# Portland City Council AM Session 10/07/26
# Meeting ID: 2026-10-07-1  Duration: 190 min

[00:03:03] Loretta Smith: Keelan, this is Councilor Smith. I'm online. Councilor Council President, this is Loretta. I'm online.
[00:04:51] Sameer Kanal: I'm also online.
[00:04:53] Candace Avalos: This is Councilor Avalos.
[00:06:12] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning. I call to order the Wednesday, October 7th meeting of the Portland City Council. Keelan, can we please call the roll?
[00:06:22] Keelan McClymont: Good morning. Clark?
[00:06:25] Olivia Clark: Here.
[00:06:28] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[00:06:29] Mitch Green: Here.
[00:06:30] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman? Avalos?
[00:06:33] Candace Avalos: Present online.
[00:06:35] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[00:06:38] Loretta Smith: Here.
[00:06:39] Keelan McClymont: Kanal?
[00:06:40] Sameer Kanal: Here.
[00:06:41] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney?
[00:06:43] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Here.
[00:06:43] Angelita Morillo: Hello.
[00:06:45] Keelan McClymont: Ryan? Koyama Lane?
[00:06:49] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Here.
[00:06:50] Keelan McClymont: Morillo.
[00:06:51] Angelita Morillo: Here.
[00:06:52] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[00:06:52] Steve Novick: Here.
[00:06:53] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[00:06:54] Jamie Dunphy: Here. And can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
[00:06:58] Keelan McClymont: Good morning. Um, welcome to the Portland City Council. To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. Presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
[00:08:04] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[00:08:04] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. The first item on our agenda, as always, is approval of today's agenda. May I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda?
[00:08:13] Unidentified speaker: Yes.
[00:08:14] Jamie Dunphy: Fantastic. Seeing no objections, the agenda is approved. Keelan, could we please call public communications?
[00:08:20] Keelan McClymont: First up this morning, we have Addie Smith.
[00:08:32] Addie Smith: Um, hey, can I go last? Sure.
[00:08:38] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[00:08:41] Keelan McClymont: Uh, next up, let's see here, we have Ghalib bin Imhotep.
[00:08:48] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning, welcome. As always, please state your name for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
[00:09:01] Unidentified speaker: Good morning, I am Ghalib bin Imhotep. My domicile is in District 4, and what I witness is unfair to you and the people of Portland. I once implored this council to do as Councilor Zimmerman warned and utilize that blunt instrument. I see the difficulty faced by your offices. It's abhorrent. There's a solution. What that solution is, I'm unsure. Councilor Sameer Kanal. I'm a civilian. I'm not a politician. I don't know what solutions would be politically appropriate. As a civilian, I know what civil actions lead to solutions, and I have spoken of those before. It's 3 simple words: transparency, accountability, and diligence. Not unilaterally either. As a wide-open 2-lane highway with no road rules, And no collisions. I see 12 powerful beings being hamstrung by the theocracy. Use your power to free yourselves from its fetters, not to place yourselves tighter into them. You have the power. You are the legislative branch. Your power is the pen. Your pen creates ordinance, code, statute, and policy. Wield your pen with the might of a branch whose necessity is standard for the existence of the tree that is known as the municipality of Portland. There is no reason for the city of Portland to For a single one of you to feel compelled to sign your yes vote to anything that has even an inkling of an unanswered question in your mind. That won't slow bureaucratic process. It'll filter out the BS, maybe slowly at first, but eventually they'll know how to approach this city's team of elected stewards whose pen strikes with unanimous Potency. Accord leads to efficiency. Well, 2 or 3 are not present at the moment, so right now I see 9 wonderful beings in a semicircle who can reach an accord level that makes Portland one of the most efficient cities in America. I'll leave you with another quote from Atlas Shrugged. Thank you. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not quite, the not yet, the not at all. Do not let the hero in your souls perish in lonely frustration for a life you deserved but have never been able to achieve. I will that the spark that I see in you outshines the sun. Thank you, and I love you all unconditionally.
[00:12:13] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you so much for being here.
[00:12:16] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have John Hollister.
[00:12:21] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning. Come on up.
[00:12:36] John Hollister: My name is John Hollister, and I'm from District 4. I have never been more hopeful and more excited about this upcoming election. I went to a District 4 debate last night, and I have never been more impressed with Councilman Zimmerman than I saw last night. Thank you. The amount of legislation, the amount of expertise you brought to this office is stunning and commendable, and it is the go-forward type of leadership that we need. You must win on November 3rd. Councilperson Clark, I know why you received the most votes in every precinct in 2024. Because you are outstanding. You are awesome. You are leadership. You listen. You're able to represent a contingency of people, like people that drive cars. How you manage to get things through from transportation is masterful. You must win on November 3rd. Mitch Green. Oh, excuse me, Councilor Green. Thank you for your service and for just letting us know how far off track we've gotten, and you need to go. Yeah, we're— so the good thing is when you're gone, there is another individual that represents a Very unique set of people, underserved people. You talk about this, this being the place of underserved people. You talk about rent control. You talk about all these things. The, the, what we need, the most underserved people are the 35% of the people that are unsheltered on the street that have addiction issues and mental health issues. There is only one person on the ballot That has experience beyond the entire council of that, and that is Eli Arnold. He has put more people into— more people on the street into shelters, into permanent housing. He has put more people— he understands the deflection center. He understands why it is successful and why it has failed miserably. He understands everything. He knows the, the lack of connection of services. So as far as getting the full breadth of people in District 4 to be represented fairly and all the way across, it is Councilman Clark, it is Councilman Zimmerman, and new councilman— let's all welcome him— Eli Arnold.
[00:15:39] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[00:15:43] Keelan McClymont: Next up we have David Guither.
[00:15:48] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning.
[00:15:49] David Guither: Good morning.
[00:15:51] Jamie Dunphy: Here to state your name for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns if you'd like, and you have 3 minutes.
[00:15:56] David Guither: My name is David Guither. I'm with Radio Cab, and my pronouns are he, etc. Waymo, as we have heard in the past, Is sort of a—. Excuse me. Is where 2 very controversial current technologies, AI and data centers, converge. They need both to operate. They don't keep all of the data they need in the cars, and they need AI to operate them. Waymo has raised over $30 billion at a valuation of $126 billion. To give you some idea of how much money that is, that's the evaluation, a little under that is the evaluation of merging Paramount and Warner Brothers. So it's mega money. And they did this by offering a memorandum that explained to the investors, which were other group of tech bros, that they will be able to build this huge company. And they're not going to pay taxes. And take money out of every entity that they operate in, coming back to the parent company. Now, there's a— this memo can be asked for by PBOT. I hope the city council committee in charge can also get a copy of this memo. Yeah. I've tried to get a copy of it. It's very vague, incidentally. It doesn't even mention Waymo. It mentions a Thank you. An autonomous vehicle company and somebody who will be managing this investment. There's over 12,000 permit holders for ground transportation, private-for-hire permit holders, and if this is allowed to go forward, there's going to be created a lot of collateral damage. Unfortunately, we've seen sort of a A canary in a coal mine when a Lyft driver who was laid off shot another Lyft driver recently who was his friend, unquote, leaving 6 children. And that particular incident was hushed up amazingly well, even better than the Uber driver that shot people downtown. The pressure that's on a lot of individuals and The whole community right now keeps growing. There's schools closing, et cetera. Now, professional drivers, especially radio cab drivers, have a lot more training than the average person and have a much better safety record than Waymo will mention. We have 3 to 6 hours yearly of defensive drivers and first aid training. Our—. Cabs are inspected twice, once by the company, once by the city. Just got through doing our city one. And thank you very much.
[00:19:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much for being here today.
[00:19:06] Keelan McClymont: Next up we have Kenny Gonzalez.
[00:19:10] Angelita Morillo: Good morning.
[00:19:11] Unidentified speaker: Good morning. My legal name is Kenny R. Gonzalez. And thank you for the time I was given to speak and hear me out. I am concerned of mine and others' life walking, walking through the streets, getting from point A to point B. In 2007, I was hit by a car that gave me traumatic brain injury.
[00:19:40] Addie Smith: Order.
[00:19:40] Unidentified speaker: Vlog cameras are not programmed in the right way. But we do need them. That way we, that way we are able to detect vehicles and pedestrians doing wrong. I will put this out there that I have a criminal record. We should be careful on how we leave a system behind that affects the next working generation. Thank you. We need to hit industries and corporations much harder with fines and better oversight. Let's keep in mind that the policies we are making should not be for us, but our kids and their kids. It's a cycle within a format of the system we are making for the future generations. I would like to hear some of your ideas on how we will get started on this process. And that would be all. Thank you.
[00:20:57] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Thanks for being here today.
[00:21:02] Keelan McClymont: Addie Smith.
[00:21:08] Loretta Smith: All right, one second, y'all.
[00:21:14] Addie Smith: Can you hear me okay? Yep, go ahead. Good morning, my name is Addie Smith. Today is Wednesday, October 7th, 2026. I'm speaking before the Portland City Council. The City Council announced earlier this year that it had over 100 and $6 million in unspent housing funds, yet only provided $5 million towards rental assistance. Oregon is 3rd in the nation in unemployment. The Portland Housing Bureau has been led by Michael Bonocore as bureau director for over 4 years, and he did not develop and implement a division in the bureau to provide rental assistance to Portlanders. Instead, the City Council gave $5 million to Multnomah County. Thank you. And that $5 million is now unaccounted for. Sorry. Firstly, the money was not distributed to the 5 housing organizations these council members said it would be. Multnomah County did not provide those funds to the NSR, El Programa Hispano, ERCO Latino Network, NAYA, and SEI. What Multnomah County does is receive the rental assistance information from these organizations And cuts the check for them. Rachel Pearl also told me that $500,000 of that $5 million is, quote, dedicated to staffing and administration, end quote. Which staffing and administration? Multnomah County? Why are the county staff being paid twice? How is this even possible? Again, the county isn't dispersing the funds you provided to them to these organizations. The county is dispersing the funds themselves. Councilwoman Smith, So why are they paying themselves to disburse the funds? Next, I want to talk about Portland State University. Like Cornell University, they did not investigate allegations of a crime. Cornell University Senior Dean of Student Conduct Christina Liang said, quote, 2024 was one of the most challenging years of my career, and it helped me learn that caring less is okay, end quote. At Portland State University, campus officer Haley Wright Salinas testified to a grand jury that she had no intentions of investigating these allegations of this crime. She knew she had her perk. That was it. Those were her exact words to a grand jury. And the grand jury foreperson, her name is Jazara Calling, indicted a young Black man who asked a woman to leave his dorm. How many times have we seen Uh, a, uh, call a situation play out against a Black man. Black men and men in general have the right to ask a woman to leave without her going and lying to the first police officer they can find. After coming and going all day to this man's dorm, this woman, when he asks her to leave, finds Hailey Wright Salinas and says, oh hey, by the way, He did 8 counts of these charges against me, and it's false. And my vote just might sway in the favor of people you guys don't like because I am sick of the racism in Portland, Oregon, in Oregon in general.
[00:24:33] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much for being here today.
[00:24:36] Keelan McClymont: That completes communications.
[00:24:38] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, everybody. Colleagues, next on our agenda is the presidential update. While we do not have a pre-gavel, obviously, since we're in the middle of the meeting here, I am going to be Thank you, Councilor Herbold. I'm going to be reading a proclamation acknowledging Indigenous Peoples' Day. So very briefly, whereas the City of Portland recognizes that indigenous peoples have inhabited the lands known as the Americas since time immemorial, and whereas the City of Portland is situated at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers, an area with rich history of indigenous villages, trade routes, enduring— and enduring cultural relationships to the land that long predate the arrival and westward expansion of European and American settlers, and Whereas Indigenous peoples continue to advocate for their communities, cultures, ways of life, and well-beings on the land and water, whose importance and role in life— whose importance and role in sustaining their peoples continues from beyond living memory and across generations. And whereas the City of Portland is committed to integrating Indigenous knowledge and perspectives into city practices and policies to address institutional racism and the enduring impacts of policies and actions that have contributed to to disproportionate outcomes for Indigenous peoples in health, education, and economic mobility. And whereas the City of Portland's Tribal Government Relations Program supports and facilitates meaningful consultation with regional tribes to strengthen understanding of and preserve the cultures, histories, and enduring relationships to land rooted in this region. And whereas the City of Portland declares the 2nd Monday of October as Indigenous Peoples' Day. And Whereas Indigenous Peoples' Day provides an opportunity for the City of Portland to recognize and honor the history, cultures, contributions, and contemporary presence of Indigenous peoples while reaffirming the city's commitment to meaningful government-to-government relationship and collaboration with tribal nations. And whereas Indigenous Peoples' Day 2026 provides an opportunity for the City of Portland to reaffirm its commitment to amplifying the voices and visibility of Indigenous people throughout city policies, practices, advocacy, and investments, creating opportunities for meaningful collaboration with Indigenous communities on city initiatives and honoring the history, cultures, and contributions of Indigenous Peoples' Day for— to Indigenous peoples to this nation. Now therefore, I, Keith Wilson, Mayor of the City of Portland, Oregon, the City of Roses, do hereby proclaim October 12th, 2026, as Indigenous Peoples' Day for the City of Portland, and hereby encourage all residents, peoples, businesses, and community members to join with me in expressing support and celebration of Indigenous peoples' incredible contributions. Thank you, colleagues. Can we please call item number 4?
[00:27:35] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-354, October 2026 City Administrator Update.
[00:27:43] Jamie Dunphy: City Administrator Lee, turning it over to you.
[00:27:48] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you, Council President, and good morning to, uh, our councilors. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to share October's City Administrator's Report to City Council. Uh, this month's report is really focused on innovation and collaboration. I'd like to highlight just a few key items, uh, around these themes. The new Portland, uh, Performance Lab was established in July and is housed in my office currently. The team will serve as Yes. As a central resource for performance management, leveraging data-driven practices and guide decision-making citywide. And just keep in mind, this is one of the things that we've heard from numerous councilors as it relates to how are we using data to make informed decisions as we're moving forward in program delivery, but also most importantly in our budgeting process as well. BTS is delivering a project to address pain points in the intake experience for customers Phase 1 delivery is targeted for January 2027, with expansion to be embedded in service area teams by spring of 2027. In October, the city is beginning to develop Portland's next climate action plan. Uh, you'll hear it as CAPS as well, building on existing work including city climate change risk assessment. Thank you.
[00:29:12] Jamie Dunphy: Yes.
[00:29:12] Raymond C. Lee: C40 frameworks, and the climate justice audit response. A public draft is expected by the end of 2027, and we have numerous staff from across the city that is working on this project as well. I'm also pleased to share that Portland Parks and Recreation volunteers contribute over 485,000 hours across parks, programs, and community partnerships last year. These efforts are valued around $16.9 million. This also represents an increase of 22.5% from the previous year. This growth reflects stronger collaboration with community partners as well as improved data collection. Just keep in mind, the city alone cannot provide all the services that we have. Thank you.
[00:30:07] Unidentified speaker: We have to have strong partnerships from the private sector, our nonprofits, and with us to make sure that we're providing a first-class city. Last week, we welcomed the city's first-ever Chief Asset Manager Officer. Clark, I know that's a kudos to you, to the city. Emily Trench is returning to Portland from her most recent post as Acting City Manager in Tigard. She will be leading efforts to create a strategic coordinated, and systematic approach to managing the city's $80 billion portfolio of physical infrastructure and public assets. She will be at the next Public Works Committee meeting, uh, to talk through our asset management plan and framework. Also, I want to share my regular weekly federal immigration enforcement update. There are reports of an uptick in detentions in the Portland metro area. Including 10 yesterday. Uh, 3 of those were in the city of Portland itself. Advocates are currently calling it a confirmed surge and are still assessing the situation. Recent DHS statements, along with the 1-year anniversary of the last major federal enforcement surge in Oregon, are adding to community concern of more surges. For the month of September, PERC reported 76 detentions, continuing a 4-month trend, roughly 70 to 90 monthly detentions compared with 15 to 30 detentions per month earlier, earlier in the year. The Immigrant Affairs Lead continues to finalize the city's employee training and resource for interacting with federal immigration enforcement. Along with outreach events to provide community members with know your rights information and resources. Lastly, I want to note that we got a request for an additional appendix last month listing bids and solicitations, which we'll be able to include in November's report moving forward. Please look forward for that in that monthly report from the CA. As always, I'm incredibly proud of the work of the city, uh, from the previous month and what we're doing currently. The leadership team is here to answer any questions that you may have at this time.
[00:32:33] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, City Administrator Lee. Uh, colleagues, feel free to jump into the queue with any questions. We'll start with Councilor Morillo.
[00:32:40] Angelita Morillo: Um, thank you, Council President. Thanks for those updates, uh, C. Lee. And I, um, yeah, have been running into some of the immigration attorneys and they're struggling to get access to their clients right now. So it's definitely an issue that's— I'm seeing ramp up right now and I'm keeping an eye on. The other thing I had a question on that wasn't in your report, but I'm just flagging for future reports, is do we know when the procurement disparity study is going to be done?
[00:33:12] Raymond C. Lee: Yes, we just— if I can get my mic back on— we just had a conversation. I'm going to ask Tracy Oh, thank you.
[00:33:32] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, City Administrator.
[00:33:33] Tracy Warren: For the record, Tracy Warren, Deputy City Administrator for City Operations. Um, I had a recent conversation with our procurement office. Um, we've received some preliminary information that we're reviewing. We are hoping to finalize Sometime mid-November, late November.
[00:33:51] Angelita Morillo: Okay, that's great. Thanks. Um, I hope that when we get that, it would be great to have a summary of that in your report as well. I had some staff that were able to attend the Community Economic Coalition for Minority Chambers of Commerce, and that was something that they brought up of wanting to have more information. So I'd love to see some of that in the future. But thank you.
[00:34:11] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Vice President Clark.
[00:34:13] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Council President. Um, great report, really appreciate reading all different aspects, but I have a question about the Performance Lab. Um, can you just maybe talk a little bit more about how you decide where to focus the effort or how to prioritize where to focus the effort?
[00:34:32] Raymond C. Lee: What I have requested of the Performance Lab is really working with all bureaus to really come up with 3 to 5 performance measures that really tell the story of how their overall bureau is reporting. What we're really trying to push bureaus in this organization to is really an outcome-based organization and really trying to determine what are the outcomes that we're trying to deliver upon and how are we doing that as a city. We also have our executive leadership dashboard that we are creating as well to really look at those high-level performance indicators that are really telling the story of how we're performing as a city. And we will be using that data to really try to gauge overall objectives, goals, and how we're achieving those things in the long-term strategy. I think as we build towards our strategic planning process, this will become even a bigger endeavor because we will be looking at performance measures that really show us, are we achieving the goals and objectives within Our strategic plan strategy. We're just starting the beginning stages of the internal work that needs to be done for the city. So we're not just counting widgets, but we're actually looking at gauging our overall performance as a city and how we're meeting the needs of our end users, but also all Portlanders who are using our services.
[00:35:57] Olivia Clark: I really appreciate that. I'm just wondering too, at what point will you be sharing that or involving the council in that, particularly those of us that Great question.
[00:36:10] Raymond C. Lee: I think as we were looking at rolling this out, we want to really start having a lot of these conversations as we start having the budget conversation. You know, we'll be starting earlier this year in those conversations to really talk through some of the metrics from a performance standpoint. As we have different bureaus coming and talking to council, we want to make sure that's a component of that conversation. Thank you.
[00:36:31] Unidentified speaker: Councilor Smith. Thank you so much.
[00:36:34] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Kanal.
[00:36:37] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. Good morning. Thanks for being here, City of Lee. Um, so I'll start with, uh, the OHR update. I really appreciate this, and shout out to Asena and Danielle. I saw that down below. Um, wanted to ask about the compliance versus the more aspirational aspects of OHR's charge. This section focuses a lot on compliance In particular on the ADA, but not exclusively. And just wanted to ask about— this has been a conversation kind of off and on, but we haven't heard any updates in terms of adaptations to the focus of OEHR. And just trying to understand if we're going to still be trying to make things better if we've moved exclusively into a compliance mindset. And I know we brought this up in the KPI conversation during the budget, We had a new staffer at that point. So yeah.
[00:37:28] Raymond C. Lee: I think we're always, you know, first and foremost, we're always looking at compliance. But having the culture of an organization that's a continuous improvement organization, which we're trying to deliver upon, I think, Councilor Kanal, what you're speaking to really speaks to that endeavor. So I think as we continue to grow from the standpoint of making sure we're hitting our standards of what we need to do from a compliance, we also need to be looking at how we're growing overall as a city and as an operation, but also how is that being embedded in part of the culture of who we are as a city? And I think that's more of the conversation I think we need to be having. But I would love to entertain some more conversations with you kind of in our conversations as well about how we can do that and kind of where you may potentially see some gaps in that as well.
[00:38:17] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. And could you, since we're on the subject of OHR and I mentioned the Ascenta Danielle work, do you know when that the phase of that work Related to the mayor's executive order is likely to come to council, either the update on the part that's not a council decision but just an update, or the part about code that might require council votes?
[00:38:35] Raymond C. Lee: I'm not sure if we have a date to come back to council, but I believe that's something we can work on. We can work either with one of the committees or the council president to try to get something on the calendar for us to have that conversation.
[00:38:46] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I don't need an exact date. I'm just wondering if— are we looking at next year Kind of.
[00:38:51] Raymond C. Lee: I, I don't know yet. That's why I say I, I'm open to have that conversation to see when we can get on the calendar to actually have that conversation, because I think it is actually a good conversation to have, uh, with everyone, uh, at the table.
[00:39:04] Angelita Morillo: Okay.
[00:39:05] Sameer Kanal: Um, similar question on the timeline for a different item. Um, there's a mention of PGE Harborton and, uh, the next step being on October 14th. It mentions in there that it might get appealed Uh, whatever outcome the hearings officer decides on might get appealed to City Council. Do you have a rough idea of when that might come back to us?
[00:39:27] Unidentified speaker: I have, uh—. I can speak to that.
[00:39:31] Raymond C. Lee: Okay, go ahead.
[00:39:31] Robert Taylor: Um, so Oregon land use law requires that we make a decision within 120 days unless the applicant signs a waiver. Um, PG&E has not signed a waiver, so, uh, my understanding is the 120th day is actually December 31st. So unless PGE signs a waiver, it will be sometime in December.
[00:39:52] Sameer Kanal: Great, thank you for that. The P5 RFP went out, and I just wanted— and I know there's been some conversation behind the scenes, but I don't know the answer myself. Was internal operations of P5 ever considered before an RFP went out?
[00:40:17] Raymond C. Lee: Yes, it was. We did convene a staff from HR, IT, even labor relations in that conversation to really look at the costs associated with bringing in those union groups into the city as part of our operational piece of it. We did see through that analysis an increase, a significant increase in the operational cost of the city be able to do that. And we even questioned some of the subject matter expertise that we had to actually manage that operation with the timeframe that we have from the standpoint of when Metro was ending their portion of this agreement and it transitioning over to the city. It still is an option for us to have to consider though, Councilor, if we're not successful in RFP process and rolling it out and finding a bidder. But it's something that we're—. Thank you. We're constantly having the conversation right now about what that would look like if we're not successful in the RFP process.
[00:41:20] Sameer Kanal: Okay, that, that makes sense. Thank you. Um, so 2 comments and then I'll close out a question. I'll get back in the queue later, but, uh, appreciate the shoutouts to CHAT for their regular collaboration, Blanchet House, and, uh, PSR for the award from the Veterans Affairs, uh, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Um, would love to get Some sort of update. I imagine it'll be coming to the, um, to the, uh, Public Works Committee with relation to the Vision Zero stats showing a return to 2024 levels, um, and, uh, to get an opportunity to have some time there. Um, this may be more of a request for, uh, Chair Clark, sorry. Uh, and, uh, to get to really get a chance to assess and, and dig into the why. Um, and then I'll mention And just on page 18, I really appreciate that the budget note tracker remains. I still am seeing 2 of my budget notes from '25-'26, Canal 8 and Canal 13, marked as complete when they were not. Um, so I brought this up a couple times. I'd just like to see at least an acknowledgement of that before I dig into the, the why on it. One is the, the deputy director and director classifications piece, which I know got rolled into a process that hasn't really gotten underway yet, so it can't possibly be complete. That's Canal 8. Canal 13 is the package delivery fee, which seems to have been subsumed into a broader conversation that resulted in a report on the TUF and the SDRF proposals. But I still haven't gotten the specifics on the package delivery fee piece. And I will get back in the queue for more. But thank you, Council President.
[00:42:51] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Ryan.
[00:42:53] Unidentified speaker: Thank you, Council President, and thank you, City Attorney Lee. I wanted to start by looking at the pause on Prosper Portland's vacant storefront grants due to high demand. Of course, I'm a little attached to that, so I'm going to try to keep monitoring that closely. Who is the staff lead at Prosper Portland on that program? Not sure who the staff lead is on it. I don't know if DCA Oliveira knows exactly. We can probably follow up with you with that information. That'd be great. And then I want to just mention that I'll be looking at how we're measuring success for that and also what distinguishes A winning application from another. I knew there would be high demand for this or I wouldn't have spent so much time on it. So I'm pleased to be affirmed by that. And I think we're on the right track. So thank you. I also wanted to lift something else. Our office herded cats in the city to get to the bottom of the lingering safety concerns at the intersection of Interstate and Going, specifically the Going Street Bridge, where the public hasn't felt safe to use that bridge without escorts for some time.
[00:43:56] Dan Ryan: Thank you. And I'm really pleased to say that last week there was a meeting held and Captain Burley and Sergeant Namba from Portland Police Bureau were there, Mark Williams from PBOT, and Anne Hill and Elizabeth O'Malley from PMO. And just because anytime I've been able to see a cross-collaboration of city leaders focusing on something that the public has been almost screaming about for some time, You start to actually see action. And so I got a report from someone I've known for most of my life, and she said she lives right at the end of that bridge, and she hasn't seen a young child navigate that bridge for years. And so she like blew up my phone saying that she saw a child without an adult escort using the bridge at the end of last week. Now we just have to stay on it. And so I just wanted to lift that. Thank you. And I'll keep my other colleagues in D2, I'm sure, also care about this issue. Thanks so much.
[00:44:58] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor Green.
[00:45:02] Mitch Green: Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Mr. Lee, for the report. I've got— I've just got a few questions about the Appendix D. I appreciate the procurement reports.
[00:45:13] Candace Avalos: I think just one stylistic note, I think the language in the I report is think a little bit confusing.
[00:45:16] Mitch Green: The image that's been pasted in is truncated and it looks like $20,000 over 30 days, but I think that's very clearly $20 million. So just maybe check that going forward. But I do want to get into a substantive question, which is really sort of— I see a number of what look like change orders. And, you know, in particular, I'm going to point to Amendment 3 to price agreement, you know, There's a long string of numbers, but it's a Portland Water Bureau contractor, CMTS LLC. And 3 amendments seem to suggest maybe there's 3 change orders, and then this project is getting more expensive. And I think I'd like to get a handle on when we put out a bid for work at X-dollar budget, how can we understand what the final expenditure is because of the nature of these change orders? I think that's going to be really helpful for us to understand how we deal with our cost control over time and how we approach external contracting more broadly. I understand sometimes it's appropriate to do it and sometimes it saves the city money, but I do worry that there's a number of pieces here that if you don't really know what to look at and, you know, what the nature of it is, and, you know, we can get projects that balloon out in cost. Councilor So that's a—. I don't know if you have an answer right now, probably not, but—.
[00:46:41] Raymond C. Lee: And if my memory serves me correctly, and we'll follow up, but I believe what these change orders are related to is the Bull Run project. Uh, if that's correct, they are related to the Bull Run project. These change orders were the actual work that council had already approved when we increased the budget for Bull Run. These are just the change orders for the work. To get those projects completed that were associated with the actual appropriation that council already changed. But I'll follow up in detail to make sure the ones that you're referring to are related to the Bull Run project.
[00:47:17] Mitch Green: That would be really helpful, and that would make sense here given the scale. I do— that actually reminds me, so there's been some conversation about that oversight advisory body that wasn't set up in the past. It's coming. I would think that that body really should be able to communicate to the public and council what these change orders are, what's going on, what's driving the cost. Because I mean, council did approve the budget increase, but I want to make sure we're not approving another budget increase.
[00:47:50] Raymond C. Lee: You and I both.
[00:47:51] Mitch Green: Okay, so thank you for that. And then there's another one, looks like BES. And it's like there's 3 different price agreements for Green Street repair. I don't know if that's the name of a street or if it's like a sort of a carbon sink type of— I don't know, but I'm curious why there's 3 different awards for the same dollar amount.
[00:48:09] Raymond C. Lee: We'll follow up with you on that one. Okay. Most definitely.
[00:48:14] Mitch Green: And then the last one is, again, I see a nearly $3 million award for some off-the-shelf software and related services. So it's a lot of money, and I know that there's efforts to sort of rein in our overall BTS costs, but really trying to understand, um, where that is in scale, I think would be helpful.
[00:48:37] Raymond C. Lee: We'll add that to the list to follow up on.
[00:48:38] Mitch Green: All right, thanks.
[00:48:40] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Zimmerman.
[00:48:43] Eric Zimmerman: Uh, thank you. I was looking through a report and I missed the name. You mentioned somebody coming over from the City of Tigard for— I think you said Public Works.
[00:48:50] Raymond C. Lee: Yes, Emily.
[00:48:52] Eric Zimmerman: Emily. Does Emily have a last name?
[00:48:53] Raymond C. Lee: Fritsch.
[00:48:54] Sameer Kanal: Great, okay.
[00:48:55] Eric Zimmerman: And she's gonna be the— can you say the position again?
[00:48:58] Raymond C. Lee: Chief Asset Officer.
[00:49:00] Eric Zimmerman: Great, thank you for that. As a former Deputy City Manager over there, I'm sure she's coming with great pedigree. That's awesome. I wanted to heap some praise on the city and on Public Works. Councilor Clark and I this weekend were able to join the businesses around Harvey Milk and 12th Avenue and the opening of Pride Plaza, and the city's help in that area has just been really commendable. And it's been a rough few years. We've opened, we've closed, we've cleaned up, we've repainted, right? It's been a lot going on, and it's a historic area for my community. And so DCA Williams was there, so it was great to have her and great to have other members of the PBOT team there, and it was really a special event. So So I just wanted to say thank you for that. And these things take a lot of care and feeding to make them successful when we do do them. So appreciate that. And then I have one request, and it's just for a consideration of how we do future work, is having come from the world of, you know, the council manager, former government, I'm fairly used to a council will pass a resolution requesting That the city administrator and of course the rest of the city work on an ordinance, for instance. We're in an interesting practice here. We haven't really done that. And the reason most cities have that is it's kind of a backstop for how much work will a bureau or other offices do on behalf of a councilor, an individual councilor, before it takes the body saying we want to work on this. Okay. What's happening now is that individual councilors work a lot on ordinances, and sometimes that's with our legal department, and I think that's very much within the bounds, right? There's almost no end to that. But when that work involves significant amount of work with a department, most cities have a policy or at least a guiding principle for where do we cross the threshold into new assignment of work, and that threshold requires a resolution by the City Council. We haven't gotten that yet, and I think as you come up on the end of your first year and you've got a sense for like how work happens here, I hope that will be one of the recommendations as we head into the new year for, um, okay, we see you want to work on this, we can give you a few guiding points, but to, to, for me to reallocate a bureau to work on a new ordinance, it's going to take a resolution by council to do that. Thank you. I'd like to see something come if you think that that would be a responsible manner in the future. I think it will help us kind of clear up some of the confusion that I experienced, and I think others maybe do, of bureaus spending time on councilor projects, whether they be holistic projects or pet projects. And I think that that's an important kind of test point for us. So I do appreciate that. It doesn't prevent councilors from bringing anything they want. Thank you. But it does protect city services and city time. Um, and I think that your professionalism can bring some thought around that. It's new for the City of Portland, and everybody's still trying to figure it out. Thank you.
[00:52:11] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[00:52:13] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Smith.
[00:52:15] Loretta Smith: Thank you, Council President. Uh, thank you, City Administrator Lee, for your report. I want to go back to something you said you were bringing into your office. It was a new Portlanders who So what I'm trying to figure out, what is the difference between that new person that you're bringing into your office and our immigration and what Brenda does?
[00:52:38] Raymond C. Lee: Brenda is that person that came from the mayor's office to my office.
[00:52:41] Loretta Smith: Okay, so that's in— okay, you're talking about Brenda?
[00:52:44] Sameer Kanal: Correct.
[00:52:45] Loretta Smith: Okay, I was like, who is that? What is— how is that gonna jive with Brenda? So the other, um, question I have for you is what about the unspent art funds. Have we decided what we're going to do with that yet?
[00:52:59] Raymond C. Lee: I don't believe so.
[00:53:01] Eric Zimmerman: I'd have to look—.
[00:53:02] Loretta Smith: Was it $9 million or something like that?
[00:53:05] Raymond C. Lee: I'd have to take a look at it and see. Let me follow up on that one, Councilor, and then I can report back out on it.
[00:53:10] Loretta Smith: Okay, perfect. Thank you.
[00:53:12] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Knoll.
[00:53:16] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. I have a 3 other questions. Um, so in Appendix F, there's a, uh, note about, you know, the, the contract expiration date. One of the ones, the only one that I think is noted for 2026, is, uh, December 15th. The Rapid Response Bioclean contract is up. Um, this is a topic of, of pretty high, uh, public interest, um, around, um, the work report on solutions, things like that. Um, and I'm curious as to What the plan is— this is sort of a 2-parter— what the plan is for council input engagement, and separately, what's the plan for public input and/or engagement as it relates to the idea of, do we need this work to be the way it is, or should it change in some way? And then separately, and I think it may be less than the latter, who the contractor should be. How does that work? Is there a plan for how to reconsider— how to consider this as part of the conversation about renewal?
[00:54:11] Raymond C. Lee: There may be one, but I'm just not aware of it. I'd have to follow up with our Portland Solutions staff to kind of verify what that is. And with the expiration of that contract being really right around the corner, what's the plan? 'Cause typically when contracts are like that or around the corner for expiration, we already have an RFP already in the process to either extension or extend it, or we're no longer doing that service. So let me follow up with that staff and then have a conversation after that. Okay.
[00:54:40] Sameer Kanal: And I don't mean to imply that there should be a change to anything. I just want to make sure that that's something that's evaluated, uh, as opposed to just assumed. Gotcha. Um, with relation to the claims, um, I have a lot that I'm, I'm interested in getting more info on. I really appreciate how much is in there. Um, there's a couple questions, like in, on, in the middle of page 28, there's an item marked as the Office of the City Attorney. We've had a couple in the past where, uh, it was marked as either the mayor, councilor, city attorney when it didn't necessarily occur there, but they're just the ones who handled it or ended up sort of managing it. And I'm—. In that particular case, I'm curious about it. There's some, um, uh, last line of page 28 has a refusal to approve permits, uh, violates their constitutional rights allegation that's marked as claim denied. And I think there's, there's some interest there. Uh, a couple on, uh, allegations of injuries sitting in the back of of PPV vehicles. I want to follow up on all of those, but I, I think, um, the one that I wanted to ask is about— it's on page 32 near the bottom. There's something marked as the Office of Budget and Finance that says in the description that Portland Police failed to cite a driver that damaged the, um, the claimant's vehicle. And I'm curious because this one resulted in a plaintiff's verdict.
[00:55:57] Addie Smith: Yes.
[00:55:59] Sameer Kanal: Several bicycle crashes have been brought up to us, and including here, where the complaint was partially about the fact that there was a collision in the first place, where a car struck the person on their bicycle. But the reason that it was coming to us as a complaint is that there was no citation issued. Okay. And given that there has now been a judgment against us for at least one of those situations, I'm curious if you could follow up and see if there will be any change in practice around the idea of citing drivers who collide with bicyclists, um, you know, outside of—.
[00:56:41] Raymond C. Lee: Yeah, yeah, I believe that's something most definitely we can look into and follow up. Thanks.
[00:56:48] Sameer Kanal: And then the last question, I just wanted to follow up on Councilor Clark's I have a follow-up to Councilor Clark's original question around the performance lab. It's a big step. I'm really happy that there is a performance office. And my question was going to be, what are the— how are we deciding the metrics? Given the response there, I really want to push back on the idea that bureaus should be setting their own metrics. I think we need to have this be related to the strategic priority setting of the city, our core values, and all that. When bureaus set their own goals, we end up with With sometimes things that council, or frankly just the public, believes should be being done. It's fairly obvious which bureau or bureaus should be doing it, and then it's not done because that's not a priority of that given bureau director. We also have the possibility of whiplash in the sense that a bureau director could change and now there's a new set of priorities, which has occurred in the past as well. So I just, I wanted to kind of dig deeper on how we're going to be establishing KPIs. Okay. I think that the bureau director's input should be one of several inputs. I think it's a very valid thing to ask for. I just don't want it to be the only thing or the primary thing.
[00:57:56] Raymond C. Lee: Yeah. And I think ultimately we're in this transitional period and during this transitional period, more than likely it would be me kind of making that final decision for the bureaus of kind of what makes sense from a performance measure and do I see it hitting the mark of really telling the story of the operations and the service delivery that's supposed to take place for that bureau. I think the bigger question is really going to be around that strategic planning process and the priority setting that council will be setting during that process. And we'll be coming back to council and saying, hey, these are measures that we think really hit home of telling the story if we're achieving that as a priority for the city. And I think that's the real thing that we'll be having conversations as we come through the budgeting process. Through the budgeting calendar of really having those conversations with council. But a much broader question regarding key performance indicators and performance measures for the city will be done through that strategic planning process. We're just trying to figure out what's the stopgap, because we're still trying to change the culture of the city. The culture of the city has not always been from the standpoint of having these key performance indicators or performance measures to be able to tell the story of the successes or the failures or the opportunities for growth for the city. So I think council is and will be engaged in that conversation, but I'm just trying to get the culture of the organization there to kind of really tell the difference between counting widgets, what are the key performance indicators, and what are performance measures, because those are all 3 different things that tell different stories.
[00:59:40] Angelita Morillo: Thank you.
[00:59:41] Olivia Clark: Councilor Kanal, can I just interrupt for a second or just build on what you're saying? I don't think that our strategic planning process, though, is going to be complete before we start this new budget round. So we're in that transition period, as you said.
[00:59:55] Raymond C. Lee: Yes. And hopefully, as we are going through this budgeting process and bureaus will be coming before the council, because it'll be a different process than what we did last year. We're trying to get ahead of the curve from the standpoint of having bureaus and the CA report come to council beforehand. So we're starting these conversations a lot earlier than what we did last year. The mayor's proposed budget will still be on that kind of same timeframe, but council will be getting some previews into some of the conversations related kind of how are our bureaus performing, what are the key things that we're looking at, hearing those conversations from council. As well will kind of help set that tone. We're in this little tricky phase as well too, because if you remember last year, we had our priority setting conversation that council went through to kind of really set their priorities. I would've much preferred to have that conversation before we start the budget season, but since we're right in the midst of election season, it wasn't advantageous for us to go ahead and start that conversation. Right. So we'll know which body we have and which body will be setting those priorities. So we'll much prefer to get into these priority setting conversations much earlier in the fall timeframe. So as the mayor's guidance to the city is coming out, as we are looking at kind of what are those key outcomes that we're trying to deliver upon, we have the council's priorities that are working in line in conjunction with that. Thank you. And what are those performance measures? And we can have those conversations with council that we're looking at and evaluating to be able to see how are we hitting the mark or we're not hitting the mark. And that will be a council conversation with us as well regarding are these measures really hitting what we are using to be able to gauge our success or our opportunities for growth as a city.
[01:01:55] Sameer Kanal: Okay, so just to follow up on I just want to jump in and clarify that. When you're talking about the strategic planning process, that's bigger than just what council did in the beginning of this year, which is a strategic priority setting. Correct. And it's a process where— by the way, this was something that kept being brought up by the transition team when we all took office as this thing. It's not written down in the same way that it was presented to us as a big forthcoming plan when the new city administrator got here. Obviously, a few weeks after that, we extended, you know, the hiring process got pushed from what was planned to be July 1st, 2025 to when it obviously happened in January of 2026. So I'm excited for this. I understand the need to move it to a time that makes sense to inform the budget process. But I'm still unclear on sort of who's in the driver's seat on that. And I would love some clarity down the line as to who is leading what part of that work. Strategy is a legislative directional piece. I think it's pretty clear, you know, in terms of how things are then implemented, that there's an administrative piece. And so this is kind of one of the several places where we're still talking about how broad is broad enough to be council, how narrow is narrow enough that it has to be administration. And I'd just love to have that conversation before it's— there's a plan put in place that picks up a place to put that line.
[01:03:16] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you.
[01:03:17] Sameer Kanal: Does that make sense?
[01:03:19] Raymond C. Lee: It makes sense. I would say from a best management practice, you typically have your administrative group really lead that process, but you're always seeking council's insight and guidance in that conversation because the staff are the ones that's doing the work every day, all day. But you got to have that input from the city council as it relates to Is that resonating from a performance matrix standpoint? And is that really hitting home to the constituents that you are representing and the Portlanders that you're representing? Do they even understand what that means to them? So I think as we look at kind of performance measures and how we're performing overall as a city, I think the staff have to lead to a certain point, but it has to be some council engagement and input in that to make sure that is resonating or that even hitting the mark on the policy decisions that are being made by council.
[01:04:18] Sameer Kanal: Okay, so I think that makes sense. I think best practices in other cities are, are very relevant. There's one— there's a deviation, I think, between sort of the direction that has been desired by the public and the direction, at least A handful, maybe more, of, of bureaus in terms of the direction that's been set, not by the rank-and-file staff, but by historical leadership that's mostly not even here anymore, right? And so I think that the way that— that, that's not just an assertion, it's, it's backed up by the fact that we changed our whole form of government for a reason. And so I, I think it, it makes sense to, to have a greater role for the public's representatives in it. And I would hope that we're not just assuming that piece. Yeah. Um, my last question is not directly related to the report, but as a, um, sort of adjacent piece to it and, and, and building off the last piece, do you think it's appropriate for council to be directed to submit public records requests to get information out of the bureaus? Um, this has been something— not, not for work requests. I, I recognize what Councilor Zimmerman was talking about earlier in that space, but in terms of just understanding You have a report, can I have it? Is that something that, that you have given direction about to the, to the bureaus?
[01:05:38] Unidentified speaker: It's some conversation that we've been having internally as it relates to the oversight component of what council is providing, as it relates to any oversight hearing that may be presented of how we're capturing that information and how we're tracking the time associated with gathering that information. I think if you're asking for a report as councilors, for something that has already been created, no, there shouldn't be any open records requests asked of staff to be able to do that. If you're asking for communication, emails, you know, things that we might not have readily at right hand to us, then I think we have to look at what is that process to gather that information and make sure we're getting into council in a timely manner. And that it's not just getting lost in the ether of all the rest of the information that are coming through From the standpoint of requesting for information. So I think it really depends on the context of how that request is coming through and the process. I just had a conversation 2 weeks ago with my leadership team regarding, hey, we gotta figure this out. 'Cause I didn't, you know, I'll use Councilor Zimmerman and his request for information that came through. I don't like the fact that we have these things and we don't have a process Yes. To really say, hey, I'm acknowledging receipt of this request. And then what is the process to process that? We do have that for open records requests, but we don't have that really for us as an internal use of how we're handling these type of matters. And keep in mind, having 12 councilors can even add even more to that conversation. So I think it's something that I've started the initial conversations with our leadership team of saying, hey, we got to figure this process out. I'm not looking for, you know, nitpicking every little thing that council sends out from the standpoint of saying, oh, this needs to be an open records request. And I believe we should be able to be responsive because that's the biggest thing in my values that I'm trying to stress to the city is being responsive to these type of things. We have to figure that out. So I wouldn't say I have I don't have my mind made up of what that process is. I think there's different things that are taking place as it relates to oversight that takes place from council in our oversight hearings. And there's also that occasional, hey, do you have a report that was sent out to the city on such and such date that should be able to be responded to in a timely fashion by staff?
[01:08:13] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, and I guess just to put up one particular finer point, this isn't the only concern, but Is the intention to charge us?
[01:08:22] Raymond C. Lee: No.
[01:08:23] Sameer Kanal: Okay, um, I, I think that's important to note, especially with the people in the room right now. Um, I, I just— I'll just end on a comment, which is Charter 2-109. Um, and I'm speaking as the chair of, of a committee that's referenced here. In aid of its legislative function, the council or a committee of the council duly authorized by it may investigate any board or department of the city government and any official acts of Sorry, the official acts and conduct of any city officer, employee, or agent for the purposes of ascertaining facts in connection with such investigation shall have full power to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses. And it goes on. But I, I don't— I think what we've managed to do so far is not get into the really formal things because we haven't had to. And I've been being stonewalled right now, um, on several things. I've forwarded them to your office. Um, and so I, I want to get to a place where that's not where we're not having to go to the charter text. But I, I can tell you how it feels to be told to have to submit public records requests. It doesn't feel great. So, uh, I need to get that on the record during this time, and I appreciate it. Thanks, Council President.
[01:09:24] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Green.
[01:09:28] Mitch Green: In the interest— I'm going to be brief because I think we've spent a lot of time on this item, but, um, I just wanted to flag— we follow up this conversation later before the end of the year That our, um, our contract authorization amount for Urban Alchemy will be exhausted by the end of fiscal year. So, and that's not something that it can just be a city administrator action because there's no budget authority for it beyond this. I just, I want to put in the record now that we need to have a conversation as a council what to expect for the next budget and the year after that with, with our temporary alternative shelters. Um, and then also, uh, the lift city bike share thing, I'd like to have a conversation about maybe, maybe looking for a different vendor there.
[01:10:11] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[01:10:12] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Smith, last word.
[01:10:14] Loretta Smith: Thank you. City Administrator, I'm looking at your report and I noticed that Prosper Portland has the vacant storefront grants that Dan Ryan was talking about, and then there's the $100,000 for grocery stores. Now, it is my understanding That, um, and I've called and talked to Prosper about this, but I thought that those grants were going to go up to $500,000 for the grocery stores because Don McKeever in our district has been trying to get this. And if I'm not mistaken, they said that they were trying to get $500,000 from the city, and I know he put his application in. So, so are we going above the $100,000? Um, To help with that Parkrose. This is—. Is this the same grant or is it a different grant?
[01:11:07] Donnie Oliveira: Thank you for the question, Councilor. Donnie Oliveira, for the record. Uh, so Councilor, what you're referring to is, uh, work that Prosper has been engaged in Parkrose, East Portland, related to a particular site that is outside of the grant program that's listed in the city administration report.
[01:11:21] Loretta Smith: That's outside the $100,000 grant.
[01:11:23] Donnie Oliveira: That is a distinct pathway That we started actually before that grant program launched.
[01:11:27] Loretta Smith: Okay, so he is still— because I was like, if he's going to be reduced to $100,000, he's not going to be able to do it.
[01:11:33] Donnie Oliveira: Yeah, so just being clear, yeah, different distinct project, uh, that's outside of the parameters of the grant program.
[01:11:40] Loretta Smith: Okay, perfect.
[01:11:40] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[01:11:41] Donnie Oliveira: And Councilor Ryan, Andrew Fitzpatrick is, is the staff person to reach out to.
[01:11:45] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Knoll, one last word.
[01:11:50] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, just to flag, there's an Urban Alchemy, uh, related oversight hearing coming up that should be, uh, relevant, I hope, to the, um, conversation around, uh, contract renewal that Councilor Green brought up. It's on November 5th.
[01:12:01] Addie Smith: Thanks.
[01:12:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Thank you much, colleagues. Thank you, City Administrator Lee. Can we please move to item number 5?
[01:12:11] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-312, add bulk fuel terminal capacity reduction regulations code to reduce critical energy infrastructure Fuel storage by 2036 in support of hazard mitigation, add code chapter 17.112.
[01:12:27] Jamie Dunphy: All right, colleagues, this is a continued first reading of our last item, of our item from last week, I guess. Uh, it's a continued council meeting for item 2026-312, the ordinance for the bulk fuel terminal capacity reductions regulations. The legislative record for this ordinance is closed. Based on council deliberations on possible amendments, council may decide to reopen the record for oral or written testimony at a future meeting. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss proposed amendments to this ordinance. As a reminder, last week council heard and amended the related land use item 2026-311, the recommended draft for CEI Hub policy project and amendments to the comp plan and Title 33. We will return on November 5th to adopt findings, technical updates, etc. Uh, colleagues, this is the week of the November elections, so please notify Council Operations if you plan to absent. The legislative record for 2026-311 is closed for new testimony and will not be considered today. As for the last 2 weeks, the staff is available to answer questions and has slides running through proposed amendments to help us track what's happening if we need. We are currently in consideration of Novick 1 regarding a commitment to utilize PSEF funds for transportation purposes. When we concluded last week, we had limited debate To those in the queue, and there were 2 remaining to speak. Um, I am going to, uh, now move on. The 2 in the row that were in queue to speak were, uh, Councilor Kanal and then Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Uh, Councilor Kanal.
[01:13:58] Sameer Kanal: Thank you. Um, Council President, just pulling up notes here. Sorry, um, have the wrong amendment open. Thanks. Um, so we are in debate on Novick 1. I appreciate this Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilor Mitch Green. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilor Jonas. Thank you, Councilor Loretta Smith, for bringing this. We've talked in several committees, I think, at this point about the need to have transportation be a part of the conversation and a bigger one. As we've done so, I think there have been a few— this is one of those strange amendments where I have concern about the specific text but not the overall direction piece. So I wanted to speak to that. There are 3 parts of this, 3 parts of this amendment. The first one is that the state legislature is likely to override any drawdown requirement. I can't support the compliance in advance piece of that. The idea that we're going to just capitulate because we think they might preempt us. Again, I've mentioned that there's data out there showing that when cities act, states become less likely to preempt. And I don't— I sort of reject that premise. The second piece is I've been talking about the Reduction in demand not being something we directly mirror in here in terms of requiring that a drawdown be a mirror to demand. I understand that there are folks who'd like that, and that's been a conversation. And then the third thing has been raised already around whether or not we should direct the PSEF committee in here. So those are my concerns with the text. Having said all of that, I am actually very interested in this, and when it came up in the Climate Investment Plan amendment conversation, To have transportation be a bigger part of this, um, about— of, of what we spend PSF dollars on. I'm very supportive of that, and I continue to be. And while I have the floor, I'll take the, the second to give a pipe dream that we, um, give some, some money from PSF to, uh, TriMet for ongoing operations as matching funds based upon increases from their highest budget. Uh, and as a condition of that, we pursue an IGA where, uh, at least one of the members of the board is appointed by the I think we've had a lot of concern raised with TriMet around their inability to appoint people who are even TriMet users. I think that was widely reported that 5 of the 7 members a couple years ago had not swiped their HopCard in the last year. I think having some direct tie to it will be helpful for us, especially if we're going to be putting in ongoing dollars. I also think that there's been conversation that Councilor Novick has raised Yes. About some of the one-off, uh, capital, um, uh, contributions we could give from, from PSEF to, um, to TriMet for, for one-time usage. Um, I do want to work through the committee to do that. I, I, I—. That's the piece to me that's, that's giving me the most pause here, is the idea of, um, sort of putting our thumb on the scale. I, I recognize it's not written as a, as a requirement, And I appreciate that piece a lot. But that's sort of where I'm coming from on this one, and I'm looking forward to hearing what colleagues have to say.
[01:17:00] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:17:04] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. I don't have my notes about what I was going to say as organized as Councilor Knoll did, um, but I believe I was in the queue just to make clear that while I, I can't support language that creates a minimum I do think it is important for us to be moving toward higher investments in transportation infrastructure. I think there's a lot of ways we could be investing in decarbonizing our transportation system that we are not currently. And I had mentioned last week and will reiterate now that if the, um, if the sponsor of this amendment were interested in language that less specific about meeting a 40% target and more in line with the language that I believe I read last week, that our investments in transportation are in line with the 40% emissions coming from the transportation sector, and that we increase the percent of Portland Clean Energy Fund dollars spent on transportation measures, that that's something I would certainly be able to support either in this legislation or as a Thank you, Council President.
[01:18:17] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilors Novick and Smith, I have limited debate to those who were previously in the queue, but as a courtesy, I'll extend a quick comment to each of you. Councilor Novick and then Councilor Smith, and then we will move to a vote.
[01:18:30] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I really appreciate Councilor Kanal's remarks. I just wanted to say that although I wrote the language about the legislative preemptus in the actual amendment language, I also made clear last week the other point that I don't know that we would want to cause a fuel crisis and soaring gas prices by imposing a drawdown if we haven't given the people of Portland more opportunities to not buy gas by investing in transit and biking, walking infrastructure, and electric car infrastructure. Also, in response to what Councilor Pirtle-Guiney just said, She did share some language with me last week, which I'd be willing to adopt if you— if the president allowed us to do sort of a substitute amendment, partly because I'd like to get at least one more vote and partly because I'm always more comfortable working as part of the vast Jewish conspiracy than working alone.
[01:19:31] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor, if you would like to substitute the language on it, do you have it reduced to writing?
[01:19:36] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I believe I reduced it to writing last week, and if you give me about 2 minutes, I can find it, maybe less.
[01:19:42] Jamie Dunphy: I would be happy to allow Councilor Novick to substitute the language. And Councilor Smith, do you have a— okay. Councilor Knoll, are you back in the queue? Okay.
[01:19:56] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Council President, I'm sending this to both you and Councilor Novick right now.
[01:20:00] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[01:20:01] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: You all can determine who else it needs to go to.
[01:20:07] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you. Councilor Novick, is this, uh, language sufficient for you?
[01:20:14] Steve Novick: I haven't seen it yet.
[01:20:15] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, it just came through on a Teams message.
[01:20:17] Steve Novick: Oh, it's on Teams.
[01:20:18] Sameer Kanal: Goddamn it, I hate Teams.
[01:20:21] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I'm sorry, Councilor, it was the fastest way to get it to the two of you.
[01:20:27] Olivia Clark: I hate it too, Steve.
[01:20:29] Sameer Kanal: It's okay.
[01:20:30] Unidentified speaker: I second that, Steve. I hate teams.
[01:20:36] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Councilor, would you like me to send it to your email as well?
[01:20:39] Steve Novick: Actually, no, I'm not that incompetent, just, uh, just greatly incompetent. Um, all right, so the language that Councilor Perugini has just sent over is the council recognizes that unless there is an actual reduction in demand for The state legislature is likely to override any drawdown requirement before that requirement becomes effective. Therefore, it is incumbent on the city to do what it can to reduce demand. Accordingly, council expresses our commitment to work with the PCEP committee and other stakeholders to ensure that in the next climate investment plan, we bring our investments in transportation more in line with the 40% of emissions coming from the transportation sector and increase the percent of Portland Clean Energy Fund dollars spent on transportation measures to promote transit, biking, walking, transition to electric cars, and other measures to reduce emissions.
[01:21:20] Olivia Clark: Thank you.
[01:21:21] Steve Novick: And the reduction of diesel emissions. I can support that. And now let's see, now we need to figure out how to get that language to the clerk.
[01:21:32] Jamie Dunphy: I have forwarded the language to the clerk. Are we— what's the best procedure? I mean, procedurally, do we withdraw the amendment and reintroduce this? Okay. Councilor Novick, would you withdraw and then reintroduce?
[01:21:44] Steve Novick: I hereby withdraw and reintroduce.
[01:21:46] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[01:21:46] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, we're gonna call it Novick 2 now.
[01:21:49] Olivia Clark: There was a second.
[01:21:50] Jamie Dunphy: And is there a second?
[01:21:51] Olivia Clark: Yeah, second.
[01:21:52] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, I'll second.
[01:21:53] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Councilor— Oh, Clark did already. That's fine.
[01:21:56] Keelan McClymont: Really quickly, there was already a Novick 2 and 3, so we should do this.
[01:22:01] Jamie Dunphy: We'll call it Novick 4.
[01:22:02] Sameer Kanal: Novick 4.
[01:22:03] Jamie Dunphy: Okay.
[01:22:04] Keelan McClymont: And then, I'm sorry, who was the second?
[01:22:04] Jamie Dunphy: Vice President Clark seconds.
[01:22:06] Keelan McClymont: Great, thank you.
[01:22:07] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, Councilor Avalos, I'm happy to—.
[01:22:11] Candace Avalos: I guess I just wanted to see where's the language, where am I looking for it? Is it in our email?
[01:22:16] Unidentified speaker: Is it—.
[01:22:18] Jamie Dunphy: I will go ahead and email it around to everybody right now. Just— sorry. Okay, just hit send. I'll give colleagues a second to read this so we can know what we're actually going to vote on.
[01:22:41] Addie Smith: Okay.
[01:22:53] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Morillo.
[01:22:56] Angelita Morillo: Um, are we willing to remove the state legislature is likely to override any drawdown requirement portion of this?
[01:23:05] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Novick.
[01:23:09] Steve Novick: I'm actually, depending on the language, I'm open to that. If we said something like the council recognizes that an actual reduction for liquid fuel is a logical precondition for a drawdown requirement or something like that.
[01:23:32] Jamie Dunphy: Again, we will need that I mean, reduce to writing but open to it. And we do—.
[01:23:38] Steve Novick: With Councilor Morillo, would that language be acceptable?
[01:23:43] Angelita Morillo: Yeah, I think that would be better.
[01:23:47] Unidentified speaker: All right.
[01:23:47] Steve Novick: Can somebody who's better at teams, et cetera, than me say the council recognizes that an actual reduction in demand for liquid fuel, it's a logical precondition for a drawdown requirement to become effective.
[01:24:05] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, Councilor Murillo, do you have further—.
[01:24:11] Angelita Morillo: Or, uh, No, if it's edited that way, I would feel more comfortable with it, is what I'm saying.
[01:24:19] Jamie Dunphy: Um, thank you. We will get that additional language circulated. Councilor Green?
[01:24:25] Mitch Green: Yeah, I, I had the same concern, and I think Councilor Novick I think Eric's suggestion there satisfies my complaint. I don't really like putting into our ordinances that we think the state legislature is going to preempt us. So, and then I think softening the percentage that goes into the PSF piece is fine. I do think that we need to actively lead a conversation around increasing decarbonization of transportation in PSF. So I can support this amendment.
[01:24:54] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you.
[01:24:55] Mitch Green: If provided his language gets in there, and it's what, Novick 5 now?
[01:24:58] Loretta Smith: Is that—.
[01:24:58] Mitch Green: Was it—.
[01:24:59] Jamie Dunphy: We're gonna— our attorneys are gonna just revise the language on Novick 4.
[01:25:03] Angela Wright: Okay.
[01:25:03] Candace Avalos: All right.
[01:25:04] Jamie Dunphy: So the language has been revised to that. We will share that around. Councilor Koyama Lane.
[01:25:11] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Yeah, I continue to appreciate Councilor Novick's dedication to this, and I like to see Councilor Novick and Councilor Pirtle-Guiney working together and compromising.
[01:25:21] Keelan McClymont: I was—.
[01:25:22] Tiffany Koyama Lane: When I first saw it, I was like, but I tried to compromise with you first. But I understand why you went with Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, because I feel more comfortable.
[01:25:31] Angela Wright: I don't—.
[01:25:32] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I'm not convinced that this is the right place for this, to be making this commitment and to be naming PSF. And so I feel more comfortable. And I had talked to a couple community members that, you know, originally worked on the original PSF ballot measure, and the language that That we talked more about was just expressing commitment to incorporate strategies to reduce the demand for fossil fuels in transportation across its climate planning and operations and increase transportation measures to promote transit, biking, walking, transition to electric cars, reduction of diesel emissions. And so I can't support this because it is— I don't feel like this is quite the right place for this, and it is signaling still that there is commitment. I think this is not the right place, and we have a chance to be working on the next CIP. Community groups are excited for us to be coming to the table and be part of that process earlier on, and I think that's a better place to be specifically working on PSF.
[01:26:33] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Carmelene. Councilor Connell.
[01:26:36] Sameer Kanal: Thank you. I just want to note this. I appreciate that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's It sounds like that proposal kind of addresses the third sentence and the concerns I have there. And it sounds like the language from Councilor Morillo will address the first. I still am concerned about the idea of it being a logical precondition. That linkage to me, I understand that other people make it, I don't. So that's not to say we should create shortages, but the idea that we're—.
[01:27:05] Steve Novick: I agree.
[01:27:06] Sameer Kanal: The precondition piece implies that we're going to have to reduce demand, see that, and then only then are we allowed to have the safety needs met that are achieved by drawdown. So that to me is where I'm still getting a lot of pause on this particular one, although I do recognize there's been significant improvements from both of the two proposals.
[01:27:31] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
[01:27:35] Candace Avalos: Yeah, I agree. I'm feeling concerned because I— what I don't understand is, for example, if, um, let's see, so if we don't increase PCF dollars accordingly based on how this is structured, then what, right? Like, I don't understand what the bindingness of this is. And again, it just feels way too early to be making that kind of commitment. We have a CIP process for a reason. I'm still not comfortable with how it's laid out. I appreciate what people are doing trying to soften it, but I still don't think this is the place for it. And I think, you know, if I would be open if it was even more watered down to say, you know, again, that we're committed to working with PSF, yada yada, but I think it just feels I think it's inappropriate to make that kind of commitment in this way, the way it's written right now. And so I don't plan on supporting this. And I would really encourage colleagues to not support this because we can have this conversation. We talked about it last week when we were discussing this amendment, and everybody felt clear that we are going to have this conversation in the CIP. I don't think this resolves that for me in the way that it's been written. Councilmember Loretta Smith.
[01:28:53] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Councilor Green.
[01:28:57] Mitch Green: Yeah, I just wanted to speak a little bit to why, why I am supporting it. Um, this is in the findings of the ordinance. This is not a directive. Um, and I, I view that as sort of saying we're building a legislative record here and we're putting into the record what we acknowledge to be facts. And, you know, I think that's a good thing. And I do think it's true that if you were to sort of say we're going to regulate the CEI Hub and we want an aggressive drawdown, to defend that over time, we need to be able to sort of create the conditions that firm up our forecasts on a forward-looking expectations basis that we see a reduction in fuel demand. I see this as an effort to buttress that a little bit and provide the City Council and the City of Portland stronger armor to defend that.
[01:29:45] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[01:29:45] Mitch Green: To say, you know what, we are seeing this reduction in demand and it's following from policy choices that we have made. And, and so then we have some confidence that we can continue to forecast in that direction. And then we have confidence that we can— because we passed a directive, an amendment last week that basically says come back and give us a more trued-up and timely alternative method for the drawdown. And that's, I think, connected to this idea that we can shape So that part I actually— I look at differently, Councilor Knoll, and I think it's because this creates the conditions for the forecasting basis to have a more aggressive need over time is what I'm arguing or what I'm seeing from this. And I think it gives us a stronger basis to sort of defend our positions that we'll take. In terms of the CIP thing, I think that's a good point.
[01:30:37] Eric Zimmerman: Yeah.
[01:30:38] Mitch Green: I don't— again, there's nothing binding here that says we expect the CIP to do X, Y, and Z amount of transportation investment. It basically declares our intent to say we want to work with our external stakeholders, we want to work with community, we want to work with the committee to foster that conversation in a very open and public way. And I think that is important, and that's something I've started to try to do in some spaces. I think that's a great idea. And recognizing that no one councilor should try to do that, no one committee should try to do that. I think we have to have an honest conversation with the public about how important transportation emissions are in our 5-year planning process for that. So that's why I'm supporting it. I understand the reservations that people do have, but I think those tweaks on that were enough to get me there. And I've been thinking increasingly about this ongoing annual basis where we true up our need and our sort of capacity determination. And I do think we have to have some, some finding here that says we have to actively encourage a reduction in, in the need. So that, that's where I'm at.
[01:31:44] Jamie Dunphy: Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:31:48] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President and Councilor Green. Thank you for all of those explanations that you just put on the record. I think they're all incredibly important as we look at the why behind I'll add to that that there have already been many times and will certainly be many more times when councilors signal where they would like to see PSF or any other work within our city move. And we provide a lot of direction through more casual signaling or through passing resolutions which suggest a direction that we'd like to go.
[01:32:24] Addie Smith: Thank you.
[01:32:25] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: And the way that I worded this suggestion that is now Novick 4 was intended to give us an opportunity to do just that, to say this needs to be a part of the conversation, to say PCF committee, if this passes, know that a majority of council would like us to do more work in this space and that we see that as connected to our ability to meet the goals that we're putting forward.
[01:32:51] Addie Smith: Thank you.
[01:32:52] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: And the reductions that we know the entire community would like to see in fuel coming through the CEI Hub. And that is an important part of the CEI Hub conversation and that it's important to be transparent and not just have individual councilors signaling where we'd like to go, but as a body have the opportunity to show that we see our work as we move forward with the PCF committee as tied to this work that we're doing today around CEI Hub. Thank you, Council President.
[01:33:24] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Smith.
[01:33:27] Loretta Smith: Thank you, Council President. I wasn't going to speak earlier because I thought we were going to take a vote, and so now we have totally changed once again from last week, and we should have took the vote last week. Um, my stance is still the same. This is a very important issue that deserves to be on the agenda so the public can see and hear about it. No one knew that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, Councilor Novick was going to put this forward. They deserve an opportunity to put this in here. I don't think you need to, to do that. I think that we, um, need to have a standalone issue and, and determine what the percentages are about PSF and how we do things, whether it be transportation, public safety, or parks. Because I've heard plenty of that too, plenty of reason to use some of the PSF dollars for parks and public safety. So if we're going to start signaling, we need to just be clear to the public that if we're going to do these kinds of things, that we're going to have it as a single issue, not as an amendment to an amendment to an amendment. And I will not be supporting this.
[01:34:29] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Kanal.
[01:34:32] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. Since we're all, um, having the conversation, I, I think for me the, the necessary precondition are the 2 words that I'm having a hangup on. My question for Councilor Novick would be, you have an original text there was, it is incumbent upon, and that appears to be your text originally. So my question is effectively, you know, is it possible to do something to the effect of the council recognizes that it is incumbent on the city to do what it can to reduce demand for transportation fuel or some equivalent language that relates to your Your original text, um, because that would resolve my last remaining concern on this. Um, all right, now I'm looking at what, um, uh, and I don't have the, the revised version yet, but we're working on it, I know.
[01:35:22] Steve Novick: Uh, damn, now I'm trying to find the revised version myself.
[01:35:27] Angelita Morillo: Um, can I interject here for a second?
[01:35:32] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Yeah.
[01:35:32] Angelita Morillo: Sorry, I did not write— I'm sorry, I presumed that someone— I thought because it was your amendment that there would be an edit from your staff, so I didn't write down what we agreed upon in the first line. So if we could just do that quickly, that'd be great.
[01:35:45] Steve Novick: Okay, I actually sent— sorry, Mr. President, may I speak?
[01:35:51] Raymond C. Lee: Yep.
[01:35:52] Steve Novick: I sent revised language to the council president as I came up with it, but I thought that the attorneys were in the process of writing it too. So can we— either I'll figure out a way to send my revised version to everybody, or do we already— does the clerk already have revised language?
[01:36:11] Unidentified speaker: Sorry, we think that we've captured it and we will share it with Keelan to put up on the screen, and that might be the easiest way to make sure we're all on the same page instead of—.
[01:36:20] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you all.
[01:36:22] Candace Avalos: I would prefer that you email it, by the way.
[01:36:24] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I want to—.
[01:36:25] Candace Avalos: I don't want it on screen.
[01:36:26] Jamie Dunphy: I have also forwarded the email. I think this is the one that was just sent to me by Councilor Novick, although it looks like it was just forwarded by me. So that is the— that's the same.
[01:36:38] Sameer Kanal: That's what you had as Novick 4. It doesn't have— it has Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's comments, but not Councilor, uh, or revisions, but not Councilor Morillo's. Um, but I can say that, uh, what you said, Councilor Novick, was Quote, the council recognizes that an actual reduction in demand for liquid fuel is a logical precondition for a drawdown requirement to become effective, end quote.
[01:37:03] Steve Novick: Um, yes, and then it still included the language about therefore it is incumbent on the council, blah blah blah.
[01:37:09] Sameer Kanal: Correct, right. So, um, I, I guess the— my question was effectively if we could put the rest of that sentence after the it is incumbent and not have the logical precondition words. I can, I can type it if that's helpful.
[01:37:23] Steve Novick: Um, okay, I'm not quite sure. Please type it because I'm not sure I get it.
[01:37:26] Jamie Dunphy: All right, colleagues, we are in a wordsmithing challenge here at this moment. Um, I'm going to give us a— it's 11 o'clock as well. I'm going to give us a 10-minute recess. I'm going to ask the folks who are wanting to wordsmith to please wordsmith with our attorneys, and we'll be back at 11:13. Thank you. And welcome back, folks. I'm calling us back to order. Um, colleagues, on your screens in front of you is the revised language to Novick 4. It should also be in your email box. Um, but here is the redlined version, uh, showing you what is different and what is the same. Um, my queue got changed, so unfortunately I'm going to call— or figure this out. Hold Yeah, when the screen changed, everybody shifted. So I'm going to— oh, there we go. Councilor Avalos.
[01:51:23] Candace Avalos: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the efforts here, but the wordsmithing is not changing my overall concern with the intent. I don't think that this is the right place to put this kind of condition, especially when I'm unclear how we're defining what we mean by putting dollars into these transportation measures that are listed. I'm also unsure what is supposed to happen if there is incongruence with whatever is going on with the CIP and this, you know, declaration that we're making in this legislation. I think it's out of place. I think it is isolated. And I agree a lot with what Councilor Smith said. There are lots of other factors that we as a city need to— we as councilors need to be determining Our intent as we go into that next CIP. There are lots of layers to this, and I think making this determination— I mean, I know that Councilor Novick and I in general disagree on what the purpose of PSF, because according to your original intent, even though this has changed, the original intent is still there to force PSF to make a certain percentage calculation on their resources. And that's just not how this works. That is not what community is asking for.
[01:52:34] Addie Smith: Thank you.
[01:52:35] Candace Avalos: And I think it is important that we continue to keep those decisions about how much investment in which types of investment stay with community. I think even with this language, we are still doing a lot of predetermining here. I think it's inappropriate, and I will not be voting for it, and I would really encourage folks not to.
[01:52:51] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[01:52:52] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Colleagues, is there any further discussion of the now amended Novick 4, which is on On display on your screen in front of you. Councilor Knop.
[01:53:05] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I, I totally understand the conversation around the last part there, uh, and, you know, I don't think— I think part of this is like what's, what's possible to, to get done that we have a majority around. I don't love the in line with words, but I'm not— those are not a deal breaker for me personally. I think, um, I'm looking forward to the conversation, uh, as part of the climate investment plan I don't think that— I'm saying this for legislative intent purposes. I don't think that this means that 40% of the investment. I think it means that it is designed to be reflective of the emissions standard. That's how I'm interpreting it. And at the risk of not wanting to, you know, change more and more words one by one, that's why I'm where I'm at on it. But I did want to acknowledge I agree with the concern that Councilor Avalos is raising. Thank you. I just, um, that's how I've chosen to kind of interpret that particular phrase given how it was presented earlier.
[01:54:01] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Councilor Avalos, back in the queue, last word.
[01:54:05] Candace Avalos: Yeah, yeah, just to say in response to that, Councilor Knoll, I, I think again it's that put— leaving that number in there, first of all, those numbers can change. Second of all, that is still predetermined. So I just disagree with how you're coming to conclusion. It's fine that we don't agree on this. But I am pretty concerned about this passing, and I just feel that this is a conversation that is best not had in this format, and I really don't like how the language is. So it looks like it could pass, and I'm pretty disappointed to hear that because I, I'm concerned about how this implicates future CIP processes, and again would urge that we not pass this.
[01:54:44] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[01:54:45] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Avalos.
[01:54:48] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call roll on the now revised Novick 4 amendment?
[01:54:55] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Novick, seconded by Clark. Clark?
[01:54:58] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:54:59] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[01:55:01] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:55:02] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:55:03] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[01:55:09] Candace Avalos: Sorry, one second. Uh, no.
[01:55:12] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[01:55:13] Loretta Smith: No.
[01:55:14] Keelan McClymont: No.
[01:55:15] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[01:55:18] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[01:55:19] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[01:55:20] Tiffany Koyama Lane: No.
[01:55:24] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[01:55:26] Steve Novick: I really appreciate fellow councilors working on this this morning and the council president's indulgence to allow us to work on it. Aye.
[01:55:34] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, I appreciate the collegial, collegial approach as well, but I am unfortunately a no on them. So no.
[01:55:42] Keelan McClymont: The amendment is approved with a vote of 8 ayes and 4 nays.
[01:55:46] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Councilor Kanal to Kanal 1.
[01:55:49] Sameer Kanal: Yes, colleagues, I, uh, have sent a revised, uh, version of this one over to you. I don't know if it's posted yet, but it's in your email inbox as of 10:06. I'll explain the change from the originally pre-filed one. It is only in the first, uh, 2 sentences, um, but just wanted to get that on the record first. Um, Um, Canal 1 is an amendment reflective of the, uh, testimony that we heard from the public that the safety piece of this was getting a little bit lost in the conversation around, um, the economic side of it, which it's both. Obviously, the CEI hub is, is an economic issue as well as a safety issue. Um, and it's also reflective of prior council actions in the 2025-2026 budget as well as, um, conversations we had this It would add a new Part D to the, uh, ordinance. Um, this is again the Title 17 ordinance that says the city administrator shall present a report to council no later than September 30th, 2027, outlining the city's public health and natural hazards risk reduction plan for the CEI Hub. The city administrator will present an interim update to council on progress towards this deadline no later than March 31st, 2027. Um, the rest of it is, is identical to what it said before.
[01:56:58] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[01:56:58] Sameer Kanal: So I'm not going to read it, but it asks for 4 bureaus to work together to come up with a report basically outlining what our needs are in the situations that we all talk about and have fear around. Evacuation plans from Linnton, evacuation plans from North Portland west of the railroad cut, industrial firefighting capacity on the west side of the river, proposal for fire and rescue capacity on North Portland west of the railroad cut, and then the sort of emergency supplies and resources that are, um, necessary in the interim before we can get people out of the affected areas. Um, I just want to note for the record that some of this stuff is already in progress. Uh, some of this stuff is already a conversation that's been happening, or, um, that, that we've funded happening in the case of the planner at BPS that Councilor Clark, um, fought for in the budget last year. Just to give a quick context to the change, originally we had filed this for March 31st, 2026. We then got some preliminary feedback and moved it to June 30th. That's what was pre-filed, and that's what's on the website. For today, we've separated that first sentence into the 2 you now see in your email inbox so that there is more time for the full report till September 30th, but there's also an interim update, and that interim update will allow us to have as much information as possible before we have to make budgetary decisions.
[01:58:17] Addie Smith: Thank you.
[01:58:19] Sameer Kanal: Around what resources we may need to give towards this while the full and ultimate details are still being worked out and that the staff will have until September 30th. So I want to just kind of get that out there and also thank the staff who have been very helpful with their time and with their advice and most importantly with being honest about what their needs are in terms of the time. So anyway, that's the amendment. I will formally move Kanal 1. Second.
[01:58:49] Addie Smith: Second.
[01:58:50] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Kanal moves Kanal 1. Vice President Clark seconds. Colleagues, to the discussion of Kanal 1. I put myself in the queue first, colleagues. Councilor Kanal, I really— I support the intent of what you're trying to do here, but I just need to hear it a little more explicitly that is this an action that the city believes that they can respond in that time? I just worry about continued demand on the city's resources. And also my question, my second part of that is, is this request aligned with the strategic work that is already happening? And, or is this additional new work or an additional new burden?
[01:59:25] Eric Zimmerman: I'll let—.
[01:59:26] Sameer Kanal: Would you like to go first?
[01:59:27] Raymond C. Lee: Yes, I would just bring council's attention to the timing of this and the timing from the standpoint of when you're asking for us to follow back up with you. That may not be realistic for us from a timing perspective to be able to do that. I would also just draw your attention to the additional resources that may be needed to do this work that we currently don't have, uh, a part of our team today that we would have to ramp up to be able to do. That may have some budgetary requests in this as well. So, you know, I believe we will evaluate this and try to see what we could do to meet it, but I know there's going to be some time constraints in it. If, you know, DC Oliveira wants to add anything additional to that, feel free to want to, but if you're good, I think we're good. I believe we're good.
[02:00:17] Sameer Kanal: Sorry, a little confused about why DC Oliveira. Most— I understand Planning and Sustainability, and I, I did chat with folks there, but the bulk of this, as I understand it, is PBAM and fire. Um, so although there is a piece there, we, we funded a planner in, uh, the 2025-2026 budget at BPS, whose primary focus is a CEI hub. Um, so I'm, I'm comfortable. I, I guess let me back up, and I, I would love, uh, if anyone wants to ask, I— we did chat with some of these particular bureaus that I just mentioned, but, um, I, I think it's fair to say everything in here has been discussed discussed separately but not together as a package, to answer your question, Council President. Um, it is also fair to say that everything in here is a realistic ask, right? We have an evacuation, um, emergency evacuation routes project. PBAM leads on that. We work with RDPO on parts of that too, the Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization. Um, so that's the first 2. We've talked about firefighting capacity as part of the budget conversation. There was not an amendment on that one, but it was in the conversation around the budget. We actually debated and funded Station 22's fire engine this year, which is the only fire engine west of the railroad cut in North Portland and is particularly relevant to that. And grateful again to colleagues who supported Canal 2 on that or any of the other proposals that would've funded it. And then PBEM's already—.
[02:01:54] Loretta Smith: Yeah.
[02:01:54] Sameer Kanal: Has, you know, work on beacons, nets, all that sort of stuff that's in that final bullet point. So if the timing is a concern, that's— that's— I understand that. That's why we moved it back twice. Um, but I will say the purpose of the interim update is in part to talk about the resources necessary to do this work. So the idea that— that staff could come to us and tell us on March 31st, hey, we're looking into this, but we actually don't have the capacity right now to do because we don't have the staff for it. The idea behind that is that we could then say, well, it's March 31st, we've got 3 months to affect this year's budget— or next year's budget, sorry— to provide those resources. So I think that that's sort of the particular purpose of the 2-tier timeline change. And yeah, I obviously— we've got resources if anyone has specific questions for any other relevant bureaus.
[02:02:47] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll.
[02:02:48] John Hollister: All right.
[02:02:50] Jamie Dunphy: That more or less answers my question. I will say— I will continue that I worry about the timeline. It just feels extremely tight. So I have some concerns. So thank you. Councilor Novick.
[02:03:03] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. I also was concerned about the timeline. I also was a little confused about item 3 is that there Your report must include industrial firefighting capacity, et cetera. And then the 2 below that said a proposal for. And so I was kind of wondering if the industrial firefighting capacity bullet sort of like was kind of a mandate to spend the money to acquire it, whereas the others are just proposals that I assume would include some like budgetary estimates.
[02:03:36] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, that wasn't the intent, but that's a good question. Happy to add a proposal for if that's helpful for that particular one.
[02:03:44] Steve Novick: That would be helpful.
[02:03:45] Sameer Kanal: Wasn't the intent at all there. Thanks, thanks for catching that.
[02:03:48] Steve Novick: But I also, I mean, if I'd like to hear from our interim PBEM director what she thinks about the timeline.
[02:04:00] Loretta Smith: Good morning.
[02:04:04] Jamie Dunphy: Good morning.
[02:04:05] Unidentified speaker: Checking my watch to make sure it's morning. Elizabeth Perez, interim director for PBEM. I did have a conversation with Councilor Kanal's office. I think that the reason that we're good with the timeline is that 6-month check-in of where we're at. I would look to the council that if we don't have the resources and we are still working through plans, that we then look to possibly extending that timeline. But I do like having—.
[02:04:36] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you.
[02:04:41] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[02:04:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick.
[02:04:50] Sameer Kanal: Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[02:04:55] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: You know, I was also going to ask about the timeline and feasibility, and I think we've heard from a number of folks on that, but I also know that there were a number of reductions within our fire bureau, so I do think I'd that we can just get this done in a timely manner. Like to ask our fire chief if there are any concerns on the fire side with what's listed here. We'll run through everybody, we'll get a sense. Um, and while you're coming up, Chief, I'll note that Councilor Knoll talked about some of the reasons that this is important. Um, from my district's perspective, from a safety perspective, it is necessary that we be doing all of these things. I have no concerns with us doing what is listed in here. I just want to make sure that our current budget allows us to do this and that we are not inadvertently, um, mandating resources onto the table or putting a timeline out there that's not possible, and frankly, getting our constituents' hopes up that we will be able to do something that we may not be able to do in the long run. So I just, I want to make sure that we're prepared to actually see this through.
[02:05:55] Lauren Johnson: Thanks very much. For the record, Lauren Johnson, Fire Chief. Thanks for the question and the work towards this. We think it's also really necessary to provide this information to council and to the public. We're supportive of the timeline and really have been working with PBIM and then with the CA's office to make sure that we were in alignment. Happy to do that and happy to move the work forward to get you the information. I think from our standpoint, it's important to level set expectations that we plan from Fireside to be able to provide kind of the scoping and cost out what those operations that are listed would look like, what it would take to get us there. The one thing that I would flag that we would want to report out on that midway point is when it comes to industrial firefighting, right, the CEI hub is composed of very different vendors with different risks and hazards on their property. So there's some proprietary information that I kind of question. How much information are we going to be able to get from those vendors about capabilities? And so that's something that I see like at that midway report point of being able to tell you, are we running into problems getting that information? Is, is there a barrier that we have to respect because of of that vendor or that business, but being able to give you more information by that midway point.
[02:07:24] Unidentified speaker: Great.
[02:07:25] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: So I, I think what I've heard between the comments from our 3 folks from the administration thus far is that the timeline as it's listed will work for getting us some preliminary information. We may need to extend the final timeline to get everything we need. There certainly aren't resources available to do all of the work yet, and I think we need to be really Yes. —With Portlanders and level set that we don't know if we'll have the resources for that in the next budget, but this is the first step to get us there, identifying what we would need, and that there may need to be some political oomph put behind getting you all the information you need to be able to actually complete this work. So we should see this as a first step, if adopted, that we may need to come back and do some iteration on to really complete. Is that a fair assessment? I'm seeing nods.
[02:08:18] Lauren Johnson: That's a fair assessment from my standpoint.
[02:08:20] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: City Administrator, does that seem right to you as well?
[02:08:23] Raymond C. Lee: Correct.
[02:08:24] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you all.
[02:08:24] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[02:08:25] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Vice President Clark.
[02:08:27] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Councilor President. I think my questions about the timeline are cared for. I would say though that in our first year, Budget notes that were unfunded mandates. And the bureaus did come back to me and say, hey, we can't do all this. We, we, or at least we're going to have to scale it back. We're not going to get the quality that maybe you wanted. So just, you know, we, I think we just have to be aware of that. Um, I did want to also add a personal experience. And when it comes to getting, uh, all the things that we need, and I do have a question for you about why you move from sufficient to proposal Councilor Russell. But I, I do think that we're going to need help from the state when it comes to the CEI hub. And when I worked for the City of Salem, I was able to get fire trucks from the city because we didn't have the capacity to serve the state capitol. We didn't have ladder trucks. We didn't have those kinds of things. And I think that when we're talking about the kinds of emergency supplies and and disaster planning that we may want to talk to the state about getting more help from them. And I went through a tabletop exercise at the state level that demonstrated how horribly ill-prepared we were at the state level. And I know that we're talking about a tabletop at some point here. I think that's really, really important that we go through that and that we involve the state in that as well. They've got to provide resources and backup for us because this is a state issue, the CEI Hub. It's not just Linnton, it's not just Portland, it's the entire state. So they have a stake in making sure that we're prepared for any kind of disaster. I just want to share that with you all, that we, it's, we can, we can do that. We haven't talked about it with OGR, but So Councilor Khan, you went from sufficient to proposal, and I, I like that. I just wanted to hear your thinking.
[02:10:30] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, so, uh, this is what caused the thing that Councilor Novick raised too. So the, the— this is the 3rd version. The 2nd version was posted online and, and hadn't been updated. So the 3rd version is the one that is in your email inbox that we've been talking about. What Councilor Clark's referring to is something that was in the 1st version, uh, which was emailed out last week, uh, which we updated after talking to staff. And so what it originally said was the 4th and began with the word sufficient instead of a proposal for. And so at the time, the intent was all of these were going to be a deliverable in and of themselves, evacuation plans. And certainly that wasn't the original intent around like actually building up the thing in industrial firefighting capacity, but it was the idea of sort of identifying what the needs were. Simply put, I don't know that there is such a thing as sufficient emergency supplies Personally, I would love to be wrong. I think it is— I'm trying not to be super hyperbolic about the actual dangers associated with living west of the railroad cut or in Linnton after some of the disasters that we're looking at, but I don't know that there are sufficient things. And so in terms of the emergency supplies and resources and—. Councilor Herbold. As a result, it makes sense to say here's our proposal for what we would need is the deliverable that we'd be asking for. Great.
[02:11:54] Addie Smith: Yeah.
[02:11:55] Olivia Clark: Good change.
[02:11:56] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[02:11:57] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you.
[02:11:57] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Knoll, last word.
[02:11:59] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I just wanted to first, I think I have to formally to make the change that Councilor Novick and I talked about, withdraw and resubmit. But it's to add a proposal for to the beginning of the 3rd bullet point in there. That it would be version 4. It did hit everyone's email at, uh, 11:32 AM, so everyone has that in email, including the clerk, um, but including colleagues as well. So I'll formally withdraw and resubmit, uh, and hopefully Councilor Clark will still second that. Yes. Great. Thanks.
[02:12:36] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Colleagues, you have the final language in In front of you, there's no one else in the queue. I'm going to give us 30 seconds of dramatic pause to make sure everybody reads. Keelan, can we please call the roll on Canal 2 or 4? What are you calling this, 27?
[02:13:16] Sameer Kanal: It's either Canal 1 version 4 or Canal 4. I, I leave it to the clerk to decide.
[02:13:21] Keelan McClymont: All right, so we had posted Canal 1 and that one has been withdrawn, so now we will vote on Canal 2.
[02:13:28] Jamie Dunphy: All right, could we please call the roll on Canal Uh, moved by Kanal, seconded by Clark.
[02:13:35] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[02:13:36] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:13:37] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[02:13:37] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:13:38] Sameer Kanal: Sorry.
[02:13:38] Keelan McClymont: Oh, sorry. Green?
[02:13:40] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:13:42] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:13:42] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[02:13:44] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[02:13:45] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:13:47] Keelan McClymont: Smith? I'm sorry, Councilor, was that aye?
[02:13:50] Jamie Dunphy: That was an aye.
[02:13:51] Keelan McClymont: Aye. Okay, thank you. Um, Smith?
[02:13:55] Loretta Smith: No.
[02:13:58] Addie Smith: Aye.
[02:14:00] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:14:02] Tiffany Koyama Lane: No.
[02:14:04] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[02:14:06] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:14:07] Unidentified speaker: Aye.
[02:14:08] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:14:09] Keelan McClymont: The amendment is approved with a vote of 10 ayes and 2 nays.
[02:14:14] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, that concludes our amendments to this item and ends our discussion for today. We are now moving to pass this to second reading. Actually, before I do that, I'd like to check. Colleagues, is there any further discussion of the now amended underlying ordinance or the exhibits? Okay, cool. Item 2026-312, the ordinance for the bulk fuel terminal capacity reduction regulations, is continued to an additional meeting before the Portland City Council on November The record for oral testimony on this ordinance was closed on September 24th, 2026. The record for written testimony on this ordinance was closed on October 1st, 2026. Based on council deliberations on possible amendments, council may decide in the future to open the record for oral or written testimony at a future meeting. Keelan, can we please call the consent agenda?
[02:15:13] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Yeah, no items have been pulled. I'll call the roll on the remaining— or on the consent agenda. Clerk?
[02:15:24] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:15:25] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[02:15:27] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:15:28] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:15:30] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[02:15:31] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[02:15:32] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:15:33] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[02:15:36] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:15:37] Keelan McClymont: Kanal?
[02:15:39] Sameer Kanal: Consent agenda? Aye.
[02:15:47] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:15:49] Unidentified speaker: My team is very excited for more skee-ball.
[02:15:53] Keelan McClymont: Thank you, Novick.
[02:15:56] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:16:00] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:16:01] Keelan McClymont: The consent agenda is approved with 12 aye votes.
[02:16:05] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[02:16:05] Keelan McClymont: Can we please call item number 10 Document 2026-334, authorize Bureau of Transportation to acquire certain temporary property rights necessary for construction of the Southeast Division Street, Southeast 148th to Southeast 174th project through the exercise of the city's eminent domain authority.
[02:16:32] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Discussion. Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, could we please call the roll?
[02:16:39] Keelan McClymont: Clark?
[02:16:40] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:16:41] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[02:16:42] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:16:43] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:16:46] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[02:16:46] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[02:16:48] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:16:49] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[02:16:49] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:16:50] Keelan McClymont: Kanal?
[02:16:51] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[02:16:52] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney?
[02:16:53] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:16:54] Keelan McClymont: Ryan?
[02:16:55] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:16:56] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane?
[02:16:57] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[02:16:57] Keelan McClymont: Murillo?
[02:16:58] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[02:16:59] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[02:17:00] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:17:00] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy?
[02:17:01] Jamie Dunphy: Aye. Thank you very much. Could we please call item number 12?
[02:17:09] Keelan McClymont: Uh, uh, item 11, I believe.
[02:17:11] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, did I just do that wrong?
[02:17:13] Keelan McClymont: I think we just voted item—.
[02:17:14] Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, I did it wrong. My bad.
[02:17:16] Keelan McClymont: Okay, uh, item 11, uh, also a second reading, 20— uh, document 2026-335. Clerk.
[02:17:25] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:17:26] Keelan McClymont: Aye. Green.
[02:17:29] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:17:30] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[02:17:31] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[02:17:32] Keelan McClymont: Avalos.
[02:17:34] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:17:35] Keelan McClymont: Smith.
[02:17:36] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:17:36] Keelan McClymont: Kanal.
[02:17:37] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[02:17:38] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[02:17:39] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:17:39] Keelan McClymont: Ryan.
[02:17:40] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:17:40] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane.
[02:17:42] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[02:17:43] Keelan McClymont: Murillo.
[02:17:43] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[02:17:44] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[02:17:45] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:17:45] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy.
[02:17:46] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[02:17:46] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.
[02:17:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[02:17:49] John Hollister: Can we please read the next item?
[02:17:52] Keelan McClymont: Item 12, document 2026-212. Oh, sorry, I've been forgetting. Uh, okay, uh, item 12, amend advertising on bus benches code to allow advertising on city streetcar benches and shelters. Amend chapter code, code chapter 17.45.
[02:18:10] Unidentified speaker: Thank you, colleagues.
[02:18:11] Jamie Dunphy: This also is a second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Keelan, could we please call the roll? Oh, Councilor Councilor Smith, I'm sorry.
[02:18:20] Loretta Smith: Thank you. Who's here representing the, the mayor's office on this?
[02:18:34] Unidentified speaker: Good morning. Millicent Williams, Deputy City Administrator for Public Works.
[02:18:39] Loretta Smith: Good morning, DCA Williams. Um, we had some conversation about this in the Public Works Committee, and I just want to make sure that we did not add Uh, the team met with the City Attorney's Office to determine the language that would be appropriate for, uh, this ordinance.
[02:19:03] Unidentified speaker: Um, everything that's included, uh, provides the permissions for certain types of businesses, uh, to advertise. Uh, there are prohibitions on the types of businesses as well. But we were intentional about ensuring that we were not creating a space where certain businesses would be prohibited unless there were certain guidelines that we would not want to have advertised on those buses, on those benches.
[02:19:28] Loretta Smith: Could you explain more? I don't know what that means. Give me the type of businesses that are restricted.
[02:19:37] Unidentified speaker: I would need to call on the team to provide that But there are perhaps— because of the federal relationship with the transit services, there are certain activities that while on a local level we may allow, we would not be able to support from a federal level because they are not considered legal activities. For example, if there was a marijuana shop that wanted to advertise on a bend of the bus route, that would not be allowed.
[02:20:05] Raymond C. Lee: Okay.
[02:20:06] Unidentified speaker: They would likely not be able to because that is not something that is federally recognized as being legal. So those are some of the types of businesses that would be prohibited.
[02:20:15] Loretta Smith: Okay. I mean, I, I support this in theory, but I, I wanted to have a little bit more information, and I was looking through the exhibits to tell me specifically which businesses were being, um, prevented from, from doing advertising. And the reason why I say that is because all these businesses here, they pay the BLT, the business licensing tax, and to prohibit any one of them— and I can understand about the, um, the federal stuff, and that's, that's one issue— but if we're unilaterally, um, identifying particular sectors of business that we are not going to allow to advertise, I have a problem with that.
[02:20:52] Unidentified speaker: Absolutely. That's not the intent of this. It is to ensure that we're aligned with the federal expectations, uh, because of their funding that comes to the streetcar and all of the attending, uh, supports for that work. Uh, we are not singling out entities that we would, uh, prohibit from being able to, uh, advertise. Those that are doing regular business that have business licenses that are allowed to do business in the City of Portland.
[02:21:17] Loretta Smith: Okay, thank you.
[02:21:20] Sameer Kanal: Sure. Thank you.
[02:21:21] Keelan McClymont: Councilor Smith.
[02:21:24] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Keelan, can we please call the roll?
[02:21:32] Keelan McClymont: Clark.
[02:21:33] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:21:34] Keelan McClymont: Green.
[02:21:35] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:21:36] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[02:21:40] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[02:21:41] Keelan McClymont: Avalos.
[02:21:42] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:21:43] Keelan McClymont: Smith.
[02:21:44] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:21:45] Keelan McClymont: Kanal.
[02:21:46] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[02:21:46] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[02:21:50] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:21:52] Jamie Dunphy: Aye. Aye.
[02:21:53] Keelan McClymont: Aye. The ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.
[02:21:59] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Could please read item 13?
[02:22:05] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-300, amend fire regulations fee schedule, amend Portland policy document FIR-12.01.
[02:22:14] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. This is also the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Um, I put myself in the queue. Um, I didn't have a chance to speak on this last week because unfortunately I was out of, uh, the state. But, um, I want to start— I want to say I want to be intellectually honest and note that we did vote on this concept during the budget. Uh, fire and rescue permitting activity is not currently supported by the fees that we charge, and we subsidize those activities with general fund dollars. The council made a choice here and elsewhere to try and get towards a full cost recovery model because as the council documents that— as the documents that council approved say, the permits primarily benefit the applicants. So let's just start with the obvious. All of our fees are going up and we have a lot of fees. The increase in fees is exceeding inflation because we are charging our policy— changing our policies to cost recovery across all of our bureaus and the service areas.
[02:23:06] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[02:23:07] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.
[02:23:08] Jamie Dunphy: Our fees are also not progressive enough. The impact on small and micro businesses is too large as a percentage of revenue compared to larger enterprises. The impact on low individuals and low-income individuals and families is too high, and these changes are being made with the primary intention of shoring up the city budget. We do not have a policy related to fee affordability, nor a central view of the cumulative impact of fees across our target groups. Speaking to target groups, full cost recovery is not actually in line with our citywide goals. Earlier this year, the city announced a grant program to help small businesses make capital improvements in vacant storefronts to activate them, and then we significantly raised the rates on the permits to do that work at PP&D and Fire. We've been working to increase event activation across the city and offering grants to community organizations to activate public spaces And we then made permits to use parks and roads for events more expensive and significantly increased noise permit fees with PPMD. This is what a unified administration of this government was supposed to fix. We should not be granting dollars with one hand and then taking them back with the other. Our economic development and public space activation dollars are general fund dollars, and we recognize that support for small businesses and developments in music, arts, and small creative businesses is a priority. And we spend general fund on those initiatives. We recognize that nurturing the grassroots enterprises that are a national identity to our city benefits more than just the businesses themselves. And so we should be using targeted fee relief and progressive fee structures as an intentional economic development tool. It's an appropriate use of general fund dollars to support charging fees in priority areas at less than full cost recovery.
[02:24:52] Addie Smith: Thank you.
[02:24:53] Jamie Dunphy: To CFO Beery, CA Lee, Mayor Wilson, this should be a high priority in our next budget cycle, and I intend to make it so. There's also another question here, which is, if this is what our permitting actually costs, should our processes and regulations just be simpler and cheaper internally? This ordinance is significantly raising the fees on theatrical fireworks. Arms, like fake guns for a play. After this, Portland's stage gun fee will be higher than the combined long gun registration fee and fingerprinting charged by the New York Police Department to use a— and that is just for us to use a pretend gun on stage. Why is our process so complex that processing an application takes $250 of staff time? Why do we regulate laser light shows at a municipal level when most localities require only a blanket operator certificate rather than an a designed plan for every venue at $750, or at a single performance at $175 to review? And why does our process for processing a single floor plan for an arts and culture assembly permit, a maximum of 75 people at an event, a program that is intended to be used by small galleries and nonprofits, why does that cost $650 worth of staff time? I'm not going to reach down into this ordinance and try to I respect the bureau. I think you're doing— you're trying to do what is the right thing, but I feel there's a deep incoherence here between our values and the way that we are going to be making the numbers line up. I think we're not doing better because we're not really thinking about it clearly on an all-city basis. So I will be a no today on this item, and my no is an invitation to further work. So thank you. And, uh, Councilor Ryan.
[02:26:38] Dan Ryan: Um, thank you, Council President. I too was absent last week on family bereavement, and I I have some questions. So maybe if people from Portland Fire and Rescue could come up, that'd be helpful. Thank you.
[02:27:02] Angela Wright: Hi, Angela Wright, budget analyst for fire.
[02:27:05] Sameer Kanal: Your first name?
[02:27:06] Angela Wright: Angela Wright.
[02:27:07] Dan Ryan: Angela, thank you. And hello, Chief Johnson. Yeah, could you explain further the newly added inspection, testing, maintenance, ITM fees, and what are some examples of when that is charged?
[02:27:20] Angela Wright: I'm gonna phone a friend on that. We're gonna let Fire Marshal Schimmel talk about it.
[02:27:25] Sameer Kanal: I had a feeling you were gonna come up. Nice to see you.
[02:27:27] Unidentified speaker: You get the whole team. Thanks.
[02:27:30] Carrie Schimmel: Uh, for the record, Carrie Schimmel, Fire Marshal, Portland Fire and Rescue. Some examples are all sprinklers, alarms, fixed systems for hood at restaurants. Those are all included in the inspection, testing, maintenance.
[02:27:44] Dan Ryan: Okay, I thought that was the case, but I wanted that on the public record. These increases, they're quite steep. I think we can all agree on that. And why are they separate from our usual fee updates with the annual budget, similar to some of the questions that were brought up or statements brought up by the council president?
[02:28:02] Angela Wright: I can say initially we weren't sure if the decision package to increase fees was going to be included in the final budget.
[02:28:13] Unidentified speaker: Okay. And what's the annual impact to revenue projected with these higher fees to users?
[02:28:19] Angela Wright: We're estimating hopefully around $800,000, which was our initial trajectory.
[02:28:25] Unidentified speaker: Okay. And can you walk me through what a small business, for example, would pay in total for fees in order to open their business in a new space for the first time? In other words, what's the total cost for a new business to be cleared to open? Similar to the statements made by Council President, that was what was in my head, is that, um, we're passing some items of legislation that seems like we're providing some aspirin to the headaches of expenses for businesses, and then we turn around and do this, and it feels disjointed at best. So I'm confused.
[02:29:05] Carrie Schimmel: Well, it's—.
[02:29:05] Dan Ryan: That was my editorial opinion. Now you could please answer the question. I was going to try to wait for that. Sorry.
[02:29:10] Carrie Schimmel: Yeah. Is the question just opening business, or is it like permitting if there's required fire systems? I mean, To open a business, like to open the door, there's no fire inspection, there's no fees from fires. But if we're talking about the actual plan review, then that's something that falls under the building department.
[02:29:30] Dan Ryan: When I listen to folks that are trying to open a new business, especially in the hospitality world and venues for music and for restaurants, they complain a lot about the fees that kind of catch them off guard. And this does come up about the fire fees. So I'm just listening to constituents over the last 6 years and keep hearing that. So this was startling for me to look at and think I could be supportive of it.
[02:29:57] Carrie Schimmel: And so, so I think, well, so by you making that statement, I think you're talking more about the events, the special events. And so when a business works outside of what they're permitted through the building department, That's where our special use permits come into place through the Fire Marshal's Office. So there's fees for those additional events that aren't covered under how the business was approved.
[02:30:22] Dan Ryan: But you're not— so I hear that, thank you. But for a new business, you're saying there's no fees for them to pass these permits, pass these tests?
[02:30:34] Carrie Schimmel: Well, that's where I— there's a whole kind of the construction fees, the systems themselves. If we're looking beyond that and just like a fire inspector coming in to do a fire final. So then the, the inspections are complete. There's no fee for that fire final, but there might be— our fee schedule is very complicated. So I mean, you're— there's so many different scenarios on if we're talking about getting temporary permits or inspections that are every 2 years. Um, so there's, there's a lot of different variables. So it's— I'm not totally sure what the question is because—.
[02:31:09] Unidentified speaker: Just trying to get to the point. We're trying to true up how to operate the Fire Bureau, and we went through a pretty long process in the budget season about how to do that. And so when we try to recoup those balancing act with additional fees, that, that's what people experience 3 to 4 months later. It just— I, I don't like it as a governance practice. Lauren Johnson, for the record, and Councilor, I want to acknowledge that and then just note that it might be helpful. We can Connect with you offline and you can let us know which types of businesses. And I think it'd be helpful for you to understand there are some businesses that are 4 walls and there's no real cost to them from a fire inspection standpoint when they're opening a business. However, if it's an assembly gathering, if it's a cooking or a hazmat business, there are all separate fees that would come with standing up a business like that.
[02:32:10] Keelan McClymont: Thank you.
[02:32:11] Unidentified speaker: So I think it's hard for us to answer a question about in general, what does it cost a business owner when they're starting a new business? But we're happy to have those discussions. And even in our last presentation, kind of called out for special events and permitted assemblies. We know that that's a topic that you guys are interested in. So maybe we'd, we'd love to be able to provide more detail as it relates to the people who are contacting you so that you can have that information. Thank you. And I appreciate that, Chief Johnson. We'll have that conversation. I will be voting no on this today, and we'll have— continue to have this dialogue. Sounds good. Yep. And I mean, I think just to follow up on your point, it's important to note that our intent with this is not full cost recovery. I think we've explained in a couple of different venues with different councilors, the way our inspection fees are set up is not for full cost recovery. And also that we needed to get in line with what PP&D's fees are so that we'll be on a more regular schedule for updating so that you won't see this new cost that seems like it's years' worth all coming at once. So we have plans to do that better moving forward. I think I'm rooting for that better practice. Yes, sir. Thank you.
[02:33:32] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor Knoll.
[02:33:34] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. Yeah, I really appreciate everyone being here. And this— some of this came up in committee, the idea that this will move to a regular cadence of every year or 2 as part of the normal fee structure, that it's towards but not achieving full cost recovery. I think with one potential exception that I hope to resolve outside of this ordinance, I think in general we can't ask the Fire Bureau to do the work and then not resource you to do it. And at a time where we were sitting here debating whether or not St. Johns deserves a fire engine because we can't afford it, Yes. Or why we can't have 3 fire rescues in Southeast and East Portland. It doesn't make sense to me to continue perpetuating this imbalance of the work and the cost on the one hand and no increase on the other. This also includes things related to the alarms, for example, which is a perpetual issue in terms of responding to false alarms. So there's a lot in here, obviously. Obviously, I, I actually do agree with the underlying concern that, that, uh, Council President raised. And maybe this relates to, um, sort of how we were talking, to, to use a completely different example, of maybe if the state followed their own public meetings law, they'd fix it. Um, maybe if we actually showed what the work here is and how much it costs to do some of these, um, particular checks, we would realize that it's not— the juice isn't worth the squeeze, and we should just stop stop doing the check at all. But I think that the approach to that is actually what we approved in the consent agenda today, which is 4 ordinances from Councilor Novick that went back and said we don't actually need this. Um, and that was in collaboration with the relevant bureaus in that case. Um, we saw this in New York where they got rid of the permit that's special for an ice cream scooping facility. And it's like, it's— if you have a scoop shop, you don't need a special permit in addition to everything else. You need to just be I think we need to go through and do that sort of as a permit hygiene process is how I'd kind of describe that. But I don't think it makes sense to perpetuate the financial problem in the short term. I did want to mention I amended out the emergency clause from this in committee so that we could have this sort of conversation. And I'm really grateful that we are because I think these are the sorts of things where we shouldn't be just surprising people with a change that takes effect immediately and doesn't have 2 weeks of conversation.
[02:35:54] Eric Zimmerman: Councilmember Herbold.
[02:35:55] Sameer Kanal: So I'm very grateful to the council president for bringing that up, as well as I actually also agree with a lot of what Councilor Ryan was talking about as well. When we're talking about— and we could go through all of these things. The one thing that I would flag for later, I'm gonna vote to support this, but the one thing I would flag for later is there are— I don't know that we should be creating a cost to exercise a right. And so the idea of having event permits, I understand, like, under the event permit, it talks about, like, a fee if you don't have a fire extinguisher. I don't— that's just probably in the wrong category, but it's a good thing to charge for. But I do think that we should move towards the idea that it's our obligation as the city to use general fund dollars to give the resources to the bureaus necessary for every Portlander to exercise their First Amendment right. And so I'd like to see down the line us move away from charging any sort of charge for an event. I think that's something that I understand requiring some sort of planning and submitting of plans for public safety and things like that. But in terms of the financial charge, I think there's an issue there. Having said that, I don't think that that should hold this up, and I'm intending to support.
[02:37:09] Addie Smith: Thank you.
[02:37:09] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Smith.
[02:37:12] Loretta Smith: Thank you, Council President. Question, when were the last time that the these, uh, fees were updated?
[02:37:18] Angela Wright: So a majority of these fees have not been updated since prior to 2012. That would be roughly 88% of them.
[02:37:25] Loretta Smith: Okay, until 2012? Yes. And, um, I do understand some of the things that, uh, Council President is talking about in terms of all the fees that we're asking our residents to improve, from the TUF to all the other things. And now we have an increased ARTA tax that will automatically go up with inflation. So I'm concerned, uh, and I did not support that, but I am just concerned that these go up so quickly. It's so high so soon. Will we be coming back again, or is there going to be a regular cadence in how you come back? Is that going to be every 2 years? Is that going to be every 4 years? What does that look like? Have you all thought about that?
[02:38:08] Unidentified speaker: Yes, we're planning to do it in alignment with PP&D, and I think that depending on the type of fee, and we'd have to hear from the attorneys about if it needs to come back to you, but it's on a 1 to a 3-year cycle. We think 5 is too long.
[02:38:26] Loretta Smith: Yeah, I definitely think, you know, since 2012 we haven't changed these fees. That is egregious, and I'm not sure why that is. That happened that way. But I understand and I know the need, but I'm just concerned that we're just taxing our, our residents and they see it and it is, you know, it is really getting ugly out there. So it's not that I don't think— I'm still trying to think in my head how I want to do this, but I'm, I'm concerned about all the, the increased taxes that we're having at the City of Portland.
[02:39:05] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Green.
[02:39:10] Mitch Green: Thank you, Council President. You gave me a lot to think about. Um, I thank you for leading that. Um, I guess I have a question, uh, Chief Johnson. If, if these fees were not updated, would this— the work would still get done? It would. This leaves an $800,000 hole That's right.
[02:39:32] Unidentified speaker: If I could add something. Owen Saitz, budget manager for public safety. I just started recently. Adding a bit to the conversation on the cadence of updating fees, there is financial policy that has us at a minimum of 3 years. Every 3 years we need to at least be doing a comprehensive fee study. So that's something that we'll be working on reevaluating and— or not reevaluating, something we'll be bringing back. And in the fee study, there's certain criteria that we need to discuss. So getting to your question, Councilor Ryan, earlier, one of the criteria is the impact of imposing or increasing fees on economically at-risk populations and on businesses. So that's one of the criteria that we would be using in a comprehensive fee study that That we would plan to bring back to council at some point in line with the financial policy.
[02:40:27] Mitch Green: Thank you. Thank you, Owen, and congrats on moving to a different role. Is that— I'm just learning this for the first time. Thanks. Um, $800,000 is not a trivial amount of money because last year, or just last spring, we fought tooth and nail to try to restore a cut to a fire engine in St. Johns that was about half of that. And I, I think about that. Um, I think more broadly though, I, I don't think cost recovery fee models make sense for public safety bureaus, largely because the sort of reason why you're doing the, um, particularly fire here, you're doing this because it provides— I mean, fire safety is not just about one individual private property. It is about sort of a Neighborhood effect is sort of— there's positive externalities, I'll say, to have this. And so it makes sense that this is a cost that gets smoothed and peanut buttered over our whole general fund. That's the way that I think about it, at least. And so if we have a comprehensive fee study coming up soon, that's— that right? Is that right, Owen?
[02:41:35] Unidentified speaker: We're looking into the cadence of that, and obviously the Fire Bureau just updated fees First time— well, this would update fees for the first time in a long time, so we'll look on bringing that in a more regular cadence.
[02:41:46] Mitch Green: Thank you. Um, I think, I think the broad concerns that Council President raised need to be at the forefront of our next comprehensive study, but I'm going to have a hard time voting no knowing that it leaves— I mean, we only, we only got one-time funding for the fire engine in St. Johns, and I That's right. That's the engine that responds to the CEI Hub. So I just— I'm going to have to be a yes on this, even though I don't particularly like the model. Thanks.
[02:42:16] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Vice President Clark.
[02:42:19] Olivia Clark: Thank you, Councilor President. This has been a great discussion. I really appreciate it. And I'm intrigued by Councilor Kanal's comments about do we really need all these. And maybe when we do the comprehensive study, we'll determine that, if these are all really necessary. But I do have 2 questions, and I don't know if they're for Owen or the chief, but I'm just curious, um, is there an appeals process for some of these? And secondly, how do we stack up with other cities our size across the country? Is— are we kind of in the same ballpark?
[02:42:50] Unidentified speaker: Yeah, um, I'll let Chief Schemmel talk about the appeals process, and then we'll bring up the information about how we used other peer cities to arrive at The, the short answer is yes, there's appeal process.
[02:43:07] Carrie Schimmel: And, um, we also, within our title, Title 31, there's also a process for non— nonprofit and other fee waivers.
[02:43:19] Angela Wright: And then as far as the city comparables, um, on average, let me see, um, So we're on average— our current fees, when we look at comparable cities, were about $146 below their fees. And then even with the updated, uh, we would still be on average $53 below those fees.
[02:43:42] Olivia Clark: Well, that's interesting. It's not necessarily a justification for what we're doing here because we are in hard times in the city, but appreciate the information. Thank you.
[02:43:52] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Ryan.
[02:43:55] Dan Ryan: Thank you, Council President. Um, first of all, I just want to say I keep hearing from constituents about their concerns with, um, the warming fires from those living on the streets that turn into— that can turn into wildfires. So I've been really clear that the first responders in police and fire should never be on the chopping block, and we really need to have more support in the general fund for both of those bureaus. Um, I think my concern is just around the practice here, and I didn't hear a good answer on why was the last adjustment in 2012. That, that did startle me, so I had to hear why and how we cannot ever experience that again. And if no one was here in 2012, that's way out of this.
[02:44:38] Angela Wright: I would say none of us were here then.
[02:44:40] Sameer Kanal: Fair, that's why I wanted to get—.
[02:44:42] Dan Ryan: It's also, um, diagnosed on how that can never happen again, right?
[02:44:46] Angela Wright: This is, uh, so the last update was in 2021, so we are on like the 5-year schedule that had been prior to this. Um, our information said, you know, 5 years. Um, but there was only like 3 fees that were updated in 2021. 4 On the fire schedule, correct. Um, and then, um, so minimal compared to the overall total number of fees that we have. And then we took that on from people previously in this position that it was something we would be working on this year.
[02:45:22] Dan Ryan: And so then started from there.
[02:45:26] Unidentified speaker: One reason I was really supportive of having a city administrator that could really hear these type of dialogues so that our cultural practices can keep improving. So I think it's the extremeness because we haven't dug really into this.
[02:45:42] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor— hold on. Councilor Knoll.
[02:45:59] Sameer Kanal: For the last 20 months now, and going back to the campaign, we've been hearing about the feeling from Portlanders that we need to focus on the basics, the core functions of government. We've also been hearing from Portlanders about the need to focus on things that unify us. There is one bureau at the center of the overlap in that Venn diagram, and it is the Fire Bureau. It is also the bureau that for years we have piled work onto and not funded fully. This has come up in both of the budget cycles. It's come up under multiple chiefs. Thank you. Has come up under 3 DCAs now, uh, since we've been here. I am watching us talk about the arts tax. I am watching us talk about the TUF, and those are great. Extra stuff is good. And, and frankly, the TUF is not extra stuff, by the way, uh, but it's important as well. And I am stunned that we're sitting here talking about blowing an $800,000 hole in the budget of the Portland Fire and Rescue Bureau. I do not understand it. I am happy to go back and change some of our previous decisions if there's an overall concern about the level of taxation and fees that we're charging here at the city. But in terms of this one and in terms of ensuring that the Fire Bureau has enough money, and we could talk about is cost recovery the best way, and we should talk about that, but when we tried to fund it through several other amendments in the budget, or when we tried to get the mayor to propose adequate funding for fire in the first place, those didn't happen. So now we're here, right? Um, it took, I think, 7 different attempts, 5 actual votes to get the fire engine funded, and that got 7 votes, right? Um, I, I do recognize that everybody here voted for at least one way to fund that, and I want to note that. Um, But I am just stunned that that is the conversation we're having right now. Anybody who's been on a ride-along has heard from firefighters that they have been asked to do more. The call volume to staffing ratio at fire has gone up. Nobody talks about it because we are in a habit and in a practice of only talking about bureaus that are political in their call volume to staffing ratio.
[02:48:18] Mitch Green: Thank you.
[02:48:18] Sameer Kanal: And not talking about it with fire. And we have watched as we have seen the fire station with the largest increase in call volume, Station 8, lose its double company in parallel to that process. And we're talking about blowing an $800,000 hole into the budget now. This won't be enough. The fire engine costs $2.5 million in one-time funding.
[02:48:43] Dan Ryan: Thank you.
[02:48:44] Sameer Kanal: It was $1.65 million for the rescue units, right? But why pile on another $800,000 onto it? And when we've been hearing about it for a long time, and anybody who's worked here for a while, and I know many of you have, I've seen Angela's work for a few years on it now from when I worked at the PSSA. Obviously, we all know the other folks up here as well from the last year and a half. This is not new. We've been hearing about it from some of the people in the back of the room as well, about how the budget is structurally not designed well. That can't get fixed here, but we have to do this in order to get to a place where we can have that conversation without having short-term consequences that are much worse. So I would say it is good for us to think about the overall volume of taxes and fees that we have as a city. But the way to fix that is this is not the place to draw the line. If we are going to do that, we should go back to some of the conversations we've had about things that are maybe not as unifying, maybe not as much core services, and are not the first thing you would put in the center of that Venn diagram. Thanks.
[02:49:54] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[02:49:57] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. There's clearly, you know, our fees are about They're about funding the city. They are also about sometimes incentivizing or disincentivizing behavior. And I think what I'm hearing across the dais is that we have a tension between those 2 things in this fee proposal. And I just think it's worth stating that clearly. We are perhaps inadvertently disincentivizing things we want to incentivize in order to get cost recovery, which I actually think cost recovery is important in the Fire Bureau because it's about the risk that you as an individual pose to the community around you and how we address that. But I just want to ask a question about how we make sure we don't end up over a quarter of the way into the budget year voting on fees that now won't be able to be levied until almost halfway through the budget year.
[02:50:55] Candace Avalos: Yeah.
[02:50:56] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: For a budget that we approved with the revenue from these fees in it. And I'm still not totally clear, though I know one of my colleagues asked the question, why this wasn't approved during the budget and how we were legally able to approve a budget that was not funded. So can somebody tell me how that happened and how we make sure either CFO Biery or City Administrator Lee we don't do that again? Because this isn't a great situation. I mean, we're talking an $800,000 budget hole, but we're going to have a budget hole one way or another because this doesn't go into effect until November. That's almost halfway through the fiscal year.
[02:51:40] Jonas Biery: Uh, yeah, thank you, uh, Councilor, for the questions. For the record, Jonas Biery, Chief Financial Officer. And apologies, I didn't hear the first part of the conversation, so hopefully I'm, I'm jumping And at an appropriate time. So acknowledge that, yes, the process we've had in the past where sometimes fees are implemented as a prospective revenue in the budget, which is allowed— I mean, property taxes, for example, are all an estimate, right? So that's normal budget practice, but it's not ideal. And so we've had a legacy practice at the city where often those fee-related decisions are made at the last Last moment and we don't have time to implement them technically in alignment with the budget, even though that's our ideal. To correct for that, we're taking— and we talked about some of this in the budget process work session a few weeks ago— we're taking a different approach both in expectations throughout the organization about doing the analysis and developing the proposal during the initial budget development during this upcoming budget cycle and in the future.
[02:52:45] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you.
[02:52:46] Jonas Biery: Both so we can be aware of what those changes and trade-offs might be. I heard some conversation about being strategic and making sure we're looking at the upstream, downstream, and collective impacts. So that will be part of that. The second part of that improvement will be making space in an earlier work session around the budget to have that dialogue with council so that that information is daylighted and known and hopefully can align so that those changes can be implemented alongside as a complete package. Thank you.
[02:53:17] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Great, thank you. I am glad to hear we already have things in place or in progress, I guess. And to be clear, even these would be estimates, right? We don't know exactly how many applications we'll get, how many fees will be charged. I understand that we need to true things up because there are estimates. I'm just not sure why we're voting on this in October and why this wasn't part of the package that we voted on during the budget or something that we voted on in July if we needed a little time to work it out after the budget. I know that's been answered technically, why didn't that happen, but functionally, I don't know why that wasn't part of the process. So I'm glad to hear we have things in place to make sure that we're running a little smoother next year. Thank you.
[02:54:00] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Smith.
[02:54:03] Loretta Smith: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. I was thinking the same thing because to me, $800,000 hole is just as important as a fire engine and to, to recover your costs. I do support that, but I have the same— I wanted to just kind of, um, layer on to this and what everybody, everybody else is saying. We got the TAO coming up. Why wasn't this put in the TAO? Why didn't we put this in the budget? Because now coming back— and so I expect to hear all of this kind of stuff with the TAO conversation and why we need to shore up some things.
[02:54:39] Addie Smith: Thank you.
[02:54:40] Loretta Smith: But this really, um, this kind of frightens me. And I'm a huge supporter of public safety, and I would not have thought for a second not to put that back in the budget. And so it also feels like, you know, departments, whether it be the budget folks or whoever is responsible, they say, let's get with— let's finish with this and let's get this budget passed. We don't want to hold up any other conversations. Councilwoman Loretta Smith. That we might need to have as it relates to increasing these funds or asking for stuff again and just waiting until after the budget. It's irritating. I guess that's what I'm saying. It's irritating and it's frustrating that all of a sudden— and we're going to hear the same thing with the TAO, that you have to shore up some things because we didn't get them paid for. Well, because they didn't even put them in the budget. So when you talk to the mayor and say what you need, why wasn't that a thing. And I know, um, Chief, you were not here, and so you were not responsible for the 2012, but I can't imagine that, um, we haven't updated something in 2012. And people say, you know, City Council is not doing anything. That's not true. We are all doing things. We've been passing all kind of legislation up here, and we've been trying to make sure that what our book of business is, that we make sure that you guys You guys have every resource that you need to have. And then when this comes out and say, oh, city council, they're just, you know, tax and spend, tax and spend— that's not so. Because we just don't know, because you all don't tell us. And because prior councils have not had the courage to keep up to date with a fee schedule, we are now having to carry that on our backs. And we've been doing everything that we're supposed to do.
[02:56:25] David Guither: Thank you.
[02:56:26] Loretta Smith: We've been doing our jobs. And so it makes it look like that we're the ones that are, that are doing all of this. But I'm not happy about it. I'm going to support it, but I'm not happy about it and how things come before us as if it is an emergency and it was never heard of before. I've never heard of this whole issue, never heard that there was going to be a big $800,000 hole. I would have loved to, Sameer, to, um, support that in the budget and just acknowledge it, that it is an issue. That's something that we need to be aware of, but this just seems kind of, um, late. It's just late. Thank you.
[02:57:01] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Novick.
[02:57:04] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to express my appreciation for Councilor Kanal's comments.
[02:57:09] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Councilor Zimmerman.
[02:57:12] Eric Zimmerman: Thank you. Um, I mean, I, I voted no in committee largely for many of the reasons that came up. It was like, there has to be a line in our professionalism, Mr. Administrator. And, uh, I felt that getting, getting this kind of ask out of, out of cycle— having been on that side, right, and now on this side, there is— we want to make decisions with an eye to everything that's going on. And those were some of the comments I think that the council president alluded to of, of those costs and recoveries. I don't believe that the work happened to outline with councilors why this was such a one-off, why this was such an emergency, why this was happening now and out of the normal sense. And I think that a little conversation can go a long way. Um, I, you know, the last couple of months I've just— I would just say from a service area perspective, not any of the one bureaus, but a service area perspective, I'm continually being disappointed by the public service area, public safety service area, in terms of how the work is arriving to council and what's being worked on. And so I just very much would encourage, um, some emphasis in this service area. This is the kind of thing that shouldn't have been difficult, and this is the kind of thing That, um, can be required. You know, we've got some needs in terms of some of the holes to fill, etc., but there's also an aspect that some of the conversations about requiring people to do their right and the permits we take out and public and, and, and, and the idea about cost recovery in public safety, I think those are, those are discussions that we haven't had, um, and I, and I'm not there with them.
[02:59:07] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you.
[02:59:07] Eric Zimmerman: I'm also a hell of a lot more often going to be a yes on things that when the bureau comes forward to us and says the increase we're proposing to you, council, matches the COLA for this year or matches the inflation rate for this year. That is such an easy conversation to have. And frankly, I could say most of my career has been that way. But to hear about a 2012 item that hasn't been changed and then kind of have it come in as seen as a small thing. It's a big thing. Um, and here's the last part of that. None of this tells me that we're right-sizing it to the right cost so that if we do choose to go with the cost of inflation here on out, that we've set the correct baseline. So this is where I'm challenged right now with the service area, and I'm challenged with, um, these types of topics. And frankly, Council President outlined even more details on this than I I even understand how it affects everyday community life. That is challenging. And so my no vote in committee again goes like, we have a process for a reason. We have times in which we go through fees and schedules, and that's the budget process. And I'm— I don't want to be a no on principle. But I also have not been convinced that these are the right fees and the right costs and it's the right time to do this. And so this has been challenging because we've got some competing thoughts up here, um, and I was hoping that we would have heard more since my committee vote of no to bring me to a yes, but I'm, I'm, I'm remaining challenged by that right now. I just need to share that with you.
[03:00:45] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Ryan.
[03:00:46] Dan Ryan: Yes, thank you, Council President. I just want to get some more little bit of information about process. So when did you first bring I mean, it's been a while.
[03:01:03] Jonas Biery: Well, yeah, Councilor, I'll take a stab. I, I don't know about the fee schedule. I don't remember what that timeline was, but I do want to acknowledge that, um, this was included as a decision package in the mayor's proposed in April, carried forward, um, and discussed at a work session on May 5th, and then moved to council on May 26th. 5Th, and then carried forward into the adopted budget. I appreciate that it probably wasn't clear that there needed to be an action to implement that, but I would— I do just want to make sure for the public record it's known that this wasn't as a tale of conversation that's happened publicly in advance of the fee ordinance coming to committee, which I think information the chief may have.
[03:01:42] Unidentified speaker: Yes, and sorry for listening with one ear to Jonas and then getting more information from our So I sent a memo in June, and then we went to Chiefs of Staff in July— at the end of— oh, in August, and we came to CAPS in September. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. So we have to improve our practices when— and there needs to be better communication about urgency. So I I think we— Council, I'm not on the committee, but it seems like we added to this timeline. So I just had to get more information to understand why this was so delayed. Yeah, understood. And just real quick, Councilor Zimmerman, I want to acknowledge your comments and then just let you know, for what it's worth, that these fee increases do get us back to the practice that we've been at in terms of cost recovery, so that if we were to just implement annual cost of living or inflation increases, that, that would keep us on pace. So set that there, and then the next conversation is certainly if we got guidance from city administration or council to change that model, we would be able to move forward.
[03:03:00] Jamie Dunphy: Great. Councilor Ryan, anything else?
[03:03:02] Dan Ryan: No, I, I just wanted to daylight that because I realized we've had some As we continue to build this new form of government, I think there are moments where the communication about urgency on an item that's related to fiscal issues as well, I think that has to be clearly communicated, and then it's on us if we keep delaying it. So understood.
[03:03:25] Addie Smith: Yeah.
[03:03:26] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. I put myself back in the queue, colleagues, for a second bit of comment. I just— one of the things that, um, the fire department has to do is approve floor plans for assembly spaces, right? Places where people gather. And, uh, that's theaters, large restaurants, big open space areas, and, you know, of course, of personal interest to me, music venues, uh, where people come together. The Fire Bureau has to do a lot of real extra work to make sure that it's safe and that the floor plan makes sense, and that people can get out if there's a problem, unquestionably. But let me just say again though, Portland needs people to get out. We have to be out in society around each other celebrating life, spending money, making the streets safer by their presence. The benefit of an assembly space is not just to the operator, but also in major ways as a benefit to the city as a whole. And so you know that I think of neighborhood music venues, restaurants and bars As the mortar that holds our city together, and we need more of that. And a lot of these businesses are already operating on a shoestring of a shoestring budget. So we should have a way to think about fees that acknowledges that. And I think it's true that across bureaus, not just fire— I'm not trying to pick on y'all, although I do have a problem with the laser permit— but, uh, there is a direct correlation between where the fire bureau and places where artists, including chefs and all kinds of artists do their work that makes our city beautiful, and we don't have a strategy, and we should. So Owen, City Administrator Jonas, Chief, I'm excited to work with you and the administration on thinking this through, um, and thinking through what the fee study can be. So thank you for your hard work. Please don't take this as a personal criticism. Councilor Smith.
[03:05:13] Loretta Smith: Council President, I just have a quick question. You tell me the, the order on this. I know I've noticed how when things have an urgency or it's put on our agenda, it has Mayor Wilson's name on it. Why don't we have these bureaus who are trying to put this stuff forward as the bureau? Because that's what we used to do at the county, so we know who's putting this forward. And because we don't even know who we're going to be talking to, we have no list of names or anything. It's just been driving me crazy for a year and a half.
[03:05:39] Jamie Dunphy: Good point to bring up, because actually that is specifically written out in 3.02, our Council rules, and we are going to be having a conversation about that very soon.
[03:05:47] Loretta Smith: So is it that— can bureaus bring things forward?
[03:05:50] Jamie Dunphy: Currently under our 3.02 rules, it must be an elected official whose name is in the sponsor line.
[03:05:54] Loretta Smith: So that's why the mayor's name is on it?
[03:05:56] Jamie Dunphy: Correct.
[03:05:57] Loretta Smith: Okay, perfect.
[03:05:57] Jamie Dunphy: The councilor could also be the, uh, the auditor as well.
[03:06:00] Loretta Smith: But okay, so, so we will have a chance to say that this is the mayor and then which bureau it should be, because then we'll know who's going to come up before us, right?
[03:06:07] Jamie Dunphy: I certainly think there is an opportunity for additional information Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Kanal.
[03:06:15] Sameer Kanal: Thank you. First, let me say I actually agree with literally everything you just said, Council President. I do want to work on that together with you. I think Councilor Zimmerman brought this up in a previous conversation like a year ago as well, that there's a lot of the impacts we have is not just on budgets and work of bureaus, but on frankly what our society looks like. Like. Um, regulation can help or hurt, uh, the idea of having a nightlife in the city, and, and I think there's a lot there that we should, we should look at. Um, the thing I wanted to bring up, uh, was I— last year we had a budget that was dependent on cost reductions associated with core realignment. We approved a budget that did not have, um, revenue in it for some of the work because we assumed that some of the work was going to go away as part of core realignment. And then we talked about it in the fall fault out. This year we have a budget that assumes revenue from fees that we had not yet unpaid, um, and that creates the, the challenge in the short term that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney talked about. I think that this is a budget problem, that we shouldn't be doing this unless we've already made the decision, um, because otherwise we end up where the fault-out is a not technical adjustment but just an adjustment. It's a supplemental budget effectively by design. Um, and also it's just not quite as, uh, transparent to the public about the decisions we're making on the budget. And I, I would like to see that change over the year. And I'm, I'm mostly looking at, I guess, uh, the budget office, uh, CFO and, and city administrator there. Um, it's, it's not an ideal way of going about it. And I think, uh, we should be transparent that, that this is going to mean some future action, especially when it's something like this, because we can We say fire fees are going to make up this difference, but hypothetically we could have done it in a different way, right? We could have not increased some of the fees, increased other ones more. There's a lot of different things that could have occurred, and so it's not as transparent in doing that. We're going to fix that for this one, and I— we've already talked about the specifics of fixing it for fire by putting it into the normal fee cadence. But I think the bigger picture is the budget should be done when it's done, uh, and not have these these, these later things we have to figure out. Um, otherwise we have some disaster to address in a, in a technical adjustment. Thanks.
[03:08:28] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on item 13?
[03:08:39] Keelan McClymont: Yep. Document 2026-300. Clark?
[03:08:42] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[03:08:43] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[03:08:45] Mitch Green: Aye.
[03:08:47] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[03:08:50] Eric Zimmerman: Absent. Aye.
[03:08:52] Keelan McClymont: Smith.
[03:08:55] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[03:08:57] Keelan McClymont: No.
[03:09:01] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[03:09:01] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[03:09:02] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with a vote of 9 ayes, 2 nays, and 1 absent.
[03:09:12] Jamie Dunphy: And colleagues, we have run out of time for today. We will not be able to hear item 14, document 2026-123. This will be continued to a future council meeting. And with that, we are adjourned.
[03:09:25] Sameer Kanal: Thank you.