# Portland City Council Community & Public Safety Committee 10/06/26
# Meeting ID: 2026-10-06-cpsc-1  Duration: 109 min

[00:10:55] Steve Novick: Good morning. It is Tuesday, October 6th, 2026, at 9:34 AM. Um, I call this meeting of the committee and Public Safety Committee to order. Uh, could the clerk please call the roll?
[00:11:09] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman. Smith. Kanal.
[00:11:14] Steve Novick: Here.
[00:11:17] Angelita Morillo: Here virtually.
[00:11:20] Steve Novick: Here. Uh, could we hear the statement of conduct?
[00:11:28] Unidentified speaker: Welcome to the meeting of the Community and Public Safety Committee. To testify before this committee in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda thank you. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes 1 hour prior to the meeting. In-person testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. For public testimony during today's meeting, individuals may testify for 90 seconds unless the chair states otherwise.
[00:12:06] Keelan McClymont: Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
[00:12:40] Unidentified speaker: Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
[00:12:46] Steve Novick: Thank you. So we have a reordering in the agenda this morning because due to traffic jams, PSSA people who are going to be part of the presentations on fireworks and on the Great Shakeout have been delayed. So instead, we're going to start with, you know, the global state budgeting for public safety, then move on to the secondhand dealers amendments, then Great Shakeout, then fireworks. And actually, I'm disappointed that the other 2 councilors aren't here because the first item is— oh, actually, could the clerk call the new first item? Sorry.
[00:13:30] Keelan McClymont: Yes, item number 1, document number 2026-351, discussion of global state budgeting for public safety concept.
[00:13:39] Steve Novick: Thank you. So this item is here in that this is basically a heads up that I wanted to give members of the committee about something I'm working on that is public safety, but is far beyond the city. The criminal justice system, and I've I think I might have talked— I certainly talked to Councilor Kanal. I think I've talked to Councilor Morillo about this before. But the concept is the criminal justice system has a kind of a bizarre feature that doesn't exist in any other area of public policy. There's a group of people, namely prosecutors, that have an unlimited budget for one thing, namely prisons. When prosecutors and judges send people to prison, the state has to pay for it. There's no discussion of budgetary trade-offs. There's no incentives to use prison less. I think I've talked to Councilor it's just, you know, it's as if prison is free. And since any free good tends to be overused, and since most people who study criminal justice carefully recognize that prison, by and large, is a rather ineffective way of preventing crime, the concept that I've been floating with the Multnomah County commissioners and with an assortment of legislators is— and this is something that would take a long time to achieve— is what if the state went to a system of giving each county an overall public safety budget and said— they give school districts an overall budget and said, you can spend this on whatever public safety things you want. When you send people to prison, the cost of that comes out of your budget. So what the, the hoped-for result is that county commissioners would then sit down with their DAs and with all their experts and say, okay, We have this big pot of money. How much of it do we think should go to supervision? How much to jails? How much to reentry programs? How much to alcohol and drug treatment programs? How much to restorative justice? Maybe you reallocate some of it to the sheriff's office, to the sheriff deputies or police, and come up with a rational allocation of resources, which— but where— Prison is recognized as a cost, and people have a decision, and decisions are made about, okay, if we have an opportunity to send, we could send somebody to prison for 4 years or send them for 2 years, and we could use that savings to do something else. So I've been discussing this topic with some of the key legislators in public safety. Vince Jones-Dixon of Multnomah County is really interested, and we're actually having a meeting of LPSIC, the Local Public Safety Coordinating Committee, where this is gonna be discussed on October 26th. At 1:30. So if anybody's interested in that discussion, I encourage you to come. And we're also going to have an academic from the— who's affiliated with the University of Chicago, who's one of the big national brains on public safety, who's intrigued with this idea, and he's going to present as well. So again, I just wanted to give you a heads up on that. It's conceivable that in some future legislative session, support of this idea might be suggested for for our legislative agenda, but mostly because this is something we're working on and there's a public discussion of it in a few weeks. I wanted to make sure people here were aware of it. So that's any questions? Councilor Kanal.
[00:17:04] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Chair Novick. I appreciate the update on this. And I think, I guess I have 2 questions. One is just a pure overarching process question. The city role in this conversation is effectively limited to, are we advocating for this?
[00:17:19] Steve Novick: Right now, Steve Novick is. I think that ultimately the question would be, would we on a legislative agenda support it? At this point, I think that there will— I'm hoping there will be preliminary discussions of the issue among legislators. I don't think there's gonna be a bill this session. What I'm hoping is that by next session, people will actually have something to forward.
[00:17:45] Sameer Kanal: Okay.
[00:17:46] Steve Novick: So those of us who happen to be here, the next legislative session might be asked to, uh, weigh in on whether it should be part of our agenda.
[00:17:55] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I, I guess the, the question then—.
[00:17:57] Unidentified speaker: The— that's—.
[00:17:57] Angelita Morillo: That—.
[00:17:58] Sameer Kanal: Thank you for that. The, the other piece is you mentioned, um, so you said you can spend this on whatever public safety things you want, that when you send people to prison, that comes out of this budget. And then, um, my, my question is, I guess, how broadly are we defining Public safety in terms of the universe of what budgets are being combined?
[00:18:20] Steve Novick: I'm not proposing a specific definition. I think that— but it would include whatever the state is currently giving money to the counties for, like community corrections and restorative justice grants.
[00:18:33] Sameer Kanal: Okay, so that's the first part, the restorative justice you mentioned. You also mentioned drug treatment and reentry programs.
[00:18:40] Steve Novick: Well, I mean, there is, I mean, there is money for those through Medicaid, through the health department, etc. Um, what I'm envisioning is that, um, the reason I bring that up is that to the extent that those programs are underfunded through the current healthcare system, maybe if you had a lump sum budget, you could use some of the money that you might be saving on prisons to top up those services. But that's just a— I mean, again, this is very general concept. That might not make sense, but that's why I put that in there.
[00:19:10] Sameer Kanal: No, I appreciate that. The—. I guess the thing that I would want to make sure is that we're being clear with the legislature that it doesn't allow for the rebalancing to go the other direction. Because I can imagine in the counties up here, uh, that the direction that the money might shift over time would probably be a direction that we agreed on. But I don't know if that's the case for all the other counties in the state. So I'd be curious about just whatever protections there. I don't think you have to have that answer right now, and I don't mean to put— I'm not trying to put you on the spot with it.
[00:19:42] Steve Novick: And I mean, I should tell you that the sheriff's reaction to this idea was, I don't want the legislature being— I'm afraid the legislature would just cut the global public safety budget every year. So I don't think that she's particularly excited about prisons, but I think she kind of thinks, well, at least there's one budget they can't cut. So that's going to be part of the discussion.
[00:20:03] Sameer Kanal: Well, as we all know, the legislature loves to put money towards transit and healthcare and education, so I guess that's a fear that we all share.
[00:20:11] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[00:20:12] Steve Novick: Well, I mean, I will say that the reaction I got— and I'm not going to like name names— the reaction I got to some of the key public safety legislators was rather encouraging, that they did not dismiss this idea. Some of them said that— one particular one, I think he might probably quote him on this, but I won't— has said that his goal is to have us be the safest state with the least level of incarceration. So this sort of fits in with that. So, um, again, good goal. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Uh, all right. Whoops. Okay, I thought that might be Councilor Zimmerman, but it's another random bald guy. So could the clerk please read the second item?
[00:21:04] Keelan McClymont: It's the new item number 2, document number 2026-327, amend secondhand dealers code to strengthen compliance requirements and update program fees, amend code chapter 14B.90.
[00:21:25] Steve Novick: Thank you. This item was referred to committee to allow some additional workshopping time by my office and the revenue team following some questions from Councilor Kanal on background checks. We took that time to put in language clarifying that the only, only people directly engaged in management or ownership of the business and those who are authorized by the business to actually buy and receive regulated property require background checks. So as to one of Councilor Kanal's questions, a security guard would not be required to have a background check, for example. The changes are made in Novick 2, which was posted yesterday, and which I'd now like to move and ask for a second and then bring the revenue team up for further discussion. So I hereby move Novick 2.
[00:22:11] Sameer Kanal: I'll second.
[00:22:14] Steve Novick: Councilor Novick moves, Councilor Kanal seconds. And now I'd like to, I mean, ask the team up to sort of refresh us on what the original amendments were, which include eliminating distinction for fee purposes between occasional and non-occasional dealers. But I'll let them take it away. Remind us what the original amendments were on secondhand dealers and add anything you think needs to be added to my discussion of what We're changing, proposing to change in Novick 2.
[00:22:54] Tim Mercer: Good morning. Tim Mercer, Tax Division Manager for Revenue. Thanks for the time this morning. So reminder on this package, this was included in a package rather. So this is one piece of a package looking at kind of all of the regulatory programs that Revenue administers. 4 Of those pieces of this package are— have been, you know, moved to council, and this one was held back. So we took a holistic look at all of the regulatory programs we administer. We wanted to get rid of one of those programs as well as update fee schedules for all of the programs, most of which hadn't been updated in quite a long time, if ever.
[00:23:48] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[00:23:49] Tim Mercer: So specifically here for secondhand dealers, the major changes, the point of these changes was around updating the fee schedule, eliminating the occasional dealer classification. And that's simply because it takes the same amount of time for us to administer an occasional dealer permit as it does the full permit. So it didn't make sense from a cost recovery standpoint to have 2 fee structures. And then just kind of tweaking some of the language in the program to hopefully improve the administration of the program. So that's kind of the high-level background on what's going on here.
[00:24:46] Steve Novick: Thank you. Any questions for the team?
[00:24:50] Sameer Kanal: Are we on just the amendment or on the—.
[00:24:53] Steve Novick: Um, just—.
[00:24:57] Sameer Kanal: Yeah. All right. Uh, thanks. I, I guess I just want to understand, because the, the amendment itself adds, and it's, it's a little, uh, confusing because the track changes is all showing, but my understanding is the amendment is just the 8 Uh, sorry, 20 point— I'm gonna make sure I get this right— 14B.90.40, Part B8, which is at the sort of bottom of page 10. Um, and I just wanted to, to unders— to, to clarify with you in terms of, um, what has changed here. What this would do is, is basically currently it's for people who can buy and this would take it to also be the principals of the company. Is that correct?
[00:25:44] Steve Novick: Actually, what the language referred to is people who acquire. And I actually thought that that was rather vague because that might suggest that somebody who actually takes an ownership interest in something. So we wanted to— I wanted to make it clear that it's people who are authorized to like spend the business money to buy things.
[00:26:02] Sameer Kanal: Okay, so the clarity, but in terms of the, The original intent was people who pay for it, it seems, right? Right. So this makes it clearer, but then it also adds the principles. Right. And, but it doesn't include everybody who sells. It doesn't include everybody who's a security guard, right? Like, so, okay, just making sure we get that on the record. And then I don't actually know if it defines, Verify this. Um, yeah, so management and operation including any owners, uh, is the, the principle there. And I'm sorry, I'm just like scrolling around here because the track changes a little. Can I get a clarification on what Part D means? This is the first section on the top of page 11. I'm, I'm broadly supportive. Obviously I seconded it for, um, 8, the, the header ABC. But I'm curious as to what would constitute a change. Like, is this if they move? Is what are the sorts of things that would happen to cause a change?
[00:27:06] Tim Mercer: Yeah, I think what we're intending there is if somebody had an arrest after their background check, for instance, they should— that would constitute a change of their personal history form, and they're supposed to notify us of that.
[00:27:25] Sameer Kanal: And so would that be the, basically the content that's in B1 through 7, the sort of immediately above 7 sections?
[00:27:44] Tim Mercer: That's correct. Yeah, that's the, that's the, uh, section that refers to the personal history form. So if, if something that's laid out on that personal history form changes like an arrest or some other large piece of that, we would be expecting that they would file another personal history form with us, which would allow PPB to make the decision about whether to do another background check or change their status or something along those lines.
[00:28:16] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[00:28:17] Sameer Kanal: Then my question for Chair Novick is, why did you choose to have the background check be performed by PPB as opposed to one of the other potential background checkers within the city or people we have contracts with?
[00:28:33] Steve Novick: Well, actually, historically, background checks have already been performed by PPV. So that's sort of just a continuation of existing practice. Okay. Thanks. Any further discussion of the amendment to the amendments? Uh, in that case, could the clerk please call the roll on Novick 2?
[00:28:59] Keelan McClymont: Yes, thank you. Uh, Zimmerman, absent. Smith, absent.
[00:29:09] Sameer Kanal: Kanal, uh, to the amendment, aye.
[00:29:12] Keelan McClymont: Morillo, aye.
[00:29:15] Sameer Kanal: Novick, aye.
[00:29:17] Keelan McClymont: The amendment is approved with 3 aye votes and 2 absent.
[00:29:23] Steve Novick: All right, now any discussion of the— and actually I would ask you guys to stay up just in case people have questions about the underlying, the underlying original amendment. Um, uh, any discussion of the original amendment including the elimination of the category of second— of occasional dealers, etc.? Councilor Kanal.
[00:29:45] Sameer Kanal: Uh, thanks. Um, so I have no concern about the idea of eliminating the category. I think the presentation last time was really helpful in that regard. I'm not— my concerns have generally been around this same section of the B section. I will note, I guess, let me start with the question. How has the— one of the things that came up when we referred it back to the CAPS Committee is engagement with the folks that would be affected by this. And I just was curious if there had been more done on that since the time that, um, by either your office or by the staff, since the time that we talked about it last.
[00:30:27] Tim Mercer: No, no further engagement has been done.
[00:30:30] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[00:30:30] Sameer Kanal: On your end at all?
[00:30:31] Steve Novick: Uh, no.
[00:30:32] Angelita Morillo: Okay.
[00:30:32] Sameer Kanal: So I, I personally went into a, uh, uh, pawn shop that has, uh, several locations, uh, around the country, including here in Portland, and talked to the manager there. It's not a representative sample because there are plenty of pawn shops that are not part of large national or regional chains. And, but I will say that there, there was immediately no concern because their comment was effectively like the company already requires all this anyway because it's part of a larger I'm sorry. Company. I haven't had a chance to get to a couple other places I've identified to look into, um, as a, uh, sort of, uh, representative sample, you know, combining it with this in terms of, um, a smaller location, in terms of a, a secondhand music shop specifically. My concern has largely been around anything we do that makes it harder to buy used musical instruments will make it harder for people to get into that. And I think, um, That's a concern I still have, but I just wanted to kind of get that on the record. We have contracts with a few different companies to do background checks as well. I am concerned about the idea that this sort of— the original presentation implied that there was sort of a, not an assumption of there being something sketchy going on at all these sorts of establishments, but that there was a high enough risk that this, that the, The idea of imposing the burden of a higher level of data being forcibly shared with PPB in order to work there was justified. And that case has still not been made to me fully. I do think that the amendment improves it by making it clear who is subject to this and who's not, but I'm still not 100% certain about that piece. So I guess the other question, I know the answer because I know it's not fully staffed up yet, but, you know, the Data and Privacy Office has not been part of this conversation yet. Um, and I, I am interested in that sort of evaluation of legislation like this in the future. Thanks.
[00:32:48] Steve Novick: Understood. I mean, I think that, um, we did— I mean, the, the categories exist because there is a history of trafficking in stolen goods in these various— and musical instruments, apparently. There is such a history.
[00:33:03] Sameer Kanal: You're— I should— yeah, that is correct. I think, but I'm not 100% certain. I'm gonna— I'm not 100% certain if it's the best place to go if one has stolen a musical instrument because of the sort of social media groups and things like that, that you can, you know, connect with people and sell something quicker on. Having said that, the thing that does make obvious sense, and which we've heard from some of the folks I've talked to as well, is that that's correct. That when it would make sense to go to a store, a regulated establishment, is if there was some sort of connection to an employee there. That is the thing that would make it relevant. So I'm not disputing your underlying point there, but it is certainly a concern. I'm just trying to understand the ratio, the relative comparative level of concern about 2 different risks.
[00:33:59] Steve Novick: Thank you. I should note that I've been reading Colson Whitehead's Harlem Trilogy, which focuses on a fence who is also the owner of a furniture store. So the idea of fences actually has a certain level of romance for me, although of course I'm opposed to it. Any—. Councilor Morillo?
[00:34:22] Angelita Morillo: Yeah, I was just curious, does anyone have any responses to what Councilor Kanal said? I know he didn't phrase it as a question, but I think those are some the things that I've been thinking about as well. And I mean, to be frank with you, there's only 3 of us here today, so I want to make sure that we get things answered so we can— if it is, it does feel good, then we can move it through.
[00:34:47] Steve Novick: Councilor Herbold, would you mind restating the specific question you're referring to?
[00:34:53] Angelita Morillo: I mean, I think the things that I really have questions on internally until the Data Privacy Office gets really established is what you know, what things we keep approving as a council and moving through before that is established. And I think that's part of what Councilor Kanal touched on.
[00:35:14] Steve Novick: Well, I think that, I mean, other than clarifying exactly who is subject to the background check, I mean, I think that we're just talking about continuing information gathering that we're already doing. Is that correct, team?
[00:35:30] Tim Mercer: Yeah, that's correct.
[00:35:34] Steve Novick: So if the amendments were not approved, we would continue gathering information. We just have some, in my view, ambiguity in the language as to who is subject to the requirement.
[00:35:46] Tim Mercer: Right. The changes are some clarification on who is subject to that requirement as, uh, As, as you just stated, um, the addition of the background check fee, which hasn't been there before. So in regards to background checks, those are, those are the substantive changes. We are already doing these, um, background checks without a fee.
[00:36:11] Steve Novick: I apologize for not bringing up the fee before. And the, the amount of the fee is $20.
[00:36:16] Unidentified speaker: Uh, the background check fee would be $25.
[00:36:21] Eric Zimmerman: Keep forgetting.
[00:36:22] Steve Novick: That is another addition. Okay, Councilor Kanal, can I ask—.
[00:36:30] Sameer Kanal: So, okay, I have no problem with the idea of cost recovery. $25, Uh, makes sense if that's what it costs. I understand if you do a private background check, there's, there's costs as well, so this is, uh, comparable. Um, I guess I have 2 questions. One is, um, then this is, uh, D2, which is like 10 lines lower than the section we were just talking about on page 10. It says it'll be assessed to any principals and any employees. So the expectation is that the person themself is paying for it, not the company. Is that— can we speak to— can you speak to how that decision was arrived at?
[00:37:09] Tim Mercer: I don't actually think that's our expectation. So I think typically, and Leila can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it's very typical for the employer to pay the fee. And that would be our general expectation, but we're not explicitly saying who needs to pay the fee. There's just a fee applied to background checks, which are done on the subset of individuals that you just mentioned. So folks acquiring property and principals.
[00:37:42] Sameer Kanal: So I would understand that makes sense what you're, you're your explanation makes sense. The text says effective January 1st, 2027, a background check fee of $25 will be assessed to any principals and any employees operating in the City of Portland that would acquire regulated property. Wouldn't it— I mean, assessed for each background check would make that intention clear that you want it for each one and not, you know, one per company, but not necessarily say who's paying it. I, I think it's a— am I wrong in, in reading that as saying it's on the, the, the person themselves?
[00:38:19] Tim Mercer: Uh, I— that's not the intent of that language, but I see, I see how you could get there.
[00:38:24] Unidentified speaker: Yeah.
[00:38:25] Steve Novick: Councilor, for some reason I'm not looking at the right page.
[00:38:29] Sameer Kanal: Uh, one more page.
[00:38:32] Steve Novick: Um, this is—.
[00:38:34] Sameer Kanal: It's, it's here, so I don't know why I have it on my version.
[00:38:41] Unidentified speaker: Um, I believe that text was removed from the most recent amendment.
[00:38:46] Steve Novick: What?
[00:38:47] Unidentified speaker: I believe that text was removed from the most recent amendment.
[00:38:50] Sameer Kanal: Okay.
[00:38:51] Steve Novick: Oh, okay.
[00:38:52] Sameer Kanal: So then I'm— you're, you're— no, you're right. Um, I had the, the old and the new version open.
[00:39:00] Steve Novick: Can we get a—.
[00:39:01] Sameer Kanal: Okay, now I'm confused. Can we get a track changes version because if that's in the version that was referred to us and then it's in the amendment, it's removed, but it's not marked as removed. Does that make sense?
[00:39:13] Unidentified speaker: Like— Yeah, I hear your concern.
[00:39:18] Steve Novick: That's a, let's see, that's a reasonable request.
[00:39:22] Unidentified speaker: We—.
[00:39:23] Sameer Kanal: And I have a different question while that's going on if you want to answer. I'm happy to wait.
[00:39:27] Steve Novick: Let's see, well, the quick question is, can we, Can we put together a track changes version, which we should have had already, um, over the next like few minutes? Um, we ponder that. Um, Councilor, go ahead and ask your further question.
[00:39:46] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, um, it's regarding— and I'm gonna make sure it's in here now— yeah, the, the— it's part 7 of okay, I'm gonna get 14B.90.040, and this is a question for the city administrator. Um, I understand that the idea here of any other information that the city administrator may reasonably feel is necessary to accomplish the goals of this chapter is sort of in line with how we're writing code now, of not specifying necessarily specific bureaus, but instead putting this into the sort of hands of the administrative rules. To determine, um, and that's within the city administrator's, uh, role. Um, what sort of things— what will be the process should this, this, uh, ordinance pass? What will be the process for figuring out what would go into those requirements?
[00:40:40] Unidentified speaker: I would sit down with various, uh, bureau leadership, uh, and really outline that and really have them provide me some recommendations with options as it relates to how this thing could truly function and flow from there. And from there, from a process standpoint, I would more than likely make a decision on that, Councilor.
[00:41:00] Sameer Kanal: Okay. Would it— would engagement be a part of that role with the people that are being regulated? And I don't just mean the companies.
[00:41:11] Unidentified speaker: I think engagement and equity would have to be a component of that. And that's some of the conversation piece that we would have.
[00:41:18] Sameer Kanal: Okay, I, I will say I, I appreciate that clarity, and I, I, I like that answer in terms of answering the question. It gives me pause in the sense of any other information seems to me to be sort of a figure it out administration, and I, I'm, I haven't— I'm generally not supportive of those in, in any context. So I'm trying to just understand here in terms of the level of data that'd be asked for, especially if you're If the starting point of the process, which makes sense, would be going and talking to the bureau that's receiving the data. So I just wanted to get that on the record too. And I might ask about whether or not we can remove Part 7 there.
[00:41:59] Spencer Knowles: Councilor Knoll, can I address the drafting concern with the red line of that specific D2 language? Sure. So sorry, Chair, can I do that?
[00:42:10] Steve Novick: Yes, you may.
[00:42:11] Spencer Knowles: Thank you. Spencer Knowles, Chief of Staff for Councilor Steve Novick. Uh, I believe the guidance in drafting from the clerk is to not redline amendment language and instead reflect it as it's— as it would result when amended. And so that D2 was something that had been added in the initial amendment, and so you wouldn't redline that piece, you would just now reflect that it's no longer there. In the subsequent Novick 2 amendment. So it's kind of confusing in that it's getting lost in the new amendment, the superseding amendment. But that's the reason. It's following the drafting guidelines, which can kind of get confusing sometimes. So not intentionally trying to hide taking that out or anything.
[00:43:05] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, no, I appreciate the clarity. Not trying to imply there was any bad intent there. I think this is something I— if that's the drafting guidelines, we should probably ask the clerk to update those in some way because it is— that seems as though it cannot but create this problem in the future if something is being proposed to be added or removed and then an amendment to it would either restore deleted text or remove added text. But it doesn't help me right this second with what else Um, can— so do you have a version? These are all PDFs online, so maybe if I get the, the versions to do a compare versions on it. But what else has changed in Novick 2? Because if you look at the explanation up at the top, it talks about just, um, adding, uh, B8, and it does talk about removing D2, but I just want to make sure that there's any— anything else that I'm missing.
[00:44:01] Spencer Knowles: As far as my recollection, that is all we're changing. It was really just to provide that clarity around who the background check applies to. So very small change. But yeah, that's all I recall us changing.
[00:44:18] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[00:44:19] Sameer Kanal: All right. So that addresses the question that I'd asked earlier about imposed upon, and I appreciate the clarity there. Still have the other concern regarding the thanks.
[00:44:33] Steve Novick: So, Council, are you satisfied with that and we can— we don't need to create a track changes version?
[00:44:39] Sameer Kanal: No, I, I do think it, you know, this— I'll probably follow up with the clerk about it'd be helpful to have like access to the Word versions also if one wants to make an amendment to it. It's also helpful, like if I wanted to remove Part 7 right now, it's kind of like where would that, you know.
[00:44:52] Unidentified speaker: Right.
[00:44:53] Steve Novick: So On item 7, any other information the city administrator may reasonably feel is necessary, I want to ask the team, do you think that— do you think that that's essential? I mean, Councilor Kanal suggested he might want to remove it. I mean, would— how much heartburn would that cause us?
[00:45:18] Unidentified speaker: I don't— I don't think that it's necessary. I've not yet had to utilize that portion of the text or anything close to it. So I think that that is okay to withdraw.
[00:45:30] Steve Novick: City Administrator, any further thoughts?
[00:45:33] Unidentified speaker: The only thing I would say in situations like this, having text like that does give some flexibility in the standpoint of looking at intent and how we are able to move forward intent of any policy. So having that flexibility within any ordinance gives the ability for us to work through anything that we may later find out that need to be added to it.
[00:45:59] Sameer Kanal: And I, I recognize that. I think we have— I just want to point out, you know, in parallel to this whole thing, um, and I'm going to get you the exact— there, there is a, uh, there is a context piece that I wanted to add here, which is that there's a directive review process going on at PPB right now that would take more of the privacy question outside of public view on procurement. And so I have a concern about the idea that the entity that's receiving the information in this could demand more of a population that is generally, you know, these are not well-paid jobs, right? On the whole, I imagine there are a few folks who are doing okay, but— Yeah. So I—. People that are not necessarily in a position to push back. So that's my broader concern there is that I think that it's valuable to have it come back as a process and as a transparency piece and give folks the opportunity to say, actually, why do we need that information? I understand an arrest, that's obviously relevant, but if you go through the other 7 parts, there's other things in there I'll flag. And I apologize, I'm going back and forth between several different tabs now. So that's sort of my concern there. I don't have this concern, by the way, with Part 7 of 14B-90040A, which also happens to be Part 7 of that one that talks about any other information the city administrator may reasonably feel. It's the same text, but it's as applied to the—.
[00:47:35] Steve Novick: Yeah.
[00:47:36] Sameer Kanal: The dealer itself. So I just want to clarify that for, for purposes of, um, uh, not, not making it seem like we're trying to take something else out.
[00:47:50] Steve Novick: So, Councilor, um, were you intending to move to eliminate that item 7?
[00:47:55] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I'm trying to make a written version of it as rapidly as I can here. Um, but it is— and while we're at it, we should talk about line numbers because it makes it a lot easier to, to do this quickly. Um, but yeah, it would be on the top if you look at the, the version in Novick 2, just to, um, since that's the version we're currently operating off of. It's in the middle of page 10, near the bottom actually, uh, part 7 there of, uh, 14B. 14.90.040, And I'll get this over to the clerk as quickly as I can. It would just strike Part 7 in its entirety.
[00:48:47] Tim Mercer: Sorry, can you say the subsection again?
[00:48:54] Sameer Kanal: 14.90.040 As in boy, 7.
[00:51:57] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[00:51:57] Steve Novick: I just realized I don't want to do the Spider-Man thing. Has the clerk received the language from Councilor Kanal?
[00:52:08] Keelan McClymont: Not at this moment. Would the committee like to take a recess?
[00:52:13] Steve Novick: What?
[00:52:14] Keelan McClymont: A recess is an option.
[00:52:16] Steve Novick: Um, sure. Let's recess for 10 minutes and reconvene at 10:25. All right, we are reconvening. And does the clerk have the text of Councilor Kanal's amendment?
[01:02:44] Keelan McClymont: Yes, it's been in code review now.
[01:02:47] Steve Novick: Into what?
[01:02:48] Keelan McClymont: Yes, we have it.
[01:02:50] Steve Novick: Okay, Councilor Kanal.
[01:02:54] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I guess I'll formally move Amendment Kanal 1 to strike 14B.90 do we hear a second?
[01:03:06] Unidentified speaker: Second.
[01:03:06] Angelita Morillo: Second.
[01:03:08] Steve Novick: Councilor Kanal moves. Councilor Zimmerman narrowly beat out Councilor Rio to second.
[01:03:15] Angelita Morillo: Councilor Novick, while it's going through code review, I do have a few more questions if that's helpful to buy the clerk some time.
[01:03:29] Steve Novick: I think that, um, the time has been brought.
[01:03:33] Angelita Morillo: Okay, I do actually just have more questions then, but we can do this amendment first and then I'll go into that.
[01:03:39] Steve Novick: Okay, um, don't see any discussion on the amendment. Could we call the roll on the amendment?
[01:03:48] Keelan McClymont: Kanal 1, moved by Kanal, seconded by Zimmerman. Uh, Zimmerman. Smith, absent. Kanal?
[01:03:58] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[01:03:59] Keelan McClymont: Morillo?
[01:04:02] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:04:03] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[01:04:05] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:04:06] Keelan McClymont: The amendment is approved with 4 ayes and 1 absent.
[01:04:13] Steve Novick: All right, returning to Councilor Morillo.
[01:04:19] Angelita Morillo: Thank you, Chair. I cannot see who's up front, but whoever wants to answer this. I was just curious a little bit more on the process part of this. So are employee personnel history forms, including arrest records, are those disclosable public records? And how long are they kept?
[01:04:41] Tim Mercer: I don't know the answer. Do you know? Yeah, so as far as we understand, they're kept by both Revenue and PPB once they're submitted. So that the list of stuff that's, that's in code that is submitted as part of the personal history would be kept by both departments. I can't speak for PPB about how long they keep them, but we're keeping those records. We've been keeping them since the start of the program. Have we done any purging?
[01:05:14] Unidentified speaker: I have not done any purging.
[01:05:16] Tim Mercer: In terms of whether or not they're disclosable as a public record, I would assume not, but I would have to ask an attorney on that question. I don't know for sure. And we've never, as far as I know, had a public records request that included that information.
[01:05:41] Angelita Morillo: Okay. Is there anyone here who can help answer that? Because I think that might sort of sway— because I think I just have a lot of questions about some of the data collection stuff. And we have the Data Privacy Office that's currently being established, but we keep moving forward with different policies and tech without going through that because it's not you know, they're still in the hiring process and all of that right now. So it's just something that's on my mind. And while I appreciate that no public record has ever been done, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be done in the future, right? And I think we live in a different time politically now with how things are going. So I'm just curious about that and like the long-term impacts on someone. How many— does someone know how many employees PPB has rejected under the current review in recent years and how much that check actually costs the city?
[01:06:42] Tim Mercer: Can you speak to how many?
[01:06:43] Unidentified speaker: I don't have exact data on how many personal history forms have been rejected by the Portland Police Bureau. There are not a lot, but there are— there have been a few.
[01:06:57] Tim Mercer: In terms of the cost, PPB was the one that sort of told us what they would want to charge for this work. And our understanding is that, you know, the background check process can be dramatically different in terms of the length of time that it takes depending on the person being checked. So for instance, someone who has lived in Portland their entire life is probably a lot easier to background check than someone who has So there's kind of a wide range, and I, I think it's fair to say that they sort of picked a number that covered a large majority of the background checks.
[01:07:43] Angelita Morillo: Okay, that makes sense. And how long do the reviews— it sounds like there's a lot of variance, but how long do the reviews usually take? And, um, Can employees still buy provisionally while they're waiting for this check to be done if it does end up taking an extended amount of time?
[01:08:01] Unidentified speaker: So employees can't acquire or buy regulated property until they've been approved by PPB. I say that the standard processing time is 2 to 4 weeks typically. Sometimes they come back faster, sometimes it takes longer, particularly if there's a criminal history in states that don't have digital records.
[01:08:20] Angelita Morillo: Okay.
[01:08:21] Unidentified speaker: And, and I, um, we do, uh, I, I did a dive into our code really quick, um, and it's, uh, 14B.90.040, uh, currently, um, subsection D, uh, all of the personal information is subject to the requirements of the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.311 through 192. So we would follow those expectations if we received a public records request.
[01:08:56] Angelita Morillo: Um, okay, so I'm assuming that means— I, I don't have that code in front of me, so I don't know exactly what that outlines. I'm assuming that just means it's all a public record.
[01:09:06] Tim Mercer: I would assume it means it's a public record with redaction, but I don't have that code in front of me either.
[01:09:14] Steve Novick: Councilor Morillo, Spencer is trying to get information from Ken McGare at the City Attorney's Office on this. So I don't know how long it'll take. I think it's a very good question. I don't know how long it'll take for us to get an answer as to whether it's the public record disclosure is disclosable.
[01:09:30] Angelita Morillo: Okay, thanks, Spencer.
[01:09:43] Steve Novick: I mean, given that the issues about, you know, how long we maintain the information, whether it's disclosable, sort of don't relate particularly to the amendments, but to, you know, sort of the underlying law. And I agree that there's questions that need to be answered, but I don't know that they're essential to answer them before we take a vote here today. Oh, Councilor Kanal.
[01:10:04] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, 3 things. First, just to clarify, I referenced a PPB process before, and you can learn more about that at portland.gov/police/directives. And I was referring to the replacement of 1205.00 with 1050.00. Just want to get that on the record. Secondly, to Councilor Novick's point, I think this is kind of similar to a previous ordinance you had as well, where there's code that's not really being utilized, but one of the net effects of the change is to have it be utilized more. Or to have it be utilized more clearly, maybe is a better way of framing it in this case. And so I think that's fair. I think your point's fair that you were just making. I just, I also know that it's helpful to understand and what the— I'll frame it as a question. We've set up this office. It's not fully staffed yet. There have been, there's an ordinance, there's 15 other things that are happening that relate to data and privacy around the city right now. Right. Ranging from autonomous vehicles, data centers, Amazon drones all over the city. What is the plan, big picture, as a city for when we're going to have this thing that you and Councilor Murillo proposed and council agreed to set up to actually be the filter between ideas, you know, evaluating these ideas? What is the timeline? What's the expectation here? Because this has come up in a few different places now that we don't, um, we have this system in theory but not in practice yet. And so I don't know what the, what the, what's a realistic expectation anymore.
[01:11:44] Steve Novick: Um, well, I'm going to ask the city administrator to answer that, but I think that there is a distinction between this case and my product nuisance proposal because that was indeed a situation where something wasn't being used and we were thinking it might be used more, whereas we already are doing these background checks. We're just trying to clarify who exactly is subject to them. But I'll ask the city administrator to respond to the question about what the prognosis is for setting up the office and having it operational. Are you talking about the—. Data Privacy Office.
[01:12:19] Unidentified speaker: Once we have the position, the office is already in the process being set up from a staffing. The question is regarding— we're out right now doing an executive search for the actual bureau lead for that office. Once we have that, and I'm thinking we want to have all these things in place this winter, so I want to have majority of all our executive roles finished by the close of December, about all necessary. So if we are currently working through, I think the advertisement should be closed this month and we're interviewing in the month of November, we should have someone on in December.
[01:12:58] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[01:12:58] Unidentified speaker: For this office.
[01:13:00] Sameer Kanal: Okay. And I appreciate the deliberate nature of that search. I'm not trying to ask you to cut corners here or anything like that. So I appreciate that. At what point do we expect that— I think part of the idea, and correct me if I'm wrong, in particular, Councilors Murillo and Novick, because you wrote the legislation that set this all up. But I think part of the idea is that if there's a proposed, you know, administrative rule, PPB directive, or council piece of legislation, Mayor's executive order, whatever, something that is a new proposal that this would get before a final approval would get evaluated by the Data Privacy Office. And at what point do you expect that that will be a regular occurrence or a possible occurrence?
[01:13:45] Unidentified speaker: Hopefully. We currently now have practices where we go through data privacy through our BTS Bureau in reviewing that type of information. Having that independent office, I think you would really be looking at that, I'm thinking potentially kind of the start of the new year of having something like that where you— it's not a part of the BTS criteria and the work that they do, but it's something totally set aside from that independent office. But that is still contingent on making sure that we get the right person on board to help lead that work. We'd have to figure out some kind of a stopgap if we weren't able to be able to do that, to kind of figure out what could we do in that interim piece to be able to have that person on board.
[01:14:29] Tim Mercer: Thank you.
[01:14:30] Unidentified speaker: But I don't want any assumption that we're not doing this type of work currently. It's just not that independent review as council approved through their ordinance to have that kind of independent review of the work and ensuring that it happens at a certain standard. So we'll still be working through that piece of it, but I'm thinking January timeframe for a short answer. But we still have some components of that being conducted throughout the city. Thank you.
[01:14:57] Sameer Kanal: Appreciate that. I guess then the question would be— the last question would be, what did BTS think of this, of this proposal that we're discussing?
[01:15:08] Unidentified speaker: We'd have to get somebody from BTS in to kind of answer that question if we don't have it.
[01:15:13] Steve Novick: I don't know if they would have been consulted on sort of a clarification of an existing process.
[01:15:20] Unidentified speaker: Probably not.
[01:15:21] Tim Mercer: Yeah, I don't believe so.
[01:15:24] Steve Novick: Councilor Morillo, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that our assumption in creating David's Privacy Office was that it wouldn't just look at new proposals, would also look at our existing processes under preexisting laws and rules to see if there's ways in which we could improve on our protection of privacy, our store— you know, our decisions on storage, collection, et cetera.
[01:15:49] Tim Mercer: I think that's right.
[01:15:53] Steve Novick: That's fine.
[01:15:54] Angelita Morillo: Yeah, I think that is very correct. I think, so I get your point, you know, we can approve the amendment and then maybe the Data Privacy Office can review it later. I think the thing that I'm concerned about is that like a few weeks ago, we voted for an approval of a grant for PPB to purchase new surveillance tech. I voted against that because again, the Data Privacy Office hasn't had a chance to look at it. And the thing about data collection and data governance is that it's much more difficult to claw things back once they have been approved and implemented than it is to just start off saying we're not collecting this data and then keep moving forward that way. So that's all that I'm kind of concerned about. But yeah, I hear your point. And I know that the administration is working diligently to hire someone and set up the Data Privacy Office. I know CA Lee has been, you know, talking with our office a lot about that. So, I guess I'm also just kind of wondering, like, the number of things coming through this committee, can they wait till the Data Privacy Office is established so we can get that lens? Or is there a specific reason why there's urgency to move it through now before it gets that data privacy assessment? Because it's pretty clear BTS First of all, BTS is fantastic. They do amazing work. They don't have data governance analysis in the same way that the Data Privacy Office will. And that's just, that's part of why we did it, right? If the city was already doing something sufficient in this area, then we wouldn't have had to make a whole separate office for it. And Portland has been very behind. Other cities have already had a data privacy office, and this is standard in their work. So. Thank you. So that's the heartburn I have about it, I suppose.
[01:17:46] Steve Novick: Yeah. And what I would say is that, I mean, we're already doing the background checks. So this is not approving anything new. It's the intent of the background checks is to add this $25 fee, but primarily to clarify exactly who is subject to it and to clarify that it's only people who are authorized to actually purchase and, you know, take possession for the business of yes. So I don't think that we're opening— we're not opening the door to something that we weren't doing previously. I also want to say that we have heard back from Ken McGare, and he believes that the personal privacy exemption to the public records rule would cover at least some of the information on the form. He says that there may be some parts of the form that aren't exempt. He'd have to look at it more closely. He thinks that some of the information would likely be protected by the personal privacy exemption. Any further discussion? All right. In that case, could the clerk call for a vote on the underlying amendment?
[01:19:09] Keelan McClymont: Thank you. Yes, and I also just want to clarify that no one signed up to testify on this item.
[01:19:14] Steve Novick: Thank you, I forgot to ask.
[01:19:16] Keelan McClymont: And so, um, this is the motion to refer the ordinance as amended, moved by Novick. Was there a second?
[01:19:25] Sameer Kanal: I'll second it. Um, yeah, I'll second it.
[01:19:30] Keelan McClymont: Thank you. Uh, Zimmerman?
[01:19:32] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[01:19:35] Keelan McClymont: Smith, absent. Kanal?
[01:19:38] Sameer Kanal: I reserve the right to change my opinion at the full council, but I'll vote aye today.
[01:19:42] Keelan McClymont: Morillo?
[01:19:45] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:19:46] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[01:19:48] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:19:49] Keelan McClymont: The motion to refer is approved.
[01:19:54] Steve Novick: Thank you. Um, could the clerk please call the next item?
[01:20:01] Keelan McClymont: Item number 3, document number 2026-350, Great ShakeOut Earthquake Drill Preparedness Presentation.
[01:20:12] Steve Novick: Thank you. Take it away, team.
[01:20:33] Marisol Lozano-Peralta: All right, well, good morning all. My name is Marisol Lozano-Peralta. I work with the Community Engagement and Operations team at the Portland Bureau of Emergency Management. I have been with the Bureau since January of 2024, and I also have my colleague here with me Jeremy Van Keuren.
[01:20:53] Sameer Kanal: I'm the community preparedness manager for the Portland Bureau of Emergency Management.
[01:20:59] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[01:21:00] Marisol Lozano-Peralta: Can we please get the next slide?
[01:21:02] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[01:21:05] Marisol Lozano-Peralta: One of the responsibilities that I have here at the bureau is to coordinate the neighborhood emergency teams, Net Unidos, which is also part of the Neighborhood Emergency Teams of Portland, or NET. For short. If you're wondering what the NED program is, it's a group of Portlanders that are trained and ready to respond during a disaster. And we often talk about earthquakes with the NED Unidos, so that's why we are here today. Next slide, please. In this picture here is just a reminder to let us know that it doesn't matter how large an earthquake can be, Uh, it will still be, uh, somewhat impactful for us. Uh, just last week we had an earthquake of, uh, 4.2 magnitude in Tacoma area, and again, there were no significant impacts to that. But again, it's just a constant reminder to allow us to, to remember that we are in an area that is prone to earthquakes, and that's why it's important that we keep our community prepared for next, please. Skip it. Uh, we're going to skip that one. Thank you. And right here, as you can see, this is the Cascadia subduction zone, which actually goes along the Oregon coast, and it's exactly where 2 parts of the Earth, uh, the Earth meet. And that is actually, uh, not a good thing. It might just, um, cause a very large earthquake eventually. And that, again, that's why there's another reason why we emphasize the importance of being prepared for earthquakes. Next slide, please. Okay, and then Cascadia earthquakes have an average of every 246 years. We had— we have documentation from our last one being back in January of the 1700s, which was approximately— puts us like 327 years So we're a little bit behind on that, and the geologists predict there's a chance of 30% that we might have an 8.0 earthquake within the next 50 years. Fortunately for us, we have a great team of public engagement professionals from the City of Portland and around the region that work together to put this platform that It's, uh, resources and how to better prepare for an earthquake, and it also comes in different languages. And yes, thank you. Next slide. At Public Alerts, you will not only, uh, learn how to put a kit together, but you will also learn how to create a plan that works best for your family and your neighbors. Next slide. Thank you. While it is important that we have the right plan and also the right supplies to survive during an earthquake, it is also important that we put these steps into practice, which is why it's important that we remember these 3 steps, which is drop, cover, and hold on. During— and if you happen to be in a wheelchair or in a mobility device, you will lock, cover, and hold on. Thankfully, here in Oregon, we have the opportunity to practice this together during the Great Oregon ShakeOut. Now, you may be wondering what is the Great Oregon ShakeOut. Well, that's actually a drill that was designed, again, for us to practice the drop, hold on, cover and hold on. And it actually happens every year. It takes place on October 15th. October 15th. So we would like to invite you all to participate for this upcoming Thursday, October 15th, at 10:15 AM. So please join us for this drill. Next slide, please. And most important, please take a picture of it, post it online, use our hashtag that we have, #2026ORShakeOut. This will help us bring awareness to our community and how to better prepare for these types of disasters. Thank you. Next slide. And we also like to recommend that you, uh, download this app to your phone. This is an earthquake, uh, ShakeAlert that basically what this does is that it senses, um, the waves of, of an earthquake, and if it fits the right profile, it will, uh, quickly send a message out to the community. And this app actually reaches about 50 million residents and also visitors in the area of Oregon, Washington, and California. And again, this is, this is something to, to, to protect life safety and our vital systems. Next slide, please. And if you are a gamer, um, we also have Lewis and Clark College and a few of our neighborhood emergency team volunteers that had the great idea of come up with this, uh, game called Cascadia 9 Game that is actually a place where you can practice as well your, um, earthquake skills, uh, you know, and what to do after an earthquake. And again, you can find that for free at cascadia9game.org. And if you like a little bit more challenge and a little bit more hands-on when it comes to practicing the skills. We also have the Shaky Grounds Cafe that was also created for, uh, from one of our NET volunteers. Um, again, this, this is very challenging. I know Jeremy already tried it and didn't do too well. Only about 72% of people are able to, uh, come up with the puzzles that they have in there, that any— every time that you, um, solve these puzzles, you earn a supply to survive after an earthquake. So again, this is located in Oaks Park, uh, close to the Sellwood Bridge.
[01:27:24] Unidentified speaker: And this is all from us. Well, thank you so much for allowing us to be here and talk about, uh, earthquake preparedness. If there are any questions, Jeremy is here to answer those.
[01:27:38] Steve Novick: Thank you. I actually do have a question, but I don't know if, um, there's no reason for me to think that any of you I don't know that you would particularly know the answer. Do we know how many homes in Portland are bolted to their foundations?
[01:27:53] Unidentified speaker: We—. Excuse me— we don't have that information. That is information, though, that we are going to be soon asking our neighborhood emergency team volunteers to assess. We do also know when houses were built, and we can kind of infer from that. What seismic codes they were subject to when they were built, so that can give us a shadow of an idea.
[01:28:18] Steve Novick: Yeah, for anybody— I can't believe people actually watch city council committee meetings. For anybody who does, I mean, that's something that for a lot of houses it can cost as little as $5,000 or $6,000 to bolt the home to its foundation so it'll actually survive the earthquake. I think that in some places there's a requirement that when a house is is sold, it needs to be bolted down. And that might be actually an idea that we might consider at a certain point. But I just wanted to sort of put that out. I mean, there are some homes where it's really hard. Um, I think actually one of our previous PBIM directors, it took— cost her $30,000 to bolt her home to its foundation. But, um, it's— I mean, my— I did it in my home in Multnomah Village, and it really was like $4,000 or $5,000. So that's just something in addition to remembering to drop, cover, and hold. That's something that just wanted to put on the table as a good idea. Councilor Kanal.
[01:29:14] Sameer Kanal: First, thanks everybody for being here. Anytime we get PBIM here is a good day. And I see, I think that's Jamie in the back and Dan as well. And I appreciate everybody back there for everything that you do as well. And I guess the 2 questions I had first, The ShakeOut is during a committee this year. It is during Committee of the Whole that I'll be chairing. So wanted to follow up with you about how you'd like us to draw attention to that in that context, because I don't know about, maybe your committee's not as popular, but people do watch ours. I think people watch them both. But so just wanted to flag that. And then did you say 50 million people have that app, get the notifications?
[01:29:57] Tim Mercer: Yes.
[01:29:59] Sameer Kanal: That's, uh, that's more than I expected, so I just wanted to make sure I heard that right.
[01:30:03] Steve Novick: So thanks. Thank you. Um, any further thoughts, suggestions? Well, Councilor Kanal, um, since you hypothesized that maybe some people watch this committee, I suggest that we all, you know, take the opportunity to train for October 15th by dropping and covering ourselves for just, just a minute.
[01:30:29] Angelita Morillo: Yeah, yeah.
[01:30:52] Steve Novick: All right, thanks everybody.
[01:30:54] Unidentified speaker: Just FYI, I want to let you know we do have rooms for this as well in these chambers, so if you just can't make it underneath your desks, you can go into one of the rooms.
[01:31:07] Steve Novick: All right, thank you very much. Um, and, uh, I'm glad to know that we'll be, you know, doing the drop, cover, hold in the Committee of the Whole, um, on the exact time. Um, And could the clerk please call the next item?
[01:31:23] Keelan McClymont: Thank you, guys. Thank you. Item number 4, document number 2026-352, 2026 fireworks season recap and enforcement presentation.
[01:31:37] Dan Douthit: Uh, good morning. I'm Dan Douthit, and I'm the public information officer with Portland's Public Safety Service Area. Thank you for talking about fireworks this morning. I'm joined online, I believe, by Deputy Chief Brian Hughes with Portland Police Bureau, and also Fire Marshal Kerry Schimmel is available to answer questions. I'll give you a brief overview of what the city has done over the past few years to reduce the impact of fireworks on the community, and then give time for Chief Hughes to discuss enforcement. Next slide. Fireworks are a seasonal problem around July 4th and somewhat around New Year's Eve. What is typically considered fireworks season begins several weeks before the 4th of July and then continues into the days beyond the holiday. We know fireworks cause fires and injuries. This past July 4th, about 30 fires were attributed to fireworks. Thank you. In 2025, 27 fires were tied to fireworks. There weren't any injuries that were known in Portland this past year, but they, they happened around the region, and we know in many years they do cause injuries locally. They are sometimes responsible for deaths. In 2021, an apartment fire in Northeast Portland killed 3 people. Fireworks cause an increase in 911 calls. July 4th tends to be one of the busiest, if not the busiest, days of the year at the 911 call center. This is a problem because it increases 911 wait times for people that are in urgent need of help and can potentially delay responders. Portland officially banned all fireworks in the city in 2022. Including those that are considered legal in other parts of the state. And next slide. So if fireworks are illegal, why are they still a problem? Well, despite the ban, fireworks remain popular throughout the region, including the ones that are illegal throughout the state. Policies differ in the region. Only a few places have similar bans to what we have in Portland. The last I Yes. In fact, Vancouver and Milwaukee have similar bans, but in neighboring jurisdictions it varies. The city has limited resources available both for public education and enforcement. About more than 10 years ago, Portland Fire and Rescue spent resources on education, and leading up to the 4th of July— and this is between 2012 and 2014— spent between $60,000 and $80,000 on advertising, and it had very little effect on the action— on changing the culture of fireworks in the community. Next slide. Aware of these challenges, in 2025, a team of representatives from the Public Safety Service Area and 311 considered ways to reduce the impact of fireworks on the community. Thank you. We took a narrow focus at looking at how do we reduce calls to 911, and by working with 311, we developed an online reporting tool and also temporarily expanded 311's hours on the 4th of July to help the public access the tool. The online reporting was intended as an option other than 911 to track fireworks with a long-term goal of identifying hotspots in the community that could help with possible education and enforcement. The information could also be available to investigators if fireworks caused a fire. I can tell you this past 4th of July, there were 3 fires investigated, but no fines as a result of a connection to fireworks. Next slide. The online tool has been in place for 2 years. Starting in 2025, we noticed improvements in both thank you. This year, we saw improvements in both the 911 wait times and in a reduction in 911 calls. Between 2024 and 2025, the average 911 wait time went from 26 seconds to 8 seconds on July 4th. This past year, it went up slightly but was still significantly lower than in previous years. The online tool wasn't the only factor, but it certainly helped in addition to having more trained 911 staff the support from 311, public education, and then a greater awareness of the total fireworks ban now that has been in place for 4 years. Next slide. What's next? Well, we intend to continue promoting the online tool leading up to July 4th and around New Year's Eve. We now have 2 years of hotspot information from these reports. Thank you. This data can be provided to police and fire if resources are available that could help with enforcement efforts. If Chief Hughes is available online, I'd like to give him a moment to comment on enforcement from PPB's perspective.
[01:37:08] Unidentified speaker: Thank you, everybody.
[01:37:08] Portland Police Bureau: Hi, I'm Deputy Chief Brian Hughes, for the record, Portland Police Bureau. I apologize I can't be there with you today. I'm off-site doing some training, but I wanted just to weigh in on some comments here regarding the fireworks and enforcement of the fireworks ban. Of course, the 4th of July tends to be one of the more busy days of the year for the Police Bureau, but I want to recognize the harm done to the community with regards to fireworks. As been stated, numerous fires, the fire risk, as well as just overall quality of life. We we see so many illegal fireworks being lit off on that day, and what we are looking at doing is is redirecting resources, potentially canceling time off requests, or not allowing too many people to have the day off there in order to really staff up our numbers to be able to have the opportunity.
[01:38:09] Steve Novick: Chief Hughes, um, thanks, thanks for being here. Um, this last 4th of July, was there any enforcement? Was anybody cited for illegal use of fireworks?
[01:38:28] Brian Hughes: No, not that I'm aware of. I am not aware of any, any happening this last 4th of July.
[01:38:32] Steve Novick: I realize that people are really busy, but has there been any enforcement of the ordinance?
[01:38:36] Angelita Morillo: Not that I'm aware of.
[01:38:45] Steve Novick: No, not at this point.
[01:38:50] Brian Hughes: They always have the discretion, of course, to enforce any laws in the state of Oregon or the city of Portland, but no, no specific direction.
[01:38:58] Steve Novick: And that would be something we would look to incorporate in I think I actually mentioned that idea to Chief Day, like, before the last 4th of July in 2025. I mean, I think at this point, when there's no enforcement at all and people know that, we might as well not have the law. So I understand that the resources are limited, but I would hope that every year we could at least point to, like, 3 or 4 instances where people were cited so that the public would know there is some chance that you'll get cited. And if we don't start doing that, and if I happen to be still here in a couple of years, I think I might suggest we just repeal the ban because it's pointless. And I have to say that I do have some personal experience with this in that my dog, like many dogs, completely freaks out when there are fireworks. And in my neighborhood, the fireworks tend to go from 7 PM to 2 AM. So in order to avoid 7 hours of terror, I've been spending the 4th of July and New Year's Eve out of town. I realize that there's a lot more serious impacts of fireworks than a scared dog, but you multiply my experience by tens of thousands of other Portlanders, and it is— I think it— I mean, it's not as big a deal as, you know, violent crime, but I would hope that it's a big enough deal that we could at least make an effort to cite a few people a year.
[01:40:28] Brian Hughes: No, I think you're spot on there, Councilor Novick. I think it's incremental change. There's, of course, those that may be hearing me speak today that would say, well, there's like 1,000 people that are doing illegal fireworks all over the city. How are you going to, you know, select and decide who to enforce that on? And that's something as a police bureau we have to be very careful about because, you know, if we're talking about you know, an officer comes across somebody, you know, if they're driving in a specific neighborhood or they happen to be out there, like for example, we'll put more officers kind of in the downtown core just for, you know, density of population than we would necessarily in Sellwood. So you'll have more officers patrolling down that, those, some of those areas in the middle of downtown than you would in Sellwood. So the yeah. You know, they're depending on where that officer is in Sellwood. It's, it's, it's a challenge. It'll be a challenge to, to provide that kind of equitably around the city. And I think that might be something we would have to look at is, is, okay, who's getting a ticket, who's not getting a ticket? And when thousands of people are doing it, like I said, it just, we have to be careful of that. I think that's something I wanna flag.
[01:41:43] Steve Novick: But what does that mean? I mean, obviously we can't— that doesn't mean that we can't do anything unless we are able to cite everybody who's using illegal fireworks.
[01:41:53] Brian Hughes: Well, it's incremental, right? You know, you can't just throw your hands up in the air, I think, and just say, well, everyone's doing it, so we're going to do nothing about it. When you start making some changes incrementally and, you know, like you said, people understand there's some consequences for for that. And, you know, we would, we would have no control over the consequences, of course. That's, you know, we would just issue a citation and then it would be the courts to decide what the consequences would be. But it's that immediacy, you know, that Chief Day talks about, that when you go out to the airport, for example, and see that the airport police have a police car sitting on Airport Way near Cascade Parkway, that you slow down, right? Because there's potential that you could you could be issued a citation if you go over the speed limit out there. And so I think the same applies here. You know, start issuing some citations where it gets around, and then we start to slowly maybe change things incrementally. It's, uh, it's— I think, I think it's worth trying.
[01:42:54] Steve Novick: Thank you. Any further questions or discussion? Councilor Zimmerman.
[01:43:01] Eric Zimmerman: I guess I would just imagine that I think that in those catastrophic stories where we, you know, hear about a single-family residence fire, for instance, that the level of negligence goes up when in fact the firework was illegal to start with versus in the before era when it was a legal use and it still happened. And you can classify that as an accident, a reasonable accident, before we had a ban. And I think that that is a yes. Is a deterrent for most well-meaning people as well as like the consequences when something is illegal on top of the other catastrophic stuff. It's not actually the ticket, it's the responsibility thereafter, which for me I think carries some weight. I've always thought that the ban was not very enforceable. If you just— any drone footage over the city of Portland on the 4th of July, Right. I mean, it's a wonderful show. It's all illegal, right? But the risk for those who do want to do the right thing, I think it has— I think you have seen a decrease over the years in neighborhoods, in particular our dense— you know, I think about it wasn't that long ago we had a fire right on Alberta, right? The north, those dense neighborhoods. And I think that that has improved over the years.
[01:44:22] Dan Douthit: But certainly valid points in terms of how do we enforce and should we I can mention just 2 other potential options that we haven't explored, one being to work regionally to see if we could align fireworks policies throughout the region, and also explore legislative options at Salem, or I'm not sure what's available out there, but there does seem to be quite a supply of illegal fireworks throughout the state that are illegal everywhere, and I don't know if there's been any effort to look at what could be done to stop that. But those are not things that we have explored. Next slide.
[01:45:13] Steve Novick: Yeah, my instinct generally, as with drugs, my instinct is that reducing the demand is generally more effective than trying to constrain the supply. But if we're doing nothing, if the state's doing nothing to constrain the supply, that would be, that would be nice for them to at least give it a shot. And by the way, I don't want to gloss over the fact that it is important to not overload the system with 911 calls. And the fact that we've made progress in that is, you know, commendable. So I appreciate that update. Thank you.
[01:45:51] Eric Zimmerman: I would just be cautious of going too far down a legislative path here. When your, when your neighbor jurisdiction has a whole different classification of fireworks, the term fruitless effort kind of comes to mind. So as long as Washington State is selling a whole brand of fireworks that are wholesale illegal in Oregon, it's a matter of it's going to happen, and it's like trying to stop water. Um, so, you know, with respect to, you know, what is legal in Oregon, because most of the stuff we talk about that has caused problems in Portland, frankly, is not even what's legal in Portland in the before era. It's stuff that's coming across the, the state border. Um, so I wouldn't, I wouldn't want to push too hard in some sort of grand plan to achieve nothing. That's kind of how I would think that legislative intent would be. I also, you know, this is one of those where I want to be really respectful of the rest of the state and that the way our community is built up is different. And I don't want this presentation to be taken as any sort of advocacy, at least from my chair anyway, for a larger statewide ban, because I actually think it will have no impact on Portland. But it also would be another kind of Portland reach into other parts of the state and those communities who are still, they're very much, you know, they still have shows and they still put on, they still have fireworks and it's part of the community and it's not something to be afraid of. It's not something to walk away from. It's, they're good events. It just, our city is differently built and dense and we've made a choice years ago. So I just think about that in terms of what our neighbors are and the likelihood of stopping stuff coming through is, that's probably not worth the squeeze.
[01:47:33] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[01:47:34] Steve Novick: I instinctively tend to agree with that. I think the focus should be on seeing if we can enforce our own laws rather than trying to figure out if there's anything we can do regionally. But that might be not an entirely informed opinion.
[01:47:50] Eric Zimmerman: Can we end it with, again, a reminder? Tap, tap, tap. Please limit who you call if you see illegal fireworks. It's not a moment for a 911 call.
[01:48:02] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[01:48:02] Steve Novick: Yes, it's not a moment for a 911 call, but, um, it's still something that— I mean, uh, sometimes you can just ask your neighbors to stop and point out that it's illegal. I've actually done that with teenage kids in my neighborhood, and they were polite about it. Do you tell them to get off your lawn too? What? Hey, I just told them my dog's really scared, and they're like, oh, okay, we'll stop. So sometimes that works. Thank you very much. And seeing no one else in the queue, um, we can give people back, uh, 1 hour and 19 minutes, and this meeting of the Community and Public Safety Committee is adjourned.
[01:48:41] Unidentified speaker: Adjourned.