WEBVTT 1 00:10:55.298 --> 00:10:55.764 Good morning. 2 00:10:56.503 --> 00:11:01.854 It is Tuesday, October 6th, 2026, at 9:34 AM. 3 00:11:02.609 --> 00:11:06.158 Um, I call this meeting of the committee and Public Safety Committee to order. 4 00:11:06.967 --> 00:11:08.085 Uh, could the clerk please call the roll? 5 00:11:09.960 --> 00:11:10.284 Zimmerman. 6 00:11:11.927 --> 00:11:12.317 Smith. 7 00:11:13.813 --> 00:11:14.383 Kanal. 8 00:11:14.464 --> 00:11:14.707 Here. 9 00:11:17.201 --> 00:11:17.913 Here virtually. 10 00:11:20.433 --> 00:11:20.628 Here. 11 00:11:23.520 --> 00:11:26.826 Uh, could we hear the statement of conduct? 12 00:11:28.192 --> 00:11:30.940 Welcome to the meeting of the Community and Public Safety Committee. 13 00:11:31.245 --> 00:11:41.610 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. 14 00:11:47.106 --> 00:11:51.325 Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. 15 00:11:51.696 --> 00:11:55.778 Registration for virtual testimony closes 1 hour prior to the meeting. 16 00:11:56.311 --> 00:11:59.393 In-person testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. 17 00:11:59.845 --> 00:12:05.710 For public testimony during today's meeting, individuals may testify for 90 seconds unless the chair states otherwise. 18 00:12:06.063 --> 00:12:08.465 Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. 19 00:12:08.966 --> 00:12:10.201 The chair preserves order. 20 00:12:10.361 --> 00:12:18.572 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. 21 00:12:19.022 --> 00:12:20.817 If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. 22 00:12:21.331 --> 00:12:24.024 Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. 23 00:12:24.457 --> 00:12:27.570 Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. 24 00:12:27.986 --> 00:12:31.610 Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. 25 00:12:32.059 --> 00:12:34.048 Your testimony should address the matter being considered. 26 00:12:34.370 --> 00:12:36.423 When testifying, state your name for the record. 27 00:12:36.845 --> 00:12:39.514 If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. 28 00:12:40.048 --> 00:12:43.153 Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. 29 00:12:43.509 --> 00:12:43.767 Thank you. 30 00:12:46.039 --> 00:12:46.298 Thank you. 31 00:12:48.376 --> 00:13:04.006 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. 32 00:13:04.664 --> 00:13:15.139 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. 33 00:13:15.909 --> 00:13:28.874 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? 34 00:13:28.923 --> 00:13:29.148 Sorry. 35 00:13:30.799 --> 00:13:38.966 Yes, item number 1, document number 2026-351, discussion of global state budgeting for public safety concept. 36 00:13:39.909 --> 00:13:40.263 Thank you. 37 00:13:41.147 --> 00:13:52.349 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. 38 00:13:54.945 --> 00:13:58.871 The criminal justice system, and I've I think I might have talked— I certainly talked to Councilor Kanal. 39 00:13:58.936 --> 00:14:00.811 I think I've talked to Councilor Morillo about this before. 40 00:14:01.019 --> 00:14:08.600 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. 41 00:14:09.177 --> 00:14:14.130 There's a group of people, namely prosecutors, that have an unlimited budget for one thing, namely prisons. 42 00:14:14.644 --> 00:14:19.341 When prosecutors and judges send people to prison, the state has to pay for it. 43 00:14:19.692 --> 00:14:21.729 There's no discussion of budgetary trade-offs. 44 00:14:22.162 --> 00:14:23.587 There's no incentives to use prison less. 45 00:14:23.635 --> 00:14:27.660 I think I've talked to Councilor it's just, you know, it's as if prison is free. 46 00:14:29.659 --> 00:15:08.687 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. 47 00:15:09.282 --> 00:15:13.293 When you send people to prison, the cost of that comes out of your budget. 48 00:15:13.933 --> 00:15:25.139 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. 49 00:15:25.639 --> 00:15:27.625 How much of it do we think should go to supervision? 50 00:15:28.061 --> 00:15:29.094 How much to jails? 51 00:15:29.351 --> 00:15:32.159 How much to reentry programs? 52 00:15:32.207 --> 00:15:34.280 How much to alcohol and drug treatment programs? 53 00:15:34.711 --> 00:15:36.033 How much to restorative justice? 54 00:15:37.370 --> 00:16:03.331 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. 55 00:16:04.164 --> 00:16:09.136 So I've been discussing this topic with some of the key legislators in public safety. 56 00:16:09.763 --> 00:16:19.256 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. 57 00:16:19.706 --> 00:16:20.365 At 1:30. 58 00:16:20.910 --> 00:16:24.091 So if anybody's interested in that discussion, I encourage you to come. 59 00:16:24.846 --> 00:16:35.751 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. 60 00:16:36.346 --> 00:16:39.254 So again, I just wanted to give you a heads up on that. 61 00:16:39.381 --> 00:16:55.120 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. 62 00:16:55.183 --> 00:16:56.883 I wanted to make sure people here were aware of it. 63 00:16:58.341 --> 00:17:01.820 So that's any questions? 64 00:17:02.092 --> 00:17:03.455 Councilor Kanal. 65 00:17:04.657 --> 00:17:05.538 Thank you, Chair Novick. 66 00:17:05.763 --> 00:17:06.998 I appreciate the update on this. 67 00:17:07.142 --> 00:17:09.578 And I think, I guess I have 2 questions. 68 00:17:09.626 --> 00:17:11.999 One is just a pure overarching process question. 69 00:17:12.432 --> 00:17:17.065 The city role in this conversation is effectively limited to, are we advocating for this? 70 00:17:19.163 --> 00:17:21.453 Right now, Steve Novick is. 71 00:17:22.686 --> 00:17:30.071 I think that ultimately the question would be, would we on a legislative agenda support it? 72 00:17:30.457 --> 00:17:37.362 At this point, I think that there will— I'm hoping there will be preliminary discussions of the issue among legislators. 73 00:17:37.490 --> 00:17:39.140 I don't think there's gonna be a bill this session. 74 00:17:39.909 --> 00:17:45.098 What I'm hoping is that by next session, people will actually have something to forward. 75 00:17:45.756 --> 00:17:46.012 Okay. 76 00:17:46.093 --> 00:17:54.568 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. 77 00:17:55.386 --> 00:17:56.964 Yeah, I, I guess the, the question then—. 78 00:17:57.173 --> 00:17:57.898 The— that's—. 79 00:17:57.898 --> 00:17:58.107 That—. 80 00:17:58.204 --> 00:17:58.655 Thank you for that. 81 00:17:58.703 --> 00:18:08.244 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. 82 00:18:08.839 --> 00:18:19.788 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? 83 00:18:20.270 --> 00:18:22.887 I'm not proposing a specific definition. 84 00:18:22.983 --> 00:18:33.034 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. 85 00:18:33.194 --> 00:18:36.615 Okay, so that's the first part, the restorative justice you mentioned. 86 00:18:36.663 --> 00:18:39.505 You also mentioned drug treatment and reentry programs. 87 00:18:40.259 --> 00:18:47.007 Well, I mean, there is, I mean, there is money for those through Medicaid, through the health department, etc. 88 00:18:47.553 --> 00:19:03.557 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. 89 00:19:04.119 --> 00:19:08.069 But that's just a— I mean, again, this is very general concept. 90 00:19:08.134 --> 00:19:10.123 That might not make sense, but that's why I put that in there. 91 00:19:10.219 --> 00:19:11.181 No, I appreciate that. 92 00:19:11.582 --> 00:19:11.662 The—. 93 00:19:12.047 --> 00:19:20.690 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. 94 00:19:20.882 --> 00:19:31.113 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. 95 00:19:31.690 --> 00:19:33.951 But I don't know if that's the case for all the other counties in the state. 96 00:19:34.890 --> 00:19:37.700 So I'd be curious about just whatever protections there. 97 00:19:37.700 --> 00:19:42.019 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. 98 00:19:42.118 --> 00:19:54.390 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. 99 00:19:54.789 --> 00:20:01.190 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. 100 00:20:01.470 --> 00:20:03.170 So that's going to be part of the discussion. 101 00:20:03.539 --> 00:20:11.057 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. 102 00:20:11.508 --> 00:20:11.845 Thanks. 103 00:20:12.006 --> 00:20:25.597 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. 104 00:20:25.662 --> 00:20:35.886 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. 105 00:20:36.079 --> 00:20:37.530 So this sort of fits in with that. 106 00:20:38.568 --> 00:20:40.963 So, um, again, good goal. 107 00:20:41.094 --> 00:20:43.311 Yeah, thank you. 108 00:20:43.683 --> 00:20:44.023 Thank you. 109 00:20:47.182 --> 00:20:48.191 Uh, all right. 110 00:20:50.788 --> 00:20:51.048 Whoops. 111 00:20:52.588 --> 00:20:56.676 Okay, I thought that might be Councilor Zimmerman, but it's another random bald guy. 112 00:20:57.115 --> 00:21:03.366 So could the clerk please read the second item? 113 00:21:04.032 --> 00:21:18.970 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. 114 00:21:25.392 --> 00:21:25.877 Thank you. 115 00:21:27.051 --> 00:21:35.505 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. 116 00:21:36.034 --> 00:21:50.631 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. 117 00:21:51.432 --> 00:21:56.769 So as to one of Councilor Kanal's questions, a security guard would not be required to have a background check, for example. 118 00:21:57.704 --> 00:22:08.378 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. 119 00:22:09.750 --> 00:22:11.026 So I hereby move Novick 2. 120 00:22:11.855 --> 00:22:12.434 I'll second. 121 00:22:14.750 --> 00:22:17.180 Councilor Novick moves, Councilor Kanal seconds. 122 00:22:19.874 --> 00:22:38.223 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. 123 00:22:39.059 --> 00:22:41.855 But I'll let them take it away. 124 00:22:41.935 --> 00:22:52.701 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. 125 00:22:54.223 --> 00:22:54.530 Good morning. 126 00:22:54.887 --> 00:22:59.527 Tim Mercer, Tax Division Manager for Revenue. 127 00:23:00.523 --> 00:23:01.632 Thanks for the time this morning. 128 00:23:02.323 --> 00:23:08.733 So reminder on this package, this was included in a package rather. 129 00:23:09.232 --> 00:23:16.739 So this is one piece of a package looking at kind of all of the regulatory programs that Revenue administers. 130 00:23:18.076 --> 00:23:27.086 4 Of those pieces of this package are— have been, you know, moved to council, and this one was held back. 131 00:23:28.096 --> 00:23:33.674 So we took a holistic look at all of the regulatory programs we administer. 132 00:23:34.284 --> 00:23:48.006 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. 133 00:23:48.150 --> 00:23:48.357 Thank you. 134 00:23:49.594 --> 00:24:08.472 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. 135 00:24:08.763 --> 00:24:18.496 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. 136 00:24:18.544 --> 00:24:24.353 So it didn't make sense from a cost recovery standpoint to have 2 fee structures. 137 00:24:26.491 --> 00:24:37.342 And then just kind of tweaking some of the language in the program to hopefully improve the administration of the program. 138 00:24:38.508 --> 00:24:43.383 So that's kind of the high-level background on what's going on here. 139 00:24:46.240 --> 00:24:46.653 Thank you. 140 00:24:47.970 --> 00:24:48.856 Any questions for the team? 141 00:24:50.953 --> 00:24:53.228 Are we on just the amendment or on the—. 142 00:24:53.228 --> 00:24:54.404 Um, just—. 143 00:24:57.898 --> 00:24:58.782 Yeah. 144 00:24:59.490 --> 00:24:59.730 All right. 145 00:25:00.053 --> 00:25:00.357 Uh, thanks. 146 00:25:00.471 --> 00:25:25.328 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. 147 00:25:25.959 --> 00:25:34.627 Um, and I just wanted to, to unders— to, to clarify with you in terms of, um, what has changed here. 148 00:25:35.161 --> 00:25:42.078 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. 149 00:25:43.731 --> 00:25:44.282 Is that correct? 150 00:25:44.769 --> 00:25:48.865 Actually, what the language referred to is people who acquire. 151 00:25:49.317 --> 00:25:56.015 And I actually thought that that was rather vague because that might suggest that somebody who actually takes an ownership interest in something. 152 00:25:56.144 --> 00:26:01.978 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. 153 00:26:02.804 --> 00:26:09.933 Okay, so the clarity, but in terms of the, The original intent was people who pay for it, it seems, right? 154 00:26:09.998 --> 00:26:10.190 Right. 155 00:26:10.800 --> 00:26:13.577 So this makes it clearer, but then it also adds the principles. 156 00:26:14.011 --> 00:26:14.155 Right. 157 00:26:14.557 --> 00:26:18.700 And, but it doesn't include everybody who sells. 158 00:26:18.749 --> 00:26:20.771 It doesn't include everybody who's a security guard, right? 159 00:26:20.836 --> 00:26:25.669 Like, so, okay, just making sure we get that on the record. 160 00:26:26.440 --> 00:26:31.855 And then I don't actually know if it defines, Verify this. 161 00:26:33.000 --> 00:26:39.866 Um, yeah, so management and operation including any owners, uh, is the, the principle there. 162 00:26:39.948 --> 00:26:42.402 And I'm sorry, I'm just like scrolling around here because the track changes a little. 163 00:26:43.176 --> 00:26:46.505 Can I get a clarification on what Part D means? 164 00:26:46.554 --> 00:26:48.782 This is the first section on the top of page 11. 165 00:26:49.333 --> 00:26:50.934 I'm, I'm broadly supportive. 166 00:26:51.080 --> 00:26:57.174 Obviously I seconded it for, um, 8, the, the header ABC. 167 00:26:57.790 --> 00:27:00.241 But I'm curious as to what would constitute a change. 168 00:27:00.309 --> 00:27:00.798 Like, is this if they move? 169 00:27:00.848 --> 00:27:05.920 Is what are the sorts of things that would happen to cause a change? 170 00:27:06.450 --> 00:27:24.942 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. 171 00:27:25.746 --> 00:27:38.372 And so would that be the, basically the content that's in B1 through 7, the sort of immediately above 7 sections? 172 00:27:44.578 --> 00:27:45.017 That's correct. 173 00:27:45.082 --> 00:27:49.701 Yeah, that's the, that's the, uh, section that refers to the personal history form. 174 00:27:50.739 --> 00:28:15.411 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. 175 00:28:16.166 --> 00:28:16.326 Okay. 176 00:28:17.692 --> 00:28:31.957 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? 177 00:28:33.890 --> 00:28:38.060 Well, actually, historically, background checks have already been performed by PPV. 178 00:28:38.205 --> 00:28:41.471 So that's sort of just a continuation of existing practice. 179 00:28:42.616 --> 00:28:42.846 Okay. 180 00:28:43.665 --> 00:28:43.813 Thanks. 181 00:28:48.753 --> 00:28:51.609 Any further discussion of the amendment to the amendments? 182 00:28:53.719 --> 00:28:57.955 Uh, in that case, could the clerk please call the roll on Novick 2? 183 00:28:59.539 --> 00:29:00.363 Yes, thank you. 184 00:29:02.273 --> 00:29:04.219 Uh, Zimmerman, absent. 185 00:29:04.883 --> 00:29:06.699 Smith, absent. 186 00:29:09.276 --> 00:29:10.442 Kanal, uh, to the amendment, aye. 187 00:29:12.030 --> 00:29:13.846 Morillo, aye. 188 00:29:15.028 --> 00:29:15.855 Novick, aye. 189 00:29:17.460 --> 00:29:20.301 The amendment is approved with 3 aye votes and 2 absent. 190 00:29:23.536 --> 00:29:32.122 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. 191 00:29:32.412 --> 00:29:41.623 Um, uh, any discussion of the original amendment including the elimination of the category of second— of occasional dealers, etc.? 192 00:29:42.267 --> 00:29:44.634 Councilor Kanal. 193 00:29:45.133 --> 00:29:45.792 Uh, thanks. 194 00:29:46.098 --> 00:29:51.298 Um, so I have no concern about the idea of eliminating the category. 195 00:29:51.364 --> 00:29:57.321 I think the presentation last time was really helpful in that regard. 196 00:29:57.872 --> 00:30:03.805 I'm not— my concerns have generally been around this same section of the B section. 197 00:30:03.934 --> 00:30:05.842 I will note, I guess, let me start with the question. 198 00:30:07.460 --> 00:30:15.519 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. 199 00:30:16.347 --> 00:30:26.528 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. 200 00:30:27.105 --> 00:30:29.080 No, no further engagement has been done. 201 00:30:30.413 --> 00:30:30.638 Okay. 202 00:30:30.798 --> 00:30:31.394 On your end at all? 203 00:30:31.682 --> 00:30:32.084 Uh, no. 204 00:30:32.645 --> 00:30:32.758 Okay. 205 00:30:32.919 --> 00:30:46.487 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. 206 00:30:47.267 --> 00:30:55.638 It's not a representative sample because there are plenty of pawn shops that are not part of large national or regional chains. 207 00:30:57.951 --> 00:31:12.499 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. 208 00:31:12.547 --> 00:31:12.884 Company. 209 00:31:13.029 --> 00:31:32.085 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. 210 00:31:32.554 --> 00:31:39.271 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. 211 00:31:39.619 --> 00:31:46.537 And I think, um, That's a concern I still have, but I just wanted to kind of get that on the record. 212 00:31:48.338 --> 00:31:52.560 We have contracts with a few different companies to do background checks as well. 213 00:31:53.806 --> 00:32:22.380 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. 214 00:32:22.476 --> 00:32:25.026 And that case has still not been made to me fully. 215 00:32:25.442 --> 00:32:33.042 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. 216 00:32:33.701 --> 00:32:41.606 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. 217 00:32:42.281 --> 00:32:47.433 Um, and I, I am interested in that sort of evaluation of legislation like this in the future. 218 00:32:48.140 --> 00:32:48.396 Thanks. 219 00:32:48.877 --> 00:32:49.359 Understood. 220 00:32:50.162 --> 00:33:01.204 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. 221 00:33:01.798 --> 00:33:02.890 There is such a history. 222 00:33:03.964 --> 00:33:05.906 You're— I should— yeah, that is correct. 223 00:33:06.892 --> 00:33:10.616 I think, but I'm not 100% certain. 224 00:33:11.118 --> 00:33:24.241 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. 225 00:33:26.035 --> 00:33:33.210 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. 226 00:33:33.290 --> 00:33:40.671 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. 227 00:33:41.440 --> 00:33:43.276 That is the thing that would make it relevant. 228 00:33:43.340 --> 00:33:47.760 So I'm not disputing your underlying point there, but it is certainly a concern. 229 00:33:49.189 --> 00:33:57.597 I'm just trying to understand the ratio, the relative comparative level of concern about 2 different risks. 230 00:33:59.376 --> 00:34:00.023 Thank you. 231 00:34:02.144 --> 00:34:09.344 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. 232 00:34:10.690 --> 00:34:16.434 So the idea of fences actually has a certain level of romance for me, although of course I'm opposed to it. 233 00:34:19.530 --> 00:34:19.802 Any—. 234 00:34:19.802 --> 00:34:21.092 Councilor Morillo? 235 00:34:22.204 --> 00:34:26.956 Yeah, I was just curious, does anyone have any responses to what Councilor Kanal said? 236 00:34:27.117 --> 00:34:32.543 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. 237 00:34:32.898 --> 00:34:42.364 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. 238 00:34:47.202 --> 00:34:50.682 Councilor Herbold, would you mind restating the specific question you're referring to? 239 00:34:53.289 --> 00:35:07.523 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. 240 00:35:07.570 --> 00:35:09.690 And I think that's part of what Councilor Kanal touched on. 241 00:35:14.989 --> 00:35:27.567 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. 242 00:35:27.858 --> 00:35:28.690 Is that correct, team? 243 00:35:30.027 --> 00:35:30.842 Yeah, that's correct. 244 00:35:34.583 --> 00:35:37.699 So if the amendments were not approved, we would continue gathering information. 245 00:35:37.813 --> 00:35:43.204 We just have some, in my view, ambiguity in the language as to who is subject to the requirement. 246 00:35:46.052 --> 00:35:46.213 Right. 247 00:35:46.278 --> 00:35:59.469 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. 248 00:36:00.255 --> 00:36:05.106 So in regards to background checks, those are, those are the substantive changes. 249 00:36:05.235 --> 00:36:09.422 We are already doing these, um, background checks without a fee. 250 00:36:11.079 --> 00:36:12.668 I apologize for not bringing up the fee before. 251 00:36:12.864 --> 00:36:15.215 And the, the amount of the fee is $20. 252 00:36:16.677 --> 00:36:20.811 Uh, the background check fee would be $25. 253 00:36:21.592 --> 00:36:22.164 Keep forgetting. 254 00:36:22.492 --> 00:36:23.373 That is another addition. 255 00:36:28.519 --> 00:36:30.023 Okay, Councilor Kanal, can I ask—. 256 00:36:30.152 --> 00:36:34.097 So, okay, I have no problem with the idea of cost recovery. 257 00:36:34.452 --> 00:36:37.815 $25, Uh, makes sense if that's what it costs. 258 00:36:37.864 --> 00:36:42.536 I understand if you do a private background check, there's, there's costs as well, so this is, uh, comparable. 259 00:36:42.844 --> 00:36:44.606 Um, I guess I have 2 questions. 260 00:36:44.719 --> 00:36:52.673 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. 261 00:36:53.333 --> 00:36:58.293 It says it'll be assessed to any principals and any employees. 262 00:36:58.871 --> 00:37:02.548 So the expectation is that the person themself is paying for it, not the company. 263 00:37:03.608 --> 00:37:07.766 Is that— can we speak to— can you speak to how that decision was arrived at? 264 00:37:09.068 --> 00:37:11.605 I don't actually think that's our expectation. 265 00:37:11.717 --> 00:37:19.760 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. 266 00:37:21.623 --> 00:37:27.724 And that would be our general expectation, but we're not explicitly saying who needs to pay the fee. 267 00:37:28.751 --> 00:37:37.614 There's just a fee applied to background checks, which are done on the subset of individuals that you just mentioned. 268 00:37:37.661 --> 00:37:41.322 So folks acquiring property and principals. 269 00:37:42.222 --> 00:37:47.389 So I would understand that makes sense what you're, you're your explanation makes sense. 270 00:37:47.518 --> 00:38:00.251 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. 271 00:38:00.989 --> 00:38:12.759 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. 272 00:38:13.126 --> 00:38:18.947 I, I think it's a— am I wrong in, in reading that as saying it's on the, the, the person themselves? 273 00:38:19.617 --> 00:38:24.193 Uh, I— that's not the intent of that language, but I see, I see how you could get there. 274 00:38:24.711 --> 00:38:24.969 Yeah. 275 00:38:25.681 --> 00:38:27.751 Councilor, for some reason I'm not looking at the right page. 276 00:38:29.217 --> 00:38:30.811 Uh, one more page. 277 00:38:32.275 --> 00:38:34.802 Um, this is—. 278 00:38:34.851 --> 00:38:41.228 It's, it's here, so I don't know why I have it on my version. 279 00:38:41.612 --> 00:38:46.097 Um, I believe that text was removed from the most recent amendment. 280 00:38:46.610 --> 00:38:46.820 What? 281 00:38:47.333 --> 00:38:49.376 I believe that text was removed from the most recent amendment. 282 00:38:50.949 --> 00:38:51.126 Okay. 283 00:38:51.353 --> 00:38:52.764 Oh, okay. 284 00:38:52.844 --> 00:38:56.474 So then I'm— you're, you're— no, you're right. 285 00:38:57.998 --> 00:39:00.210 Um, I had the, the old and the new version open. 286 00:39:00.759 --> 00:39:01.340 Can we get a—. 287 00:39:01.954 --> 00:39:02.891 Okay, now I'm confused. 288 00:39:03.019 --> 00:39:12.041 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. 289 00:39:12.251 --> 00:39:13.190 Does that make sense? 290 00:39:13.675 --> 00:39:15.346 Like— Yeah, I hear your concern. 291 00:39:18.153 --> 00:39:21.414 That's a, let's see, that's a reasonable request. 292 00:39:22.963 --> 00:39:23.418 We—. 293 00:39:23.695 --> 00:39:26.536 And I have a different question while that's going on if you want to answer. 294 00:39:26.617 --> 00:39:27.070 I'm happy to wait. 295 00:39:27.135 --> 00:39:36.947 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? 296 00:39:40.679 --> 00:39:42.972 Um, we ponder that. 297 00:39:43.197 --> 00:39:45.393 Um, Councilor, go ahead and ask your further question. 298 00:39:46.021 --> 00:40:04.847 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. 299 00:40:06.452 --> 00:40:22.059 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. 300 00:40:22.619 --> 00:40:26.411 To determine, um, and that's within the city administrator's, uh, role. 301 00:40:27.166 --> 00:40:33.306 Um, what sort of things— what will be the process should this, this, uh, ordinance pass? 302 00:40:33.630 --> 00:40:38.152 What will be the process for figuring out what would go into those requirements? 303 00:40:40.057 --> 00:40:53.186 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. 304 00:40:53.885 --> 00:40:58.985 And from there, from a process standpoint, I would more than likely make a decision on that, Councilor. 305 00:41:00.295 --> 00:41:00.538 Okay. 306 00:41:02.317 --> 00:41:09.907 Would it— would engagement be a part of that role with the people that are being regulated? 307 00:41:09.956 --> 00:41:10.818 And I don't just mean the companies. 308 00:41:11.900 --> 00:41:15.797 I think engagement and equity would have to be a component of that. 309 00:41:15.876 --> 00:41:17.938 And that's some of the conversation piece that we would have. 310 00:41:18.818 --> 00:41:27.201 Okay, I, I will say I, I appreciate that clarity, and I, I, I like that answer in terms of answering the question. 311 00:41:27.297 --> 00:41:39.556 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. 312 00:41:39.605 --> 00:41:50.181 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. 313 00:41:50.681 --> 00:41:53.074 So I just wanted to get that on the record too. 314 00:41:53.186 --> 00:41:55.940 And I might ask about whether or not we can remove Part 7 there. 315 00:41:59.748 --> 00:42:07.077 Councilor Knoll, can I address the drafting concern with the red line of that specific D2 language? 316 00:42:07.610 --> 00:42:07.739 Sure. 317 00:42:07.916 --> 00:42:10.344 So sorry, Chair, can I do that? 318 00:42:10.539 --> 00:42:10.894 Yes, you may. 319 00:42:11.105 --> 00:42:11.445 Thank you. 320 00:42:12.190 --> 00:42:14.585 Spencer Knowles, Chief of Staff for Councilor Steve Novick. 321 00:42:15.485 --> 00:42:28.786 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. 322 00:42:29.219 --> 00:42:40.802 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. 323 00:42:42.512 --> 00:42:46.148 In the subsequent Novick 2 amendment. 324 00:42:46.585 --> 00:42:51.905 So it's kind of confusing in that it's getting lost in the new amendment, the superseding amendment. 325 00:42:53.523 --> 00:42:54.932 But that's the reason. 326 00:42:54.998 --> 00:42:59.963 It's following the drafting guidelines, which can kind of get confusing sometimes. 327 00:43:00.059 --> 00:43:05.007 So not intentionally trying to hide taking that out or anything. 328 00:43:05.521 --> 00:43:06.952 Yeah, no, I appreciate the clarity. 329 00:43:07.063 --> 00:43:09.407 Not trying to imply there was any bad intent there. 330 00:43:11.277 --> 00:43:31.050 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. 331 00:43:33.007 --> 00:43:38.367 But it doesn't help me right this second with what else Um, can— so do you have a version? 332 00:43:39.603 --> 00:43:43.860 These are all PDFs online, so maybe if I get the, the versions to do a compare versions on it. 333 00:43:44.342 --> 00:43:46.525 But what else has changed in Novick 2? 334 00:43:46.590 --> 00:44:00.690 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. 335 00:44:01.043 --> 00:44:03.972 As far as my recollection, that is all we're changing. 336 00:44:04.166 --> 00:44:09.829 It was really just to provide that clarity around who the background check applies to. 337 00:44:09.925 --> 00:44:11.992 So very small change. 338 00:44:14.039 --> 00:44:16.623 But yeah, that's all I recall us changing. 339 00:44:18.094 --> 00:44:18.498 Okay. 340 00:44:19.143 --> 00:44:20.548 All right. 341 00:44:20.614 --> 00:44:25.130 So that addresses the question that I'd asked earlier about imposed upon, and I appreciate the clarity there. 342 00:44:26.217 --> 00:44:33.487 Still have the other concern regarding the thanks. 343 00:44:33.681 --> 00:44:38.891 So, Council, are you satisfied with that and we can— we don't need to create a track changes version? 344 00:44:39.213 --> 00:44:47.523 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. 345 00:44:47.570 --> 00:44:52.702 It's also helpful, like if I wanted to remove Part 7 right now, it's kind of like where would that, you know. 346 00:44:52.913 --> 00:44:53.001 Right. 347 00:44:53.159 --> 00:45:10.288 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? 348 00:45:10.760 --> 00:45:12.728 I mean, Councilor Kanal suggested he might want to remove it. 349 00:45:12.889 --> 00:45:15.036 I mean, would— how much heartburn would that cause us? 350 00:45:18.786 --> 00:45:20.554 I don't— I don't think that it's necessary. 351 00:45:20.748 --> 00:45:26.186 I've not yet had to utilize that portion of the text or anything close to it. 352 00:45:26.268 --> 00:45:29.163 So I think that that is okay to withdraw. 353 00:45:30.496 --> 00:45:32.027 City Administrator, any further thoughts? 354 00:45:33.666 --> 00:45:45.806 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. 355 00:45:45.936 --> 00:45:57.070 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. 356 00:45:59.110 --> 00:46:00.358 And I, I recognize that. 357 00:46:00.521 --> 00:46:23.278 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. 358 00:46:24.505 --> 00:46:38.789 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? 359 00:46:39.079 --> 00:46:42.480 On the whole, I imagine there are a few folks who are doing okay, but— Yeah. 360 00:46:42.768 --> 00:46:43.188 So I—. 361 00:46:43.882 --> 00:46:46.286 People that are not necessarily in a position to push back. 362 00:46:46.885 --> 00:47:00.489 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? 363 00:47:02.032 --> 00:47:10.175 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. 364 00:47:10.726 --> 00:47:14.186 And I apologize, I'm going back and forth between several different tabs now. 365 00:47:16.925 --> 00:47:19.438 So that's sort of my concern there. 366 00:47:20.050 --> 00:47:33.045 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. 367 00:47:33.190 --> 00:47:35.434 It's the same text, but it's as applied to the—. 368 00:47:35.434 --> 00:47:35.820 Yeah. 369 00:47:36.594 --> 00:47:37.467 The dealer itself. 370 00:47:37.726 --> 00:47:45.697 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. 371 00:47:50.900 --> 00:47:55.387 So, Councilor, um, were you intending to move to eliminate that item 7? 372 00:47:55.452 --> 00:47:59.762 Yeah, I'm trying to make a written version of it as rapidly as I can here. 373 00:48:03.751 --> 00:48:10.048 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. 374 00:48:10.802 --> 00:48:22.244 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. 375 00:48:22.905 --> 00:48:29.315 It's in the middle of page 10, near the bottom actually, uh, part 7 there of, uh, 14B. 376 00:48:32.989 --> 00:48:35.643 14.90.040, And I'll get this over to the clerk as quickly as I can. 377 00:48:35.771 --> 00:48:38.103 It would just strike Part 7 in its entirety. 378 00:48:47.693 --> 00:48:50.701 Sorry, can you say the subsection again? 379 00:48:54.478 --> 00:48:55.697 14.90.040 As in boy, 7. 380 00:51:57.148 --> 00:51:57.471 Okay. 381 00:51:57.679 --> 00:52:00.643 I just realized I don't want to do the Spider-Man thing. 382 00:52:01.061 --> 00:52:03.913 Has the clerk received the language from Councilor Kanal? 383 00:52:08.960 --> 00:52:09.934 Not at this moment. 384 00:52:10.842 --> 00:52:12.416 Would the committee like to take a recess? 385 00:52:13.811 --> 00:52:14.005 What? 386 00:52:14.699 --> 00:52:16.039 A recess is an option. 387 00:52:16.539 --> 00:52:18.686 Um, sure. 388 00:52:19.300 --> 00:52:23.907 Let's recess for 10 minutes and reconvene at 10:25. 389 01:02:35.668 --> 01:02:40.244 All right, we are reconvening. 390 01:02:40.663 --> 01:02:43.818 And does the clerk have the text of Councilor Kanal's amendment? 391 01:02:44.365 --> 01:02:46.876 Yes, it's been in code review now. 392 01:02:47.342 --> 01:02:47.744 Into what? 393 01:02:48.485 --> 01:02:49.385 Yes, we have it. 394 01:02:50.817 --> 01:02:53.452 Okay, Councilor Kanal. 395 01:02:54.335 --> 01:03:04.117 Yeah, I guess I'll formally move Amendment Kanal 1 to strike 14B.90 do we hear a second? 396 01:03:06.690 --> 01:03:06.867 Second. 397 01:03:06.965 --> 01:03:07.336 Second. 398 01:03:08.809 --> 01:03:09.764 Councilor Kanal moves. 399 01:03:09.860 --> 01:03:12.612 Councilor Zimmerman narrowly beat out Councilor Rio to second. 400 01:03:15.592 --> 01:03:27.347 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. 401 01:03:29.768 --> 01:03:32.766