# Portland City Council PM Session 09/16/26
# Meeting ID: 2026-09-17-1  Duration: 222 min

[00:03:12] Jamie Dunphy: Good evening. Before we begin our meeting of the Portland City Council, we have a pre-gavel All right, thank you, Council President.
[00:03:30] Robert Taylor: While I'm speaking, I'm gonna invite the Lincoln High School Constitution team up to the, uh, the front table here if you'd like to come. I know Ian will lead the way. But colleagues, uh, I'd like to use this time to honor Lincoln High School's 2025 Constitution team who won the state— the championship in Oregon and then the national championship in Washington, DC. They were the 7th team from Lincoln to win the national championship of this prestigious We the People, the Citizen and Constitution competition, and the 12th team from all of Portland. Their year was marked by some controversy and some confusion though, uh, with a miscount in scoring demoting them from 1st to 3rd while they were in Washington, DC, with Salem's Sprague High School initially being given first place. But when Councilor Green and Councilor Clark and I visited them, uh, a few days after the corrections were made and it was announced that they were actually first in the nation, and of course we're quite ecstatic. Already we're seeing the alumni of the 2025 team making a real difference in our community. They're running legal research projects, teaching classes to immigrants to pass their citizenship exam, serving on neighborhood association boards, running voter registration drives, founding civic dialogue-minded exchange programs, writing children's books, and being selected for Portland's Rose Queen, and even interning here at City Hall. Some of you may have seen the man in the center there. This team was also the last one to head to Washington, D.C. with the late and great Stephen Griffith, who served as a coach on the team since 2001 and dedicated his life to youth civic education and was his and this was his 4th time winning the national championship. The more than 12 coaches, many of all of whom worked full-time at the city's most prestigious law firms, graciously give their time to help the team's students become highly proficient in civic and legal matters. Programs like the Constitution Team, which exist in schools across the state and in all 4 of Portland's districts, are vital in advancing the importance of civic engagement and increasing the polarized world. Thank you. As you prepare to move on to the next phase of your lives, I have no doubt that this program will be massively influential in how you think and act and vote. Hopefully some of you will come back and be the next generation of councilors, mayors, and administrators here in Portland. I want to congratulate the Lincoln High Constitution team, and before our esteemed last-day employee Ian reads the proclamation, I do want to turn it to Council President if any other councilors wanted to make remarks.
[00:06:11] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, if anybody wants to make any remarks, feel Just hugely proud of you guys.
[00:06:20] Sameer Kanal: It was so much fun to come to Lincoln and meet you last year.
[00:06:23] Candace Avalos: Really enjoyed it, and congratulations.
[00:06:26] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Morillo.
[00:06:29] Angelita Morillo: As a fellow Constitution team nerd, I obviously have to say congratulations. How exciting for all of you. Very curious if you got to meet anyone cool or exciting when you were in D.C. Did you?
[00:06:42] Unidentified speaker: Yeah, we got to meet Suzanne Bonamici, who's our representative.
[00:06:46] Angelita Morillo: Very cool. When I was in D.C., we got to meet Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the last time, and it was very, very exciting for our team. So I think that there is really nothing more important right now than being able to study the Constitution and our laws, because we're at a time where free speech is being attacked, activism is being attacked, and we have a federal government that is really not supporting people of different viewpoints. So the fact that we have young people who are studying that, who know how to fight that and are armed with knowledge, I think is really important. So thank you so much for studying and for doing that. Can't wait for you guys to lead.
[00:07:18] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Councilor Green.
[00:07:21] Mitch Green: Yeah, thank you so much for being great representatives of District 4. You guys are very smart and you should go challenge all of us for our seats. Thanks.
[00:07:33] Robert Taylor: All right, with that, I just want to introduce Ian Conner Reyes, who was an intern in my office during the spring and summer. As Ian's internship has just concluded, we wanted to celebrate him and his teammates with this pre-gavel and this proclamation. The mayor has also joined in in this celebration by providing the proclamation for Ian and his teammates, and I've invited them to, to read that tonight. So he's been involved in everything since he started with us. His hands have been in every project and everything we've done, and it's been a great privilege to have him here, and I look greatly forward to wherever you are next. Thank you, Ian. So with that, Ian, why don't you take it away?
[00:08:07] Unidentified speaker: It's been a great privilege to be here. I'll say before I start, whereas the Lincoln High School 2025 Constitution team demonstrated extraordinary dedication to civic education by winning both the Oregon State Championship and the We the People, the Citizen and the Constitution National Championship, and whereas the team became the 7th Lincoln High School team and the 12th team from Portland to win the national championship, reflecting Portland's longstanding commitment to civic education and youth leadership, And whereas the students demonstrated remarkable perseverance through a national competition that included an initial scoring error before the results were corrected and Lincoln was rightfully recognized as national champion. And whereas the team was the final Lincoln Constitution team coached by the late Stephen Griffith, a dedicated champion of youth civic engagement who coached the team for more than 2 decades and helped guide 4 national championship teams. And whereas the success of the Constitution team reflects the extraordinary dedication of its students educators, coaches, families, and community supporters who work together to prepare young people to understand and participate meaningfully in our democracy. And whereas, the accomplishments of the Constitution Team alumni demonstrate the lasting impact of civic education, going on to serve their communities through public service, education, neighborhood leadership, voter engagement, and civic advocacy. And whereas, Portland recognizes that an informed, engaged, and civically minded young generation is essential to the strength of our democracy and the future of our city.
[00:09:31] Eric Zimmerman: Second.
[00:09:32] Unidentified speaker: Now therefore, I, Keith Wilson, Mayor of the City of Portland, Oregon, the City of Roses, do hereby honor the Lincoln High School 2025 Constitution Team for their outstanding achievement as Oregon state and national champions, celebrate their commitment to civic engagement, and recognize the students, coaches, educators, and community members who made their success possible.
[00:09:52] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, with, with unanimous consent, I'd like to suspend the rules and give our folks a hand— a round of applause. Congratulations. Thank you very much. So much. Okay, and you can go. Keelan, could we please call the roll?
[00:10:17] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane?
[00:10:18] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Here.
[00:10:19] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[00:10:20] Angelita Morillo: Here.
[00:10:20] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[00:10:21] Steve Novick: Here.
[00:10:22] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[00:10:22] Olivia Clark: Here.
[00:10:22] Keelan McClymont: Greene?
[00:10:23] Mitch Green: Here.
[00:10:24] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[00:10:24] Eric Zimmerman: Here.
[00:10:25] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[00:10:27] Candace Avalos: Present.
[00:10:31] Jamie Dunphy: Here.
[00:10:32] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Here.
[00:10:33] Keelan McClymont: Here.
[00:10:34] Angelita Morillo: Here.
[00:10:34] Jamie Dunphy: And can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
[00:10:41] Robert Taylor: Good evening. Welcome to the Portland City Council. To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive 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. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
[00:11:45] Rebecca Dobert: Thank you.
[00:11:46] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Colleagues, our first item, as with every week, is the approval of the agenda. We have a rather large agenda, and I'm hoping we can get through all of it today. Are there any— do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? Is there any effort? All right, great. The agenda is approved. Keelan, could we please move to public communications?
[00:12:14] Keelan McClymont: First up, we have Karen Hogue.
[00:12:21] Loretta Smith: Good evening, councilors. My name is Karen Hogue, and I live across the street from 855 Northeast Church Street in District 2. Last week, this house was given a 3-month foreclosure extension due to advocacy by a D1 councilor. While a lot of detail was presented about the circumstances of the owner, There was a dire lack of info about the history of this property and its effect on the community. She has had city liens against the property for 17 years. She has had chance after chance to take care of her property and has not. I was stunned that a foreclosure extension was granted to her based on personal matters. I wonder how many other owners on the list would like that same courtesy. I appreciate that my councilors, Kanal and Pirtle-Guiney, raised concerns. But they and the council did not get the full story, including the 4 written neighbor testimonies submitted for the meeting. Kevin Foster did not present a report from the clearout that happened this summer or go into detail about neighbor complaints. While Mike Massett was helpful to the neighborhood, he also did not provide you with documentation of the testimony neighbors gave that initiated the ordinance violations. You were not told about the foreclosure action in 2024 and why it was pulled back. You were not told that the guy enlisted to fix the house, a supposed contractor, did not repair it. Instead, he tore off the roof and put plastic on, scraped the wood siding and left it bare, and cooked food on the porch. You were not informed that this person was removed by the city, not the owner, From the property, along with a dead cat, a dead dog in a tote, and the hoard in the house and yard. There was and is an animal feces infestation in the yard that attracts rats and flies. It was also in the house when a police officer went in and rushed out throwing up. You were also not told what the neighbors have endured or what they encounter now because of this derelict property. What I saw was an incomplete report of the past situation and no report of what's going on now in our neighborhood. I am gravely disappointed that my neighbors and I did not have the advocacy that the owner had. For us, these problems are not on pause for 3 months. We still live with rats and flies, roof plastic spilling everywhere, ongoing safety and hypervigilance issues because of partying, break-in attempts, and camping on the property by people with serious weapons. When is it our time to be noticed and respected? I encourage the councilor to get reports from Kevin and Mike and evaluate the entire foreclosure process so that it's fair to all parties. Also, drive by this once beautiful turn-of-the-century home that was driven to the ground and is probably not habitable I have loved this house, viewing it from my porch, but sadly it will most likely disappear due to years of neglect by the owner and by the city that refused to take right action. Thank you so much.
[00:15:36] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[00:15:37] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much for being here tonight.
[00:15:39] Keelan McClymont: Uh, next up we have Rachel Jameson.
[00:15:45] Jamie Dunphy: Good evening. Welcome. Make sure to introduce yourself for the record.
[00:15:50] Rachel Jamieson: Rachel Jameson. Good evening, CA Lee and council staff. My name is Rachel Jamieson. I'm a lifelong everyday Portlander. I grew up in District 2, currently live in District 1. I've spent the last 9 years as a public servant with the Water Bureau and nearly 3 years on the CPPW bargaining team. I'm here to speak frankly about the stalled contract negotiations affecting our public employees and the potential consequences of these delays. Right now, employees are being treated as though our contributions are expendable. Thank you. We are unseen, unappreciated, and consistently denied the same benefits already offered to other unions across the city. The city's bargaining team has made little movement, and the inequity is unmistakable. They are signaling that this workforce, despite being absolutely essential, is somehow less deserving, and that is unacceptable. If these employees are forced into a strike due to these delayed negotiations, the public will face serious immediate consequences. Analysts who help manage violence prevention efforts in gun violence hotspots will not be there to coordinate interventions and keep communities safe. Recreation programs that families rely on, including programs that keep youth engaged and supported, will be suspended. Bilingual staff who communicate with residents about the safety of their drinking water will be unavailable, leaving many families without crucial, understandable information about public health. Councilmember Herbold. Coordinators who monitor, plan, and track the systems that keep wastewater out of our homes and rivers will no longer be preventing those dangerous overflows. Affordable housing contract staff who are working in the middle of a housing crisis will be unable to move critical projects forward, impacting your constituents who need stable homes right now. The mapping and planning of roadwork repairs and safety improvements will stall, delaying fixes to hazards residents encounter every single day. Councilmember Herbold. Advocates who support victims of violent crimes will be unavailable when community members need them and their assistance the most. And life-saving training programs that ensure our infrastructure is safe and ensure our sibling union members are protected from workplace hazards will halt. These programs are not optional. They prevent injuries, protect workers, and safeguard the public. A strike would not simply be disruptive. It would undermine the systems this city relies on for public safety, stability, and basic daily functioning. Councilmember Herbold. So City Council, you have a meaningful role to play here. You can urge the administration to change course, to stop delaying, and to bring these negotiations to a fair and timely close. These employees deserve parity, respect, and a contract that reflects the vital work we perform for every resident of this city. Thank you for your time, and I strongly urge you to act.
[00:18:35] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much for being here.
[00:18:37] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have David Sherman.
[00:18:46] Raymond C. Lee: Welcome.
[00:18:46] Jamie Dunphy: Feel free to introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
[00:18:50] David Sherman: Hi, my name is David Sherman. Good evening, councilors. I'm here to talk about the property at 855 North Church, which this council voted last week to extend 3 months a decision on foreclosure, um, and I'd like to talk to you about the ramifications of that vote. I watched the meeting, and what struck me was that there was no consideration and no hearing from the neighbors that wrote in with their concerns. And instead, the discussion focused on the absent owner and her concerns. And she's hospitalized, which I have legitimate sympathy for that. But the problems at the property are not new. My wife and I moved in 6 and a half years ago, and in that entire time, the property has been either vacant occupied by squatters, and it has been deteriorating continuously the whole time. The key point I'd like to make is that I think the neighbors deserve to be heard as well. The things that are going on, which Karen also spoke to, are a concern with safety, where the house is a magnet for people that are squatters that come to drink and to smoke and to engage in activity. And any neighbor that walks by this house at night or during the day they will feel considerable unease. It just doesn't feel safe. The, the, uh, the second problem is one of health, in that there are rats on the property, and the rats spread throughout the neighborhood. And there are a surprising and impressive number of flies on the property that spread throughout the neighborhood. And the third problem is one of plastic litter. When the roof was removed, which you heard earlier, 2 years ago, The, the— A temporary tarp was put down made of woven polyethylene, and polyethylene, that material is made of thousands and thousands of spaghetti-like ribbons. And the tarp has disintegrated with the lack of the roof not being put on. It's just, it's a permanent structure there now. And every day, fistfuls of hundreds of those ribbons spread throughout the neighborhood. They land in our lawns, they land in our gutters, they land all over the place, and, uh, it's, it's litter. And so those are the ramifications for us, the neighbors, for 3 more months. I'm not sure if another vote is possible. If it is, I would ask you to consider that, and the neighbors that live here that are enduring this house ask you that. If a vote is not possible, I'd like you to consider that, that 3 months is a date on a calendar for you, but for the neighbors, it's 3 more months of reduced safety, of vermin, of health concerns, and of plastic litter. Thank you very much.
[00:21:43] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much for being here.
[00:21:48] Keelan McClymont: Uh, next up we have Ocean Hassell.
[00:22:02] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome. Go right ahead, jump on in.
[00:22:04] Ocean Hasso: Councilors, for the record, my name is Ocean Hasso. I'm a member of the City of Portland Professional Workers Union bargaining team. Thank you for your time tonight. My faith as an Episcopalian requires me to strive to respect the dignity of every human being. This is in my church's baptismal covenant. And for me, I live out the requirement of my baptism by being on the CPPW bargaining team. I want to uplift the dignity of my colleagues and for them to earn a dignified living. And yet it feels like the city doesn't recognize our dignity. For 9 months, every other week, we've bargained in good faith. The city, however, consistently shows up empty-handed. Councilmember Smith. The city says it's too broke for COLAs to keep pace with inflation and won't move us to the wage step system every other city union already has. Yet the city can find money to pay executives to disappear, finding $1.3 million for severance packages just in the last year alone. It even found $120 million for a billionaire basketball team owner who made his fortune selling risky car notes. Thank you. We're not asking for much. All we're asking for is what all other city unions have: clear and consistent wages and the basic respect of a city that shows up prepared to bargain. Yet the city and BHR drags us out showing up unprepared and offering pennies. This is disrespectful and wasteful. Mind you, each day of contract bargaining costs the taxpayer about $12,000. Thank you. I don't want to be here tonight. I'd rather get to work and settle this contract, but it seems to me that the city would prefer labor problems over labor peace. Well, let me share with you what the Book of Hosea says about problems: for they sow the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind. Thank you.
[00:24:05] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:24:12] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Rachel Whiteside.
[00:24:19] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome. Come on up.
[00:24:25] Rachel Whiteside: Members of council, thank you for your time tonight. My name is Rachel Whiteside, and I am here on behalf of the nearly 1,000 Pro-Tech 17 members who keep the city working, performing vital services in nearly every bureau that benefits the Portland community. Portland works because we do. We get the development permits issued, keep the water flowing, traffic moving, and the roses blooming. We support the city's IT, keeping it secure and safe from outside attacks so that every city worker— police, fire, and yourselves— can do your jobs.
[00:25:03] Rachel Jamieson: We are there in moments of crisis.
[00:25:05] Rachel Whiteside: Thank you, PSR members. And times of rejoicing. Thank you. Portland works because we do. As you're aware, we have been in contract negotiations for nearly 18 months. You might not be aware that this is the first time our Portland chapter has ever failed to get a deal with the city during regular negotiations. We're talking about a 7-decade bargaining history. Ask yourself, What is really different in this moment? PROTECT 17 members are dedicated public servants who just want to be able to afford to live in the city they serve. Do you know that a food box was placed onto a floor of the Portland Building so that coworkers could donate food for their, for their peers who don't have enough at the end of the pay period? To quote one of our members who signed our pledge to strike, no city worker should need to rely on food assistance. The living wage in Multnomah County for one adult with one minor dependent is more than $1,000— sorry, more than $110,000 a year, and a thriving wage is more than $185,000 a year. Thank you. Our members don't earn a thriving wage and need our cost of living increases tied to inflation just to maintain their current living standards. Our members see the ballooning positions created as part of the city's new governance structure, as well as the golden parachutes when these people move on after just a couple of years. Again, to quote a member, it is unacceptable to ask workers to take pay cuts please, I urge you, bring us a fair proposal in mediation this Friday so we can settle these negotiations and get back to doing what we do best— keep this city working. We are Pro-Tech 17, and Portland works because we do.
[00:27:18] David Sherman: Thank you.
[00:27:19] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:27:22] Keelan McClymont: That completes communications.
[00:27:23] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you.
[00:27:24] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Thank you everybody for coming down tonight. Uh, colleagues, our next item on the agenda, we're going to hear an update from the city administrator on a status of ongoing responses to federal interventions in the city. City Administrator Lee.
[00:27:37] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you, Council President. There are no new updates, uh, on the ICE facility litigation since our last time updating the council, but I do want to briefly flag our proud-to-be-a-sanctuary-city Uh, Pride campaign. This campaign invites businesses, faith communities, schools, and nonprofits across Portland to display posters affirming that we are proud to be a sanctuary city and that everyone belongs here. The posters also include information about what to do if someone witnesses an ICE enforcement action. They're available in 8 languages: English, Spanish, Russian, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Simplified Chinese, Arabic, and Somali. Printed posters are available at city community centers, Portland Building, and Welcome Week events while supplies last, and downloadable, uh, print-ready versions are available at portland.gov/sanctuary. We encourage community partners to participate and help us make that message of belonging visible throughout our city. Thank you.
[00:28:50] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, City Administrator. Colleagues, any questions for the City Administrator? Great. Keelan, can we please call the consent agenda?
[00:29:00] Keelan McClymont: Uh, no items were pulled from the consent agenda. I'll call the roll. Koyama Lane?
[00:29:07] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:29:08] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[00:29:09] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:29:10] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[00:29:11] Steve Novick: Aye.
[00:29:12] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[00:29:13] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:29:13] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[00:29:14] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:29:16] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[00:29:17] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[00:29:18] Keelan McClymont: Avalos.
[00:29:18] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[00:29:20] Keelan McClymont: Smith, absent. Kanal.
[00:29:21] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:29:22] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[00:29:23] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[00:29:24] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[00:29:25] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[00:29:25] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[00:29:26] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[00:29:27] Keelan McClymont: The consent agenda is approved with a vote of 11 ayes and 1 absent.
[00:29:31] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. Next 7 items are second readings. We're gonna read them or call them individually and hope to get through them with some expedience. Can we please call item number 6?
[00:29:42] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-306, create a new non-represented classification of Council Public Information Officer and establish a compensation range for this classification.
[00:30:03] Jamie Dunphy: Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, would you please call the roll on item number 6?
[00:30:07] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Koyama Lane.
[00:30:09] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:30:09] Keelan McClymont: Morillo.
[00:30:10] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:30:11] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[00:30:12] Steve Novick: Aye.
[00:30:13] Keelan McClymont: Clark.
[00:30:14] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:30:14] Keelan McClymont: Green.
[00:30:15] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:30:16] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[00:30:17] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[00:30:18] Keelan McClymont: Avalos.
[00:30:18] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[00:30:18] Keelan McClymont: Smith. Oh, sorry, absent. Kanal.
[00:30:22] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:30:23] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[00:30:24] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[00:30:25] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[00:30:25] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[00:30:26] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[00:30:26] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[00:30:27] Keelan McClymont: Ordinance passes with a vote of 11 ayes and 1 absent.
[00:30:30] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Can we please call item number 7?
[00:30:33] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-247, initiate foreclosure action on 7545 Northeast Sandy Boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
[00:30:53] Jamie Dunphy: Seeing no one in the queue, could we please call the roll?
[00:30:55] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane.
[00:30:56] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:30:57] Keelan McClymont: Murillo.
[00:30:58] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:30:58] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[00:30:59] Steve Novick: Aye.
[00:30:59] Keelan McClymont: Clark.
[00:31:00] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:31:00] Keelan McClymont: Green.
[00:31:01] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:31:02] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[00:31:03] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[00:31:03] Candace Avalos: Avalos. Aye.
[00:31:05] Keelan McClymont: Kanal.
[00:31:06] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:31:07] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[00:31:08] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[00:31:09] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[00:31:10] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[00:31:10] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[00:31:11] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[00:31:12] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with 11 ayes and 1 absent.
[00:31:15] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Can we please move to number— item number 8?
[00:31:20] Keelan McClymont: Uh, document 2026-248, initiate foreclosure action on 7545 Uh, within Northeast Sandy Boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
[00:31:34] Jamie Dunphy: I think we just read that one.
[00:31:36] Keelan McClymont: Oh, did I?
[00:31:37] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, 2026-248. What?
[00:31:42] Sameer Kanal: One is within—.
[00:31:43] Jamie Dunphy: There's 2 of them on the same thing? Why do I not have that on my agenda? Okay, I'm wrong. I don't see them on my thing. Oh, I see.
[00:31:49] Steve Novick: I'm—.
[00:31:50] Jamie Dunphy: My, my script is wrong. I apologize, colleagues. Thank you, Keelan. You are always right.
[00:31:56] Keelan McClymont: No, I'm not.
[00:31:56] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Seeing none, Keelan, could we please call the roll?
[00:32:06] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane?
[00:32:07] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:32:07] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[00:32:08] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:32:09] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[00:32:09] Steve Novick: Aye.
[00:32:10] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[00:32:11] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:32:11] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[00:32:13] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:32:13] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[00:32:13] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[00:32:14] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:32:15] Keelan McClymont: Kanal?
[00:32:16] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:32:20] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:32:21] Raymond C. Lee: Aye.
[00:32:22] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[00:32:23] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:32:23] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with 11 ayes and 1 absent.
[00:32:27] Jamie Dunphy: Could we please read the next item? Item number 9, then? Yeah. Yes, item number 9.
[00:32:33] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[00:32:33] Keelan McClymont: Item 9, document 2026-250, initiate foreclosure action on North Columbia Boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
[00:32:44] Jamie Dunphy: This is also the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, could we please call the roll?
[00:32:54] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane.
[00:32:56] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:32:56] Keelan McClymont: Murillo.
[00:32:57] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:32:58] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[00:32:58] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[00:33:01] Steve Novick: Aye. Aye.
[00:33:06] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[00:33:08] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[00:33:09] Keelan McClymont: Uh, the ordinance passes with 11 ayes and 1 absent.
[00:33:13] Jamie Dunphy: And can we please read item number 10?
[00:33:16] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-253, initiate foreclosure action on 7101 through 7103 Southeast Division Street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
[00:33:30] Jamie Dunphy: Is there any further discussion of this item?
[00:33:36] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:33:36] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[00:33:37] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Aye. Novick.
[00:33:40] Steve Novick: Aye.
[00:33:41] Keelan McClymont: Clark.
[00:33:41] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:33:42] Keelan McClymont: Green.
[00:33:43] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:33:43] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman. Avalos. Kanal.
[00:33:47] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:33:48] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[00:33:48] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[00:33:49] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[00:33:49] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[00:33:50] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[00:33:51] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[00:33:51] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with 11 ayes and 1 absent vote.
[00:33:54] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. And can we read item number 11?
[00:33:56] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-260, initiate foreclosure action on 5706 Southeast Lambert Street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
[00:34:07] Jamie Dunphy: Guess what? This is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance as well. Any further council discussion?
[00:34:17] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:34:17] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:34:17] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Dan Ryan.
[00:34:19] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[00:34:20] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Mitch Green.
[00:34:26] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:34:27] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with 11 ayes and 1 absent.
[00:34:35] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. And can we— is it item 12 now?
[00:34:41] Keelan McClymont: Yeah, item 12.
[00:34:42] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[00:34:43] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-256, initiate foreclosure action on 2734 through 2730— no, wait, did I just— no, Northeast— 2738 Northeast Alberta Street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
[00:34:59] Jamie Dunphy: Yet again, second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, can we please call the roll on item number 12?
[00:35:13] Sheila Craig: Aye.
[00:35:14] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[00:35:17] Ocean Hasso: Aye. Aye.
[00:35:17] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[00:35:18] Ocean Hasso: Aye.
[00:35:18] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[00:35:19] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[00:35:19] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:35:19] Unidentified speaker: Aye.
[00:35:20] Tracy Warren: Aye.
[00:35:21] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[00:35:24] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with 11 ayes and 1 absent.
[00:35:29] Jamie Dunphy: I would like to thank everybody at home for what affectionately has been called a pirate party.
[00:35:33] Tracy Warren: Aye.
[00:35:34] Jamie Dunphy: That was a lot of it. Please call item number 13.
[00:35:39] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-263, consent to franchise transfer from Zenith Energy Terminals Holdings LLC to ISQ Springer Holdings LLC, amend ordinance 188554.
[00:35:52] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, this is also the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Is there further council discussion? Councilor Morillo.
[00:36:04] Angelita Morillo: Um, thank you, Council President. I just want to, um, say that I will not be able to support the franchise transfer this evening because we did not approve some of the amendments that I feel would have made the transfer much more palatable to me and to the many advocates who have fought for We were trying to add accountability measures so that if the city fails to hold this oil company accountable, the public has recourse that is very common within environmental law, and we did not get a 7th vote for that. And so because of that, this is moving forward as is. And I can't really in good conscience support this. I think that this was a very common sense measure to make improvements. Councilor Smith. And this council was unwilling to make those changes. So because of that, I'm going to be a no vote, but I just wanted to reiterate why it is I will not be supporting this at this time.
[00:37:00] Michael Currier: Thank you.
[00:37:01] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Councilor Green.
[00:37:04] Mitch Green: Thank you, Council President. Like Councilor Morillo, I won't be able to support this ordinance at this time. Council has the right to place conditions on franchise agreements that it deems reasonable. That's in the language of those franchises. I think it was always reasonable to have public process, to hear from the community, to gather ideas from the community, and talk about ways to build trust together as a community with, with a fossil fuel company, which has a long history of broken promises in this town. I think we missed an opportunity there. So at this time, I can't, I can't sign my name on this.
[00:37:41] Jamie Dunphy: Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Kanal.
[00:37:50] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, um, I first— I just want to say thanks to the staff that have been working on this, um, throughout. I, I, I, I understand that like when people vote yes or no, often it can feel like a reflection of the work that you've done, and I don't want it to feel that way when I join at least 2 of my colleagues in voting no on this. Um, but I, I just wanted to, to mention that. I also I imagine this will pass and hopefully we'll be able to continue the conversation with the new ownership after that takes over and try to help work on that trust going forward. Because right now, because of the previous owner, it's not there. And that's not what this vote's about for me. This vote is about the specific qualifications and how there wasn't a clear sort of criterion and rubric for that, and I didn't find that the information that I'd requested, which I was led to believe existed, actually existed sufficient to meet the criteria that, that, um, would have allowed us to be confident in the technical, legal, and financial qualifications of the, um, I guess the recipient of the, the franchise transfer. So that's why I'm going to be voting no. But I, I wanted to, um, sort of express some optimism going forward because even though I am voting no, I, I imagine this will will pass, um, and see that we can, can continue these conversations to try and build that trust going forward and see that there's change in this terminal.
[00:39:16] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
[00:39:28] Keelan McClymont: Calling the roll on 2026-263. Ayes, 3. No.
[00:39:34] Loretta Smith: No.
[00:39:35] Keelan McClymont: No.
[00:39:36] Steve Novick: Aye.
[00:39:36] Keelan McClymont: Clark.
[00:39:37] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:39:39] Eric Zimmerman: No.
[00:39:40] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[00:39:41] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[00:39:41] Keelan McClymont: Avalos.
[00:39:42] Candace Avalos: No.
[00:39:43] Keelan McClymont: Kanal.
[00:39:44] Sameer Kanal: No.
[00:39:46] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[00:39:48] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[00:39:49] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[00:39:50] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[00:39:50] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[00:39:55] Jamie Dunphy: No.
[00:39:55] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance fails to pass with a vote of 5 ayes, 6 nays, and 1 absent.
[00:40:01] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Council President, point of information.
[00:40:03] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor.
[00:40:04] Mitch Green: Um, this—.
[00:40:14] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: In a process like this, this was a transfer agreement process. Does this now go back to staff for additional information and consideration, or does this I am unclear.
[00:40:34] Jamie Dunphy: We are having some folks confer.
[00:40:42] Sameer Kanal: Uh, request for information, Council President. Would it be possible for us to have that conversation return? Can, can we check in on that question and, and the update to it later in this meeting?
[00:40:54] Jamie Dunphy: I think for the purposes of this agenda, yes, we actually can do that.
[00:40:57] Sameer Kanal: Okay, just from a, like, a rules and process update. Okay. I don't want to—.
[00:41:02] Jamie Dunphy: So item 13 has not received sufficient votes to pass. The item fails. We are going to call item 14.
[00:41:07] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-277, appropriate grant award of $207,411 First Speed Racing Street Takeover.
[00:41:26] Jamie Dunphy: This is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Claire Adamsick from Council Operations is here with a committee staff summary report. Claire, take it away.
[00:41:35] Claire Adamsick: Thank you, Council President and councilors. For the record— sorry, Claire Adamsick— and I'm reading on behalf of Kevin Alvarez, who staffs the Community and Public Safety Committee, and Kevin prepared this committee staff summary but couldn't be here tonight. The ordinance before you, document number 2026-277, was heard in the Community and Public Safety Committee on August 4th, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass. The ordinance amends the fiscal year 2026-27 budget and allows the city to appropriate $207,411.35 in grant funds awarded by the State Transportation Safety Office the grant will fund Portland Police Bureau overtime missions to combat planned and ad hoc speed racing and street takeover events. The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement. No verbal or written testimony was provided on this item prior to committee action, and that concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
[00:42:39] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[00:42:40] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Claire. Councilor Novick, this came out of your committee. Any committee chair remarks?
[00:42:45] Steve Novick: Yeah, I just want to reiterate that the committee members were interested in receiving more in-depth information about the plan for grant funds, including data, examples of past work related to these grants, and more granular planning and timeline for the funds. I think that this is an instance of where the administration is gradually getting used to the idea that we don't rubber stamp things. We want more information. And I think they got that message.
[00:43:08] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor. Colleagues, are there any— uh, first of all, Keelan, is there anyone signed up for public testimony on this item?
[00:43:14] Keelan McClymont: We have one person signed up on this item. Great. Would you like me to call them up?
[00:43:18] Candace Avalos: Uh, let—.
[00:43:19] Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, colleagues, I'm going to hold technical or clarifying or, uh, questions for the council discussion, and let's move to public testimony.
[00:43:25] Keelan McClymont: Okay. Uh, Edith Gillis.
[00:43:30] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome, Edith. Come on up.
[00:43:32] Edith Gillis: Hello, I'm Edith Gillis, District 3. I want you to remember that the Portland voters voted overwhelmingly that in any time that you spend any money on police, 5% is to go to the Police Accountability Board. If you're going to pass this to give more money for police because they haven't planned properly, they're not doing their job right, You need to at least give 5% to the oversight and police accountability. There are many other ways to prevent street takeovers and dangerous driving. This is not the way to do that.
[00:44:14] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:44:18] Keelan McClymont: That completes testimony.
[00:44:19] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Colleagues, we're now in council discussion as well as technical or clarifying questions, and we have some staff available in the room. Anybody would like to answer? Councilor Knoll.
[00:44:30] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I mean, I'll ask the question, uh, based on that. I think, um, the way that it was characterized in committee was that effectively this was allowing an expenditure, um, and I wanted to just understand that would imply that it's effectively the 5% is already handled. So I just wanted to check with the lawyers on that and, and, uh, make sure that we were either Told correctly or read between the lines correctly, um, when that conversation happened. Um, so I'll give— I'm pausing for them to hear, but, uh, while they're figuring that out, I'll say that as we went through the— we should generally be considering grants. It's a fascinating thing that we do here because we vote on the grant, but it doesn't always affect a decision on the policy that we're— that, that Or what it is that we're spending the money to do, right? So sometimes we're— it's characterized as, do you want free money or not? Though, yes, if you do, but sometimes it's about what are we spending the money on? And so while this one makes sense to me, I'm gonna bring up in the other, the second grant that's coming up today, a concern about these sorts of things. And so I just wanted to flag that as a distinction between the 2 grants as well. Thank you. Because we are ultimately deciding not only if we want money, which obviously the city would like to have money appropriated to us, but also what it's being spent on. And while I generally support this particular grant and what it would be spent on, I am curious about the answer to the question raised in testimony. I was in the hall working on another issue. Can you restate the question? Absolutely. In committee, it was characterized to us that effectively this vote was about spending money in a specific way. And maybe I misread between the lines on that, but the, the— in testimony, it was raised that in order to spend this $207,000, we'd have to add, you know, a little over $10,000, the 5%, to the OCPA budget, the Office of Community-Based Police Accountability. And the question was, did we already handle that? Oh, that's a great question.
[00:46:44] Robert Taylor: I'm Robert Taylor, uh, City Attorney, for the record. That might, that might be a question better asked to the budget office.
[00:46:51] Steve Novick: Okay.
[00:46:54] Sameer Kanal: By any chance— I'm not trying to be funny— by any chance, is, is CFO Biery or anyone from the CBO here? And we don't have to vote on this till next week. I don't understand, it's a first reading, but that, that That would be a thing that would change my vote is if we didn't follow the 5% rule on something that I would otherwise be voting yes on. So I'm just trying to understand that and get information, Council President. Thank you.
[00:47:23] Steve Novick: We are—.
[00:47:25] Jamie Dunphy: Do we have staff to be able to respond to this? Okay, Councilor, I think we will have to come back to your answer and ask for the administration to get some response. Appreciate it. Thank you. Councilor Avalos.
[00:47:40] Candace Avalos: Thank you. So, um, I've got some questions. I think that I have— in general, I have concerns anytime we are asked to add funding for police enforcement without clear evidence about what outcomes that additional spending will produce. Um, obviously street racing and takeovers can create serious safety risks. We've experienced it a lot in East Portland, and we have a responsibility to address them. But that doesn't mean that every enforcement strategy is automatically effective or justified. So before approving additional overtime and surveillance equipment, I want to understand how these funds will be used, how success is measured, and what safeguards are in place. Council President, are there folks— I guess, are these kinds of questions to police leadership? Are they in the room? Or I don't—.
[00:48:32] Jamie Dunphy: I have in my notes that Sergeant Petrov from PPB is supposed to be here, uh, Sheila Craig from the grant manager's office, and Ben Smoon with the grant analysts. So I don't know if any of those 3 people are the right to speak. If, uh, Sergeant Petrov is here, potentially. Hey, folks, welcome.
[00:48:55] Greg Moore: I am not Sergeant Petrov. I am, uh, Lieutenant Greg Moore. Over this. So can you—.
[00:49:00] Sameer Kanal: The question—.
[00:49:01] Candace Avalos: I haven't asked the question quite yet, so let me ask that. Thank you for being here. So a couple of things. So first, of the $207,000, can you talk to me about what's— how much will specifically go towards overtime versus things like equipment or other expenses? How are you breaking that down?
[00:49:21] Greg Moore: So initially when we proposed the grant, it was— I, I can't remember the exact numbers. That's a grant. That would be a grants question what the numbers was. Um, but because of how, uh, long this has taken and the short, uh, till the end of this grant, uh, we're not going to be able to procure that equipment. So at this point, all of the money will be spent on overtime.
[00:49:41] Candace Avalos: At this point, all of it will be spent on overtime?
[00:49:42] Raymond C. Lee: Yes.
[00:49:43] Mitch Green: Okay.
[00:49:44] Candace Avalos: And, um, well, I guess that answers my next couple of questions. I, I mean, let me just daylight this because this is what I was going to ask, uh, if any of the funding could be used for prevention, traffic engineering, community-based strategies, or other non-enforcement approaches. So it sounds like the— right now it is to use just on police overtime.
[00:50:06] Greg Moore: This grant is specifically for high-visibility enforcement.
[00:50:10] Candace Avalos: Say that one more time.
[00:50:10] Greg Moore: It's specifically for high-visibility enforcement.
[00:50:13] Candace Avalos: High-visibility enforcement. What, what does that mean? Does that mean something specific?
[00:50:17] Greg Moore: So it's from ODOT. That's one of their requirements for this grant, is that it is a high visibility. It's not for undercover work. It's not for prevention. It's not for investigation. It's for during the event, disrupting the event, and having an impact on the event.
[00:50:32] Candace Avalos: Got it. Okay, thank you. And then I guess, what kind of reporting is council going to receive showing the number of missions or arrests or citations, use of force, demographic information? Like, how are you going to communicate back to us the outcomes of using this grant?
[00:50:50] Greg Moore: Yeah, so part of the requirements of the grant is that we have those measurables and that we provide them to ODOT. So that would be the same to you.
[00:51:00] Candace Avalos: Okay, thank you. So then do we have people from budget office to talk about the— well, I guess maybe we don't need that because you already told me. So never mind for that. Um, that's all the questions I have. I think—. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm definitely still a little bit concerned, um, about this, but probably feel more concerned about the next one. So, um, I think I'll leave it at that and I'll ponder where I land. Thank you.
[00:51:30] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Councilor Zimmerman.
[00:51:33] Eric Zimmerman: Uh, thank you. I'm all for it. Get out there, get them, right? This street racing crap is really destroying a lot of, a lot of areas, and the wrecks that happen when it goes on is incredibly dangerous. People getting walloped by the back end of a car is incredibly dangerous, right? So thank you for going after grants, finding other people's money. Let's get out there and do it. These missions have to start taking place as much as possible because they're in, they're out, they're gone. It's really hard to stop. So I appreciate the work 'cause it's not easy. So thank you.
[00:52:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Knoll.
[00:52:05] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, thanks. Thanks for being here. I just wanted to get a clarification. So when you talk, 'cause one of the things that came up in committee, and I just wanted to get this on the record here since there's a larger audience for it, in the slides it talks through what exactly you're gonna do with it. It is mission-based, it is doing all that, and that's why I was comfortable voting yes on it and would, pending the budget question on the other thing, support it again here. Could you clarify what deployable cameras means?
[00:52:32] Greg Moore: So we were talking about like GoPros or cameras that would make it so that we could record yeah, and so these are, these are cameras that are not in a fixed location, deployable, right?
[00:52:44] Sameer Kanal: And but you'd be putting them in a fixed location, um, for that is likely to have an event occur that would help you monitor it, right?
[00:52:52] Greg Moore: That was one of the thoughts when we applied the grant. But again, we have no intention of buying any cameras at this point because we don't have time for procurement of them.
[00:53:01] Sameer Kanal: Great, uh, thank you for clarifying that again. I, I know I asked you a very similar question in committee, but I think there were folks who weren't there that are here today. So I wanted to get that on the record and appreciate it.
[00:53:12] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Councilor Ryan.
[00:53:15] Dan Ryan: Thank you, Council President. Good to see all of you, and thank you for your service. I was proud to be a part of the council that passed the street racing action in 2023. I've learned how challenging it was to set up the system and the labor force it takes, the amount of officers on patrol. To manage those street takeovers, which really impact the neighborhoods in North Portland quite a bit since many of them take place on MLK, Columbia Boulevard. The people on Marine Drive West have told me horror stories where their employees can't get to their shifts of employment, those that work the graveyard shifts. So it's impacted a lot of the workforce in our city as well.
[00:53:58] Greg Moore: And one, I just want to hear how many patrol officers does it take to actually That's a hard number to nail down just because it depends on the size of the event and the behavior in the location.
[00:54:17] Dan Ryan: That's okay to start there, but I'd like you to go further because there are numbers involved. The reason I'm asking this question is because there are nights where there's maybe 13 to 25 officers in the entire city. And when there's a street takeover, when there's some other unrest, when there's a gun violence shooting, suddenly no one can show up for any of the property crime requests that we get, calls that you get from our storefronts around the city. So I think it's important for the public to have a better understanding. Sometimes staffing is better understood when you can tell us stories. So please take some time to tell us stories on what it's like to actually respond to these situations. Thank you.
[00:54:56] Michael Currier: My name is Sergeant Michael Currier. I'm the operational sergeant for this street takeover activity. Typically, we like to get approximately 20 officers, but those numbers are also coming from Clackamas County, Multnomah County Transit, the Port. We also get assistance from the other side of the river during these missions. We usually have our air support team working. So when, when I say at least 20 officers, those are coming from multiple different agencies that come to help.
[00:55:32] Dan Ryan: And that took some time to set up those agreements?
[00:55:35] Michael Currier: It, uh, it, it has taken a long time, a lot of networking to do that.
[00:55:39] Sameer Kanal: Yeah.
[00:55:40] Dan Ryan: And so congratulations on getting this award. Clearly it's needed, and I want to thank our thank you.
[00:55:46] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith, for that. I appreciate that.
[00:55:46] Dan Ryan: And I appreciate the support from our partners in law enforcement and public safety from Gresham and Vancouver and the surrounding municipalities. It's good to hear that. And I just think it's important that when we tell these stories, we allow the public to understand the impact of how many patrol officers it takes to manage that. And you do that because you want to ensure safety. And so what I've heard is it takes a higher number to ensure the safety of those surrounding the area?
[00:56:15] Michael Currier: It, it absolutely does. Uh, we've had a number of fatal crashes out, especially on Marine Drive, uh, but it is a citywide problem. Um, locations like, uh, Broadway and Burnside, 102 and Gleason, Airport Way, Marine Drive, MLK. Um, 20 is almost a minimum that we need to deal with these problems. Thank you.
[00:56:39] Dan Ryan: Thank you for telling the story. It helps.
[00:56:42] Michael Currier: We've, we've had a pretty significant impact in the last few years as well too.
[00:56:45] Jamie Dunphy: Appreciate it. Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue— actually, Councilor Connell, is that a legacy hand? Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, this is a non— the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
[00:57:02] Sameer Kanal: Council President, I, I saw that.
[00:57:04] Loretta Smith: Yeah. Hi.
[00:57:05] Sheila Craig: Sorry, I just wanted to answer the question about the 5%. It is not part of the budget for this grant, so it would have to be part of the adopted budget, but we are not allocating 5%. I think it was 5%, was that the percentage that you were asking about earlier?
[00:57:24] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, it was, but I— so let me, let me ask you this. Right now, the police budget and the OCPA budget before this ordinance are in the correct ratio. There is exactly 5% here, I believe. I'm gonna verify if there's any extra wiggle room there. And so in order to increase the police budget by $207,000, my understanding is we'd have to increase the OCPA budget by 5% to meet the charter requirement.
[00:57:48] Sheila Craig: So we are not doing that with this ordinance. I can't answer that question. We are only budgeting the grant funds.
[00:57:55] Sameer Kanal: Okay. So I think then we need to hear from CBO and/or CFO Biery to understand if there is wiggle room, meaning if it's already— if doing so would remain within the ratios or if that would mean we were out of compliance with the city charter. Okay. And so I appreciate that you're distinguishing what this ordinance does, and I think that's part of the answer we're looking for.
[00:58:23] Sheila Craig: And we'll follow up on that and get you an answer.
[00:58:25] Sameer Kanal: And I know that when the budget gets amended, You know, when the mayor's proposed gets amended, they're not always in perfect ratio. We know that it's at least 5%, but we don't know if it's above it. So if hypothetically it was already above it by about $10,300 or whatever, then we're fine from a legal perspective. So I'm just trying to understand that. Okay. And I think that's a CFO, CBO question. I'm seeing CA lead on along. If it's— If it's not there, we'd have to amend this, and I don't want to delay it next week, is the, is the, is the question. I—. Is a concern I have, if we can avoid delaying it, because I do think it's good to get the money to the thing that the grant was, uh, applied for. So I'm— I just, I don't know how you want to handle that, Council President, but I wanted to indicate that's my goal, is not to slow this down here. I just want to make sure we're in compliance with the charter.
[00:59:16] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you very much, Councilor Kanal. Uh, is this Councilor Smith online with the hand?
[00:59:23] Sameer Kanal: Yes, Council President, I just wanted to let you know that I am here.
[00:59:25] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, colleagues, is there further discussion of this item? Okay, this is a not— the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. It now passes to second reading. Keelan, could we please call item number 15?
[00:59:44] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-278, appropriate grant award of $103, $69 for expanded traffic enforcement.
[00:59:55] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Claire Adamsick is here with Council Operations to give us a committee staff summary report. Claire.
[01:00:03] Claire Adamsick: Thank you again, Council President and councilors. For the record, Claire Adamsick again reading on behalf of Kevin Alvarez, who staffs the Community and Public Safety Committee and prepared this committee staff summary. The ordinance before you, document number 2026-278, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you, Mayor Wilson. This ordinance was heard in the Community and Public Safety Committee on August 4th, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass. The ordinance amends the fiscal year 2026-27 budget to appropriate $103,069 in grant funds awarded by the Oregon Department of Transportation Safety Office to increase the efficiency of traffic crash investigations and to expand patrol-based traffic enforcement. The budget amendment increases the Portland Police Bureau programming expenses and the grants fund for a grant period from July 14th, 2026 through September 30th, 2026. The award requires a local match of $25,768 that the Police Bureau will provide from its general fund resources and is intended to supplement existing city revenues. Grant funds will support officer training time and associated benefits and mobile citation and drone use, mobile citation printers and related supplies, crash investigation drones, The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement. No verbal or written testimony was submitted on this item prior to committee action. And that concludes this committee staff summary. Thank you.
[01:01:27] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Claire. Councilor Novick, this came out of your committee. Any committee chair remarks?
[01:01:33] Steve Novick: Yes. As with the previous grant, committee members would like to see more data and detailed information about the plan. Plans for this grant. I'll also note that the debate of the site have included a discussion of disparities in traffic enforcement, which is an important topic which I think we need to have a full discussion of in a future CAPS committee. In the context of this grant discussion, I didn't feel like we had the scope or the personnel there to have such a full discussion, but we will have one later.
[01:01:59] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor. Councilors— oh, sorry, is there anyone signed up for public testimony?
[01:02:05] Keelan McClymont: Edith Gillis signed up.
[01:02:07] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, I'd like to move to public testimony before we get to technical clarifying questions or council discussion. So Edith, welcome.
[01:02:16] Edith Gillis: The City of Portland has this wonderful program, or did for many years. Introduce yourself for the record. My name is Edith Gillis, District 3, and that wonderful program was about improving traffic safety. So we do it through education through engineering, as Councilor Avalos mentioned, and through enforcement. And enforcement doesn't just have to be cops or guns or fines. There are far better ways to have safer streets for all users than what we're doing and what you're proposing here. And anytime—. Councilor Avalos. That you take in more money, more staffing, more equipment, more services than anywhere used by the police, then you have to give at least 5% for the oversight and the accountability of those police and those programs. Please be very careful that you do not lose the trust and the respect, the cooperation of Portland voters. We're gonna be facing really horrible times, and if you betray our trust on this, as you have on Zenith and clean energy and so many other things, you're gonna have a much harder time with future decisions. Please be aware there's better ways to have safer streets than this.
[01:03:47] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[01:03:50] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[01:03:51] Keelan McClymont: That completes testimony.
[01:03:53] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. We are now into technical clarifying questions and also council discussion. Councilor Murillo.
[01:04:00] Angelita Morillo: Yeah, thank you so much. We had a good discussion about this in committee, but I still left with a lot more questions about this, and I'm not sure who in the room should answer them. But the agreement funds 2 drones, but it doesn't say what make or model. And so I don't know who's the best person to answer this question, but I'd like to know what drones we're buying and does any flight or image data sync to a manufacturer's cloud?
[01:04:35] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[01:04:40] Brian Hughes: Good evening, councilors. Brian Hughes, Deputy Chief of the Portland Police Bureau, for the record. Councilor Morillo, I don't know the exact brand. I can get back to you on that. We already use drones pretty extensively in the work that we do, and it would just be an expansion of those. I think the ones we use right now are DJI. And as far as I know, we don't upload anything to the cloud. I will confirm both of those questions for you, the brand and if we upload anything to the cloud.
[01:05:07] Angelita Morillo: Gotcha. I think, Yeah, it's okay that you don't know. I think that to me that points to a broader issue I have, which is that we now have a data privacy office that we are currently hiring a director for. It's in motion. I was very proud to bring that forward with Councilor Novick, and I think it's really critical to the work that we're doing here at the city. So is the data privacy office going to review this purchase before any equipment is bought and how long drone imagery is retained? Who hosts the citation software and the citation database, and whether the clause giving ODOT and federal agencies access to project records could reach stop or citation records with people's personal information.
[01:05:50] Brian Hughes: Councilor, I would have no issue with the Data Privacy Office taking a look at this. I applaud your work there. I think it's important as, you know, these issues expand and, you know, see them all over the country, and certainly have no issues there with having the Data Privacy Office take a look at the purchase of these things. As far as the images they collect, these drones are used to collect images on crash, fatal crash investigations so that we can get roads open quicker. And they're saved in our database, our evidence database. Those are evidentiary pictures and they're saved according to whatever the timelines are for that kind of evidence to be kept. I think it's a pretty long time. I just, I don't know how long.
[01:06:30] Mitch Green: Okay.
[01:06:32] Angelita Morillo: And I know we're hiring for that top position, but is there anyone from the city Data Privacy Office that can, you know, confirm that they're going to be reviewing these tools before they're implemented? Or maybe CA Lee, I'm not sure who— it doesn't— it's not fully formed yet, so maybe you can commit for us, or you can commit for us, anyone on the record. Yes, I can commit.
[01:06:57] Raymond C. Lee: I know we can have our BTS, Bureau of Technology Services, take a look at it since the office is not set up. A lot of these services previously for the city was running through our Bureau of Technology Services. So we would still use their services to really vet this out from a technology standpoint. But I'll let DCA Warren elaborate on that topic even more, but also address kind of where we are in the process of setting up this office officially.
[01:07:26] Tracy Warren: Thank you, CA Lee, and thank you, Councilor Murillo, for the question. For the record, Deputy City Administrator Tracy Warren. We currently do privacy impact assessments when we are looking at adopting new technology on behalf of the city. So that is a current practice that will continue. I cannot verify whether or not when this when the drones that were originally purchased, whether or not they went through that process. That is a newer process that is taking place.
[01:08:00] Angelita Morillo: Yeah, and I really appreciate the work that folks at BTS do, but this would be a pretty big expansion of scope for their work. And with all due respect to folks, as someone who's researched this pretty extensively, BTS is not in any way equipped to do data governance analysis the way— that's the reason we created the Data Privacy Office, because we've never had a group that was capable of doing data governance work, which is very different. So can CA Lee, can you commit that the Data Privacy Office is going to be assessing this before we implement any new technology?
[01:08:38] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Can I—.
[01:08:38] Angelita Morillo: Because we keep purchasing new technology at the city and it does not go through the proper channels.
[01:08:44] Tracy Warren: Can I clarify that the data privacy impact assessment currently takes place outside of BTS? So it is currently taking place through Smart Cities, and then it is reviewed as part of an overall committee of the technology. So we can commit that it will be done outside of BTS.
[01:09:05] Angelita Morillo: Okay, and those same staff were moved into our data privacy office anyway, so they're doing that same work. Okay, thank you for that clarification. That was some of the core concerns I had about, and I hope that as the Data Privacy Office is established, that we will just move new technology through that, especially with the age of so many cameras, storage of people's information, facial recognition technology, all of that. It's something I really care about, so I'll just keep looking for that again and again. But thank you, I think that answers my questions.
[01:09:35] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:09:40] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. We've heard twice now testimony with concerns about the 5% set aside for police accountability, and I think we heard on the first one that that would have to be appropriated in the future with no real plan. So I am wondering if there is a plan for that fund and if the 5% could be taken out of the matching funds that are already allocated. Yes. Or if for whatever reason these don't have to have the 5%, in which case we should be transparent about that with the public. Because what I don't want to do is end up in next year's budget needing to meet that piece of the requirement that we hadn't planned for.
[01:10:27] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor—.
[01:10:29] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Do we have an answer?
[01:10:30] Angelita Morillo: That's a question.
[01:10:31] Jamie Dunphy: That's a question, yeah.
[01:10:32] Brian Hughes: Councilor, I'll defer that again to probably the CFO for that.
[01:10:37] Raymond C. Lee: Yeah, we would have to follow up with you, Councilor, 'cause I think it's gonna be—.
[01:10:40] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: But we're being asked to appropriate the funds today.
[01:10:44] Raymond C. Lee: I understand that, Councilor, but we would have to follow up on that specific question as it relates to does this impact the charter as it relates to the police accountability.
[01:10:55] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: All right, but let me ask a specific question. If this does impact that and we need the 5%, can the matching funds that are being used to obtain these grants be used for that 5%, or do the grants require the matching funds to be used for the common program?
[01:11:21] Jamie Dunphy: And as she's walking up, I just want to— Councilor, we are not voting on this today.
[01:11:27] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay, can we get those answers by next week? Yes. Okay, thank you.
[01:11:33] Sheila Craig: Sheila Craig, Grants Management Division. Um, we would not be able to take funds from the matching funds because that is requirement of the grant, that amount. And it's in, um, I think we're utilizing straight time for that matching requirement. So if we were to reduce the amount of match for what we put in our application, our budget, we would have to reduce spending the grant funds by that amount because it's— we have grant funds and we have matching funds. So we would not be able— we'd have to cover those funds with something else if we were to take from those matching funds.
[01:12:08] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. I'd appreciate it if we can get an answer on what the plan is from the administration before we vote on these.
[01:12:14] Jamie Dunphy: Absolutely. Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. We'll work with the administration on that. Councilor Avalos.
[01:12:21] Candace Avalos: Thank you. So I understand the intent behind improving crash investigations and reducing the amount of time roadways are closed after serious collisions. We know that traffic safety is a real concern. We know that especially well in East Portland. Um, but like I said in the last item, I don't believe that increased enforcement automatically means increased safety, and traffic stops can have a very different impact across our communities, especially when we know that Portlanders of color have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted for traffic stops. In the most recent stops data, Black people made up 20% of total stops while accounting for only 5.7% of Portland's population, and 46.3% of those stops happened in East Precinct. So I again want to be careful anytime council is asked to additional resources that expand police traffic enforcement, especially through surveillance. And I want to better understand the use of the drones included in this grant and what safeguards are in place around the data collection and use. Thank you to Councilor Morillo. She already asked some of my questions around that, so I'll skip those. But let's start here with what specifically does expanded patrol-based traffic enforcement mean in practice? Are officers expected to conduct more traffic stops as a result of this grant?
[01:13:44] Brian Hughes: Councilor Avalos, no. This is specifically for equipment and training to use those equipments. Like, for example, the old days, like when I first started, we wrote the thing out by hand and it was in triplicate and you handed the thing. Nowadays they have printers in the cars that I have no idea how to use and would probably end up going through the training so that I could learn myself. Um, but that's what this would be for, is, is training officers on how to mobile print those, those citations, just streamlining the process, making it easier to get them over to the courts, and limiting the stop duration time.
[01:14:21] Candace Avalos: Okay, thank you. We started to get a little bit into this, but let me just ask it again, uh, just because my question is just a little different. But what policies govern the use of the crash investigation drones, including when they may be deployed, what data they're collecting, how long the data is retained, and whether it can be used for purposes beyond crash investigations. That last one is kind of the extra part that I didn't hear.
[01:14:42] Brian Hughes: Yeah, I will find the SOP on our drones and share that with you offline. What I know of it right now is that we have very strict safeguards in place for how the drones are used. They're used in the patrol world under a very specific set of circumstances. They're used in the traffic world in a very, very limited set of circumstances, and that revolves around traffic reconstruction and taking like grid photos of what a deadly crash scene looks like. And as I said before, the retention of that— of those photos is per criminal court guidelines and how long we keep evidence for. There's rules and laws that say how long we have to keep that evidence for. I can share those with you as well.
[01:15:24] Candace Avalos: Thank you, I'd appreciate that. And then, um, For the general fund contribution, I guess, why is it necessary? And also, was that funding already included in PPB's adopted budget, or is this an additional change?
[01:15:38] Brian Hughes: It's my understanding that the 20— it's a $25,000 matching out of the general fund that we have to contribute. I don't know the specifics on the thing, on the, uh, if the money was already there. I don't know how that all works, and we'll have to defer that to CFO Biery.
[01:15:52] Candace Avalos: Thank you. Yes, sorry you get— keep getting asked all these budget questions that I know you don't have all the answers to, but thanks for entertaining those. Um, so as I spoke about, uh, in my opening statement, um, you know, I, I am concerned about, uh, stop data and the clear disparate racial impacts. And so in that same vein, is— how is PPB, or are you tracking demographic and geographic data associated with the expanded traffic enforcement so that council can evaluate whether this expanded enforcement is being conducted equitably? How will we be able to measure that?
[01:16:29] Brian Hughes: Yeah, so this expanded is just on, on, like I said, the equipment, the drones, and the traffic printers in the car. As far as your question and where you were kind of going, I think with the stops and disparate data, that concerns me as well. And we had a pretty robust discussion in CAPS about that on this topic. I think Councilor Kanal had several questions regarding that. And since that time, and based on his line of questioning, I've directed the Bureau to apply for yet another grant to look into the stops data collection. And it's through ODOT. It's a grant that's been around for a while. It's my understanding that no one's applied for it, and it's just for this purpose, is to look into this. And I heard one of the testifiers earlier asking about like the community aspects and involvement. And I've asked that the grant look at that aspect of things as well. We haven't received it yet. Obviously, eventually it will come through here, and maybe we can sit back down and discuss this issue then. But it would be nice to have a look at that and figure out why the data is what it is and why the stops are what they are. And so we've passed the first step in applying for that grant. They've accepted the application, and I'll keep you informed on how that goes.
[01:17:37] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[01:17:38] Candace Avalos: Is that a federal grant?
[01:17:39] Brian Hughes: It's an ODOT grant.
[01:17:40] Candace Avalos: It's an ODOT grant. Okay. Yeah, you know, thanks for clarifying. I guess I have been getting kind of mixed up. I'm trying to understand when we say that we're expanding enforcement, but that the money is for the equipment. I guess I'm just trying to square those 2 things. So do you see how that is a bit confusing? I don't know how to ask a question, but that's what I'm confused about.
[01:18:04] Brian Hughes: No, you're right. It says it right in the grant. It says expand patrol-based traffic enforcement. But then when, when you look down through the details there, it's through streamlining the process and issuing citations and being able to print them more efficiently and, and how they do their work and streamlining that aspect of things. So there isn't anything in the grant that is increasing the amount of officers going out and doing the traffic stops. It's the training that they'll use on how to write the tickets, basically.
[01:18:33] Candace Avalos: Okay, that's helpful to know. Um, I think that's all for now. Thank you.
[01:18:44] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Councilor Knoll.
[01:18:46] Sameer Kanal: Thank you. Um, so first I want to say that, you know, when I did a ride-along last year— and I appreciate you being here to answer these, these questions— when I did a ride-along last year, um, I saw the front end of the data collection system. And it's incredibly confusing, I think, for the officers who have to put it in. It's confusing for me. I'll just say for myself. I don't want to speak for the officers. Because when are you supposed to— it's supposed to capture what an officer knows at the time that they chose to make a stop. But it's not necessarily— that's not necessarily the time when it's filled out. And it's not necessarily possible to go back and know what you used to— or unknow what you now know after you've done the stop.
[01:19:30] Greg Moore: Right.
[01:19:31] Sameer Kanal: If that makes sense. Gone and done it. There's issues on the front end, and so I appreciate that there's a desire to look into how that front end gets done as well. And we focus so much on the back end of this because that's after SSD puts together these reports. That's very helpful and it's very easy to do that. But I want to acknowledge that that front end is not necessarily ideal for creating this. Thank you. Having said that, from what we've seen and what's been discussed, and I want to note that before council ever discussed this, the Portland Committee on Community Engaged Policing has discussed this for many, many years and its predecessors before that. And so we've seen that the sort of data analysis shows that it's effectively— that makes it complicated for looking at individual stops, but not necessarily the aggregate stats. And so I just want to get that out of the way. Getting into this, I voted no on this in committee. Okay. And the simple reason why is that we've had disparity racially in traffic stops and that there's no information in the grant evaluation plan that mentions equity or looking at equity impacts. So I will note that it does say— I hear what you're saying, Chief Hughes, about what it's actually trying to do in terms of mobile printers. I have no problem with mobile printers. Thank you. But it does ask in the evaluation plan, to what extent did citation issuance volume or timeliness change following printer deployment? So the idea is to make things more efficient. And I think that will— that's fair to say that that would increase the amount of it happening. There's the drone issue as well. And I know Councilor Ryan in the previous item mentioned the vote on traffic safety and all that. I actually was presenting at that time in my old job. Oh, really? That same day I was sitting in the back of the room when, uh, the conversation happened around drones and how they'd be used. And it was this overhead view. We also know that they've been used to, to find heat maps that showed, uh, someone was doing donuts in, um, an area following a crash. And originally it was kind of portrayed as this is only well after the fact. So I, I've, I had some questions about that then. This was 2023. Yes. It came up and the case was a little after that. So I've had some questions about the drone usage for a while, and I appreciate Councilor Murillo bringing that up too. So as it relates to this particular grant, going back to what I said before, this isn't just about do we want money. Obviously we want money. It's when you accept this money, you're using it to do a specific thing. And so we also have to have the conversation about how do we do the thing? Do we want to do the thing? Thank you. That the money would be used for. So I, my concern was about the equity impacts of that because just to do it, and I'll be more specific, traffic stops, not overall stops, have gone from about 8% of the people stopped were Black in 2012, and that's increased with a little bit of variation all the way up to 15.4% last year of people stopped who—.
[01:22:35] Brian Hughes: Yes.
[01:22:37] Sameer Kanal: In Portland, traffic stops of Black drivers. And the percentage of Portlanders that are Black has remained around just below 6% throughout that based on census data. And part of the concern around that and how it's measured is that PPB in the data report uses a benchmark that is not population-based. It's injury collision benchmark. And there's a lot of information that's been on this. Yeah. But this doesn't explain the size of the disparity nor the trend. And I wanted to just mention that again. So my concern is about— first concern is about the drones. The second concern is about continuing to ramp up this work as it is not yet resolved from the inequities perspective. And then there's the third question which was raised in testimony about whether or not we're following the 5% rule. By the way, the 5% rule, We have to follow it. I don't think it's going to be hard to follow it. I think it's just something we have to get done if we want to do these grants. And again, I want to vote yes on the first one. I don't want to vote yes on this one. I opposed it in committee and I'll probably oppose it again here. And I also want to note that this information may seem separate from the conversation we're having, but I'm going to quote Chief Day in a letter on January 23rd, 2025 to the Portland Committee on Community Engaged Policing. Said that the PPB encourages collaborators to use the annual stops report and state reports to inform discussion, to develop actionable strategies for improving equitable policing practices beyond the scope of data collection and analysis techniques. I think he meant the current ones in effect then. So I appreciate that those are evolving now, and I just want to make sure that that is a process that is resolved before we're increasing this. And I appreciate the things that were brought up by other colleagues as well, but those are sort of my, my 3 things that I've been focusing on. Thank you. On in this particular grant application and consideration. Thanks.
[01:24:37] Candace Avalos: Thank you, Councilor.
[01:24:38] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Councilor Ryan.
[01:24:40] Dan Ryan: Thank you, Council President. It's been mentioned, and I'm not disputing the data about the disparity when it comes to the general population of our area and the amount of arrests. I will need to say this because I've done numerous ride-alongs. I do most of them at night. And I have found myself eating crow 'cause I say all those, that same data. And I can't tell what the person looks like when I'm in my ride-along from behind until after they're pulled over. So I hope that we could maybe, do we have data that says it was daytime or nighttime? Do we have that granular data?
[01:25:23] Brian Hughes: Yes.
[01:25:24] Dan Ryan: In the reports?
[01:25:25] Brian Hughes: Yes, I believe the data can show that. I don't know if the stops data actually shows that or not.
[01:25:29] Dan Ryan: I think it's important to crosswalk that 'cause I think that with all data, you've gotta go underneath the— you gotta go deeper to really get the knowledge that's necessary. And so anyway, that's my lived experience. I've done 4 of these at night and every time I do them, I'm humbled by the fact that I cannot tell. But I realized they're pulling someone over just because they, they broke the law. So they're weaving in the road and it looks like they need to have a conversation so, so they're— so no one is hurt. Um, anyway, I always think it's important to tell those real lived experiences.
[01:26:04] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[01:26:05] Brian Hughes: I'm surprised to hear that. I thought everybody knew at, like, at night that you can't see really who's driving the car. I mean, I've worked nights for many years and, and that's just— I thought that was common sense.
[01:26:15] Dan Ryan: Yeah, I think everyone knows that when they take a pause and they actually are in the conversation. Right. But yeah, the times that I do these at night when it's raining, it's like I can't tell. Thanks.
[01:26:27] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor Knoll, back in the queue.
[01:26:30] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, so there's a concept called the veil of darkness that I think is worth bringing up here. And it has to do with the, if there's a disparity in the rates of stops, by racial category of drivers during the day versus at night. And in fact, the quote that I gave earlier from Chief Day was in his response to a recommendation from PCAP recommending veil of darkness analysis. And he noted in his response that PPB doesn't do it directly, but the state does it for PPB data. So that's important to note. I've also done ride-alongs at night. I want to step back for a second and say racial disparity in the aggregate stops data does not necessarily mean anything about individual police officers, right? There are systemic reasons in terms of where people are deployed that affects who's going to get stopped, right? That doesn't necessarily mean that an individual officer is making a choice based on what they see. But that does also mean that systemic problems— and I would argue that it is a systemic problem— That there is a massive disparity that is about double the rate here, that those systemic problems require systemic solutions, as opposed to looking at this individual stop. What are the big picture things here? And veil of darkness is one option for that, but as the chief, I think, accurately pointed out, the state does it already. And so I think I'm using this less to talk about that concept and more about the idea that this isn't necessarily about individual people making prejudiced decisions. I want to just make sure that that's not an accusation that people are taking away from this or inferring from what I'm saying, but that there is this statistical thing, that this is measured. And I think that when we have the conversation about why and what are we comparing it to, that PPB has for many years now said don't compare it to the population data, meaning the census metrics of what percentage of the population is of the same racial category, but compared instead to the injury collision data. And that basically has a circular impact because we collect more data at places where police are after collisions. That's just how that goes. And there's a lot of other analysis that's been done and reasons why that—. Yeah. May not be the best metric to use. I appreciate, by the way, I don't, I don't want to just, um, pile on here. The non-traffic stops, the FIT stops, had a different, uh, metric that was used. And in 2025 and 2026, PPB changed the benchmark. Um, and I think it was in response to a lot of the, the, the critique and, and feedback that was given for that. And I just wanted to, to note that, commend that, and say effectively, the ask is the same for this category, and I— and we need to pursue that as we go forward. I did want to just circle back briefly to the question about the 5%. I appreciate Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's question. I think it's a very good question. I think that we may need to follow up about sources of what is ultimately a fairly negligible amount of money. We're talking up to $15,000 here. My back-of-envelope math—. $15,000. Um, from the budget book says that we're about $4,500 over the bare minimum in OCPA right now. And in order to accept the first grant, we need to accept— we need to increase by about $10,000, meaning the gap's about $5,800. Um, in the event we take the second grant, should that pass, that's another $5,000-something, uh, dollars. I, I $5,000. I don't remember. I have too many tabs open trying to do the math here. But, um, so it's a small amount of money, but that, that we would need to do something. So I just wanted to get that on the record. That's if the budget book is, is correct. I do have a concern about the idea. I, I, I want to not go down a path of figuring out how we don't need to comply with it and instead figure out how to find $5,000 because it doesn't seem like that'll be that hard to do. Um, And not that anyone suggested that, but just because there was kind of between some of the questions, I wanted to get that on the record as well. Thank you, Council President.
[01:30:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Seeing no one else in the queue, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance and now passes to second reading. Colleagues, the time is now 7:27. We're about halfway done with our agenda and we only have one item left, so we're going to go ahead and take a 10-minute break. So everybody please be back here at— I'm going to give you 12 minutes. I'd like everybody back here at 7:40, please.
[01:31:10] Angelita Morillo: Yes.
[01:48:27] Sameer Kanal: This is Councilor Smith.
[01:48:28] Candace Avalos: I can't hear the council chambers.
[01:49:22] Loretta Smith: Can you hear me, Keelan?
[01:49:33] Sameer Kanal: Yes.
[01:49:59] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you all for that. I'm calling us back to order. Uh, before we move to item 16, Councilor Smith.
[01:50:07] Loretta Smith: Yes, I'd like to see, Council President, because I had an approved absence, if we can reconsider the franchise transfer Point of order.
[01:50:17] Mitch Green: Uh, in Robert's Rules, you can only motion to reconsider after all the other business has been heard.
[01:50:23] Jamie Dunphy: Like, after the, the full agenda has been heard. I didn't know that that's true, but okay. I think that's true. Do we have a—.
[01:50:33] Sameer Kanal: Can we hear from legal counsel?
[01:50:35] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Yeah.
[01:50:38] Rebecca Dobert: I believe it can be made at any time just before the close of today's session. But I also see City Attorney Robert Taylor here to correct me if I'm wrong.
[01:50:48] Raymond C. Lee: Yeah, thanks.
[01:50:49] Robert Taylor: Hey, Robert Taylor, City Attorney. I think I, I'd have to look, but I think the motion to reconsider is in order when other— when there's not other pending business before the body. So typically you would make it— you often— it is made right after the item fails.
[01:51:05] Mitch Green: So pending business is just before It's in that sort of interstitial period?
[01:51:10] Robert Taylor: Yeah, while you're not in consideration of another pending item.
[01:51:13] Sameer Kanal: Okay, thanks for clarifying.
[01:51:14] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. So Councilor Smith has motioned to reconsider. Councilor Knoll?
[01:51:21] Sameer Kanal: My understanding is that reconsideration can only be proposed by a member who voted with the prevailing side.
[01:51:27] Jamie Dunphy: My understanding is an absence counts as a no as a prevailing side under our, our code, though.
[01:51:31] Sameer Kanal: I think that's only for purposes of tie-breaking if there's 6 votes in favor. This is fun. I'll pull up the code. Uh, it is fun.
[01:51:44] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Uh,.
[01:51:46] Robert Taylor: That is a new one for sure. Um, I think this would be, uh, issue that the chair could rule on and whether Councilor Smith's motion to reconsider would be in order and whether the presiding officer believes that the—.
[01:52:06] Sameer Kanal: I'll really quickly just read the piece here. So this is Code 3.02.030, Section J, tiebreaking vote by mayor. And it specifically says, in determining if a vote is a tie, absences, abstentions, and vacancies will be counted as no votes.
[01:52:27] Loretta Smith: This would have nothing to do with the mayor. I wanted to vote.
[01:52:31] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I hate to wade into this, but it seems to me, and I don't have it up in front of me, that if that's specifically in the section about the mayor breaking a tie and it calls it out, that doesn't necessarily, without reading the context of the rest of the section, mean that it would not be considered a tie in another instance, or considered a no vote, I guess I would say, in another instance? Have you read the totality of the section to understand how that fits in context? Because I don't think we can take that one unrelated piece.
[01:53:12] Sameer Kanal: I was reading that you're right that it doesn't necessarily preclude that an absence would be considered a no vote in another or broader context. That's correct. I was responding to Council President's point about Um, about the— in the context of the tiebreak was what we're talking about here. In terms of absence, it doesn't really come up except in the code, except as it relates to the, the absence of the president and the sort of vice president presiding. In that case, that's the only place that the word absence appears other than the tiebreaking, uh, there. But my understanding from reconsideration is that the prevailing side okay, the key, um, in the interest—.
[01:53:54] Loretta Smith: Be on the prevailing side because I was with the 6.
[01:53:59] Angelita Morillo: You weren't here.
[01:54:02] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Smith, I am going to, uh, uh, rule against your motion. However, I will motion to reconsider the vote myself.
[01:54:13] Robert Taylor: Um, any member, any member can second that.
[01:54:16] Loretta Smith: Second it.
[01:54:17] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. I, I feel there's still a lot of room On this item to move forward if there's a reasonable effort made to find an enforcement and a disclosure provision as a condition of approval that the parties and the city attorney finds acceptable. It, uh, it— I therefore would move to reconsider this item and postpone it to a future meeting next week or the following so that the appropriate work can be done to amend this transfer agreement, a condition be adopted, and we can move the item swiftly to a vote. So, uh, I have moved. I believe Councilor Smith has seconded. Is this a debatable motion?
[01:54:53] Melanie Cambron: The motion to reconsider is debatable.
[01:54:55] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, the motion to reconsider has been first and seconded.
[01:54:59] Candace Avalos: Point of information.
[01:55:00] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Avalos.
[01:55:01] Candace Avalos: So this, you can, in the motion to reconsider, attach the condition which you're adding, which is like that we will do it at a time certain. And so can you help me understand that?
[01:55:13] Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, is my— The motion to reconsider is itself a sole action. I'm saying in context right now for the purposes of the public and my colleagues that I believe that there is a path forward on this if there's additional work on it. And so as council president, if we open this and reconsider this, my next immediate motion will be to postpone the vote on this for a future meeting. Well, so technically it's 2 separate actions.
[01:55:36] Loretta Smith: I would ask for a vote before you do all that.
[01:55:40] Candace Avalos: So it has to be 2 separate actions?
[01:55:41] Jamie Dunphy: It would be 2 separate actions, yes.
[01:55:43] Candace Avalos: So right now the first vote is just to reconsider. And then when it's reconsidered, then what? It just gets placed back on the agenda kind of thing?
[01:55:50] Jeremy Bosole-Smith: Yes.
[01:55:50] Jamie Dunphy: Like a month? And then I will— yes.
[01:55:51] Candace Avalos: And then after that, you're hoping to make another motion to move it to a time certain?
[01:55:55] Unidentified speaker: Correct.
[01:55:57] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[01:55:57] Sameer Kanal: Did you say what the time certain was already?
[01:55:59] Jamie Dunphy: I am simply saying to postpone this item to a future meeting date.
[01:56:02] Loretta Smith: Okay. So let's do the reconsideration first.
[01:56:05] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor— Councilor, the motion to reconsider is a debatable motion, and Councilor—. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor. All right, colleagues to the queue. Councilor Kanal to the motion.
[01:56:20] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, um, Council President, I would ask you to consider that should the motion to reconsider pass, at that point the vote could immediately be retaken, go 6-6, and the mayor would break the tie because there is no requirement that you— you can't combine the 2 things as Councilor Avalos just asked. There is no guarantee that should this motion pass, that it will not immediately be voted on and go to the mayor's tiebreak, which we know how that will go.
[01:56:51] Jamie Dunphy: Well, I'm the only one who can call a vote.
[01:56:54] Sameer Kanal: Okay, uh, I would suggest that it might be better to wait until the condition that you are seeking is proposed before taking the vote to reconsider at all. And that, that's all I'll say on that.
[01:57:10] Jamie Dunphy: I actually— if I— yes, heard. Thank you, Councilor.
[01:57:16] Robert Taylor: The, the motion to reconsider needs to be made before the adjournment of the meeting.
[01:57:25] Sameer Kanal: Point of request for information. Um, you could still rescind it though, right? Even if I— like, reconsider is in the same meeting, but you could make a motion to rescind instead. In a later meeting, right?
[01:57:38] Robert Taylor: Uh, you can make a motion to rescind an action. Yeah, you could do that.
[01:57:44] Jamie Dunphy: Okay.
[01:57:44] Robert Taylor: But under, under our rules, the motion to reconsider must be made before the adjournment of the meeting. So I think that's what kind of drives that, the urgency of this pending motion to reconsider.
[01:57:57] Sameer Kanal: But hypothetically, you could reopen— we could reopen the item in a future meeting with a different motion. Is that correct?
[01:58:04] Robert Taylor: Uh, no, I don't think you could re— you could reopen it. So if, if the meeting adjourns without adopting the motion to reconsider, then the item is beyond the reach of a motion to reconsider, and it would, uh, it would fail. And, and also, just, just so everybody knows, if the motion to reconsider fails to pass, Then, um, the item is, uh, procedurally, uh, deceased because you can only make the motion to reconsider once.
[01:58:39] Sameer Kanal: So, so just to— He said that if the motion to reconsider were to fail, then the item is procedurally dead. Um, is there any other motion that a councilor could use in a future meeting after this one has been adjourned to reopen this particular topic? Is there any way to reopen the topic in a week, hypothetically?
[01:59:08] Robert Taylor: If this item fails today and there's no motion to reconsider to keep it going, then there would not be a motion that you could make, no.
[01:59:21] Sameer Kanal: And what if the motion to reconsider was withdrawn without being voted on? Could then a councilor reopen it in a week if the motion to reconsider had never kept?
[01:59:32] Unidentified speaker: No. Okay, thank you.
[01:59:39] Jamie Dunphy: Is that Councilor Kanal?
[01:59:40] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I'm good.
[01:59:40] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Murillo.
[01:59:46] Angelita Morillo: I think everybody knows what we want today, and we could just get it done today if the amendment goes through. I'd happily vote for this and get us to a 7-5 vote if you wanted. If we could get the amendment through today, we can be done, and then the public can have more recourse and, uh, the franchise transfer can pass. So that is on the table as we continue this discussion.
[02:00:12] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Murillo. Councilor Ryan.
[02:00:15] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, thank you, Council President.
[02:00:16] Jamie Dunphy: I, I appreciate all the dialogue here, and, um, Councilor Kanal and your, um, Rules, Robert's Rules of Order.
[02:00:23] Sameer Kanal: Um, in that book, does it say that the, the mayor can break a tie on the vote of reconsideration?
[02:00:31] Steve Novick: No.
[02:00:33] Sameer Kanal: He cannot?
[02:00:34] Robert Taylor: No.
[02:00:34] Jamie Dunphy: Just need 7 for motion to reconsider, but it is not a final motion, and so the mayor can only vote on final motions.
[02:00:40] Melanie Cambron: People are the 5th arm of the government. We should be breaking the tie.
[02:00:45] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Uh, Councilor Green.
[02:00:52] Mitch Green: I'm glad you're still sitting up there, uh, Mr. Taylor. Um, my reading of Robert's Rules of Order says that the motion to reconsider must be made before the meeting is adjourned. So if the meeting was just not adjourned, like if we did our last scheduled piece of business and then continued it, Continue the meeting to next week, then a motion to reconsider could be made at that time. And then that would give everyone some time to figure out what we need to do to get this to pass. Is that, is that consistent with your interpretation, Robert?
[02:01:31] Robert Taylor: No.
[02:01:32] Mitch Green: I didn't ask, I didn't ask Councilor Smith. I asked, I asked Robert.
[02:01:36] Robert Taylor: Well, I think you could recess the meeting right to a different day, and then we'd still be in the same meeting. And then as long as the motion to reconsider was heard and voted on before you adjourned the meeting, you could do that.
[02:01:51] Luis Leon: Yeah.
[02:01:51] Mitch Green: Okay, that's basically the same idea I think maybe you had in spirit, because you were like, I'll do the thing and then I'll immediately schedule it to, um, uh, a time certain, as it were. Um, but this would then make it so some shenanigans couldn't be pulled real quick and preclude the opportunity to actually have that amendment be considered. So that's what I would consider. We're obviously in consideration of a different proposal, but I'm just laying that on the floor.
[02:02:24] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, I'm going to go ahead and withdraw the motion.
[02:02:29] Loretta Smith: Mr. President, point of order. I would like to put it— I would like to reconsider it.
[02:02:35] Benjamin Gilbert: Can't?
[02:02:36] Sameer Kanal: You didn't vote yes?
[02:02:37] Jamie Dunphy: We have, we have ruled— the ruling of the chair was that you are unable to make that motion. Okay.
[02:02:46] Unidentified speaker: Why?
[02:02:46] Loretta Smith: Could you explain to me why?
[02:02:49] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, I am unclear under Robert's Rules whether I, I believe the interpretation that, uh, an absent is not necessarily a no vote. And with the—.
[02:03:00] Robert Taylor: Robert said it was.
[02:03:02] Jamie Dunphy: I, I have made a motion. I have made a ruling. Okay, can we please call item number 16?
[02:03:07] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Point of order.
[02:03:07] Loretta Smith: I need to talk to Robert. Robert needs to make—.
[02:03:10] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor, you've not been recognized. I apologize. Thank you.
[02:03:12] Loretta Smith: I'm sorry. Point of order.
[02:03:14] Jamie Dunphy: I'm not recognizing it. Sorry. Thank you. Can we please call item number 16?
[02:03:18] Loretta Smith: Point of order again.
[02:03:21] Jamie Dunphy: No, no, ma'am.
[02:03:23] Loretta Smith: Robert, legal counsel.
[02:03:27] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Smith, you're out of order.
[02:03:30] Loretta Smith: Sorry, sorry, sorry, Mr. President. I'm trying to get some understanding of what's going on.
[02:03:33] Jamie Dunphy: I understand, and I have made a ruling, and you are— we are moving forward. What was your ruling? My ruling is that you are unable to make that motion. Thank you.
[02:03:41] Loretta Smith: I can't make a reconsideration because of what? Then that's why I'm asking, can legal counsel tell me that?
[02:03:47] Robert Taylor: I'd, uh, I'd be, I'd be happy to, to explain this.
[02:03:51] Sameer Kanal: Sure, Robert.
[02:03:52] Robert Taylor: So under, under our rules, the rules of council, It requires for you to make a motion to reconsider, you have to have voted on the prevailing side. Also, also under our rules, it says if you're absent, it will count as a no vote, and that is under the section talking about the mayor breaking a tie. So there's a question under those rules. You could read those one of two ways. To either allow an absent member to be treated as a no vote for the purposes of making a motion to reconsider, or you could read it to say you were absent, you didn't vote at all, so you weren't on the prevailing side. So that's the—.
[02:04:41] Loretta Smith: That's, that's the prevailing side, Robert.
[02:04:45] Robert Taylor: Um, in, in that instance, I don't know that it, it did because there were It was 6-5. There were 6 no votes. So if you had been here to vote yes, it would've been 6-6. So the point I am trying to make is under our rules, there's 2 different ways to read those sections. And when that happens and there's an issue of interpretation, the president makes a ruling about how the president interprets it. He has made his ruling to say that he does not believe an absent member can make a motion to reconsider since they were not present to vote. That's the ruling of the chair. That ruling can be appealed, uh, if, if—.
[02:05:32] Loretta Smith: Can I appeal it?
[02:05:34] Robert Taylor: If, if 3 members— if, if you and 2 others wish to appeal, um, then that ruling can be appealed to a vote of the body.
[02:05:42] Loretta Smith: I would like to appeal it.
[02:05:45] Robert Taylor: Are there 2 other members that would join that appeal?
[02:05:50] Loretta Smith: Yes.
[02:05:52] Jamie Dunphy: All right, looks like I have 3 members who have appealed the ruling of the chair. Uh, this moves— this is non-debatable, right? This goes directly to a vote of whether the—.
[02:06:03] Robert Taylor: It, it is. Uh, you can explain the rationale for your decision and answer any questions, otherwise it's not thank you.
[02:06:11] Jamie Dunphy: My rationale for the motion is, as the, uh, city attorney has explained, I am interpreting our rules to read that an absent vote is not a no vote, and therefore Councilor Smith is ineligible.
[02:06:24] Robert Taylor: So the— and then the question on the appeal is, should the presiding officer's ruling stand as the ruling of the chair? A yes vote upholds the presiding officer. A no vote, um, goes against the ruling of the presiding officer. And, um, in the case of a tie, the, the ruling of the presiding officer stands.
[02:06:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Can we please call the roll?
[02:06:54] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane.
[02:06:55] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[02:06:58] Keelan McClymont: Murillo.
[02:06:59] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[02:06:59] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[02:07:00] Steve Novick: No.
[02:07:05] Eric Zimmerman: No.
[02:07:12] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:07:19] Keelan McClymont: The ruling of the chair stands.
[02:07:24] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[02:07:25] Eric Zimmerman: Mr. President, I have a point of order.
[02:07:26] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Zimmerman.
[02:07:27] Eric Zimmerman: Thank you for that. You did make a motion just on the basic of reconsideration. It was seconded. Generally in this body, we have looked to the second before anything gets moved on or changed when it's being withdrawn. That hasn't happened. So I would consider that that's still open. I think that your discussion at the beginning of that about another week for the amendment discussion seemed calm and present and was the right action. And since it hasn't actually, I don't think, been closed, I would encourage you to take action on that original piece, uh, because it was actually never closed.
[02:08:14] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I—.
[02:08:14] Jamie Dunphy: It is— I will preview for my colleagues. I would like to get to item 16, and it is my intention to, uh, Make a motion to this after the conclusion of item 16, before the conclusion of our meeting today. I'd like to make sure we get to people who are testifying here on item 16, and I will not adjourn us until we have made further conversation on this.
[02:08:33] Benjamin Gilbert: Sorry, you're saying you're going to take a—.
[02:08:34] Candace Avalos: Make a motion on—.
[02:08:35] Jamie Dunphy: I'd like— yeah, I want to— at the end of the— before we adjourn tonight, there will be an additional motion.
[02:08:41] Candace Avalos: And what is your response to the—.
[02:08:42] Michael Mintz: Like, who—.
[02:08:43] Candace Avalos: I don't remember who the seconder was.
[02:08:44] Loretta Smith: And you're right, it was Loretta.
[02:08:46] Jamie Dunphy: I'll just second. And so Councilor Smith does not agree to withdraw. Where do we go from there?
[02:08:55] Robert Taylor: I mean, as a courtesy, we— the mover asks the second if it's okay, but it's not required, and the maker of the motion can withdraw it at any time before the vote.
[02:09:06] Jamie Dunphy: The chair rules that the motion has been withdrawn, and can we please call item 16?
[02:09:14] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-299 urged the city administrator to refrain from signing data center nondisclosure agreements, notify city council of inquiries for data center deals, and engage in transparent public processes related to data centers.
[02:09:31] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, this is a resolution. Claire Adamsick with committee staff is here with a committee staff summary report. Thank you, Claire.
[02:09:39] Unidentified speaker: Thank you, Council President and councilors. Again, for the record, uh, last time tonight, Claire Adams, a council policy analyst and staff to the Housing and Permitting Committee. The resolution before you, document number 2026-299, was heard in the Housing and Permitting Committee on September 1st, where it was referred to full council as amended with the recommendation it be adopted. The resolution urges the city administrator and city leadership to refrain from signing any nondisclosure agreements related to the siting permitting or development of data centers within the city. City of Portland officials are encouraged to engage in transparent public processes for all decisions related to data centers. The resolution requests that the city administrator notify the council of any permit application or request for early assistance for a data center with a current or projected power draw of 20 megawatts or greater. The committee provide— sorry, the committee approved an amendment to the resolution at its meeting on September 1st. The amendment added a directive clarifying the council's intent to pursue a moratorium or zoning restrictions on hyperscale data centers and consider additional approaches for large load data centers. The full impact statement on this item includes information on community impacts and community involvement. 12 people provided verbal testimony at the committee meeting on September 1st, and 43 people submitted written testimony prior to committee action. The general themes of this testimony included emphasis on transparency and public notification of decision-making by limiting or prohibiting nondisclosure agreements. Recommended disclosure requirements for data center applications, including financing and tax abatements, anticipated natural resource use and environmental impacts, and local jobs involved in the development or operation of a data center. Impacts of hyperscale or large-load facilities on water and electricity consumption, and concern that increased utility costs may be passed on to ratepayers. Long-term health impacts of data centers on the communities where they are located, including respiratory diseases and potential adverse impacts of poor water quality or noise pollution. And finally, support for a moratorium or stricter regulation of new large-load or hyperscale data centers, specifically those supporting AI expansion. And that concludes the committee staff summary.
[02:11:44] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you.
[02:11:45] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Councilor Avalos, this came out of your committee. Uh, before we turn to sponsor remarks, any committee chair remarks?
[02:11:51] Steph Ralph: Yes.
[02:11:52] Candace Avalos: The Housing and Permitting Committee heard this resolution at September— our September 1st meeting. The committee discussed the resolution and asked a number of technical and implementation questions, including how the proposed notification process would work, the role of nondisclosure agreements in early conversations with potential data center developers, and what this resolution would and would not change about the city's existing authority. During the discussion, I also asked to be added as a co-sponsor of the resolution. So thank you to Councilor Koyama Lane for accepting that invite. And following that conversation, The committee voted to refer the resolution as amended to full council with a recommendation it be adopted. It passed 4-0 with one councilor being absent. And I appreciate the sponsors bringing this forward and the committee's thoughtful discussion. That's all.
[02:12:36] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. And sponsors, I'm gonna go in the order that they're listed on here, but I wanna turn to each of you. So starting with Councilor Koyama Lane.
[02:12:44] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you, Council President, for the time on this agenda. And also thank you for all the work you do leading our council. It's not easy. I see how hard you're working, and I know you never wanted that job.
[02:12:56] Edith Gillis: True.
[02:12:57] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Okay, so I'm very proud to bring forward this data center NDA resolution. I'm thankful that we have the space to talk about how this affects us here in Portland. Oregon has one of the nation's largest data center industries, partly due to the beneficial tax structure. My housing and permitting colleague, Councilor Green, Joined as a co-sponsor before this came to committee. Really appreciate that. When this item was discussed at committee, thank you, Chair. I did invite any and all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this resolution, and I got overwhelming excitement, so much excitement that our city attorney needed to remind me that before a public hearing, there should not be more than—.
[02:13:44] Robert Taylor: 30.
[02:13:45] Tiffany Koyama Lane: 6 Members signed on. But at a public hearing, which we're doing right now, it is okay to ask if others want to sign on and support this. So Clerk, I'm wondering if— I'd like to repeat my invitation right now to my colleagues that would like to co-sponsor this item. Keelan has confirmed that if you just give her a thumbs up right now or unmute yourself, Councilor Smith, you may be added as a co-sponsor.
[02:14:09] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you.
[02:14:10] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Okay, Councilor Clark. All right, it's gonna be all of us here. Just put us on the consent agenda. I think everyone.
[02:14:17] Jamie Dunphy: Everything on it?
[02:14:17] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Let's do it.
[02:14:18] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Uh, Councilor Murillo?
[02:14:19] Angelita Morillo: Yeah.
[02:14:20] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Do a thumbs up. Okay. Councilor Smith, did you— would you like to be added officially as a co-sponsor?
[02:14:25] Candace Avalos: Yes.
[02:14:26] Loretta Smith: Is this a first reading or something?
[02:14:28] Jamie Dunphy: It's a resolution.
[02:14:28] Tiffany Koyama Lane: It's a resolution.
[02:14:29] Leslie Koken: So we—.
[02:14:29] Loretta Smith: Oh, it's a resolution.
[02:14:30] Candace Avalos: Okay.
[02:14:30] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Yes.
[02:14:31] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[02:14:32] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Okay. So yes, everyone. All right, I want to start somewhere concrete. I've heard people wonder are data centers an issue that you need to talk about in Portland? The answer is yes. Through a lot of research and information from our staff at the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, we've clarified that there are at least 10 locations in Portland city limits that could accommodate a hyperscale data center. I'll pass around this map. It's—. One side is zoomed in. It's also online as an exhibit. And you'll see that it includes locations in all of our districts. Hayden Island near OHSU, South Water—.
[02:15:07] Unidentified speaker: I'm sorry.
[02:15:08] Tiffany Koyama Lane: The South Waterfront, both sides of the Willamette River. Look for the black and yellow outlined areas. And since we passed this through the Housing and Permitting Committee only 2 weeks ago, the Oregonian broke a story on an early assistance application that's been filed with the city for a Silicon Valley tech company to convert 5 floors of a downtown office building into a data center space. So yes, it's a very relevant, very real issue. And we know that there are many national, regional, and local conversations about the harm that data centers can cause. Thank you. They draw heavily on the resources that our kids and grandkids will still need decades after any company's lease is up. Air, water, land. They come with real environmental and health consequences. We could spend the whole meeting on that alone, but this resolution is very clear in that it urges the city administrator to refrain from signing any nondisclosure agreements, NDAs, related to supporting, permitting, or allowing data centers. And it also requests that the city administrator notify council if the city receives a request for early assistance or another preliminary meeting or permit application from an outside party related to data centers, specifically with the power draw of 20 megawatts or more. We can talk more about that if you'd like later. So this resolution at its core is about responsible good governance, protecting how decisions get made in our city. It's about transparency, and it's also about building and keeping Public trust. Secrecy erodes public trust, and it's especially dangerous to have secrecy around an industry that touches our drinking water, our electric grid, and the air that we are breathing right now. So this step costs the city nothing, $0. But what it gets us is the ability to look Portlanders, look folks in the eye, people who are here, and tell them that nothing is happening behind closed doors while we're figuring out what the right next steps are. This resolution is a first step, and it's an immediate step. Thank you. That we can take today. And I wanna believe that it pairs well with possible next important steps of a moratorium on hyperscale data centers or an outright ban, which is something that I am looking to pursue. So the Koyama Lane Green 1 Amendment passed unanimously in committee, which adds a be it further resolved clause that states city council intends to pursue moratorium or zoning restrictions on all hyperscale data centers at the earliest time to consider additional approaches for large load data centers. I hope our council will pass this swiftly. I'm almost done. I wanna thank all the numerous co-sponsors of this resolution, all my colleagues. I also wanna make sure credit lands where it's earned. Thank you to AI Now Institute, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, and Oregon Data Center Defiance Coalition for providing resources and technical support. Thank you to the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, Portland Permitting and Development, DCA Oliveira, and Christina—. Guevara. Thank you for your months of research, code review, and groundwork that made responsible policy on this issue possible. Thank you, Claire Adamsick in Council Operations. You're awesome. I appreciate how you supported my team and worked with the city and with local and state partners. And to my own team, in particular, Alan, whoop whoop, and Aubrey, whoop whoop, and Sabatino. He is my office's wonderful summer intern who came to us through the Summer Works Program, and he has since headed back to but Sab, I think you're watching. Thank you for the work you put into this. And that's it for now, Council President. Thank you.
[02:18:31] Unidentified speaker: Thank you, Councilor.
[02:18:32] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Uh, colleagues, I'm going to make sure we each get a chance to give some introductions, but I will also note there are 22 people signed up to testify and it is 8:15. Councilor, we're going to go Green, Kanal, Pirtle-Guiney, Zimmerman.
[02:18:46] Mitch Green: I'm going to keep it relatively brief. I'm just going to say thank you for your leadership, Councilor Koyama Lane. Um, thank you for extending this invite to the extent that the law allows at every step of the way. I was grateful to be an early partner in this with you. I think for me, like, does this do everything? No, it's a first step. It's a resolution. It's a declaration of council's will. I think we should go broader on NDAs and think about banning them more broadly. But we also have an— we have a sort of obligation to act swiftly as the public is raising matters of great interest and urgency. And this is one of those. And so this is a nimble way to do that and to sort of declare that, hey, you know, all these anxieties that we have about the AI industry and data centers, like just like our inflation is being driven by 2 things, speculative bubble in AI and a war overseas. And those are the 2 things. That's why we can't get normal interest rates. You can't get a graphics card if you're a gamer. You can't be a gamer anymore because of AI. And so at a minimum, we just want to know that our government's not colluding behind the scenes making all that possible, right? And so, so this is a great step forward and I'm really proud to be part of it. And I'm really glad we amended it to add the intention that we do want to pursue a moratorium and take up some zoning restrictions on this because we need to be proactive. So thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you for all of you who just, who keep this up day after day. You're in the people's house.
[02:20:23] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Knoll.
[02:20:25] Sameer Kanal: I'll reserve my comments for after the testimony, but just say thank you to Councilor Koyama Lane for your leadership on this and to all the other co-sponsors.
[02:20:32] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[02:20:34] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I will also save my comments until after public testimony.
[02:20:37] Loretta Smith: Good.
[02:20:38] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Zimmerman.
[02:20:39] Eric Zimmerman: I'm going to hold up this map. That Councilor Koyama Lane made, because a few of us represent the reddest of the red area here. And, uh, I'm— when I talk about revitalizing a downtown, it's not a bunch of currently vacant office buildings filled with nothing but data centers in the future. So thank you, Councilor, for your leadership.
[02:21:00] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Keelan, can we please get to— oh, I'm sorry, Councilor Avalos, you're not—.
[02:21:05] Eric Zimmerman: I didn't realize—.
[02:21:06] Jamie Dunphy: I'm so sorry, I deeply I apologize.
[02:21:10] Candace Avalos: Just kidding. Well, I'll keep it short. I don't want to take up too much more time. I think my colleagues have already shared, uh, why this is important. And, uh, grateful to Councilor Koyama Lane and Green for spearheading this, uh, particularly Koyama Lane and Sabatino. Got to throw a shout out to him. What a great human. Um, and ultimately, I just want to say that East Portlanders really feel the effects of the way that data data centers can negatively impact utility costs and neighborhoods, noise levels. I was knocking on doors in Sumner and they were telling me about a weird smell that they have. And this is something we dealt with in— at Verde in Cully, where there are just these different industries that are emitting lots of smells that are chemicals. And East Portland is already facing the brunt of that. And so it's super important that we add transparency and accountability and ensure that we are not doing, making decisions about data centers behind closed doors. And so let's get this done. And also let's keep going for a moratorium and greater data center protections and oversight. This is just the first step.
[02:22:14] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[02:22:15] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Did I miss anybody else? 'Cause screw that up. Now, Keelan, can we jump into testimony please?
[02:22:23] Keelan McClymont: We have 22 people signed up tonight. I will call testifiers up in groups of 5. Each individual will have 2 minutes. For those testifying in person, you will see the timer countdown displayed on the monitor in front of the testimony table. For those testifying virtually, the timer is displayed in Zoom. You will hear the timer sound twice, once when there are 30 seconds left, then a second time when your time is up. Before you begin your testimony, please state your name for the record. Our first panel includes Anne Casper, Morgan Glenn, Jamie Bradley Kissel, Jimmy Campbell, Simon Dudley.
[02:23:07] Jamie Dunphy: Come on down, folks, and whoever gets down here first gets to go first.
[02:23:14] Morgan Glenn: My name is Morgan Glenn, and I am a resident of District 2. I'm coming here tonight to urge you to ban the practice of signing NDAs with data center developers. In Salem, I witnessed the result after the city attorney signed an NDA with Verus without the knowledge of the city council. And by the time that the public and the rest of the council found out, it was already becoming too late to stop this construction. This is happening all over the country in states like Virginia, Arizona, Louisiana, and Mississippi. These developers are using closed-door tactics to get their centers built because they know just how unpopular data centers are when they are proposed to communities in a transparent way. Our city council should not bypass the will of the people by using these underhanded tactics to get massive data center complexes built. Thank you. We have a right to know what is happening in our communities, especially when it comes to building projects that will create air and water pollution, increase energy costs for normal households during a massive cost of living crisis, and increase water usage in an area where water supply is already constrained. This body and our government at large should be serving the interests of the working people of this country, not a small minority of billionaires. We do not need tax-subsidized data centers when there are so many parts of our government that are completely underfunded. Councilmember We need TriMet to be funded. We need actual affordable housing to be built, not a building that creates ugly art and mass surveillance. I urge the City Council to propose a total ban on data centers in Portland. And that is why I'm also urging you to act in the interests of the public by at the very least requiring that all data center proposals be presented to the public so that we have a say what goes on in our communities.
[02:24:56] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[02:24:57] Jamie Dunphy: You still have 20 seconds if you want to. Cool, thank you very much.
[02:25:02] Jimmy Campbell: I'll go.
[02:25:04] Jamie Dunphy: Great.
[02:25:05] Jimmy Campbell: Good afternoon, Council. Jimmy Campbell, District 2. I'm here today to ask the city to do something that apparently qualifies as a radical act of government: don't sign secret agreements with data center developers behind closed doors. Apparently a corporation can just walk into City Hall and say We'd like to build a gigantic electricity-guzzling warehouse full of data collection computers, please. And the response can be, absolutely, but let's just keep it between us though. This is becoming a disturbing example of local government being turned into nothing more than a concierge service for tech oligarchs. And here's the irony: we're building the machines designed to collect and process incredible amounts of information about human beings while while the public is being told almost nothing about the deals that built them. I'm not opposed to technology, and I'm not opposed to economic development, but public infrastructure should come with public accountability. So I'm asking for 2 things: don't sign NDAs that prevent public oversight, and establish a transparent public process so Portlanders can weigh in before major commitments are made, not after the deal is already done. Thank you. Because otherwise, you're not really governing. You're just running a concierge service where corporations get the room and the public gets the bill. Don't turn City Hall into Silicon Valley's customer service desk. And don't make Portland a place where machines know everything about us while the public knows nothing about how they got here. Thank you.
[02:26:35] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:26:41] Simon Dudley: Hi, Council. My name is Simon. I'm a Portland resident testifying thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. I'm pleased to be testifying today in support of this resolution, as the proliferation of data centers has become a growing concern in communities across the country. Non-disclosure agreements surrounding data centers represent a high-risk liability to the public from the immense resource consumption required to run these facilities and their inability to solve the most immense— or solve the issues most prominently impacting Portlanders today. Working people are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of living increases year over year, At a rate far outpacing salary growth and the creation of sustainable, high-paying jobs. Portlanders, your neighbors and friends cannot afford higher energy bills. We can't afford to lose our jobs to artificial intelligence, and we can't afford the environmental cost of these data centers. At my own workplace, nearly 10% of our employees were laid off this summer at the same time that our leaders pushed AI tools into our hands to improve efficiency. My colleagues and I weren't invited to the meeting where it was decided AI would replace our jobs. These decisions were made for us to seek greater profits at our expense. Oregonians from Eugene to the Dalles and 20 minutes from here in Hillsboro are calling out corruption and demanding to be included in the conversation. This is a fight that activates so many Americans because we have become acutely aware that there are no positive effects of these investments. Rising energy costs, mass layoffs, destruction of our natural lands, and increased surveillance are all critical costs associated with the— with data centers that far outweigh the benefits they bring to our city. We need maximum transparency regarding data center deals to ensure our elected officials are not being taken advantage of by the corrupt business interests that seek only to line their pockets with profit Thank you very much.
[02:28:41] Jamie Bradley Kissel: My name is Jamie Bradley Kissel. I live in District 3, and I'm an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Every year my energy bill goes up, and in my neighborhood I see every day what happens when housing and utility costs outrun people's incomes. I'm here today because this resolution is really about whether city leadership should be allowed to make Oregon already has nearly 150 data centers operating or approved statewide. Those data centers consume now an estimated 5.6% of Oregon's energy. At the same time, PGE has raised rates 50% since 2020, and the same industry driving this buildout just produced the world's first trillionaire. Thank you, Mayor Wilson. These companies profit and working people are expected to foot the bill. Roughly 2/3 of Oregonians support a moratorium on new data centers, and these companies want our city officials to make secret backroom deals that go against what the people want so they can get richer. They spend millions combating moratoriums and pushing NDAs like the ones that we're here speaking against tonight. Because they know that if the people learn about these projects early, we will organize. The people will take action and will fight each and every data center. And we have over 100 examples of moratoriums and bans across this country that prove it. That's why they want these deals done in secret. I urge you to pass this resolution tonight and make it clear that the next step is a moratorium. As energy, gas, and housing prices rise and people get priced out of this city, We need a government that prioritizes people's needs, not tech billionaires' profits. Thank you.
[02:30:28] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:30:30] Keelan McClymont: Anne Casper. Okay, next up we have Benjamin Gilbert, Maya Scott-Crawl, Leslie Koken, Jack M., Louis Leon.
[02:31:00] Benjamin Gilbert: My name is Ben Gilbert, and I'm a volunteer lobbyist for the Portland Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the United States with over 3,700 members in the Portland metro area. DSA and our members are worried about data center development in Portland and across the state. We need accountability from this administration. There's been a pattern of backroom deals under code names, and Portlanders deserve transparency, not NDAs. Oregon currently gives out over $450 million in property tax breaks to data centers, more than any other state in the country. This is money stolen from our schools, from cities and counties, from parks, from first responders and fire departments. This theft has meant school districts across the state are closing schools, laying off staff, In a state that already struggles with our graduation and literacy rates. So while our tax breaks are lining the pockets of the bro-ligarchs and the billionaire class, we must also confront that these new data centers are used for AI. And yes, AI has some limited utility, but it is also how companies are eliminating jobs, driving down wages for hundreds of thousands of workers. But it is the use of AI in surveillance that is truly terrifying. These new data centers are how Texas officials tracked a person crossing state lines for reproductive healthcare. Councilmember Loretta Smith. These new data centers are how ICE thugs have been targeting our neighbors for kidnapping. These new data centers are for a dystopian future that we must better regulate before we let them continue to run rampant across our state. So right now, we are very rightly arguing over transparency, land use, zoning, water resources, noise, and electricity and bills. And yes, all of that is so very important, and it obscures the argument that we should also be having about AI and surveillance and job loss. This whole fight, this whole demand for a moratorium, we keep being told it's radical, that it's too far, and that we're asking too much. But let me tell you, I think it's one of the most reasonable things happening right now. It is reasonable to demand transparency from our elected officials, especially a mayor that cannot be trusted to do business in the open. It is reasonable to demand a moratorium. We are grateful for this legislation as a first step towards that end, to make sure we aren't let down. Thank you.
[02:33:04] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:33:09] Luis Leon: Good evening, uh, Council. Uh, my name is Luis Leon. Uh, as a member of the community and someone who believes in the transparency when it comes to our elected and appointed officials, it is imperative that the city, uh, administrator not sign any NDAs or consider any new applications regarding the construction or speculation of data centers in Portland without first consulting in a transparent manner with the people of Portland. Data centers are sprouting like weeds all across the country, and the promises of economic booms are the opposite of what a data center means for a city. Data centers are well known for stripping communities of clean water, spiking energy bills, and leaving a trail of waste that is poorly managed. The developers say they'll create economic prosperity, but we know it will only be reflected in the pockets of the rich and not in our community. Working-class people will face the brunt of this, and we deserve to have a say in it. Thank you. I was at the recent data center hearing in Salem. The people were out in droves and made their demands heard. I am sure you will have the same on your hands if the city council refuses to consider the input of everyone. Lastly, I'd like to end with a quote from the city administrator's own biography on the City of Portland's web— City of Portland website. The city administrator's Raymond C. Lee bio reads, quote, Lee's leadership is grounded in a people-first approach that emphasizes organizational health transparency, and responsiveness. He focuses on building clear roles, healthy systems, and sustainable workloads so teams can perform at their best over time, end quote. If these are the values of Mr. Lee, the city administrator, then this resolution should be a no-brainer. In a time when trust for elected and appointed officials is at an all-time low, we insist that you act in accordance with your stated beliefs. Thank you.
[02:34:52] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Whoever wants to jump in.
[02:34:58] Sameer Kanal: Do you want to go next?
[02:35:02] Melanie Cambron: Sure.
[02:35:02] Angelita Morillo: Okay, go ahead.
[02:35:03] Maya Scott-Crawl: Good evening, councilors. My name is Maya. I'm a Portland resident in District 3 and a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I'm here tonight to urge you to ban secretive NDAs with data center companies, but I want to be clear, this ban is not enough. We need to ask a more fundamental question: who is this city being built for? Because data centers are not simply buildings full of computers. They are massive industrial facilities built to serve the interests of some of the most powerful corporations in the world. And those corporations are coming to our communities because they want something from us. They want our land, electricity, water, and infrastructure. And they want public governments to help make those resources available to them, often while the public is expected to absorb the costs. That is the fundamental problem we need to confront. Thank you. We are told that data centers represent progress, investment, and economic development, but we have to ask, progress for whom? If a corporation makes billions from artificial intelligence while working people face rising utility bills, housing costs, and increasingly strained public infrastructure, that is not economic development for the working class. That is the privatization of public resources for private profit. And this is not simply an abstract concern. Portland's own resolution recognizes that hyperscale data centers can create enormous demands for energy and water and can affect household costs and livability. The resolution notes that some facilities can consume water at levels comparable to thousands of households. It also recognizes concerns about noise and emissions. There should be no corporate right to secrecy when the public is being asked to bear the consequences. That is why this ban matters. We should not allow the profit motive of a handful of enormous corporations to determine how we use resources that should belong to the public. Public resources should be controlled democratically and be used to meet human needs, not organized around maximizing corporate profits. No secret NDAs. We need full public disclosure and meaningful public participation. But ultimately, we need a moratorium on hyperscale data centers in Portland. Councilmember are we going to organize Portland around what corporations can profit from or around what people— working people actually need?
[02:37:16] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[02:37:17] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:37:20] Leslie Koken: Hi, I'm Leslie Kochan. I'm a member and activist with Oregon Data Center Defiance and XRPDX Extinction Rebellion. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. The rapid buildout of data centers has grabbed my attention for a number of reasons. First, I'm concerned about the myriad of harms that occur within the onsite footprint of a data center, harms that you're hearing a lot about tonight. I'm also concerned about the indirect effects of data centers. Data centers have an insatiable appetite for resources throughout their lifecycle. The offsite harms are extensive and include impacts from raw minerals mining, emissions from materials production for roadways and buildings, water use at offsite power stations, and the impacts of data center e-waste that is often discarded in ways that harm the most vulnerable communities. Lastly, I'm concerned about the outputs or products of data centers, which raises questions that should be asked first. What will the data center produce? Do we need it? Do we want it? Will it completely disrupt the ecosystems that we desire and depend upon? Will it damage a child's ability to think? Is it true, as the heads of AI companies are saying, that it will replace most jobs, that it could facilitate the development and release of new biological pathogens that humans will not be able to control? Because of these concerns and the critical need for both transparency and a data center pause, I support both the NDA resolution and a moratorium. Thank you. I urge the city to pursue a code change so that city officials and staff are prohibited from signing NDAs rather than just urged not to sign. I urge Portland to step up and follow the lead of other cities in Oregon that have passed moratoriums. Lastly, I urge the city to ban outright or through zoning conditions any hyperscale data centers. Thank you.
[02:39:24] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Thank you all.
[02:39:29] Keelan McClymont: Uh, next— oh, sorry. Uh, next up we have Steph Ralph, Michaela McCormick, Lynn Handlin, Melanie Cambron, Edith Gillis.
[02:39:44] Jamie Dunphy: Come on down, folks. Welcome. All right, introduce yourselves to the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 2 minutes.
[02:39:50] Sameer Kanal: You like to go first?
[02:39:51] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: It's up to you.
[02:39:52] Lynn Handlin: I don't care.
[02:39:53] Steph Ralph: I'll go first. Okay. We're just figuring out order. Council President Dunphy, members of City Council, thank you very much for having us here. My name is Steph Rouse. I am here as an East Portland resident. And first of all, while we've been sitting here, The New Yorker has just dropped its most recent episode of its Political Scene podcast, and the title is How Exactly Could AI Destroy destroy humanity. So this feels timely. Uh, I'm here to urge, please, uh, a yes vote to urge the city administrator to refrain from signing data center NDAs. Transparency is critical, uh, for a thriving democracy, and it has to be intentionally built, uh, into our civic discourse. It has to be a positive, intentional choice. And NDA is the antithesis of this. The development of data centers has been fast and furious over the past several years, and people have feelings about it, and they should. Oregon is currently 2nd in the world for data centers according to IT Load. Beijing is 5th. So that has happened very quickly. Let's have a conversation. I really appreciate NDA as a first step. Thank you. I've heard a lot about moratoriums. I understand that moratoriums also, because it's a city, are limited to 120 days. I would love us to start the process of considering a ban. So let's do that. And I'm grateful to Councilor Koyama Lane and all of the champions who are— who have signed on to this leadership resolution.
[02:41:38] Sameer Kanal: Thank you. Thank you very much. Good job.
[02:41:45] Melanie Cambron: Good evening, council members. My name is Melanie Cambren. I'm an advocate for peace, and I educate around corruption and crimes against humanity. Today I came with an answer to the question of what is the big push and objective of the data center boom across the country. The answer is the AI data centers are being used to merge big tech, US government, and elements of the military-industrial complex To create a national security state. You may have noticed during Trump's inauguration, standing behind him was all the big tech CEOs because they, they were the major donors to his campaign and how he was elected. The former CEO of Google served on the board of Department of War. Jeff Bezos' father was part of the foundations of that includes bioterror exercises such as the Crimson Contagion, Atlantic Storm, and Operation Dark Winter. DARPA uses AI for mass surveillance, which has been blurring the lines of national security and domestic monitoring by implementing predictive policing and military systems where drones and robotic systems can data centers and their AI partnering companies must be screened for human rights abuses, and with NDAs, we would not be able to do this. Palantir Technologies is a major partner of AI data centers across the country and are currently committing violations of humanitarian law.
[02:43:30] Unidentified speaker: Councilmember Smith.
[02:43:31] Melanie Cambron: The co-founder of Palantir is Peter Thiel. He is currently funding the Portland-based company Panthalassa for AI data centers to float in the ocean off the Oregon coast. The project is called Ocean 3, and there are commercial deployments planned for 2027. Peter Thiel and Jeffrey Epstein had a business relationship where Epstein arranged meetings with the former Prime Minister of Israel to share intelligence with IDF and vice versa. It is no wonder why the draft of the NDAA bill, Section 219, is trying to authorize the merge of the US and Israeli military intelligence.
[02:44:07] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
[02:44:11] Edith Gillis: Edith Gillis, District 3. Good job, everyone. Um, prohibit the city administrator, mayor, and any city employee or legal agent representing the city from signing data center nondisclosure agreements with data center developers, contractors, investors, and require the city to engage in transparent public processes, giving the public full information in a timely way, supporting all full public engagement accessible to all. Make all the information about applications, meetings, content, participants, proposals, etc., freely and easily and promptly available in writing, video, Braille, American Sign Language, audio recordings, English, Spanish, Cantonese, etc. Include environmental and economic and social justice impact statements available in all forms to the public with several weeks to review, including listening sessions in each district. Make sure all in the public can testify in person and virtually with at least 3 minutes per oral testimony. It's a cruel shame to make someone permanently disabled by the poisons of data centers limit their years of suffering to only 3 minutes to say their truth while industry con men take up most of the time and money. Thank you. Even the central banks of all the global nations' central banks have warned last spring that data centers will cause a global economic crash worse than a combination of the dot-com bubble and the Great Depression and that of the 1850s. Because these data centers violate state requirements of cities' public health and public safety, infrastructure and resources, budget and services, and because when they lose their money, they're going to leave town, and we taxpayers are stuck with paying for the lifelong disability services, the poison cleanup, the food and loss, the fires. All the harm that these companies are causing, we'll end up paying for, for those who have survived. Thank you for starting this first step. Continue all the way.
[02:46:15] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Michaela, go ahead.
[02:46:28] Keelan McClymont: Michaela.
[02:46:29] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[02:46:30] Michaela McCormick: I'm Michaela McCormick in District 2. I urge the City of Portland to approve the resolution to not sign any nondisclosure agreements with data center companies. Any and all plans to build data centers in Portland need to be revealed to the public in ample time for citizens to offer input into considerations to improve such plans. Data center companies have a consistent record of making deals with government entities out of the public sight. The harmful environmental, natural resource, and public finance effects of data centers are now being widely publicized. Thank you. For good reason. Their voracious use of water and power, i.e., electricity and other forms of energy, is by itself sufficient reason to rein in their development. On top of that, their appropriation of huge swaths of land prevent devoting that land to affordable housing, sorely needed urban agriculture and tree planting, and community healthcare facilities that are affordable and accessible to the growing number of residents priced out of our current healthcare system. All of these and more are prevented by profit-addicted corporations seeking more wealth and economic growth. Data centers are just the latest means of feeding that addiction. Overwhelming scientific evidence has revealed the existential threat of the toxic, extractive, and exploitative effects of that unbridled growth. Thank you. In particular, the hyperscale data centers needed to serve artificial intelligence are now aiding in our own cognitive disability and mental atrophy. This technology is eating away at our capacity to stay in charge of our own well-being and evolution. We not only need to demand complete transparency of proposals for data centers, but also a moratorium on more such proposals and a ban on data center development until we know the extent of their effect on our health. Thank you.
[02:48:38] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:48:46] Keelan McClymont: Go ahead, Lynn.
[02:48:48] Lynn Handlin: Uh, my name is Lynn Handlin, and, um, I support this first baby step no data center non-disclosure agreement resolution. The language in this resolution is sadly weak, using words like urge and encourage rather than require. Urges the city administrator and city leadership to refrain from signing NDAs regarding data centers. I mean, I don't think that that's going to really work with our current city leadership. They don't care what they're being urged to do. Um, why not say no signing NDAs regarding data centers or really anything else that impacts Portlanders? I assume that you all need to make some other changes so that you can use stronger language. So I'm hoping you find a way to do that. We need real transparency, not ask nicely and hope everyone will behave well. The city administrator and directors, and certainly the mayor, have all proven numerous times that we cannot trust them to be transparent about other issues. So I know we can't trust them about data centers. We should not have to trust them. They need to be required to behave in good faith with full transparency, with consequences if they do not. I'm glad you're including language about a moratorium. Please include the large load data centers as well as the hyperscale. We need a moratorium now, so please go beyond intending to pursue and get it done. Data centers suck water, land, power, and they drive climate change. So, you know, if the AI doesn't get us, the climate change will. So let's just not do that. Thank you. We don't need more of them. We have enough. Please pass this resolution. It is a step, and then go further. Pass a real moratorium as soon as possible and stronger enforceable language on the no NDAs with data centers, the city council notification rule, and, um, and the rest of that part. In fact, how about no early assistance in data center permitting, period? Not just notification. Thank you. And last, how about applying all these wonderful transparency rules proposed here for all other issues regarding the city and, and our community?
[02:51:05] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[02:51:05] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:51:08] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Cassandra Bloom, M.B., Michael Mintz, Emily Waldron, Jeremy Bosole-Smith.
[02:51:18] Jamie Dunphy: Come on down, folks, if you heard your name called. Hope folks stuck around. I see some folks online. Jump right in.
[02:51:27] Michael Mintz: Yeah, hello, good evening. Thank, thank you for, um—.
[02:51:31] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, hold on a second, Cassandra. Cassandra, we're here in the room first. We'll come right back to you. Thank you. Go ahead.
[02:51:40] Michael Mintz: Yeah, thank you, thank you all for supporting this resolution. It's It's really crucial. It's really important. Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane, for pulling this off and getting everybody here to sign on. And thank you, everybody who testified here today. It's hard to— these are hard acts to follow up. These people are very articulate and informed. I would like to emphasize though that, you know, language like the city urges the city administrator to refrain, I mean, this, it is a good step, but this is pretty weak. I mean, the whole idea of NDA agreements between, you know, I understand like you need in a capitalist society, you might want to have NDA agreements.
[02:52:36] Unidentified speaker: Yeah.
[02:52:37] Michael Mintz: You know, here and there with businesses and people, you know, businesses are renting this and that. And, you know, but NDA agreements with city officials and government officials, that, excuse my language, that's just batshit crazy. I mean, that is, it's anathema to democracy itself. Thank you. There's no way that that should even be a thing. I don't even know why we're talking about it. And Lynn, who just spoke a moment ago, is absolutely right that this whole idea of NDA agreements, this should apply to everything, not just data centers. Um, you know, what I would like to say is that I think the next step is a code change to prohibit and ban signing NDAs, you know, pass the current resolution, but we really want to have a code change because we've seen how disingenuous our city officials can be. Thank you.
[02:53:49] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Cassandra online, you, you started, I cut you off rudely, I apologize. Go ahead and take That's okay.
[02:53:59] Unidentified speaker: Um, my apologies, this is my first council meeting. Um, hello, my name is Cassandra. Um, I'm from District 3. Um, I'm currently asking the City Council to support Resolution 2026-299, as I oppose the expansion of data centers in Portland, and I strongly oppose the use of non-disclosure agreements to keep data center negotiations, negotiations out of public view. Decisions involving our water, electricity, land, infrastructure, and public resources should not be made behind closed doors. Please prohibit data center NDAs as well as any NDAs that come about further, um, and require full public transparency, along with putting Portland residents before private data center interests. Second. Um, as well as putting the, um, moratorium, uh, in place. And I agree with those who've, uh, spoke before me about the wording on this, um, item, as it's rather, um, loose about things, or at the very least, it's, as other people have articulated better than me, um, not the best wording. That is all. Thank you.
[02:55:26] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:55:30] Keelan McClymont: Emily, Emily, Emily, you're muted.
[02:55:41] Emily Waldron: Sorry, I wasn't sure if it was me or someone else. Hi, my name is Emily Waldron. I am not a Portland resident. I am actually calling from unincorporated Washington County, about a mile and a half as the crow flies from the nearest data center. And I also am speaking on behalf of Oregon Data Center Defiance. First of all, we would like to say thank you for beginning to have conversations around NDAs for data centers and enacting a moratorium. Thank you. We've seen 2 cities here in Oregon do moratoriums. Woodburn did one, enacted one yesterday, and Hillsboro's had one for over a month now, as both are working to be able to put regulations in place to protect their communities. As other commenters have said, I would urge you very, very strongly to use this as the beginning, as the tip of the iceberg. Urging your city staff to not enter into NDAs is very different than banning from the them from entering into NDAs. You all need to go through the work to enact a ban so they cannot go behind your back and do this. And I say this as someone who lives in a community where city staff was at odds with the city council and very much signed agreements against council wishes with different businesses and groups on purpose for tech and for that industry. And so an urge is not a strong enough thing to push through. The other thing I would encourage you all to carry forward is this 120-day moratorium. As we learned in committee, for the city of Portland, your current codes define data centers as office buildings. A data center is very different from an office building. A data center runs 365 days a year, no evenings off, no holidays, constant droning of noise, water pollution, light pollution, heat pollution, and more. So your communities deserve the time for you all to take to protect them from these things and making sure that they're, if not flat out banned, that there's things in place to ensure that they're not going up next to your schools, to the hospitals, and to the residences where people live. And with that, I would also remind the council that while some people think there's protection because of the size of the city, there's none. And a data center will just go vertical. It will just go underground. It will come for you if it wants to come for you. Councilmember Loretta Smith. So don't think you're safe just because Portland is very packed full of people.
[02:58:05] Keelan McClymont: Thank you.
[02:58:06] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:58:11] Keelan McClymont: MB, you're muted.
[02:58:23] Unidentified speaker: Oh my God. Okay, uh, MB, District 3. Um, so let's get into it. So while I support this resolution, it is also paramount that Portland passes stronger regulations that prohibit the city or city employees from signing NDAs at all, especially for data centers. Portlanders want transparency, not backroom deal baloney that, you know, inevitably leaves the public in the dark and footing the physical, psychological, and financial bill of these facilities. And I support a moratorium in the meantime, you know, while the city implements new standards and regulations, but I'm encouraging City Council to kick it up a notch, you know, enact an outright ban on data centers. Like, we do not need to be complicit in expanding a technology that's currently being used to surveil and kill people here and abroad, that is actively destroying the planet and poisoning every living thing, that's pillaging and plundering the natural resources we all need to live. Like, hello, water? Water, anyone? Like, it's causing, like, cognitive decline. Mayor of myriad of other health issues. We know the list. The list is so long. So yeah, no, no, no, no data centers. No. Especially these hyperscale ones. They're just bad for everyone, bad for everything. Literally no positive thing about them. And we don't want or need— we've actually never needed these mass surveillance death machine facilities because that's really what they are. And I sure as heck don't want to be footing the ecological and financial bill for them. I'm sure everyone else if not most folks in the chambers tonight, don't want to be footing it either. So I want a livable future, actually. Um, so let's protect Portlanders and the environment. Data center ban now, hopefully sooner. Um, get them out of here.
[03:00:15] Lynn Handlin: Let's go.
[03:00:15] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Let's do it.
[03:00:16] Unidentified speaker: Council, let us know how we can help with that, because yeah, no, they don't belong here.
[03:00:21] Emily Waldron: Get them out of here.
[03:00:22] Unidentified speaker: Okay, thank you.
[03:00:24] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[03:00:27] Keelan McClymont: Jeremy Bosselet-Smith.
[03:00:31] Jeremy Bosole-Smith: Yeah, I agree totally with that, uh, that last testimony. Good evening, councilors. My name is Jeremy Bosselet-Smith. I live in District 4, and I'm a candidate for Portland City Council. AI data centers use enormous amounts of electricity, and Portlanders should not be stuck paying the price. In just 5 years, regional data center growth added the demand equivalent of 400,000 new people on PGE's system. In that same time, our electric— our electricity rates climbed by 50%. It's clear that expansion is happening too quickly and Portland can't absorb this massive new demand. We must also consider the additional effects of data centers: increased water usage, air and noise pollution, and a less reliable power grid that will become increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather events. This resolution is a good step in the right direction. However, we have to go so much farther. Councilmember AI data centers are the harbinger of a dystopian future, a future where we are constantly surveilled and technology is used by the most evil people for the most vile of purposes. This is not the future we were promised, and we must take it back from the corporations destroying our Earth. We're at the precipice of environmental and societal collapse, and we must act now. This is why I'm fighting for a 4-year AI data center ban. In Portland, selling our land and resources to out-of-state tech companies is a bad deal for our city's future. We survived many years without data centers. We will be fine without them, at least until we can ensure Portland's resources serve Portlanders first. Thank you.
[03:02:05] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[03:02:10] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Amy Stone.
[03:02:17] Amy Stone: Hi, Portland City Council. My name is Amy Stone and I'm a resident in District 2. I support the proposed resolution as a first step, but we need an ordinance amending city code to prohibit city officials from entering NDAs with data center developers. The expansion of data centers makes a small number of big tech billionaires extremely wealthy through circular investments and billion-dollar tax breaks, leaving everyone else to bear the cost in the form of environmental pollution, higher utility bills, job cuts, and other negative social impacts of unregulated AI. Here in Oregon, even after the passage of the POWER Act in the state legislature last year, PG&E announced its 8th consecutive regular rate hike for residential customers, whose rates are up 50% from 5 years ago. PG&E also reports that data center demand is up 6-fold from 2020, while consumer demand remains flat. We cannot continue to subsidize this industry, and city officials cannot be allowed to make backroom deals with the developers who prioritize their profits over our well-being. Across our state, we have seen Woodburn and Hillsboro enact moratoriums. Eugene just banned city employees from signing NDAs with data center developers, what we're talking about here. And we've seen communities in La Pine and Salem successfully rally and win against data center development proposals. And even Governor Kotek came out in support of a moratorium at a rally last week in Salem. We need a city ordinance that explicitly prohibits the usage of NDAs between city officials and data center developers because it's us who will continue continue to be faced with the rising cost of utility bills and bear the brunt of the health impacts related to data centers polluting our air and water. I appreciate Councilor Koyama Lane for your amendment as a first step, and I urge the council to pass this resolution so we can get a moratorium on data center proposals as we work towards our goal of a ban passed here in Portland. Thank you.
[03:04:03] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[03:04:04] Keelan McClymont: That completes testimony.
[03:04:07] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, We are now into discussion and technical and clarifying questions. To the queue, Councilor Koyama Lane.
[03:04:16] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you. And thank you so much for everyone that's come out to testify tonight. I know that this has gotten bumped from agenda, so especially wanna say thank you to those who have been— who have come out multiple times. Thanks for your patience. Thank you for your advocacy. I want to quickly talk a little bit about the reason that the language in the resolution has words like urges and refrain. And that's because as a council, we don't have the authority through our city charter to require or force the city administrator or mayor to make certain choices via resolution. And I want to say it still is really powerful because this resolution sets a clear policy expectation, and we're also doing it really publicly. So when this passes, I think I can guess that it's going to pass, we have these expectations really clear and on record. So both the city administration and the public Thank you. Are very clear about what our expectations are. And yes, a moratorium is one lever at a pull—. Pull. I believe personally that we need a statewide 3-year moratorium. And as I have learned a lot more about this topic, I know that local jurisdictions really are limited to a max of 120-day moratoriums at a time. And there's a really long, complex land use process that you get back in the queue for. And many of the advocates that I've spoken to in different states from across the country have all recommended, if you can, start with a ban. I've also honestly really appreciated the conversations with folks from the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and our city attorneys about the possible next steps of zoning restrictions or a ban. And that would be binding, changing binding city code, not a resolution. So I hear you and I'm grateful that you're here. And let's stay in touch about next steps.
[03:05:56] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Novick.
[03:05:59] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. As one of the testifiers said, Data centers are tied in with 2 existential threats. By sucking up vast amounts of energy, they accelerate climate change, and they're also inextricably tied in with AI. And we've been hearing for the last week in the national news about what a threat the people who know AI best know that it is. On a personal note, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I am very glad that I am old, so old that I can even remember being progressive in the '80s. Because my advanced age makes it at least possible that I will be comfortably dead before AI destroys all human life.
[03:06:37] Candace Avalos: What about us?
[03:06:38] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. You're gonna leave us behind? Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, follow that up.
[03:06:45] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: As someone not quite that old with kids, I'm hoping we can do better than that, Councilor. Um, I need to start as I did in committee by saying that in abundance of caution, I want to declare a potential conflict of interest. My wife works for a tech company that in part does own some data centers. That contributes to our family income. While I don't believe there is an actual conflict of interest, It has been advised that I declare the potential. That said, I wholeheartedly support this resolution. The documented environmental impacts of data centers are the start, but Portland also needs to be deliberate about how we use one of our scarcest economic resources: our job-available land, including our industrial land. And while we learned in committee that these data centers are zoned commercial, we also learned that in the Central East Side, they. Can be sited on industrial land. This resolution is fundamentally about transparency and accountability. It asks us for greater public transparency and council awareness if and when the city is approached about very large data centers. And that matters because Portland has a limited supply of good job land, and the choices that we make about these data centers will shape our economy.
[03:08:15] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Smith.
[03:08:16] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: And the space we have to grow other parts of our economy for decades to come. When land is scarce, we need to think not just about the capital a project brings, but how effectively that land use creates lasting employment opportunities. So we should ask a straightforward question: how many good permanent jobs do we get for the amount of land we commit to any type of project? A very large data center, yes, represents a substantial capital improvement, and it requires a relatively small workforce. Construction jobs and the indirect economic activity are, of course, important, but they can't be the end of the story. Our permanent employment located on a site matters. This is about job density. It's about economic opportunity for our future. Thank you. And it's about opportunity cost as well as the important environmental and transparency values that have been stated many times by folks in the room today and my colleagues. The question becomes even more important when a project has those unusually large demands for electricity, water, and other infrastructure that we know data centers do. The resource demands of a data center have economic and environmental consequences that we all deserve to understand before the city enters into any more of these commitments or makes decisions about sites. We should know how much electricity, how much water a proposed facility of any type will require, what infrastructure it would need, and what permanent employment will be, what environmental mitigation would be provided. The point is that the city needs information to evaluate projects that are considering located here and to evaluate those projects' impacts. Transparency is not at odds with economic development. It makes sure that our economic development is working for us, for the people of our community. This resolution gives council and gives the public an opportunity to understand trade-offs before any decisions are made. It's critical that we move this forward. Thank you. And it's critical that this be just the first step of the conversation. I was proud to be one of the early co-sponsors. Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane, and I'm looking forward to the vote today.
[03:10:41] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Kanal.
[03:10:44] Sameer Kanal: Thanks, Council President. Thanks to my co-sponsors. I'm happy to join in bringing this forward. Broadly speaking, NDAs are bad. We've seen them be used in other cities to prevent public awareness of and input into development that impacts their neighborhoods and to shield decision makers from community opposition. And accountability. Uh, this resolution would declare that transparency should be standard practice in Portland, and I hope a step towards saying that, um, transparency must be standard practice in Portland. We have a right to know if the city administration is considering allowing data centers in our communities, and we as Portlanders' representatives on the city councilors have an opportunity today to take a proactive step to build public trust by saying no decisions about you without you at least being aware of it. And ideally involved in it. By further signaling our intent in the resolution to institute a moratorium on data centers, we make it clear that decisions about these facilities should be evidence-based and rely on robust objective analyses of data centers' environmental and economic impacts. What we already know is that ravenous energy demands from data centers constrain water systems and energy grids, raise residents' utility bills, create 24/7 noise pollution, and pollute our air with emissions from diesel generators. They extract resources with no evidence of meaningful direct economic benefit for the community post-construction. These buildings can be over a million square feet and have fewer than 100 people working in them, as my colleague just noted. When we think about our goals under the Comp Plan, under the EOA, that's a terrible ratio. Data centers that enable AI don't create jobs. In fact, they were designed to help eliminate them. I'd also like to see us ultimately move towards an outright ban in Portland. I do not believe that data centers are inevitable, and I also don't believe that AI is inevitable. No matter what tech bros say, move fast and break things might be their ethos. It's not how you run a city. And when some of the very folks who've been creating and pushing this technology are warning that there's a 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within the next decade, and I do hope that, Councilor Novick, you're here for at least another decade, it's time to not only pump the brakes but to shut off the entire damn engine. And so we as a city get to decide how to use our land, and we have a responsibility to make sure it's for the greater good and well-being of all Portlanders and the environment. Thank you. That we're all stewards of. So I'm looking forward to this vote. I do want to take the opportunity to ask a question for the future, um, and ask, you know, do we offer— what the next steps beyond this— do we offer early assistance and preliminary meetings with data center applicants? And is that something that we should be looking at as a step that can be taken faster towards a ban, because we do know that when things get through early assistance, they are often effectively greenlit. I'd have to ask staff to come up to speak to if— what offers do we have as it relates to early incentives for any kind of development like this there in Rome? Okay, so this is before you file the official, uh, permit, you'd start talking to the permitting staff and ideally help shape the thing. Um, to get to, uh, to a yes eventually. Sorry, please come up.
[03:13:55] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Hi there, Natalie Didion.
[03:13:57] Melanie Cambron: I'm the building official for the city. Um, so early assistance is a normal application for any applicant to fill out. Um, they provide very simple information about their project, and it's about the siting of it and looking at the zoning requirements of that site, and then also the public infrastructure about what is going to be required.
[03:14:21] Sameer Kanal: Okay, so that answers— oh, go ahead. It answers the first part of it. You know, there's an Oregonian article about a 5-story data center coming forward. My understanding is that they have early assistance in progress and also that— or soon to happen. I'll let you answer that because you know more than I do.
[03:14:40] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Yeah, I know that they are scheduled for an early assistance meeting on October 7th. I don't think that means— so that meeting is scheduled.
[03:14:48] Morgan Glenn: Okay.
[03:14:49] Unidentified speaker: So—.
[03:14:50] Melanie Cambron: Yeah, so it's not really getting assistance to get their project through. It's just a meeting to talk about the project that's available to any permit.
[03:15:00] Sameer Kanal: I think this conversation would indicate, and I hope the eventual vote on it would indicate, that council would actually like to not do those either. There, um, and stop providing early assistance to data center applications altogether as another way of getting towards the eventual ban that we need to do. So I just wanted to, to get that on the record while I had the chance. This is something that I learned about after becoming, uh, co-sponsor and the news article and all of that. So, um, I don't know if there would be a need to have a council action, but, uh, CA Lee, if, if you, um, do determine that that would be something that would be helpful and/or necessary, I'd love to know for future. And I appreciate Natalie. Thanks for being here also. I read your name in a lot of stuff, and so—.
[03:15:43] Angelita Morillo: Oh, sure.
[03:15:43] Unidentified speaker: Yeah.
[03:15:44] Sameer Kanal: Um, thank you, Council President.
[03:15:46] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Zimmerman.
[03:15:49] Eric Zimmerman: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. I appreciated everybody's comments and also eager to support this today. I think, you know, as I mentioned in my opening comments, the, the prospect— and frankly, I think the, the availability in downtown is very concerning for me. I've also, you know, throughout my career, I've been a part of, of big projects and projects that have things like PLAs and community benefits agreements and things of that nature. And none of that would have ever been achievable behind a closed door, right? None of that ever would— our labor standards, our workforce initiatives, um, you know, the mitigation for any project going in near a big— near a neighborhood, or how you work out— never would have been achievable with an NDA and behind closed doors. And so I think this is just right on the mark and very similar to the, to the points and the values that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney was highlighting. I think that we can also highlight those, those types of things that while we don't have perfect language of stopping, we do also, as a resolution, one of our roles is to urge, right, to, to urge the, the city administrator to consider certain things as we go forward. Thank you. And I want to just highlight that as I do move Zimmerman 1, because I think that Zimmerman 1 allows us to kind of call some of those things out that can't be achievable if we do that behind NDA doors. And so I would appreciate any consideration for that amendment to, I think, even strengthen this, because I think it's been a great, a great showing. And I think we can make sure that if anything ever does find its way here, we set the standard for like what we would expect. Thank you. And how to mitigate all the things we can so that we, we aren't in a place of what we've seen going on in other communities. Thank you. So I move Zimmerman 1.
[03:17:34] Angelita Morillo: Second.
[03:17:35] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Zimmerman moves Zimmerman 1 and Councilor Clark seconds. Uh, and this is— Zimmerman 1 is pre-filed, it's available online. Um, colleagues, to the amendment, discussion of the amendment. Councilor Green. Thank you.
[03:17:52] Mitch Green: Thanks. Excuse me, long day. Thanks, Council President. Um, uh, thanks for pre-filing the amendment, Councilor Zimmerman, and motivating it. Um, I think, uh, it's nice to pre-file amendments and have an opportunity to read them. So just another plug for 3.02. Um, okay. Um, I like all the labor stuff you're doing in this. I, I think that we should be shouting, you know, registered state registered apprenticeship programs and PLAs from the rooftop every time we contemplate the city moving in relation to investment in our city. What I don't like though is it feels like it runs counter to the idea of doing a moratorium on these things. And I'm not sure that's necessarily your intent, but that's what I'm reading in it because it sort of talks about how it's— we can do these data centers, but we can do them responsibly. Yeah. And that's hard for me to get past. And, you know, I know there's been items before, amendments before where like, I like what you're selling, but I don't like how I'm buying it. And I think that's your terminology sometimes. But, and so if there was a way to pull that piece out, I could be open to it. But I think as it stands, I can't get over the kind of the last whereas clause in particular.
[03:19:12] Sameer Kanal: Councilor Herbold.
[03:19:15] Eric Zimmerman: Okay, I appreciate that responding. It was just a, as we've seen it come into other places, these communities where things happen before they know it is what I guess I was trying to address, which is we have a kind of a way of doing business. And so I hear that that wasn't the intent there. I read it differently. And I also recognize that I was not recognized, Council President, so I'll shut up.
[03:19:38] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, you're welcome to respond. It was a direct question. It was a direct comment. Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[03:19:44] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. Councilor Green, that's— I appreciate you saying that. I had read it really differently. And I had read, especially looking at that resolved at the end, this is a really important interim step. Because the underline after the amendment that you and Councilor Koyama Lane proposed in committee, thank you for bringing that forward, We're directed to look at a ban or some sort of limiting conditions in the future, but we're not doing that yet. And so I saw this as filling in the interim space where until we get a ban or limiting conditions in place, we're saying, hey, in the meantime, if anything does move forward, Yes. It darn well better be with some conditions attached to it. And let's start that part of the discussion here and now. Let's make sure that if some of these things are moving, we've seen in the press that there is a group that's interested, before we can have that conversation about a ban or a moratorium or limiting conditions, that we have, that we have some of those conditions in place. So I saw this as kind of an important piece for this interim period. And, um, have planned to support it for that reason and, and hope that we can do something. I, I don't know what conversation the two of you are going to have, but that we can do something for the now while we wait to have the broader conversation.
[03:21:16] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Uh, I put myself in the queue. Councilor Zimmerman, I appreciate where you are going with this, but, uh, it does feel unrelated to me. It feels a different answer to a different question. I feel like the resolution before us is saying the City Council and the City of Portland have concerns about data centers and that in the absence of our ability to take decisive action about them, we are defaulting to a process of transparency, accountability, and public disclosure. I feel like your amendment then says, but if we are going to build them, they should be done this way. Yes. And I do think that we should, as a body, have an opportunity to say, if data centers are going to exist in our city, they should exist in this way. I feel like the core of what we're trying to accomplish, this is specifically saying that we care about the transparency on the front side, and this feels like a backside argument. So for that reason, I would vote no on the amendment, but I would be interested in potentially bringing forward another legislative action similar to this. Thank you. To that. So colleagues, is there any further comment on Zimmerman 1? Seeing none, no one else in the queue, Keelan, could we please call the roll on Zimmerman 1?
[03:22:29] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Zimmerman, seconded by Clark. Koyamaline?
[03:22:32] Tiffany Koyama Lane: No.
[03:22:33] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[03:22:34] Angelita Morillo: No.
[03:22:35] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[03:22:36] Steve Novick: Regretfully, no.
[03:22:37] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[03:22:38] Olivia Clark: Yes.
[03:22:39] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[03:22:40] Mitch Green: No.
[03:22:41] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[03:22:42] Eric Zimmerman: Yes.
[03:22:42] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[03:22:44] Candace Avalos: No.
[03:22:44] Keelan McClymont: Smith.
[03:22:52] Loretta Smith: Absent.
[03:22:55] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: No.
[03:22:57] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[03:22:58] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I really want those interim conditions, guys. Yes.
[03:23:00] Keelan McClymont: Yes.
[03:23:04] Jamie Dunphy: No.
[03:23:04] Keelan McClymont: Uh, the amendment fails with a vote of 4 ayes, 7 nays, and 1 absent.
[03:23:11] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, let's see, colleagues, is there any further discussion of the underlying resolution?
[03:23:24] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane.
[03:23:25] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[03:23:26] Keelan McClymont: Murillo.
[03:23:27] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[03:23:27] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[03:23:28] Steve Novick: Aye.
[03:23:29] Keelan McClymont: Clark.
[03:23:30] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[03:23:30] Keelan McClymont: Green.
[03:23:31] Mitch Green: Aye.
[03:23:32] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[03:23:33] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[03:23:34] Keelan McClymont: Avalos.
[03:23:34] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[03:23:35] Keelan McClymont: Smith. Councilor Mitchell.
[03:23:37] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[03:23:38] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[03:23:39] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[03:23:40] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[03:23:40] Luis Leon: Aye.
[03:23:41] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[03:23:41] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[03:23:42] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[03:23:43] Keelan McClymont: The resolution is adopted with 11 ayes and 1 absent.
[03:23:48] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, before we adjourn today, I motion to reconsider the vote on Document 2026-263. As I said earlier, I feel that there is still room for this item to move forward if there is reasonable effort to be made to find an enforcement and disclosure provision as a condition of approval. That the parties and city attorney find acceptable. I would therefore move that we reconsider this item and that the appropriate work be done to amend this transfer agreement, a condition be adopted, and we move it then swiftly to a vote. May I have a second vote— a second for reconsideration?
[03:24:18] Olivia Clark: Second.
[03:24:18] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Clark— Vice President Clark. Colleagues, this is a debatable motion. To the queue, Councilor Knoll.
[03:24:29] Sameer Kanal: Just a question, Council President. Should this be adopted— and I might have other questions later— should this be adopted, we would go immediately into the document? Correct. Um, we have approved an ordinance, uh, Ordinance 192094, on, um, September 3rd, 2025, that says that we cannot enter new items after 9:00 PM in a council evening meeting. It says council will complete consideration of the current items and then will continue to any consider— to consideration of any remaining emergency ordinances, 9/12 items, or adjournment. It does—. I, I should note council may also suspend the rules to continue the meeting for other items. So we could do that, but I believe it would require 9 votes.
[03:25:20] Jamie Dunphy: City Attorney available? I, I'd just like somebody smarter than me to say that that's right.
[03:25:40] Robert Taylor: Hi, uh, Robert Taylor, City Attorney. That, uh, that is correct. There is that ordinance that says, uh, If we start at 6 or later, we're going to end at 9, and if we go past 9, then we can't take up any new items except emergency ordinances and, and others that are listed. So here again, I think this is an issue for the— a ruling that the council president can make, and you could decide that the motion to reconsider is in order even though it's after 9 o'clock. Yes. Once the motion to recon— if the motion to reconsider carries, then under this ordinance that Councilor Kanal cited, we could not enter— we could not go into the discussion on that new item. That new item would have to get carried over to a following week. So that's a decision you could make as the chair.
[03:26:40] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. We're still in debate?
[03:26:48] Sameer Kanal: So just to clarify, that means that, that we could still do the motion to reconsider if the chair rules that that's okay, but that we would not be able to debate it? We would have to leave the item and go to— we'd have to end for the day?
[03:27:01] Robert Taylor: I, I think that type of ruling by the chair would be a way to accommodate both the The motion and the rule— and the ruling.
[03:27:09] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, well, that is what the chair is going to do.
[03:27:11] Steph Ralph: What?
[03:27:12] Emily Waldron: I have that.
[03:27:13] Jamie Dunphy: I know, I'm sorry. I am, uh, ruling that the motion to, uh, reconsider is in order.
[03:27:23] Loretta Smith: And—.
[03:27:23] Angelita Morillo: Can I ask one clarifying question, please?
[03:27:25] Jamie Dunphy: Yes, Councilor Morillo. Yes.
[03:27:27] Angelita Morillo: Okay, Robert, City Attorney, um, tried and true Valiant warrior of the people up there with your legal knowledge. If we were to pass an amendment tonight, um, would we need 7 votes, or would we— is it the majority of the people sitting up here?
[03:27:47] Candace Avalos: It's—.
[03:27:47] Robert Taylor: You, under the rules to amend an ordinance, you need 7 affirmative votes.
[03:27:52] Keelan McClymont: Okay.
[03:27:54] Robert Taylor: But to the issue we just talked about, if you— if because we're after 9 o'clock, we can't go into new items, So you can reconsider the ordinance that failed, bring it back to life, but then you're prohibited from actually taking action on it tonight. You would need to carry it over.
[03:28:13] Unidentified speaker: That—. Yeah.
[03:28:14] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[03:28:15] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. That is what I am too.
[03:28:17] Angelita Morillo: I am—.
[03:28:18] Jamie Dunphy: The chair is ruling that the motion to reconsider an item we've already heard is not considered new business. And I'd like to move forward. And Councilor Clark has already more thoughts, Councilor Moreno? Okay.
[03:28:34] Angelita Morillo: I mean, so you're closing the item tonight, is that—.
[03:28:40] Jamie Dunphy: I am going to— I would like to vote on the motion to reconsider, and then I will be, uh, I'll— I mean, I will be blatant with all of my colleagues right now. My intention is to vote on the motion to reconsider. I will then, uh, immediately I'm going to say that I say that this item is continued to a future meeting, and I'm going to bang that gavel. So further discussion of the— Councilor Knoll.
[03:29:12] Sameer Kanal: Okay, I just— because I think this is a good opportunity to clarify intent, and I appreciate you clarifying your intent For this immediate moment. What's the intent beyond that? So this hypothetically gets reconsidered. Should it— should this motion pass, we end the meeting and then we move to a future meeting, ostensibly one of the next few. And then what? We just do the vote again, or is there a plan to do anything differently on the content of this thing?
[03:29:45] Jamie Dunphy: It is my hope, and I will be personally trying to work with the administration who put me in a position that there is an opportunity for some further work on this.
[03:29:53] Sameer Kanal: And I recognize, and I know that it may seem a little hollow because you're still living it, but I do recognize it's a tough spot for you as the president in this moment. So I wanna acknowledge that, 'cause I can only imagine what you've been hearing. But I also would like to know how, I, I would like to hear before I take a vote on this an inclination from anybody who voted no on Councilor Murillo and Green's amendment that there is anything that you'd be willing to do to change this ordinance. That, that would make me more willing to vote yes on reconsideration, and I would like to know what that specifically would be. Um, and I think this is the best time to have that conversation. Thanks.
[03:30:35] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. And we are again debating the motion to reconsider. Councilor Avalos.
[03:30:42] Sameer Kanal: I'll note—.
[03:30:42] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Gallo.
[03:30:43] Sameer Kanal: It does allow the merits of the thing being reconsidered to be discussed.
[03:30:47] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, absolutely. No, I'm just restating it for the purposes of the—.
[03:30:51] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[03:30:51] Eric Zimmerman: Body.
[03:30:51] Jamie Dunphy: Yes, you didn't do anything wrong. Councilor Avalos.
[03:30:57] Candace Avalos: All right, so I'm hearing the intent. And when you say that you'll bang the gavel after, It's continued on. So does it just go automatically to the next meeting that would be next Wednesday, or you have to reschedule?
[03:31:13] Jamie Dunphy: I will have to reschedule it. I will have to find the next available one, and there is no time currently available unless we move things around on the next— immediately next Wednesday. It's possible on the Thursday, but I have to work with my team and the clerk to figure that out.
[03:31:25] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[03:31:26] Candace Avalos: I think that's all.
[03:31:27] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[03:31:27] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Councilor Murillo.
[03:31:31] Angelita Morillo: Thank you. On the motion to reconsider, I agree with Councilor Kanal that I would like to hear some of my colleagues feedback on, basically, we can keep doing a Groundhog Day where we have the same discussion over and over again and it ends up in the same result because we know that the mayor is waiting for it to be the tiebreaker vote and we know what his position is. But I would love to hear what my colleagues are willing to do or to change about the franchise transfer so that we can actually have a different result this time around. And I guess I'm sort of pleading with my colleagues because while it is very funny that Councilor Novick said he was progressive in the '80s and made jokes about his own age and stuff, the joke of the fact that some of the older people up here are not going to deal with the impacts of climate change the way that my generation is, is also actually very real. And there are people my age who are choosing not to have families and not have children because we don't know what type of world we're gonna leave them with. And I say that because I feel like the same existential threat that many of us feel about AI and data centers and the poisoning of our water is the same existential threat that a lot of Portlanders feel about the Zenith oil train or I Squared's oil train or whoever's oil train it is in the future, what it could potentially do without an ability for the public to actually do enforcement on it. So I don't say that to put people in a difficult position. I'm sort of earnestly pleading as the youngest person on this council for you to consider the impacts on my generation and what's going to happen to us if we don't take some of these steps today when we have the opportunity to make things different. Thank you. So I think the vote to reconsider for me is one of, are my colleagues willing to move on any of this so that we can have stronger enforcement for the public? That's sort of what I'm asking for, and I'd love to hear folks, and I'm saying this in earnest, this is not a trap. I'm just really trying to figure out what we can do together to make this a little bit stronger so that the public and we can feel comfortable all moving this forward. Thank you. Thank you.
[03:33:51] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Colleagues, I would let— uh, just noting that I— it is 9:30 currently, and, uh, I did tell our staff we would be out of here hopefully by 9:30. So let's— uh, this is a good conversation to be had, but I just would like to note that. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[03:34:10] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. It's a little bit difficult to be asked what specifically We could support when we don't have proposals before us. We've had our attorneys tell us that there are some limitations, significant limitations to what you can do on a franchise transfer. And I think we need to operate within those limitations. It's hard to avoid a Groundhog Day when there are folks who don't want to operate within those limitations. But I think that we should all always be willing to have conversations about what policy can look like to make sure that we can get a majority vote on things that are the business of the council. So I hope that everybody is willing to have that conversation over the next week.
[03:35:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Vice President Clark.
[03:35:05] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Councilor President. Just really briefly, I appreciate your comments. As the oldest member of the council, I think I'm already experiencing climate change. I'm already experiencing those things. We don't have to wait any longer. And I would just say that, sure, I'm open to looking at things, but as Councilor Pirtle-Guiney just mentioned, there are certain sideboards to this, and I think we have to respect that. But I'm always open to learning more, and I'll just leave it at that.
[03:35:32] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Novick.
[03:35:36] Steve Novick: I just have to say that I find Councilor Morillo's assertion that anyone who disagrees with her on an issue relating to which company has a franchise agreement means that they don't care about climate change.
[03:35:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Councilor Kanal.
[03:35:51] Sameer Kanal: So, okay, I'm gonna, I'm gonna just say it's hard because We're trying to be responsible here, and when I say we, I do mean all of us who are here. And also, we have a resolved issue, maybe not to everyone's liking how it was resolved. There was a vote, and we're talking about reopening it, and it's— if it's going to be reopened just to change the outcome of the vote, that's not a good reason. And in fact, if you go into Robert's Rules, it actually says that's not a good reason unless someone's actually changing their mind. It's But if there's a reason to change it in terms of amending the document, that makes sense. And I appreciate that. The problem is we have no way of knowing that for obvious reasons. So I think in order to give my colleagues time to determine what it is that we could change, I would move to postpone the vote on reconsidering until next week.
[03:36:49] Jamie Dunphy: How does that work?
[03:36:51] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Point of information, Council President. I think we're in the middle of debate. To a motion that you made?
[03:36:56] Robert Taylor: It's a great, uh, great question. Uh, so the— there is a pending motion to reconsider. Uh, that pending motion to reconsider itself is subject to a subsidiary motion to postpone to a date certain. So you could vote to postpone the pending motion to reconsider until next week.
[03:37:24] Sameer Kanal: So I would move to do that, to postpone. I would move the subsidiary motion to postpone the vote on the main motion to reconsider until next week. And if you need more specific than next week, I'm happy to provide that at a time of your choice.
[03:37:40] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor, by saying next week, we will go ahead and accommodate that if that is the will of the council.
[03:37:45] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[03:37:45] Loretta Smith: Second.
[03:37:46] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, Councilor Kanal has made a subsidiary motion to postpone. It's 9:30, y'all, I'm sorry. Postpone the vote on the motion to reconsider to next week, and Councilor Avalos has seconded. Is that right? Did I get that mostly correct?
[03:38:02] Robert Taylor: Thank you. Yes.
[03:38:03] Jamie Dunphy: Okay. Is this a debatable motion?
[03:38:06] Robert Taylor: Uh, the, the— it is debatable as to the, the time to which you are postponing.
[03:38:13] Jamie Dunphy: There we go.
[03:38:14] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[03:38:16] Michaela McCormick: Okay.
[03:38:17] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Zimmerman, to the— okay. Colleagues, is there further discussion of Councilor Kanal's amendment or motion to postpone the vote on the motion to reconsider? Councilor Avalos.
[03:38:31] Candace Avalos: Yeah, I, I think that it's clear there are some concerns that people have about moving this forward right now due to everything we've already discussed, and so I think it's the most responsible thing to postpone So that we can give all the councilors whatever comforts they need to make that decision. And so I think it is— I would urge my colleagues to support this motion because I also agree that I'm not at this point interested in voting to reconsider something that I have not seen any material change in people's opinions. And so I would love to be able to make that Judgment call with more information. It's impossible for me to do that now, so I would not vote to reconsider it today. I'd be open to it in the future. And so if that's what people want, then I would recommend we vote for this to postpone it so that we can make that possible next time. Otherwise, I'm just going to be a no on reconsidering.
[03:39:29] Sameer Kanal: Thanks.
[03:39:29] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Councilor Murillo. Oh, and yeah, go ahead. Just, just do it.
[03:39:35] Benjamin Gilbert: Yeah, you're good.
[03:39:35] Angelita Morillo: Thank you. Um, yeah, I appreciate that approach so that we have some time to I'm also just going to lay a boundary here right now. Earlier, I think I spoke very calmly, nicely, and sort of made a plea for my generation about my experiences. And then another colleague reinterpreted my comments in a different way that was very negative. And again, having questions about my intentions and behavior. And I'm sort of done with that happening repeatedly to me and being chastised on council. So you can take my words at face value. There's really no subtlety to them.
[03:40:08] Steve Novick: There is no other way to interpret Councilor Rio's words the way I interpreted them.
[03:40:16] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and call a vote. Keelan, can we please call the vote on Councilor Kanal's motion to delay the vote on the motion to reconsideration to next week or something?
[03:40:30] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Kanal, seconded by Avalos.
[03:40:32] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[03:40:32] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[03:40:32] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[03:40:35] Emily Waldron: Aye.
[03:40:36] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[03:40:38] Emily Waldron: Aye.
[03:40:39] Loretta Smith: No.
[03:40:41] Steve Novick: Aye.
[03:40:44] Jamie Bradley Kissel: Aye.
[03:40:48] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: It's pretty clear to me this is the only way that we're going to be able to have this conversation, so aye.
[03:40:58] Keelan McClymont: No. Dunphy. Aye. The motion carries with 8 ayes and 4 nays.
[03:41:05] Jamie Dunphy: The vote on the reconsideration will be moved to next week. We are adjourned. Am I right? Am I, am I good? Am I good, everybody? Okay, we're adjourned.
[03:41:15] Sameer Kanal: Fuck yeah.