Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Unidentified speaker
Keelan, this is Councilor Smith.
I'm online.
Adam, can you let the clerk know that I'm online?
Hi, Councilor Smith, this is Rebecca.
I'll make sure Diana in Chambers knows you're here.
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
Perfect, thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Let's kick us off.
Good morning.
It is 9:34 on Tuesday, I believe, September 29th.
We are opening this work session, and, uh, I am going to turn things immediately over to Councilor Kanal, who the council president has asked to run our work session today.
Good morning, everybody.
Um, colleagues, today is the first of 2 work sessions on our 2027 federal and state legislative agendas.
Um, we're going to be hearing a presentation from from our Office of Government Relations, then moving into some questions.
I wanna start by just thanking Director Chase, Evan, everyone from— Jack, everyone from OGR who's worked so diligently to prepare for today.
We know that it is a difficult job to prepare a legislative agenda that has gotten more difficult as now you have to combine administration priorities, mayoral priorities, council priorities, and feedback from previous years and form one unified legislative agenda.
Having said that, we also know that you did a really great job of it last year, got to a place where we could pass legislative agendas with a 12-0 vote.
And I know we can come together this year once again to identify top priorities and advocate for port owners in both Salem and D.C.
So the purpose of today's work session is to build towards focused strategic state and federal legislative agendas that reflect where there is shared interest across council, the mayor, and the administrative branch.
So OGR is here with us today to first share more about the issues that were submitted through their call for issue sheets and other input and to share preliminary draft agendas.
The goal is not to finalize every single detail of the legislative agendas today.
In particular, on the federal side, we'll have more to wait on, but it is to continue narrowing and strengthening the agendas so that by the end of this process in December, we have a clear set of priorities we can take to both capitals with a strong and unified city voice.
A few weeks ago, we had a work session on behavioral health to tee us up, and today is the beginning of that larger discussion.
So we have, uh, OGR has a presentation that's about 30 minutes long.
Um, the idea is to let them get through the full presentation, then open it up to questions and feedback, uh, in about 4 categories.
First is technical Q&A, uh, then discussing the sort of underlying principles, I think operating principles, vetting criteria, things like that.
Then we'll do the federal legislative agenda, which we expect to be relatively short, and I'll explain why in a moment.
And then the bulk of our time will be on the state legislative agenda.
Um, yeah, any questions on any of that before we get started?
Director Chase, the floor is yours.
Thanks everybody for being here.
Sam Chase
Well, thanks so much.
I'm Sam Chase.
I'm the director for the Office of Government Relations, and, uh, we'll introduce Jack and Ev— and we've got Evan Mitchell and Jack Arriaga, who we will introduce, uh, further in a moment.
And so I'm just going to kick it off here and get going.
Um, I want to thank the council and the mayor and the administration and the subject matter experts in the city folks have been, you know, incredibly team-oriented as we've worked through so many of these difficult issues that are part of this legislative agenda.
And you'll continue to hear the theme that you always hear from us, which is when we act collectively, when we act in a unified voice, we are so much stronger and more influential and powerful in our partnerships with the state legislature and federal partners.
Thank you.
Decision makers.
So that work— okay, so just quick review of the agenda.
Here's what we're going to be going through today.
There are 3 areas where we hope to collect more of your input and context as we go through this process.
One is just around government relations operations.
How are we working together collaboratively on government relations?
How are we processing your decision-making, how are we facilitating, how is that moving forward?
So that's one important bucket.
And then we'll discuss federal legislative agenda.
And that will probably be a little skinnier this work session because we wanna see how those results come forward in the election.
And we'll have some updates and modifications.
Thank you.
In December, in our December work session.
So we're really leaning more toward the state legislative stuff, which has a tighter timeline right now.
But nevertheless, it's all open for dialogue and we want to engage in all of it.
The work session goals are here.
We really— the short version of our work session goals is to really understand, are we getting it right?
Do the materials that we've put together for the federal and state legislative agenda look like they're capturing the areas where there's some consensus amongst council, the administration, the mayor's office.
You know, are we aligned?
Is the city aligned on these issues?
And if so, we can continue to move those forward and start to work on some of these other areas where there's not as clear consensus.
So we'll talk a little bit more about that.
And then about government relations operations, of course we put a document in your packets around how we operate and it's really more of a description of how we're currently operating.
It's not a rule book, it's not a guidebook, it's what our understanding is of how we've collectively worked together on these issues.
And it's kind of a right or wrong, that's how we're doing it and we wanna be transparent in showing you how we're doing it.
And so, you know, Welcome and appreciate any communications there.
So I wanna begin with a clear explanation of how OGR works with this body.
Our role is not to set policy.
We're not policymakers.
Instead, we facilitate decision-making, support a balanced and transparent process, and communicate city priorities to our governmental partners.
In fact, the more transparency, the better for us because then we know where We stand.
I often say I just need to know what to tell the team to go do down in the legislature, not to have them problem solve the policymaking per se, but to give you choices on where and how we can move forward on those sticky issues that develop.
We speak when we're working with the legislature by bringing folks down to testify, by engaging and communicating ourselves.
We speak We speak on behalf of the city.
We do not speak for the city.
We speak on behalf of the city, and I think that's an important distinction.
We continue to prioritize internal vetting, thoughtful issue development, consensus before taking external action.
The city has significantly more influence when we have that unified voice.
Transparency is essential.
Early and frequent communication with us helps advance our shared priorities.
Thank you.
Avoid surprises and ensure you have the information that you need.
And, you know, one of the things that we work hard to understand is your individual priorities and the priorities and interests of the bureaus, and so that we can track and monitor those things.
But, you know, the way that we operate essentially is that OGR's resources are for the use of the city's collective action and unified action.
And so that's a distinction that's different than working on individual issues that are emerging within parts of the city that may be building some momentum but don't yet have the consensus or haven't yet made the case for significance that would really affect the city's ability to deliver services.
So that's a distinction that we work with.
At the same time, we work to try to understand what those issues are and track and monitor.
And I think we've been pretty effective in being able to stay in touch with folks about issues that we know that matter to them most.
You know, one of the issues I bring up often is education.
One might say it's the most important issue of the day.
You know, people have different perspectives.
That it is not— that it's not on our agenda is not to say that it's not.
Right.
The most important issue of the day, for example.
It is to say it's the direct relationship to the city's core business and our— and focusing on our ability to deliver the services that the city provides.
That's an example of where we work to try to prioritize with you.
And I want to address kind of and get into something that's a little bit sensitive, which is there are times where there are strong perspectives about moving something forward that's not aligned with the city's agenda, and folks have independently elected officials.
We do not have any authority or interest in monitoring that, but our request is to work collectively as a city and to work with us when those issues come up that are, You know, driving your interest potentially in going out externally.
Can we help inform you about that issue?
Can we help make sure that you have an understanding of where the city lies on that issue, where the legislators lie on that issue?
And, you know, we do it in a way that we feel like, we hope is really empowering your understanding of the issue and ability to work on it.
Yeah.
And it's our motivation to do that because we want you to keep coming to us.
And so, you know, it's really important to us that we're not breaking some trust by you bringing us an issue early on that you maybe haven't worked out with the rest of the city at that point.
So I'm trying to say that as directly as possible because I have that conversation a lot.
And it's something where our staff are kind of sometimes in a tough position because we're trying to—.
Yeah.
To try to have everything work a well-oiled machine.
And so when we have uncertainty about where the city as a whole lands on an issue and we're addressing an issue that's, you know, maybe part of the city or some are advocating, it gets difficult.
And we're happy to do the work.
You know, if there weren't challenges, we wouldn't have jobs.
But I just wanna state that that's something we constantly wanna keep working on.
Thank you.
Working with you on.
And the more we perfect that, the stronger and more effective we are down in the legislature and at the federal level.
Okay, I'm going to move on to share a little bit about the process.
The process is a really important part of the transparency for us.
So it's really an ongoing process.
Every year we start over again and they blend into each other.
Thank you.
But essentially we kick off the annual process in about May and we ask for issue sheets.
We had more than 100 issue sheets submitted.
And so that's what you're seeing.
And those get vetted over each with its own kind of little way of getting vetted over the summer.
And we try to be as collaborative and inclusive as we can with all the interested parties in the city.
And go through that process and then develop this first set of recommendations that, and the behavioral health work session was a part of that process to really flush out a big priority.
And so then we bring those and try to put those into the agendas in ways that provide a little bit of flexibility as these issues develop with legislative engagement over time.
But we try to be inclusive and then—.
Thank you.
And then there are some issues that really don't filter onto this, haven't filtered onto this agenda.
I think we're something in the area of 20 or so that aren't on there.
And this is a tool.
So, oh, let me just say, and then we're gonna be coming back.
So today we wanna hear from you what's missing, what needs to be refined.
What needs to be developed.
We'll also be working with legislators to prepare for the legislature, and then we'll come back in December.
I think it's December 2nd, another work session, and that will give us time, the 2 weeks' time necessary to then file the agenda for your approval before the end of December, preferably the last sort of council convening before end of December.
And then we'll have a legislative breakfast and we'll be off and running.
The issue evaluation criteria is— I think it emerged as a more and more important tool as we've gone through this process.
I think it's really been helpful for us to have your clear sort of assess— guidance on how to evaluate the issues and what are the core principles.
I won't go through all of these, but I think, you know, some of them are fairly self-explanatory.
And of course, in your packet, there's a more descriptive review of these items.
But, you know, is this— and this is intending to focus, narrow our agenda to the point where we are really focusing on maximizing the city's impact, maximizing the work that we do to defend our local authority, you know, protect us from unnecessary regulation, protect us from unfunded mandates, but to really drive those core things that we need.
And the more focused we are, the more effective we can be in those really big priority areas.
And so we're constantly looking to try to refine and do that work.
So, you know, these are some of the examples.
Political viability is an important one.
Yes, that may be the right thing, but how viable is it?
Is it something we take to the legislature now, or is it something that we work on over time and get some wins along the way, or build a bigger coalition so that we can go in and really resolve and address that issue once and for all?
Issues like tax reform are ones that are very significant, but political viability is gonna take some time to get there.
City's ability to impact, is it something we are ready to actually go and move forward?
Is it something that the city is going to go ask our partners in the legislature to give us authority to do something and we're ready to do it?
They're gonna give us money, that's gonna be, the shovels are just waiting to hit the ground because of, but for their resources, those kinds of—.
Yeah.
Strategic evaluation.
So certainly happy to talk more about that.
But is there a clarifying question, Councilor, that we wanna address right now?
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify and make sure that it's crystal clear what you're hoping from us and that making sure that I heard it correctly, that if we are going to testify in Salem for or against something, that we make sure we reach out to you give you a heads up, and I've done that before, and usually you ask that I just say I'm speaking on behalf of myself.
Is that what you're asking for?
Just want to make sure I'm clear.
Sam Chase
Yes, yes, and thank you, and we've really appreciated it.
I mean, I want to say that the council has been really— I mean, there are times where they're like not quite perfect, right?
But honestly, it's been really quite good, and the partnership has felt so good with this council around that dialogue.
And so yes, that is it.
And And, you know, the sooner you can tell us you're going to go down and testify, the more information we're going to be able to get you and to share with you.
And we might say, hey, this is going to be a challenge for us, you know, but that's information that you still— we respect your decision at the end of the day, whatever that decision is.
And we really appreciate the opportunity to be able to give you our input beforehand.
That's really what it is.
Unidentified speaker
I would go—.
Evan Mitchell
Hi, Evan Mitchell.
I would go a level deeper and say that I often get text messages and phone calls and staff grabbing me in the Capitol saying like, hey, Councilor Koyama Lane is here, what's she doing today?
And so when you catch us by surprise, we don't look as organized and coordinated as we do or as we could.
Whereas I can say, oh, you know, she's planning on testifying on X, Y, and Z.
And so it's really helpful for us because everyone has eyes on you all when you're down there and they're reporting to us and asking us questions about what you're hoping to accomplish.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
And is that even if we're down there like supporting with a proclamation, just not even speaking, just there?
You want to know when we're going to be in that building?
Sam Chase
It's really helpful because it just, it shows that we know you're there.
And then when people ask questions, we know.
And then that shows that the city's coordinated and collaborative and it empowers and helps whatever council might be down there to have the staff knowing and doing that.
And then also there may be even if it's a proclamation, I think it's less about what the technical issue of the legislation is, as about the public appearance and just being all on the same page.
Evan Mitchell
That's helpful.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
Sam Chase
Yeah, that's a great question, and thank you for asking because it's just an important part of how we all work together.
Okay, we're going to move on to the federal.
Before I jump, and to toss it off to Jack, I just want to share a little bit.
You'll hear some more from each of them about the challenges.
We know that there are big challenges ahead in the state legislature.
We know that there are enormous challenges with the HR 1, the so-called big beautiful bill, and the implications that have been delayed until January 1st so that they could get through the elections.
Those are going to be you know, very significant.
The wildfire funding that continues to, you know, be a drag, other significant and revenue issues.
So a legislature that says no new program, we don't want new things.
And so it's going to be, you know, I would say the most difficult legislative session for this body since the Great Recession.
And so when we are developing an agenda that has new ideas, I think it's— and there always are, and that's understood, but it's going to be a challenge.
And when we show that we are understanding the place where they are and that we're collaborators to help them problem solve by not bringing them a tremendous number of requests, but a targeted focused set of requests.
They lean into that and they feel like that's a partnership that is valuable to them.
And it gives us a lot of power because Portland, again, is in kind of a unique place, which is, you know, we're not always the best spokesperson even for our own issues.
So there's kind of just, you know, strategically there are some, and partnership-wise and collaboratively, we have kind of a different way of approaching some of the work.
And so, okay, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jack Arriaga, our Federal Relations Manager.
Jack Arriaga
Are we just starting?
Sam Chase
And take it away.
Jack Arriaga
Thanks.
Morning, Council.
Again, for the record, Jack Arriaga, Federal Relations Manager.
So in the face of a great deal of uncertainty at the federal level of the last 2 years, you know, we contend that the city has maintained a really strong posture of staying true to our values And mitigating, successfully mitigating some of the most harmful threats and impacts coming from the current administration.
That includes both to the city as an organization and to the community we all serve.
At the same time, we continue to engage proactively with our congressional delegation, federal agencies, and others to seek solutions to the city's most pressing policy and funding needs.
So as we look ahead to 2027, I'm gonna stay on the last slide for a minute.
Thanks, I'll let you know.
So as we look ahead to 2027 with control of Congress potentially shifting in the upcoming election, we could see some additional engagement opportunities arising if the Portland area members of our delegation find themselves in the majority in either the House or the Senate next year.
And if Democrats do take control of one or both chambers, they will almost certainly be focused on conducting oversight of the executive branch and trying to reclaim some of Congress's power of the purse in deciding how federal funding is distributed.
But a caveat that with the Senate filibuster likely to remain in place and the Supreme Court largely aligned with the administration, Congress's willingness and ability to exercise checks and balances on the executive branch next year will probably remain limited under any electoral outcome.
So for the city's 2027 federal agenda, we're proposing maintaining a balanced approach that's focused on defending the city's values and authorities while working to advance priorities when those opportunities arise.
So I'll briefly summarize the main policies and funding needs proposed by the initial draft 2027 agenda and then underscore a few important highlights.
So first, under the Prevent Federal Overreach and Protect Targeted Communities section, the city's gonna continue opposing any federal actions that infringe on the rights of those in our community, including immigrants, and defend the city's sanctuary status.
As part of that, we're proposing expanded language underscoring the rights of all eligible voters to cast ballots without interference or intimidation.
We also continue to prioritize bolstering privacy, discrimination protections, and other rights under the strengthened civil rights and racial justice section.
Recognizing the challenging economic environment and increasing cost of living for residents.
We propose ongoing advocacy to support economic stabilization and growth, including through workforce development, small business supports, investments in arts and culture, and other community initiatives.
As we work to reduce homelessness and increase housing stability, a key strategy will be advocating for expanded federal funding that builds on this year's passage of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, And as we look to enhance community safety and behavioral health services, protecting the social safety net will almost certainly become a greater focus of our federal engagement in the coming year as the government implements those changes that Sam referenced to Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs affected by the enactment of H.R.
1.
As we turn to the final 3 priorities, we've updated the infrastructure investment section in our proposed draft agenda.
To clarify that the city's priorities for the upcoming federal surface transportation reauthorization next year that is anticipated to advance in the coming session.
We'll also continue to push— we'll also continue pushing to ensure climate and environmental justice despite heavy federal headwinds by engaging in federal rulemaking processes as we've been doing and leveraging what federal funding opportunities do remain available.
Including some of the tax credits passed under the Inflation Reduction Act.
So as always, we'll also keep defending the city's local autonomy to control revenue, maintain— manage our operations, regulate how public spaces are used, including emerging technologies like AI and autonomous vehicles.
So on the final slide, we've identified what we see as some of the city's top opportunities for federal engagement in the coming year.
As I mentioned at the outset, this list may expand following the election, but it is unlikely to change drastically.
But no matter the outcome of the election, we'll remain focused on making progress and getting results where possible, despite the perennial challenges at the federal level.
So with that, I'll hand it over to Evan.
Unidentified speaker
Great.
Evan Mitchell
Good morning.
For the record, my name is Evan Mitchell, State Relations Manager.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about the 2027 state legislative agenda.
Sam talked a bit about the legislative landscape, but I'll briefly add that this is gonna be a long session, so we should expect a much broader range of issues than we saw during the short session.
The state's budget guidance specifically directed agencies to assume no new revenue.
And similarly, legislative leadership has directed rank-and-file members not to ask for new programs with new funding asks.
These dynamics will make it especially important that we're clear about our needs.
And of course, there's no shortage of needs.
OGR received about 90 issue sheets from council, the mayor's office, and bureaus.
This gave us a broad picture of what people want the city to engage on, and our job is to distill that down into a— distill that down into a focused, proactive, manageable agenda that gives us a framework to engage on the many, many other issues that will come up during legislative session.
Thank you.
During the legislative session.
So in your packets, you'll see the draft agendas organized in 2 parts: top legislative priorities, where we expect the city to engage proactively, and areas of importance, which will guide our review of legislation introduced during session.
Next slide, please.
This slide shows sort of the, the top buckets of issues that we have laid out There's a lot more detail in the actual agenda document.
I'm going to assume that not everyone had a chance to read it and kind of walk through what's in those buckets quickly.
So first, as we did in 2026, we wanted to elevate local authority as a core priority and the foundation for the rest of the agenda.
As the state faces continued fiscal pressure and difficult budget decisions, we want to be very clear about the city— about the importance of being able to protect the city's ability to govern, manage its services, and respond to local needs.
That includes protecting our local authority and local revenue, as well as avoiding unfunded mandates.
This section also includes several areas where we're asking for changes in state law, like fixing public meetings law and protecting these city— the city's ability to run small donor elections.
This is also one of the places where we call out the need for property tax reform.
The common thread here is making sure that the city has the authority and resources necessary to deliver its responsibilities.
Next is transportation, with a central focus on predictable, sustainable funding for local roads, operations, maintenance, and preservation, as well as safety improvements and support for public transit.
After the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions, we know we need to continue emphasizing emphasizing the importance of the 50/30/20 state-county-city Highway Trust Fund distribution formula, particularly as legislators try to find creative ways to address ODOT's budget challenges.
There are several other issues called out in this section, like adequately funding the maintenance of the state's properties and right-of-way within the city, creating a dedicated funding source for the disposal of abandoned RVs, Vision Zero and traffic safety, including changing laws to target extreme repeat speeding and protecting our local authority and prioritizing safety if legislators decide to take another run at deploying AVs.
Next up is behavioral health.
Um, this is another priority area based on council guidance and the discussion that we had a few weeks ago with Health Share, Multnomah County, and local providers.
As we discussed then, the focus is on improving access and throughput within the system.
So preserving and backfilling regional inpatient psychiatric capacity, adding psychiatric respite and subacute capacity, and addressing reimbursement for inpatient psychiatric care.
This section also calls out our ongoing work with OHA to make Medicaid reimbursement available for Portland Street Response and CHAD.
Next is housing and homelessness.
There's been a lot of talk among state legislators around which elements of the housing and homelessness continuum the state should continue to fund.
So here we try to emphasize maintaining the individual pieces and continuing to build capacity, particularly around eviction prevention, housing stabilization, shelter, affordable housing production and preservation, and the infrastructure needed to support housing production.
We've also worked with local affordable housing providers to make sure the agenda reflects some of their current challenges and needs.
And once again, we've called for the mortgage interest deduction reforms, essentially ending tax deductions for second home— second and vacation homes with the savings redirected to housing.
There's also some Portland-specific asks in here, including final gap funding for the Broadway Corridor Housing Project, as well as policies supporting adaptive reuse land banking, and a statewide rental registry if that concept is revisited this session.
The, the next up is the economic development section, which is framed around strengthening Portland's economic base and the revenues that support public services.
The draft includes state investments or continued state investments in industrial site readiness and brownfield cleanup, workforce development, support for the arts and small business, including protections from predatory lending products emerging in Oregon.
One theme we heard in different ways across the city was that the state's economic development tools need to be clear, implementable, and tied to measurable public benefits.
This theme also comes up elsewhere in the agenda.
Next is civil rights and access to essential services.
This section brings together civil rights privacy, due process, election security, and continued work to protect access to sensitive places like schools, school buses, and courthouses amid ongoing federal immigration enforcement action.
It also calls out sustaining state investment in legal aid for immigrants and refugees.
The overarching goal is protecting our constitutional rights and the ability of the state and local government to respond to federal actions that conflict with Oregon's laws or constitutional protections.
Large load development and data centers is a distinct priority this year because it was raised by many of you, and it's an area where the legislature is working on policy for 2027.
The draft focuses on the major questions around these developments: transparency in negotiations and incentives, measurable community benefits, infrastructure, electricity and water capacity, Ratepayer impacts, and preservation of local land use authority.
And finally, climate infrastructure and resilience brings together several areas where we need ongoing state partnership.
This includes continued state focus on safety at the CEI hub, completion of the major flood safety work happening along the Columbia River, policies that address climate impacts like making large polluters contribute to their damages, and supporting distribu—.
Thank you.
Distributed solar technologies like balcony solar, amending the Recycling Modernization Act to defend its long-term effectiveness, as well as making progress toward an Oregon Transmission Authority.
The common thread here is practical state partnership on risks and infrastructure that are too large or interconnected for the city to address alone.
Next slide, please.
Finally, the agenda includes areas of importance this section is intended to guide our bill review once session begins, when thousands of bills will be introduced that will need to be evaluated for their impact on the city.
It captures many of the themes I already talked through, but also makes sure that we don't lose sight on other areas of municipal responsibility like community safety, government operations, and parks.
I also want to be clear that not every issue we received is in the agenda at this point.
We received about 90 issue sheets, and there are 20 that are not yet on the agenda because they either didn't meet the agenda development criteria Sam talked about or they need additional work.
That should not be read as a decision that those issues are not important and shouldn't be included.
Rather, this draft is a starting point for identifying where we currently have sufficient clarity and alignment to be proactive.
Our goal today is to make sure we're heading in the right direction and are appropriately identifying the issues where there is consensus.
We can keep working to develop the remaining issues as we work toward bringing you the next version in early December.
With that, I'll hand it back over to Sam.
Sam Chase
Thank you.
We are ready to get into discussion.
I will just share, just clarification, we had 90 state issue sheets submitted and 15 federal, so we had just over 100 in total.
And so now I'm going to open it up and here are some of the questions that we've put on the table, but would love to take any questions or comments, context, and really ready to open it up.
And I'll let Councilor Kanal do the facilitation.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks, everybody.
So we've got time for, across the multiple sections of this, everyone to have 8 or 9 minutes per councilor as we go.
And there's a few folks absent, so it might end up being being higher.
If we need to, we'll take a break, um, when we get to about 11 o'clock, give or take.
Um, as I mentioned up at the top, the idea was to start with technical Q&A, and then we'll get into anything specific to the, um, the evaluation criteria, and then we'll do federal and then state.
And the reason for that is because the state will take the longest, and so that was what was requested by, uh, staff on that, um, piece.
Obviously the lines are not 100% clear on that.
So just wanted to sort of lay that out before we get started.
Point of information.
Councilor, what do you mean by technical versus what?
If there's something you'd like to see change in the agenda or like to give advice on the agenda, that wouldn't be considered technical Q&A.
Councilor Koyama Lane's question earlier is a good example of technical in the sense of what's your ask of us or what does that mean?
Sameer Kanal
That's sort of thing.
Unidentified speaker
Um, if you'd like to, you know, if you have kind of a combination, it's okay to wait.
We've got time today, so, um, we should be able to get through everything.
Look, you look— I have a question as well.
Thank you.
So would you like us only in the queue if we have technical questions right now?
Um, you can stay in the queue.
I'll just come back to you, uh, if, if we can make it easier.
I'll get out of the queue then.
Okay, uh, we'll go to Councilor Clark and then we'll go to the next part.
Uh, thank you.
Uh, I'm sorry I was late morning I had a flat tire, uh, had to go to Les Schwab.
Um, I'm not sure this is technical or not, but I was really around the, um, concept of prioritizing.
And, uh, I, I know with 4,000 bills that you're going to be, uh, running around like chickens with your head cut off.
Um, but it might be helpful for me— I don't know about other folks— to try to sort these issues between What are generic that are always going to be on our list, always, with, you know, other cities, the other 240 cities across the state, which would, to me, would be preemption, no mandates without funding, those kind of fundamental issues that will always be on our list, versus what are our current priorities right now?
And I think we've talked as a group about Behavioral health being at the top of the list.
Now we know that transportation is supposed to come back, so how we parse out those priorities and make clear that some are always going to be there, some are, you know, germane to what the legislature needs to pick up, like the transportation package, and some are unique to the times, which would be the behavioral health.
So just how we sort through that, I'd just like to have you talk a little bit about that because it It's helpful.
We're always going to have certain priorities, but some are just timely.
Can you address that?
Sam Chase
So I'm going to hand it over to Evan and Jack for any comments on that.
But I will say it is an area where there's some gray.
I mean, it is not clear-cut.
There's no playbook that's clear.
And so what we try to do is every cycle kind of have this cycle where we're just setting the new Agenda and modernizing it.
And that is our agenda.
And some of the things may be a little more generic— transportation, you know, preemption in general.
And so some of those things are developing.
And so we have to know those are priorities that, hey, we need to stay very closely connected with you all around where are we going to go with that issue that emerges as it comes forward.
There are some issues, as you say, we're aligned with a bunch of others and kind of always on there.
If something comes up, a preemptive thing that comes up, we know those other coalition partners are going to be also on board with that.
But when it comes to climate, when it comes to transportation, when it comes to homelessness and housing, yes, those are always going to be on our agenda, but we're refining about how.
And where we focus in on those core areas.
Unidentified speaker
So will you be coming back with a resort of those, a resort of those?
Sam Chase
I don't know that we'll be coming out with a resort of the priorities, but we will, I mean, those are the buckets that we will be bringing in all of those areas.
We will be bringing back, those will be focus areas that will be staff assigned specifically to making sure they're tracking and monitoring those areas.
So, you know, that's— and then we're going to have our sort of regular cadence of engagement.
We'll go to heads of staff meetings, we go to city leadership meetings, we will go to and have briefings as we've had in the past for council where we have regular briefings during session.
It'll be much more frequent, but we want to do that even up leading to session so that we have opportunities to engage with you on these issues as they're emerging in real time.
It's always a struggle because sometimes real time is like 24 hours.
And so then we try to reach out as best we can to collaborate with it, but at least then we try to reach out in a way that is working with the trusted leaders in the city to help us identify a move forward quickly.
If we feel that there is not consensus or we're not moving in a way that—.
Yeah.
Feels right, we'd take that extra step to reach out even further to council.
So that's sort of an example of how we might tie into that.
But I'm going to see if you guys have anything to add.
Evan Mitchell
Yeah, it's a great question, Councilor Clark, and we think about this a lot.
I would be happy to sort the issues into some buckets for you so you can kind of see how they fall.
Most of the issues on our agenda have some sort of coalition that has formed around them.
And if not, like, we're— it's usually really hard to carry that ball forward.
Each one, I would say, has certain elements that become Portland-specific.
You know, for instance, we are really leading the charge in terms of conversations that we have with other cities around AVs because Waymo wants to start here.
And so it's most urgent for us.
And so we've been listening to you all and trying to figure out like, what direction you want us to have, and then also engaging other cities in that work.
Behavioral health is another area where we've been really deeply involved with Health Share and the county trying to kind of figure out what we can all advance together.
Public meetings law is another area where like LOC is technically leading the effort, but they need cities that are pushing forward and providing examples.
Thank you.
And so I've been really active and actively involved in that work for the last couple of years.
There's other agenda items that are really specific to Portland, like right-of-way funding for ODOT in Portland.
There are a couple— slowly we're seeing other cities starting to complain about kind of how this work gets done and how effectively it's done, but really it's been Portland out.
Yeah.
In front leading that charge for the last 5, 6 years.
You know, other areas, I am very nervous about where the state is heading on shelter and rent assistance.
We've already seen big cuts to rent assistance.
The co-chairs are now saying shelter, we don't wanna fund it, it's not state business.
And so, you know, those are areas where we're gonna— we're going to have coalition, but we're also gonna have kind of a unique voice.
Yeah.
Given how many shelter beds we operate, given the importance of rent assistance on moving people out of shelter.
So those are just a few examples, but I'd be happy to sort of sort all the issues to make it clearer what's like supporting coalitions.
For instance, you know, there's a big coalition growing around Make Polluters Pay, which is essentially asking polluter— asking large corporate polluters to contribute to the damages that they've done.
We're not going to lead that effort.
We'll show up and be supportive and help and mention it in meetings, but probably won't spend an extensive amount of work until the coalition tells us they need help with something.
Our delegation isn't going to be the problem with, with that one.
So happy to, to do some more sorting and talk about that with you.
Sam Chase
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks, Evan.
Olivia Clark
I—.
Unidentified speaker
Since you mentioned autonomous vehicles, I'm I'm just going to take the opportunity to note that on page 1 of your— the long form that you put together, you talk about preemption as a number one fundamental, but then under safe and predictable transportation system, you have a bullet that calls for the safe, predictable state policy for autonomous vehicles.
I just want to flag that because the Public Works Committee is taking that issue up and to try to combat preemption, we're going to work on coming up with our own ordinance.
I don't, I don't remember if we talked about that, but just so you know, there's sort of a conflict here.
Uh, if, if we lose out, I think your bullet, you know, is, is, is well stated.
But just a heads up that they're—.
Olivia Clark
They'll—.
Unidentified speaker
We're working on that.
Evan Mitchell
Yeah, and we've been watching your, your committee meetings and, and definitely plan on tailoring that right now, my goal was to signal to Waymo that if they plan on bringing legislation back, that it better include some basic stuff like insurance standards and how these vehicles interact with emergency vehicles.
Olivia Clark
Certainly.
Evan Mitchell
Maintaining our own infrastructure.
But I definitely recognize there's a conversation happening here that we need to make sure the agenda reflects.
Unidentified speaker
I know I verged into the substantive from a technical, but just since you brought it up.
Sam Chase
Well, I just would add, I think that's a great example where some back and forth with our legislative allies also is helpful in having them see the work that you're doing and learning from how you're evaluating and processing your decision-making around Waymo or autonomous vehicles.
And for them to be able to learn and benefit from that is going to help empower our team, but also empower the legislature to, to make better— to, to be well-informed in their decision-making.
Unidentified speaker
Well, then if we can actually succeed and prevent preemption on autonomous vehicles, we'll be the first in the country.
So thank you.
That's the end of my questions for now.
Thank you, Councilor Clark.
We'll go to Councilor Zimmerman, then Councilor Smith.
Mitch Green
Thanks.
Eric Zimmerman
I guess I'm looking for a little bit of advice in one area.
It—.
This seems kind of like a standard block of platform, and I'm not feeling particularly standard.
So I— it is, it's kind of a second tranche to Councilor Clark's questions, which is if we come in with our same old thing but we just also added behavioral health, I don't think that that's particularly impactful.
Kind of seems like a waste of a year, frankly.
Unidentified speaker
So how—.
Councilor Dan Ryan.
Eric Zimmerman
If we have those, those standard things, I guess I'm like, yeah, okay, but how do we send a message in Salem of like, no, no, no, of course we care about transportation, of course we care about preemption, we are here, we are not screwing around, and we are talking about this topic more than any other topic, whatever that might be?
I guess I'm trying to understand how to craft that.
This is new for me in that sense, because I guess I have an idea how to rally around a big idea.
I don't know how to rally around this extra idea who's in a pot with a bunch of extra ideas who've been there for 15 years.
That's what I'm trying to understand a little bit.
Sam Chase
A really good question.
And I think that gets into some of the nuance about kind of how are we processing with you and then how are we interfacing with our legislative allies.
And the legislature.
And this is a document that honestly probably gets read here internally, you know, vigorously by the council.
Strong, you know.
But I am— like, for behavioral health, for example, we would go down on a behavioral health topic and that would be a topic in itself.
There might be a one-pager about behavioral health that's that's actually fairly concise and short that legislators will be able to process in a short amount of time, holding hands with the county, holding hands with the behavioral health region, other jurisdictions from throughout the region, building that coalition.
And then that is its own kind of priority topic that we work on.
This is like our guidebook.
And then we have all of that list of those 105 issues that are very specific about what we want to accomplish.
So we are able— We are able to say to our team, we need to get X, Y, and Z done.
And they get a sense from this like, hey, we're in the right direction doing that work.
That's what this really is for us to be able to make sure we're collecting what your intent is.
But then with something like behavioral health, or if the 20/30 split for transportation's getting, you know, or somebody's coming after that and there's a preemption developing on CI, Something that takes away your decision-making, we're going to mobilize and that will be the thing.
But we're not going to be going in and handing this.
The legislature wants to see it, great, we love conversation, but it's a much more focused interface that they see from us when they're legislating during the session and preparing.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Evan Mitchell
I want to put a maybe finer point on your question.
The agenda, it's virtually impossible to make all of you happy.
I think we should just say that.
Like the bureaus, the administration, the mayor's Councilor Smith.
Councilor Smith, Mayor Wilson, Deputy City Administrator Raymond C. Lee, Deputy City Attorney Nancy Thorington.
I'm the Deputy City Administrator.
Unidentified speaker
I'm here to support the City Budget Office.
Evan Mitchell
You all, like, it— we have to be broad to make everyone happy.
But when it comes to our legislative communication, that's when we, I think, have an opportunity to tailor.
And so I've been thinking a lot about how do we roll this agenda out with our legislators once you all approve it?
What does the legislative breakfast look like?
Is there a press conference?
Is there, like, how do we tell the story about this state leaving us high and dry on behavioral health and shelter and housing programs.
And I think that's where we have an opportunity to lean in on those issues.
Obviously, we care about transportation.
We've been really active and involved.
But part of it is also you all telling us and agreeing, like, if you want behavioral health to be the number one focus, I'd love to hear that from your colleagues and have that direction coming from you all, 'cause that helps empower us when, you know, bureaus are asking, well, why isn't my thing getting the most attention?
Or the mayor has questions.
Eric Zimmerman
Takes me to my next question.
I'd like to get a sense for, as I go through all these submissions on the pages with the yellow headlines, I'm going to pull out just one as an example, but there are dozens and dozens of examples where this would, would be the case.
While digital equity is important, and I appreciate that BPS put something forward, I swear to God, if you spend 5 seconds on that that you could have spent on mental health, I'm going to lose it.
And so it's not that we disagree with digital equity, it's what do we want to spend our time on and our resources on?
And maybe I'm thinking of it in that we have a Portland bucket in Salem, and once we hit the top of it, we kind of— they give us our fill and then they move on to the next folks.
And I kind of am thinking of it that way.
So my technical question to kind of— how did these bureau items raise to the point of being in front of us?
Were they already vetted at the administration and mayor's level to say, yes, we want those to go forward?
Or are we in the popcorn mode of bureau good idea fairies?
Sam Chase
So we are, I would say it's a tradition that has moved forward over many years where we've really collected from the bureaus and the council and the mayor.
And when we're asking bureaus for information, we are expecting that that is, those are priorities, not of some individual in the bureaus.
Those are, we look at their work as interpreting and implementing the will of the city.
The elected leadership, the policymakers of the city.
And so we expect that when something like digital equity is being presented, that that is in line with the desire of the city to move forward.
Now, the size and scope of that compared to others is important.
Eric Zimmerman
So I should read that as of all the things that BPS could put on the agenda, they chose that there are 5 or 6 things, one of them is going to be that.
Sam Chase
There are, It may be that many of theirs, if not all, got on.
That doesn't happen in every case because we still run the filter and the criteria about political viability, impacts to the city, those factors.
The point about it, it's hard to make everybody kind of, you know, is one that I think actually what I'm hearing from you is, In line with my perspective, which is compromising by just putting it all on there is not the best strategy.
We continue to want to focus and narrow.
But there are issues that come up, digital equity issues or other issues that come up.
And we know there's some impact to a bureau.
And so, you know, we try to put the things that we think have political viability and match those criteria.
Thank you.
In the priorities, but then we have a whole lot in the areas of importance.
So we put a lot into areas of importance that we track and monitor.
And as those things develop, we can engage more in those.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Eric Zimmerman
And don't get me wrong, I just used that one as an example.
Yeah.
I've worked on that issue.
I continue to support it.
But what I'm trying to get a sense of is, has some level of culling already occurred at the administration, or are we getting everything that left the DCA level?
Sam Chase
DCAs sign off on the asks of the bureaus.
Eric Zimmerman
All right, so this is a DCA level.
No, no cutdown above DCA has happened yet, and that's part of what today is about with these lists, because they say they're not part of the agenda, they're just concepts.
I'm just trying to get a sense for where's the funnel stopped, and it sounds like it's stopped at the DCA level, and now it's to collectively administration and council.
Is that fair?
Sam Chase
Yes, yes.
This is us to say, hey, are we getting this right, and is I think that's an excellent point to be bringing up.
And if there are things where we're getting some feedback to say, hey, check the boxes next to these items, these are super big priorities for us, or put a minus next to maybe less of that's needed, but it's very welcome, a minus next to this or that.
But we're really here to say, We're really searching in these conversations with you, the behavioral health conversations, the conversations we're having with the mayor, administrator, council.
We're searching for what are the things that are rising to the top rather than looking so much for you to take things out.
But where are we continuing to have our biggest priority focus?
Okay.
Thanks.
And so behavioral health's gonna be way more in the center than the digital equity stuff.
But there may be some fairly viable options to pursue on that.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, thank you.
I'm just, like I said, I'm just trying to get a sense for how to form this and how to be impactful this year because I am so tired of status quo in terms of our legislative agendas.
And I mean ours, the collective cities across Oregon's legislative agendas.
So this is helpful.
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
We'll go to Councilor Smith and then Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Thank you, uh, Interim Chair.
Thank you, Sam, for, for bringing this forward.
My, my technical question is, did we put in any, um, pre-session bills?
Evan Mitchell
Do you want me to?
Sam Chase
Yes.
Evan Mitchell
We did not file any specifically for the city.
We worked with various legislators on a number of them and, and made sure there were placeholders, but we don't have any of our own, like, City of Portland bills right now.
Unidentified speaker
Okay, so those, those, those pre-session, uh, placeholders Do you have them recognized in this report so that we know what those are separate from the bigger list?
Evan Mitchell
Uh, they are represented on the agenda, but no.
Unidentified speaker
So I think that's important from a technical standpoint.
Um, it's— and me and you've been talking about a, a pre-session bill that I've been working on that I have a placeholder on with, uh, Senator Dick Anderson from Lincoln.
Uh, city.
And what we're trying to do is identify property, and something's going to go through the, the Public Works Committee that me and, um, Councilor Clark are working on when we get the assets, all of our assets.
Because what we're, we're trying to do is increase the amount of housing in the city of Portland.
Loretta Smith
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
One of the ways that we can do that, we believe, is that Yes.
That city properties that are vacant, that are not being used, that are not on the tax rolls, that we can turn those over from light industrial, commercial into residential.
And so Senator Dick Anderson is the vice chair of the Housing Committee.
So he put a placeholder bill in for me in regards to this, this whole housing thing that would allow cities by ordinance Uh, to, to follow a, a public hearing of their own after this is, after this is done, to be able to identify properties in the urban growth boundary that we can use for residential use.
Now, some of this, it will limit the, the contact that LUBA will have to review this.
And if you put this language in, they will not be able to, um, Yes, thank you.
They will not be able to stop it.
So we, we're trying to— we're actually working backwards.
And I think that from a technical standpoint, we should have had 2 lists.
We should have had a list that we could do pre-session with the pre-session bills starting in the first week in, uh, September.
Um, and I don't think we were— we were asked about any of those.
And I knew about the process, but I just went ahead and, and, and started working with, uh, Senator Anderson over the summer so that he could, uh, put that in one of his committees, which generally on the policy side, if you— those things that go in pre-session are the things that are going to go, not things that we put in in December.
They know that those are the priority things.
And that's why I asked, is there a separate list for the pre-session things that we are having placeholders for, um, that we should know about?
Because this big list, I'm like Eric, it's It's, it's like overwhelming.
It's not getting to the point, because when you ask other cities, they say, what is your big priority?
Tell me your top 3.
What are your top 3 things that you guys are going to be fighting for?
You know, you usually fight for something for a bigger, like behavioral health in general, and then you have a couple things that specifically that you want.
You either want policy things or you either want money things.
So I, from a technical standpoint, what would help me what are we fighting for under these issue areas?
Is that under policy or money, and how much?
What are we fighting for?
I, I just need to know what that is because looking at this big list, it is way too much, and it is not going to give us the power that a city of our size can have.
When people start saying, oh, Portland is coming in hard for XYZ, not all these 100 items.
I know it's tough to manage all of us, but I think we have to have a little bit more strategic narrowing of what we're doing.
And everybody has an idea, and everybody can go down to Salem and testify on their favorite bill or whatever.
And I like to be able to coordinate.
I always do that with you.
But I think it's very important from the list standpoint that we know what the policy issues are that we supporting, what the money issues are, and what are the ones on the pre-session.
I didn't get a chance to, to do this because we didn't have a system set up for council to talk about pre-session bills.
It's only on the— under the big bill.
So it's, it's kind of a moot point.
Sam Chase
Um, let me jump in here, um, and then turn it over to Evan.
Um, I think the— I'm encouraged by the I appreciate the communication we're getting around being focused and prioritizing.
And like, let's really— I think this session, more than any other session that we've been, certainly since the Great Recession, is going to be one where we're going to need to be hyper-focused.
I would say I kind of look at this as somebody who— I'm not an expert.
I'm going to admit this here.
I'm not an expert in the legislative strategy and how to, you know, position everything moving forward.
That's why I really rely a lot on Evan and the team, and we have our contract with Thorn Run and of course a team that's down there.
And so I'm always a little bit surprised at how few bills we're filing and how many pre-bills that we're putting in before sessions.
Because there's so many different avenues to get that work moving forward.
Loretta Smith
Right.
Sam Chase
And so we've focused, I think this conversation has 3 elements, federal agenda, state agenda, and then our operating.
And our operating is really what I think of as like, what's our strategy?
How are we working with you all in terms of strategy?
But we're really focusing with the agendas on policy.
What is it you want me to tell them to go get done?
And then I kind of just tell them, Go get this done.
Okay.
And, and, and, and they identify what those best strategies are.
Um, super happy to— I mean, we have a lot of expertise here in legislative advocacy, and so, you know, consulting and engaging you on that is very welcome.
Um, but that's kind of how we've really approached this, is what's the policy?
What is it you want us to get done?
Now, I look back and I think the narrowing of it It helps a lot because this team does a lot and there's so much behind the scene.
So, but what I would say is, you know, look back at some of those reports that we do, end of session reports, and there are a huge number of deliverables.
And so we don't need to be in a place where we're just getting the big stuff done because we can get the big stuff done.
Right.
And some of the other things done and were able to— I think if I look back at the last sessions and what the team has done down in the legislature, I don't think there were any issues that didn't get through or didn't get where they needed to go because of lack of capacity or attention of our team to be able to deliver on them.
Unidentified speaker
But there were some that did not get through.
Sam Chase
Yeah, and that will happen again.
But I think that this team is always looking to balance and it's great to be getting input where, hey, those issues aren't quite as important as the— and so that's what we're going through here is to try to really understand what are those really core priorities.
Yes, there's a big list and we can keep things on the big list, but what are we really driving?
And I think that's the key that we want to understand and then happy to also discuss more strategy, but that's just right or wrong how we've kind of approached it.
Unidentified speaker
Right, and, and I think it's very important.
So I think from a standpoint of— it's 12 of us, right?
And so when I used to do advocacy work down in Salem, what I would do with the folks that I was working with, I would say, here's the deadline, um, it's 4 weeks in or whatever.
If you don't have a hearing by this date, your, your bill is dead.
I think you need to treat us like an individual, like like a client of sorts and tell us in the beginning when we first start session, here's where we got to be.
If this bill doesn't pass out of this hearing, our priority bills, it's dead.
Because people don't know that, they're still thinking that bills are still alive that, that don't have no shot at coming because they, they died.
They didn't even get a hearing.
They didn't even come out of hearing.
If you do that from a technical standpoint, to us.
Just send us a, a white sheet and say, okay, here are our bills that are, that are coming up.
It's in XYZ, uh, committee.
If it doesn't come out of here, it's dead.
Now we're down to this number of bills.
And I've tell— I'm telling you, the most success that I've had with advocating for bills and money down there, I've gotten pre-session bills and I've had pre-conversations with Um, chairs of committees and, and, and getting other folks on board who sit on those committees.
And so for me, it's, it's just, it's hard to sit here and then hear you say in December.
By December, things are done.
Evan Mitchell
So, Councilor Smith, I want to talk more specifically about this.
I was horrified when I came to the city and learned our agenda-setting process and that we didn't have you all weighing in by the pre-session filing deadlines.
So I spent my first 2 years trying to get the agenda setting process to speed up.
What I learned through that is that between the budget setting process and the end of that, you all don't have time to give us the information that we need to have pre-session, especially when they move it up to the beginning of September like they did.
Loretta Smith
Yeah, we do.
Evan Mitchell
So what we've done, and I'd be happy to sit down and walk you through this, is we went and we looked at, you know, what do we think the highest priority issues are?
What do we think, like, who's working on that already?
And we went and we talked to legislators about those items and made sure that there were bills that would be in the stack that could become the thing we need it to become if you all choose to—.
Unidentified speaker
So you took our job away.
Evan Mitchell
Well, but that's why we're doing it.
That's why we're doing this.
Unidentified speaker
I want you to understand this seriously.
You took our job away because you don't think that we can do a budget and identify priorities at the same time.
And that's not true.
No, no, no, no.
That's, that's, that's how I got it from you.
I want to make sure they had a chance to answer the question.
Sam Chase
I just want to— I think that the, you know, We're trying to communicate as best we can.
It was very challenging to engage during the budget session.
I'm not saying that if this council wants to make that a priority, that absolutely we are available as much as needed.
We love the interaction as much as we can get.
So I just want to—.
Unidentified speaker
Just give me a choice.
That's all I'm asking you.
Sam Chase
Just give me the choice to do it.
We set this process up and this extensive— there was never a process before.
I mean, well, there always has been a process.
What it would be.
Okay.
But our intention was to try to engage at, like we are trying to engage as early, the May deadline for issue sheets.
We're trying to engage as early as possible and create enough time to really vet and discuss and engage individually with council members, collectively.
You know, we wanna have briefings where we're available to council members and staff, going to heads of staff, going to, Be as communicative and then briefings during session and then highlighting things that are coming up, flagging.
But we're not saying December is like when it happens.
We're doing that work now.
We're talking, we're going to legislative days, we're talking to them about this gray area of trying to help identify issues for them as we're preparing them with you.
'Cause we're going on a cycle from last year's agenda.
We have last year's agenda.
And so we're cycling that and modernizing it every year.
Okay.
And going through that cycle.
I am, you know, if we are taking some of your job away from you, that is not our intention, and we don't want to do that.
That is, we're trying to be as transparent, open as we can, and if we can do a better job of making sure you're getting some of that strategic information, those timelines beforehand, I hear that, and we don't want you feeling like that.
And so I think we can kind of think about how we adjust and make sure that we're plugging, uh, those pieces in as timely a way.
Unidentified speaker
Just to note, just to note, this says, okay, we have pre-session filing coming up, we got ledge days coming up in September.
Everybody doesn't know that.
You assume that we know it and we don't.
Yeah, as a group.
So we got ledge days.
Are there some things that we need to get in on pre-session?
Boom.
That's just so simple.
Sam Chase
Let's make sure we're doing that.
Thank you.
Let me do a— if this is appropriate, does everybody get our intergovernmental update?
If you're not getting those intergovernmental updates, which come out most— that's separate than the communications we send to council.
That's just our regular newsletter.
Just flagging that, that sometimes one doesn't know who's getting it or not.
So I'll just flag that.
Councilor, super happy to sit down and share a little more detail and then also be working toward how do we communicate that better out to council and mayor and administrator as a whole.
Unidentified speaker
Perfect, thank you.
Thanks, Councilor Smith.
So before I move on, it'll be Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and then Green.
Before that, I just want to note we've kind of combined 3 of the categories, it seems like, or at least 2 of them.
I think maybe it might be helpful to say there's these framing questions that you can see up on the screen here, but there's also the idea of start with your technical stuff, but there is also going to be clearly some connection between that and the criteria as well as at least the state agenda.
If you have federal things, we imagine that Jack will be neglected a little bit on this one, but we also want— we do have another work session on this for the federal, so anything that's federal coming up, that you know now should be mentioned today, but we will have a chance in, I believe, late November or December is our other session after we know what the congressional landscape will look like post-Election Day.
Okay, I'm gonna move on to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and then Councilor Green.
Councilor Kanal, my plan is to ask a few technical and big picture agenda questions here, and I will get back in the queue for some smaller item-specific comments that I have on both agendas.
Sameer Kanal
Great.
Unidentified speaker
After others have a chance.
And I, I will break that just to say, since it came up from, uh, Councilor Smith, I will not be supportive of us having an agenda that includes moving industrial land to housing land.
We need good jobs for all of the people who we know we need to build housing for also.
So if If that does become an ask to put on our agenda, please make sure that comes to the full council so I can make a pitch to my colleagues to not lose our job-producing land in our city.
We don't have a lot of it.
I am wondering if the order on this sheet— and I know the issue areas are just— or the areas of importance are alphabetical, but the order of the agenda.
Sam Chase
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah.
Does that influence the order of priority for you all?
And what I'm thinking about is how are we sharing with legislators, these are the things when push comes to shove, when the legislature says to us, we don't have a lot of capacity left, where do you want your money going?
How are we showing from the very start where we want our money going?
And I will jump to the ask here, which is I want to make sure that our agenda is very clear that if we have limited dollars, we want dollars into behavioral health.
So do I need to ask you all to move behavioral health from number 3 to number 2?
I assume it shouldn't be number 1 because that preemptive piece is so important.
Do we need to shift the order there, or is there some other— you talked about future documents you're making where we showing here are the proactive things that we are actively pushing for as opposed to the things on the agenda that are more reactive, right?
I know that in some ways this is a document for us so that we all know what you're doing, but I want to make sure that we are somehow showing early on when push comes to shove, we must get the money here.
Or this is what we're proactively doing.
The rest of this is critically important, but it's how we respond to other things.
Where do we show that?
Sam Chase
I will just say that I think if there are other ways that this council would like to organize these priorities, I think, you know, perception or not, That order is important.
And so that would be welcome.
I think that your other— well, so—.
Evan Mitchell
I would be happy to jump in.
I think what we're hoping to hear from you all today is your reflections on the agenda.
And what I'm hearing thus far Is less is more.
We want to prioritize behavioral health and money to behavioral health.
One of the things that we think about a lot is color of money and what, what happens with money.
And so we think about the buckets of funding, the sustaining of, of existing budgets and continuing service levels.
You know, we're also going to be thinking very, very soon here about the governor's recommended budget and what we want to ask her to put in her budget.
We're thinking about, you know, one of the things we think about is our lottery fund asks and only having maybe one for the city since it's a small and diminishing pot of funds.
Um, and so that's the point of this conversation.
If you all want us to delete everything except for behavioral health, I mean, we'll have to talk about that.
Um, like, but that's what we're looking for is your guidance on how you want us and I don't want us to delete everything.
Unidentified speaker
I do think having the full document is important.
I think it's important, like I said, for us to be able to see where— how are you going to react to things?
Because for the City of Portland, the reactive agenda, I think, is also incredibly important.
I just want to make sure we also— either that we also have somewhere that shows top-line proactive here are our priorities, or we get into the conversation about the ordering of the buckets here, which I hesitate to bring up because I know we can get really nitpicky if we do that.
But somewhere, I still believe— we, we talked about last year, should we have a single ask for behavioral health?
I don't think you can get us to say yes to a single ask, but I still believe that that should be like somehow shown as, hey legislature, you're not used to us asking for this.
We know there's a lot that the city needs, but actually none of those other things will matter if we can't do this.
Sam Chase
I think those are things that we can also address, and we kind of do often a cover memo or letter that goes with it and where we really drive home those issues.
There's even more top priority.
And so that's a place where we can try to articulate that in an even better way.
I do think Evan's point about color of money is a really important one, because nobody's saying, hey Portland, you get $100 million, how do you want to spend it?
Nobody's saying that.
They're saying, you know what, what do you know?
Hey, you know, we want to hear what you think about the housing and homelessness, you know, continuum.
And the— and the— but with that committee and their thinking all about that, those legislators, or, you know, and we can say behavioral health is this priority, and we can, we can find ways to be very outspoken and direct about that with legislators and look for places proactively for that funding.
Transportation, another example where it's just going to come at us.
We're going to have a lot of questions, and the creative thinking is going down.
The legislature is going to— there are going to be a lot of creative thinkers that think, hey, We can just get rid of this 2030 part of the split and make sure that we're saving all these state jobs.
So, you know, without thinking about all the local jobs.
So that's kind of, I think, the important element of it.
But I think it's kind of like a dream right now because we're usually in the— our job is to kind of keep it focused and, you know, really narrow.
And so it's really helpful to hear this council saying, you know, let's be even more narrow and focused around what those really core things are.
And I think we can try to come back and work over the next couple months on how do we get through that and get a little more clear around that without giving up the opportunity to advance some things that, you know, may be also feasible.
Evan Mitchell
Well, my thinking just, and I do want reflections on this, is that maybe we come back with a lot of this language as sort of internal supportive guidance for our bill review and where we make our effort, but that really we have a much more simple, straightforward agenda that calls out just a handful of your major priorities.
And well, I saw Councilor Green, you were shaking your head when I said let's get rid of the rest.
I'd love to hear what other— like, what are the other core priorities for you all so we can think about how to shape that?
You know, this is the document we're going to give to legislators that says that these are the things we must walk away with.
Unidentified speaker
And I'm fine with something like that.
I'm fine with it being in a cover sheet.
I am cognizant of the fact that the council president isn't here, and I am assuming you have had conversations with the council president about how to lay this out for us, and I don't want to suggest that we run roughshod over that without him here to defend the direction he's already given.
But something where we can see that.
I have 2 other things I want to note here.
I'll get back in the queue, like I said, to talk about some specific items on the agenda that I want to make sure to highlight or ask questions about.
And the first is there was a conversation about the interface between issues we're actively working on at council that we also know that I just want to note one that I don't see reflected on the agenda, though I think it does fall into that don't preempt us space, and that is that we'll need to make sure that we're having conversations back and forth around TNCs.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yep.
Unidentified speaker
Councilor Novick and I and a few of our other colleagues continue to do work with both the TNC companies and the drivers union to make our ecosystem more equitable.
System here in the city work better and make sure that that's a profession that's actually paying a reasonable wage.
And I know that the state will be taking that up also, so we'll just want to make sure that we're in close connection with folks at the state through you all as that moves forward.
I wanted to note that.
I also am wondering if you can share with us a little bit about what you see as your charge on AVs, Waymo drones, this autonomous vehicle space, because I know that the committee is going to be taking that work up.
We haven't had a council-wide discussion about what our values are on that.
It's a really big emerging issue, and we're sending you down to Salem knowing you need to do something and have an opinion.
I don't want to take too much time on this, but if you could share with us in like 2 minutes what you think the charge is right now, so that if we all disagree with that, we can make sure to either bring it up today, tell you offline, or tell folks on the committee so that we can get clear about what our direction is, that would be really helpful for me.
Sam Chase
Well, I think on the AV issue, there is, you know, clearly protecting the authority of this council to maintain its own decision-making and then monitoring and engaging and hearing the conversation that happens as you're developing and working through this issue and communicating those priorities.
Insurance, safety issues.
The issues that are coming up over and over as themes here are ones to communicate to legislators.
But we are not— but preemption is really the main thing that we can definitively say right now.
But what else would you add?
Evan Mitchell
Yeah, I mean, I see our charge right now as making the case for not being preempted and Getting our seat at the table and securing that so that decisions aren't made without us.
And we're very transparent with legislators that you all are having a conversation down here and that we're waiting to see how that plays out.
And we talk about the dynamics and all the things we've heard from you all.
And so the main thing is, you know, no one has firmly committed to sponsoring a bill yet.
There's conversation about that.
Yeah.
So charge number one is tracking those conversations, making sure that we know who's thinking about sponsoring legislation, what are they thinking about doing, is it a starting— is it the same starting place as last year?
And then making the case for why these need to be local decisions because Waymo's making the case for why they shouldn't be.
Unidentified speaker
Great, thank you.
Can I just say that it's coming to the Public Works Committee on October the 13th.
And by that time, we're going to have a pretty good draft, I think, based on everyone on the committee's input on this.
So stay tuned.
I think that's the first, first blush.
Evan Mitchell
Great.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
We'll go to Councilor Green, then we'll probably take a break right after that.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
I'm also going to sort of return to the format that was sort of suggested here and work through your questions on the slide.
And then I can get back in the queue later for more sort of detailed stuff if we have time.
I think by and large, I was really pleased with the sort of structure and timing and kind of approach to dealing with all 12 councilors, a city administrator, and a mayor in creating a sort of coherent vision for the city.
Thank you.
I think it's— I think one of my concerns walking into this building was, are my priorities going to be reflected in the legislative agenda?
And they were.
And I think it's largely true for every one of us.
And so I think you guys nailed it with that.
And what I'm seeing here is sort of a roll forward of that practice of the kind of impact and scoring approach.
And I think, you know, I think it's important.
Councilor Smith.
You know, we've had some discussion up here about how to prioritize, and I think, you know, you see those 70-some-odd pieces and you're like, oh no, are these all the same priorities?
But you've laid it out clearly in your memo what the priorities are.
So there are 8 priority areas, and maybe those need to be fewer.
I don't know that they do, but they are— it's local authority revenue, safe, predictable, sustainable transportation systems, The behavioral health thing.
I mean, those are all huge and important issues, and I wouldn't want to subsume any one of them to a sort of deferred state.
And the way that I think about this just generally is, of those categories, what areas are you prioritizing where there's interactivity between them?
And I'll just give one example.
The behavioral health system discussion that we've had, I think we all recognize that if we don't deal with that in a concerted fashion, then it's going to undermine our housing and homeless continuum work.
It's going to undermine our ec-dev and competitiveness work.
It's going to undermine our, you know, you just name it, right?
That's a critical issue.
And so I think about these things as a system, and they're sort of— there's a recognized interdependence between them.
And so if you have to make a decision on what to pull off, I'm going to sort of place the charge, and I think you guys are capable of doing this because you have the experience of recognizing that if you pull one thing off, if it starts to unravel that system of connectedness and render some parts of the legislative priority not viable, then don't take that part out, right?
There are some things you can trim and you won't see that.
And that's the cut point for me.
And you'll see that maybe if you look at each specific tiny little thing.
And, and that's— so, so I'm, so I'm actually quite comfortable with this.
Um, I do not support making it just one thing, um, because that it undermines our, our other things.
Um, the, uh, for me, my top issues, I, I see that— so I submitted 3 from my office.
I see all 3 of them in there.
Um, the transportation stuff Is huge for me.
Obviously, I think it's huge for everyone, like the taking another stab at getting the good package that we all deserve.
Um, that's the short-term fisc— uh, fix, uh, for our primarily transit systems and local, and local kind of road network is what I care the most about.
But we put in also support for the transit-oriented development work that I think Senator Pham is going to carry.
And that's the long-term fix.
That's how you pay for our transit system over the long haul.
It's through economic— it's through housing development to then create the ridership.
And so those 2 pieces to me are part of that recognized interdependence where we're bridging one legislative session with some future ones.
And so I think that if we can get that one right, if we can pass that TOD thing this time around, I think there will be future sessions where We start to see our transit systems be able to pay for themselves, at least in the Portland sense or the metro sense.
I was really pleased to see a metro legislative item on there on land banking.
This is a, you know, Portland's the largest city in the metro.
We've talked a lot as a council about how land banking fits into our broader kind of housing productions goals and affordability goals and social housing and all that.
That's a, that's a I think that's a critical piece, and you can't do it without Metro.
So I'm really glad to see that we're elevating Metro's priority there, and I want to support that.
I probably have some very specific questions as we get into it, but I think just top lines, keep up the good work.
I really think you guys are quite communicative and give me the opportunity to express my concerns and And, you know, if I'm missing some detail for you, you've given me an opportunity to provide that detail.
And I think I'm seeing that in the work product here.
So yeah, we can have a debate about whether we need to trim this down, but I think these are the right topic areas.
And I just, you know, would urge my colleagues to look at the memo that really lays out what the priorities are.
'Cause it's not just 78 different pieces that have equal priority.
Thanks.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks, Councilor Green.
We're going to take a break.
I just want to do a quick housekeeping note.
We've got, uh, I think 5 councilors who haven't spoken yet in the queue, and possibly a couple people who will come back around for a second round at it.
And when we get back, feel free to start incorporating anything else into it.
But of course, you're welcome, of course, to, uh, break it up into multiple rounds as well.
Uh, we'll come back at 11:12.
See you in 10 minutes.
All right, we are back.
We'll pick up the queue where we left it off.
We have, uh, Councilor Avalos followed by Novick.
Thank you.
And I believe we've moved a little bit away from just technical.
Yes, we can kind of give some broad sweeping cool.
Um, well, thank you so much, OGR, uh, and thanks for meeting with me earlier, um, as well.
Um, so let's see.
First, I'll say I appreciate that this is, you know, still at kind of the early stage of the process, so I know that this is our chance to really shape what the final agenda looks like.
And I think my broader goal for the final agenda is to focus not just on what we think is politically achievable, but also like what Portlanders actually need.
So I think that's one of the tricky things that we're all navigating of like, what are the kinds of things you put in this where you obviously want to put things that are realistic?
But I want us to be pushing the envelope a bit just because Portlanders are obviously, they have a lot of different needs that we all represent and are bringing to the table.
And I want that to be part of the calculus.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Um, as well.
Um, there are a couple of things I want to just elevate, uh, things that I have brought up and I think some that others have brought up as well.
Um, and I know that you've got that large list of, you know, everybody's submissions, and I, I think I submitted like 14 or 15, so I know that was a lot.
Um, but wanted to just get all of the policy concepts out there and just show, um, you know, in particular what I think East Portlanders are needing, um, but also just on issues of affordability and access.
I think that's kind of the theme for me.
So one of those kind of pie in the sky, but I'm going to start speaking it into existence, is the renter tax credit.
This is something that I have been hearing from community.
I went to a roundtable that Senator Pham put together, and this kept coming up at the discussion tables.
And so I did some research on it.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Saw that we are— I think that's like half of the country already does it.
And it's something that would put money directly back into the pockets of our most rent-burdened households.
And so again, pie in the sky.
I know that that is obviously a big revenue ask and we are not in a big revenue ask kind of year.
But I think it's important that as we are looking at shifting our priorities and as they're making decisions about what are the things that will bring affordability back to Oregonians and Portlanders, I really think that needs to be elevated to the top of the discussion.
Also, eviction prevention resources that people can access before they receive a final eviction notice is super important.
We just kind of have all these people that are right on the edge, but, you know, receiving that eviction notice, that just puts you in a whole other spiral emotionally, you know, financially, and just as far as affecting your future.
And so I really want to be better about being preemptive on that or preventative on that.
In general, stronger immigrant protections.
You know, the legislature made some great moves last session that I appreciate, and I just want us to continue to find ways that we are going to, as a state, intervene with the federal government and their efforts to, you know, hurt our communities, our immigrant communities.
And so So things like keeping federal immigration enforcement out of sensitive locations and protecting people's data are at the top of the list for me on that.
And then as far as transit-oriented development, I know that Senator Pham is going to be advocating strongly for that.
It's something that particularly impacts East Portland, and it's also something that I had a conversation with TriMet about, which I found interesting.
Just kind of their— they shared their general philosophy and interest.
And, you know, I used to live by the Hollywood MAX station.
That used to be my MAX station.
And just seeing the housing that they're building there and just the efforts they're making to increase housing along the transit corridors, I think we need to continue to support and see kind of what that looks like at the state level.
And then what does that look like for us on the city level after that?
I also want us to take a serious look at who our tax system asks to contribute and who it benefits.
So one thing that is starting, it sounds like, to get a little bit more traction is reform of the mortgage interest deduction and ending subsidies for second homes so that those resources can expand equitable homeownership.
I think it's pretty self-explanatory, frankly, to me, but I think ultimately, you know, When you have so many people who can't even afford their first home and there's a lot of tax revenue going to folks that have mass, uh, in mass, uh, other homes, then I think that's something we need to be getting some of that, those dollars back and putting it back into community.
Um, also investing in home repairs so that low and moderate income homeowners are not displaced, uh, simply because they can't afford, um, you know, critical health and safety and accessibility or habitability improvements.
This is— I think we've done some work on that.
I know Verde helped push that a couple years ago with the Healthy Homes Bill.
But I just— we're continuing to need resources to help people age in place, stay in their homes.
There's some great organizations that do work like that, like Taking Ownership PDX, for example.
And I would love for those efforts to continue.
And then as it relates to data centers, this is definitely a hot topic across the state, and we had a discussion about it here recently.
Um, and so just establishing meaningful guardrails for data centers, including transparency, protection of local authority, and ensuring these enormous users of electricity and water and public infrastructure are actually paying their share rather than passing those costs onto working people and ratepayers.
So I think we need to continue to elevate that and, um, see what is the city's role in here.
But I, I think the My concern on the data centers is preemption and wanting to make sure that the state is doing the right thing and letting us as cities decide, you know, how we're building our cities.
And we definitely need to have a more thorough conversation at the city level about that.
So those are the things I wanted to elevate as it relates to the broader concept of like, how do we wrangle these, you know, 12 folks and go forward in Salem with a unified um, agenda.
Um, one, I appreciated that last year, you know, there are ways to, um, uh, uh, what am I trying to say?
Like, if people need to go in a different direction, um, that we can communicate with OGR, I guess.
Like, if we're going to go support another bill, or if maybe it's not like this council's decision that, you know, we can do our own individual efforts.
So I think I'm still trying to explore what that looks like and means.
I don't have anything necessarily off top of my head that I'm like, oh, this is something that I'm going to have to go alone and that council won't come along.
But I just, I guess, want to figure out what that looks like.
And I hear you all saying too, like, just making sure that we are in constant communication so that you all don't seem, you know, unprepared or like you don't know why a councilor is down So I'll definitely do my best to ensure that we're communicating about that.
And ultimately, I mean, I think we're doing okay at trying to capture as much of consensus as possible.
There are very clear themes.
I think the 7 themes that you have outlined are, I feel aligned with and agree that those are the good areas to kind of put our energy.
But ultimately, I think we just need to keep figuring out what those feedback loops look like.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Especially as we are entering a long session.
So it'll be our first long session as a council, and I'm not sure how that's going to be different, especially because there's just a lot more moving parts over a longer period of time.
So I don't have full answers right now on what I would expect, but— and I am grateful too that you all have those like weekly check-ins.
I think those are great.
So yeah.
Sameer Kanal
Councilor Smith.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, just continuing to work with the council, council president to ensure if there are times that we need to like say, okay, we gotta huddle because there is a big conflict here and it's on a big issue and we're, you know, you're hearing different things from council, like just being proactive about coming back to seek our input.
So I'll leave it at that for now, but thank you so much for your time.
Sam Chase
Thanks.
Thank you.
A couple things I would just say is, You know, as an example on the issue of sort of how do you evaluate political viability and move forward on an issue, one I think important approach that we're really framing around the housing and homelessness is around the continuum.
And so the issues that you submitted and that you just discussed, I think are generally, we're hearing generally support for you know, I think all of those issues in sort of a general way.
What we're trying to do is say that we would work for— move forward because there's so many housing issues and there's so many in front of the legislature.
We're really focusing on the whole housing continuum and finding ways that we can leverage resources from the beginning of eviction prevention right up front.
And the beginning of prevention.
Continuum to shelter, to permanent supportive housing models, to preservation, all the way up to housing production and including, you know, even Broadway.
But, and so there's different policy pieces in that continuum, but collectively our hope is that council is good with the continuum of of options that are put forward, and then we'll engage with you as the legislative session moves forward and some of these become more viable.
Because we're not just working here with 12 councilors, administration, mayor's office.
We're also needing to work on housing issues with the Housing Alliance, with housing, with Metro, with these bodies that are coordinating and refining their messaging as well.
So Those are, I guess that's just an example of kind of how we go about.
And so then there's sometimes there's issues like the renter tax credit and how do we engage in that during the legislative session?
Do we take some of those bigger ones that council wants to move forward on and start working more proactively in coalitions and identifying, you know, getting buy-in how do we get it to the point where it's politically viable enough to pass through the legislature?
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
And that actually raises one more point I wanted to make.
We've talked about this before that I've been working pretty closely with Representative Wyse, somebody that we've been talking about the renter's tax credit, for example, and just also trying to figure out what it looks like.
I'm trying to work more with my East Portland legislators and see kind of what they're working, see How I can support them, give them context, especially because a lot of my East Portland reps sit on the housing committees.
And so, yeah, just want to continue figuring out what that looks like because we all have our relationships, we all have our initiatives that we're working on with legislators, and I just want to understand, you know, what's our protocol and how you all at the end of the day feel included and feel like a part of that so you're not surprised.
But just in general, flagging that I think think there's interest from us as councilors to be more collaborative with our legislative partners.
And so I think we should keep thinking about what that looks like to maybe put some structure around it if it needs structure.
I don't know that it needs it right now, but I'm just flagging that I feel like there's a— we have a lot of councilors here who want to work with legislators in their districts to work on projects and making sure that you're in the loop on those too.
Sam Chase
Yeah, I mean, I think, and totally understand that, that makes sense.
That's what, you know, your job is to work on policy across all of these sectors.
What I would say is the sooner we know about some of those things, when you're learning something from a conversation with a legislator, please, if you're going to go talk to a legislator, we'd love to know before so we can share with you maybe any perspective okay.
Afterwards, we still would love to hear that, what maybe came out of that, and then work with you on how you're going to show up or engage, as we've already discussed a little bit.
But I think that— and also identify, is this conflicting or is this in line with the city's sort of work forward?
We do have in the Again, the operating best practices for international— or sorry, for intergovernmental relations.
There is an addendum on there that has, at the request of council last year, some language suggesting how you can say, hey, I'm not representing— I'm representing my own perspective, not council.
Evan Mitchell
And so that's a good go-to as a And I would, I would just add, I, I think it's great that you're working with folks who represent the same district.
I think that's really meaningful.
And, um, yeah, we— it's, it's really helpful for us to hear about what the policy issues are.
An example that, um, I keep thinking of is last year, uh, Councilor Novick team sat on a work group with Representative Pham, and they were focused on a whole bunch of different issues, but there were some specific legislative concepts that came out of it.
And so as they started talking about the legislative concepts, I sat in, I listened, I, I was able to do some vetting internally to make sure that those concepts could go on our agenda.
And then we were able to help with Rep— with Rep. Tran's legislation in Salem, which I think makes us all look good when we're kind of coordinated in that way.
And it also gives us an opportunity to address if there are issues that we need to talk about with the whole of council, because that's not necessarily what you all are thinking about at any given day.
It helps us give an opportunity to elevate it with you all so we can make sure that we're all aligned.
Sam Chase
And I hope that— one of the things I hope is that our team has shown its trustworthiness in terms of being about issues that aren't ready to be vetted further yet.
And so with that, my hope is that if there are places where our staff can be participating or join a meeting or engage to listen to a conversation, we may say, hey, we can't do that or whatever, but we'd rather lean toward knowing and being able to be present for information sharing where it's happening.
Jack Arriaga
Thanks.
Unidentified speaker
We'll go to Councilor Novick and then Koyama Lane.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Chair.
I wanted to say, first of all, how much, to use Ted Lasso's phrase, I appreciate you.
I've been appreciating Sam Chase in various roles for 32 years now.
Really appreciated working with Evan on the issue of whether we can get Medicaid to start paying for PSR and CHAT.
Appreciated Jax being involved in the question of whether we can use this huge prospective railroad merger to stop the trains from blocking traffic in Southeast Portland for hours on end.
So thank you all for the work that you do.
I had one bit, little worry about the agenda, which is at the— the state agenda, which is at the beginning under safe, predictable, and sustainable transportation systems.
It mentions transit in the intro, but then there's nothing about transit in the bullets.
And I just have to say that I think that preventing TriMet from continuing to fall apart is more important than demonstrating Oregon's commitment to advancing high-speed rail in the Pacific Northwest.
Maybe I'm nitpicking because it is in the intro, but I'd like to see it be a bullet too.
I appreciated seeing some of the small things in the agenda, seeing That supporting the Criminal Justice Commission's request for renewal of the restorative justice grants.
I'm really glad to see that.
Glad to see balcony solar on the list, although I realize I need to talk to IBEW about that.
There's a couple of things that I might be suggesting that we add.
One might be too late because I don't know if it would have had to be in like a pre-session filed bill, which is having Siting criteria for the bottle redemption centers, like having something that says that you shouldn't have something that involves a lot of pedestrian traffic in an area that's unsafe for— location's unsafe for pedestrians.
So I actually should maybe talk to Rob Nourse about that and see if maybe it's not too late to get in something there.
Another thing I wanted to mention is the Multnomah County court system has asked for 13 more judges.
And there's a couple of reasons I think we might be interested in that.
One is that— and I actually just this morning emailed PBOT about this.
I haven't checked in with them in the past couple of months.
I mean, if we were able to dramatically expand the number of speed and red light cameras, that might mean we need more resources for the courts.
So those are the 2 little things that it occurred to me I might be asking about adding.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Evan Mitchell
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Actually, on, on a couple of those issues, we have been working with Representative Nohs and a couple of other legislators that are looking at various bottle drop related legislation.
So if there's specifics that you want in there, I mean, certain elements around citing, it gets complicated because a lot of the folks who are advocating Advocating for the gleaners and, and canners actually want to be close to transit and pedestrian access.
And so we should, we should just talk a little bit more about that issue and what you want to accomplish, because we're trying to figure out how to thread that needle right now.
Um, on the Multnomah County Court System, we actually got 2 requests, one from PHB related to eviction court capacity and one from PBOT on the exact issue that you brought up.
And so we're working with the county and talking to OJD about how we can, you know, get involved and make sure that the 13 judges they request are going into those spaces.
Oh, balcony solar.
I would be very curious what you learned from IBEW because we have not checked in with them yet either.
Steve Novick
I was just looking at an article about it and realized they're worried about it.
So I haven't talked to them yet.
So I probably should, but I think the idea is very exciting.
Thank you so much.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
We'll go to Councilor Koyama Lane, and then I'm next in the queue after that.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you.
Um, okay, what worked well in 2026?
Uh, I noticed we were able to work on stronger relationships, have more engagement.
Uh, this council was able to shape and give more feedback because Whereas the previous year, while you actually did adjust and ask for our feedback, a lot of that agenda had been set before we even took office.
I found you all to be very accessible, open, eager to connect.
And I mean, I honestly, I'll speak for myself, I've been really impressed.
I will even make a comment in committee about something, and then before the committee's even done, Mm-hmm.
One of you have reached out to my office and you're like, oh, let's talk more about that.
My team feels like they have access to you all.
I, when I reach out, even if it's last minute, I'm going to work on giving you a little more lead time.
There's always a response of like, oh yeah, okay, this is how we would— thank you for giving us a heads up that you're going to be in Salem or you're going to testify.
Here's some background.
How can we be supportive?
So thank you.
Thank you.
How can government relations improve?
I think just continuing to like engage early and often, which I see happening in the coordination.
I found the legislative issue sheets to be helpful.
I heard at least a couple of the councilors say that they filled them out.
I'm not sure if you can share, like, did you get them from most of council, all of council?
Sam Chase
We got I'm not sure.
Evan Mitchell
I would say about half.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Okay.
Sam Chase
And we do have that list in your packet of all of the issues that were submitted, and it does show who was, I think, in there, who submitted as well.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Okay, great.
Sam Chase
So you can collaborate with your colleagues or whoever.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
For me, it was helpful while we have conversations, and I do notice that you all take notes and try to take those pieces with you.
I think having those issues being really clear was helpful.
My office filled out 5 of them.
4 Of them I can see have been incorporated.
Um, and yeah, folks can also look at those sheets to see some of my top priorities.
A lot of them include transportation and traffic safety, homelessness, the housing and homelessness continuum, and then continuing to fill the gaps in Oregon's behavioral health system.
In terms of if anything's missing, I don't think this is necessarily something to add, It's more like a cross-cutting priority, but just, I wanna continue to uplift aging and disability access.
And that's something that we can and should continue to be thinking about, like within housing and transportation and workforce development and public services.
It's not necessarily a separate issue.
So those are my answers to the 4 questions.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
I am next in the queue.
I wanted to start just big picture framing with I agree with Councilors Novick and Green broadly, both of what they said.
And I also think I really appreciate this process because we're ultimately— we need an OGR that we can point to and say that everything you've taken a position on is based on something that's in writing.
And I understand that's why the agenda is so broad, is because it has to cover the things that you don't know are going to come up, amendments, things like that.
That during the session.
I appreciate that.
I also have no concern about the idea of, of deeper prioritization that's specific to the particular, um, legislative session that we're up against.
I don't, I don't think we should be focused on symptoms, um, so I don't agree with the particular proposal of everything being behavioral health focused.
I think that's an important thing but not the only thing, and we should be looking at why we're in that mess in the first place and trying to resolve that.
So that's the, the big picture.
I did want to say thanks for improving the issue evaluation criteria that you made some small changes to, but meaningful ones.
I particularly appreciate that you added at the end of political viability the importance of elevating a solution, maybe elevated over political viability, and how you describe collective agreement this year I think is an improvement as well.
Going to areas of importance, because I think that affects both agendas, I wanted to say first, thanks for adding traffic injuries.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
To traffic fatalities in the community safety piece.
I think there's some new text that's new this year.
It's kind of vague on supporting effective policing and public safety practices.
It's good, but it needs to also add in equitable and constitutional.
I think there's a couple of these adjectives and adverbs, but particularly adjectives that are a little confusing to me as we go forward, not in terms of what they are, what they mean, but why that one and not another one.
So I just wanted to add that.
For example, it says adding in— it adds in appropriate before an alternative and unarmed response, and I, I don't know what that's supposed to limit, how that would limit.
So I'd like to see that, that word out so that we can support unarmed and, and community, uh, alternative response.
Um, I think it's great that you separated out emergency management to its own section and, and given it the highlight and importance it deserves.
I would love to see a connection between that and North Portland emergency routes.
Last year, or the year before, Representative Nelson put up a bill on trying to get funding for the design review of the Columbia Boulevard Bridge over the North Portland Railroad Cut.
And I wanted to see text in here that allows for you to advocate for that, because right now we have a lot of people who are in bad shape if an earthquake occurs.
On the North Peninsula.
So I wanted to just get that out there.
Similarly, on the sort of verb side, this is on the autonomous vehicles in the transportation section, but also pretty much all of the technology, privacy technology and data piece.
It has, you know, protecting is a good verb, promoting responsible use of data, and then it goes to monitoring emerging technologies.
I think that's far too weak for what we need to be involved in, but actually ensuring that the city has a role you talk about preventing preemption, but just trying to strengthen that verb to give you more of an avenue to actually engage in the space other than just monitoring it is kind of passive sounding.
So that's my areas of importance and it's like broad picture stuff.
I want to shift to the state agenda piece.
Under local authority, you talk about this is the first section here, and I like the framing paragraph, by the way, on both agendas.
You talk about we need to add in new and emerging threats to privacy and safety as a local authority issue, specifically caused by drones.
And I'll note the Amazon drones piece, which came too late for any issue sheets, but we have in terms of into the news for us, and I want to make sure that that's something that we're talking about here.
Making sure that we're— we have preemption on both the state and federal level with some of the issues with Amazon drones, but those are like up the block from me, and I'm trying to make sure that we are able to get in the space before anything is just open season there.
But also ALPRs and Waymo.
I think there's a broad conversation there.
I appreciate you including public meetings law and small donor elections as things to protect.
In this space as well.
Switching to part 2, had a question here.
Additional tools to address repeat speeding.
It sounds like that is code for something, and I'm curious what that is.
Evan Mitchell
Yeah, and I don't know if Councilor Koyama Lane, you want to talk about the repeat speeders bill that you submitted, or I'm happy to talk about it briefly.
So there's a concept that's being worked on that would essentially allow piece of technology to go into someone's car if they've been convicted of speeding on multiple occasions and continue to do it.
And so that was submitted by Councilor Koyama Lane's office.
We've heard about it from legislators and have had a couple community groups come in and I think meet with some of you and come to us.
And so definitely interested to know if there's alignment on that one and can get you more details about the actual, like, technology and when it would be used.
Unidentified speaker
Go for it.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you for the question.
So this is something that Families for Safe Streets is leading nationwide, an initiative that urges states to mandate effective anti-speeding technology.
Rather than taking away people's licenses.
And it's for the most dangerous reckless drivers, repeat offenders.
Some people call them super speeders, pose a significant threat.
And statistics show that 75% of drivers with suspended licenses continue to drive.
So Families for Safe Streets is pushing this at the state level for folks to look into this.
And there are some elected officials at the state level who are planning to be bringing this up.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
Can I just ask, Councilor, um, Kanal?
Candace Avalos
Yeah.
Eric Zimmerman
You brought it up.
Is it in this section, or are we talking about one of the yellow sections?
Unidentified speaker
No, the— this is under Top 2027 Legislative Priorities, which is this, the— in the state legislative agenda.
I think it's a page or 2 back.
It's part 2, and it's— I don't know where that is.
Found it somewhere.
I'm gonna— it's not really that section.
Eric Zimmerman
I ask only because I'd seen that.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, it's the 3rd bullet point under that, the end of it, advanced strategic investments and policies.
Eric Zimmerman
Oh, that's what you're considering encompassing that.
Okay, thank you.
Unidentified speaker
I was just asking what that quote was for, 'cause I know that sometimes you write broader to be all encapsulating for it.
I can't speak for anybody else.
There's not a consensus on that one.
I think there is— I have major privacy and surveillance concerns around that particular piece.
I respect the underlying need and I have a lot of respect for Families for Safe Streets, but I don't agree on that particular one.
And then sort of to close out the transparency, privacy, all that stuff, the AVs piece, we need to call for safe, predictable state policies.
I think predictable is actually limiting to our local authority 'cause that's an argument that they're using to say local jurisdictions can't have their own policy.
I think we need to protect our authority to ban them.
And I want to be— I'm not talking about regulating.
I want to protect our authority to ban them, and then we can have the conversation about if that's the right option for the city.
Since we're on transportation, the word TriMet does not appear anywhere in anything other than legislative issue sheets submitted by PBOT and Councilor Green.
I think you combine them.
So I want to see TriMet explicitly mentioned there.
There's transit reference, but just, you know, there's transit agencies elsewhere in the state.
I want to make sure that we're advocating for Portland specific.
And that I know that TriMet's broader than just Portland, but obviously we should be advocating for the part in Portland.
And I think they are really focused on the lines that go out into the suburbs, but we're dealing with the stuff here in the core that we really need to be thank you.
Um, shifting gears, I really appreciate what Councilor Avalos brought up about tax policy that differentiates first and second homes.
I would love to see explicit, um, advocacy for the ability to do local rent control.
Um, it's, it's implied and it, it just, it doesn't go all the way there.
Um, there's a piece here where we advocate for Broadway Corridor.
Would love to see if we're going to mention something in D4, which I think is good, Let's also mention some other things.
I'm sure there are projects elsewhere in the city that could also be asks.
Getting to the entire 5th section on economic development is so vague that I don't even know what you're advocating for here.
And so I would love some follow-up on what that means and to see some refinement of the language to be a little clearer.
There's nothing in here that seems objectionable, but there's nothing in here that seems like I can even assess what it would allow or not allow you to advocate for.
This is economic development, jobs, and Portland's competitiveness.
I'm not suspicious of it.
I just didn't know how to even engage as I was writing notes.
I was like starting to write things and trailing off over and over again.
So when you get to civil rights, I think it's interesting because I started by talking about privacy.
I love what's in here, but I don't see it reflected throughout the document.
Like, so I would love to kind of just so I just point to that as a way to shift in there and to explicitly mention the First Amendment and freedom of speech.
And then the last thing I wanted to note that's very specific in here is on the climate piece.
There's references to defense of local authorities and then separately supporting the CEI Hub state project.
I'd like to see more allowing local direction for the CEI Hub, especially in light of the conversations we're going to be having over the the next several weeks.
So that's my very, um, like hyper-specific piece in here.
But I think, uh, really, really big pieces, um, that are, are vital, um, to look at is just that sort of normalizing throughout the, the civil rights piece, um, which I'm very grateful to still see in here.
I was worried that that was going to get, uh, attacked this year, so very happy for that.
Um, one thing that's not in here on the state side but is on the federal side is qualified immunity.
And we do have qualified immunity concerns at the state as well as the, the federal level.
We also have absolute immunity on the prosecutorial side that I'd like to see something in here about trying to go back at.
And I, I didn't see that, and I'm curious if we can follow up maybe offline and try to get something in there about it.
Because I'll notice that like there's no section on public safety specifically in, in here, or good governance or whatever.
There's multiple angles into that topical area.
It is in the areas of importance, and, um, but I'd love to see that explicitly mentioned.
And since I've got a little bit, I'm gonna just quickly run through my federal agenda stuff.
Love the framing paragraphs, they're longer in this one.
I think that makes sense.
Um, would love to see stronger language on immigration.
I know there's a lot of like defense language there, but I think it It'd be good to have an affirmative case for it too.
I would love to have social housing mentioned among the many things we want money for in the housing space.
It's kind of a laundry list and just doesn't have that particular one mentioned there.
Really love that you put 911 staff as first responders.
It uses different text in there in a couple different places, but that concept is really important.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah.
Unidentified speaker
Matters a great deal to both the bureau and the workers.
And then similarly, qualified immunity is mentioned here, but it says reform it.
And it's just kind of a weak, it's mentioned there, but it's like, let's get involved in a conversation as opposed to let's do something about it.
And I wanna, you know, I don't know what we're gonna have in terms of lay of the land, but just that verb.
And the last thing I'll mention here is, Again, mentioning freedom of speech and criminal justice reform.
Ideally, the federal law enforcement accountability piece could get built out a little bit too.
It's like a mention.
But we have a conversation about how to do the things we do better and what we're limited in doing by the feds and the state.
And that's kind of the broader picture of that text.
So So wanted to run through all of that.
That's a lot, I know, but I wanted to get it on the record while I could.
My one question is, how are you approaching, um, in terms of, uh, the resources space?
Because there's, there's, in parallel to the agendas on the policy side, there's grants.
We had a conversation in the last couple weeks at council about, um, you know, we're taking grants, but do we like the thing we're taking grants for?
And obviously money's good, but not necessarily depending on what it's for.
So is there text in here, or is our intention to have this agenda frame not only our approach to policy, but also to, in terms of like values judgments on what grants to go for?
'Cause I know you're involved in that even though you're not the Grants Management Division.
So that's my question about how this is used.
Sam Chase
Well, I'll start with that question, which is really largely, are you thinking about the federal side?
In terms of grants, largely, or state.
Some grants are pursued through bureaus and they're really interpreting whether that's in alignment with the policies put on, you know, transportation or— but when we're engaged and we're working with the priorities that are set in these agendas, as the framework for that.
Now, all of the implementable— there's still questions to work internally around, hey, are we having to shift money away from what we want it to be doing to do this?
And those questions.
We're more involved in, is this aligned with the policy guidance and direction that council has given to us?
So I think that's how we kind of approach it when we're brought in on the grant side.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Sam Chase
And, and very critical is that we can implement right away.
So that's kind of a little bit where it ties into what you're saying, which is, is this something the city is going to be able to implement?
And that is a very critical question for us that we're always asking, because if we go ask for something and then it sits and sits, that not just hurts us on that grant or legislation, but it hurts us on future asks as well.
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks.
Sam Chase
I would address your couple other things.
Economic development, it's going to take some time over the next couple of months.
I hear you on that, and there are some generalities in there, and that body of work, we continue to hear consistently across the board with the city that economic development is an important priority.
And so we're putting what placeholders we have in in place now, but that is work that will need to continue.
I want to address a couple of things that have come up as examples where we want to help be a resource, but where we're sort of looking for more clarity.
And so the issue of speeding, for example, you know, we're hearing different perspectives on that.
Evan Mitchell
And so—.
Unidentified speaker
I think we're all in agreement that we need to do more.
Sam Chase
So this is where we ask of you, work with your colleagues to try to find a landing place where we can hear the same thing.
That, you know, is there a landing place where this can be vetted, you know, amongst yourselves to identify, oh, if it has this component or that component, then we're comfortable with it.
Another example, hearing different sides of that, Councilor Smith, in terms of your concept, and Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, kind of different places.
If there's— it's really helpful for us to be hearing some clarity, you know, in terms of, hey, OGR, your resources are city resources, and this is the collective direction we want to try to go.
And so that is not a judgment on any of those policy— you know, we, again, we're not the policymakers.
We just want to be able to have some clarity around where to go.
If we're divided, then that division's going to get even worse when we go down to the legislature, and it's going to be ineffective, and we're going to be spinning wheels trying to serve 2 sides of an issue.
So we, when there's not consensus, we lean away.
We still help track and monitor information, but we really kind of lean out from proactively pursuing.
Evan Mitchell
And to just add a little bit more finer point on the economic development section, I think what you're sensing there is that we really didn't get any guidance or clear guidance.
The mayor gave us a really specific proposal to consider.
Prosper asked for some— for us to follow the lead of the Prosperity Council, which— and to support some recommendations that I I think some of them I think we'll have consensus on in this body.
Some of them I do not.
Some of them I don't think, and the legislative leadership just isn't prioritizing the Prosperity Council in the way that, how they talk about it.
So what we tried to do here is we looked at the things that we've been able to support in the past, like funds for industrial site readiness and brownfield cleanup.
We've heard from Councilor Smith about workforce development and certain programs in the past.
Councilor Dunphy, or Council President Dunphy, had items specific to arts and culture that he wanted called out.
But we're looking, you know, our economic development kind of platform and priorities as a city could be, I think, a lot clearer.
And part of what we're looking for is direction from you all.
Sam Chase
And sometimes we can help inspire a little bit of momentum, but there's also economic development typically kind of seems to come together a little later in the season for some reason, and those ideas start to emerge closer to the session where we see something's got some legs or not.
And so that's another touch point where we'll be engaging with you a lot around things that are evolved.
Those will be one of the issues where we'll see an evolution happening.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks.
So I'm going to go back through.
I know the queue got reset with the share screen on and off thing, so I'm going to go through and it's going to be based on basically who had used the least time before.
So, and then I'll go back to full second round.
So we'll start with Councilor Novick and then go to Councilor Green, and I'll continue through the queue.
Steve Novick
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Um, this might sort of go without saying, but I forgot something, which is that Senator Wyden is talking about potentially using the tax code to get the NBA to think about maybe doing something to keep the Blazers here.
He's mentioning some things that he might do in the Finance Committee, like take a look at, quote, the use of tax-free bonds to build arenas, goodwill amortizations of teams' purchase price, and tax treatment of teams' value appreciated over time.
And it basically— he's saying Nice little tax provisions you've got there.
Be a shame if something happened to them.
And actually, there is a previous example of a place having a team because a senator did just that kind of thing.
In the 1960s, Stuart Symington of Missouri said that— basically said, if Kansas City doesn't get a team in expansion in 1969, I'm going to try to take away the antitrust exemption from MLB.
And the Kansas City Royals exist as a result.
So I would not discount Senator Wyden's efforts, and it might be obvious that we support them, but we might want to make it explicit that we support them.
Thank you.
Sam Chase
He could be in a—.
Olivia Clark
Ditto that.
Sam Chase
Even more powerful position potentially in November or January.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, ditto as well.
Councilor Green?
Mitch Green
No.
Unidentified speaker
Okay, uh, jump back in if you'd like to.
Uh, I'll go to Councilor Zimmerman next and then to, uh, Pirtle-Guiney.
Eric Zimmerman
Uh, thank you.
So of course I'll underline our continued emphasis on behavioral health beds in the Portland region that is not accessible to the criminal justice system.
There is nothing more important to the city's future than that.
So So I'm asking you to put me to work, frankly, in the legislative session.
And let's get a win on that.
I will also— I'm actually kind of bothered that PBOT put forward that speed option.
I think they packaged it in a way that makes it sound interesting, but I share Councilor Kanal's deep concern on privacy issues.
And at the same time, in the same legislative agenda, we have folks who are interested in, and I'm certainly going to be lending my voice to, surveillance pricing bans, et cetera, et cetera.
I don't— I would like some consistency.
So for me, that's a non-starter, and I think it's unfortunate that a bureau put that forward.
The other options that were there seemed okay.
Sameer Kanal
Councilor Dan Ryan.
Eric Zimmerman
With respect to— I guess I'm— I have a question in terms of— I really appreciate that the emphasis for the state to take care of their rights-of-way.
And so just to put that in normal person language, that means ODOT needs to clean up the trash on their overpasses, underpasses, on-ramps, and off-ramps.
That's what that means.
Does it belong in the transportation section of our agenda, or is it in the Economic, or is it in the housing homelessness?
Because I'll tell you what, if they say we gave you this money to clean up the trash on our property, and so therefore you don't get money for potholes, I'd be irritated.
So I'm just trying to think about that a little bit.
Sam Chase
It's a very strong connection to the economic development and the perceptions and the branding of the city.
And so there are, with many of the, you know, which ones go under preemption, which ones go under transportation, which ones go under, CEI Hub or Priya, you know, so that is a question that we're very aware of.
And so we sort of just take our best, put it in a location, and we can move those around.
But then if we put a transportation issue in the economic development, there's issues there.
So, you know, when we report on those things, we report on them in those categories.
And so when you see our end of session report, Okay.
They'll often kind of report on— like, you'll see under the economic development, there'll be a reporting on the right-of-way, and it'll talk about that.
And this is really, again, a little more internal than when we go down and bring, you know, issues on our economic agenda.
We don't have an economic development agenda, we have this.
But when we talk about issues of the economy, right-of-way would absolutely be—.
Eric Zimmerman
So I'd like to, I'd like to flip the idea on its head a little when I was a deputy city manager in a Southern Oregon city, all we wanted was the right to clean up, right?
I-5 cut our community in half, just like it does here.
We wanted the right to clean up.
I think the second half of that sentence is, and we want to bill back, right?
We want to bill the state for the services to mow their grass, metaphorically.
Sam Chase
Councilor Smith.
Eric Zimmerman
I think there's a lot of alignment across LOC that it's— there's one aspect about getting paid to do their work for them, but in crisis, I think most cities just want to know that the governor and ODOT's leadership is not going to say, no, you cannot have a cleanup along that on-ramp because we own that land.
And if there's a turf war out there, I don't think we're very interested in it.
And I've encouraged— to be transparent, I've encouraged this mayor and the last mayor to just do it and dare the state to sue us.
And I still have that perspective because it was so detrimental to the communities across Oregon.
So it's related, but I think there's further expansion for what that could look like.
And I think most cities would actually agree, we just want the right to be able to clean up space that's in our jurisdiction when it gets so bad.
So I'll leave it to you for what's the best place to put it.
But I would have an ear open to what other cities are doing on this and what their thoughts are as well, because that gets to my last point, is that I actually am really looking for opportunities for Portland to improve its reputation with communities across the state.
And I think how we engage at the state legislature, that we look maybe in places where we can make New friends or folks who don't necessarily think that they will align with us, that we do, that we lend our voice to topics that are not necessarily the topic that always comes out of Portland, but that Brookings can care about as well, that Bend can care about, that the counties can care about, our rural areas.
I think that there are so many things that we're working on here that are complementary, and I think we have an opportunity to not be a punchline for a good portion of the state.
And I think our legislative agenda and our partnerships in Salem can help with that.
It's not a one-size-fits-all, but I certainly have that interest.
So I appreciate you all's work.
Um, Jack, we'll, we'll talk more at a different time, but you got it.
Sam Chase
Plenty for you too, Jack.
Uh, thank you so much.
I, I, um, I think that— so one is the right-of-way, um, and I think that that's one that it has been on the agenda for quite some time and has been an issue that has a lot of detailed kind of elements to it.
There is a need for the dollars to be able to bill for.
The place that we, that we as a city want to be is that we are able to do those cleanups appropriately, compassionately, with services that help people get to the right place and do it right and keep those places from— And keep them safe.
Just moving from one side of the highway to another and just circling through that over and over again.
And then having an agreement with the state that allows us to do that work, just as you're talking about, to get in there and do that work and bill for it.
So that's where we want to land.
And we need $7 million in a biennium to do that, $3.5 million a year.
So there's that.
And then I also just want to underscore the relationship.
A lot of the work that we do, a lot of the, you know, how we're framing this work is about building that long-term relationship with the state.
And it's not just our Portland area delegation, that's all very important, but what about those others that Portland, you know, will never be able to entirely shed the reputation that it has just because big cities in a state.
But we do a lot to mitigate that and build, you know, an understanding that, hey, everybody— Portland, so as Portland goes, everyone in the state depends on that.
We have a symbiotic relationship that's very important.
And so we really appreciate the mayor's efforts.
The mayor is very engaged with OMA, Oregon Mayors Association.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah.
Sam Chase
And reaching out, inviting them all to come to town and do the parade, you know, and staying very engaged with the mayor's consortium, building those statewide connections.
And with some counties around the state, we have council members that are going to the League of Oregon Cities conferences, the National League conferences, building those relationships.
We have council vice president as the LOC liaison working on these issues.
And And when you show up outside of Portland for other electeds, it has this tremendous effect.
And you can talk about almost anything and that's fine.
But that hard work, and they see that hard work happening and they see that we're showing up at those things and it makes a difference.
So we appreciate that.
Evan Mitchell
And I would make a specific ask around that.
So right now there is a conversation happening around the state around your CEI Hub policy.
Policies that you all are considering.
And the industry groups have done a really good job of inflaming other cities, so their city managers and their councilors and their mayor think that we are intentionally trying to take away their fuel.
That's the way it's being framed.
So, um, you know, we, we've been doing a lot within OGR to try to mitigate that.
We're working with the Republican leadership in Salem because they want to bring legislation to preempt cities from having any say in the facilities that hold gas in their communities.
But talking to your colleagues and the people that you know in other cities and bringing this up directly is really helpful.
We are getting— I think we've done an excellent job over the last 5-plus years of being a better partner to other cities and working with LOC to find the spaces where we can be collaborative and all be on the same side.
And this is an area where our past is being used to sort of harm our present.
So would appreciate the help talking to elected officials about that.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Thanks.
So we have about 18 minutes left before we got to do some wrap-up things here.
There's, uh, I think I have Pirtle-Guiney, Clark, Smith, and Councilor Green.
Are you going to get back in the queue?
It's okay either way.
Candace Avalos
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
Okay, uh, then, uh, so I'm going to ask everyone to keep it to about 4 minutes, uh, each so that we have time to get through everything, and then I'll make sure that OGR has a chance to wrap up.
And if there's anything you don't get a chance to answer as each person's going, please just hold it.
And we'll go that way.
So I'll go to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney and then Clark.
Great.
I'm going to just run through a few things that I didn't see that I had hoped to see or where there were some words missing I hoped to have in here.
And I'll— I don't need a response because we have short time.
But if my colleagues have said other things, I understand.
I don't expect that these will all get incorporated, but I wanted to raise them.
The first is my colleague in District 2, Councilor Knoll, brought up the seismic work that needs to be done on bridges over the railroad cut.
I would like to see an ask for funding for that at the federal level.
We know that dollars are tight at the state level.
We have not been successful getting dollars at the state level.
If there are small pots of money available, this is not the size that would compete with the other things on our federal agenda.
This is a different scope of ask.
If there are pots of money that are available for pre-work, for seismic safety, for smaller projects at the federal level, I would like to see us make an ask for funding to make sure, make sure that we're upgrading the right bridge, because I think there have been some questions at PBOT about whether the Columbia Boulevard one is the best one to upgrade, and get at least one and hopefully 2 of the 4 bridges across the Cut underway.
I know the actual construction itself is still a ways off, but there's a lot of pre-work we could be asking for money for.
On the state agenda, we talk a lot about unfunded mandates, but I'd like to make sure we're also talking about cost shifts because I'm worried that what's going to happen is we're going to see things that We are already doing because it was a funded mandate, slowly see funding erode over sessions, and it will not feel like a big deal because it will be a small amount each session, and then it will suddenly be a big deal.
So I'd like to make sure that we're explicit as we talk about local authority about cost shifts as well.
Um, I would like to make sure that whatever we do, we are not losing the thread on behavioral If we can move it up on this sheet, great.
If we can't, let's at least not lose it from place number 3 where it is right now.
I think that the only way we make progress there is if we make a big splash by making clear how big a deal this is to our community as something that was not on our agenda in this way previously.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
On the housing portion of the agenda, I know we've talked about land banking.
That's really important.
Let's not lose that.
I also know that there are some legislators who have been talking about housing co-ops.
We got money out of Salem for a housing co-op in Portland last year, and if there's any conversation around policy changes that would make it easier for folks to create, um, homeownership co-ops, I think that's a great place for us to just say, hey, this would be helpful in our community.
Um, Section 5, economic development.
We do not talk about high-wage jobs anywhere in this section.
I would like to see the words high-wage jobs or opportunities for Portlanders in high-wage industries in that section as we talk about where state economic development dollars go, right?
Those limited, um, limited dollars from lottery funds, as we talk about zoning, as we talk about the Prosperity Council and where the state Okay.
I think that's what the state's emphasis is.
We should always be talking about needing jobs in our community that allow people who work here to afford to live here.
That means we need high-wage jobs.
Similarly, on number 7, when we talk about data centers, we talk about commitments tied to measurable jobs.
Can we please say high wage there?
And when we talk about clear standards for evaluating large electricity and water users, can we make We need to make clear that if you are a large user, you need to be paying for those resources accordingly.
You should not get large user breaks in the cost.
If anything, it should be large user surcharges.
And finally, in section number 8, we have dropped the language about moving fuel storage.
We need to bring back the language about moving fuel storage.
I understand that the governor is not interested in the conversation about moving the tankers.
There are still legislators who are talking about it though.
There was a study that was conducted a few years back.
Can we please include that language where we talk about CEI Hub?
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
We'll go on to Councilor Clark and then Smith.
Great.
Just really briefly, I also want to appreciate what you were saying, Evan, about you're really anticipating what's coming and how different it's going to be.
So I really appreciate that.
And to the question of where do we land, I think we can talk to the council president about potentially a process for us to try to prioritize or see what we can do.
Well, I'm definitely interested in talking to him about that.
I just want to one more time emphasize behavioral health.
I want to follow up on, I think, what Councilor Green was saying, that this is more than just behavioral health.
It's a lot more.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's really economic development when you think about our reputation as a city and how we deal with a humanitarian crisis on the street, a public health and public safety crisis, that we need to change our reputation as well as make— take care of people who need help and make ourselves feel a little bit safer sometimes.
So I just want to emphasize that that's much bigger than just behavioral health.
It has lots of connecting parts.
And this mess Back to, I think, what Councilor Kanal said earlier, really started in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan cut all the programs, cut the public housing programs, cut the mental health programs.
And we have never made up for that as a state.
We've never filled the void.
And there's a real cost to us now.
It all rolls downstream.
So it really started in the '80s, this disintegration of our institutions and the The support that the federal government added.
And one last point is that I know that we need to exact discipline here and there.
And I know that in this session, there's going to be 4,000-plus bills, and probably we're going to be asked to weigh in on 25% of them, even though they may not be on our list.
So that's where we have to exact discipline too.
And I know you're under a lot of pressure to do that.
Oh, City of Portland, what do you think about this?
Even though we haven't discussed it.
Candace Avalos
Yeah.
Unidentified speaker
But I really appreciate your judgment, the judgment that you use to do, to make those decisions, whether it's to add a letter or be in the room or whatever it is.
So I just want to, you know, I appreciate the work that you do and how hard it is and how complicated it gets in the end.
So thank you.
Thank you for this.
It was a great, great start.
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
We'll go to Councilor Smith and then Councilor Green.
Thank you.
Thank you for the work that you're doing.
Um, just reflecting back on the last year, I think it was, it was really well.
You always call me when you think you, you need something or me to come down or to weigh in on something.
I think that now that our, our, um, actual committee times have been moved to Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and I know Mondays are a really hot day in the, uh, legislature, so Mondays are open.
For our office.
If there are opportunities that you want us to come down from District 2 in my office, I can certainly do that.
Fridays are a good day as well because we're in our district offices.
And District 1, I'm so used to District 2 'cause I guess I'm always in District 2.
We welcome you anytime, Councilor Smith.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Um, I, uh, just, just for the record, I had a very good conversation with, um, Prosper Portland.
I was back at the Congressional Black Caucus conference in DC a couple weeks ago, and I spent the day with, um, Director Wesley, who we went and talked to 5 different legislators.
He had never met them before, so we just assumed, and people just assumed, that he, you know, he was meeting folks and he knew people, and he, he did not.
And so it was great to accompany him, and I heard something that I didn't know.
I didn't know that Prosper Portland owned Union Station.
Olivia Clark
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
And so he has this great big plan about Revitalizing Northwest Portland through the station and all these things.
And I thought it was amazing.
I didn't know that.
And so for me, I guess the question I'm going to ask you, so if Prosper is going to go down to Salem and ask for stuff and have a priority list, and the City of Portland, everybody puts us together.
Yes.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
As one.
And so the process of— when you're talking, are you speaking on behalf of Prosper?
Because I know they have their own people too.
How do we distinguish between what's going on with Prosper and what's going on with the City of Portland?
Because we have a lot of programs that we passed in the budget that are being funded through the Prosper lens that we certainly can take credit for because we passed those things.
And so I just want to know how to walk through those landmines.
Sam Chase
Yes, thank you for asking that question.
Jack can talk a little more about Union Station.
There's some history there and work that we've been doing.
It's as you said, there is not a distinction in other bodies between Prosper and the city.
And so we work very closely with Prosper to be representing them as a city and really have these same standards of, you know, is this unanimously supported?
Oh, it's not?
Well, there's some work that needs to get done to bring council along or bring the mayor or the administrator along.
So we're looking for the same sort of formula here, this gray formula of like close to consensus, because it's not helpful if If, you know, anytime there is an independent part of the city, be it elected or administrative, and it's not clear what the position is representing, that just creates challenges in the legislature.
So yes.
Unidentified speaker
It was really helpful for me to sit in some of those meetings where CDFIs were very prominent in the conversations that we were having.
I, I was, I was excited about it.
And so I, I like the idea of being able to say this is what we're doing because people don't make the distinction.
Prosper— and, and sometimes I don't either because it's just, it's our economic— when you were talking about we didn't have very many, but we do because we put those resources through either Portland Housing Bureau or through Prosper.
And that is our wing.
I look at it as our economic development wing, and and just in closing, I'd like you all to keep doing what you're doing.
No worries about our our place setter, you know bill in the pre-session because we're going to bring it through public works and we're going to bring it up to the big committee to get signed off on.
So you don't have to be, you know everybody has an opinion about things, but just for the record.
Sameer Kanal
Councilor Smith.
Unidentified speaker
I'm not trying to take active industrial sites out of service.
I'm trying to look at our assets that are vacant and empty, haven't been used for 100,000 years, and figure out how to activate them to be able to bring in general fund money to the city.
And it's not just industrial, it's light industrial, it's commercial, it's, it's some of— some stuff that's in Parks, a lot of stuff that's in PBOT.
I looked on the Parks website and they have a site that can be used on Powell Boulevard that we own that can be used for residential.
So it's, it's things like that, mixed use and all those things.
I don't want to take jobs from anyone or the potential of future jobs.
Thank you.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
But I do want to make sure that we have the livability that is needed in the city and that we utilize all of our resources that we have available to us.
And it's not just for the city of Portland.
This would be— this would give cities around the state that opportunity.
So keep doing what you're doing.
Call us anytime.
It's not a hassle.
So just call us.
And it's easier just to call me on the phone.
And so I know you I'll call you several times, Sam.
So just call us.
We're willing to do whatever it is that we need to do to be helpful to government relations.
Sam Chase
Thank you.
And we really do look at council as a resource, and the mayor and the administration as a resource to really amplify.
And at times, you know, certain voices are the most influential.
And so we're sort of agnostic on which one it is.
We just want the most most influential voices at this table.
So we will definitely be tapping into, you know, council members and the mayor and administration for different elements.
But yeah, I hear that.
We will—.
Unidentified speaker
We also would like traded sector businesses coming into East Portland and District 1.
Sam Chase
What businesses?
Unidentified speaker
Traded sector businesses.
If we can get some incentives And I will just say again, I want to, I want to make sure Councilor Green gets a chance.
He's last in the queue, and then I'll let you close it out.
So sorry, Councilor Green, and then OGR.
Mitch Green
Thank you, uh, Councilor Kanal.
Um, just briefly, uh, thanks for raising up the CI Hub stuff, Evan.
Um, it's helpful to know that the industry's lobbyists are inflaming the other councilors.
I don't want my constituents to become inflamed And so I will go to the next League of Oregon Cities conference and let them know that.
2 Things I want to just emphasize.
Item 34 on the big list here, that's— I think Councilor Avalos put that in.
That's the sort of kicker reform piece.
I just want to emphasize the importance of that.
And I like— it pairs well with, I think, what I want to say on item 78.
Yes.
If we can accomplish that, then we have funds for capital projects and emergency spend.
But item 78 speaks to, let's see here, statewide utility rate assistance.
And that's sort of, I think, envisioned as a sort of like, here's a pot of money to discount for your low-income discount programs.
I think that we should be thinking about advocating for the language in whatever the bill eventually gets passed on that.
Sameer Kanal
Okay.
Mitch Green
Using funds to write down the cost structure of your utility programs, right?
That's more sustainable, that's more durable.
And, you know, obviously Portland Water Bureau has a very expensive capital project underway that will create upward pressure on rates for a very, very long time.
And so thinking creatively about how infrastructure funds from the state can sort of buy down the cost of that is also, I think, an economic development and affordability stabilizer that I'm not sure anyone's ever thought about in this context before.
So it's— I think about the same way I think about rent assistance.
Rent assistance is important, but if you only do rent assistance and not debt buydowns, then you're missing an opportunity to sort of invest now for long-run savings.
So just a bug in your ear.
I understand that these things are not bills that we're putting forward.
They're just out there.
But if we—.
Councilor Dan Ryan.
Can influence their direction at all, I'd like to support that.
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks, Councilor Green.
I'll pass it over to you to close out the content, Director Chase, and then I have a housekeeping note at the end.
Sam Chase
Great.
Thank you so much.
Thanks once again.
I will, you know, we have had a lot of input here.
We will go back and review the notes.
We'll go back and look through the work session conversation.
There were clearly some kind of more immediate So there were some specific places of input, and then there were some bigger things that we need to work on and work in as we go through October and November, preparing to come back to you again on December 2nd for the next work session.
We will be setting up opportunities to engage with you before then over that period of time.
I also— and so there's a lot.
I won't repeat all of it.
You know, we'll collect all of those things and then try to manage that as best we can.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Sam Chase
And then we'll continue to share back with you.
If you have specific edits, we love the stuff that we got here input today.
If you have other things that you want, direct edits, things that you think, hey, this really shouldn't be on the agenda, or I really like this and make sure it's on, please feel free to let us know on those things.
We don't want anybody to be surprised, and we want to just be doing this the last thing I'll say, just as an example, where Councilor Smith talked about this issue where there's maybe a difference of perspective on council with the issue that she sees as really a strong benefit for the city, you know, whether that is the case or not, going through a process where there's some deliberation with council and a committee that's talking about that issue and vetting it will hopefully not only give us a place, a landing place that we can get some clear direction, but it may also be really helpful to inform and empower the work that might move forward from that, which addresses some of these issues.
Because these are going to be issues that the legislature is going to be struggling with on a lot of these topics.
So we can learn a lot and also help by doing that hard work, internal vetting, that gives us more fuel to go down to the legislature and be even better partners with helping them think through some of these policy solutions.
So I really, I think, you know, I'll just close in saying there's a lot of different kind of perspectives, you know, at the city, and some of those things get aired publicly at times, right?
This is a place where this council, this mayor, this administration have come together over and over again and said, this is too important.
I mean, it's all important, but this is, this is so important that we get this, you know, voice across in a unified way, um, that I've been really proud to work with this team, and it feels like a team, uh, when we do that.
And so we appreciate you and, um, you know, really look forward to any questions, information, engagement.
We really appreciate it and like it.
So we will continue to reach out, uh, and, uh, it'll be a busy time over the next, uh, 10 months.
Unidentified speaker
Well, thank you, Director Chase.
As you noted, December 2nd is our next work session on the— next and final, uh, work session on this year's legislative agendas.
Um, between the 2nd and the end of the year, we'll be voting on them at council.
Uh, and the only other thing to note is that we are back here at 2 o'clock for a work session on the Office of, uh, Community and Civic Life today, uh, which Councilor, uh, Koyama Lane will be presiding over.
And with that, we will wrap this one up at 12:31 PM.
Thanks.
Sam Chase
Thank you.