this discussion.
1:23:04And if we all want to give out our credentials for the public, I'm bisexual.
1:23:10So that's my standing in getting to talk about this, I guess.
1:23:14I think that when we are legislating for our community, though, representation absent of action is very frustrating to the public.
1:23:24And so I, knowing that Councilor Ryan will be able to vote for the final product here, I would like for us to just have the discussion about the amendment because it will now be going to around 3 to 4 sessions listening to this.
1:23:43And I don't think that one amendment is not comparable to an entire policy change that— this is one amendment.
1:23:53We can vote.
1:23:54Maybe it'll fail.
1:23:55Maybe it'll succeed.
1:23:56Maybe the policy will stay intact.
1:23:58But I think that we just have to have the discussion.
1:24:00And I don't understand, are we just going to continue having more discussions behind the scenes?
1:24:06We're going to have to air out the differences about the amendment eventually.
1:24:12And it sounds like Councilor Ryan will be able to vote on this, and maybe he won't support it, maybe he will.
1:24:17That's up to him.
1:24:18I'm not going to make that decision for him.
1:24:20But this continuous— this should be not that hard, honestly.
1:24:26And the amendment, in my eyes, it does not create additional harm.
1:24:33It does enumerate more specifics.
1:24:34Councilor Loretta Smith.
1:24:35So it's not like we're talking about something that is going to create massive harm for this community.
1:24:40The controversy is not that high compared to all of the other stuff that we're actually dealing with as a city.
1:24:46So I hope that we can just move forward with this discussion today.
1:24:50And I will remind my colleagues that as the only immigrant on this council, there were plenty of media news things that I was left out of, decision-making discussions that I was left out of.
1:25:00Councilmember Koyama Lane.
1:25:01So when it comes to identity representation and the things that we do, sometimes you don't get a seat at the table and you do have to fight for that.
1:25:11But also to say that that is like a top priority for everybody up here, I think is a bit disingenuous because sometimes we just have to act.
1:25:19So this has been worked on for a long time.
1:25:23The discussion is really about one amendment.
1:25:24That's really what this is about.
1:25:30Point of order.
1:25:31I'd just like to reiterate that we are in debate right now over whether or not to postpone, um, not over the amendments.
1:25:36And the reason for the request for postponement has nothing to do with the amendments or any content thereof.
Jamie Dunphy 1:25:42 - 1:25:45
1:25:43Councilor Green.
Mitch Green 1:25:46 - 1:26:45
1:25:47And this is to the matter of postponement.
1:25:50I think I'd just like to follow up a little bit.
1:25:53On what Councilor Murillo has teased out, which is when we talk about making sure that those who are most impacted on an issue are in the room, we have not applied that standard consistently at this city.
1:26:06There were notably at least 2 press conferences in response to the federal action where the decision was deliberately made to not have certain councilors at the front of the mic because that might feel unsafe for white people, frankly.
1:26:21And that's the decision that this body has made behind the scenes, not in the public.
1:26:25And so that's not a consistent application.
1:26:29Um, I'll also note that, um, when we talk about postponing slow the inflow, my decision to postpone that is— was based upon the— it's not because I didn't understand the city administrator's memo.
1:26:40I understand that very clearly.
1:26:42I think it's we had gotten ourselves into a situation of very sloppy policymaking.
Sameer Kanal 1:26:45 - 1:26:45
1:26:45Yeah.
Mitch Green 1:26:45 - 1:27:11
1:26:45Where we were just handing out sort of earmarks to whoever.
1:26:49And those may be good allocations to good entities, but that's not good policymaking.
1:26:54You budget to programs, not to people, not to entities.
1:26:57And so that sort of analogy is just not consistent, frankly.
1:27:01So I think in this, you know, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made about whether it's appropriate to postpone this, but not sort of a whataboutism on the slow the inflow.
1:27:11Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:27:12 - 1:27:18
1:27:12Thank you, Councilor Green.
1:27:15Councilor Smith— I'm sorry, Councilor Avalos, are you in the—.
1:27:20No, I guess I'm like, I'm still in the queue to— for the next one.
1:27:23Should I stay in the queue?
1:27:24Should I get out of it?
1:27:25I'm confused.
Jamie Dunphy 1:27:26 - 1:27:29
1:27:26Yeah, for now, folks, help me with the management of that would be great.
Unidentified speaker 1:27:29 - 1:27:30
1:27:29Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:27:30 - 1:27:30
Loretta Smith 1:27:31 - 1:29:25
1:27:31Yes, considering that, um, Councilor Ryan is traveling internationally, he can't get on a, uh, a Zoom call right now and be able to have this conversation in a meaningful way.
1:27:44And I think that it is so important and critical to have his voice.
1:27:48I don't want to marginalize the impact of Councilor Ryan on this committee, but I do also— I look at things that we do, and when we didn't do the slow the inflow last week, we prevented folks who are currently being evicted from housing right now.
1:28:07If we could have voted for that last week, we would have been able to help hundreds of people.
1:28:13And we can legislate in any way that we want to, Councilor Green.
1:28:17We can legislate to programs, we can legislate to individual programs.
1:28:23That's not the point.
1:28:24The point is, we— he has very— he was very honest in his request and sincere.
1:28:36And you all don't take sincerity very well.
1:28:40And I think you need to use it in every situation.
1:28:45While you may have understood the, the city administrator's, uh, memo, but the complaint was some didn't, and that's why they voted to postpone.
1:28:56And so I'm just asking you, Councilor Green, Could you consider someone else other than yourself?
1:29:03Consider that Councilor Ryan needs to sit here.
1:29:06He needs to have that conversation.
1:29:09You are not a part of that.
1:29:11I don't know, I, I shouldn't even say that.
1:29:14I don't know if you're not a part of that community or not, but, um, we know that he is out and he, he does want to participate, so you should give him that opportunity.
1:29:25Thank you.
Loretta Smith 1:29:26 - 1:29:32
1:29:26You always want people to— you call me all the time and ask me to support your stuff and do your stuff, but you never want to do nothing for nobody else.
Jamie Dunphy 1:29:32 - 1:29:33
Loretta Smith 1:29:34 - 1:29:35
1:29:34So thank you.
Sameer Kanal 1:29:35 - 1:29:48
1:29:35City Code 3.02.040, Section B, President and Vice President Duties, Section 1: The president is the presiding officer and will ensure councilors confine themselves to the question under debate and refrain from personal criticism.
Loretta Smith 1:29:49 - 1:29:53
1:29:49Thank you, thank you, uh, Councilor Kanal.
1:29:51I appreciate you jumping in.
Jamie Dunphy 1:29:54 - 1:30:07
1:29:54Thank you, Councilor Knoll.
1:29:55Colleagues, I will remind us that we are currently debating the merits of a motion to postpone.
1:30:02Please, let's keep it away from personal attacks or implications of our colleagues.
1:30:07Contacts, true.
Jamie Dunphy 1:30:08 - 1:30:09
1:30:08Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal 1:30:11 - 1:31:13
1:30:11So we did this thing earlier today and last week where we adopted a resolution about committees and then we Did the committee of the whole authorizing ordinance this week, because an ordinance takes 2 votes or 2 meetings and a resolution takes one.
1:30:26So for that reason, I'm very comfortable postponing the resolution, not only as a courtesy, but actually for many of the reasons that both Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and Councilor Zimmerman have said, and others about Councilor Ryan as well.
1:30:38With relation to the ordinance, as has been pointed out, it would need to get a second reading anyway.
1:30:45So this is really about do we vote on the amendment or not?
1:30:47Thank you.
1:30:47And I think it's appropriate to say we should.
1:30:50So that's where I'm at on this particular subject.
1:30:53I will point out that when 2 councilors of color have attempted to walk in after their name has been called, but while the vote has still been going on, and asked to have their vote counted, that requires unanimous consent.
1:31:09And that consent was denied by one councilor in both cases.
Loretta Smith 1:31:13 - 1:31:14
Mitch Green 1:31:15 - 1:31:15
1:31:15Is that—.
Loretta Smith 1:31:15 - 1:31:16
1:31:15Does it have anything to do with—.
Sameer Kanal 1:31:16 - 1:31:21
1:31:16When I don't understand a thing about another minority in our community, I try to be deferential to that, even if I don't actually—.
Olivia Clark 1:31:21 - 1:31:23
1:31:21We're not talking about that right now.
Loretta Smith 1:31:23 - 1:31:23
1:31:23Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:31:27 - 1:31:45
1:31:27Colleagues.
1:31:35Okay.
1:31:37I don't know what is happening.
1:31:41Councilor Koyama Lane, are you due to the debate?
1:31:47I was.
1:31:47Councilor Knoll said what I was saying, which is basically in deference to Councilor Ryan and respecting his advocacy over the years.
1:31:55I would love to ask Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and Councilor Ryan if they would be willing to withdraw the motion and present a motion to postpone the resolution to next week so he can vote.
1:32:05And I'd like to move forward with discussion of the ordinance.
1:32:08If we're able to discuss and vote on the amendment today, complete the first reading, Councilor Ryan, we'll also be able to vote on the ordinance at the same time.
1:32:23I think if my colleagues want to move in that direction, they could motion to divide the question.
1:32:31I'm going to keep it on the table as it stands, but would expect that we might hear that.
1:32:41I move to divide the question.
Jamie Dunphy 1:32:44 - 1:32:55
1:32:44Okay, Councilor Murillo has moved to divide the question.
1:32:47That is, the question is divided.
1:32:51Uh, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, how would you like to take up the now divided question?
1:32:56Let's take up the resolution first.
Jamie Dunphy 1:32:58 - 1:33:12
1:32:58Okay, we're going to look— I'm going to pause to just make sure that Robert isn't freaking out.
1:33:10You guys are— we're having a lot of fun with Robert's rules today.
Olivia Clark 1:33:14 - 1:33:14
1:33:14Good practice.
Jamie Dunphy 1:33:14 - 1:33:16
1:33:14Yeah, that's a— that's a—.
Olivia Clark 1:33:17 - 1:33:17
1:33:17Yeah.
Jamie Dunphy 1:33:19 - 1:33:30
1:33:19Okay, the question has been divided.
1:33:21Then the roll call vote on the motion to postpone the resolution first.
1:33:28Please call the roll.
1:33:31Avalos.
1:33:31Aye.
1:33:32Smith.
Loretta Smith 1:33:33 - 1:33:33
1:33:33No.
1:33:35Kanal.
Sameer Kanal 1:33:36 - 1:33:37
1:33:36On the resolution, aye.
1:33:38Pirtle-Guiney.
Olivia Clark 1:33:39 - 1:33:39
1:33:39Aye.
1:33:40Ryan.
1:33:41Oh, sorry.
1:33:42Gosh.
1:33:43Koyama Lane.
1:33:44Aye.
1:33:45Murillo.
1:33:45Aye.
1:33:47Novick.
Loretta Smith 1:33:48 - 1:33:48
1:33:48Aye.
1:33:49Clark?
1:33:53Absent.
1:33:54Green?
Mitch Green 1:33:55 - 1:33:56
1:33:55Aye.
Loretta Smith 1:33:57 - 1:33:57
1:33:57Kind always work.
1:33:59Zimmerman?
1:34:00Yes.
Jamie Dunphy 1:34:04 - 1:34:04
1:34:04Yes.
1:34:04Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy 1:34:05 - 1:34:05
1:34:05Aye.
1:34:06Okay, the motion to divide and take up the resolution— no, no, sorry, the motion to take up the resolution and postpone it Is approved with 9 yes votes, 1 no, and 2 absent.
Jamie Dunphy 1:34:19 - 1:34:26
1:34:19And we will bring that back next week.
1:34:22Can we please call the roll on the motion to postpone the ordinance?
1:34:33Sorry, just a moment.
Jamie Dunphy 1:34:38 - 1:34:43
1:34:38Again, colleagues, this is a motion to postpone the ordinance.
1:34:40To next week.
1:34:42A yes vote means you want to postpone.
1:34:46No.
Loretta Smith 1:34:49 - 1:34:49
1:34:49Yes.
Olivia Clark 1:34:51 - 1:34:51
1:34:51No.
1:34:53Aye.
Loretta Smith 1:34:57 - 1:34:57
1:34:57No.
1:35:00No.
Steve Novick 1:35:02 - 1:35:02
1:35:02Aye.
1:35:04Clark is absent.
1:35:06Green.
1:35:07No.
1:35:08Zimmerman?
1:35:09Yes.
1:35:10Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy 1:35:11 - 1:35:11
1:35:11Yes.
1:35:13Okay, the motion to postpone the ordinance fails with 5 yes votes, 5 no votes, and 2 absent.
Jamie Dunphy 1:35:22 - 1:35:39
1:35:22Okay, the resolution will be heard next week.
1:35:27Colleagues, we are now to the underlying amendment that is on the table to the ordinance.
1:35:40As a long-term, uh, longtime public school teacher, as a parent, my intention is to support our LGBTQIA2S+ community, protect our trans community, and extend civil rights, non-discrimination protections to all families.
1:35:56Those are the shared reasons that brought me and my colleagues together to sponsor this package.
1:36:01And I want to make it clear, I don't identify as a member of the LGBTQIA2S+ community.
1:36:07I don't share the same lived experiences as some of my co-sponsors on this dais, and I don't know the personal stories they're bringing to the table.
1:36:15However, I also understand that no community is a monolith.
1:36:20I believe in listening to subject matter experts.
1:36:23I believe in listening to the legal advice of our own city attorneys.
1:36:28I believe in listening to the voices that have historically not been heard by the city of Portland's elected officials.
1:36:36Colleagues, last week we heard directly from families that would be protected by our policies.
1:36:41Families like David, Mark, and Amy Nash-Killies, who came to Portland looking for a safe place to raise their family.
1:36:50Families like David, Mark, and Amy's deserve the same same protections that we have.
1:36:56To share a quote from Mark's testimony, nobody should fear who they care for.
1:37:01Nobody should fear that who they care for could jeopardize their job, their housing, or their ability to live in public as their authentic selves.
1:37:11And I really wish Vice President Clark was still here because after those first few testimonies, she was really moved and leaned over to me and said, wow, this is so powerful.
1:37:21I'm so glad these people are here.
1:37:25Last week, we also heard from a diverse coalition of LGBTQIA2S+ organizations and advocates, and virtually everyone who gave verbal testimony or submitted written testimony was supportive of this code revision to expand our family and relationship status protections.
1:37:43We also heard from attorneys across the country, including a staff attorney at Harvard Harvard Law School's LGBTQIA2S+ Advocacy Clinic, which called for the need to be specific with our language.
1:37:56Since our last meeting, I've followed back up with the City Attorney's Office, who has confirmed that it's best to be as clear as possible to make sure the courts interpret our laws in alignment with our intentions.
1:38:10My intention with this amendment is to respond to the advice of the City Attorney.
Jamie Dunphy 1:38:14 - 1:38:14
1:38:14Thank you.
1:38:15And to respect the requests of families like the Nashkillies and many others, and to make it clear that the city of Portland protects them too.
1:38:26As a reminder, Somerville, Massachusetts was the first city to pass their expanded family status definition in 2023.
1:38:34The city of Berkeley expanded family stat— this same family status definition in 2024, and Oakland passed theirs in 2025.
Olivia Clark 1:38:42 - 1:38:42
1:38:42Thank you.
1:38:44I look forward to our discussion and deliberation.
1:38:46Our community deserves that to be out in the open.
1:38:49I'd like to thank Senior Deputy Attorney Anne Milligan from the City Attorney's Office for joining us too.
1:38:55She met with Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's office in October of last year to answer the same questions that were brought up last week on the dais, and Attorney Milligan is here ready to answer our questions.
1:39:07I would like to start with asking for Attorney Milligan to tell us if this is the right place in code to have family protections, or Robert Taylor.
Jamie Dunphy 1:39:22 - 1:39:27
1:39:22Welcome, City Attorney Robert Taylor.
1:39:24We should just get you a chair.
1:39:27Thank you.
Robert Taylor 1:39:27 - 1:41:19
1:39:27Robert Taylor, City Attorney, for the record.
1:39:35This proposed amendment, in my view, and I appreciate the work of everybody in our office today, and I just want to speak for, for the office here today.
1:39:50I think the definition in D as it exists in the exhibit as filed is very broad.
1:40:02And I think that broad definition in itself would cover all of the various family and intimate relationships that we have heard about.
1:40:13The question is, should we further provide detail to that definition?
1:40:22That is what is in the proposed amendment.
1:40:26I think we heard testimony from many people requesting that type of specificity to give them comfort that they were in fact covered.
1:40:35My view is that they would be covered already under the existing language, but you certainly could add the more specific language to address the concerns that we've heard from constituents.
1:40:47And certainly if there is that specific list and there was ever litigation about whether A particular relationship status was covered by the definition, having that identified specifically in a list would be more defensible.
1:41:05There is always a risk.
1:41:07You know, this is a situation, honestly, in my mind where there's some legal risk with just having a very broad definition.
1:41:16There's also some legal risk with having a very specific list.
1:41:19I think that's a good point.
Robert Taylor 1:41:21 - 1:41:44
1:41:21The risk of having just a broad definition is it can lead to questions and debate about does this particular situation really fall within that broad definition or not.
1:41:33The legal risk of having a specific list like is proposed in the amendment is sometimes there can be litigation over if you have a particular situation that isn't specifically called out.
1:41:45Thank you.
Robert Taylor 1:41:46 - 1:42:20
1:41:46Sometimes an argument can be made if you were excluded from the list, you're not supposed to be in the list, and then you have an argument over that.
1:41:55In, in my view, both of those risks are minimal.
1:41:59I don't think one risk outweighs the other from a legal perspective.
1:42:03I think really to me it is a, a question of preference to this council as a policy matter of whether they would like to rely on the broad definition thank you, sir.
Jamie Dunphy 1:42:21 - 1:42:22
1:42:21Councilor Koyama Lane, anything else?
1:42:25That's it for now.
1:42:26Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:42:27 - 1:42:29
1:42:27Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
1:42:28Councilor Avalos.
1:42:31All right, thank you, um, colleagues.
1:42:34I think at the end of the day, the question before us is pretty simple.
1:42:38Do we believe that Portlanders have the right to live lives free of discrimination?
1:42:43And if the answer is yes, then it should be easy to support this amendment in front of us today.
1:42:47At our last council meeting, we heard from Portlander after Portlander who told us that the current ambiguity of our anti-discrimination laws puts them at risk and their families at risk, who have experienced real harm because of the lack of clear protections.
1:43:00So adding this language to explicitly recognize diverse family and intimate structures sends a clear signal that this code applies regardless of whether someone's household includes stepparents, multiple caregivers, multi-partner relationships, or chosen family.
1:43:12Councilmember Loretta Smith.
1:43:13And to me, that matters especially in this moment when we have a fascist administration twisting civil rights laws to target the very communities they were originally written to protect.
1:43:22And it's not good enough to rely on the assumption that others will act in good faith.
1:43:26Our own city attorney working at the city's legal team said, quote, that it is best to be as clear as possible whenever possible, end quote.
1:43:35And that, quote, while existing language of the original ordinance could definitely get the job done in a perfect world, the language would be more specific, end quote.
1:43:43The amendment before us today is the exact approach recommended by our lawyers.
1:43:47It's the exact approach taken by Cambridge, Somerville, Berkeley, and Oakland, and it's the exact approach requested by leading experts at the Harvard Law School LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic, among others.
1:43:57And most importantly, this is exactly what our constituents are asking us to do.
1:44:01This amendment confirms the fundamental right of every Portlander to live freely without the fear that they or their family will experience discrimination because of who they are or who they love.
1:44:11I will be voting yes, and I really hope that my colleagues have the moral clarity to do so as well.
1:44:16Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 1:44:17 - 1:44:20
1:44:17Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
1:44:18Councilor Green, to the amendment.
Mitch Green 1:44:20 - 1:44:24
1:44:20Yeah, thank you, Mr. President.
1:44:22Uh, Mr. Taylor, can you please come back up?
Olivia Clark 1:44:28 - 1:44:28
1:44:28Sorry.
Mitch Green 1:44:31 - 1:45:33
1:44:31More legal questions.
1:44:39Thank you.
1:44:40Um, so I'm looking at a, a letter from the Harvard, um, Law School LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic, and they make the argument that our, our court system, the dominant interpretive methodology in contemporary jurisprudence Yes.
1:45:03And they sort of raise the issue that, you know, while it is true that a broad, expansive definition leaves more opportunity to put more types of situations into the category, that at the end of the day, what protects the interpretation of the statute is the clearest, plainest meaning of the law.
1:45:26So would you agree that that's the dominant jurisprudence?
1:45:33You know what I'm trying to say.
Robert Taylor 1:45:35 - 1:46:57
1:45:35Yeah, thank you.
1:45:35Robert Taylor, City Attorney.
1:45:36I do agree with that, and, and, and that's what I'm expressing, where if you, if you have specific language in a list and you are clearly one of those specified, um, situations, that's That is crystal clear.
1:45:54Yep.
1:45:54There's not going to be any debate about that.
1:45:57I have litigated cases in private practice where a statute has a specific list like that, and the argument is over, well, I'm not— my situation isn't included in the list, but it's, it's like that, it's close enough like that, I should get the benefit of that.
1:46:15And, and that's the argument you get into.
1:46:18And so that's the risk of having a list, is you may unintentionally exclude somebody or raise some question about that.
1:46:27So I don't view that as a particularly high legal risk, honestly.
1:46:34And I also don't really think the broad definition that was used in the initial code language presents significant legal risk either.
1:46:44So to me, it's really— there's some legal risk with either approach.
1:46:49I don't think that risk is very high in either case.
1:46:52And so it's really just a choice between counsel about how they want to proceed.
Mitch Green 1:46:58 - 1:47:55
1:46:58I appreciate that.
1:46:59And I think, colleagues, in the context of this amendment, there's a pretty enumerated list of structures and relationship types that I don't personally have a lot of experience with, but, but it seems to me to be a pretty big Venn diagram of a lot of different types of conditions that most people would face in the city of Portland.
1:47:20And so I feel like the clause that says, but not limited to, provides a pretty clear signal to the intent, the legislative intent.
1:47:28And I think when we make these kind of laws, it's about legislative intent.
1:47:32I really don't want us to go down a road where we we create so much uncertainty that gives landlords and gives other sort of private actors in the community the COVID to put their own biases into play when we think about that.
1:47:46So I just wanted to make sure I understood whether or not that letter was accurate in terms of the standard practice of jurisprudence.
1:47:55Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 1:47:56 - 1:47:59
1:47:59Yeah, thank you for outlining that, and thank you, Robert, for being here to answer all of thank you, Mayor.
1:48:03Thank you, Councilor Smith, for questions.
1:48:04I think there is some difficulty, it sounds like, because there's some disagreement within your office about what is necessary or unnecessary here.
1:48:12But I think the thing that stuck out to me about what you said is that enumerating it gives more— it makes it more defensible in court, and I think that matters to me.
1:48:23But while also saying that not limited to means that we're not going to accidentally exclude people who shouldn't be excluded.
1:48:28So that's, uh, I, I have zero questions about the intent of all of my colleagues up here to defend civil liberties and civil rights.
1:48:37I think that is absolutely something that everybody here wants.
1:48:40It is a, a difference in policymaking, and I think that, um, I don't know, I just want to ground us in all that.
1:48:48I think that we do all care about that same thing.
1:48:51Um, to me, the amendment is very simple, and I hope that we move forward with it.
1:48:54Thank you.
1:48:54With it because I think enumerating those rights, one, I think that protects different types of queer relationships that are not just monogamous queer relationships.
1:49:05And, you know, I think that this is in line with what other jurisdictions are doing.
1:49:10It's not like it's something that's super out of bounds.
1:49:12It's something that we have seen other cities do.
1:49:15And frankly, I think Portland is behind for being one of the most LGBTQ-friendly cities in the country.
1:49:19Thank you.
1:49:20Friendly cities, allegedly, right?
1:49:22So I think that this is just a modernization of the policy that we have, and I hope that we can move that forward.
1:49:27But I believe that we all have the same intent here, and I'm looking forward to voting yes on the amendment.
Jamie Dunphy 1:49:34 - 1:49:36
1:49:34Thank you, Councilor Murillo.
1:49:35Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
1:49:38Thank you, Council President, and thank you to Councilor Murillo for saying the most important part of this, which is that I think everybody up here wants to make sure that we are protecting the civil rights of all of our friends and neighbors.
1:49:54And the proposal that was brought forward in this amendment is an important one that deserves debate, not because the rights on the table deserve debate, but because we need to make sure that when we change our civil rights code, we do it right.
1:50:11We need to make sure that we're not leaving anybody out the list.
1:50:16We need to make sure that we are looking at any potential conflicting codes and getting those right.
1:50:24And unfortunately, when dais amendments are brought, we don't have the time and space to have that full conversation.
1:50:36Um, I really hate airing dirty laundry and talking about process on the dais.
1:50:47I mentioned earlier that my team did a lot of work making sure we could have full co-sponsorship by all 4 out members of the community on this measure.
1:51:00And as we had those conversations, there was a lot of language that was considered in different iterations of the proposals before us that were considered, because that's how this process works.
1:51:11That's normal.
1:51:12You put language on the table, you take language off the table, you figure out where the right place is to land for this particular proposal.
1:51:19And some of the language taken off the table is really important, good language.
1:51:23It's just not what the full group can move forward at this time.
1:51:29And a version of the language that is before us in this amendment was at one point on the table.
1:51:36Um, and wasn't moved forward in the final proposal that the co-sponsors brought to this group.
1:51:43And then one of our co-sponsors brought it back as an amendment, and that doesn't feel like negotiating in good faith to me.
1:51:53And that's really troubling to me because trust at this dais, trust amongst us matters.
1:51:59Thank you.
1:52:01To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure yet how I'm voting on this amendment, despite the fact that, as my colleague said, we all want to protect everybody's civil rights.
1:52:13I want to make sure we do that right.
1:52:15I want to make sure we get the balance of the 2 risks that Mr. Taylor described right.
1:52:20I want to have the proper debate on how to add the right language here.
1:52:28And I want us to have a good strong vote showing the trans community that this council, this community, is here today to make sure that among other things when members of the trans community come to Portland to get the life-saving healthcare that they need, they will not be arrested because there is an outstanding warrant from another state for receiving that healthcare.
1:52:53Care, because that was the underlying goal, among a few other related things, for what we're doing here today.
1:53:03I'm interested in hearing the debate from my colleagues, not about whether the amendment before us is important language or not, but about whether this is the right place and time to move it forward, or if we need to do a little work to make sure that the code is all compliant and the list is right before we move forward.
Jamie Dunphy 1:53:25 - 1:53:27
Sameer Kanal 1:53:28 - 1:55:38
1:53:29Um, I had questions originally for, for, uh, City Attorney Taylor.
1:53:33I think Councilor Murillo's points, uh, really covered them all, so I won't, I won't ask them.
1:53:38Um, I appreciate the conversation here, and we've had this conversation around a couple other topics too, which is when we're talking about, um, Federal response, National Guard, ICE, a lot of these different things.
1:53:49Is it better to do the thing that, that maybe, um, is the strongest possible thing to do if it has 7, 8, 9 votes?
1:53:56Is it better to do the thing that we can get to 12 votes for and, and send a message?
1:54:01I don't know that there's an absolute right or wrong answer to that.
1:54:04I don't know that there's an absolute right or wrong answer in the context of this issue area either.
1:54:08Um, so, but I appreciate if Thank you.
1:54:11Thank you, Councilor Mitch Green, and in particular Councilor Pirtle-Guiney for, for sort of bringing that up, because I think it's fair for us to say, to, to give everyone a look behind the curtain, that is a thing that is on at least some of our minds.
1:54:19It's certainly been on mine.
1:54:21Um, with relation to this amendment, I, I appreciated the conversation last week because, uh, it gave me time.
1:54:30It was a surprise to me.
1:54:30I'm not involved in the committee conversation, and, um, as some of my colleagues know, I was not familiar with the amendment at all.
1:54:36Didn't initially think it, it needed to happen given the conversation there.
1:54:41But I got a lot of folks who weighed in over the last week.
1:54:45So I want to first thank my colleagues for ensuring that there was a week for that, for me to do my homework on that.
1:54:50I was always going to support the ordinance and the resolution broadly, but on the amendment specifically, hadn't had the homework.
1:54:56And a lot of folks, including but not limited to Basic Rights Oregon, reached out, and I want to just thank them for those pieces of information that they gave me.
1:55:06So I will be supporting it today because in this particular case, I think that the balance of this leans towards the comment that was made in testimony last week of, A, nothing about us without us, and then B, what we're hearing from the people who are most affected in the community.
1:55:26I don't know that there's a perfect answer to it, and I appreciate the comments that many colleagues have made about everyone sharing intent around this community, these several communities, and the needs to protect their rights.
1:55:37Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 1:55:38 - 1:55:40
1:55:39Councilor Avalos.
1:55:43Yeah, I think I'm just still a little bit confused.
1:55:46And I'll just say, you know, as somebody who has actually a lot of experience being blindsided with amendments to bills that I wrote, what I have been told in those scenarios is that everybody here has the right to propose amendments, that that is the legislative process.
1:56:00Uh, I understand that there's, you know, nuances to that because there's interpersonal dynamics that come into play, but from what I understand of how we legislate, any bill that gets put on this dais that is up for debate is open for amendments, which are open for debate, which require a vote.
1:56:15Let's not forget, it's not like people proposing things, that is an ultimatum, that it requires a vote, and if you don't vote for it great.
1:56:21If you vote for it, great.
1:56:23And so I don't really agree with that being the point of this.
1:56:27I think that if a councilor is responsive to what their community is saying, what their constituents are saying, and is proposing an amendment to update legislation to make it stronger for their constituents, that seems like the legislative process we all agree to.
1:56:42So if that is the case, then we need to stop choosing when it applies, because I know I have constantly been berated for those kinds of things.
1:56:50And I've experienced the brunt of being told, well, you just have to accept that I have a different view and I want to put another amendment.
Sameer Kanal 1:56:57 - 1:56:57
1:56:57Great.
1:56:57So then let's accept it.
1:56:59I think that's very clear what we're doing here.
1:57:01I think that everybody is 100% in bounds to do that.
1:57:06And I genuinely still do not understand, because of what I heard from the lawyers, what I'm hearing is that this conversation has been going on for months.
1:57:14Yes.
1:57:15That there has been discussion behind the scenes.
1:57:17We've vetted it.
1:57:18We've looked across the country.
1:57:20What is left to figure out?
1:57:22I mean, it sounds like people are saying there's more to figure out of where it goes in code.
1:57:26We've already gotten those questions answered.
1:57:28So genuinely, I don't understand what is still left to be uncovered before people feel comfortable making this vote.
1:57:35So I guess, you know, I'll pose that back to the group.
1:57:39It doesn't have to be necessarily anybody respond to it.
1:57:41I mean, I can make it rhetorical, but I truly have been trying to sit here and listen to like the reason, and I haven't heard a clear reason other than, you know, we haven't debated it enough.
1:57:53Well, I guess I disagree.
1:57:54I think the lawyers have done that work, and there are email trains that show— email chains, I mean— that show that this discussion has been going back and forth for months.
1:58:04So if it hasn't been figured out in a few months, I don't know what another few months are going to figure out.
1:58:08Councilor Loretta Smith.
1:58:09So I'm ready to vote for this.
1:58:13I think this is very common sense legislation.
1:58:15If we all say that we care about these communities, then let's support them.
1:58:19I really hope that we can move past this weird, you know, it just seems like there's a lot of undertone and I'm kind of over it.
1:58:26I think that this is how people legislate and we need to accept that that is our responsibility, our duty.
1:58:32And I'm proud to support this amendment for those reasons.
1:58:34Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:58:36 - 1:58:37
1:58:36Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Loretta Smith 1:58:39 - 1:58:54
1:58:41Um, I have a question for our City Attorney, uh, Taylor.
1:58:46So if we wanted to include— let's say if this passed and then we wanted to include something else, could we amend the amended piece of this?
Robert Taylor 1:58:56 - 1:59:01
1:58:56You could always bring an amendment to the code later to— okay, to add to the list.
Loretta Smith 1:59:01 - 1:59:05
1:59:01Yes, to add if we wanted to do that.
1:59:03That's that's, that's what I needed to, to find out.
1:59:05Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 1:59:06 - 1:59:09
1:59:06Thank you, Councilor Smith.
1:59:38Being an elected official and weighing in on ordinances about protecting a group of people who right now are in the spotlight is something that I've taken very seriously since this resolution and this ordinance change came on my radar.
2:00:12I have seen, you know, it— I'll just say it is very— it seems like a simple act to pass in the large sense, in quotes, an LGBTQ package, right?
2:00:28That in this community, that's a broadly accepted demographic.
2:00:37But in doing so, I think that councilors and their staffs who are helping write this, we were I'm incredibly cognizant of the fact that we live in an era where the actions of a city council, which seem, you know, like they don't leave our shores, so to speak, they stay just in the city of Portland, but we know that that's not the case.
2:01:11The language that's being proposed here is not language that I find problematic.
2:01:17It's not language that I disagree with, but it is language that highlights something in an— in another— in a document that has a spec— had a specific focus.
2:01:33And that specific focus for me was recognition that Oregon and that Portland is a place where people who are part of the trans community in particular, but LGBTQ overall, are finding refuge.
2:01:52And that we live in a strange time when state legislature— legislatures, federal government are targeting everything from healthcare to activities to identification documents.
2:02:14I thought that we could both take an action and not put a particular spotlight on Portland by those who will do us ill. Perhaps that was a mistake, but But I think that when you are doing right by the community, and when we are talking about those types of aggressive actions against a part of our community, being mindful that while they are going through that, while their families are figuring out what life looks like as transitions occur, as maybe reintroductions into new schools or into teams, into neighborhoods, to jobs, that, that is a heavy enough situation for anyone involved that extra spotlight by the Fox Newsites of the world is not helpful.
2:03:16And so I'm laying out on the table where my motivation came from.
2:03:21I think that we can achieve, and we have heard today, and this is why the city attorney essentially said, I think that the words that were in it would already protect.
2:03:29I think that's a good point.
2:03:31We landed on language that covered all of these family situations without creating what we thought might be undue fervor in the conservative ecosphere, if you will.
2:03:50So at this point— And so I put a lot of faith in the team, and I thanked those staffers who were part of the negotiations on behalf of these counselors, uh, because we put a lot of work into, uh, negotiating and trying to understand what language was helpful, what language was harmful, what language was going to get taken out of context and be then more dangerous.
2:04:14And in this world and in this time and on this topic, context matters, language matters, and I care very much about that.
2:04:23And so I felt I felt very good coming into this body last week with the agreed-upon language where everybody said, you know, I'm not— I got it, I'm not proposing any amendments.
2:04:35Either themselves or their staff said it.
Loretta Smith 2:04:37 - 2:04:37
2:04:37Okay.
2:04:38And so I still feel good about the underlying ordinance.
2:04:42I feel very good about the underlying resolution.
2:04:45I think that Portlanders and those who are going to soon be Portlanders can have faith in Portland, in faith in our laws.
2:04:53We are cleaning up code that is bygone, of a bygone era, and we are signaling a support for members of our community who are, uh, deep minorities and are right now the topic of the era for a part of this country who does not think them the same level of human.
2:05:13That was my motivation and where I came to this and why I put so much Thank you.
2:05:17Staff time into developing what I think were 2 good documents.
2:05:24But part of that relied on faith that the process would take its course, that, that we could avoid some of those lightning rod moments, those lightning rod debates.
2:05:35And that lightning rod debate has now happened.
2:05:40You have aired it out there.
2:05:43And so I'm not sure what we can avoid from the perspective of those who will do us harm.
2:05:55I think that ship has sailed.
2:05:56And so I look to all my colleagues as somebody who was not in favor of this amendment, and I think it was a deep violation of our process and the sponsors who brought it.
2:06:07I think we should pass it unanimously.
2:06:09And I think we should pass the resolution unanimously, and I think we need to pass the ordinance unanimously because at this point, um, I am pissed at myself for rewarding bad behavior by one of my fellow councilors, but I will not be straight-splained by members of this dais or members of this community.
2:06:28I am— stay devoted to the underlying ordinance.
2:06:31I stay devoted to the underlying resolution.
2:06:33Councilor and I am channeling everything I can with the people who are better than I when it comes to turning the other cheek.
2:06:44And in gay rights and in gay liberation movements, we have been turning the other cheek a long time, and we have been incremental in our improvements in our society.
2:06:58This is one of those incremental moments.
2:06:59Thank you.
2:07:06It is not lost on me that there were members and there are people in this community who will speak that they are deep supporters of us but will not let us have a thing without being a part of it, commenting on it, and changing it.
2:07:26And I'm not going to let that change my overall support.
2:07:30So I do plan to support this amendment, and I despise the fact that we were lied to, but I will support it because now it is all out there.
2:07:40The drapes are down.
2:07:41We're seeing through it.
2:07:43Let's pass it.
2:07:44Let's pass all the protections for the entire LGBTQ spectrum and send the signal that is important for Portlanders and soon-to-be Portlanders.
2:07:53Thank you, Mr. President.
Jamie Dunphy 2:07:54 - 2:08:02
2:07:54Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
2:07:56Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue to debate the amendment, I would ask Keelan to please call the roll.
2:08:03Okay, and then just to clarify, this is a motion to amend Exhibit B moved by Councilor Koyama Lane, seconded by Councilor Avalos.
2:08:13Avalos?
2:08:14Aye.
2:08:15Smith?
Loretta Smith 2:08:17 - 2:09:16
2:08:17I just want to say that listening to our city attorney, and if we want to change some of these things too, um, I, I heard you loud and clear, Councilor, um, Pirtle-Guiney, about what happened in the process.
2:08:35And, and I hear you too, Councilor Zimmerman.
2:08:38But I agree with you, we need to pass this.
2:08:43And if, if there's something better that we can improve it, let's just do that after the fact.
2:08:47Thank you.
2:08:48Because it's the fact of the matter is, even in the transgender community, Black transgender folks—they are so marginalized and in a way that I have not seen others.
2:09:04So I think they do need protections.
2:09:07And if we want to beef this up in a way, let's do it after the fact and change it.
2:09:12Let's just get this on and vote for this.
2:09:15And so I vote aye.
Sameer Kanal 2:09:18 - 2:09:19
2:09:18Thank you.
2:09:21Aye.
2:09:24Aye.
Robert Taylor 2:09:26 - 2:09:27
2:09:26Aye.
2:09:27Aye.
2:09:28Aye.
2:09:31Councilor Clarke is absent.
Mitch Green 2:09:34 - 2:09:34
2:09:34Green?
2:09:34Aye.
2:09:35Zimmerman?
2:09:36Aye.
2:09:36Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy 2:09:37 - 2:09:37
2:09:37Aye.
2:09:39The amendment is approved with 10 yes votes 13 yes votes and 2 absent.
Jamie Dunphy 2:09:43 - 2:22:37
2:09:43Colleagues, is there any further debate to the underlying ordinance or resolution at this time?
2:09:49The resolution has been postponed, so no, no debate on the resolution, but any further debate on the underlying ordinance?
2:09:55Waiting a second.
2:09:56Seeing no one else in the queue, the ordinance will now move to second reading along with the now postponed resolution.
2:10:06Thank you, colleagues.
2:10:08Can we please move to item— actually, before we move to item 13, I am going to have us take a 10-minute recess.
2:10:18We'll be back at—.
2:10:19Please.
2:22:33And we are back.
2:22:35Can we please read item number 13?
2:22:43Uh, item 13, document 2026-022, amend the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefit Fund Climate Investment Plan.
Jamie Dunphy 2:22:54 - 2:23:02
2:22:54And we have Claire Adamsick from Council Ops for a committee summary, uh, Staff committee summary report, something like that.
2:23:04Thank you, Council President and councilors.
2:23:06Again, for the record, Claire Adamsick, council policy analyst and staff to the Climate Resilience and Land Use Committee.
2:23:12The ordinance before you, document number 2026-022, was heard in the Climate Committee on January 15th and again on January 29th.
2:23:21On January 29th, the ordinance was referred to council as amended with a recommendation to pass.
2:23:26The ordinance directs the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, BPS, to amend the Climate Investment Plan, or CIP, as provided in Exhibit A of the ordinance.
2:23:35It clarifies the amended CIP is in effect through June 30th, 2029, and that budgetary changes resulting from this amendment are subject to council authorization through the annual budget process and subsequent budget cycles where applicable.
2:23:51The ordinance further directs It also authorizes the BPS director to amend funding allocations of up to 10% of a specified program, provided the adjustments are recommended by the PCEF committee and preserve the CIP's intent across funding categories.
2:24:11At its January 29th meeting, the committee approved an amendment to Exhibit A of the ordinance that restored the original 5-year funding allocations for the PCEF program.
2:24:19Thank you.
2:24:19In Strategic Program 1, which is clean energy and regulated multifamily affordable housing, and Strategic Program 13, targeted electric vehicle financing tools.
2:24:30The amendment further directed staff analysis to determine necessary changes to text within Exhibit A to correspond with the amended funding allocations.
2:24:40Following committee action, PCF submitted— PCF staff submitted a proposed conforming amendment to Exhibit A To reflect the impacts of the committee amendment that was approved on January 29th, and that conforming amendment is posted online.
2:24:54The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and analysis, economic and real estate development impacts, community impacts and community involvement, and the city's 100% renewable goal.
2:25:0617 People testified during the committee meeting on January 15th.
2:25:1037 People submitted written testimony.
2:25:12Thank you.
2:25:12Prior to committee action on January 29th, general themes of the testimony included the climate climate benefits for low-income households through energy upgrades and electrification, specifically upgrades to older housing stock, the potential impacts of trimet budget cuts on public access and climate-friendly improvements, increased pressure on local funding decisions in light of state and federal funding cuts, retaining funding allocations for transportation uses, including bike and transit infrastructure.
2:25:40Transportation decarbonization or a universal youth transit pass.
2:25:44And finally, keeping PSF investments focused on renewable and clean energy purposes in alignment with the original intent of the ballot measure.
2:25:51And that concludes the committee staff summary.
2:25:52Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 2:25:53 - 2:26:17
2:25:53Thank you, Claire.
2:25:54Uh, Councilor Novick, I see that you were the committee chair of this.
2:25:58I also— colleagues recognize that we have a number of amendments on the table.
2:26:02Oh, you both were?
2:26:04Oh, great.
2:26:05Okay, so I will turn first I'm going to turn to Councilor Novick, but I'd also like at that time, Councilor Novick, if you could share your amendments, and then I will turn to Councilor Avalos, who also has an amendment, I believe.
2:26:17So Councilor Morillo.
2:26:20Yeah, just to give a little bit more color to the discussion that happened in committee, you know, I think that there was a big discussion about what we do with these dollars and specifically with $15 million that was found in the PCF I think a core part of the discussion was the PSF committee came, they gave very strong testimony about wanting us to preserve their original recommendations as strongly as possible.
2:26:44They made it very clear that they viewed council tweaking something that they had worked on for a very long time as something that was very concerning to them and that it was an intrusion on community input.
2:26:56But there was also a debate amongst councilors as Okay.
2:26:58As far as, okay, if we have this multi— this billion-dollar fund, what do we do in a situation where we are getting feedback from community where they're pushing us in a certain way?
2:27:08Like, I think something that we heard about over the course of the past few weeks was learning that transit is being greatly reduced because the state legislature failed to fund it.
2:27:17What do we do then to address the needs of our community?
2:27:20So I think my big takeaway as someone who was chairing the meeting was that everybody deeply cares about climate issues, deeply cares about trying to make sure we're responsive to our constituents, and that there is disagreement about how that gets done.
2:27:32And some of my colleagues really articulated well, what do we do?
2:27:37Is council a rubber stamp for the PCF committee's recommendations, or do we get some say and give some feedback on what those recommendations are when they come to us?
2:27:47So that was just kind of an open question.
2:27:48I don't think we landed on a decision.
2:27:50And I just wanted to add some color to the discussion because it is very complicated and important for our community right now.
2:27:56Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 2:27:57 - 2:28:02
2:27:57Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
2:27:58Councilor Novick, you are muted.
Steve Novick 2:28:04 - 2:31:49
2:28:04Sorry, I appreciate Councilor Morillo's introduction.
2:28:08So a couple of things.
2:28:10One, um, what the committee wound up sending to full council was a group of technical amendments Not including the substantive move of money from one pot to another that the PSF had recommended.
2:28:25These technical amendments are somewhat time critical, and therefore I hope that we move to adopt those amendments today.
2:28:33As to the question of the $15 million, I have long been concerned that we're spending too little PSF money in transportation, which is our largest source of emissions.
2:28:45We're spending 17% of PCF money on transportation when it's 40% of emissions.
2:28:51So when I saw that that the committee was recommending that we change the climate investment plan to take 15 million out of transportation and putting into a housing program, which is a departure from the allocation that the committee did, you know, this original CIP approved by council, I thought that was a big.
2:29:11Deal, something the council should weigh in on and of concern to me.
2:29:15So I solicited ideas for transportation ways to use that money.
2:29:20Uh, oh, and by the way, the, um, the original transportation purpose was a financing program for electric vehicles, particularly for Uber and Lyft drivers, that just hasn't gotten really gotten off the ground yet.
2:29:32Um, so I went to Vivian Satterfield and PBOT and TriMet for ideas to how to spend that money on transportation and received a variety of proposals.
2:29:42One is saving streetcar service, which TriMet is planning to cut.
2:29:46And of course, we have a longstanding city investment in streetcar.
2:29:50Vivian Satterfield suggested extending the youth pass to David Douglas and Parkrose High School students.
2:30:00PBOT also proposed taking a look at a proposal to Um, within the James Beard Market, which is going to open next year, to start a net-zero delivery system for that market so that instead of diesel trucks causing a traffic nightmare on Alder Street, we have cargo bikes and electric, you know, e-cargo bikes and electric vehicles doing those deliveries.
2:30:25So the committee heard about these very— these various options.
2:30:29Thank you.
2:30:30And it was clear that we were not going to come to a conclusion as to whether to adopt a particular set of transportation proposals or to revert to the committee's original idea and put the money into housing.
2:30:42So what we did was sent the package without that housing amendment to full council, and full council can now— well, one thing I should note is that we passed— we stripped out The movement of $15 million, but there's some additional language, sort of conforming language that BPS has previously identified.
2:31:04So there's an amendment in front of you to conform the package, you know, as we sent it, to sort of true it up.
2:31:12And what this council could do now is we could simply adopt the conforming amendment and then adopt all the technical amendments and leave it alone.
2:31:21I think that's a good idea.
2:31:22And the effect of that would be that the money, the $15 million, is left in this pot for electric vehicle financing for another year, and then we'd see whether the committee comes forward and has another use for it.
2:31:38We could decide that we, the council, are going to take a different tack.
2:31:44I have one amendment that has a— that would use the whole $15 million for transportation.
Tyler Fellini 2:31:49 - 2:31:49
2:31:49Uh-huh.
Steve Novick 2:31:50 - 2:34:30
2:31:50Means, including the streetcar service retention and the James Beard Public Market.
2:31:58And I highlight those because they're both sort of time critical.
2:32:02Streetcar service is about to get cut.
2:32:04The James Beard Public Market is going to open next year.
2:32:08We also— that might— so I have one amendment that is sort of offered as a compromise, which I've not discussed with Councilor Avalos.
2:32:16Which would have basically half the money going to those 2 things and half the money going to housing.
2:32:21And then I have another proposal which has the whole thing going to transportation, but it includes also a proposal from Peabody Advocates— not Roger Geller at Peabody Advocates— to try to restore bike mode share to what it was in 2015.
2:32:37And also would give some money to TriMet to climate-proof some of their Overhead cable lines for the MAX station and some of their rail lines, that sort of both of which are under great stress under extreme weather.
2:32:50So I actually am going to suggest that we might not want to try to make a decision on this today.
2:32:58We might— it might make more sense to pass the conforming amendments, pass the technical amendments, and then have a broader discussion on another day.
2:33:07Thank you.
2:33:09And maybe with sort of a preliminary discussion now.
2:33:13I also want to note that I think that this process raised significant issues as to, as Councilor Murillo said, how does council interact with the PCF staff and committee?
2:33:25Are we a rubber stamp, or do we, you know, stomp all over them with jackboots, or is there some intermediate way to behave?
2:33:36Originally, my hope was that council could send to PBOT committee, the PSF committee and staff, some transportation ideas that they could then review and get back to us fairly quickly with their assessment of them.
2:33:51They said that they don't want to do that.
2:33:53They only want to take up CIP amendments in their annual process.
2:33:58So I was hoping I was coming up with an idea to Have— it's where we're engaging with them, but that seemed, uh, not something they're willing to do on an interim basis.
2:34:10So that's the situation we're in.
2:34:13Um, and, uh, I, I move, um, the conforming amendments, uh, with the understanding that we might then have a debate about $15 million, but the conforming amendments are just to sort of make, uh, true up what's before you now and make it make sense and have all the Proper language.
Jamie Dunphy 2:34:31 - 2:34:46
2:34:31Thank you, Councilor Novick.
2:34:32And, uh, Councilor moved a, uh, the conforming amendment.
2:34:37Uh, is there a second for that?
2:34:41I, I will second it for the purposes of discussion.
2:34:45And Councilor Avalos?
2:34:48Okay, here we go.
2:34:50Uh, thank you.
2:34:51Yeah, I do have an amendment.
2:34:53Um, we have discussed this item before us at length at the Climate Committee and multiple Climate Committee meetings, and, um, after hearing some of the arguments and suggestions, I am even more convinced that the best way to invest this $15 million is the PCEF Committee's original proposal.
2:35:08So it's why I would like to move my amendment Avalos 1, which would restore those funding allocation recommendations delivered to us by the PCEF Committee.
2:35:18Um, I have tried to be very clear over multiple committee meetings, and I'll repeat myself again here just since not all All of my colleagues sit on that committee.
2:35:25I strongly support investments to decarbonize our transportation system.
2:35:29What I don't support is yet another effort that puts the process and by association PSEF's purpose into question.
2:35:36Let me also just make a quick note about the data on GHG emissions, because what continues to be stated is actually statewide data and not Portland data.
2:35:44Emissions from buildings make up 53% of Portland's greenhouse gas emissions, while transportation emissions are 40%.
2:35:50Councilmember Loretta Smith.
2:35:51According to Portland's Climate and Energy Dashboard, transportation accounts for 40% of Portland's greenhouse gas emissions, while the combined building emissions— commercial at 24%, industrial at 11%, and residential at 18%— total 53%.
2:36:06When voters overwhelmingly supported the creation of our groundbreaking Environmental Justice Fund, they also approved a governance structure designed to center community voices, not city bureaucrats or elected officials.
2:36:17And that was intentional because in the old way of funding climate projects, small grassroots organizations like the one that I led never got their fair share, and neither did the frontline communities who experienced the greatest environmental harm.
2:36:28Through a structured, intentional review of the climate investment plan with staff analysis, public input, and deliberation, the PCEF committee arrived at the recommendations that I'm bringing in my amendment today.
2:36:39They spent months reviewing implementation, readiness, and impact, and they worked through those trade-offs.
2:36:43They debated options.
2:36:44And then at what seems like the last minute, councilors were swooping in to propose their own ideas.
2:36:49And I don't believe that that seems like good practice.
2:36:52And I would hope that my colleagues could agree with that.
2:36:54Because for me, that sends a dangerous signal that the oversight mechanisms and processes that govern PSF funds are optional.
2:37:01And we are seeing the risks play out in real time that threaten the progress that's been made in our community to build climate resilience and reduce carbon emissions.
2:37:08So does council have a role in shaping PSF priorities?
2:37:10Yes.
2:37:10Of course we do, but we have to follow the processes that are in place for a reason.
2:37:15And when we are on the verge of the next climate investment plan process to set up the next 5 years of where we make these decisions for how to invest our dollars, I don't understand why we're treating a technical time-bound CIP adjustment as the place to ask bigger questions about proportionality, sector balance, and long-term strategy.
2:37:32So I hope that my colleagues understand that what we're debating today has real implications for PSF's future beyond just this 50 $18 million, and why I'm urging you to support my amendment and would welcome a second.
Mitch Green 2:37:41 - 2:37:42
2:37:41Second.
2:37:42Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 2:37:44 - 2:37:58
2:37:44Councilor Avalos moves her amendment.
2:37:45Councilor Green seconds.
2:37:47So we have some amendments on the table.
2:37:50Uh, colleagues, we're going to move into, uh, are there additional amendments to present at this time?
Loretta Smith 2:37:59 - 2:38:00
2:37:59So when are we going to debate this?
Jamie Dunphy 2:38:03 - 2:38:14
2:38:03We will We'll go to technical and clarifying questions, we'll get public testimony, then we'll come back and debate the individual amendments.
2:38:10Excellent.
2:38:13Okay, Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick 2:38:15 - 2:38:34
2:38:15Yes, I neglected to move my amendments Novick 2 and Novick 3, which I just described previously.
2:38:24Councilor— which allocates the full $15 million to transportation projects, and Novick 3, which allocates about half of it to the 2 urgent transportation projects I've mentioned.
Jamie Dunphy 2:38:35 - 2:38:39
2:38:35Councilor Novick moves Novick 2 and Novick 3.
2:38:38Is there a second?
2:38:40I'll second for purpose of debate.
Jamie Dunphy 2:38:42 - 2:38:56
2:38:42Councilor Pirtle-Guiney seconds Novicks 2 and 3 for the purposes of debate.
2:38:48Councilor Murillo, and we are in technical and clarifying questions, which can be both to the amendments and to the underlying.
2:38:58I don't know if anyone is able to answer a technical question about— so if we move some of these dollars based on Councilor Novick's amendments, I got some information that some projects might— it was a little confusing because we were told that these dollars are not officially allocated, but then the presentation also said that these These home programs expect that these dollars would be there, and therefore it might end up killing those projects, and that's kind of concerning to me.
2:39:31So the ones that I had listed as potentially, like, if this doesn't move forward with the original allocation, would be Path Home Village, SEI, Mississippi Street Homes.
2:39:43And those are pretty critical to our community.
2:39:45Obviously, housing is a pretty big issue.
2:39:47Yes.
2:39:49Carbon production in housing is also a top issue.
2:39:53It's not just transportation, and I say that as someone who desperately loves and needs the bus.
2:39:58So I don't know if there's anyone who can answer that, but I think our offices received some info on that too.
Jamie Dunphy 2:40:07 - 2:40:18
2:40:07I see Director Eric Engstrom coming up.
2:40:09I also see Sam Barasso coming up.
2:40:11Welcome.
2:40:12Thank you for helping us navigate this, and please introduce Thanks, Tim.
2:40:18Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
2:40:20Um, yeah, the debate or the discussion of, um, would this action, um, take money away from existing housing projects came up at the committee level.
2:40:31Um, technically the money has not been allocated to any particular housing project yet, but as some of you may know, housing finance is a long path, and so there are a number of projects that were anticipating the availability of this money And those may be affected or have to change their designs.
2:40:51But technically, there had been no promises or contracts signed with the money.
2:40:56Sam, if you have anything else to add.
2:40:58For the record, Sam Barrasso.
2:40:59I do not have anything to add at the moment.
Jamie Dunphy 2:41:03 - 2:41:05
2:41:03Okay.
2:41:03Councilor Morillo, further follow-up?
2:41:05No, that answers my question.
2:41:06Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 2:41:07 - 2:41:09
2:41:07Thank you.
2:41:13I heard Councilor Novick say that what we have before us was moved from committee without the movement of the $15 million.
2:41:23I'm trying to understand if that means that that $15 million, if we pass what's before us today unamended, is still sitting in the transportation bucket.
2:41:35If it is sitting in committee still and hasn't been moved If so, what that means, because there's not a vehicle in committee to use it.
2:41:44And I'm wondering if Councilor Novick, you can help me understand the technical nature of where the pieces of this are.
2:41:54And I may look to the city attorney if there's some pieces that are still unclear, but I wanna make sure I understand where the dollars are if we take certain actions today.
2:42:04Okay.
Steve Novick 2:42:06 - 2:42:09
2:42:06Can I answer that, Mr. President?
Jamie Dunphy 2:42:09 - 2:42:10
2:42:09Please go ahead.
Steve Novick 2:42:11 - 2:42:52
2:42:11Um, the dollars would remain in the pot they're in now, which is for financing for EV purchases.
2:42:18That is a program that has not been speedily moving ahead.
2:42:22I'm told that PCF still considers that a worthwhile program.
2:42:26My guess is that if it remains in that pot, it won't be spent in the next year.
2:42:31And but maybe at that point the program will have gotten underground, or maybe that by that point, uh, the PSF committee and staff will come up with another use for the money.
2:42:41But the effect of our adopting what's before us now, which stripped out that amendment, is simply that it stays in that transportation pot.
2:42:51So to be—.
2:42:53Yeah, so to be clear, when, when I have heard The committee moved forward everything except for that change.
2:43:01That doesn't mean that the committee is still holding onto that piece of the item to further debate.
2:43:06What it means is that that change was just reversed by the committee.
2:43:10It was amended by the committee to go back to the original location of those dollars, and the rest of the changes were adopted by the committee, but the entire package has been moved forward to full council.
2:43:20Is that correct?
Steve Novick 2:43:22 - 2:43:33
2:43:22That is correct.
2:43:23The entire package Without that change, plus these conforming amendments to true up the language to make sure that all the documents reflect what we did with the $15 million.
2:43:36I think the questions that I thought I had for the city attorney then are no longer relevant.
2:43:41That's different from how I had heard this before.
2:43:43I appreciate that, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy 2:43:44 - 2:43:46
2:43:45Uh, Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal 2:43:48 - 2:46:46
2:43:48Thanks.
2:43:49I have, uh, I don't know if it's a question or just a comment on for what was said by the staff who are up here, but the idea that there's anticipation is, I think, a challenge because what it does is it puts us in a position of saying no to something we never even heard about.
2:44:08And so in committee, we had people who are coming up saying we're taking money away that wasn't programmed because of the communication they received from the staff.
2:44:17And I have a major problem with that.
2:44:19Thank you.
2:44:20I also think there are a few specific places in which the council being a rubber stamp is sort of required.
2:44:25We had a vote on the City of Gresham appointing a member to the Home Forward board, and like, it's their call who they appoint, but technically we have to approve it.
2:44:35And I want to understand as we go through this how and where our role is on PSAP, because if that's going to be what our role is, then I think we should be transparent about that and say, Everybody who has a thought on this, don't come talk to us, go talk to the PCEV committee.
2:44:50And that would be an honest thing to say.
2:44:51If on the other hand, it's council's final call, the jackboots example, then we should be transparent about that too.
2:44:57And I think that's unfair to the PCEV committee.
2:45:00I think where we're— and frankly to the community.
2:45:02I think what we were talking about is if there is a desired change or simply a desire to not change the strategic program, just to change the specific program, within that for a pot of money that was allocated to something that wasn't being spent.
2:45:19What is the best way to engage with that conversation?
2:45:22Because it can't be councilors need to go attend the advisory committee's conversation.
2:45:28That's not as— that's not realistic here.
2:45:31It could be let's refer it back.
2:45:33And I think that's fair.
2:45:34The other thing that I have to point out is moving $15 million between 2 strategic programs is not a technical amendment.
2:45:40It's not.
2:45:41I think it's— we have to have that conversation with the understanding and acknowledgement that it is substantive.
2:45:47That doesn't mean that we have to agree with it or disagree with it, but I think we have to acknowledge that it's a big deal.
2:45:52And I think everybody in the city would understand if we said, hey, moving $15 million is something that deserves somebody to discuss and decide on it.
2:46:00So that's my framing conversation to this whole piece.
2:46:03I want to be understanding of it.
2:46:05I do think that it's a big deal.
2:46:06I have seen now some of these amendments and I'm broadly supportive of starting the conversation with something that makes sense by approving the technical conforming amendments and then having the discussion on the $15 million.
2:46:19I'm perfectly happy to do that, but I definitely had the concern that was raised by Councilor Novick during the committee, which is if we were to put this back into transportation with a specific specific set of issues, and this is my question, when would it be able to be spent?
2:46:38Because in the committee it came up that that might take another year or that it wouldn't be able to happen in the next fiscal year.
2:46:45It's the best way to put that.
2:46:46Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy 2:46:46 - 2:46:55
2:46:47Colleagues, there's a lot of hands in the queue and I'm not clear if people are in technical or clarifying questions at this point.
Mitch Green 2:46:56 - 2:46:57
2:46:56If you're not, please take it out.
Jamie Dunphy 2:46:58 - 2:47:04
2:46:58Councilor Smith?
2:47:00No.
2:47:01Councilor Novick, did you have another?
Steve Novick 2:47:05 - 2:47:37
2:47:05Yes, I just wanted to respond to Councilor Kanal's question just now.
2:47:09If we decide to spend the money on certain transportation projects, that can start now.
2:47:16What would take a year is— my original suggestion was that council identify some transportation projects It would like the PCF committee to engage in reviewing and then get back to us.
2:47:31And they said, we don't want to do that except in our normal annual process.
2:47:35So if you want us to do that, that will take a year.
Sameer Kanal 2:47:38 - 2:47:46
2:47:38Thank you for clarifying.
2:47:39Can I just put a finer point?
2:47:40So you're saying if we wanted to just decide where it goes, we could do that now, but if we wanted to engage with the committee, it would take a year?
Steve Novick 2:47:47 - 2:47:47
2:47:47Exactly.
Sameer Kanal 2:47:48 - 2:47:48
2:47:48Thank you for clarifying.
Jamie Dunphy 2:47:48 - 2:48:02
2:47:48Thank you, Councilor.
2:47:51Uh, Councilor Green.
2:47:53Okay, Councilor Kanal, are you okay?
2:47:56Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for technical or clarifying questions, uh, Keelan, do we have anyone signed up for public testimony?
2:48:04We, we do have folks signed up for public testimony.
2:48:06First up, we have Freda Walker, Marcus Mundy, and Brian Hoop.
Jamie Dunphy 2:48:15 - 2:48:21
2:48:15Welcome, come on up.
2:48:16Please introduce yourselves for the record.
2:48:18Feel free to share your preferred pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
2:48:26Good afternoon, President Dunphy and members of the council.
2:48:30My name is Frida Walker, and I'm the Chief Compliance Officer with Self Enhancement Inc.
2:48:35I am here today to voice my strong support for Councilor Avalos' Amendment Number 1 to reinstate the full PCF recommendations, including transferring of the budget.
2:48:47The PSEF committee's recommendations were shaped by community volunteers who spent countless hours evaluating, conducting rigorous analyses, setting realistic implementation timelines, and engaging deeply with the community, all with a clear commitment to advance the PSEF fund's overall purpose.
2:49:10SEI fully shares that commitment.
2:49:13And today I want to emphasize a point that is essential in the integrity of this conversation.
2:49:19As you are aware, PCEP's mission is to fund community-driven climate solutions that reduce carbon emissions while centering frontline communities, especially low-income Portlanders and communities of color.
2:49:32Housing development and transportation decarbonization are both priorities within that mission.
2:49:37They are not in conflict.
2:49:38Thank you.
2:49:39They are co-equal strategies to advance climate justice, reduce emissions, and build community resilience.
2:49:46That's why comparing these categories, treating housing and transportation as if they were complete competing or mutually exclusive, is neither productive nor necessary and ultimately harmful.
2:49:59Framing these areas as opponents do not strengthen PCF.
2:50:02It weakens the fund, undermines public confidence, and distracts from the goal maximizing climate impact for the communities who need it most.
2:50:12The reallocation of— from, uh, SP 13 to SP 1 reflects responsible stewardship.
2:50:20SP 1 resources have been fully committed.
2:50:24SP 13 resources, on the other hand, have not yet been committed to any projects.
2:50:30Adjusting the allocation now halfway through the 5-year climate investment plan ensures PSEF resources are deployed where they can have the greatest impact.
2:50:42Without the SP funding reallocation, I want to make this clear, and I'm actually going off my script.
2:50:51SEI and the others here today did not have a guarantee that these— we would get these dollars.
2:50:59Our projects were developed including them as a source.
2:51:03When you're stacking projects, it's very important to identify sources that are out there.
2:51:09It doesn't say you're going to get it.
2:51:10It does not say that you're going to get it.
2:51:13But I, I want to be clear that recommendations have come in from people that have worked, committed hours to the City of Portland, and we'd like to see that continue.
2:51:24We'd like to see you accept their recommendation because they're— they've been in the trenches in all of these discussions.
2:51:31Thank you for your time and leadership.
Jamie Dunphy 2:51:33 - 2:51:34
2:51:33Thank you so much for being here.
2:51:36Um, good afternoon.
2:51:37Oh, my turn, I guess.
2:51:39Uh, good afternoon, President Dunphy, councilors, City Administrator Lee, City Attorney, Clerk, everybody.
2:51:47I am, uh, Marcus Mundy.
2:51:49I am the executive director and a registered lobbyist for the Coalition of communities of color.
2:51:54We are an alliance of culturally specific organizations and have been a longtime advocate for PCEF since the initial ballot measure campaign, and we continue to work with partners at the Friends of PCEF table.
2:52:06Thank you for all of your work to adopt the listed amendments to the climate justice plan.
2:52:10This was a robust, community-centered process that has resulted in recommendations to spend resources efficiently and effectively.
2:52:18Thank you.
2:52:19We are in full support of the amendment to allocate $15 million from the EV financing in SP 13 to SP 1 in order to adhere to the original recommendations of the Grant Committee.
2:52:33It replaces funding that was included in the original ordinance as recommended by the PCEP Committee, a $15 million reallocation from CIP Strategic Program 13 to Strategic Program 1, the Clean Energy in Regulated Multifamily Affordable Housing, which is making needed investments in energy efficiency and heat pumps for affordable housing projects that are already underway.
2:52:59As much as we respect and, and love and like the council and the committee members that proposed the change, we are in agreement with the original CIP proposal.
2:53:10However, we see this as a pivot that is an efficient and effective way to meet a community need.
2:53:16Affordable housing is desperately needed, as is reducing utility cost burdens for their future residents.
2:53:23Most importantly, that pivot emerged out of an extensive collaborative community engagement process, and that is why we are in strong support of Councilor Avalos's amendment.
2:53:34The amendment process began in June of '25.
2:53:37Held a public comment period in October and November, and the PCEP committee recommended the final proposal in December 25th.
2:53:45Process does matter.
2:53:48We need the voices of those who are most marginalized.
2:53:51This very intentional process is central to PCEP's foundational commitment to community-based climate solutions.
2:54:00We look forward to ongoing conversations with the City Council about engagement, and input as well.
2:54:06Otherwise, we should ask ourselves, why have a process?
2:54:10PCEP has evolved, but the CIP process remains the lodestar.
2:54:15We urge you to support Councilor Avalos's amendment that reinstates the original recommendation of the PCEP committee.
2:54:22And thank you for your time.
Jamie Dunphy 2:54:23 - 2:54:24
2:54:23Thank you very much.
2:54:29Council President Dunphy, Vice President Clark, members of council, my name is Brian Hoop.
2:54:33Executive Director of Housing Oregon.
2:54:36Housing Oregon is in support of the ordinance to amend the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefit Fund climate investment plan.
2:54:44I believe in support of Councilor Avalos's amendment or the original PCF recommendation to include the $15 million for strategic program number 1.
2:54:54Just for those who don't know, Housing Oregon is a statewide association of 147 Affordable housing and community development organizations representing the continuum of nonprofit homeless service organizations to multifamily rental and homeownership providers from across the state.
2:55:11So Portland still faces an affordable housing crisis, as we all know, and PCF resources utilized for affordable housing continue to be an essential component of climate infrastructure needs for the city of Portland.
2:55:24I understand the challenge councilors earlier have faced in committee weighing competing needs for PCF funding for transportation, affordable housing, and other needs.
2:55:34I can assure you that homeless that homeless services and affordable housing are also facing significant budget cuts in the state legislature as well.
2:55:43Homeless services last year received a 74% budget cut in the 2025 session.
2:55:49It has been estimated these additional PCF funds will support an estimated 580 additional high.
2:55:56Performance housing units benefiting low-income residents and households of color who are disproportionately impacted by climate change.
2:56:04Our members are ready to deploy these resources as they have already done successfully in the past several years in previous PCF grant cycles, and a significant percentage of those housing organizations that have received PCF funds have been culturally specific community-based organizations.
2:56:20And lastly, as Portland's affordable housing stock continues to age, and as new affordable housing homes are urgently needed, PSF resources are increasingly critical.
2:56:30Without these funds, many of these projects may not achieve full financing or could be built or retrofitted only to minimum code standards, resulting in higher utility costs for residents.
2:56:41So thanks for the opportunity to share my comments and for your public service.
Jamie Dunphy 2:56:47 - 2:56:47
2:56:48Our last testifier is Alan Hipólito.
Jamie Dunphy 2:56:55 - 2:56:59
2:56:55Welcome, Alan.
2:57:07Uh, buenas tardes, consejeras.
2:57:09Me llamo Alan Hipólito.
2:57:10I work for Summa.
2:57:12We use technology to fight poverty, racism, and climate change.
2:57:15Our Summa app is an e-commerce Marketplace where almost 2,500 low-income Portlanders buy essential expenses, overcoming privacy and other barriers that prevent these customers from using their phones to pay for food, transportation, and utilities.
2:57:29Sumi users took over 30,000 clean mobility rides in 2025, saving over $160,000.
2:57:35We know a little about building impactful transportation projects with PCEV priority populations.
Loretta Smith 2:57:42 - 2:57:42
2:57:42Thank you.
2:57:43I wanna state the position of the PCEF Coalition, the dozens of groups and hundreds of people who knocked on thousands of doors to pass the one-of-a-kind measure we're discussing today.
2:57:51You're welcome.
2:57:53We strongly support Councilor Avalos's amendment because it reinstates the original ordinance, which was developed by an inclusive process involving the PCEF Committee and public comment from community.
2:58:03Respecting community processes is the only path forward on this and future actions that aligns with the I was fortunate to help draft the initiative and serve as its campaign manager.
2:58:16Our coalition stayed involved as PSF hired staff, sat its grant committee, developed the CIP, and we're here right now.
2:58:24We're not stakeholders, we're your peers.
2:58:26We've got serious work to do together to meet the current moment while deepening the fund's community commitments.
2:58:33Many of you ran for office pledging to protect PSF.
2:58:35Thank you.
2:58:36I wanna tell you what that means to us.
2:58:39In this measure, we are very clear.
2:58:41This fund is dedicated to climate action led by communities on the front lines of climate change.
2:58:47To say our coalition prioritizes anything higher is to mischaracterize our position.
2:58:54To protect PCEF is to defend this commitment.
2:58:58PCEF is absolutely not about doing things for community.
2:59:02Yes, it is.
2:59:02It's about doing things with community through processes that center their leadership because that's so clearly the best approach to getting climate justice results.
2:59:12The output of SP1 versus the output of SP13 is clear evidence of this.
2:59:17It's also evident in other underspent city bureau-led CIP strategic programs.
2:59:23Pivoting to discuss uses outside of the PCEFC Committee's recommendations is inherently problematic.
2:59:30It raises an enduring concern about the city making climate decisions without community, wholly substituting elected official or bureau director ideas for community ideas, which is exactly what things were like before PCEF.
2:59:46For these reasons, our coalition strongly, strongly opposes Councilor Novick's newest amendments.
2:59:53Decisions without community leadership weaken community power and are completely contrary to the PCEF initiative.
3:00:00Our coalition will strongly oppose such decisions forever.
3:00:04The truth is, we don't want to spend time convincing you we should be at the table.
3:00:10We want to spend time working with you to make good things happen for Portland.
3:00:16We hope you accept our sincere invitation.
3:00:18Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 3:00:19 - 3:00:20
3:00:21That completes testimony.
Jamie Dunphy 3:00:22 - 3:01:21
3:00:22Okay, colleagues, we're now going to move into discussion.
3:00:25And just, I want to provide a little bit of clarification because there's been a I think we're ready to move forward.
3:00:28I know there's a lot of moving parts here, and I'm hoping that this is the order we can take up our 4 amendments that are on the table.
3:00:34Specifically, Councilor Avalos' amendment would undo the decision in committee and would negate the need for a technical amendment.
3:00:43And so I would like to— it is my intention to bring Councilor Avalos' proposal as a first vote for this council.
3:00:50If that fails, then the technical amendment is necessary, and I will bring that amendment forward.
3:00:56At that point, Councilor Novick has 2 competing allocation priority amendments, and we'll move to Novick 2 and Novick 3 in that order.
3:01:08But for now, we're not moving to the debate of the specific amendments yet, but rather to the general council discussion.
3:01:14And I will— folks who want to get in the queue are welcome to get in the queue to talk about either the amendments or the underlying.
3:01:21Thank you, Mayor.
Mitch Green 3:01:23 - 3:01:24
3:01:23I'm in the queue to talk about the underlying.
Jamie Dunphy 3:01:24 - 3:01:28
3:01:24Okay, go ahead.
3:01:25This is a good time.
3:01:26Yeah, yeah, I'm curious.
Mitch Green 3:01:29 - 3:01:48
3:01:29Um, so first of all, I'm going to support the Avalos amendment.
3:01:32Um, but I, I do want to ask the committee, uh, whether or not the, the question of SP 14— there's an amendment on SP 14 that is substantial in this update process— was that a point of discussion in the committee?
3:01:47Because I don't see it in the staff presentation.
Steve Novick 3:01:48 - 3:01:57
3:01:48It's actually not I don't think we had a significant discussion of that.
Mitch Green 3:01:57 - 3:02:16
3:01:57Yeah, can I have somebody from, um, the, the bureau staff come on up and maybe answer some questions for me?
3:02:03Maybe Sam or Eric would be great, and anyone from the PCF committee who's also here.
3:02:13Thanks.
3:02:14Go ahead and introduce yourselves for the record.
3:02:17Eric Engstrom, Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
3:02:20Sam Brosso, Program Manager for the Portland Clean Energy Fund.
3:02:23And James Valdez, Strategic Partnerships and Policy Manager for PSF.
Mitch Green 3:02:27 - 3:03:06
3:02:27Thank you.
3:02:27So I'm asking the question because SP 14 is, by the amendment, Exhibit A of the amendment, a pretty substantial rewrite of SP 14.
3:02:38SP 14 in the last sort of community-driven update process was, um, was very much about providing— it to me is closer in the spirit of providing, um, you know, sort of financial products to the underserved, whereas what we're seeing now in this case is it's very much about providing flexible loan capital to office-to-residential conversions, some retrofit activities.
3:03:03And so I'm curious if you guys can give me a sense of what drove that change.
3:03:07Yes, uh, Council President.
3:03:11Essentially, when we looked at the— when you look at the broader climate investment plan, the original climate investment plan, Strategic Program 14 was always the place where we had essentially flexibility to provide complementary funding, gap funding, recognizing that we had been very prescriptive across several of our other buildings-focused programs around who the beneficiaries were and so forth.
3:03:34As we launched and developed those programs, What came to the surface is, for the most part, what we were seeing when we think about our more moderate and low-income households was the benefits we were directly targeting there were direct subsidies.
3:03:48And so as we started looking at what the financing mechanisms really serve, there wasn't, I would say that there wasn't a clear call-out that there still needed to be financing in that space.
3:04:00Now, That program will still have a consumer financing program.
3:04:04It's going to be more— we're still designing that and we're working consultants to design that element.
3:04:08So there's elements of that that remain.
3:04:10But as we worked with our colleagues and as we saw other opportunities come to the surface, office residential was one of those.
3:04:16We had in earnest begun working and understanding those projects.
3:04:20And so as we've gone down this and as you've heard some of the debate play out on the office residential space, what we attempted to do here is just bring more clarity for everyone.
3:04:27Thank you.
3:04:27Acknowledging this amendment would also set the stage for evaluating that more thoroughly.
3:04:33So it's taking what was ultimately a flexible program, learnings that we had where the need was less in that low and moderate income space in terms of financing.
3:04:42It was really our direct subsidies, which our other programs served, and then opportunistically leveraging where we did see demand and need.
3:04:49That isn't to say that is the only place, but that is the place where we saw those in the near term.
3:04:52Just to also add, I think there was some discussion last year year about transparency in that program because it did give us a wide berth for, for making decisions within the administration.
3:05:01And these amendments are, are for the sake of transparency, saying what we're intending to do with that.
Mitch Green 3:05:06 - 3:05:29
3:05:06I appreciate that because that actually gets to my next question, which was that last May the mayor announced plans to use PCEF, particularly this fund, um, to support office-to-residential conversions.
3:05:19And as I read SP 14, I didn't I didn't see that actually as a mission of that bucket.
3:05:23So I was a little bit worried.
3:05:24So do you think that this was sort of an effort to true up the intention of how we're supposed to use that bucket of funds?
3:05:31It was— there was always enough flex.
3:05:33There was always— I think we just can acknowledge it has been discussions we've had with the Climate Committee as well.
3:05:39It was flexible.
3:05:40And so while we'd engaged with a couple early projects, this is certainly to be more clear that we could lean in further on office residential and true that up.
3:05:48So yes, so I want to just name there is this— that there was always a certain amount of room, but we wanted to be clear that of the $45 million, that if we were to go further, we need to be clear about that.
Mitch Green 3:05:58 - 3:06:30
3:05:59Thanks.
3:05:59And then in the amended language, there's reference made to 2 Prosper Portland pilot projects.
3:06:07Previously, Prosper Portland has also talked about 2 pilot projects for office residentials.
3:06:11So am I to understand that these are maybe 2 other projects that could be funded from this pool, or this— or is this sort of a, um, maybe, um, pursuant to this idea of like saying, well, if this, this bucket of funds could maybe support those pilot projects that are already underway?
3:06:29How should I understand that?
3:06:31I believe the, the, the, the 2 projects that are currently under discussion are the 2 projects that I, I believe we're talking about the same 2 The Casket Building in Old Town, and then there's— And I think the Slate Building.
3:06:44And so those are the active projects currently where we're doing our evaluation to understand the benefits, the impacts, and so forth.
Mitch Green 3:06:50 - 3:08:40
3:06:50Thanks.
3:06:50And then I think my last— I think this is more of a comment, and you guys can correct me maybe if I've missed the mark on it.
3:06:57But I think on its face, it seems to follow that preserving an existing building and saying let's transform office space into residential seems like it saves greenhouse gas, but I'm not convinced.
3:07:11I actually don't think it does.
3:07:12And I think that if the idea is to, um, to make the consideration— actually, we're seeing this a lot.
3:07:18This sort of narrative is a lot, um, when we think about stretching the use of PSF funds, is to say, well, the alternative is building something new.
3:07:24But, you know, the counterfactual matters.
3:07:27And if the alternative was never to build something new, then you're— we're kind of stretching the meaning here.
3:07:32Um, so when it comes to, um, carbon-abating the built environment, like changing the built environment to validate a land use approach that really does minimize carbon, then I think preserving a stock of building that has frankly pretty low density value and is surrounded by a bunch of, you know, surface parking lots in a part of the city that probably should just be torn down and rebuilt as a superblock with some high modern energy efficiency standards.
3:08:06I struggle to be convinced that there's the GHD nexus there that I think that we want to put.
3:08:12So I'm not going to try to amend or change this today because I think that's haphazard.
3:08:16I do want to respect the community process, but I do think I have an obligation to say this publicly as someone who's watching this stuff pretty critically because we're going to have more of of this, right?
3:08:25There's going to be more opportunities as we evolve down the road in our conversation around this about, um, saying this, this is eligible for PSF money because it, it saves GHS.
3:08:37It's like, well, you got to show your math, you know?
3:08:40Yeah.
3:08:40Council President, Councilor Green, if I can just do a quick response to that.
3:08:43I, I think what, um, what I will share is we feel fairly confident in the next 6 months we'll be having discussions with the PSF committee around studies.
3:08:50What we are exactly on that and evaluating what is the counterfactual.
3:08:53Would this building be demoed?
3:08:54If that was the case, what would be the delta in terms of emissions saved or sequestered or not?
3:08:59So I think that's frankly exactly the debate that the committee asked for and that we'll be having.
Mitch Green 3:09:05 - 3:09:06
3:09:05Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 3:09:06 - 3:09:11
3:09:08I apologize, Councilor Zimmerman, I meant to call you for your technical question.
3:09:11That's okay.
3:09:11Thank you.
3:09:16I'm actually more on the technical side of my question.
3:09:18Questions here.
3:09:19So I want to make sure I've got an understanding for, uh, just the housing.
3:09:25So Exhibit A went to the Climate and Land Use Committee.
3:09:29I'm getting nods.
3:09:30Okay.
3:09:31Novick passed an amendment to that.
3:09:36And can somebody tell me, what does proposed conforming amendment— and that's used for 2 of our documents— what does proposed conforming amendment mean in this, in this thank you, Council President Dunphy and Councilor Zimmerman.
3:09:51The conforming proposed amendment takes the amendment that Councilor Novick had, had put forward in the Climate, Land Use, and Resilience Committee, which was not specific in its language but said to revert the funding allocations back to the original.
3:10:08But then that also required that the city's some changes in that, that Exhibit A that we went and conformed to that change.
3:10:17Okay, so Novick moved big numbers, you put the details behind it, and that is what Proposed Conforming Amendment Attachment A and Proposed Conforming Amendment Exhibit A are?
3:10:26Correct.
3:10:27The exhibit is the explanation summary of the redlined document that is the exhibit.
3:10:33Thank you everybody for riding along while I Am I caught up?
3:10:36Okay.
3:10:36Uh, and Councilor Avalos, you want to go all the way back to the beginning, what was submitted, Exhibit A, to the Climate Committee?
3:10:46Yes.
3:10:47Got it.
3:10:50There is one aspect, Councilor Novick, that is confusing to me in the documents that were handed to me.
3:10:57In what I'm noting in both Novick 2 and 3 are 4 bullet points, but in Novick 2 it adds— it looks like it adds TriMet.
3:11:12And Novick 3, it's got similar items, but there's a difference in the 4th bullet.
3:11:18One talks about PBOT and one talks about SP1, and also the numbers are different.
3:11:23And I'm a little confused, Councilor Novick, and I was hoping that once again, we can just get exactly— if Novick 2 passes and then Novick 3 passes, does it completely supplant what Novick 2 looks like?
3:11:37It is to me, I'm a little bit confused here.
Steve Novick 3:11:39 - 3:11:41
3:11:39They are, they are alternate proposals.
3:11:42Okay.
Steve Novick 3:11:43 - 3:12:14
3:11:43Novick 2 would allocate all of the $15 million to various transportation projects.
3:11:50Novick 3 would only allocate about half of the money to transportation projects, in particular the James Beard Public Market decarbonization proposal and the preservation of streetcar service proposal.
3:12:05So that— what Novick himself would really like is Novick 2.
3:12:11What Novick is suggesting is kind of a compromise, is Novick 3.
3:12:16Thank you.
3:12:20I fully support any help that gets our MAX lines moving in our heat environments.
3:12:28I think that's an important— or it's a critical failure, right, just of a system that has evolved to how hot it is in Portland.
3:12:36I am challenged by— in a world where we have to make choices, I'm challenged by housing priorities.
3:12:45Projects in one hand and train lines in the other.
3:12:49And I think I'm leaning toward housing for me is, is a, is where I would put my resources if they were finite.
3:12:57So, um, Council President, that's, that's it for my, my technical questions.
3:13:05I just— there, there's this strange underlying kind of tone sometimes when we talk about PCF, and I offer this up just as you know, it at times makes me more skeptical of things than I think really has to be the case.
3:13:22But I find it a little strange that I understand that at the committee, some members of, and I'm going to use a broad swath here not to pinpoint anybody, but the idea that council doesn't have a budgetary decision-making authority on selecting projects, that the end-all be-all ends with with the PCEF committee has gotten us into kind of a strange space sometimes in these topics that I, I think is making it seem, um, uh, it seems to be like a way of pitting things against, or you are either for or against the climate.
3:13:56And I just find that to be a very strange thing and not something that we really see with as many of our other advisory groups.
3:14:03So I would just encourage that, you know, public testimony and those that come to work and the groups who work in Um, you know, groups advise up to and to the City Council, and I think that's an important process that we have all the way through.
3:14:17Not that I think that that's necessarily being changed here, but I do think that the, the vibe we put, the energy we put into the room can sometimes, can sometimes sway how this is discussed.
3:14:28And so, uh, with that, I'm going to be all ears to everybody, uh, as you guys discuss these amendments.
Jamie Dunphy 3:14:34 - 3:14:34
3:14:34Thank you.
3:14:34I appreciate y'all helping me clarify.
3:14:36Thank you to the staff.
Jamie Dunphy 3:14:38 - 3:14:40
Loretta Smith 3:14:42 - 3:16:33
3:14:43I'd just like to say, um, I fully support the decision, uh, regarding the Avalos amendment.
3:14:50Uh, in fact, I'd like to be a co-sponsor of it.
3:14:53We are in a housing crisis.
3:14:56It is essential that community-based developers are afforded the opportunity given that PSEF's established mission of promoting energy efficiency, decarbonization, and community climate resilience, along with its history of significant annual funding allocations for affordable housing developers, is justifiable reasons to anticipate that following the extensive committee process and analysis, that recommendations to reallocate funds to SP1 in October 2025— and this recommendation was sub— subsequently ratified by the full committee in December 2025— it just tells me that this project and these projects have been totally relying on these expectations, the community-based developers confidently made financial commitments to their housing projects.
3:16:05And I believe that we should stand behind them.
3:16:10They will be supporting programs in, in District 1, District 2, District 3.
3:16:16HomePath, Hacienda, Mississippi Street Homes, SEI, OMSI— they have all undergone a thorough community process, and we should stand alongside them and have those projects funded.
3:16:32Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 3:16:34 - 3:16:49
3:16:35Colleagues, I will note that it is, uh, 12:42 at this time.
3:16:38I want to make sure everybody has time to have a lunch break and our staff can get out of here, uh, before we come back for a work session this afternoon.
3:16:44So I'm hoping we can move to vote relatively quickly.
3:16:48Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick 3:16:51 - 3:17:35
3:16:51Yes, a few points.
3:16:53One is that there was an elaborate public community process to adopt the original CIP, which included a measly 17% of the money for transportation decarbonization, even though transportation represents, as Councilor Avalos noted, 40% of emissions.
3:17:11The PCF committee and staff are proposing to change the CIP by moving money from one significant pot to another.
3:17:22If the city council has no right to weigh in on a decision like that, then we are just a rubber stamp.
3:17:28And as Councilor Kamal suggested, we should just tell people anything to do with PCF, talk to the committee and the staff, don't talk to us.
Olivia Clark 3:17:35 - 3:17:35
3:17:35Thank you.
Steve Novick 3:17:37 - 3:20:34
3:17:37I also want to note that I told the committee and PCF staff in December— in fact, I think I told them earlier, but I know I told them in December— that I was concerned about this move and that I was going to look for other transportation ways to spend the money.
3:17:57This was not a last-minute thing.
3:17:59I want to analogize what's going on here to a children's levy hypothetical.
3:18:05As you recall, I didn't understand why we were— why some folks thought we should override the process of the children's levy.
3:18:12I just didn't understand what the rationale was of overriding what the various advisory committees said.
3:18:21However, if we were in the middle of a children's levy process and council had approved a proposal that 60% of the money go to programs for kids 1 to 5 and 40% of the money go to kids 6 to 18, if that was what we had approved, and then the Children's Levy Committee came back and said, actually, we think it should be 50/50, kids 5 and under and kids 6 to 18, then I would have thought that was a significant change that council would have a right to weigh in on.
3:18:54I would not have said Nope, all power to the children's levy committees.
3:18:57We can't even question it.
3:18:59I also want to note that one of the projects I'm proposing funding and preventing cuts to the streetcar does benefit low-income people and people of color to a great extent.
3:19:11There's 9,000 riders on the streetcar.
3:19:1440% Of them have incomes below $33,000 a year.
3:19:19That's 3,600 people.
3:19:2129% Of them are people of color.
3:19:23That's 2,600 people.
3:19:26So, but the, the, um, so it is not a matter of the transportation projects do not benefit low-income people and people of color.
3:19:36So, I mean, that's— I mean, I think that there's a strong case for continuing to spend a measly 17% of the overall money in transportation.
3:19:46I think I think there are specific worthy transportation projects.
3:19:49I think that we should not be saying that council has to be a rubber stamp for the PSF committee.
3:19:55And one other thing I wanted to mention is that as far as the original intent of PSF, it's called the Portland Clean Energy Fund.
3:20:03In the measure itself and all the ballot— in all the voters' pamphlet arguments about it, it led with clean energy projects and building efficient buildings.
3:20:11Councilmember energy efficiency and that kind of thing was always the second thing on the list.
3:20:15The fact is that we spent very little of the PSF money.
3:20:18So I think that most Portlanders thought that a big chunk of this money was going to go to solar panels.
3:20:22Very little has.
3:20:24So I just want to note that it's not as if the original— the voters who approved PSF thought all the money was going to building efficiency.
3:20:31In fact, they thought a lot of it was going to go to something it hasn't gone to at all.
Jamie Dunphy 3:20:36 - 3:20:40
3:20:36Thank you.
3:20:46We are looking at a very small amount of the money in here, and that's just one part of the work that PCF does.
3:20:54And I want to frame this conversation in that because I have a very strong commitment to the community grants within PCF being solely driven by community.
3:21:07And I also am looking at a CIP that was built in collaboration between PCF and the previous council.
3:21:17The CIP had council's hands on it the first time around, not this council but the last one, and it was done, I believe, in coordination with the PCF committee when it was moved forward.
3:21:28I understand the frustration with the process here of an amendment after PCF recommendations came in.
3:21:36And we need to figure out how we respect the community-driven process that, like I said, must be the final word on the community grants, but also respect that collaboration that we had in the building of the original CIP between PCF and council.
3:21:52What I see before us in fact includes some collaboration between PCF Committee and an elected leader, between the PCF Committee and the mayor, on the part that, as Councilor Green pointed out, moves money to be more clearly in line with the mayor's goals around commercial to residential buildings.
3:22:13So this is not without collaboration with elected leaders, and I'd like us to put an end to the narrative that council shouldn't weigh in because that wasn't the case the first time around, and it certainly hasn't been the case with the mayor this time around.
3:22:27We're considering a move of millions of dollars that it's important for us to talk about.
3:22:35To be clear, my district stands to lose a significant amount of needed housing and investment if we don't pass Councilor Avalos's amendment.
3:22:45I have heard from folks in my district That have already begun moving through the permit review process with plans that depend on these funds.
3:22:58And we can debate whether they should have done that or not before we approved the funds, but the reality is that's what's happening, and we stand to lose momentum and lose time.
3:23:09But I think there's a bigger question that I want to ask some, some pieces about, Council President, if that's all right.
3:23:14Yes.
Loretta Smith 3:23:15 - 3:23:16
3:23:15Thank you.
3:23:16Thank you.
3:23:17We heard from one testifier that this restores the original CIP plan.
3:23:22And while it restores the PCF investments, I see the original CIP plan as having $15 million more invested in transportation funds than what came from PCF to us.
3:23:36So I want to understand the process a little bit.
3:23:40Am I correct that the original CIP that allocated funding transportation projects was approved by both council and the PCEF committee?
Olivia Clark 3:23:51 - 3:23:51
3:23:51Yes.
3:23:51Council President.
3:23:52Councilor.
3:23:52Thank you.
3:23:55And when the PCEF committee looked at making these updates, was there any conversation about other transportation projects that could achieve our greenhouse gas emission goals in the transportation sector?
3:24:10Before conversation about moving that money from a transportation strategic priority to a housing strategic priority?
3:24:18Yes, as they evaluated, and I wanna just set the context, they do this evaluation annually.
3:24:25We're setting that up so we can do it in an annual timeframe, not reopen the entire plan itself.
3:24:31And as they did that, they did evaluate some transportation projects that we knew would need funding from PBOT.
3:24:38And the timing is such— I'm happy to provide context also— the timing as such weren't right for those projects.
3:24:44And so they said when those projects are right, we will consider those next year in our amendment process.
3:24:49But they did consider a handful of transportation projects.
3:24:52Do we expect there to be funding available to this degree next year that we could put toward transportation projects?
3:24:59What we have signaled in the work we've done with the committee is we are just By the time we get to this process again next fall, summer, fall, we will be closing out year 2 of the CIP.
3:25:10We will have better line of sight into how funding is going, spending is going on our programs and projects.
3:25:16And we think it's probably a more substantive process this coming year to make adjustments at a larger, potentially at a larger scale, depending on the information that comes back from programs in that year 2 phase.
3:25:28So I think it's fair to say that this will not be the only chance.
3:25:31Thank you.
3:25:32In year 1, to be clear, Eric Engstrom for the record, we were intentionally fairly conservative about identifying underspending in programs in year 1 because we know everyone's trying to ramp up those programs.
3:25:44So it's not a real fair question to ask if you're falling behind on spending in year 1.
3:25:48But in this case, there was a clarity that we hadn't initiated that program fast enough to fully spend the money.
3:25:55So Sam's right, next year, in year 2, each year I think we'll have better line of sight into where there's actual underspending.
3:26:02Thank you.
3:26:03And did the PCF committee consider any of the transportation proposals that Councilor Novick has put forward?
3:26:10If so, why did they reject them?
3:26:12And if not, is that because they weren't ripe and we didn't know about the need at the time, or because the PCF committee wasn't interested in such proposals, or for some other reason?
3:26:23Council President, Councilor, I'll relay what I understand, and I acknowledge that our Our co-chair, committee co-chairs are not here.
3:26:30They went through a process that began in July and concluded really in December with their recommendation.
3:26:35I think this has been a work to figure out how do we balance and work with the committee, work with you all.
3:26:41And there's work to refine that process.
3:26:43We hear that loud and clear.
3:26:45But to do that ahead of the budget process, what they were— what we heard from them is we make a recommendation, you don't like the recommendation, you just send it back to us and tell us to go bring me another, you know, in a way, bring me something else.
3:26:57I think that's not what we're saying.
3:26:59That isn't sustainable for a volunteer body.
3:27:01And so they were saying if this recommendation isn't taken up, that's fine, that's council's prerogative.
3:27:07But then we will next year in our process, we'll reengage our process, start the clock, start the process again, make tweaks in that and reconsider.
3:27:16Just, Sam, to add to that, some of the specific ideas that Councilor Novick generated had not come up, that had not Arisen yet, and I think there's been greater clarity over transit funding in general as the years progress.
3:27:30So, um, that it's fair that some of these are new needs that hadn't been identified at the time.
3:27:36So they couldn't have been a part of that process?
3:27:38That's correct.
3:27:39They made the recommendation December 10th.
3:27:41Um, and I apologize if this sounds like a grilling.
3:27:44It's not meant to be.
3:27:45I just, I want to understand where we're at because I am concerned that we're moving money away from needed I am also concerned that I've got projects in my district that are now depending on funding.
3:27:59So did the recommendation to move money from transportation to housing, did that begin as a staff recommendation?
3:28:09Did that come from the PCEF committee through organic deliberation?
3:28:13Did that come from community groups saying, hey, we'd like the money over here?
Olivia Clark 3:28:17 - 3:28:17
3:28:17Yes.
3:28:17Here, if there's any extra money anywhere, what can you do?
3:28:22How did this change come to be part of the recommendations?
3:28:26We first worked with the PSF committee to come up with a framework for how they would consider recommendations.
3:28:32And ultimately, a lot of what their work was doing is figuring out how do they evaluate existing programs.
3:28:38As part of that evaluation, we went through our 37 strategic programs in our community grants process and gave them A read on where the status was across programs.
3:28:47At that point, they then zeroed in on about 4, about half a dozen programs that they dove into.
3:28:52What was clear is Strategic Program 1, our program focused on affordable housing, and we communicated this, is fully allocated.
3:28:58So the conversation started with, okay, there's clear demand here.
3:29:02And then we focused on where was there clearly that sort of polar opposite, where were there more challenges or just—.
Sameer Kanal 3:29:09 - 3:29:09
3:29:09Challenges.
3:29:10And so we had a clear conversation with them on what the reality was of that existing program and our ability to deploy that $35 million in the EV financing program.
3:29:19So that's where they ultimately surfaced that reasoning of why don't we move funding from the EV financing program to this program to meet this clear need that exists within this framework.
3:29:30So it was a staff recommendation that more money was needed here, that less money was needed here, and then a committee decision to say then let's move it rather than say let's look at other transportation things and other funding options here?
3:29:42I would say we provided them a status on where programs were, and I think that that naturally leads to that conclusion, correct.
3:29:48Part of this, again, Eric Kingstrom for the record, part of this was that the way we framed the discussion was not a call for new ideas.
3:29:55It was a call of evaluating existing programs that were part of the CIP.
3:29:59So that's maybe a learning we have in Retrospect about the process.
3:30:03But thank you, that's helpful clarity.
3:30:06And if I may just add, I think as you all— as you all will see as we get into the 2027 development process for the next CIP, for every one idea there is another 10, 20 ideas.
3:30:18And I think we strive to create a process that could be replicable year to year for the committee to make adjustments year to year of the life of the current CIP, knowing that That broader full-scale redo is gonna happen and it takes more work.
3:30:32I just wanna acknowledge that the challenges of running a process in this way and being responsive to the moment.
3:30:39Thank you.
3:30:40I know there are things we need to be working on now, both for the year 2 adjustments in this CIP and as we start to think about the next CIP.
3:30:47And I hope that if we are— if this body ends up voting to move money out of transportation, transportation today, that the PCF committee is willing to work with us to look at some really deep investments in transportation decarbonization in those future processes.
3:31:03I don't know where the vote today will land, but I do know that this is a really important space for us to be doing more in than we currently are, and there are a lot of needs.
Jamie Dunphy 3:31:15 - 3:31:36
3:31:16Colleagues, I just want to note it is 12:57.
3:31:19We are back here at 2 o'clock.
3:31:21There are currently 6 more colleagues in the queue to talk, and we have 4 votes to take.
3:31:26If we are not able to finish this by 1:30, unfortunately we will need to hold this over till next week, but I'm sure we can do that.
3:31:33And I'm also sure everybody would love to be able to have a lunch break.
3:31:35So Councilor Knell.
Sameer Kanal 3:31:37 - 3:32:37
3:31:37Thank you.
3:31:39When this first came up in committee, my understanding was that the changes were originally designed, and maybe I misinterpreted, To be suggestions for the PCF committee to go back and talk about.
3:31:49I think that was, that was a little unclear, um, in the communications.
3:31:53And so that affected where I eventually landed on this, which was where I'm at now, that I don't like the idea of putting some— a decision in effect here and now, um, without consultation with the committee.
3:32:07I've never been in favor of that.
3:32:09And I'm struggling with the idea that I think that if we were to send it back to them, that there's no process in place.
3:32:15Having worked with volunteer committees several times at the city, I think that it's hard, and I understand that.
3:32:23They're volunteers.
3:32:23They have time commitments.
3:32:24They do so much already.
3:32:26This is one of the more intensive committees already.
3:32:29And also, that helps to create a structure that lends itself towards some of the feeling of being asked to be a rubber stamp.
3:32:37Thank you.
Sameer Kanal 3:32:38 - 3:32:57
3:32:38And so my, my question is, how are we going to fix that so that in a year when this comes back to us, we're not in a 2-option situation where we either accept it or we substitute our judgment, but where staff, staff have created a 3rd door for us to be able to engage with the committee?
3:33:01Council President, Councilor Kanal, um, This is very top of mind for us as we come back to you too.
3:33:06I think it is starting earlier conversations with the council offices.
3:33:10I think we've got a process in place currently right now so we can start surfacing those ideas, those desires.
3:33:15Clearly we hear the conversation on transportation.
3:33:18We clearly hear Councilor Novick.
3:33:19So that's gonna provide at least a starting point.
3:33:22And then as we gear up in May, June, not too distant, not too far from now to start surfacing, we start signaling what we're seeing mid-year and—.
Mitch Green 3:33:31 - 3:33:31
3:33:31Thank you.
3:33:32To hear from your offices what you all are desiring so that we can make sure that there's a 2-way dialogue with the committee.
3:33:38I think the committee co-chairs, I expect, will also be having conversations directly with the chairs of the body that ultimately will be addressing climate issues as we move forward.
Sameer Kanal 3:33:49 - 3:34:08
3:33:49Thanks.
3:33:50And similarly, how are we going to make sure that there isn't— that people who are looking to— community groups that are looking to start a project are not anticipating decisions that haven't yet been made by council.
3:34:04What will staff do to prevent that from happening in the future?
3:34:10We— what we have— certainly we can do more to provide more transparency on the allocation of existing resources so those expectations are at least— or provide those lines of communication for folks to know, yep, this pool has been fully allocated, know that from here on it's a question mark.
3:34:24I think that's work that we can continue to do around just tracking where our existing allocations are tapped.
3:34:30We run application processes, so I think that will be a continued conversation with our team, the Portland Housing Bureau as well, to make sure we just have that more clear line for folks that are seeking out those housing programs.
Sameer Kanal 3:34:41 - 3:36:31
3:34:42And I want to put a finer point on it and say I don't view it as the potential recipient I don't think it's the Department of Funds' problem or fault or the council's problem or fault if this happens.
3:34:55And by this, I mean when a decision we haven't even engaged with yet is being framed as you're taking money away that hasn't actually been allocated, I view that as a systemic issue on the structural side.
3:35:07So that's what I'm trying to get at here.
3:35:09And I recognize that this is a new system, and so I'm not putting fault, but I'm saying it's something we need to fix going forward.
3:35:14Thank you.
3:35:14Forward here.
3:35:15I'm not going to bury the lead here.
3:35:19I am, because of the fact that we would have to wait a year this year if we were to send it back, and because of the fact that I don't want to substitute our judgment here, I'm going to be voting for the amendments that Councilor Avalos put forward.
3:35:33I really do share a lot of the concerns around the transportation piece, though, so I'm going to take a second here to mention something about I'll take that and then something about what Councilor Green brought up.
3:35:44Many of the things that Councilor Novick put forward, I'm very supportive of, in particular the one-time costs.
3:35:49I think in this scenario with the singular upgrades, one-time upgrades to TriMet are things I support.
3:35:57I think some of the work at PBOT that's ongoing is also really great.
3:36:01I've expressed skepticism about marketing, but I do I agree with hiring ride leaders and improving bike infrastructure.
3:36:09There's a lot more here that I think is great, and I would really love it if the committee did look at that over the course of the next year.
3:36:17While I have major concerns with a process that discourages the council from weighing in but says the mayor can weigh in on a strategic program, I have massive issues with that process.
3:36:28I actually agree with the particular thing that is being done.
Guy Frankenstein 3:36:31 - 3:36:31
3:36:31Thank you.
Sameer Kanal 3:36:31 - 3:37:06
3:36:31I'm supportive of the Office of Residential dollars personally, um, and it's one of the very rare things that I'm going to say should be focused in District 4, downtown specifically.
3:36:41Uh, but I, I'm excited to, um, to, to get into the conversation on the process because I think the process is where the— my larger concerns are than the actual content of either of the scenarios that we were discussing.
3:36:55So I will be voting for, for the amendments Councilor Avalos put forward, and I look forward to working with Councilor Novick and with the committee and with everyone who's interested in helping ensure that there's investment in transportation next time.
Jamie Dunphy 3:37:07 - 3:37:14
3:37:08Just a quick note to our testifiers, we're not Salem.
3:37:11You don't have to address me when you're talking to a councilor.
3:37:13It's all good.
3:37:15Thank you.
3:37:16I'm going to keep my comments super brief because folks have already said a lot of what I wanted to say.
3:37:20I agree with Councilor Kanal's assessment that I think that There needs to be more process so that council understands what's coming before us and so that we're involved.
3:37:29And from what I understand too, it sounds like that process is already underway.
3:37:33My office received an email with a form letter or some way that council can engage on this moving forward so that we can understand what the committee has done and then also give our input so that we don't end up having this sort of situation happen again.
Steve Novick 3:37:48 - 3:37:48
3:37:48Thank you.
3:37:48Happening where we feel like we're a rubber stamp for dollars that should not have been— people should not consider, uh, dollars allocated to them until they are officially allocated to them.
3:37:58I used to work at a nonprofit.
3:38:00I had to do grants for a nonprofit.
3:38:02Those dollars, I think, should never be considered yours until they are officially in your bank account, frankly.
3:38:08But that being said, these are extremely important projects that need our help now, and I think the sacrifice I say that again as someone who is transit reliant, who loves public transit and desperately needs it, and I hope that we focus on that in the future, and I hope that we create a process so that council can do that moving forward.
3:38:26So I will be considering— I will be voting yes on the Avalos amendment in the hopes that we have that sort of instituted a bit more formally in the future.
3:38:36And I would urge my colleagues that if other people have already made your statements, just say aye.
Jamie Dunphy 3:38:39 - 3:38:51
3:38:39Councilmember thank you, Councilor Morillo.
3:38:52Yeah, I, I, um, I'm, I'm going to say this even though it has been said.
3:39:00I agree.
3:39:00Um, I would have liked to be able to have this discussion with the city attorney and the city attorney's office.
3:39:05Debate that Councilor Novick is bringing up, and I don't get to really have that debate in an earnest and honest way when a significant portion of it is, but if this passes, these housing projects are dead, these specific housing projects are dead.
3:39:28I'll admit it.
3:39:29I'm gonna, I'm gonna bend the knee to the housing projects on this.
3:39:34And Councilor Novick brings up very good points about the, the focus of PCF, and I would value to be able to have that debate.
3:39:44Culturally, I think we have a deep problem.
3:39:47There is a culture of things get through that are the friends of PCF members or staff.
3:39:54I think that's a problem.
3:39:56I think the fact that we have people coming to testify Or that we have advocates in the community getting a hold of us that XYZ project by name will die based on the decision in this room today if we don't do a thing that should be grant-focused.
3:40:11You have a leaking sieve of a situation, and we've got to fix that because that's not an honest assessment of a grant application if people already know that they are winners in that application.
3:40:25You may disagree with that, but that is the deep perception that exists.
3:40:30And the pure fact that I am being lobbied by named projects today tells me that that perception is not just a little bit out there, it's a lot of it out there.
3:40:40And so I, I don't know the right part of that debate, but I look forward to a transportation, to a carbon tax debate.
Jamie Dunphy 3:40:49 - 3:40:49
3:40:49Thank you.
3:40:52And my colleagues have underlined different aspects of where this seems off.
3:40:58And I think that's— when multiple aspects of something are off, that's an indicator of a cultural problem.
3:41:05And I just hope that we can spend some time, if there is some sort of reset that's happening or whatever you guys are citing, I am bothered that I don't get to truly have that.
3:41:13And I think that's a cultural problem.
3:41:14Councilor I'm surprised in myself that I'm going to go back to and be supportive of Avalos 1 today because I generally think that what comes out of the committee would have been the thing to pass.
3:41:28So I guess I'm surprising even myself in that.
3:41:33So please give us faith in how dialogue process debate happens and that that winners and losers haven't been pre-selected based on who they know, how they know, or their previous experience with the organization.
3:41:46And that is— parts of it I just cannot tell right now, and it doesn't feel good, and I want it to feel good.
3:41:53And I'll be sitting this committee with, with Councilor Pirtle-Guiney as the chair and me as vice chair.
3:41:59And this is an area for growth for me, and I, and I am looking forward to it because, um, I think these These are going to be important discussions.
3:42:09So thanks to everybody, and, uh, um, thanks for clarifying.
3:42:14And Councilor Novick, I'm, I'm sorry, I will not be able to support your amendments today.
Jamie Dunphy 3:42:19 - 3:42:21
Loretta Smith 3:42:21 - 3:43:40
3:42:21Thank you.
3:42:22I'd just like to remind everybody again, we are in a housing crisis, and, um, these folks, they did go through a process, Councilor Zimmerman.
3:42:32They, they went through an extensive analysis, and they were put in for recommendation by the PCF committee.
3:42:39And, um, this is a perfect example why I said PCF should be in the Committee of the Whole, and we need to move the policy piece and PCF to the Committee of the Whole so that we all can have those conversations at the same time about a considerable amount of money when you're talking about identifying appropriations for $1 billion, we need to have that.
3:43:04So you may want to reconsider that, Mr. President.
3:43:06But I would like to urge everybody to, um, don't think of this as this is something that people thought of last week.
3:43:12They all have capital stacks that they have been working on forever.
3:43:16They were not given an approval.
3:43:19They were given the same type of approval that, um, the children's levy folks were until until we get actual approval from council, will you be able to say that you have it?
3:43:29But they did their due diligence.
3:43:31They didn't do anything wrong, and they're supposed to lobby us because we're going to vote on it.
3:43:36And so I urge everyone to vote yes on this Avalos one.
3:43:40Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy 3:43:41 - 3:43:42
3:43:45Muted.
Steve Novick 3:43:46 - 3:45:48
3:43:46Oh, sorry.
3:43:47Thank you, Mr. President.
3:43:49I was happy to see Mr. Engstrom, Director Engstrom, say that I think that maybe it was a little narrow-minded to say we're only not going to consider any new projects, we're only going to look at the projects that have already been identified in the initial CIP, because I think the idea that the only things we should do with the PSF money is frozen in amber for 5 years is problematic.
3:44:12I also note that, as Councilor Green raised, that rationale doesn't seem to have applied to using money for office-to-residential conversions.
3:44:22I also wanted to say that there's one entity that was not consulted on the possibility of new transportation uses for the money, which is PBOT.
3:44:34I asked PBOT, were you asked for suggestions to use this $15 million?
3:44:39And they said no.
3:44:41And then I asked the PCF folks and the VPS folks, Did you consult with, with PBOT?
3:44:46And they said, well, we talked to PBOT all the time.
3:44:48So I asked PBOT again, were you consulted about this $15 million?
3:44:52And Milton Williams said, we have a good relationship with the PCF team and have a good number of regular conversations with them to discuss options about opportunities.
3:45:00That said, regarding this $15 million, our response remains the same.
3:45:03We've not had the opportunity to have the conversation.
3:45:05So to me, if you're talking about moving money away from transportation, You should probably next time talk to the Transportation Bureau.
3:45:13Thank you.
3:45:14Oh, sorry, I left out the most important thing, which is I started this conversation partly because I wanted to protect the $15 million for transportation, but partly because I wanted to start having a conversation about the relationship between the council and PSF.
3:45:28And I really appreciate that some of my colleagues seem to think that it's a good idea to have that conversation.
3:45:32I really appreciate Councilor Knoll.
3:45:35Raising my concerns about the process far more eloquently than I could.
3:45:39And I agree with Councilor Smith's suggestion that the relationship between council and PSAP should be discussed in the Committee of the Whole, which coincidentally I think is going to be led by Councilor Kanal.
Jamie Dunphy 3:45:50 - 3:45:53
Mitch Green 3:45:55 - 3:47:24
3:45:55I know that I am standing between my colleagues and lunch, but I, I just have to note that We're talking about $15 million, and I'm going to vote for Avalos 1 because I think it's the right thing to do.
3:46:10But earlier it was framed that we're pitting transportation against housing, which is unfair to do.
3:46:16And I have to say that the $15 million in SP 14, which has been codified now or will be codified when we take this vote as being for office to residential, which will almost certainly never come to pass as a We don't have the money to subsidize that deeply.
3:46:32That's money that could be used for housing right here in this same thing, and we could have kept the money in the transportation bucket.
3:46:39But we don't really get to have that level of debate in any kind of serious way because, you know, I don't really get easy access to the staff that make these decisions.
3:46:51So I think going forward, my expectation is My that we're going to have to expectation have a lot more of these conversations.
3:46:53Thank you.
3:46:54Is that if council is going to be required to just go ahead and do this and validate a spending decision, I expect no barriers between my office and the BPS staff who do this work so that way I can talk to the staff to do this work and so we can figure out how to better engage.
3:47:11That's going to be my expectation going forward.
3:47:15And I really look forward to helping shape some of this stuff in the next Thank you, Councilor Green.
3:47:26Very briefly, I just want to lend my support for in the next round when staff bring ideas to the PCEF committee, seeing a robust investment, maybe even more than $15 million in transportation solutions that help— can help to decarbonize transportation and create access to the downtown.
3:47:44For lower-income members of our community.
3:47:48I look forward to that next year.
Jamie Dunphy 3:47:51 - 3:48:39
3:47:53Colleagues, I'm going to now move us towards a vote on the amendments.
3:47:56Just to clarify, we have 4 amendments that have been moved and seconded.
3:48:00Avalos 1 will be the first item that we vote on.
3:48:04As a reminder, Avalos 1 returns the underlying to the pre-amended version.
3:48:12That was filed at committee and as such would make the technical amendment moot.
3:48:19However, because we have them all opened and moved, do we have to do a vote on all 4, or do we only vote on Avalos?
3:48:32There are 4 amendments.
3:48:33There's an Avalos one, the technical clarifying Novick 2 and Novick 3.
3:48:40But if Avalos's passes, then Novicks are moot.
Jamie Dunphy 3:48:44 - 3:48:46
3:48:44Oh, Councilor— yeah, please.
Steve Novick 3:48:46 - 3:49:05
3:48:46Yes, that's what I was going to say.
3:48:47If Councilor Avalos's motion passes, then my amendments and the conforming amendment are all moot, as you mentioned before, Council President.
3:48:55So if, as I suspect, Councilor Avalos's amendment passes, then I think that I withdraw my amendments, and I think I'm the one move the conforming amendment, so I withdraw that too.
Jamie Dunphy 3:49:06 - 3:49:10
3:49:06Perfect.
3:49:07Okay, can we please move to a roll call vote on Avalos 1?
3:49:11Avalos?
3:49:12Aye.
3:49:13Smith?
Loretta Smith 3:49:14 - 3:49:14
3:49:14Aye.
3:49:15Kanal?
Sameer Kanal 3:49:16 - 3:49:16
3:49:16Aye.
3:49:16Pirtle-Guiney?
3:49:17Aye.
3:49:19Koyama Lane?
3:49:20I look forward to continuing conversations about how we can responsibly and transparently invest in infrastructure like biking and transit without losing sight of PSEF's core mission.
3:49:32And I'm also voting aye on Avalos 1.
3:49:37Aye.
3:49:38Nay.
3:49:42Clark is absent.
3:49:44Green?
Olivia Clark 3:49:46 - 3:49:46
3:49:46Aye.
Mitch Green 3:49:46 - 3:49:46
3:49:46Aye.
Olivia Clark 3:49:47 - 3:49:47
3:49:47Aye.
3:49:48The amendment is approved with 9 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 2 absent.
3:49:53Okay.
Jamie Dunphy 3:49:58 - 3:50:05
3:49:58And Councilor Novick, with the passage of Amendment Avalos 1, would you like to withdraw the 3 amendments?
Steve Novick 3:50:06 - 3:50:08
3:50:06Yes, they are hereby withdrawn.
Jamie Dunphy 3:50:09 - 3:50:31
3:50:09Councilor Novick withdraws the 3 amendments without objection.
3:50:13I was a second on at least one of them.
3:50:16Colleagues, this now amended ordinance moves to second reading.
3:50:22That is the last item on our agenda.
3:50:25With that, we are recessed— not adjourned, we are recessed until tomorrow afternoon.
3:50:31Go get lunch.
Loretta Smith 3:50:34 - 3:50:37
3:50:34Thank you.

Clean energy fund money stays with housing

Civil-rights protections for diverse families

Public testimony on ICE and protest arrests

Other business

What’s next

Transcript

Jamie Dunphy 5:46 - 5:58

Keelan McClymont 5:58 - 6:00

Candace Avalos 6:00 - 6:00

Keelan McClymont 6:01 - 6:01

Angelita Morillo 6:02 - 6:02

Keelan McClymont 6:02 - 6:05

Elana Pirtle-Guiney 6:05 - 6:05

Keelan McClymont 6:06 - 6:09

Loretta Smith 6:10 - 6:10

Keelan McClymont 6:10 - 6:11

Angelita Morillo 6:11 - 6:11

Keelan McClymont 6:12 - 6:12

Jamie Dunphy 6:13 - 6:13

Olivia Clark 6:14 - 6:16

Loretta Smith 6:17 - 6:18

Keelan McClymont 6:18 - 6:19

Mitch Green 6:19 - 6:19

Keelan McClymont 6:20 - 6:23

Steve Novick 6:23 - 6:23

Keelan McClymont 6:24 - 6:25

Jamie Dunphy 6:26 - 6:31

Rebecca Dobert 6:33 - 7:08

Loretta Smith 7:08 - 7:08

Rebecca Dobert 7:09 - 7:37

Elana Pirtle-Guiney 7:37 - 7:37

Rebecca Dobert 7:37 - 7:37

Jamie Dunphy 7:38 - 7:55

Elana Pirtle-Guiney 7:56 - 7:58

Olivia Clark 7:58 - 7:58

Elana Pirtle-Guiney 7:58 - 8:07

Jamie Dunphy 8:07 - 8:12

Elana Pirtle-Guiney 8:13 - 8:13

Jamie Dunphy 8:14 - 8:15

Elana Pirtle-Guiney 8:16 - 8:46

Jamie Dunphy 8:46 - 8:53

Candace Avalos 8:54 - 8:59

Jamie Dunphy 9:00 - 9:01

Candace Avalos 9:01 - 9:11

Jamie Dunphy 9:12 - 9:17

Tiffany Koyama Lane 9:19 - 9:20

Jamie Dunphy 9:21 - 9:21

Keelan McClymont 9:23 - 9:33

Steve Novick 9:33 - 9:34

Elana Pirtle-Guiney 9:35 - 9:57

Candace Avalos 10:02 - 10:02

Keelan McClymont 10:02 - 10:08

Candace Avalos 10:10 - 10:10

Keelan McClymont 10:11 - 10:12

Loretta Smith 10:12 - 10:13

Keelan McClymont 10:14 - 10:14

Sameer Kanal 10:15 - 10:17

Jamie Dunphy 10:18 - 10:21

Keelan McClymont 10:22 - 10:24

Sameer Kanal 10:25 - 10:25

Loretta Smith 10:25 - 10:25

Sameer Kanal 10:26 - 10:31

Elana Pirtle-Guiney 10:32 - 10:40

Jamie Dunphy 10:40 - 10:41

Tiffany Koyama Lane 10:41 - 10:48

Jamie Dunphy 10:49 - 10:50

Tiffany Koyama Lane 10:52 - 10:53

Keelan McClymont 10:53 - 10:55

Jamie Dunphy 10:55 - 10:57

Tyler Fellini 10:58 - 10:58

Keelan McClymont 10:58 - 11:00

Jamie Dunphy 11:01 - 11:02

Sameer Kanal 11:03 - 11:04

Jamie Dunphy 11:04 - 11:06

Sameer Kanal 11:07 - 11:14

Keelan McClymont 11:17 - 11:21

Olivia Clark 11:21 - 11:21

Keelan McClymont 11:24 - 11:24

Angelita Morillo 11:25 - 11:26

Elana Pirtle-Guiney 11:29 - 11:29