# Portland City Council AM Session 09/23/26
# Meeting ID: 2026-09-23-1  Duration: 204 min

[00:01:50] Nicole Onoscopi: We have time.
[00:01:58] Jamie Dunphy: I just want to point out that it's 9:25 on—.
[00:02:00] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: 9:20.
[00:02:01] Jamie Dunphy: In 40 48 hours, we will be officially at 925 on 925. Well, we're gonna wait a second to get started before everybody else starts. I ran over here, no one else is even here.
[00:02:20] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Nope, you're the only one.
[00:03:11] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, great. Good morning, friends. Before we begin our official meeting of the Portland City Council, we have a pre-gavel ceremony. I don't know where the rest of the councilors are, but I don't care, I'm getting started without them. Uh, we are here to remember the late, great Dolly Parton. We're going to start this morning with an amazing set from local drag performer Nicole Enoscopy, and from there we're going to hear from Lori McNichols, From the Imagination Library, followed by a reading of the Dolly Day Proclamation by yours truly. Happy Dolly Day, everyone.
[00:04:23] Nicole Onoscopi: It is my pleasure to introduce the Colonoscopy.
[00:04:27] Skylar Cruz: Come on in.
[00:04:38] Nicole Onoscopi: Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, I'm begging of you, please don't take my man. Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, please don't take him just because you can. Your beauty is beyond compare with flaming locks of auburn hair, ivory skin, and eyes of emerald green. Your smile is like a breath of spring. Your voice is soft like summer rain, and I cannot compete with you.
[00:05:22] Sameer Kanal: Jolene.
[00:05:23] Nicole Onoscopi: He talks about you in his sleep. There's nothing I can do to keep from crying when he calls your name, Jolene. And I could easily understand how you could easily take my man, but you don't know what he means to me, Jolene. Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene. I'm begging you, Jolene. I'm thinking of you, please don't take my man. Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, oh, please don't take him just because you can. Feel free to sing along to any of these if you know them. Here you come again, just when I've begun to get myself together. You'll waltz right through that door just like you did before and wrap my heart around your little finger. Here you come again, just when I'm about to make it work without you. Here you come again. You look into my eyes and lie those pretty lies, and pretty soon I'm wondering how I came to doubt you. All you gotta do is smile that smile and I lose all my defenses. Just leave it up to you, and in a little while— You're messing up my mind and filling up my senses. Says, here you come again, looking about as good as a body has the right to, and shaking me up so that all I really know is here you come again. And here I go. All right, I know you know this one. I want to hear all of you. Tumble out of bed and I stumble to the kitchen, pour myself a cup of ambition and yawn and stretch and try to come to life. Jump in the shower and the blood starts pumping. Out on the street, traffic starts jumping with folks like me on the job from 9 to 5. Working 9 to 5, what a way to make a living. Barely getting by, it's all taking and no giving. They just use your 9 to 5. For service and devotion, you would think that I would deserve a fat promotion. Want to move ahead, but the boss won't seem to let me. I swear sometimes that man is out to get me. Ooh, ooh. You built your dreams to watch them shatter just to step on the boss man's ladder, but you got dreams he'll never take away. In the same boat with a lot of your friends, waiting for the day a ship will come in and the tide's gonna turn and it's all gonna roll your way. Working 9 to 5, what a way to make a living. Barely getting by, it's all taking and no giving. They just use your mind and they never give you credit. It's enough to drive you crazy if you let it. 9 To 5, they got you where they want you. There's a better life and you think about it, don't you? Yes. Rich man's game, no matter what they call it. And you spend your life putting money in his wallet. 9 To 5. What a way to make a living, barely getting by. It's all taking and no giving. They just use your mind and they never give you credit. It's enough to drive you crazy if you let it. 9 To 5, yeah, they got you where they want you. There's a better life and you dream about it, don't ya? 9 To 5. Rich man's game, no matter what they call it, and you spend your life putting money in his wallet. 9 To 5. September 25th. 9 To 5. It's enough to drive you crazy if you let it. Happy Dolly Day!
[00:10:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you so— thank you so much, Nicole and Oscopi. I'd like next to welcome up Lori McNichols from the Imagination Library as our team puts the, uh, dais back together.
[00:11:12] Sameer Kanal: Welcome.
[00:11:14] Lori McNichols: Alrighty, so that's a tough act to follow, but I'm so glad to be here representing the Imagination Library of Oregon. My name is Laurie McNichols, and good morning, Portland. Um, thank you, Mayor Wilson, um, Council President Dunphy, and members of the Portland City Council for inviting the Imagination Library Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for having us. And Nicole and Oskarpe, thank you so much for channeling the Dolly magic. Dolly Parton often said that her father was the smartest man she ever knew, but his inability to read and write kept him from fulfilling all of his dreams. Seeing how this struggle impacted him and wanting to make a difference for the children in her home county in East Tennessee, Dolly founded the Imagination Library in his honor. Dolly's vision was simple yet revolutionary. Every child, no matter their family circumstances, should have a home library. She often referred to the Imagination Library as her little program. We know nothing Dolly ever did was small. Across Oregon, the Imagination Library reaches every corner of our state. It empowers parents and caregivers to be their child's first teachers. Fosters precious moments for families to treasure, and gives young learners the tools to develop vital early literacy skills to help them thrive in kindergarten and beyond. We cannot talk about the Imagination Library without talking about the heartbeat behind it. There's a myth that Dolly funded the whole thing herself, but that's a misconception that I'd like everyone in this room to help dispel. The truth is, Dolly understood the mission was too big for any one person. Thank you. She knew she couldn't do this work all on her own. In every community where the Imagination Library is available, there's an organizational partner that promotes the program. They enroll children and fundraise to cover the cost, the wholesale cost of books and mailing. Dolly called these partners her true heroes. In Oregon, there are 48 partner organizations that make the Imagination Library a reality. In their communities. In Portland, that organization is the United Way of the Columbia-Wilamette, covering regions of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties. Across these 3 counties, they mail books to over 18,000 enrolled children— 18,000 every single month. In total, they've sent more than 130,000 books in less than 2 years. We're honored to have representatives from the United Way of the Columbia Willamette here with us today. Some states also have a state funding match. In Oregon, the state of Oregon pays for 50% of the cost of books and mailing for every enrolled child through the Department of Early Learning and Care. Without this vital support, many of our partners would be unable to sustain their programs, let alone enroll new children. Right now, over 80,000 children in Oregon are enrolled. That's about 30% of all kids under the age of 5 in our state. And while that's great, it also means, means that there are thousands more that we could reach. As we get ready to celebrate Dolly Day, the Dollywood Foundation has launched the Give Like Dolly Day initiative, also set for September 25th. To shine a light, a spotlight on our Imagination Library partners and encourage communities to rally around them. In honor of Dolly Day, we encourage everyone to visit the Imagination Library's website to learn more about Dolly's Little Program and your own local partner. And if you're able, consider making a gift to support that partner so they can continue this vital work. Before I pass along the mic, I want to let everyone I want everyone in this room to take a moment to think of the first book that ever made you feel something, that click of magic or discovery. That's exactly what the Imagination Library is delivering to the children of Portland and across Oregon each month. Today, as we prepare to honor Dolly Parton, we're not just recognizing a celebrity We are celebrating a champion for every child. The Imagination Library of Oregon applauds the City of Portland for choosing to recognize Dolly Parton with her own special day, 9 to 5 Day.
[00:16:03] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Lori. Thank you, Nicole. Thank you, Lori. Thank you for being here with your dedication to our community, your brilliance, your warmth, all of your, your commitment to our community and good humor. I'm now going to read the proclamation. Whereas Dolly Rebecca Parton was born January 19th, 1945, in a one-room cabin in the Great Smoky Mountains in Pittman Center, Tennessee, as the 4th of 12 children, and whereas throughout her extraordinary 6-decade career, Dolly Parton wrote an estimated 3,000 songs both for herself and for other musicians and sold more than 100 million records worldwide, including legendary hits such as Jolene, I Will Always Love You and 9 to 5, and winning 11 Grammy Awards and being inducted into both the Count— the Country Music and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And whereas Dolly Parton was both a talented musician and a talented business leader, retaining ownership of her music publishing rights at a time in the music industry where that was rarely done, this allowed her a degree of financial independence and empowered her to build a legacy of giving and community focus. Her success in business allowed her not to amass vast personal wealth, but to fuel a lifelong mission of giving back to those in need. And whereas Dolly Parton established Dolly Parton's Imagination Library in 1995 to foster a love of reading among children, donating more than 300 million free books to children worldwide, including thousands of young readers here in Multnomah County. And whereas Dolly Parton's philanthropy extended to disaster relief, wildlife preservation, and critical funding for medical research. Dolly's $1 million donation to Vanderbilt University in April of 2020 is credited with supercharging the early research that developed Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine and the beginning of the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. And whereas Dolly Parton's belief in decency encouraged her defense of the LGBTQIA2S+ community and other marginalized communities at a time where this was practically unheard of in the country music industry. And whereas Dolly Parton has been credited as one of the last cultural icons that unite Americans from all sides, urban and rural, conservative and progressive, rich and poor. And whereas Dolly Parton's contributions to culture, philanthropy, and education led her to receiving 3 honorary doctorates from Carson-Newman University in Jefferson City, Tennessee, the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, and the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, earning her the nickname Dr. Dolly. And whereas, Dolly Parton passed away peacefully at the age of 80 on August 25th, 2026, following a private battle with cancer. Now therefore, I, Keith Wilson, Mayor of the City of Portland, the City of Roses, do hereby proclaim September 25th, 925, to be Dolly Parton Day, and hereby encourage all residents to celebrate the legacy of this unique American icon. Thank you. Now, obviously today is 9/23. The real day is Friday. There are a lot of local restaurants, bars, and music venues who are offering drink specials, offering discounts, and also making contributions to the Imagination Library. Look it up online. We have available on my website, and we'll make sure to get it out to the press so that everybody can go and support some of these businesses on Friday. But on Friday, I really encourage everybody to try and take a moment, read to a kid. Do something kind. Remember why you're part of this community. It's good. It's a good moment for us to just enjoy some of the good things about this place. So thank you all very much. Keelan, can we please call the roll?
[00:19:40] Keelan McClymont: Good morning, Koyameline here. Murillo here.
[00:19:44] Sameer Kanal: Novick here. Clark here.
[00:19:49] Jamie Dunphy: Rain here.
[00:19:51] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman here. Avalos. Present.
[00:20:00] Dan Ryan: I'm here, and I just want to say that I'm really sad I missed the tribute. The shutdown of I-5 really materialized today, right, Councilor Kanal? And so, but I missed a drag show. I missed like, I can't believe this gay elder missed this. So I'm just kind of bumming out and I can't wait. Well, Cindy—. Because, no, I know I've been loving her longer than most of you. And so I just need to own this. Like, she's been my person. She was that light that allowed young gay people in your 20s and 30s when we were treated so poorly. She was there loving us all. When I struggled with my faith, I knew there was Dolly Parton that had a deep, deep system of faith. And she was a capitalist who did a lot of good. Let me just say that, like, I can't wait to have a second honeymoon at Dollywood. My spouse and I talk about it all the time. So I just hope everyone can continue to keep the joy and the love and the acceptance that Dolly gave to one another, and that we can show that more up here and throughout the city. Thanks.
[00:21:08] Jamie Dunphy: And I am here. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Uh, could we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
[00:21:26] Keelan McClymont: 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 a presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. Good evening, everyone. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony and 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 are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
[00:22:29] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Thank you very much. Colleagues, our first item on every agenda is approval of the agenda. Are there any objections? Do I have— wow, reading it poorly. Sorry. Good morning. Do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? Yes. Okay, thank you. The agenda is approved. Can we please call public communications?
[00:22:58] Keelan McClymont: Uh, first up this morning we have Natalia McDonough.
[00:23:03] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning, welcome. Please state your name for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
[00:23:11] Natalia McDonough: For the record, I'm Natalia McDonough, she/her, and I'm production manager at the Portland 5 Centers for the Performing Hello, Council. This is what Dolly was singing about. I'm speaking to you on behalf of the non-represented P5 staff. As you know, Metro terminated the IGA contract with the city December 31st, 2025. The termination clause in the IGA states that in the case of termination of the contract, all personnel whose positions are included in the budgets for the city facilities shall become employees of the city and All personnel holding central management staff positions shall become employees of the city. In addition, state law ORS 236 states that employees transferring between governmental agencies keep comparable positions at the same pay rate and benefits for at least 1 year. We were shocked when Donny Oliveira announced on July 31st that no employees were transferring to the city. Thank you. No jobs, no benefits, no PERS. We will have to reapply for our jobs with an unknown third party. The labor unions had to file an unfair labor practice complaint to force the city to the table and guarantee jobs and benefits for their members. The management RFP includes nothing regarding non-rep staff. The city is acting in bad faith and violation of the law. It appears the city believes that a third-party management company is some sort of panacea for the problems facing P5 and intended to use this as an opportunity to clean house of staff and the unions if you could get away with it. We are not the problem. We are public employees who work hard every day to support our nonprofits and provide excellent service for all our clients. We have deep institutional knowledge and personal investment in our staff, clients, the arts community, and your buildings. Thank you. Our government jobs gave us a way to serve and provide a stable future for ourselves and our families. To give you an idea of who we are, a single mother who is a sole provider for her family, a person who took their current position because it was supposed to continue through the transfer to the city. One of us will be 7 months shy of 30 years at P5 and full PERS retirement on July 1st, '27. I have 20 years with Metro and in PERS. This is a second government job to be outsourced, my job outsourced in 4 years. Is this the new normal for local government, outsourcing the dirty work while paying lip service to values and labor? We expect you to honor your legal obligations. We have filed a letter of complaint with the city stating that the city is in violation of the IGA and ORS 236, and we will take legal action to remedy this.
[00:26:04] Candace Avalos: Thank you.
[00:26:05] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:26:08] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Skylar Cruz joining us online.
[00:26:14] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome, Skylar.
[00:26:17] Keelan McClymont: Oh, Skylar, we can't hear you.
[00:26:18] Skylar Cruz: Is that better?
[00:26:19] Keelan McClymont: Here we go.
[00:26:20] Skylar Cruz: Yeah, that's better. Okay, cool. Um, hello, City Council. My name is Skylar Cruz. I'm a resident of District 4. Last week I watched the meeting where the Zenith transfer agreement failed and discussion of the reconsideration occurred. During that conversation, Angelita Murillo emotionally pleaded to the half of council which voted yes on the transfer agreement to reconsider amendments to the underlying. Steve Novick then replied, I find Councilor Murillo's assertion that anyone who disagrees with her on an issue relating to which company has a franchise agreement means they don't care about climate change. This is a gross mischaracterization of what Councilor Murillo said. I think it's pretty obvious that everyone on this council cares about climate change. The degree to which each person cares and the methods they determine best to fight climate change differs from councilor to councilor, and I think we can and should acknowledge that. This issue is also not specifically climate change, but more disaster recovery, disaster care. Um, the, the hub is really dangerous for us, so I really want to see those protections in place. Also, Novick made a joke earlier in that meeting about being too old to experience the worst effects of climate change. And I don't believe this to be any indicator that Novick is dismissive of climate change or that he doesn't care. If anything, I think it's a coping mechanism for dealing with the absolutely terrifying future we may endure and understanding that younger people are going to endure it even worse. I think that comes from a real feeling. When we make those jokes, it's, it's a way to young people are really urging those in power right now to make the changes necessary to improve our lives. Sometimes we're harsh, and while I understand that maybe how that may feel, it doesn't change the underlying concern. In my lifetime, I have seen and been involved in countless protests around climate change, wealth inequality, the sovereignty of the people of Standing Rock, police brutality against Black and brown people, and so much more. Thank you. And the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. While some of these concerns are beyond the scope of this council, others are very much within scope. When young people are pleading for change, we might be harsh and perhaps annoying about it, but it comes from an earnest place. I just hope you remember that, and I am hopeful for more productive conversations on Zenith and CEI Hub actions moving forward. I yield my time. Thank you.
[00:28:36] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[00:28:40] Keelan McClymont: Next up we have Grant Massey.
[00:28:46] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning, welcome. For the record, you're welcome to share your pronouns and you have 3 minutes.
[00:29:00] Grant Massey: Hello, my name is Grant Massey. I live in the Overlook neighborhood in North Portland. I'm here today to talk about the Northgoing Street footbridge and pedestrian bridge, the south side of the bridge, also known as Simon Stanich Overpass Mini Park. Bit of a tongue twister. Our bridge connects our Overlook community to Beach Elementary, Oakley Green Middle School, and other local businesses. The bridge sees anywhere from 100 to 1,000 children, pedestrians, and bikers daily. Why am I here? I'm here to make 3 requests. We would like permanent regular security checks for the elementary and middle school kids hours daily. They just started that this week, and it's the first time probably in 3 to 4 years I've actually felt our kids can walk safely to school. Um, they're just temporary right now, so we are asking that those be permanent through the school year until PBOT can help us with a permanent solution to make the bridge safe. We're asking for funding and approval for a permanent solution and not a Band-Aid. As a community, we have raised almost $2,000, but we likely need approximately approximately $10,000 to $30,000 for a permanent solution, and we need your help to access these funds. We currently have a draft mural project and a draft layout for the space underneath the bridge. We need your help to streamline PBOT's approval so we can start work on this bridge in the spring. We'd like you to help connect us with available money through grants that are out there before they become available, hopefully. Number 3, we're asking for your assistance in shutting down the bottle drop at the Platte Pantry on Interstate and going. The bridge is about a 2-minute walk from the Plaid Pantry, and after the bottle drop just shut down at Delta Park, we've seen a lot more traffic from loiterers. I have kids that play out at soccer at Delta Park weekly, and this area has been dramatically cleaned up because of the bottle shutdown up there, so we know this works. What's the problem? Well, people unlawfully use the space under the bridge and around the bridge to use drugs, Camp and make fires, among other illegal activities. A person recently exposed their genitals— actually, a man that exposed his penis to a 10-year-old girl. This was actually a couple weeks ago. Uh, my friend is friends with this girl. There's a dead body found under the bridge a few years ago, and my kids personally have been yelled at, chased with knives over the bridge, and we step over people that have needles in their arms. This is a weekly occurrence, and this shouldn't be. Thank you. Normal for our kids to see. There are children as young as 9 years old that walk unsupervised over the bridge daily, despite this being a safe route to school. I've worked with PBOT for over 2 years now, and they haven't been able to create a permanent solution to make this a safe space. We're asking for you to help us streamline a request with PBOT. There's boulders that they put down, there's fences that they put up, but the fences have been cut 4 times, and currently the fence has been cut through right now. We need your help to restore the space under and around the south side of the Going Footbridge so we as a community feel safe going to and from school and businesses. Thank you for listening, and we're hoping you can help us make some change.
[00:32:10] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Uh, Councilor Ryan.
[00:32:13] Dan Ryan: Thank you, Council President. Jason, Jason, thank you for being here. I just wanted to start with that. I heard similar concerns last week at the Overlook Neighborhood Association meeting. And so it really helps that you showed up. I actually asked people there to try to start coming to express themselves here. Maybe you were at that meeting, I can't recall, but I appreciate you being here. I did have one quick question I didn't hear. Who's currently paying for the security that, that are, that you, that are, that are doing this right now, that are providing service?
[00:32:45] Jamie Dunphy: I'm assuming PBOT.
[00:32:47] Dan Ryan: PBOT's paying for that?
[00:32:49] Grant Massey: They own the space.
[00:32:50] Jamie Dunphy: It's technically a PBOT-owned park, which has been part of the process. PBOT doesn't—.
[00:32:54] Dan Ryan: Thank you. I just had to clarify that the city was paying for that. I couldn't tell when you said you're raising money and such as well, so I appreciate it.
[00:33:01] Grant Massey: Raising money for the mural and to change the space underneath the bridge.
[00:33:04] Candace Avalos: Got it.
[00:33:06] Dan Ryan: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure I knew where the source of the funds were coming from. Thank you. We'll look into it, all of us on D2, I'm sure. Thanks.
[00:33:13] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you, Councilor Ryan.
[00:33:19] Keelan McClymont: Uh, next up we have Amy Thomas.
[00:33:28] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning, welcome.
[00:33:29] Amy Thomas: Good morning, my name is Amy Thomas and okay. Dear Mayor Wilson, my name is Amy Thomas and I am a Home Forward resident. I am writing formally to ask that you give me the reason why you canceled my appointment to the Home Forward Board of Commissioners as the resident representative. I have years of advocacy and leadership experience. Within Home Forward and the Portland metro area and bring a wealth of lived experience that would be extremely valuable to Home Forward Board of Commissioners. I went through a rigorous and equitable application process available to all Home Forward residents and employees for this role, and out of hundreds of applicants, I was chosen due to my experience and qualifications. After filling out the application and going through multiple interviews, I was notified that I was appointed to this position on December 18th, 2025. In mid-January, I was told that the City of Portland appointment process had changed and that it may take up to 6 months for me to be formally sworn in. In March 2026, I endured a humiliating meeting with Mayor Wilson in which he unfairly regarded my lived experience as a liability to performing my role as a commissioner. Since then, I have waited, sacrificing other employment and leadership opportunities in order to pursue this appointment. This led to undue stress and financial hardship, but I endured because I believed in my ability to represent Home Forward residents well on the board. Also, there was a letter that was written to follow this correspondence up as well, and I'm pulling that up right now. So Welcome Home Coalition wrote, um, they had 3 requests, and, um, one was to publish the new recruitment and approval process with timelines, roles clearly outlined on the city and Home Forward websites. In that publication, a clear summary of how the new process will be different than the current one and why those specific changes are being made. 3, A response to this letter making assurances that the applicants who were already considered for these appointments will be given a fair chance to reapply if they so choose to. I'm just looking for answers and clarification, and hopefully I will get some of that. And thank you so much.
[00:36:39] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much for coming down here today.
[00:36:42] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Zach White.
[00:36:44] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, sorry, Councilor Knoll.
[00:36:45] Sameer Kanal: Sorry.
[00:36:46] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[00:36:47] Raymond C. Lee: Thanks for being here, Amy. I was given enough information that I could tentatively schedule the new refiled appointments to the Home Forward board for October 21st. The filing deadline has not been reached for that date yet, which means basically a person can say we'll have it ready, but not having— not have it filed yet. And I don't want to put City Administrator Lee on the spot. If you happen to know, I'd love to know if that item has been filed and/or if the people who are being appointed have been selected? I know that they don't technically have to be yet for the deadlines. Yes, not to my knowledge, not yet. I'd have to follow up with the mayor's office to kind of see their timing of, of the nominees and how that's moving forward. Okay, so just to— for everyone's knowledge, what the information I was given was enough for me to tentatively schedule it. This may change, but for the 2 to 5 PM slot on Wednesday, October 21st, in the Committee of the Whole.
[00:37:45] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thanks.
[00:37:45] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Khan.
[00:37:48] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Zach White joining us online.
[00:37:52] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning.
[00:37:54] Zach White: Morning. My name is Zach White, born in District 1. I'm speaking in a personal capacity. I often introduce myself as a field organizer with Next Step Action Fund, but I'm also a member of Multnomah Friends Meeting, a Quaker community in District 3. I was surprised to hear Councilor Ryan say he holds you all in the light. Which is how we Quakers talk about prayer. Last Wednesday, I and other NextUp staff hosted a City Council watch party at Imagine Black. They had signs around the room promoting their, quote, no police money in politics pledge. It felt ironic I was sitting there in the Imagine Black office as 2 of your Instagram statements roll in condemning Councilor Green's old tweets disparaging the police. Thank you. This was the same day the Portland Police Association called for Councilor Green to resign. Now more than ever, I want to thank those of you who signed that no police money pledge for doing so. I have never been an ACAB person. To the Portlanders in uniform who are trying to protect and serve our city, I respect that. What I do not respect is an election stunt. Councilor Green, you have 2 minutes. By the Portland Police Association. That's what it feels like. Councilor Green took his rage offline, ran for office, and now is one of the most decent councilors on this dais. To me, that is leadership and a way to heal the painful divide our city felt in 2020. Councilor Green speaks with kindness to those he disagrees with in a way that frankly not all of you do. The condemnations of Green by the PPA and some of you glaringly leave out the context. The timing, the murder of George Floyd, the gassing of protesters, and the documented 6,000 uses of force. There's a quote I want to share with you all on a different subject from Pope Leo XIV, like I said, as a Quaker, not a Catholic. In my last testimony, I read a Teddy Roosevelt quote about invisible corporate government, so this is kind of— I remember reading this Pope Leo passage about listening to the poor while riding the MAX back from City Hall, quote: Growing up in precarious circumstances, learning to survive in the most adverse conditions, trusting in God with the assurance that no one else takes them seriously, and helping one another in the darkest moments—the poor have learned many things that they keep hidden in their hearts. Those of us who have not had similar experiences of living this way. Certainly have much to gain from the source of wisdom that is the experience of the poor. So I like to call him Pope Bob. Pope Bob is saying here that listening to the poor is how you be a good Christian, but I also think it's what you all have to do as government. So thank you for listening.
[00:40:47] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much for being here this morning.
[00:40:49] Keelan McClymont: That completes public communications.
[00:40:51] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you very much, everybody. Our next item on our agenda is, uh, we're going to receive an update from the city administrator on any, uh, advances with regard to the federal, uh, the response to the federal interventions in Portland. City Administrator.
[00:41:06] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. There are no new updates, uh, this week. We'll follow up next week with any new information that we have.
[00:41:14] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Okay, Keelan, can we please call item number 4?
[00:41:19] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-01, 6-277, appropriate grant award of $207,411 for Speed Racing Street Takeover.
[00:41:31] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. However, there was some discussion last week with regard to how this grant appropriation worked in relation to the charter requirements for 5% to be sent to the Office of Police Oversight. I also understand Councilor Kanal has an amendment to that end. But first, City Administrator, is there Is there more information to be shared publicly about that? No? Okay. Then Councilor Kanal.
[00:41:59] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I—. We sent the amendment over to be pre-filed, so I'm not 100% sure, uh, what that's— it's not showing for me online, but we did send it in. Um, but, uh, so if you can bear with me a second, but basically we, um, we found that, that the numbers were about, um, there was already a slight It needs about $10,000 to— I'll get the exact numbers— about $10,000 to match 5% of the updated police budget with OCPA. But the OCPA funding was already about $4,000-something above the bare minimum. So this is an amendment to add the remaining $5,000 and change from general fund unrestricted contingency to the OCPA budget so that the increase in the police budget from this grant is matched and the OCPA remains at 5%. Thank you. Of the police budget. Um, I'm gonna pull it up, just try to find it online. And yeah, so, but that's what it does, and I'll get you the exact text and, um, want to point it out when it's posted.
[00:43:00] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. And your staff had emailed this around to us all, uh, and so I believe the council clerk has a copy of this. Uh, Councilor, are you formally moving this amendment then? What's that? Are you gonna wait to read the text first?
[00:43:12] Sameer Kanal: I'll just read it out loud.
[00:43:14] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: 'Cause I got it here.
[00:43:15] Zach White: Okay.
[00:43:16] Sameer Kanal: Canal 1 adds 5% of the appropriated grant amount to the budget for the Office of Community-Based Police Accountability and Compliance with Charter Requirements. The FY 2026-2027 budget is amended to move $10,370.57 from general fund unrestricted contingency to the Office of Community-Based Police Accountability. And there's a scrivener's error in there. It says policy, not police, but I will get that to you.
[00:43:40] Jamie Dunphy: Second. Thank you. So Councilor Kanal has moved Kanal 1, and Councilor Avalos has seconded. Colleagues, uh, discussion of the amendments? Council Vice President Clark.
[00:43:49] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Councilor President. Just a couple of questions. Um, I'm just looking at this, uh, amendment. Actually, I think there's 2 amendments coming.
[00:43:56] Jamie Dunphy: Second item. Next item.
[00:43:59] Olivia Clark: Oh, next item. Okay, so, uh, question number one—.
[00:44:01] Sameer Kanal: There are actually 2 for this.
[00:44:02] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, I'm wrong. I apologize.
[00:44:04] Sameer Kanal: All right, I— do you want me to speak to that one why don't you briefly describe it?
[00:44:08] Jamie Dunphy: But we've already moved to the first one, so go ahead.
[00:44:11] Sameer Kanal: Sorry to interrupt you, Vice President Clark.
[00:44:13] Olivia Clark: Well, I was just— maybe your Second Amendment addresses my question about delaying acceptance of the grant. That's my concern. And secondly, it seems to me that this is an issue that should be dealt with by— through the budget process and not on every individual grant that comes through. This seems kind of awkward that we know we have this requirement and the budget office should be taking care of it in the larger budget. So I'm not sure why we need to do this.
[00:44:44] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Smith.
[00:44:47] Loretta Smith: Okay, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Vice Chair Olivia Clark. That's not quite what it should be. This money that goes to OCPA has to come from the operating budget. It doesn't count for individual grants that come through the, uh, City of Portland that happen to go to the police. If that was the case, there's a, a number of grants that have gone through to the police that you would have to actually go back in and take the 5%. This doesn't qualify for that, uh, Councilor, uh, Um, you have to do this from the operating budget, and so I will not be supporting your amendment.
[00:45:32] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Kanal?
[00:45:35] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I'm gonna wait to move it, but I'm just going to describe the second amendment, um, and then I'll speak to the first amendment a little bit. Um, Kanal 2 adds a Section 2 to the ordinance to add an emergency clause. It reads, this council— the council declares that an emergency exists in order to avoid undue delays in accepting these grant funds. Therefore, this ordinance shall be in full force and and the reason for this is exactly as Vice President Clark said, to ensure that it is able to immediately go through and be a part of the ongoing work of the Police Bureau. And getting back to Canal 1, and I'll state just for the record, my intent, assuming that we are in compliance with the charter on OCPA, is to vote yes on this grant. I second. So for those who may be speculatively counting votes and wondering if 9 is achievable, it is. But getting back to the First Amendment, I think Councilor Smith is correct that we would have had to do this except that the OCPA budget, the 5% ratio was not— had not been violated by any previous action we've taken this fiscal year because there was a little extra in there in the thousands. This one, this particular grant, would raise the police budget high enough that the OCPA budget would be below 5% of that revised police budget. And so in order to keep that in line, the amendment is necessary to keep the OCPA budget at 5% or above. So that's the intention there. I think more broadly, the philosophy behind it, I think, is that philosophy behind and the counterargument is a little concerning to me because by that logic, you're just cutting up what the charter amendment counts for and doesn't count for. This is money that would be used by the police bureau for ongoing operations. It's fairly obviously a part of their budget if we accept this grant. And I think that's a classic reasonable person on the street would understand that kind of thing. So that's why you see the ratio being maintained.
[00:47:44] Candace Avalos: Thank you.
[00:47:46] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[00:47:51] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. Um, Mr. City Administrator, I had said last week that I hoped we could have some clarity about whether this was needed or not, and you have no updates for us. I don't know if the City Attorney's Office has an update. It seems pretty important to me for us to understand this issue because If we— thank you, Heidi, for being here. I need to know before I vote on this amendment if this is something we need to do or not. It seems to me that we could set a precedent in taking this vote if it's not necessary to meet the 5% threshold for grants that could have significant impacts if we receive large grants later, either positive or negative. Councilor Smith. Um, and if it is necessary, I want to make sure that we're following our charter and the law.
[00:48:42] Heidi Brown: Okay. Good morning, Council. My name is Heidi Brown, Chief Deputy with City Attorney's Office. Um, good to see you all this morning. So the charter language says that the funding for the board will be proportional to no less than 5% of the police bureau's annual operational budget. So the question is, what's the annual operational budget? Code language has defined that in 35.20.030 to say council will adopt a budget at the conclusion of the budget cycle that is proportional to 5% of the concurrently adopted PPB annual operating budget. So at the time that you've, per code, that annual operational budget has been defined as when you adopt your—.
[00:49:27] Jamie Dunphy: Annual operating budget.
[00:49:29] Heidi Brown: Annual budget, that, that is when the 5% is calculated. Now, if for any reason council wants to redefine annual operational budget to go throughout the year, you could bring an amendment to code to redefine that language. But for now, that is the interpretation through code of that language. So that— I just wanted to set the big stage. So then the short answer is that since you've already adopted the annual budget and set the 5% from the annual budget, then changes throughout the year are— do not need to be adjusted to the OCPA.
[00:50:09] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Is there any precedent or interpretation that the City Attorney's Office has made in the past on, um, what the fall and spring technical adjustments count as? What I I'm hoping to understand is, is a grant different than building in a new program that we put millions of dollars toward in a fall TAO? Would both of those not need to be matched? Would one need to be matched and not the other? Is there a gray area there? How cut and dry is this interpretation and how far does it extend?
[00:50:47] Heidi Brown: So, so to be clear, the supplemental budgets that are adopted in the fall and spring TAO under the code language don't require adjustments to the OCPA at this time. They're allowed, they're permissible. You can certainly do it if you want to, but they're not required. Now, in answer to your question though, if you were to redefine code to say annual operational budget is throughout the course of the year, then when you look at it, you'd need to look at is the grant for an operational purpose or a capital purpose. I think our office has defined an operating budget to be expenses for operating the police bureau, but that does not include like capital expenses. So that's normally how that's been delineated between those two. So it would depend on the purpose of the grant on whether you would have matching funds. Again though, underlying, if you're saying, do I have to do it or not? Right now you don't have to.
[00:51:43] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay.
[00:51:43] Heidi Brown: Because of the code language.
[00:51:45] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: And are there other places where that phrase about annual operations budget is used? Meaning, if we were to change how we interpreted that for police and OCPA, could there be inadvertent implications to other bureaus and in other parts of the budget?
[00:52:07] Heidi Brown: Not, not that I'm— not that I'm aware of. Aware of, Councilor, and I did kind of did some legal research as well. We looked at budget law, we looked at local budget law and the budget manual. There's discussions about an operating budget. There's not a definition of an operating budget or an annual operating budget. And so we're looking at the way the city has been utilizing those terms.
[00:52:33] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay, thank you. I am now— so, so if I am understanding you correctly, we don't need to— we don't need to do this. If we were to do this, we wouldn't be creating a precedent that could have implications elsewhere in the budget. If these funds are for capital expenses, however, we could be creating a precedent because right now you're interpreting the need as only applying to operational and not capital Is that accurate?
[00:53:06] Jonas Biery: Yeah, Councilor, and I'll let the City Attorney speak to the legal side. For the record, Jonas Biery, Chief Financial Officer. The one just caveat I'd make, it's a good question, is are there other places in particularly policy or code where we reference operating? I think it is possible. I mean, we certainly haven't done that detailed review. I think that's probably a low risk. Where I think there is just something to be aware of is that you know, because grants do come through related to PPB with some, I don't wanna say regularity, but more than occasionally. And because we do make obviously mid-year adjustments, there will be some sort of administrative thinking we need to do about what triggers that change. And I say that because I would suggest if this is a path that council wishes to take, it would be extremely valuable, particularly to the budget office, to have clarity via a code. Yeah. Corrections so that we have clear understanding of under what specific circumstances are we expected to make that budgetary adjustment.
[00:54:09] Heidi Brown: And just if I can add on to that, Councilor, like for example, there are some pass-through grants that come to various places, but including PPB. So they might get a grant from somewhere, from the feds or from the state, that then is passed on to other jurisdictions, other people. They're not utilizing it for their own operations. So as Jonas was saying, there would be an analysis on each one that would need to be made on how the money is intended to be used.
[00:54:38] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Got it. So for pass-through grants, obviously different situation. And are we still in a space where we should be assuming that OCPA is likely not going to draw down their full budget this year? Obviously, we never know for any bureau. I know they're in the middle of a hiring process. I mean, is all of this to a certain extent moot because some of the funds will come back anyway?
[00:55:06] Jonas Biery: I'd say, Councilor, I think that is a possibility. We certainly, as you indicated, too early in the year to sort of be able to align anticipated spending to actual spending. I don't think— I'm not aware of any change to the conversation that occurred during the— any material change to the circumstances beyond what was discussed during the budget deliberations.
[00:55:24] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay, thank you for all of those clarifications.
[00:55:27] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Ryan.
[00:55:30] Dan Ryan: Thank you, Council President. I jumped in before I had all the details and because I just found out about this amendment and I was out in the hallway with a constituent. You had me at what I thought. My gut said, no, this is not operational. This is a designated grant. And then you were able to read what the charter said, which defined it very clearly. So this would put us out of compliance with the charter that people voted on and passed. So I don't know why we're quibbling about this. I do know that we need these funds to take care of a very challenging situation that's making it really difficult to the city for many residents and many employers. So I hope that we can get to business here and go ahead and receive this grant that, that is awarded to us.
[00:56:15] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[00:56:16] Dan Ryan: Thank you. And I will not be supporting this amendment, obviously.
[00:56:20] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor Smith.
[00:56:25] Loretta Smith: Thank you. Councilor Kanal, I have a question. Did you take this through legal counsel before you put this in?
[00:56:35] Sameer Kanal: Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, we, we've talked to lawyers about the underlying issue with it, not the exact text of it, because it says I mean, it's a single sentence that just moves from unrestricted contingency. We asked the budget office about where to take the money from, and that's why it's general fund unrestricted contingency. That was their suggestion.
[00:56:54] Loretta Smith: So, but they can't tell you that based on what I'm hearing today. What I'm trying to get to is, if legal counsel has told you that you can't do this, why pursue this? Legal counsel has not. That's, that's what I'm asking you.
[00:57:08] Sameer Kanal: Legal counsel has not told us that we cannot do this. And then I don't know what Councilor Ryan was talking about a minute ago, but I'm pretty sure Heidi did not say that adopting this amendment would put us out of compliance with the charter. But I'll just say—.
[00:57:20] Dan Ryan: That's not true. No. Point of order. Read it again.
[00:57:24] Nicole Onoscopi: Yeah, go back.
[00:57:24] Heidi Brown: Just to be clear, so the funding for the board shall be no less than 5% of the police bureau's annual operational budget.
[00:57:30] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[00:57:31] Heidi Brown: And that's defined as no less than—.
[00:57:33] Dan Ryan: And then you gave suggestions on how we could work around it, which is what Councilor Kanal is doing.
[00:57:36] Heidi Brown: Well, and if you choose to make it more, or you can make it— you can choose to make it more. That's all I just wanted to clarify.
[00:57:43] Dan Ryan: It's our suggestion.
[00:57:43] Sameer Kanal: Council President, do I have the floor?
[00:57:45] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Smith still has the floor.
[00:57:47] Loretta Smith: Okay, so I want to make this point. You know, we can recreate definitions for what the charter meant, for what the charter— you want the charter to mean, but in plain language, we know what the charter means. And it's 5% of the operational money. If we're going to follow the charter to the letter, again, I will tell you, the mayor should be breaking all ties, and he's not because you all decided to put something in code that would do something different. So we have such a heavy, heavy agenda, and if legal counsel is telling you something that you can't do, I would appreciate if— Councilor Smith. Thank you.
[00:58:32] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Knoll.
[00:58:34] Sameer Kanal: Yes, please let us pay attention to our legal counsel. Heidi, if we were to adopt this amendment, would we be out of compliance with the charter?
[00:58:43] Heidi Brown: It would not violate the charter to adopt this. It's just not required given our code interpretation of what annual operational budget means.
[00:58:52] Candace Avalos: So it's not required, but it would be helpful if we would kind of pay attention to our legal counsel.
[00:58:55] Sameer Kanal: Okay, so everybody heard that. Next question, can code supersede the charter?
[00:59:00] Heidi Brown: Code doesn't supersede the charter.
[00:59:02] Sameer Kanal: Okay, so with that said, we've had this conversation before, but the charter text is not actually the text that was— that Councilor Ryan was referring to. It was actually the code text that was being referred to there, which is the piece about the annual— the conclusion of the budget cycle. That's in code. And this has come up for a couple years now. And for a couple years, it's been a topic of conversation whether or not the code can narrow the definition of operational budget. It hasn't really been a particular— it's been a moot point in many cases because it hasn't actually been affected by particular council decisions. But philosophically, it's been an underlying thing that has not been resolved. Last year in the Towel. I believe it was Green 13. There was a budget note that created a public safety set-aside, or budget amendment, I apologize, that created a public safety set-aside of which $1.1 million, if I recall correctly, dollars was put in the fall towel into the police bureau budget. So people may be wondering, why are we quibbling over $10,000 here? It's $1.1 million that was put in in the fall towel. So when we're talking about precedents, and I appreciate what Councilor Pirtle-Guiney was asking about there because I think it's important, if we were to set a precedent that, you know, when we've in the past put larger amounts of money into the police bureau's budget, that it doesn't matter, we're begging for, as Councilor Ryan put it, a way to work around it. And I think Portlanders have seen how many times we've tried to find a way to work around and I understand that there are people who represent the 18% proudly up here. I understand that. But we have to listen to the majority. I think that's still how elections work in this country. I know it's still how elections work in this city. And so it's not about the $10,000. It's about the idea of are we going to follow the charter or not? And it sounds like everybody already knows how they're going to vote. We already did this before. So maybe we don't need to have the debate and we can just 6-6 this again.
[01:01:07] Loretta Smith: I think we need to have the debate.
[01:01:08] Sameer Kanal: So because that's just how it appears to be until the voters decide to determine whether or not the charter matters and who they elect to sit up here. But in the meantime, I'm going to still try to follow the charter, which I'll remind everyone, I actually worked on this in the past and have come up here and discussed it with the old council 20-plus times sitting on that side of the dais to talk about what way we were going to evolve from the charter into the more specific text of code that governs the board that is now here. And I appreciate also that folks have brought up the director. The board has made a vote on who to offer the position of director to. That could be very soon that a person is accepting the job and coming in. I think Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's point about—.
[01:01:59] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Smith.
[01:02:00] Sameer Kanal: Whether or not the delay in hiring affects whether or not it can be, the full budget this year can be spent or not is a good one. And I think if it costs $10,000 to follow the charter, that will potentially, and I think fair, it's a fair estimate that these $10,000 may be returned at the end of the year. Why would we not follow the charter? Thanks.
[01:02:23] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Green.
[01:02:27] Mitch Green: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for bringing these amendments forward, Councilor Kanal, and for your sort of steadfast and stalwart commitment to making sure that we show voters that we are going to follow the intent and the letter of the law with respect to this ballot initiative. I intend to support these amendments, but I also just need to use this moment to say that there's a lot of conversation, a lot about decorum at this dais, and oftentimes it focuses on my colleague, Councilor Morillo. But at multiple times over here, folks have stepped out of the order of the queue and interrupted and engaged in a back and forth without being recognized by the chair. And that's a breach of decorum. And I, and I really hope that people can, can be— wait to be recognized by the chair, speak respectfully to each other. Councilor engage the merits of the conversation and not set up straw man arguments because you don't want to say yes or, you know, to an amendment. If you don't want to do the amendment, just vote no, but don't sort of engage in revisionism about what is actually being talked about. So that's my plea to my colleagues here, and I'll leave it at that. Thanks.
[01:03:38] Dan Ryan: Thank you, Councilor Green.
[01:03:39] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Ryan.
[01:03:45] Dan Ryan: Sorry, I didn't realize my hand was up, but I will just need to say, since I'm recognized, that, um, I was part of the 82% that voted for police accountability in 2020, and we all don't think exactly like you, Councilor Knoll. And so that's why we have these debates. And so I found what our attorney said, um, to be translatable to whoever wants to win the argument. Um, and so I always appreciate that you offer such such grayness in these discussions, and it drives me nuts as well. So to all those Portlanders who also thought it was clear it was about operations of the police budget and see this as a designated account, I am speaking for you. And I'm really just speaking for the fact that we need to get this to receive these funds for something that's impacting the livelihood of so many Portlanders. Thank you. We just heard earlier a statement about someone that said the public right-of-way going over the Going Street walkway is not in the hands of the people. It's in the hands of criminals. And so people don't feel safe there. When these street takeovers occur, the public right-of-way is taken over by a group of people that make it impossible for your average Portlander to just get from A to B. Thank you. For someone to go to their graveyard shift at Columbia Sportswear. And so as a city council member, it's my job to make sure that your average Portlander can get from point A to B in a safe way and that we stop allowing the public right-of-way to be taken over by those that are part of organized crime. That's all. Thanks.
[01:05:28] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor Smith.
[01:05:29] Loretta Smith: I'll just hold my comments and just say ditto to what Councilor Ryan said.
[01:05:35] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:05:37] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. Since I didn't come in here with my mind made up on how I was going to vote for this, and the details actually matter a whole heck of a lot to me because following our charter and our code matters, and so does preserving the money in our contingency fund, I've heard loud and clear that we don't have to, but we can do this. It's very clear to me that we need to provide some sort of guidance on what happens when we have large infusions of cash into our police department after our annualized budget, because I don't want to end up in a situation where council is lowballing the police budget to avoid putting money into CBPA in the future. That is not something that I think this council is going to do, but I understand that that could be a risk and then bumping it up in the fall TAO. So I'm hoping this is something that we can take on either through a financial policy workgroup or through Councilor Novick's committee. I do have a question though, because it was very clear to me that this is supposed to be about operational budget and not capital expense, regardless of whether we make a different interpretation around the annual adopted budget piece of this. And I remember from our last meeting that a portion— and I'm going to refer now to both ordinances because I don't remember which it was in— but a portion of at least At least one of these grants was for capital expenses, and some of the funding was for overtime, which would be an operational expense. And I'm wondering, Council President, if we have somebody here from the Police Bureau who can refresh our memory on what here is operational and what here is capital.
[01:07:18] Jamie Dunphy: That's a good question. Do we have anybody?
[01:07:20] Sameer Kanal: Yes, we do.
[01:07:21] Mitch Green: Great.
[01:07:21] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: And I'll just say while they come up that there's a lot of launching of accusations up here and a lot of people who care about the majority when it suits them and care about voices that aren't often heard when that suits them better. And a lot of people who say listen to the attorneys when it suits them and don't listen to the attorneys when it doesn't. And I would love it if on this issue, where we have some real policy issues that it seems we need to dig in on, we could focus on that and not accusations. Thank you, folks.
[01:07:55] Mitch Green: Good morning, Council President Dunphy. Uh, thank you for, for me being here. Um, I guess I'm going to still rely on the budget office to answer some of your questions. I understand we are here on a couple matters. We have both the speed racing enforcement grant and also traffic-related grants. So on the traffic side, we are making purchases of equipment. I don't know whether those qualify as capital purchases. I'm hoping our friends from the budget office can answer that question. I'll let Captain Burley, who's been managing the speed racing grant, I'll let the operational side answer that, but I think that's going to be more clearly operational as opposed to capital.
[01:08:31] Unidentified speaker: Yeah, Chris Burley, captain at North Precinct. Yeah, for the street takeover speed racing, as we've discussed in the past at CAPS and then last week, all of the purchases, because of the time in which we have access to the grant, will be for operational use. And so for hiring officers to carry out those missions.
[01:08:53] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I'm sorry, the street racing, this first grant before us is all for capital?
[01:09:00] Unidentified speaker: No, no, operations. Yeah, it's going to be all for hiring officers. While the grant did have in it about purchase of different items, that is, we do not have time to make any of those purchases. And as I presented at CAPS, it was not our intention at that time when we presented to CAPS to do anything but to pay for officers' time to work those missions.
[01:09:23] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: And are you returning the funds for that portion of the grant, or are you rolling those funds into operational expenses and increasing the amount of overtime you're able to afford?
[01:09:32] Unidentified speaker: What, uh, their last— oh yeah, you're shaking your head.
[01:09:36] Jonas Biery: No, thank you. And we have, uh, we also have grant staff coming up, I think, who have maybe some detail on, um, the specific breakout. But I mean, my understanding would be that these are grants for a specific purpose. And if they're not spent for that purpose, that they're redeployed, although I certainly anticipate they will be fully deployed because those operations are greater than the amount that this grant supplements.
[01:09:58] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: So this first grant will be fully deployed for operational purposes?
[01:10:01] Unidentified speaker: That is correct. And if it runs out at the end of this month, we are prepared to go ahead and ask for an extension so we can use the rest of those funds.
[01:10:10] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Council President, may I ask a question about the next grant? Next item so that I don't have to call folks back up here then? Yeah. Thank you. What portion of the next item, the grant for traffic enforcement, will be used for operational, and what portion will be used for capital purposes?
[01:10:27] Unidentified speaker: Um, I can— I can— I'm Ben Smewin. I'm a grants analyst, uh, with the Grants Management Division. Um, I can get you— so the grant is $103,069. We're currently working with ODOT on sort of a budget amendment. The original did have money in there for training, which would be overtime expenses. Currently, the plan is purchases of equipment. Whether or not that will be capitalized will depend on the size and value of the equipment. But of the $100,000-some, most of it will be supplies, equipment at this time, where we are working with ODOT. Thank you. On amendments, but they have to— we have to go to ODOT. ODOT then has to go to NHTSA to approve an amendment that will cross into the next federal fiscal year.
[01:11:20] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Would that training be for folks in the police bureau or for folks within ODOT?
[01:11:25] Unidentified speaker: Uh, PPB.
[01:11:27] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay, but that is primarily a capital grant right now? Yes. Okay, colleagues, I think one of the challenges we have if we go down the route of annual adopted budget as these things change, and we don't exactly know how much will be capital and how much will be operational. I am going to listen to the rest of the debate to decide how I will vote on these. I have not yet decided, but I do want to be clear that regardless of how I vote, I see this as an interim plug-the-hole measure, and I hope that we can have a debate that leads to some guidance to our administration. Thank you. About how we would like to interpret annual adopted budgets so that we don't run into tau issues in the future and so that we have clarity on what we want to do around grants where the operational versus capital expenses can change over time, because that operational versus capital line seems to be very clear to me. Thank you.
[01:12:22] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. I put myself in the queue, colleagues. I'll say that I fully agree with the spirit of this amendment, but I have some concerns with the language. The vehicle of it. I worry about us— I think we need clearly to have some more clear policy about this. I think we clearly need to have procedures around how we true up the overarching budget of the OCPA. I worry about it being non-strategic, or if we get a slew of grants all of a sudden, for us to then dip into individually through each of those contingencies rather than doing it once through either the spring TAO or the fall TAO or the main budget. So I'm not totally sure where I'm going to— how I'm going to lean on this vote right now. The spirit, absolutely, I think that is clear that voters said that 5% of the operations budget of the Portland Police Bureau goes to oversight, and if the operations budget goes up, that should go up. Whether this is the right vehicle for it, I'm not I'm not totally sure, so I will also continue to listen to the debate here. But I just— I would like to work with councilors on expanding this policy and figuring out what the proper way for us to do this rather than one-offs every time. That's all I had to say on that. So Councilor Knoll.
[01:13:40] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, 3 things. One, just as a reminder, the conversation around the CBPA and OCPA comes to Committee of the Whole, not to CAF. That was in the resolution that authorized this. Secondly, I too would like to see that conversation happen, and it's great to hear that people are now interested in it because a year and a half ago that was not the case. I would like to see that this be a 12-0 vote on this grant. Everybody says they're supportive of this grant. I think if we can comply with the charter, makes sense to do that. But as it appears that the that the vote is determined. I would just request, or I guess I'll move to limit debate and request that the council president do unanimous consent on it. And I'll let everybody pause if they want to get in the queue first.
[01:14:31] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. I am going to, as we are 30 minutes over on this item already, I am going— 40 minutes over on this item already, I am going to limit debate to those in the queue. Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Councilor Avalos.
[01:14:45] Candace Avalos: Thank you. Thank you. I'll be brief. I second Councilor Green's comments. Tired of being lectured about decorum by people not great at following it. I also agree with Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's comments that we should be focused on the policy choice. So thank you, Councilor Knoll, for raising this important policy choice. It's clear we need to have the broader policy discussion, and so I'm eager for that. I think it's very fair for councilors like I'm feeling and like Councilor Kanal is feeling to be wary about what kinds of precedents that we're setting. And I think that this is us choosing to make a precedent in a way, in that I believe choosing to approve this amendment shows the intent from this council to ensure the proportionality of the police budget and OCPA budget remains consistent through, you know, infusions of cash to PBB outside of the regular budget process.
[01:15:35] Skylar Cruz: Thank you.
[01:15:36] Amy Thomas: Thank you.
[01:15:37] Candace Avalos: Clearly in code we can adjust that. We should have that policy discussion. This of course happens with all bureaus, right, that it's just, you know, how their ending balances are just depends on a lot of things. But there is a particular charter-mandated requirement for this bureau, and so that's why it is new for us. And so that, of course, I understand the discomfort with making the right policy choice. My view is that by choosing to approve this, that opens up the discussion and the legislative intent that we have to shore it up in the rest of the policy through TAO and other grants in the future. So I would encourage us to vote for this and continue the policy discussion. Thanks.
[01:16:15] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Councilor Murillo.
[01:16:18] Angelita Morillo: Um, I'll be very brief. Thank you, Councilor Knoll, for bringing this forward. I think it's important to show that we are going to be in compliance with making sure 5% of the police bureau's and I think that this council has a habit of sort of kicking the can down the road and saying, I like this idea, but I'm going to approve it later, or we'll do a different process. And then I never see those things actually come back. So I would just encourage folks that there is value in process, and there's also value in expediency sometimes. And so when we have the opportunity before us to just do the thing, let's do the thing. Thank you. Let's just do the thing. Thank you.
[01:16:58] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Councilor Smith.
[01:17:02] Loretta Smith: Thank you. Um, could someone tell me, where did the grant come from? Is this an ODOT grant that we got the money from?
[01:17:11] Unidentified speaker: Uh, yes, ODOT.
[01:17:13] Loretta Smith: And we have— we're going to have another one as well following this. Is that also an ODOT grant? Yes. And so these are supplemental, um, resources that come into the grant. Yes. That come into different bureaus. So I would think that this would be considered as supplemental, not as the original operational, because there was no guarantee that we would get this. We passed something last year that I put forward that said once we get grants, that we should bring them to the council within 15 days. And we could solve a lot of this because I'm not sure when this grant actually came in. Do you know when it came in, when we received notice that we had the money?
[01:17:57] Unidentified speaker: I believe these were the beginning of July. I can look at when it was executed.
[01:18:03] Loretta Smith: So that, that would be very important. And CA Lee, that would be very important if you all would follow that rule. And when you give your report to identify when we receive particular grants, because I don't want us holding on to grants till after the budget cycle, and then we say we have grants, and then we need to figure out how we're going to solve this issue. I still do believe that these are supplemental to what we originally are going to do, because if we don't get this money, we don't do this thing, right? Correct. So let's try to adhere to the policy that's on the table. We have just been consistently getting a monthly report from, from the, uh, administrator's office. But if we're going to follow that, that policy that we passed that says that we have to bring it to council within 15 days, we would have a better understanding of when money is coming in and where the money was coming from, not waiting for you all to bring it to us when you get ready to bring it to us. So thank you very much.
[01:19:14] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Zimmerman.
[01:19:17] Eric Zimmerman: Thank you. I was prepared to vote for this amendment when we came in because it seemed pretty straightforward, but based on what we heard from the legal counsel, I'd be a no today. And also, I would agree with Councilor Pirtle-Guiney that details do matter and it doesn't signal anything other than getting to details. And so I appreciate the work there. I also think, though, Mr. Administrator, that a lot of this probably could have been dealt with in the initial bringing forward of why certain things were not in play, and we probably missed that mark, which has left us at 45 minutes on a whopping $10,000, which is not a good use of this time. Thank you.
[01:19:53] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Uh, I, I'm going to recognize Councilor Pirtle-Guiney for one more question.
[01:19:57] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you for the courtesy. Uh, Councilor Kanal, you said that there were $4,000 extra in the fund for OCPA, and therefore you weren't asking for the full 5% in this First Amendment, but I am doing the math, which I should have done at the start, and it does appear to be the full 5%. Can you clarify what you said previously with what's written on the page of the amendment before us?
[01:20:23] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, that last little piece of it was a misspeaking, um, by me on the— at the beginning. The, uh, the— I think it relates to what Councilor Smith had asked in her first comment about why we never needed to deal with this before in this year's budget is because there was a little bit of cushion.
[01:20:40] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: So is there—.
[01:20:40] Sameer Kanal: I'll get you the exact amount, but—.
[01:20:43] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: What I would like to know now is if there is still cushion in the budget or not.
[01:20:48] Sameer Kanal: If we were to accept this grant, there would not be. It would exceed the cushion.
[01:20:52] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: But if there is cushion right now, then we wouldn't need to appropriate the full 10%.
[01:20:58] Sameer Kanal: Give me a second to pull up the numbers. Sorry, trying to find them. I don't know if we need to— if there's anyone else.
[01:21:31] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Okay, I don't know that we have time for that, and we have budget folks right in front of us. Um, Jonas, are we able to true this up in the TAO either way? If we pass this, either pull the money back out if that puts us at more than the 5%, or if we don't pass this, put the money in if we decide we'd like to move in the direction of aligning this even if we are not required to in the TAO?
[01:21:53] Jonas Biery: Councilor, yeah, I believe we should be able to do that math and, and a corrective action in either direction as necessary in the fall.
[01:22:01] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Keelan, can we please call the roll on Canal 1?
[01:22:07] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Kanal, seconded by Avalos. Koyama Lane?
[01:22:10] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:22:11] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[01:22:12] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:22:12] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[01:22:15] Sameer Kanal: With the understanding that we're not establishing a precedent, we Aye.
[01:22:27] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:22:29] Loretta Smith: I just want to say that once we apply for grants, if we don't put specific line items in those grants, we can't just take money from a grant and give it to another organization and, and think that it's okay. There's no way there is no mechanism. So I'm going to vote no on this.
[01:22:51] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[01:22:53] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: As with Councilor Novick, with the expectation that this is not precedent-setting and also the expectation that if we are over the necessary budget, we move funds back to our contingency in the TAO, I will vote aye.
[01:23:07] Keelan McClymont: No.
[01:23:09] Jamie Dunphy: Similar contingencies. I vote aye.
[01:23:11] Keelan McClymont: The amendment is approved with 8 ayes and 4 nays.
[01:23:14] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Kanal.
[01:23:16] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. I move Kanal 2, which I previously, previously discussed, to make this an emergency ordinance and allow the police bureau to use this money as rapidly as possible.
[01:23:25] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Kanal moves Kanal 2. Is there a second?
[01:23:28] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Second.
[01:23:28] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Avalos seconds. Colleagues, is there discussion of the, the amendment to add an emergency clause to this? Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Canal 2?
[01:23:41] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Kanal, seconded by Avalos. Koyama Lane?
[01:23:43] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:23:44] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[01:23:45] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:23:45] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[01:23:46] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:23:47] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[01:23:48] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:23:49] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:23:50] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:23:51] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[01:23:51] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[01:23:53] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:23:53] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[01:23:57] Loretta Smith: Tell me again what this, what this vote would do.
[01:23:59] Jamie Dunphy: This is adding an emergency clause, making the grant effective immediately.
[01:24:07] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[01:24:09] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:24:10] Keelan McClymont: The amendment is approved with 12 ayes.
[01:24:17] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. Is there further discussion of the now amended second reading emergency ordinance? Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on the now amended Item 4, document 2026-277.
[01:24:34] Keelan McClymont: Yes. Uh, Koyama Lane?
[01:24:37] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:24:38] Keelan McClymont: Aye. Aye. No.
[01:24:41] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[01:24:41] Eric Zimmerman: Can you please clarify again?
[01:24:49] Keelan McClymont: We're voting on the emergency ordinance, which requires 9 affirmative.
[01:24:53] Jamie Dunphy: The underlying, now amended emergency thank you.
[01:24:55] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[01:24:59] Heidi Brown: Aye.
[01:25:01] Loretta Smith: Aye. Aye.
[01:25:04] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[01:25:05] Keelan McClymont: Aye. Aye. The ordinance passes with 11 ayes and 1 nay.
[01:25:13] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Can we please read item number 5?
[01:25:18] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026- Appropriate grant award of $103,069 for expanded traffic enforcement.
[01:25:29] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. This is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Councilor Knoll.
[01:25:34] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. And I'm going to ask a question at the end of this for colleagues to just kind of weigh in on this one because I have the answer, the numbers that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney asked in the last one. So this one is a grant for a smaller amount, $103,069. So this would be an amendment to do the exact same thing we did in the last one, but to add $5,153.45. Same source, same everything, same Scrivener's error as well, by the way. So with that said, having looked at Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's question, we— the cushion was $4,564.80, so we could we could do the full thing knowing that in the towel we're gonna potentially revert, or we could do $588.65 and absorb the cushion. Is that— I don't know if that makes sense, but, um, I just wanted to float that. Um, I'm floating it now because I'm not sure if there's— if I guess we're in a second reading, so I can make the motion. Um, but if that would make a difference for anyone, I, I fully would be open to changing it in the way that to absorb the, the $4,500 cushion. But I'll make the motion to do Canal 1 as, as filed.
[01:26:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Kanal moves, Councilor Avalos seconds, and we are in discussion of the amendment. Councilor Smith.
[01:26:57] Loretta Smith: I just want to clarify if we got this grant from ODOT. This, this grant was from ODOT as well? Okay, perfect. Thank you.
[01:27:06] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:27:09] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. We heard just a moment ago that we need to make sure we are covering the 5% annual adopted budget. We actually don't have to cover for any of this, but that it is very clear in the plain language that it is to cover capital expenses or operational expenses, and it does not talk about covering matching capital expenses. We then heard that this grant is primarily capital expenses. We know we have a cushion. So if a small amount of this grant ends up being operational expenses, we will be okay. So Councilor Kanal, I am going to be voting no on this either way, whether at the current amount or at $500, because it appears to me that even if we had a broader discussion about changing the policy around what annual adopted budget meant, in this case, we would not need to put aside matching funds for this grant.
[01:27:55] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, can we please call the roll on Canal 1?
[01:28:03] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Canal 1.
[01:28:03] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Avalos jumped in. Sorry, Councilor Avalos, please.
[01:28:06] Candace Avalos: Apologies, just a quick question to confirm what Councilor Pirtle-Guiney is saying, because I remember you asking the question last time, but I don't remember the answer. Was it that they said this was capital? Is that the distinction you're making?
[01:28:18] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Council President, I hate to speak for our folks, but they're not at the dais. Can I respond? Councilor Avalos, what I heard is that this was either primarily or solely for capital expenses, that there may be a small amount used for training, but we would need to get an amendment to the grant in order to do that, and that that is still in question. And so to me, because we already have a significant overage after the last amendment was adopted, there's no way that the amount that could be used for training would be more than that.
[01:28:53] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Smith.
[01:28:54] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: The rest of the grant is being used for capital is what we were told. All right, thanks.
[01:29:00] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Councilor Knoll.
[01:29:01] Sameer Kanal: I just want to point everyone to the presentation that was filed by the Grants Management Division, and maybe, Ben, if you can speak to this. What it says that it does, the first thing on it is officer training time and associated benefits. The second thing is mobile citation printers and associated supplies, crash investigation drones, and a dedicated crash investigation computer. And then it talks about things that are not expense-based below that. But my assumption is that the order of that was intentional, that putting the training time first meant that a significant portion of this is training time. I also think there's a broader question to be had about the operations versus capital. I think it's been clear that both the charter, which I think is the actual thing that matters here, and the code that attempted to change that discussed the annual budget. So we can have that broader conversation later, but my understanding is a significant portion of this is, uh, not just the purchases of the printers, supplies, drones, and a computer, but instead the officer training time. Could you speak to that?
[01:30:07] Unidentified speaker: Uh, yeah, so again, Ben Smuin, uh, grants analyst with the Grants Management Division. I don't— the, the ordering of the items in the presentation, I think, was just based on the order that they exist in the budget. That's how— that's the line item A, it's typically personnel. So that was, I guess, a slight history of this grant. We started working on this at the end of 2025, I think, trying to work with ODOT to get this money through. It did not come through until July. And so then the process was we're going to try to amend this So that we can effectively use this money so that we don't have to not spend a grant. So the bulk of the planned expenses now will be equipment supplies with— and we're currently working with ODOT on what it might look like to extend this into— it may be a new grant, it could be just a continuation An extension of the period of performance beyond 9/30. And so the budget as it is now, the planned expenses are largely the equipment and supplies because training, scheduling that training ahead of time, I mean, you can speak to this, the amount of scheduling that has to be done to send folks to training was difficult given the short timeframe from ODOT. And so we're working with them now on how to move that training into an extension or an amendment on the grant.
[01:31:44] Sameer Kanal: Okay, I'm a little confused by that because on page 32 of the exhibit it says, will you be purchasing equipment valued at $10,000 or more with this grant money? And the, the no bubble is checked there.
[01:31:57] Unidentified speaker: So is that single piece of equipment more than $10,000? I believe I believe is what that is, or like there is more. I mean, it depends on how ODOT is going to classify the purchases of the citation cameras or the citation printers or the crash investigation drones. So if the— it's a matter of if it's a single purchase or an individual item. So if I believe that the intent was it's not an individual item over $10,000, and so that's—.
[01:32:27] Sameer Kanal: Okay.
[01:32:28] Unidentified speaker: That's why that is checked no. But these—.
[01:32:32] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, that. Okay. I, I, I would also say that, uh, folks should look at page 33, that table at the top of it, for what this was, uh, proposed to go to and see that a lot of it, in fact the majority of it, is, uh, for personnel, and according to the grant application and the files themselves.
[01:32:50] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Kanal. Councilor Ryan.
[01:32:55] Dan Ryan: Yeah, since we're having such an in-the-weeds conversation about budgeting and designated and operational, and I think it started to sound like if you spend money on personnel, then it's operational. That's what it started to sound like. We're spending money on personnel due to the designated equipment grant to get training for that. So people in our city receive money from designated grants all the time across the city. Look at PBOT. And so I think we have to be careful not to make what sounded like an assumption that if it's a personnel cost, that it's operational. Is that correct?
[01:33:35] Unidentified speaker: I would have to ask, but I mean—.
[01:33:37] Dan Ryan: You're an accounting person, right? What's your position?
[01:33:40] Unidentified speaker: I'm a grants analyst.
[01:33:41] Dan Ryan: Okay. In my career, that's how we looked at grant management. So when you got a designated gift, you still had to pay for people to implement it, but it came from that source and it only— you only had to spend the money on this personnel due to the grant that was specifically for that issue.
[01:34:01] Unidentified speaker: As I understand it, maybe— and then the folks who worked on the actual application of this aren't here, are unable to attend. The plan, the training was associated with the equipment exactly. It was to train new officer— officers on the new cameras on the use of these crash investigation drones.
[01:34:21] Dan Ryan: You just answered my question. Thank you.
[01:34:25] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, can we— Keelan, can we please call the roll on Kanal 1?
[01:34:36] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Kanal, seconded by Avalos.
[01:34:40] Rebecca Dobert: Aye.
[01:34:41] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:34:43] Sameer Kanal: With some hesitation and subject to the same stipulations of my previous vote, I vote aye.
[01:34:49] Candace Avalos: No.
[01:34:51] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:34:53] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: We are hearing that at this point, regardless of what's in the documents, most of this is going to, uh, Yeah. Capital, no.
[01:35:09] Keelan McClymont: Ryan?
[01:35:10] Dan Ryan: No.
[01:35:11] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy?
[01:35:11] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[01:35:12] Keelan McClymont: The amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes and 5 nays.
[01:35:18] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Knoll?
[01:35:21] Sameer Kanal: Just wanted to ask for the future for the budget staff. Ideally, this could just be put in. We've now approved 2 amendments, so ideally this would just be paired with anything else so we don't have to go through the amendments up here. That's a request from one person. I want to be clear on that, but that would be my request. Thank you. And I appreciate all my comments about the underlying grant are the same as last week.
[01:35:42] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[01:35:45] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, this is a now amended ordinance. Councilor Connell, were you putting an emergency ordinance on this one too? Okay. This is now an amended ordinance. I believe it needs to move to an additional second reading. So this item now passes this is to second reading.
[01:36:00] Eric Zimmerman: I move to make an emergency ordinance.
[01:36:04] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[01:36:04] Jamie Dunphy: Second. Uh, we need it in writing. I need a, a, a reason. There has to be a, a stated reason for why the emergency clause was added. I'm happy to hold it for a second if you'd like.
[01:36:32] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Council President.
[01:36:33] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:36:34] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Might I suggest that this is an emergency in order to allow the purchase of these materials within the grant period and the ability to move forward with what council has approved in our vote to pass this is saying is an important piece of our public safety infrastructure.
[01:37:00] Jamie Dunphy: Keelan, what do you need in order to make that? Is that sufficient?
[01:37:03] Keelan McClymont: I mean, is that agreeable to the motion maker?
[01:37:06] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Zimmerman, does that work for you?
[01:37:08] Keelan McClymont: That's fine. We, we have what we need.
[01:37:10] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, great. Thank you. Councilor Zimmerman moves Zimmerman 1, we'll call it. Councilor— or Vice President Clark? Second. Second. Colleagues, is there discussion of the emergency clause amendment with language from Councilor Pirtle-Guiney? Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, can we call the roll on Zimmerman 1?
[01:37:27] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Zimmerman, seconded by Clark. Koyama Lane?
[01:37:30] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:37:31] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[01:37:33] Sameer Kanal: Um, aye.
[01:37:36] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[01:37:37] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:37:38] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[01:37:38] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:37:39] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[01:37:40] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:37:41] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:37:41] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[01:37:46] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:37:48] Jamie Dunphy: No.
[01:37:51] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[01:37:52] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[01:37:53] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[01:37:54] Keelan McClymont: Uh, the amendment is approved with a vote of 11 ayes and 1 nay.
[01:37:59] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Can we please now call the roll on the now amended emergency ordinance?
[01:38:07] Keelan McClymont: This is the roll call for item 2026, emergency ordinance. This is the underlying—.
[01:38:18] Jamie Dunphy: Vote on the underlying now amended emergency ordinance. It requires 9 votes to pass.
[01:38:24] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[01:38:25] Angelita Morillo: I was a no on this in committee because this new technology has not been approved through the Data Privacy Office that we established, so no.
[01:38:34] Skylar Cruz: Aye.
[01:38:35] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[01:38:35] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:38:36] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[01:38:36] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:38:38] Keelan McClymont: Aye. Aye.
[01:38:42] Candace Avalos: No.
[01:38:45] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:38:46] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[01:38:50] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[01:38:52] Keelan McClymont: Uh, the ordinance passes with 9 ayes and 3 nays.
[01:38:57] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, the time is now 11:05. I'm going to give us a 10-minute break until 11:15, and we will resume the To whatever we can get on our agenda. Thank you. This calling is back to order, folks. Thank you very much. Uh, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:52:04] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. I would move that we reorder the agenda to go items 6 through 9. 7, 9, 11, And then 8 and 10. Item 6 first, obviously. Items 7 and 9 are emergencies. I don't want to bump ahead of those, but we have almost 20 people here signed up to give public testimony on item 11, which is the end of the agenda. So my attempt in reordering in this way is to hear the next item on the agenda, hear the 2 emergency items, and then move immediately to item 11. Second. So that those members of the public have an opportunity to give their testimony before we run out of time today. So again, my proposal would be that the rest of the agenda goes 6, 7, 9, 11, 8, 10.
[01:52:51] Unidentified speaker: Second.
[01:52:52] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Pirtle-Guiney has moved to reorder the agenda in that way. And Keelan, do you have that recommendation? Yes, I have it. And Councilor Green has seconded. Colleagues, is there just— is this a debatable motion?
[01:53:07] Candace Avalos: Can you just say it one more time, what it was?
[01:53:10] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: 6, 7, 9, 11, 8, 10. That allows us to do the next item that nobody was given a notice might be delayed, items 7 and 9 that are emergencies, but then move directly to item 11, which has almost 20 members of the public signed up to testify today.
[01:53:29] Keelan McClymont: It is debatable.
[01:53:30] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, is there discussion of the motion to reorder the agenda. Councilor Knoll.
[01:53:38] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. Broadly supportive of this. I just wanted to ask if why 6 was not also being reordered. I'm concerned that that one might take up enough time to cause the same issues.
[01:53:47] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Because that's next on the agenda and folks who are here for that item wouldn't have been given any notice that it would be moving. It felt like a courtesy to keep that in its current place.
[01:53:56] Candace Avalos: Okay.
[01:53:57] Sameer Kanal: I still think the concern applies, but I'm willing to do the reordering anyway.
[01:54:00] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Vice President Clark.
[01:54:02] Olivia Clark: Just a quick question. Does that mean that if we don't get to everything, it'll be carried over to Thursday?
[01:54:07] Jamie Dunphy: Yes, for the most part. Thank you. Yes, we will do our best to carry things over. We still have a full— wait, do we actually have a meeting tomorrow? We don't have a meeting. We don't have an extended meeting tomorrow. So no, it'll be carried over to the next available council meeting, but we will almost certainly not get to everything on this agenda regardless. So I will do my best to get these things back on the calendar as quick as possible. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue for discussion of the motion, can we please call the roll on reordering the agenda?
[01:54:41] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Pirtle-Guiney, seconded by Green. Koyama Lane?
[01:54:46] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:54:47] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[01:54:48] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:54:49] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[01:54:50] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:54:50] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[01:54:51] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:54:52] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[01:54:54] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:54:55] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:54:56] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[01:54:57] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[01:54:58] Unidentified speaker: Null.
[01:54:59] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:55:00] Unidentified speaker: Aye.
[01:55:03] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:55:04] Keelan McClymont: Motion carries with 12 aye votes.
[01:55:06] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, I'm going to screw this up, I'm sure, uh, when we get through it, but can we please call item number 6?
[01:55:14] Keelan McClymont: Item number 6, uh, document 2026-263. Consent to franchise transfer from Zenith Energy Terminals Holdings LLC to ISQ Springer Holdings LLC, amend Ordinance 188554.
[01:55:31] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Keelan. Colleagues, last week this item failed on a 5 to 6 vote. Having voted with the prevailing side, I subsequently moved to reconsider. Councilor Knoll then moved to postpone the vote on reconsideration for 1 week to this meeting. Today, the motion to reconsider is still before us. A quick run-through of the procedural rules governing this situation. The motion to reconsider reopens debate on the underlying question, which is whether to grant the franchise transfer. So we can talk about the merits of the underlying while debating whether to reconsider. If a vote to reconsider this item fails, the item is dead and the franchise transfer is denied. If the vote to reconsider succeeds, then we are back in consideration of the underlying in second reading. At that point, normal rules of procedure apply. Having made this public service announcement, I have put myself into the queue, uh, for discussion. So colleagues, I'm going to be blunt and to the point. I didn't vote for the franchise transfer, and I'm not going to. I voted to reconsider last week because I hoped that there could be some negotiations to find mutually agreeable conditions to improve this transfer and then get it approved and get Zenith out of this city. Councilor following that work, there is still no condition related to a citizen suit that has 7 votes on this council. There may be votes to codify a reporting commitment that I Squared has said is in a public letter they would voluntarily do, but they oppose as a condition. There are 6 votes on this council to approve this transfer without condition. If the transfer is denied, it can be refiled by the administration with minor alterations. Thank you, Deputy City Administrator Donnie Oliveira. There would be further delay, vastly greater legal and financial risk to the city, greater risk of the underlying transaction falling apart, and at the end, either a status quo with Zenith or an unconditional transfer to I Squared. Same or worse outcome, more damage along the way. I do think that there was probably a way for the city government to have negotiated and secured some conditions on this before submission to council or while it was in committee. That did not happen, which should be food for thought for everyone going forward. I also think that this has been discussed sufficiently. I'm not moved by the prospect of any elected officials trying to extract costs or take credit for this on the dais today. Therefore, I move to call the previous question to a vote. May I have a second? Second. The previous question has been moved and seconded. This is not a debatable motion.
[01:57:57] Candace Avalos: Keelan, can you please just point over to— what does that mean?
[01:58:00] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, that we are moving to a vote. How, how do I describe this?
[01:58:07] Eric Zimmerman: On the reconsideration.
[01:58:08] Sameer Kanal: Means we'd end debate and vote.
[01:58:09] Jamie Dunphy: Means I'm moving to end debate on the reconsideration vote. Is that correct? Robert Taylor gives me a thumbs up. This is the vote to end debate.
[01:58:16] Candace Avalos: To reconsider right now?
[01:58:18] Jamie Dunphy: No, voting to end the— I'm voting to end debate on the reconsideration. We will then have to move to call the roll separately on the motion to reconsideration. We're going to do like 4 votes in a row.
[01:58:31] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[01:58:32] Jamie Dunphy: So, Keelan, can you please call the roll on the motion to call the question about that?
[01:58:37] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Dunphy, seconded by Smith. Koyama Lane?
[01:58:41] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:58:42] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[01:58:44] Angelita Morillo: No.
[01:58:45] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[01:58:46] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:58:47] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[01:58:47] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:58:48] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[01:58:49] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:58:52] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:58:53] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[01:59:03] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:59:08] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:59:09] Unidentified speaker: Aye.
[01:59:10] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:59:12] Keelan McClymont: The motion to call the question is approved with a vote of 10 ayes and 2 nays.
[01:59:16] Jamie Dunphy: So, Keelan, can we please call the roll on the motion to reconsider?
[01:59:21] Keelan McClymont: Motion to reconsider, uh, moved by Dunphy, seconded by Clark. Koyama Lane?
[01:59:28] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[01:59:29] Keelan McClymont: Morillo?
[01:59:31] Angelita Morillo: No.
[01:59:32] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[01:59:33] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:59:34] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[01:59:35] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:59:36] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[01:59:37] Mitch Green: No.
[01:59:38] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:59:42] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[01:59:42] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[01:59:44] Candace Avalos: No.
[01:59:45] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[01:59:46] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:59:46] Keelan McClymont: No.
[01:59:47] Unidentified speaker: No.
[01:59:48] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:59:49] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[01:59:49] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[01:59:51] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[01:59:51] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[01:59:52] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[01:59:53] Loretta Smith: Clerk, I would like to change my vote to a no.
[01:59:57] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane changes her vote to nay. Uh, the motion to reconsider is approved with a vote of 7 ayes and 5 nays.
[02:00:07] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. We are now in consideration of the underlying. I move to call the question. Second. This is not a debatable motion. Keelan, will you please call the roll on the motion to call the question?
[02:00:21] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Dunphy, seconded by Smith. I'm sorry, is that correct? Thank you for it. Uh, Clameling?
[02:00:27] Tiffany Koyama Lane: No.
[02:00:28] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[02:00:30] Angelita Morillo: No.
[02:00:31] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[02:00:32] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:00:32] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[02:00:33] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:00:34] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[02:00:35] Mitch Green: No.
[02:00:37] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:00:38] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[02:00:39] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[02:00:40] Candace Avalos: No.
[02:00:41] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[02:00:42] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:00:42] Keelan McClymont: Knoll?
[02:00:43] Sameer Kanal: No.
[02:00:44] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney?
[02:00:45] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:00:46] Keelan McClymont: Ryan?
[02:00:47] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:00:47] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy?
[02:00:48] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[02:00:49] Keelan McClymont: The motion to call the question is approved with 7 ayes and 5 nays.
[02:00:54] Jamie Dunphy: Keelan, can you please now call a roll on the underlying ordinance?
[02:00:59] Loretta Smith: Point of information.
[02:01:01] Candace Avalos: So now we are officially voting on since we voted to reconsider, this is just the same vote as last week on the transfer?
[02:01:09] Jamie Dunphy: Correct. This is now the vote on the transfer. This is a reconsidered vote of the transfer of the franchise agreement from Zenith to I-Squared.
[02:01:20] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[02:01:23] Keelan McClymont: Okay. Sorry, just a second. Okay, this is the vote on 2026-263. Koyama Lane?
[02:01:37] Tiffany Koyama Lane: No.
[02:01:37] Keelan McClymont: Morillo?
[02:01:40] Angelita Morillo: Absolutely not.
[02:01:41] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[02:01:43] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:01:43] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[02:01:44] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:01:45] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[02:01:47] Mitch Green: No.
[02:01:47] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:01:49] Eric Zimmerman: You know, sometimes you got to take tough votes. No less than 3 members who are going to vote no today on this have asked me to make sure I vote yes. I think that's transparent and interesting. I vote yes.
[02:01:59] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman— or I'm sorry, Avalos.
[02:02:02] Candace Avalos: No.
[02:02:03] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:02:04] Unidentified speaker: Null.
[02:02:05] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: No.
[02:02:06] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[02:02:07] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:02:08] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[02:02:09] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:02:10] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:02:12] Jamie Dunphy: No.
[02:02:14] Keelan McClymont: Uh, the ordinance, uh, fails to pass with a tie of 6 ayes and 6 nays.
[02:02:19] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, the vote has resulted in a tie. Under Portland City Code 3.02.030.J, quote, the mayor casts the deciding vote on final passage of non-emergency ordinances where the council by— or the vote by council is tied 6 to 6. If the mayor is unavailable either in person or virtually to cast the tie-breaking vote on final passage during the meeting, the result of the tied vote is deemed inconclusive. City Administrator Lee, can you report if the mayor is able to join us to take the vote?
[02:02:45] Raymond C. Lee: Yes, he is able to join us.
[02:02:47] Sameer Kanal: Can we give him, uh, a minute or 2 to get down?
[02:02:50] Jamie Dunphy: Absolutely. I'm going to put us into recess for 3 minutes. Back at, uh, 1:32.
[02:04:48] Keith Wilson: Oh good.
[02:04:49] Jamie Dunphy: Mayor Wilson, a final council vote on a non-emergency ordinance has resulted in a tie. Under the rules of this chamber, it is your prerogative to cast the deciding vote. Under Charter Section 2.102, quote, the mayor is not a member of council. However, under Charter Section 2-401, it is among your responsibilities to, quote, vote on matters before the council in case of a tie when the mayor casts the deciding vote. Debate has concluded on these items and we are in the process of voting. This body does not accept continuous debate during a roll call vote, so please cast your vote.
[02:05:21] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:05:26] Keith Wilson: I vote aye.
[02:05:31] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with, um, sorry, a vote of 7 ayes and 6 nays.
[02:05:38] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Can we please call the next item?
[02:05:43] Keelan McClymont: Um, yep. Let's see, we've got— we're jumping to 7. Okay, uh, document 2026-339, pay settlement of Joseph Rios bodily injury lawsuit in the sum of $100,000. $125,000 Resulting from a bicycle crash involving Portland Bureau of Transportation.
[02:06:01] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, this is an emergency ordinance, requires 9 votes to pass. Uh, we have folks here for any technical or clarifying questions, or are we getting a— are you doing a presentation, or are you just, just for questions?
[02:06:13] Unidentified speaker: More or less for questions.
[02:06:14] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, I believe we received some additional information about this in a briefings meeting, but if the colleagues— if there's any other further discussion, go ahead. Councilor Knoll. Okay, sorry. Okay, seeing no one else— is there anyone signed up for public testimony on this item?
[02:06:33] Loretta Smith: Thanks.
[02:06:35] Keelan McClymont: No one has signed up for this item.
[02:06:36] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, Councilor Knoll.
[02:06:37] Sameer Kanal: I just wanted to say thank you for including the data on the, uh, the number of claims, the amount, last 1 year, last 5 years. Um, do you know, or has anyone given information about any policy change that has resulted from the incident that caused this lawsuit to be filed?
[02:06:58] Unidentified speaker: Are you talking about the street defect?
[02:07:01] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I guess not. That's not inherently policy. Any change in PBOT operations as a result of the underlying incident?
[02:07:10] Unidentified speaker: To my understanding, no.
[02:07:13] Sameer Kanal: Okay, um, I guess I'll wait a second for CA Lee to ask. You're not at PBOT though, right?
[02:07:20] Unidentified speaker: Uh, Kerry Caldwell, City Attorney's Office.
[02:07:22] Sameer Kanal: Okay, you're not at PBOT, you're risk management, right? Dave Farrell, risk management. So yeah, uh, so in the event that anyone here could speak for PBOT, uh, for if any, any change has occurred as a result of the, uh, incident that occurred, uh, on July 17th, 2023, that was the underlying reason for For it. Let me see if Millicent Williams— give her a second to come down. I know she's on the 3rd floor. And thank you both for being here as well. I, I know you can't answer this particular question, but appreciate it.
[02:07:57] Jamie Dunphy: We'll wait a second for Director Williams to come on down.
[02:08:46] Loretta Smith: This afternoon can be short. What do you think?
[02:08:55] Sameer Kanal: This is kind of, um, an awkward pause, so I'll take the opportunity to ask Councilor Lee, maybe going forward, I want to first commend that prior to us taking office in January 2025, the claims data was not there at all. That's a new thing that's been done, and it's been a dramatic improvement. I might suggest that it might be helpful to have, even if the answer is no, we haven't done anything, just include, I'm going to ask this question on every settlement. So it might be helpful to just kind of pre-answer it because I used to ask what's the 1-year data? What's the 5-year data? Now I don't have to because it's in here. So I think it's helpful for us because I don't think anybody up here wants to get sued for the same stuff repeatedly. And so it might be helpful just to know if any action was taken by the respective bureau, which is different in every case, even if that answer is no, not yet.
[02:09:41] Loretta Smith: But thanks.
[02:09:44] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome, Director Williams. DCA— Interim DCA Williams.
[02:09:47] Unidentified speaker: Both today, but thank you.
[02:09:48] Millicent Williams: I'm Millicent Williams, for the record, Interim Deputy City Administrator for Public Works and Acting Director for the Portland Bureau of Transportation.
[02:09:56] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Knoll, you want to—.
[02:09:58] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, thanks. Um, thank you for being here, DCA and Director. Um, the— my question is, has PBOT done anything policy road change as a result of the underlying incident to sort of prevent the idea that we might be sued for a similar incident in the future?
[02:10:16] Millicent Williams: Uh, thank you for the question, Councilor. As is always the case when we are confronted with potential of a lawsuit or an actual lawsuit, especially if it results in loss of life.
[02:10:28] Unidentified speaker: We look at our practices, we look at our policies, we ensure that we are engaging appropriately and consistently across the board. We also make sure that if there are areas of maintenance that we need to address, that we accelerate those efforts to ensure that we don't see repeat of that type of incident. Thank you. So, uh, the maintenance operations teams, uh, aligned with the engineering services group, uh, and the transportation operations group, uh, review all of the things that are elements of the cases and, uh, provide corrective actions to include, when necessary, training of staff to ensure that they are appropriately informed about, um, potential of— and not necessarily in this case, but sometimes it requires training to ensure that if there's, um, traffic control and someone, uh, ended up veering into a space where they should not have been, that they're, uh, clearly, uh, um, understanding their role and responsibility and making sure that the traveling public is being able to do so safely.
[02:11:30] Roy King: Thank you.
[02:11:30] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Director. Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, this is an emergency ordinance. Can we please call the roll? Colleagues, a reminder, this requires 9 votes to pass.
[02:11:40] Keelan McClymont: Calling the roll on 2026-339. Koyama Lane.
[02:11:47] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[02:11:47] Keelan McClymont: Murillo.
[02:11:48] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[02:11:49] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:11:50] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[02:11:51] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:11:51] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:11:52] Keelan McClymont: Green.
[02:11:53] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:11:53] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[02:11:54] Eric Zimmerman: Aye. Aye.
[02:11:56] Keelan McClymont: Smith.
[02:11:59] Loretta Smith: Absent.
[02:12:00] Keelan McClymont: Kanal.
[02:12:01] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[02:12:01] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[02:12:03] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:12:04] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[02:12:05] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:12:07] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[02:12:07] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with a vote of 11 ayes and 1 absent.
[02:12:12] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. And then, if I'm remembering correctly, we now move to item 9, the emergency, uh, item, which is document 2026-301. We please call item number 9.
[02:12:26] Keelan McClymont: Amend fire regulations code to adopt current Oregon Fire Code with city amendments. Amend Code Title 31.
[02:12:35] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, this is a first reading of an emergency ordinance. We have Kevin Alvarez from committee— oh no, hi, are you here for our committee staff summary report?
[02:12:47] Fallon Nedrist: Uh, Fallon Nedrist, uh, City Attorney's Office.
[02:12:50] Jamie Dunphy: Hi, Fallon, thank you. I believe we have Kevin Alvarez for— he's online, there he is.
[02:12:55] Kevin Alvarez: Yes, can you hear me?
[02:12:56] Jamie Dunphy: Yes, Kevin, Kevin, go ahead. Okay, perfect.
[02:12:58] Kevin Alvarez: Uh, Council President, councilors, for the record, my name is Kevin Alvarez, Council Policy Analyst for the Community and Public Safety Committee. The emergency ordinance before you, document number 2026-301, was heard in the Community and Public Safety Committee on September 1st, 2026, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass. The emergency ordinance amends Portland City Code Title 31, fire regulations as shown in Exhibit A and adopt City of Portland amendments to the Oregon Fire Code as shown in Exhibit B. The emergency ordinance replaces year-specific Oregon Fire Code references with Title 31 references to the edition the state has in effect, ensuring that the city regulations follow future state updates without further council action. The emergency ordinance also changes how fire code appeals are councilmember Herbold.
[02:13:53] Roy King: Second.
[02:13:54] Eric Zimmerman: Motion passes.
[02:13:56] Kevin Alvarez: The ordinance also removes 3 provisions. First, the inspection record card requirement in Section 31.330.050. Number 2, the language in Section 31.50.050 billing the building owner where a lease places responsibility for inspection fees on the owner. And number 3, the temporary permit for retail sales of fireworks that are prohibited citywide. Lastly, the emergency ordinance adds an annual permit requirement for commercial occupancies that allow laser displays, and it corrects 2 citations: the Oregon Residential Specialty Code rule reference from OR 918-480-0100 to OAR 918-480-0125 and the National Fire Protection Association standard reference from Chapter 45 to Chapter 80. An emergency was declared because the city's current fire code is currently out of compliance. The emergency clause allows the ordinance to take effect immediately upon passage by full council. Impact statements. The full impact statement on this item includes a financial and budgetary impact analysis, community impacts and community involvement, and economic and real estate development analysis. There was no verbal or written testimony provided prior to committee action, and that concludes the committee staff summary.
[02:15:22] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Kevin. Councilor Novick, this came out of your committee. Any committee chair remarks from you?
[02:15:29] Steve Novick: Nothing to add.
[02:15:30] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you very much, Councilor Novick. Colleagues, I'm going to be moving a technical amendment to this item today at the request of the Public Safety Service Area staff. The underlying ordinance abolishes the Fire Code Board of Appeals and moves those responsibilities to the Building Code Board of Appeals. Staff has realized that changes are necessary to the code governing the Building Code Board of Appeals to make this change work. City Attorney Fallon Nedrist is— did I screw that up?
[02:15:59] Fallon Nedrist: No, you got it correct.
[02:16:00] Steve Novick: All right, cool.
[02:16:01] Jamie Dunphy: Is with us to explain, to kick off technical and clarifying questions. So Fallon, could you please walk us through this amendment?
[02:16:07] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Yes, absolutely.
[02:16:08] Fallon Nedrist: So as mentioned, Title 31 is being amended to conform to the state fire code, and as part of that, we're going to be removing the responsibilities for fire code appeals from Portland Fire and Rescue and moving those responsibilities to PP&D's Board of Appeals. In order to effectuate that change, we also need to make a conforming amendment to Title 24 which basically just places those responsibilities with PP&D's Board of Appeals, um, concurrently with this change to Title 31. So it's just conforming Title 24 to the changes we're making in Title 31.
[02:16:46] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Um, colleagues, this note— this technical amendment is posted on the item online. I would formally move it, and I would ask for a second.
[02:16:55] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Second.
[02:16:55] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Colleagues, discussion of the technical amendment. Councilor Kanal.
[02:17:02] Sameer Kanal: Okay, so just wanted to— this— everything other than the amendment, the ordinance should pass. Uh, it's— it was very straightforward at the, uh, at the committee. Um, for the amendment, is this just a copy-paste of the part that's being removed from the code in Title 31? It's a pretty big thing to be called technical, uh, in terms of number of lines. So I'm just kind of— and I appreciate you using the word conforming because I think that's more accurate, but can I Where does this text come from?
[02:17:31] Fallon Nedrist: I am actually pinch-hitting for my colleague who wrote this technical amendment, so I'm not 100% sure where it came from. But I do know that the intent of it is simply to move the same responsibilities that sat with Portland Fire and Rescue and move those responsibilities to PP&D's Board of Appeals, with an addition that PP&D would require a technical expert on their board for any fire code appeals added into that.
[02:18:00] Sameer Kanal: Okay, thank you.
[02:18:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Colleagues, is there further discussion of the— or further technical or clarifying question? Actually, I'm sorry, I'm jumping around on my own script. Keelan, has anyone signed up for public testimony on this item?
[02:18:15] Keelan McClymont: No one signed up.
[02:18:16] Jamie Dunphy: Great, thank you. So colleagues, any further technical or clarifying questions with regard to the technical amendment? Or we'll move to a vote on that. Vice President Clark.
[02:18:26] Olivia Clark: Oh, just a quick question. I just wonder what the rationale is and if this is going to expedite the appeals process.
[02:18:32] Fallon Nedrist: So my understanding is that Portland Fire and Rescue gets very few fire code appeals per year, and this just moves that process to a body that has more expertise and hears those types of appeals more regularly. So it's a more Just a more streamlined approach for a body that does that sort of work more often than Portland Fire and Rescue does.
[02:18:55] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[02:18:56] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Vice President Clark. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on the conforming amendment, the technical amendment, I don't know what we're going to call it.
[02:19:06] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Dunphy, seconded by Pirtle-Guiney. Koyama Lane?
[02:19:10] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[02:19:10] Keelan McClymont: Morillo?
[02:19:12] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:19:13] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[02:19:18] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:19:20] Loretta Smith: Aye. Aye.
[02:19:22] Keelan McClymont: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[02:19:26] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[02:19:26] Keelan McClymont: Aye. Aye. The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
[02:19:30] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, is there any further discussion of the now amended underlying ordinance— emergency ordinance? Seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, Uh, Keelan, could we please call the roll? Reminder, this requires 9 votes to pass.
[02:19:47] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane?
[02:19:48] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[02:19:49] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[02:19:50] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[02:19:50] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[02:19:51] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:19:52] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[02:19:53] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:19:53] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[02:19:55] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:19:56] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:19:58] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[02:19:59] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[02:20:00] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:20:01] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[02:20:02] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:20:03] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:20:04] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:20:04] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney?
[02:20:07] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:20:07] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[02:20:08] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:20:08] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[02:20:09] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[02:20:10] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with 12 ayes.
[02:20:12] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Can we please now move to item number 11, uh, the reordered item number 11, document 2026-186? Is that right?
[02:20:24] Loretta Smith: Yes.
[02:20:25] Keelan McClymont: Add psychedelic health and safety code and create the Portland Psychedelics Advisory Commission.
[02:20:30] Jamie Dunphy: Add code chapter colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Kevin Alvarez with, uh, Council Operations is here with a committee staff summary report. Kevin, go ahead and take it away.
[02:20:47] Christopher Hare: Uh, actually, uh—.
[02:20:48] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, hey, it's— I'm not a committee. Hi, Christopher Hare, right here in the flesh.
[02:20:53] Christopher Hare: Good afternoon, Council President and councilors. For the record, Christopher Hare, Council Operations Policy analyst, and I serve at— or served as staff to the Community and Public Safety Committee when this was considered. So the ordinance before you, document number 2026-186, was considered in the Community and Public Safety Committee on June 2nd and August 4th, where it was referred to council with a recommendation it be passed as amended. The ordinance adds City Code Chapter 14B.140, Psychedelic Health and Safety, as shown in Exhibit A. Thank you. The new chapter designates the personal possession and personal use of natural psychedelics as a low enforcement priority, meaning these activities are addressed only after higher priority public safety concerns, if at all. The ordinance defines natural psychedelics as plant or fungal materials, whether fresh, dried, processed, or prepared, that can induce non-ordinary states of consciousness for religious, spiritual, healing, wellness, creative, or personal growth purposes. The definition expressly excludes any ecologically threatened species such as Lophophora williamsii, also known as peyote. Chapter 14B.140 clarifies that its provisions do not alter protection for federally recognized Native American religious use of peyote. It also specifies that nothing in the ordinance permits operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, heavy machinery, or other dangerous equipment while under the influence of natural psychedelics. Finally, the ordinance includes provisions to ensure consistency with state law and contains a standard severability clause. The full impact statements on the ordinance include financial and budgetary impacts, community impacts, and community involvement. One amendment was approved by the Community and Public Safety Committee on August 4th, 2026. The amendment removed the provision establishing the Portland Psychedelics Advisory Commission, or PPAC, and made corresponding changes, including deleting Exhibit B and removing Section 14B.140.010.C, both of which related to the PPAC. 6 Individuals provided verbal testimony in the committee meeting on June 2nd, and 3 people submitted written testimony prior to committee. Thank you. General themes of testimony included the benefits of natural psychedelics, including personal and spiritual growth and overcoming addiction, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorders. The benefits of the use of natural psychedelics and employment of said substances in clinical therapeutic settings. The importance of responsible adults being able to make informed choices. The low likelihood of harm and substance abuse with natural psychedelics. Concern around individuals under the influence of psychedelics potentially posing a risk to themselves or others. Concern around the past efforts by council to pass similar legislation, but timing issues which prohibited them from coming forward, and clarified how people access substances that are otherwise illegal to sell. This concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
[02:23:33] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Christopher. Councilor Novick, this came out of your committee. Were there any opening remarks for the committee chair?
[02:23:40] Steve Novick: Yeah, I just want to comment on the decision to eliminate the proposal for an advisory committee. It was contemplated that the advisory committee would, among other things, kind of offer public health advice on the use of psychedelics. And some of us felt that the city is not the public health entity, the county is. And I at least wasn't quite sure that the city even had the expertise to figure out who to appoint to such a committee. So those are some of the reasons that the committee idea was removed.
[02:24:09] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. I'm going to turn this over to the chief sponsors in the order that this is written here. So Councilor Green, then Pirtle-Guiney. I'm going to let Councilor Pirtle-Guiney start this.
[02:24:21] Sameer Kanal: Great.
[02:24:22] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. Colleagues, I am going to save the bulk of my remarks for after testimony so we can get to our testifiers today, uh, but I will just note that this ordinance says that non-commercial personal use of naturally occurring psychedelics is a low priority for law enforcement. It aligns city code with current practices, and it ensures consistency moving forward. Regardless of leadership changes. We are maintaining enforcement against illegal sales, impaired driving, and unsafe behavior that is specifically called out in the language. All of these will remain normal priorities. What this affects is the personal use, separate from commercial undertakings, the individual growing and consuming. The North Star of this ordinance is focusing on what matters most for public health and public safety. Thank you. And ensuring that there's clarity between us, our police force, and members of the community about what expectations are. I would like to get us to testimony as quickly as possible so we can get through as many people who are here today. We do have one panel of invited testimony who I'd like to be able to call up before that, after my co-sponsors have an opportunity to give their remarks, if that's all right, Council President.
[02:25:35] Jamie Dunphy: Absolutely, yes.
[02:25:38] Mitch Green: And I'm gonna sort of model, I think, for the rest of the co-sponsors, if I may, to save our remarks until after the public comment, 'cause you all, some of you traveled far and wide to be here. So let's please just give them the courtesy. Thanks.
[02:25:49] Jamie Dunphy: Okay. I'd like to, oh, sorry. I'd just like to jump in and invite our invited testimony up then right now. I'd like to invite up Courtney Moran, Nate Howard, and Max Kellerman. There we go. Sorry, Max, I'm bad at last names.
[02:26:09] Unidentified speaker: Good morning, President Dunphy, city councilors.
[02:26:11] Courtney Moran: I'm Courtney Moran, founding principal of the Portland-based law firm Earth Law LLC, and I'm also chief legislative strategist for Agricultural Solutions. Today I'm here to testify on behalf of the Portland Psychedelic Society Action Fund in support of the ordinance to add the Psychedelic Health and Safety Code Exhibit A as amended. The ordinance affirms non-commercial personal use of natural psychedelics as a low priority for law enforcement. This is not decriminalization, this is not legalization, and this does not authorize sales of any kind. It is simply, but importantly, a directive from the city that the personal use of naturally occurring psychedelic plants and fungi is a low priority while maintaining enforcement of impaired driving, illegal sales, and other unsafe conduct. Again, this is not decriminalization. This ordinance codifies existing cultural values and practices and allows limited law enforcement resources to continue to effectively focus on urgent community needs, including drug trafficking, including high-risk substances associated with addiction, and activities that truly pose the greatest public safety concerns for our city. Adopting this ordinance ensures that the prioritization level for personal use of natural psychedelics remains constant regardless of administration leadership, protecting existing policy and practices. Second. Passing this ordinance is a meaningful step that will provide transparency and clarity to the public of what the rules and priorities are, not only today but for future administrations and future generations. I want to give a special thank you to our co-sponsors and the Community and Public Safety Committee for the support and the collaboration that we've received to date. It's an honor to testify before you today in support of this ordinance. We respectfully ask for your yes vote. Thank you.
[02:27:58] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Nate, why don't you—.
[02:28:02] Unidentified speaker: Excellent.
[02:28:04] Nate Howard: Can you tell me what the right distance is? Is this good? Yeah, you're good. A little closer?
[02:28:08] Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, looks good.
[02:28:09] Candace Avalos: Oh, okay.
[02:28:10] Nate Howard: Thanks. Uh, President Dunphy, Council, thank you. Great to see you all. I'm Nate Howard, District 3 resident, uh, former City Hall staffer, and it's great to again be back in this room. Really appreciate, uh, y'all's service and for hearing this. Uh, in 2018, um, psychedelics coming out of City Hall and about a decade or so in electoral politics and some elected offices, uh, to put it simply, changed my life. Uh, it made me realize essentially I was following in the footsteps of becoming an alcoholic like a lot of my family. And helped me recover from a severe burnout I did not know existed. It was pretty bewildering. I didn't really understand why mushrooms that grow throughout Oregon did this. From that point on, I met up or reached out kind of, you know, until they, until they said yes, with a therapist couple who proposed a ballot measure, first of its kind, to create a legal regulated best practices psychedelic healthcare model, uh, not one that's ever been tested in the world. And the rest is, is history. Um, we did it. A dozen other states are now considering it. Dozens of states have, have now considered, or municipalities, uh, this as well, which Max will speak to more. And most of my work now is on psychedelic healthcare locally, statewide, nationally, and internationally. Um, this effort has been developed Over years with, at this point, hundreds of stakeholders. It was crafted initially with the National Council of the Native American Church in respect to their biocultural heritage and ceremonial use of peyote. At that time, we had endorsements of the Tribal Relations Director, among others. This clarifies essentially what you already said— non-commercial. We don't want to create problems. We want people to have the kind of healing that I had. Uh, yeah, please vote yes. Max.
[02:30:10] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:30:12] Unidentified speaker: Hello, President Dunphy, members of the council. Thank you so much.
[02:30:14] Max Kellerman: My name is Max Kellerman. I'm a District 2 resident, executive director of the Portland Psychedelic Society, Oregon's longest-running psychedelic education and community organization with more than 11,000 Portland area members. For more than 8 years, I've been on the ground supporting Portlanders' questions about psychedelics. What I see most often is not people looking for hype. It's people looking for trustworthy information, helping make sense of powerful experiences, and a community where they can ask questions without fear or shame. Portland already has a substantial psychedelic ecosystem and has been a long leader in helping people navigate mental health, addiction, grief, isolation, and questions of healing and well-being. And Portland is not entering this conversation alone. Over 2 dozen jurisdictions, including Seattle, Denver, Washington, D.C., have adopted similar low priority enforcement approaches for non-commercial personal use of natural psychedelics. The broader conversation is accelerating. Just last week, the FDA held a 4-hour public hearing focused on the potential future therapeutic use of psychedelic drugs. We're also seeing that interest translate into travel and economic activity. Recent national survey data found that among people traveling specifically to use psychedelics, roughly 43% went to Colorado compared to 29% Denver also continues to host Psychedelic Science, the world's largest psychedelic conference, drawing more than 20,000 people across its 2023 and 2025 gatherings. That points to a real opportunity. Portland already has the community and the knowledge to remain a leader as research, education, workforce development, and economic activity grow around this field. But for me, the human opportunity comes first. Clear policy can help Portlanders understand where they can find reliable information. So with that, we ask you to vote yes in favor of this ordinance. Thank you so much for your time.
[02:32:04] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Uh, Keelan, can we move to public test— uh, general sign-up for public testimony?
[02:32:13] Keelan McClymont: Yes. Um, I will call up testifiers in groups of 5. Each individual will have 2 minutes to testify. 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. First up, we have Amy Charlesworth, Tracy Townsend, John Dennis, Armand Lecomte, Mariah Moncada.
[02:32:51] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome on up, folks. Feel free to just jump in since you're already here and introduce yourselves for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 2 minutes apiece.
[02:32:57] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Hello, my name is Amy Charlesworth. I am a licensed psilocybin facilitator under Oregon's Measure 109 program. I'm a 16-year military veteran, including service in the Oregon Army National Guard, and a 2022 Rules Advisory Committee member for the Oregon Psilocybin Services. Today I speak only for myself, but on also behalf of extensive work I've done with military veterans and first responders. My military service included time in Afghanistan where I experienced horrific traumas. When I came home, I did not come home all the way. I was extremely suicidal, and I exhausted all of the currently available options to me in the medical system and through the VA. For over 10 years, I suffered and nothing helped, and talk therapy and medications did nothing. And that's the case for many, many veterans. Instead, it is in my experience with psilocybin and psychedelics that I am alive today giving this testimony to you. I would not be alive without them. Today I operate a licensed practice here in Portland providing lawful psilocybin services, including to veterans and former first responders. But Oregon's regulated system remains expensive just due to the nature of all of the hoops we have to jump through, and it is not covered by insurance today. It has significant barriers to access. Psilocybin is also just one of many psychedelics proven to be effective in national and global studies. An Oregon Health and Sciences University and OPEN study published in the JAMA Network on August 19th, 2026 demonstrated that after 3 months, participants using a variety of psychedelics reported reductions in moderate to severe, severe symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD, along with improved well-being and life satisfaction. This Oregon study is the largest study in the world on psychedelics to date. And the results show the power of them as a healing modality. This information is just further evidence of why psychedelics work and why someone may want to access them even when there is not an affordable or easily lawful way for them to access them. To date, there's been over 22,000 people who have traveled to Oregon or used psychedelic services in Oregon. So as someone said earlier, this is a booming opportunity for us to increase economic abilities here in Oregon. Thank you. So I ask you to consider my experience and the emerging data, uh, when you consider this vote. Thank you so much.
[02:35:11] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:35:14] Unidentified speaker: Good morning, Council.
[02:35:15] Armand Lecomte: My name is Armand Lecomte. I'm a Portland resident, uh, licensed psilocybin facilitator here in Oregon, uh, also work for a veteran nonprofit called Heroic Hearts Project. Um, I'm a Marine Corps veteran. Um, I served 7 months in Iraq and Afghanistan as a field radio operator. When I was getting out of the Marine Corps, I was having my own struggles. The ones I was most able to recognize was depression, suicidal ideation. I was having suicidal thoughts every day for a couple years. Not knowing what else to do, went to the VA, got prescribed antidepressant, kind of sent on my way. And it became clear I wasn't the only one struggling as guys from my unit started dying by suicide. And Um, we put a whole lot of energy in trying to curb that, you know, buddy systems. Um, even the New York Times wrote a couple articles about my unit, uh, nicknaming us the Forgotten Battalion because of our high suicide rate. Um, the Suicide Prevention Act for American Veterans, better known as the Clay Hunt Act, is named after a sniper in my unit.
[02:36:16] Unidentified speaker: But it didn't seem like anything was really helping or moving the needle. And it wasn't until about 5 years after I got out, I had my first psychedelic experience. And that really allowed me to get on the healing path in earnest. And now, more recent years, I've been working as a mental health peer support specialist, working for a veteran nonprofit that's sending veterans to psychedelic healing retreats. And I've just seen a lot of people have really life-changing, um, benefit from these medicines. And I really believe it'd be deeply immoral for us to use any of our resources to prosecute anyone who's trying to better themselves. So really just like to ask the council to open the hearts and minds and please vote yes on this measure. Thank you for your time.
[02:37:08] Mariah Moncada: Hi, my name is Mariah Moncada. I am a Portland resident of District 4. I am a licensed psilocybin facilitator who has Been operating since 2023 at the inception of this program. I'm also the director of operations for a licensed service center. Collectively at our center, we have seen over 2,000 people through our doors, all coming in for a variety of reasons. Some people are coming from a variety of continents as well. And so many— to be able to witness this transformation from people Not being able to access care that was meaningful, suffering for depression for decades, and now they have this transformation that's available for them within 10 hours and careful integration. It has been clear to me how, how miraculous this substance can be in its transformative power. I am in the, the regulated model, but I'm also a proponent of access on all of the many lanes that people feel safe to acquire this substance. And not everyone does feel welcome or like they belong in the regulated model. So having another avenue for where everyone can be captured, I think, is essential. And this also allows for our local Oregonians to have a continuity of care. To be able to have another way to maintain their relationship to this substance between their larger dose sessions. Um, I am also, just from a personal note, a mother, and this has, uh, I've seen, and I sit for many mothers, and this has been so transformational in the return to my own identity and how I show up for myself and my family and my community. And I would love for that I ask that you vote in favor.
[02:39:07] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:39:08] Loretta Smith: Thank you for being here.
[02:39:09] Keelan McClymont: John is joining us online.
[02:39:13] Unidentified speaker: Good afternoon, President Dunphy and City Council.
[02:39:16] John Dennis: My name is John Dennis. I'm an attorney in Ontario, Oregon, and I assisted with the drafting of the measure that's under review today. But I'm not here to really talk at length about policy considerations. I'm here to share a very deep and personal impact that this measure has had on me. That Portland's lack of law enforcement resources has had on me and on people that I love. On June 22nd, 2017, my partner at the time, Erin Brenneman, was going for a walk in the Montavilla neighborhood during her lunch break. While she was crossing the street, she was struck by a hit-and-run driver. She suffered a traumatic brain injury, and after 23 days of a life-and-death roller coaster ride through the ICU, she died on July 15th. Portland detectives obtained video surveillance of the accident. They were— the image quality was good enough to narrow down the type and color of the driver's vehicle, but not good enough to read the license plate. We were told that it would have been possible to continue the search for the person that killed Aaron, but there wasn't enough law enforcement resources to continue the investigation any further. Today, over 9 years later, the driver's identity remains unknown, and he remains at large and unaccountable. Thank you. If the City of Portland does not have enough law enforcement resources to vigorously investigate homicides and other serious person crimes, I respectfully submit that it does not have enough law enforcement resources to apprehend or prosecute people for their use of natural psychedelics. These substances are often used by people seeking spiritual insights, healing from childhood traumas, and also to help with the grieving of lost loved ones. The only question you should be asking yourself today is, why today would you want to criminalize the use of natural psychedelics? Thank you. Is not whether to vote yes on this measure, but why it has taken Portland so long to embrace a more rational approach to allocating its limited law enforcement resources. Thank you for your time.
[02:41:01] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:41:05] Keelan McClymont: All right. Tracy Townsend. Okay, next up we have Jin Sol Feder, Sean Tisher, Stephen Maris, Yelena Belikova, Sarah Honeycutt.
[02:41:31] Jamie Dunphy: Come on down, folks, and feel free to jump in as soon as you're available.
[02:41:36] Angelita Morillo: Good morning, I'm Jin Sol Feder, District 4, and I'm a licensed psilocybin facilitator here in Portland. I'm also a service center rep, which means I'm the person who serves the mushrooms. Over the last 2 and a half years, I have administered psilocybin to hundreds of clients who have traveled from all over the world to have this experience. People come to us for many reasons, but mainly for depression, anxiety, addiction, PTSD, trauma, chronic pain, and more. I have witnessed the incredible impact psilocybin can have and how much hope it brings to people who are suffering. Mental, emotional, and physical safety is always our top priority for both our clients and facilitators, but creating safety is a collaborative effort. The more we are supported by our local community, the more we can support those who are seeking healing. Oregon has already made history as the first state in the U.S. and first jurisdiction in the world to create a legal framework for the therapeutic use of psilocybin. We have come so far, yet there is so much more to do. Please support us in this collective healing effort. I ask you to vote in favor. Thank you.
[02:42:48] Dan Ryan: Thank you very much.
[02:42:53] Unidentified speaker: Greetings, President Dunphy and members of City Council.
[02:42:57] Stephen Maris: Um, my name is Stephen Maris. I'm a Beaverton resident, work as a CPA. I care about the Psychedelic Health and Safety Act because I've had the I want the same benefit for them. My story is fairly common. I quit drinking and was looking for a better way forward, to be a better parent, better son, better community member. In this journey, I embraced natural psychedelics as a healing tool. While I don't understand all the neurochemistry involved, I do know they simply work for me. Councilmember they put a spring in my step, make colors bright again, and make me more willing to face the current day. While not always easy, the benefit, benefit for me is well worth it. While I have participated in the Measure 109 regulated framework for psilocybin, I've also seen firsthand in Mexico and Peru how a community and culture can pass on these traditions, practices, and knowledge to access the healing potential of natural psychedelics. To access it in a safe way. I also know there will be some in Portland that may not have the time or money to follow the same path that I've traveled. I thank you for your time and ask you to vote yes for 2 reasons. First, natural psychedelics may not be for everyone. They may also not be a cure-all, but they are medicine. Second, the people of Portland deserve this potential for healing and the autonomy to explore their own consciousness. Thank you. They deserve this without fear of prosecution or the stigma attached. Thank you.
[02:44:36] Jamie Dunphy: It'll, it'll—.
[02:44:38] Yelena Belikova: Okay, sorry. Good morning, my name is Yelena Belikova. I'm a District 1 resident here today in support of the ordinance you have before you. For more than a decade, I carried a depression so heavy I did not believe I would survive it. I came to this country 10 years old with my family, but with no one to help me navigate the language or the country or the inside of my own head after a series of traumatic events. Asking another human being for help did not feel safe. Naturally occurring psychedelics saved my life. Psychedelics were a resource when no other resource was available. They are how I found enough healing to face what was inside me. Psychedelics are how I learned to trust a person enough to ask for help. Thank you. To find a therapist, a doctor, a community. I'm standing here today because of natural psychedelics. For a long time, I was afraid to say that out loud, and I'm not the only one. There are people in this room, people in your districts who have a story like mine and who will never tell it. Some are afraid of their doctor or their employer, their family, law enforcement, and some are afraid of the medicine itself because they have been told their whole lives that the thing that could save them is dangerous. Thank you. Criminal and shameful. So they go through it alone, and the people who could help them never hear them. You have already heard what this ordinance does and does not do. I'm here to tell you what real healing works looks like when people are not afraid. It looks like being able to say out loud what helped you. It looks like a community that can support someone through a hard process. It looks like doing the deepest work of your life without having to hide it. Portlanders are already doing this work. Thank you. And right now, without clear education, they do it with less support and more risk. This ordinance lets them do it safely and without fear. That is psychological safety. That is public health. That has helped people like me stop healing in silence. I'm asking this committee to vote yes so that more Portland residents get to heal out loud safely. Thank you.
[02:46:30] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[02:46:33] Sarah Honeycutt: Um, President Dunphy and City Council. My name is Sarah Honeycutt. I'm a District 3 resident. At the age of 13, I was shunned by my fundamentalist community, and by 10th grade, I was out of school in my parents' home with very little direction or support. The stories from that pulpit were clear about what happened to people like me— loss of family, community, addiction, and jail. Thank you. I'm standing here today, uh, or sitting here actually, uh, without shame, largely because of the healing and self-acceptance I found through plant-based psychedelics. I went on to earn a master's degree in economics, helped develop some of the largest, uh, renewable energy in the world, and I'm now a proud mother of 2. Councilor Sameer Kanal. And someone who recently witnessed my journey donated funds to create a scholarship for others who struggled with addiction and homelessness because they saw what was possible with psychedelics. These medicines are a miracle for the recovery community. After knee surgery, I became dependent on opioids, as many Americans did, overprescribed and undersupported. Plant medicine was part of my path back. As a licensed facilitator in Oregon's regulated psilocybin model, my clients aren't just seeking a substance, they're seeking what I needed, which was community and connection. These plants carry low likelihood of harm to self and others or addiction. You know, you have a chance to be part of history today. Help make it safer for our lights to shine so that those Those of us who have found our way back can be beacons for those who are still lost. Please vote yes.
[02:48:33] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you all.
[02:48:40] Loretta Smith: Sean Teicher.
[02:48:44] Keelan McClymont: Okay, next up we have Taryn Wheeler, Roy King, Julian Vaz-Andre.
[02:48:57] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome folks, come on down. Please state your name for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 2 minutes each. Whoever wants to jump in first.
[02:49:09] Matt Teerfelder: Um, President Dunphy, Council, uh, my name is Matt Teerfelder. I'm a retired battalion chief, um, spent over 30 years in the fire service. Towards the end of my career, I was Suffering from some mental health challenges. I tried everything that my doctors and therapists had suggested without much luck or success until I tried psilocybin, and it was very life-changing in so many positive ways. I'm also a licensed psilocybin facilitator in Oregon, so I've seen firsthand the results and the testimony of other veterans and first responders and firefighters with similar stories of success. Thank you. Almost to a person, most of the first responders and firefighters I encountered at a service center facilitating were there through donated funds or scholarships. The reason I'm here in support of this today is that this is largely inaccessible. There's a financial barrier to most of the population. So I hope that you vote yes and support me in this and to broaden access for the whole community, because veterans, first responders aren't the only ones holding trauma. Everybody is, and this is just another opportunity. It's not for everyone, but it really works for a lot of people, and I'm in support of it, and I hope you will be too.
[02:50:23] Loretta Smith: Thank you. Thank you very much.
[02:50:28] Roy King: I, uh, I am Roy King, a retired associate professor emeritus from Stanford University in the psychiatry department, now living in Camas, Washington. I was a professor at Stanford for about 29 years, and a researcher, and a teacher there. I published about 100 articles and chapters ranging from clinical neuroscience and genetics to art, poetry, and yoga therapy. I also have a PhD in math from Cornell, an MD from Stanford, and a Master of Divinity from Pacific School of Religion. I want to persuade you to vote for this ordinance, which is essential to pass for 2 main reasons. As an educator and a researcher, I know how critical it is for the public to learn both about harm reduction and the massive support for the efficacy of these plant and fungi medicines like psilocybin, iboga, and ayahuasca. In particular, psilocybin appears to be non-addictive and associated with the least crying during usage. In addition to both preclinical and clinical studies showing the effectiveness for treatment resistant depression, substance use disorders, and anxiety disorders. These conditions haunt our community. I've seen many of my ex-clients benefit from these medicinals. On a personal note, my great-great-great-grandmother Cherry Thrash was a notable slave root doctor on a plantation in Georgia in the 1800s. I have overwhelming respect for indigenous knowledge and the compelling usefulness of these substances for spiritual and community and self-growth and healing. Thank you, and I urge you to vote yes on this ordinance.
[02:52:14] Mitch Green: Thank you.
[02:52:14] Jamie Dunphy: And I, I think I speak on behalf of all the rest of us, like, save some diplomas for the rest of us.
[02:52:21] Roy King: Well, AI didn't write my spiel.
[02:52:25] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[02:52:28] Unidentified speaker: Hi, President Dunphy and councilors. Thank you so much for your time today and for maintaining open minds and open hearts.
[02:52:36] Jennifer Lucht: My name is Jennifer Lucht. I'm a District 3 resident, a community psychologist, a state-trained facilitator, and a PhD candidate. My research focuses on the benefits of psychedelic plants and fungi for healing and how communities can leverage public health initiatives to reduce harm and create safety for individual and collective well-being. In my personal journey with natural psychedelics, these medicines helped me heal from anxiety and depression. When traditional pharmaceutical interventions wouldn't work. In my family and community, I've seen psychedelics save lives and end cycles of addiction. I can confidently say there are people in my life that would not be here today if it weren't for psychedelics and these natural medicines. This policy allows us to codify a cultural norm that already exists in our city, and it encompasses natural psychedelic medicines that peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated are non-toxic and non-addictive. The practices of public health ask us to accept that both regulated and non-regulated substance use exists in our society, and we should choose to minimize harmful effects rather than simply condemn or ignore them. It's rare to have the opportunity to take seemingly small steps that add up to shape city history. This is one of those moments. Let's work together to build a better future for Portland. The importance of our personal and collective healing extends beyond internal government or council dynamics and party lines. This is a chance to listen to the needs of folks who voted you into office, those that live in your neighborhoods, who are your friends and community members. This policy continues to position Portland as a leader in safe public health and psychedelic policy that meets community members where they're at, empowering to be experts of their own healing. That is why I ask you to vote yes. Thank you.
[02:54:20] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:54:22] Julian Vaz-Andre: Good morning, council members. My name is Julian Vaz-Andre, and I live in District 3. 26 Years ago, I moved here from Germany with my— to be with my future wife. We have 4 amazing children. After coming to the United States, I switched my career from physics to art and now run a successful sculpture studio with 8 employees in Sellwood in District 4. I never took any psychedelics until age 50, 6 years ago. I felt called to ayahuasca, an ancient medicine traditionally used by many indigenous communities throughout the Amazon River Basin. At that time, a beloved family member was struggling with life-threatening mental health issues. I took a big leap of faith and traveled with a family member deep into the Ecuadorian rainforest, where we participated in ayahuasca ceremonies led by elders of the Achuar and Sapara tribes. In those cultures, natural psychedelics have, since time immemorial, been an integral tool for balancing what we would call their mental health. Thank you. This trip and others were profoundly healing and life-changing for me, but for our beloved family member, the journey was life-saving. Seeing firsthand the healing brought about by natural psychedelic medicines administered in sacred ceremonies opened my eyes to the profound potential of these substances. One phrase I kept hearing from so many people along the way, and you've been hearing it many times today, if it wasn't for psychedelics, I wouldn't be here today. Thank you. But the promise is not only personal healing. It is the healing of society as a whole. A lot is upside down in this world, and we need everyone here to help make it better. Thank you, council members, for dedicating your lives to making a difference. Please vote yes on this ordinance. And if you have any questions about psychedelics, feel free to reach out. The reason we do this is because we love this world and we want everyone to thrive here. Thank you.
[02:56:10] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you all very much.
[02:56:13] Keelan McClymont: Uh, next up we have, uh, Adriana Vos-Andre.
[02:56:27] Adriana Vos-Andre: Good morning, councilors. My name is Adriana Vos-Andre. Um, I'm the president of the Portland Psychic Psychedelic Society Action Fund, a mother of 4, and a longtime District 3 resident. I hold an MD and a PhD in neuroscience, and I've spent much of my life devoted to public health, environmental, and equity advocacy. What drew me to this issue was the— how the use of these plant medicines changed the course of a loved one's life, someone who may not be here today without it. We're in the middle of a profound and rigorous scientific reawakening in mental health healthcare, as you've heard. And the number of peer-reviewed studies, um, uh, on this medicine in, in top scientific journals is only accelerating. These medicines aren't new. Indigenous and traditional cultures across the world have used them for over 10,000 years, and they have taught us that the deepest power of these medicines lies in rebuilding bonds between peoples, communities, and between us and the natural world we depend on. This may be why more and more people are seeking this kind of healing in our isolating, fractured society. This is also a matter of equity. Communities historically overpoliced for drug use deserve the psychological safety of knowing they won't be punished for seeking healing. Stigma drives use underground, which means less harm reduction and more risk. This act simply deprioritizes enforcement and grounds our approach in science. Portland has the chance to join other cities leading with evidence, equity, and compassion on the mental health crisis already straining every system this council funds. Please vote yes.
[02:58:14] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:58:16] Keelan McClymont: Uh, Taryn Wheeler. That completes testimony.
[02:58:22] Jamie Dunphy: Okay. Colleagues, we are now into discussion, and I'm going to turn it over to Councilor Green.
[02:58:29] Mitch Green: Thank you, Council President. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, did you have a broader set of remarks you wanted to finish before—.
[02:58:35] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Why don't we hear from the other 3 of you since you haven't had an opportunity to say anything and we're short on time?
[02:58:40] Mitch Green: Thank you, I appreciate that. I'll keep my comments brief. Um, I just want to say that I, um, This is a hard one for me to talk. I share the PTSD that many of you have from my service, and I think that's why I chose to throw my support behind this ordinance. And I appreciate your leadership on this, and I'm sorry for being emotional in public, but this is a touching thing for me. I can tell you that I have— I know people who have dealt with their experience in the service in a way that led them down to a very bad path in life. Thank you. Opiate addiction, crime, suicide. And I was spared from that, I think largely because of my own experience with this material and this substance. So I appreciate the care and the lived experience that I'm feeling in the room. And I'll just leave it at that. Thanks, colleagues.
[02:59:39] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. I'm going to turn to you.
[02:59:43] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Can we defer to our other 2 co-sponsors before we move to general discussion?
[02:59:47] Jamie Dunphy: Absolutely. I'm going to turn to Councilor Murillo and then Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, I'll come back to you at that point, and then we'll turn it to the general queue. So, Councilor Murillo.
[02:59:56] Angelita Morillo: I think whatever I stepped into that Councilor Green said is probably much more beautiful than anything I can say. I had the pleasure of getting to listen to a lot of people's testimony during committee. And to hear some of your testimony today, and I'm really grateful to have worked with other folks on this and for this to move forward today because it is such a simple thing that can make people's lives better. And when government can take the opportunity to do something simple to make people's lives better, we should take that step. So very grateful to the advocates who have relentlessly done this for many years. You're laughing because you have been in the halls for a long time. And we're very grateful for your efforts because if it wasn't for you informing us, educating us, pushing through the bureaucracy, this wouldn't get done today. So thank you very much for being here today. I hope that you take time to celebrate and be joyful together after this.
[03:00:50] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Councilor Koyama Lane.
[03:00:53] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I'm proud to be a co-sponsor. It's so important that we prioritize community safety and make sure that we're preserving our resources at the city for most urgent community needs. Thank you to all of the advocates. Thank you to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Thank you, Councilor Green. Thank you, Councilor Murillo. Thank you to all of your staff for all the work that's been put into this.
[03:01:16] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[03:01:18] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. Colleagues, we heard so many important pieces of testimony today. And I just want to note that I hear over and over again from Portlanders, from our constituents, that they want us to focus our public safety resources, that they want us to focus on substances that are actively killing people, that are tearing apart our community. And we heard before us today from Portlanders who are repairing their lives through a substance which The personal use of is not currently a priority for police, hasn't been for some time, but they're asking for some assurance. I go back to the testifier who said that this allows people to speak openly about their experiences, to heal together and feel safe doing so. We have the opportunity to provide clarity, to provide consistency with the practice that's already in place. Thank you. Yes. And to make sure that we're clear about what is a priority in our community for enforcement and where we want to make sure that Portlanders can go about their daily lives without, uh, that worry hanging over them that something that they can use in one building, um, they may get arrested for in another space. We have that opportunity today. I would encourage you all to join me in moving this thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[03:02:53] Jamie Dunphy: All right, colleagues, to the queue. Councilor Avalos.
[03:02:58] Candace Avalos: Thank you. Um, thank you so much to all of the testifiers who shared their stories, to Councilor Green for sharing your vulnerable moment. Uh, I— it is really important that people can see that we are real humans and legislators, and all of these things do impact us personally. In different ways. And so I think that's really important to show the public. So thank you for your vulnerability. I just had a couple of questions about implementation, if that's all right, to take a moment to go down that road. And really just want to make sure that I understand how the policy will work in practice and how we're making sure the boundaries are clear to both officers and to the public. Mm-hmm. So my first question is that staff indicated in committee that PPB already generally treats personal use of natural psychedelics as a low priority. And so if that is the case, what will change operationally once this is codified? Are we primarily formalizing an existing practice, or should we expect measurable changes in enforcement due to this policy?
[03:04:03] Sameer Kanal: I believe we do have PPB staff online right now to address that question.
[03:04:16] Dan Ryan: Good afternoon, Council President Dunphy, Vice President Clark. Assistant Chief Franz Schaning from the Portland Police Bureau. Appreciate the opportunity to be here and weigh in on this. I guess I'd first like to start by thanking and recognizing the veterans in the audience and in our community for their service and sacrifices they've made and the weight they carry. Because that service— I'd also like to thank Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's office and her staff for engaging us in the development of this piece of legislation early on to make sure that the language did accomplish the purpose of the ordinance, but also make sure that it didn't overly impact public safety, which I think it does not. So I guess to answer your question, I don't think we're going to see any operational changes. As many people have already stated, Because we lack the staffing and because there's other more urgent needs around public safety in our community, we don't do enforcement on personal use of controlled substances unless it is in a public space and it is impacting public safety and livability. So I think operationally there'll be no change based on this ordinance and this legislation. I don't expect any formal changes here in the police bureau. We will likely deliver notification to police bureau members. So at this point, the Police Bureau is neutral on this piece of legislation.
[03:05:37] Candace Avalos: Thank you. I mean, I guess what I'm hearing you say, though, is that you're not treating it as a priority because there are already other strains on the system, not necessarily because of how you're identifying it. I guess that's why I'm asking these questions, because I can understand that operationally, you know, you have other things to focus on. It might not have any impact, but then that kind of brings me to my next question, which is that the definition of personal use includes cultivation, processing, gifting, and sharing, but only when it's non-commercial. And so I guess I'm wondering how officers plan to distinguish protected low-priority personal activity per this ordinance from illegal commercial activity or distribution, particularly when gifting or communal use is involved.
[03:06:27] Dan Ryan: Sure, uh, so fair question. And I would say, you know, we already deal with this issue. You know, the, the use, the possession and use of other controlled substances in the city of Portland is— it happens on a regular basis. Uh, we do have a small group of people who are focused on, uh, you know, organized drug trafficking networks, our Narcotics and Organized Crime team. And I think patrol officers and our NOC folks already do a pretty good assessment of whether something is personal use, whether it's commercial distribution, for-profit. And I'm not aware of, and I have not seen any cases where we've prosecuted folks for personal use. It's noncommercial in nature. So again, I think at the end of the day, this is going to align with current practice, and I don't see anything changing. I don't know if that answers your question other than, again, making sure our members are on notice that this is council's direction. It is aligning— it's a low priority for us, which aligns with operational practice, but I don't think there's going to be anything different beyond that.
[03:07:28] Loretta Smith: Okay.
[03:07:28] Candace Avalos: I guess part of why I ask these kinds of questions is because ultimately what this policy is doing is it's not changing state law or, you know, authorizing sales or excusing impaired driving or unsafe conduct, things like that. And it doesn't decriminalize. It's just establishing a city enforcement priority. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold. Thank you, Mayor. So the mayor has made a priority for the noncommercial personal use while leaving higher-risk activities subject to enforcement. And so, you know, as this is being implemented, I just think it's important for us as council to understand whether formalizing this priority actually changes how resources are being used and if there are any unintended impacts, particularly because we know that disproportionate racial impacts have long been a result of discretionary policy. And so I hope that this does not, you know, result in disparate impacts and is why I'm asking these specific questions about how to implement the change in operation, not just simply we already don't have capacity for quote-unquote low-level activity. How you define low-level activity can have disparate impacts, and history has shown that, and that's why I'm asking these questions. So I think that's why I'm, I'm asking for specificity about how you're making these definitions to ensure that we're not creating another way for certain communities to get more enforcement because we have not defined those lines between personal, non-commercial, and that's why I'm asking these technical questions. So just to give you some context for the intent here, right? I understand the strain on resources, but this is about a policy that I want to make sure doesn't disparately impact communities that I'm representing in East Portland. So I think that's all for now, other than one maybe last final question. You know, because the advisory commission has been removed, which I do think is a good idea actually to remove that, but I just want to know, is there going to be any mechanism for council to receive any information about implementation, for example, you know, enforcement activity or any unintended consequences and whether the policy is allowing resources to be redirected toward higher priority public safety issues?
[03:09:28] Dan Ryan: I mean, I think I'm hearing in your answers that not necessarily will have an impact on that, but yeah, I'd be happy to work with council on what that would look like to do some sort of reporting on any— if we actually charged PCS cases or personal use of controlled substances cases. I'm not sure what that would look like, but I'd be happy to work with council on that.
[03:10:00] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[03:10:06] Olivia Clark: Great.
[03:10:06] Candace Avalos: Thank you. That's all for now.
[03:10:08] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Vice President Clark.
[03:10:11] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Councilor President. I know we're short of time. I just want to make a personal statement. If you don't know already, I am a child of the '60s, and I have a very different, or had a very different relationship with psychedelics. So when this issue first came up, I, you know, started thinking about White Rabbit and, you know, Age of Aquarius and all that kind of stuff. And I'm not sure that I'm ready for that. Kind of stuff. Um, but I, uh, but I have to say that listening to your testimony today, um, I'm gonna choke up now, was incredibly moving. And I just appreciate everybody being here and sharing your personal stories. It was incredibly moving, and I so appreciate you. And definitely changes my thinking about this, um, you know, having dealt with it a long time ago. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm tempted to try to offer an emergency clause to this, but I know we're really running short of time. And really based on what I heard from the person from Ontario about police resources and given Councilor Avalos's questions, I'm not going to do that. But I'm very interested. I would, if we had more time, do an emergency ordinance here. But thank you all so much. I really appreciate your time. Thank you, Vice President Clark.
[03:11:26] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Zimmerman.
[03:11:28] Eric Zimmerman: Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Um, while this entire set of legislation isn't about veterans, we kind of speak from our own experiences, and, um, and so that's where I'm speaking from, right, as a 19-year member of the military. Who has certainly gotten the call, right? At this point, I've commanded thousands of soldiers, and I've certainly gotten the call about some soldiers who've left my ranks who then ultimately perished at their own hand. That is the call you don't want. And no effort on TikTok for 22 pushups a day is gonna save somebody from a life-altering decision, right? And so there's a lot I don't understand. Thank you. About psychedelics, and I think that that's okay. What I've heard from people who have served with me overseas, uh, and, and those who've served with me stateside who are no longer in but are, are traveling through a journey, is that I've had multiple members talk to me about a positive experience. Much of what was shared today by members of the public in their testimony.
[03:12:42] Dan Ryan: Thank you.
[03:12:43] Eric Zimmerman: And I hear that positive experience as, you know, as truthful as what was important for them post-service, post-significant event, post, you know, traumatic event, that being engaged with a practitioner, being able to participate in some sort of treatment and therapy was very helpful and far more helpful than what their experience was with the regular pharmaceutical. Thank you. Of our medicine in our society. And so I hear that, and I'm willing to accept a lot of what I don't fully understand, right? I don't know how it is that that works for folks, but I'm glad that they have that opportunity. It has— I have far more people in my life who have raised the white flag and asked for help than who have, ultimately committed suicide, and many of them have participated in what we're sharing today. And I'm grateful for that. For those that, uh, where that call was, you know, that ultimate call, I think about them a lot. I think about what could have been some 15 years ago, some 10 years ago, some 5 years ago. And I think about their names often. Those dates are the dates that when they come along the calendar I don't even have to have 'em in my calendar 'cause I know the dates that those things happen, and they're very present with those of us who have that part of our lives. So while I acknowledge that this is not just about veterans, we speak from what we know and we speak from who we are and we speak from our experiences as people. And so that's where I'm speaking from. For the, Very small percentage of the thousands of soldiers that I've commanded and the more than thousands of soldiers that I've worked with. Uh, I hope that this can be a signal to a larger effort that that small tiny percentage can have access to something, and that if they do have access to it, that the risk of other criminal involvement is minimized by this action today. And so I appreciate folks Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
[03:15:02] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Ryan.
[03:15:03] Dan Ryan: Thank you, Council President, and thank you, Councilor Clark, for your statements. I could relate to them. Um, I have many close friends who speak very similar to the protest testimony that I heard today, and I really do believe you. And I also want to say thank you for the testimony. It was— there was a lot of vulnerability And that's a leadership skill that doesn't get practiced enough. So thank you for showing up with your whole self. Regulated and guided seemed to be the key for the system to work. I heard that over and over again, and I'm for that. I'm not for a drug that's taken to the street that's not guided. And I think Portlanders and Oregonians are concerned. Thank you. And so those are kind of the outreach calls I'm getting. So with an abundance of caution, I'm totally leaning towards supporting this, but I want to get this on the record. As such, how do we ensure that the product does not hit the streets and suddenly becomes cheaper? And it would appear to Portlanders who I think suffered mightily with the ill-informed rollout of Measure 110. We should have led with treatment centers, not with what we led with. Thank you. And I just want to know, how do we make sure that— what's the safeguards to make sure that does not happen? That's what I'm hearing from people who I think are supportive of this but have that caution. Can anyone answer that? I think the police officer got close, but I haven't heard that statement made. And I'm not on the committee, so maybe that was discussed thoroughly.
[03:16:46] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Well, President, it looks like one of the advocates is willing to take a stab at that, if that's all right with you.
[03:16:52] Jamie Dunphy: Sure.
[03:16:53] Max Kellerman: Yeah, um, the quick answer is education, and starts with the signal from the city to have this conversation. So I really appreciate this moment right now that we are having this and that this is on the record and people can have—.
[03:17:07] Dan Ryan: Felt like an elephant in the room.
[03:17:08] Max Kellerman: So yeah, absolutely. And a lot of it isn't how this— how I've seen it in the 8 years I've been in this community, if you will. It's not done on the streets per se. It's in community, it's in healing, it's in ceremony with people who deeply care. And the stewards of this medicine, many who come from cultural heritage that we need to identify and honor, do with the utmost respect and reverence. And those are the people and the voices that we seek to encourage and uplift because they're doing it with so much care. These people that testified are space holders and holding that medicine. So there's a big difference there. And that's the opportunity to have this on the record to share their stories. So yes, it is held with reverence, but the regulated model, while imperfect, is one access point. But about 95% of people accessing these medicines are not through a regulated model. So to give them that psychological safety through education and caring community, I think, is the answer.
[03:18:05] Dan Ryan: Thank you.
[03:18:07] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor Kanal.
[03:18:12] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, thank you, Council President. Thank you to the councilors who brought this forward, and, and thank you to everyone who's here in support. I, I've seen Courtney and Nate and Max at so many of these, these things over the, uh, 4 meetings we've discussed this at. This was at CAPS on June 2nd, on July 7th, and on August 4th. Um, good policy takes time. And that's, that's, I think we're, we're trying to get to a place where we work through things in committee for the most part. Um, but I also know that I, I, I, um, I'm seeing the end of the tunnel on this one for the vote and looking forward to that. Uh, I also just, I, I appreciate how the members of that committee engaged with curiosity and good faith throughout this. Um, I really appreciate the, the things you shared and, and the vulnerability shown as well. Um, and I think this relates to the broader conversation about prioritization in our public safety systems that we've had in 15 little ways here and there. Um, the testifier online who shared the story from 2017, um, is something that, that I will be remembering among many of the things from today for a long time. Um, I strongly support this ordinance as amended, designating personal psychedelic use as a low priority for law enforcement makes sense. And I particularly appreciate that the rationale was articulated throughout. So the ordinance says law enforcement resources are most effective when prioritized toward dismantling trafficking networks, addressing substance use associated with overdose risk, and responding to conduct that threatens community safety and welfare. So that's a quote. And I think that that's wise to always be articulating the why. And I think it makes a good case. Thank you. Good ordinance, should pass. Thanks.
[03:19:50] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Novick.
[03:19:55] Steve Novick: Uh, not to at all make light of the serious testimony, comments, experiences people have shared today, but I can't resist, um, telling about my personal debt to psychedelics. When I was 6 years old, my parents stayed up all night on mescaline and watched the Saturday morning cartoons with me, which they normally did not, and they concluded that they were fascistic and threw out the TV. We didn't have one for 8 years. And as a result, I think I read many more books than I otherwise would have. So I owe a debt to mescaline.
[03:20:26] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[03:20:29] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. And Councilor Clark, I want to assure you that this is really focused on natural psychedelics. So I just want to address 2 things that my colleagues brought up. Councilor Avalos, thank you for mentioning the risk of disparate impact on what is enforced and what is not. I heard our representative from the police bureau say that he would be happy to work with my office to make sure we were getting data back to council. And if Councilor Novick, should he retain the gavel that he currently has next year, would so oblige, I'd be happy to work to put together some sort of presentation back to that committee to make sure that we're getting that data. Thank you. I think that that would pair well with some information about sales and if there's been any increase in sales and in enforcement on that end. To the point that Councilor Ryan brought up, I think those 2 things could come together in a presentation on how implementation is working. Councilor Ryan, one of the reasons that we initially included an advisory committee was so that we had a place to have some of those conversations. I understand that that advisory committee wasn't amenable to some of our colleagues for a variety of reasons, and we'll talk to the county about whether they have a space for some of that work. But I think we can make up for not having that in other ways through reports to committee. I also would note that the fact that this very specifically makes sure that the sale is not deprioritized was in part to ensure we don't end up in the situation that you're describing, where prices drop, sales increase, and we see much more use in community in, in ways that don't look like what we heard from testimony today. So retaining enforcement of the sales part and really focusing on the growing using sharing was very intentional for that reason. So I will make sure my team knows that we may be on the hook for some follow-up on this for everybody next year to make sure we can answer those questions once we see how implementation really looks. Thank you, Council President, and thank you all colleagues for your supportive statements.
[03:22:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. Thank you everybody who came to testify today. This is a non-emergency item. It now passes to second reading. Colleagues, the time is currently 12:55. We have 2 additional items on our agenda, but we simply do not have time to pass— to hear them or fully discuss them. So the items 2026-212, advertising on bus benches, and document 2026-300 related to fire regulation fees will be moved to a future council schedule. They'll be continued to a future council schedule. And we are in recess until tomorrow at 2 o'clock. Thank you. PM.
[03:23:27] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.