# Portland City Council PM Session 10/21/26
# Meeting ID: 2026-10-22-1  Duration: 149 min

[00:05:11] Jamie Dunphy: Good evening. Before we begin this meeting of the Portland City Council, we have a pre-gavel ceremony to acknowledge Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Councilor Avalos, I'm going to turn it over to you.
[00:05:23] Candace Avalos: Okay, thank you, Council President. Um, so colleagues, I am honored to host today's Breast Cancer Awareness Month observance, and I want to thank specifically Nikhil Surya of Equi-Access and our partners at OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Pink Lemonade Project for joining us today. Breast cancer awareness is about more than reminding people to get screened. It's about making sure they actually have the opportunity to do so, because early detection can save lives, but only if people can access care. And we know that too many people face barriers because of cost, language, transportation, or where they live. As elected officials, we have a responsibility to recognize how those inequities affect the health and well-being of our communities. I'm especially inspired by the young people participating in EquiAccess's Know, Share, Act campaign, who are showing us that everyone has a role to play in sharing information and supporting one another. My hope is that we don't just recognize Breast Cancer Awareness Month, that we use it as a reminder of the work we still have to do to make healthcare more accessible and equitable for every Portlander. Thank you. So with that, let me invite our guest speakers to come to the front. All right, and we are going to kick it off with Nikhil Surya.
[00:06:54] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Take it away.
[00:06:57] Nikhil Surya: Good evening, councilors and members of our community. My name is Nikhil Surya. I'm 15 years old, a junior at St. Stephen's Academy, and the founder of Equi-Access. Some of my happiest childhood memories are with my mom, watching ducks at Laurelhurst Park, exploring OMSI and the Hawthorne food carts, and racing her up Mount Tabor. And when I was 10, my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. Her mammogram hadn't detected it, but it revealed dense breast tissue. Her doctor recommended additional screening, as dense tissue can be hard to read on a mammogram. An MRI found the cancer a month later. Having the right information at the right time may have saved her life. But I kept thinking about families who may never receive that information because of language barriers, cost, or access to care. I've been coming before this council to share her story, hoping it could help other families since 2024 when I was 13. During this time, I also founded Equi-Access, a youth-led awareness and access organization to turn that advocacy into action. This October, we shared breast health materials with high schools across the Portland metro area and partnered with participating schools on awareness activities. This October—. Oh, sorry. By educating students, we are both informing the next generation and bringing awareness home. Their voices can inspire parents, grandparents, and loved ones to take action. I'm grateful to have brought together OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and Pink Lemonade Project to support this year's City Hall event and community awareness efforts. Through partnerships and community outreach, our campaign has had an estimated reach of 12,000 people across Portland this October. And our efforts extend beyond Portland. EquiAccess is an official partner of the Federation of African Medical Students Associations for the 10,000 Youth March Against Breast Cancer, supporting fundraising and educational materials for its health village across 5 cities in Africa. Thank you. Thanks to all of you here today, as well as the table, for your support, particularly Councilor Avalos, Council President Dunphy, Councilor Koyama Lane, and our partners at OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and Pickle and May Project for helping spread awareness. Tonight I have 3 asks. First, prioritize your health. For women ages 40 to 70 at average risk, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommends a mammogram every 2 years. If you have dense breasts or other risk factors, ask your provider about earlier or additional screening. Second, help us spread the word. Know the facts about breast cancer and share it with someone you care about and act early. Third, counselors, please help connect EquiAccess with local schools, educators, and student leaders, because when we educate students, we can reach families and inform the next generation. Thank you. Recently, my mom and I went back to the Hawthorne food carts and raced up Mount Tabor again. Thanks to early detection, she's still here to race me. And that's what I want for every family. More memories, more ordinary days with the people that they love. Thank you.
[00:10:02] Candace Avalos: Thank you so much. I see—. Let's, let's see some silent clapping. Thank you. Next up, we've got Dr. Esther Chong from OHSU's Knight Cancer Institute.
[00:10:12] Esther Chong: Hello everyone, thank you so much for having me. My name is Dr. Esther Chong. I'm a medical oncologist that sees breast cancer patients at OHSU's Knight Cancer Institute. I am so happy to be able to speak to you all today about the importance of breast cancer awareness. The reality is that 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and that's just average risk. I see patients that have a diagnosis of breast cancer every single day, and the most common thing that I hear is, I didn't think that it would happen to me. And that's so true. We just don't think that it'll happen to us. But the reality is, is that we all know somebody close to us likely that has had a diagnosis of breast cancer, that has been affected by this disease. The reality is that thankfully our medications are getting better, our research is getting better, and it's getting faster as well. Thank you. Things are in the works, things are in the pipeline, but the best medicine, the best treatments, the best imaging studies, they're only good if they're able to actually reach the people that need it. And so I would just like to promote the importance of getting your mammograms, the importance of breast cancer screening. Um, the USPSTF, just like Nikhil said, starts at the age of 40. And with mammogram every 2 years, but that's just the beginning. If he has dense breasts, if you have any other high-risk factors, you should be able to talk to your doctor about getting supplemental screening, getting more frequent screening. So please advocate for your health because that's advocating for your life, advocating for those people around you because they need you. Thank you so much for this opportunity. We at OHSU and the Knight Cancer Institute, we have so many resources available to our patients where we're able to help patients with thank you. We work very closely with naturopaths, with dietitians, with social workers, and so forth. We—. Our goal is for patients to get the best treatment that they can, and we can't do it without our partners here, such as Pink Lemonade and the ACS. So thank you so much for what you guys do. If there's anything else that we can do, please let us know. But again, please get your mammograms.
[00:12:30] Candace Avalos: Thank you so much. Next up, we have Carrie Hampton from the American Cancer Society.
[00:12:36] Carrie Hampton: Hi, thank you so much for having us here and initiating this important conversation. Breast cancer has touched my family very personally. Both my mother and my mother-in-law were diagnosed with breast cancer the same year. My mom is a survivor because of early detection and screening, and we are incredibly grateful for that. But just this August, we lost my mother-in-law to a secondary cancer. So when I talk about the work of the American Cancer Society and the Cancer Action Network, this mission isn't just professional for me, it's personal. Our goal is really pretty simple, to save lives and end cancer as we know it for everyone. And we do that in a lot of different ways. We help people understand the importance of early detection and connect them with trusted information and screening resources in their communities. We invest in research that leads to better ways to prevent, detect, and treat cancer. And we support patients and families through what can be one of the most hardest times in their lives. But we also know that having screening or a new treatment available isn't enough when people can't access it. And that's why advocacy matters so much. The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, or ACS CAN, we bring together survivors, caregivers, providers, and people who have just simply been touched by cancer so we can make their voices heard. We share our stories, we talk to our lawmakers, and we advocate for policies that break down barriers to screening and treatment, improve access to care, and continue our investment in life-saving, saving cancer research. Because where you live, what you earn, or the resources available in your community shouldn't determine your chances of surviving cancer. And that's something that we can all play a part in changing. When we share our stories, raise our voices, and work together, we can make a difference and move closer to ending cancer as we know it for everyone. Thank you.
[00:14:38] Candace Avalos: Thank you so much. And last but not least, we've got Anne Dvorak from the Pink Lemonade Project.
[00:14:46] Anne Dvorak: Thank you. My name is Anne Dvorak, and I am a breast cancer survivor. Those are words I never thought I would say. Breast cancer didn't run in my family, and I wasn't close with anyone who had breast cancer. The month before I turned 50, I had my second mammogram ever. They found breast cancer. In fact, I only went to get my mammogram to get my doctor to quit nagging at me to go get it. I thought breast cancer was a hereditary disease and it wasn't going to touch me. Thank you. And that 85% of breast cancer diagnoses are family related. I was wrong. Only 15% is hereditary. Pink Lemonade Project is a local breast cancer organization founded here to help individuals going through breast cancer. We provide support for patients as supportive care in complement of the medical care that they receive. Life after a breast cancer diagnosis takes on a new normal in a woman's next chapter. The day-to-day of how that normal is has cancer medications that are prescribed upward to 10 years, all of which have a broad range of side effects that have to be managed or learned to live with. There are financial costs of copays if someone's fortunate enough to have insurance. Or the unthinkable out-of-pocket costs for doctors, hospital stays, treatments, drugs, being out of work for healing and treatment, and the physical toll from surgery or multiple surgeries, chemotherapy, radiation, and the new drugs our bodies are now adjusting to. Trying to go to work each day and power through the bad days to make sure you can bring home a paycheck are beyond difficult. Pink Lemonade Project is here to provide crucial supportive care during and after the medical care. Financial aid programs, support groups, peer mentors, retreats— this is a community, a place where you are understood, valued, and included. There will never be a time in anyone's life who has been diagnosed with breast cancer when the most agonizing time of their life is from the time they get a mammogram to finally getting the results of the mammogram, even if she's lucky enough for it to be only a matter of hours. This fear will never leave us. Pink Lemonade Project served 4,842 individuals last year, and we are on track for that again. The need is greater than ever for breast cancer support in all forms and it's only growing. I would like to share just a few things about the people that we have helped have said. Heather said, "I was able to exhale because my paycheck was going to be short from taking time off for surgery." Michelle said, "I could not have imagined being a nurse for the past 30 years would leave me penniless. Metastatic breast cancer and the enormous toll of the treatments or impact on my health." savings and retirement, but I'm grateful to be alive and for organizations like you. Your support gives me hope, restores me, lifts me out of despair, a reminder there is still love. Together, all of us working together, we can make sure that no one goes through breast cancer alone.
[00:18:24] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[00:18:35] Candace Avalos: Thank you so very much for sharing your very personal stories, for sharing your knowledge, your advocacy, and for my— for reminding us up here that we have a lot of work to do to make sure that our communities have access to the healthcare they deserve so that nobody has to be alone when facing a horrible diagnosis. You have support, you have resources, and that's thanks to the folks that are here in our pre-gavel. So thank you so much. One more time. Thank you. Thank you, Council President.
[00:19:06] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you all so much for being here today. Thank you, Councilor Avalos, for bringing this to us. Um, I really appreciate it. Keelan, I'm calling to order this meeting of the Portland City Council. Can we please call the roll?
[00:19:19] Keelan McClymont: Good evening. Clark?
[00:19:21] Olivia Clark: Here.
[00:19:22] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[00:19:23] Mitch Green: Here.
[00:19:23] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman? Avalos?
[00:19:27] Candace Avalos: Present.
[00:19:31] Jamie Dunphy: Here.
[00:19:32] Keelan McClymont: Here.
[00:19:34] Loretta Smith: Here.
[00:19:34] Unidentified speaker: Here.
[00:19:36] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Here.
[00:19:40] Angelita Morillo: Here.
[00:19:41] Steve Novick: Here.
[00:19:43] Jamie Dunphy: Here. And could the city attorney please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
[00:19:49] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[00:19:50] Eric Zimmerman: I'm also here.
[00:19:51] Jamie Dunphy: Oh, hello, Councilor Zimmerman.
[00:19:53] Loretta Smith: Thank you.
[00:19:54] Robert Taylor: Thank you. 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. The 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. Thank you, Mayor. Your testimony should please address the matter being considered. When testifying, please state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, please identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should please unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
[00:21:15] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. As always, the first item on our agenda is the approval of the daily agenda. May I have unanimous consent to approve today's agenda? Seeing no objection, the agenda is approved. Keelan, can we please call public communications?
[00:21:32] Keelan McClymont: First up, we have Jane Monson.
[00:21:36] Unidentified speaker: Welcome.
[00:21:37] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Hi.
[00:21:37] Jamie Dunphy: Please introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you got 3 minutes.
[00:21:41] Jane Monson: Hi, I'm Jane Monson, the president of the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association. At our last board meeting, 90% of the 19 board members who were present voted in favor of presenting our concerns to the City Council regarding a proposed cottage cluster development in our neighborhood. I would like to stress that none of our board members expressed opposition to the city's goal of increasing the amount of affordable housing in Portland. Our concerns are centered around the city's lack of consideration of the impacts of these developments on the adjacent city right-of-way. Thank you. Our board has the same concerns that University Park resident Kate Calvert and Councilor Dan Ryan raised at your October 14th council meeting. Specifically, we are concerned that the following issues have not been adequately resolved. One, waste management. Only one house was demolished for this development, but the proposed 10-unit development can be expected to produce up to 30 carts and bins every week, and more on garbage pickup weeks. Where will these carts be placed when the street is lined with parked cars? 2, Accessibility of emergency equipment. Has the Fire Bureau confirmed that they can get their equipment through Rural Street when cars are parked on both sides of this street? 3, Pedestrian safety. Will the city enforce visibility for pedestrians near this development? The proposed 10-unit development will produce an additional 15 to 20 cars to a street that's already lined with parked cars. This will result in cars being parked right up to the corner of the intersection that is only 80 feet away from this development. Can the city afford another $1.5 million settlement due to an accident caused by limited visibility at this intersection? 4, Availability of transit. The residents of Rural Street development will drive cars because they have limited transit options. This location does not have a good transit score. In fact, the nearest bus service was reduced by TriMet In August of 2026. 5, Impact on sewer and streets. Can the aging sewer line in our neighborhood handle a development of 10 units where only 1 existed before? Does the city have a specific standard by which the front of the road in front of this development will be repaired other than a low-quality patch job that will start deteriorating as soon as the project is finished? All we are asking of the city is that any review and is that the review of any cottage cluster development, not just the one proposed in Eastmoreland, include a waste management plan, review by the Fire Bureau and Public Works, an adequate plan for public safety, and an assessment of available transit. And if these requirements cannot be met, there should be a reduction of the number of units. And my testimony and supporting letters from many of the neighbors will be submitted to the County Clerk's Office for distribution to the council. I appreciate your time and attention. Thank you.
[00:24:33] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much for being here tonight.
[00:24:37] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Branigan Lieuallen.
[00:24:45] Unidentified speaker: Welcome.
[00:24:46] Jamie Dunphy: Introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you got 3 minutes.
[00:24:51] Branigan Lieuallen: Hi, my name is Branigan. I'm 21 years old, she/her, and I've lived in the heart of the city since I was 15. I hope to dedicate my career to homeless outreach. Through independent research and conversations with individuals experiencing homelessness, I've come to realize just how complicated this crisis is. I believe compassion and accountability must work together. One concern I repeatedly hear from individuals who are sober, struggling, and actively trying to rebuild their lives is there simply isn't enough room for them. Why are people seeking stability still struggling to access shelter, recovery resources, and housing? Councilor Loretta Smith. And how are we measuring whether our investments are creating lasting change? In February, Portland disclosed approximately $106 million previously unbudgeted housing funds. While some funds had spending restrictions and the council has since approved allocations, this discovery raises serious questions about financial oversight. How could resources of this magnitude remain outside the budget while people desperately need assistance? Councilmember Loretta Smith, And what safeguards will prevent this from happening again? Are we measuring success by how much money we spend or how we meaningfully affect people's lives? Multnomah County budgeted approximately $5.4 million for its harm reduction program this fiscal year. I recognize the importance of preventing overdose deaths and infectious diseases, but I want to understand how we're measuring the program's effectiveness. Thank you. And how people are successfully connected to treatment and whether we're investing successfully in long-term recovery. Preventing overdose deaths matter, but so does providing accessible treatment, recovery-oriented housing, and pathways towards independence. Another concern is individuals experiencing such severe impairment that they're unable to recognize the danger that they're in. Consider this: if you suffered a stroke, became disoriented, or couldn't recognize that you needed medical attention, wouldn't you hope someone would intervene? Why should this principle of care disappear when a person is living on our streets? I believe that when someone demonstrates the lack of informed decisions or the capability, um, about their immediate safety, medically justified involuntary intervention may sometimes be necessary with professional oversight and legal safety guards. Sometimes protecting someone's dignity means intervening when they cannot protect themselves. Accountability from individuals, publicly funded organizations, and the government responsible for overseeing these investments is my main concern. We cannot confuse compassion with enabling destructive behavior, nor accountability with abandoning people who need help. I'm not just trying to complain or just have the opportunity to be heard. I'm asking for the opportunity to contribute because they deserve results, and so does our city. Thank you.
[00:27:50] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you so much for being here tonight.
[00:27:56] Keelan McClymont: Next up we have Lacey Sutton.
[00:28:02] Jamie Dunphy: Good evening, Lacey. Come on down, introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you got 3 minutes.
[00:28:09] Lacey Sutton: Lacey Sutton. I'm here to read you a letter that was written by my neighbor. Dear city officials, I'm writing to express my serious concern regarding a large tree located in my backyard, extremely close to my home and my children's bedrooms. I'm a parent of 3 children, and our family lives on the 3rd floor, very close to this enormous tree. During the 3 years we have lived in this home, branches have repeatedly fallen from the tree, raising serious concerns about its safety. Our family has lived with constant fear during the winter months, especially when strong winds and storms occur. On many nights, my husband has woken up in the middle of the night because of the wind, awakened our 3 children, and moved them downstairs to sleep on the first floor, hoping they would be safer there. No family should have to live with this level of fear in their own home. What makes the situation even more alarming is that a professional arborist inspected the tree and confirmed that it is dangerous. The arborist warned us that if the tree were to fall, it could cause catastrophic damage, potentially splitting our house in half. We were also informed that moving our children to the first floor would not necessarily protect them if the tree collapsed onto our home. As a parent, hearing this was terrifying. Knowing that even the precautions we've been taking may not protect our children has made the situation extremely stressful for our entire family. We're not asking for the removal of this tree simply because it is inconvenient. We are asking because a professional has identified a serious safety hazard that threatens our home and most importantly, the lives of our children. I respectfully urge the city to take immediate action to address this dangerous situation and authorize and facilitate the removal of the tree before tragedy occurs. The safety of children and families should always be a priority. We sincerely hope the city will recognize the urgency of the situation and take the necessary steps to protect our family and our neighbors. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. And I think we should just sit with her dread for a minute.
[00:30:34] Unidentified speaker: Thank you. Councilor Smith.
[00:30:55] Lacey Sutton: That sound, the sound of nothing, is all we've heard from Habitat for Humanity since I sent them an email Monday morning thank you very much.
[00:31:18] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have River Scholl joining online.
[00:31:24] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome, River. Go ahead.
[00:31:26] Unidentified speaker: Hi.
[00:31:30] River Scholl: City Councilors, it's great to see you all again. I appreciate those of you who have listened and heard. For over a year, you've heard Lacey talk about what is happening at Cherry Blossom. And now the situation has gone just beyond the fire issue. It's gone beyond a home with recurrent mold that isn't being treated. It has now become a situation where a 125-foot tree that is 47 inches wide and weighs over 50,000 pounds could fall at any moment under 20 miles per hour wind. That tree is moving the ground. Douglas firs are not meant to raise the ground in 20-mile-per-hour winds. Councilmember Smith, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We are now heading, as it is said, winter is coming. And if that tree is not taken down and the coin flip lands badly, I 100% say that Habitat and the City of Portland will have blood on their hands, the blood of children. Many of you have spoken here about your defense an advocate for immigrants. The family that is most affected by this is an immigrant family. So I need to know that this is not just a campaign promise. I need to know that when you talk about affordable housing, that you talk about safe affordable housing. I am not here to be a NIMBY. I'm here because lives are on the line. And because the silence has been deafening, the fact that I go to the city auditor and her first response is to deflect this is shameful. We expect better from you. If nothing else, this is an election cycle, and I'm going to be a thorn if I don't see something. I don't mean to be harsh, and I'm sorry, but when there are children facing the end of their lives because of inaction by so, so many who could do something, anything, I will not be silent just because it makes everybody else in the room comfortable. I have so much respect for some of you, but this is astounding. Thank you.
[00:34:12] Unidentified speaker: I honestly don't have more to say. I need you all to act. I need you all to make sure this happens. I need you all to get that tree removed, and I need you to do it before it kills people. Thank you.
[00:34:29] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. And Keelan, before we move on to our next testifier, I'd like to ask, uh, DCA Donnie Oliveira to come up and directly respond. This is, uh, you know, often we hear about some very specific things that are happening in the community through our communications slot. This is something that also has been on my radar through— thanks to Lacey and River. And so DCA Oliveira offered to come and respond directly.
[00:34:49] Donnie Oliveira: Thank you, Council President. Good evening, councilors. Donnie Oliveira for the record. Councilors, given the interest in this topic, I just want to provide a brief update, just some context. First, a tree on the property was identified for concern in August, on August 27th. PP&D's tree division did send an inspector out in September to evaluate the tree. So that— we have sent an inspector out there. Uh, the case was deemed to be unfounded and the case was closed on September 22nd. Uh, the city has received a report from an arborist with a little less detail than we would have liked, but nonetheless, yesterday Tree Division reopened the case and we'll be sending an inspector out again to take another look at the tree. So we're going to be responsive to the request. I just want to flag that we have in the past sent an inspector out in person, not through video, to see the tree. Thank you. So more to come on this. Thank you.
[00:35:40] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. And we've got a couple folks in the queue, councilors who maybe have some follow-up questions really quickly. Um, Councilor Zimmerman and then Councilor Kanal.
[00:35:49] Eric Zimmerman: Uh, thank you, Council President. With respect to telling an arborist from the private industry that their report doesn't meet the, um, you know, whatever the qualifications are that our own tree inspectors— how do we normally mitigate that? That this has been an ongoing thing now that I, I thought we were trying to address, um, with respect to when a property owner hires a tree service and that tree service deems a danger. Um, I have yet to get a really coherent answer why our city employees, uh, seem to push back on that in what's becoming too often a case that has to come to city council. I just—. I'm trying to understand where we're going here. Thank you. Um, given that the tree services are doing this all the time and the property rights when it comes to danger, this is really bumping up against who has the call here. And I'm afraid that we're buying the call in a very liable way. And I'm just curious where your direction is going to go on this, Mr. DCA.
[00:36:56] Donnie Oliveira: Thank you, Councilor. In this particular case, Councilor, and I don't disagree with your general premise that we want to trust our experts, the fact that we sent an arborist our own arborist out to the site in person versus a recommendation that came via a video that was sent to the arborist. So the arborist who sent the letter did not go out on site. He received a video. So because of that, to just be triple check, we're going to send another person out. So we have another on-site inspection. We would—. We're just going to trust that an on-site inspection for a tree, especially given the testimony you heard earlier, is more likely to be, um, more valuable than a video review.
[00:37:37] Eric Zimmerman: I think that that's helpful context, so thank you for that.
[00:37:41] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Kanal.
[00:37:43] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I appreciate Councilor Zimmerman's questions. The, uh, the folks who have been sent and are being sent, are they the team that was moved out of Urban Forestry to PP&D last budget cycle?
[00:37:55] Unidentified speaker: The—.
[00:37:55] Donnie Oliveira: That team, I, I don't know if the individual— we've had some new hires, but in that that team, yes.
[00:38:01] Sameer Kanal: Okay, thank you.
[00:38:07] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, thank you. We call our last— Folks, this is a disturbance. I need order in the chamber, please. Thank you.
[00:38:24] Unidentified speaker: Thank you. Contracts. When do we want it? Now. We don't get it. Shut it down. What do we want? Contracts. When do we want it? Now. We don't get it. Shut it down. Contracts. When do we want it? Now. Shut it down. Contracts. Now! Show me now!
[00:38:54] Jamie Dunphy: All right, Keelan, can we call the last folks for public communications?
[00:39:00] Keelan McClymont: Next up we have John McDonald.
[00:39:04] Unidentified speaker: Contact! Now!
[00:39:10] Keelan McClymont: John McDonald.
[00:39:13] Unidentified speaker: Contact! Now!
[00:39:17] Keelan McClymont: Um, our alternate tonight is Tino Juarez. I think Tino might be joining us from the overflow room.
[00:39:32] Jamie Dunphy: Well, if we have folks in the overflow room, they're welcome to come over here. We have space now. We'll wait a second to see if she's able to—.
[00:39:42] Unidentified speaker: Yeah.
[00:39:50] Keelan McClymont: Tino, if you're in the overflow room, you can come over. Hmm? We're, we're checking to see if he's over there. He had let me know that he was over there.
[00:40:19] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[00:40:22] Jamie Dunphy: All right, colleagues, what is blue and smells like green paint? Blue paint.
[00:40:29] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[00:40:35] Tiffany Koyama Lane: No, is that one homemade, Council President?
[00:40:40] Jamie Dunphy: No, I'm not nearly clever enough to make up jokes. I just struggle to— that was a pretty good one. What do you think, folks? Is—. Are they coming from the—.
[00:40:57] Unidentified speaker: Nope.
[00:41:00] Keelan McClymont: I mean, if you want to go on and then—.
[00:41:02] Jamie Dunphy: You know, if they show up, we're going to come back. Oh, hey, there we go.
[00:41:07] Unidentified speaker: I think they call it Tino.
[00:41:10] Keelan McClymont: Oh, are you John? Oh, okay. Yeah, so John. Yeah, go ahead, John.
[00:41:17] Angelita Morillo: Great.
[00:41:18] Unidentified speaker: Where do I sit?
[00:41:20] Keelan McClymont: Yeah, you can sit right there.
[00:41:23] Jamie Dunphy: Come on up. Welcome. Uh, introduce yourself for the record, and you have 3 minutes.
[00:41:33] John McDonald: Hello, uh, my name is John McDonald. Uh, I'm a service worker for TriMet and a member of ATU 757. I'm here in solidarity with the workers, and I hope they get a fair contract. And I'd like to allocate the rest of my time to this gentleman behind me. See you walking.
[00:41:52] Jamie Dunphy: Okay.
[00:41:57] Candace Avalos: Uh, well, he said he wanted to allocate his time to the other guy, so yeah, he's gone.
[00:42:04] Jamie Dunphy: All right, well, appreciate folks for testifying. We are going to move on to our next item. Um, colleagues, our next item on our agenda is, as normal— oh, Tina, there we go. All right, I don't know what kind of circus I'm running today, but here we go. Welcome.
[00:42:22] Tino Juarez: My apologies.
[00:42:24] Jamie Dunphy: Um, can I go? Go ahead and introduce yourself for the record.
[00:42:27] Tino Juarez: Uh, good evening, City Council. My name is Tino with the Carpenters. Many of you guys already know me already. Um, I just wanted to just give my 2 cents on something that I just kind of saw coming through our City Council with the permitting land use and development zoning, kind of updated with the state level. And, um, and I understand that the pro— that the idea is to streamline the process and to encourage development and growth. But as I looked at these little things, HB 2138, SB 9074, and so on, there is no language in there that has anything to do about the local workforce or any community standard at all. Everyone knows in the construction industry that 20 to 30% of the, of the budget of the entire project is tied up in permitting alone before the shovel even hits the ground next day. Thank you. Right? And so just right there, man, owners and developers are getting a streamlined project with a 30% increase, a raise, without the community even in mind. You know, and I just want to say, as some of you, man, you've seen what happens in the construction industry. Imagine if these crooked contractors, irresponsible cheating contractors that take advantage of hiding behind being a community partner but taking advantage of the local workforce, we're streamlining that for them. And the one thing I guess what breaks my heart the most is that, man, I thought we had friends, labor community partners, that, that, you know, when you're, when you, when you're partners and you're friends, you, you call somebody, you say, hey man, that's construction, this is what you guys do. And maybe, maybe there's a misunderstanding when they see this badge, you're here, you're here in City Council, this is not about a union issue. My EST of our organization says that the carpenters is here to raise the standard for the working class, that any person in Portland, in Oregon, or immigrants swings a hammer, puts a screw in drywall, puts forms for bridges, concrete, you name it, that's going to be built here, that's going to last for generations. These people are going to make wealth for generations. Thank you. And the community is not even in mind. When do we settle for just raising it to the state level? That's not Portland. We're, we're better than that, man. When do we settle for just the bottom? Where's an amendment that says, hey, we're gonna hook you guys up, but we need to make sure that you're going to take care of the workers, that they're safe, and that there's a safeguard for them? That's all I got, man. Thank you guys, man. You guys hit me up, you know, you know. Thank you.
[00:45:08] Unidentified speaker: Have a good one, guys.
[00:45:09] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Thank you very much to everybody who came to testify. Um, colleagues, our item number— item number 3 on our update on our agenda is, uh, checking in with the city administrator to see if there's any updates with regard to our response to federal interventions that are happening in our city. Mr. Lee.
[00:45:28] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you, Council President. Uh, detentions reported to the PERC hotline remain low, uh, following the brief uptick earlier, earlier this month. Our immigrant affairs liaison is still preparing to present the city's first annual report to the council next week, along with a presentation to the committee of the whole. At this point in time, I'll pass it to City Attorney Robert Taylor to provide an update and an overview on the facility and legal proceedings and take questions per last week's council meeting.
[00:46:02] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[00:46:03] Robert Taylor: Robert Taylor, City Attorney, for the record. As you will recall, the city issued a notice of violation to the owner of the ICE facility related to an alleged violation of the conditional land use approval. That was appealed by the building owner to the hearings officer. The hearings officer found in favor of the city and upheld the notice of violation. Thank you. That decision was issued in July of 2026. The hearings officer decision has been appealed to the circuit court, the Multnomah County Circuit Court. So pending that appeal, a stay from the circuit court is in place, meaning that while the stay is in place, we cannot take any enforcement action. Thank you. Or any other action while that stay is pending. You will also recall that at one point that stay was so broad that it even stopped the hearings officer from issuing its decision. We successfully got the stay lifted for that purpose, so we are grateful that the hearings officer was able to issue its decision. Uh, the court hearing On the appeal is scheduled for November 20th. So that is the next big event in this case. So we will have an update after November 20th.
[00:47:43] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, City Attorney. Colleagues, are there any questions for our folks on what was just shared? Okay, seeing no one, thank you all very much. Keelan, can we please move to our first time certain item, item number 4?
[00:47:58] Keelan McClymont: Document 2026-345, amend the Portland Zoning Code to bring it into compliance with Oregon state legislative bills passed in 2025 and '26, amend Title 33.
[00:48:10] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. We heard about this last week, maybe the week before, I don't remember. Time has no meaning. Colleagues, is there any further discussion? Seeing none— oh, Councilor Ryan.
[00:48:28] Dan Ryan: Um, I would like to hear from staff about the concerns we've had about the cottage clusters and the right-of-way and the narrowness of the streets. We've been hearing that for years now, so it'd be great to hear an update. I, I want to know if BPS is bringing in the Fire Bureau and working with Waste Management about some of these concerns.
[00:48:55] Unidentified speaker: You're—.
[00:48:56] Sameer Kanal: Councilor, just to be clear, you're referring to the testimony earlier about the—.
[00:49:00] Jamie Dunphy: Well, I asked those questions as well last week and concerns in general, cottage clusters, right?
[00:49:08] Sameer Kanal: In general, the cottage cluster legislation is a state legislation that largely preempts local authority in these questions. So largely we're preempted from having criteria that address many of the issues that were raised.
[00:49:22] Raymond C. Lee: Okay.
[00:49:23] Dan Ryan: And we, we didn't go further than what the state asked for?
[00:49:26] Sameer Kanal: We're not allowed to.
[00:49:27] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[00:49:28] Dan Ryan: We do quite often, so curious. Okay.
[00:49:34] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Any further questions there? Okay. Thank you very much. Colleagues, any further questions for our staff before—. Nope. Okay, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
[00:49:48] Keelan McClymont: Calling the roll on document 2026-345. Clark.
[00:49:53] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:49:54] Keelan McClymont: Green.
[00:49:54] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:49:56] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman.
[00:49:57] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[00:49:59] Keelan McClymont: Avalos.
[00:50:00] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[00:50:00] Keelan McClymont: Smith.
[00:50:01] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[00:50:02] Unidentified speaker: Knoll.
[00:50:03] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:50:04] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney.
[00:50:06] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[00:50:09] Dan Ryan: Out of concern for the public right-of-way, I'm going to do a no.
[00:50:14] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[00:50:15] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[00:50:17] Steve Novick: Aye.
[00:50:19] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[00:50:19] Keelan McClymont: The ordinance passes with 11 ayes and 1 nay.
[00:50:24] Jamie Dunphy: Can we please move to the consent agenda?
[00:50:27] Keelan McClymont: Uh, no items have been pulled from the consent agenda. I'll call the roll to approve it. Clark?
[00:50:35] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[00:50:36] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[00:50:37] Mitch Green: Aye.
[00:50:38] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[00:50:39] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[00:50:40] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[00:50:41] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[00:50:42] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[00:50:43] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[00:50:43] Keelan McClymont: Kanal?
[00:50:45] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[00:50:47] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[00:50:48] Steve Novick: Aye.
[00:50:49] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy?
[00:50:49] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[00:50:57] Keelan McClymont: The consent agenda is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
[00:51:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Keely, can we please call items 7 and 8 together?
[00:51:07] Keelan McClymont: Item 7, document 2026-362, authorize intergovernmental agreement between the city, State of Oregon, and Multnomah County to establish the Oregon Arena Joint Authority. Item 8, document 2026-363, appoint members to the Oregon Arena Joint Authority.
[00:51:25] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. This is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance and a report. The second reading of the ordinance is creating the Joint Arena— the Oregon Arena Joint Authority, and the continuation of the report appointing the initial members to that body, which we carried over today to vote on both items at the same meeting. We will vote on the ordinance and on the appointments report following that. As I noted last week, this is another significant step forward. By creating this body alongside our state and county partners and appointing 3 city representatives, we are demonstrating that Portland is showing up to the table in good faith. We are doing our part to move this process forward. Our hope is, of course, that we have a partner on the other side of the table who's equally ready to match that commitment. As a reminder to this body, we are still operating on an incredibly tight timeline to protect the city's interests. We need to see definitive documents, including a transparent finalized budget, clear lease terms, strong labor standards, and a robust community benefits agreement before any final action on funding is scheduled. Today's vote keeps the momentum going and keeps us organized with our regional partners. I want to thank our negotiating team for their continued hard work and look forward to receiving further updates during our executive session tomorrow. Thank you. With that, colleagues, we are in council discussion of the— well, technically both items are orders or open, so we are welcome to discuss both. Councilor Green.
[00:53:01] Mitch Green: Thank you, Council President. Colleagues, I apologize for filing this late, but I do want to bring forward an amendment. I don't know if I'll have the support for it, but I would like to describe why I'm doing it. Last week was a pretty rushed— or I wouldn't say rushed, but We spent a lot of time on the land use item. Actually, there were 2 land use items that we spent like the lion's share of the time. So we didn't really have a chance to engage with this IGA. I have given it some thought. I think last week, I, you know, if I had to vote last week, I would've voted no. I don't have any substantive disagreement with the IGA as it stands, but I have serious misgivings with the impact statements for the IGA. Thank you. And so I have amendments that address those. The amendments do basically 3 things. First, it strikes all of the kind of speculative discussion on— and by the way, this is in your inboxes.
[00:53:58] Unidentified speaker: 6:15.
[00:54:00] Candace Avalos: What?
[00:54:00] Mitch Green: When did you—.
[00:54:01] Dan Ryan: 6:15.
[00:54:02] Mitch Green: I sent it a little after the council started. So the financial and budgetary impact section of the impact statement includes a lot of speculative economic analysis discussion that doesn't belong in that section of the impact statement. So that strikes that. The second piece is it adds an up to $573 million in renovations, not a $573 million in renovations. That's a really important piece because that was very clear in our term sheet that this was an up to amount. It also adds a statement that says a robust and independently verifiable economic analysis of the potential renovation that the Oregon Arena Joint Authority would govern has not been performed, because it has not been performed. Um, a—. It further amends a 2023 impact analysis. It says it suggests that the economic activity of the region and the state of the Rose Quarter the Vet Campus is estimated over $600 million. But then it continues and adds the sentence, however, this report relied upon methods, data, and assumptions that are not open to public scrutiny and therefore have no analytical value in the consideration of the economic and real estate impacts of the proposed project. Then it strikes the piece that refers to more recent economic information sort of corroborating that earlier study. And then finally, in the financial and budget analysis section, it adds that the powers vested in the Oregon Arena Joint Authority will have financial and budgetary impacts as the body makes approval decisions regarding the proposed renovation or future renovations. However, these impacts are unknown at this time and do present long-term risks to the city. The financial and budget impacts following the establishment of the Oregon Arena Joint Authority are mitigated by the provisions in the, the IGA itself, which I recognize. That sort of say, look, there's transparency, open meetings law will govern this, and that there are procedures to replace the appointees outlined in it. But it acknowledges that there are risks created by this joint authority. And then it strikes again another discussion of the speculative estimates that cannot be relied upon or verified. Thank you. So that's what the amendments do. I really cannot vote yes on an item that has assumptions that cannot be verified in an impact analysis, 'cause that's the purpose of those. So I hope to get some support on this. If not, you know, whatever, we'll move forward. But this is how I get to yes on the joint authority.
[00:56:39] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[00:56:40] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. All right, colleagues, are you formally moving this amendment?
[00:56:45] Mitch Green: Yeah, I move Green 1.
[00:56:46] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[00:56:47] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Second.
[00:56:48] Angelita Morillo: Second.
[00:56:48] Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, I heard Councilor Koyama Lane as a second first. Councilor Morillo, I'm sure you would have been first if you had been in person.
[00:56:55] Angelita Morillo: I apologize.
[00:56:57] Jamie Dunphy: Um, so colleagues, uh, we are now in discussion of Green 1. Uh, I put myself in the queue first. Um, Councilor Green, I, I want to— I take this proposal in the spirit that I think it's meant. Um, impact statements are supposed to be a factual So it's supposed to be factual supporting information. And I think you have a really principled stance that the economic analysis that has been done in support of the arena renovation may not be as rigorous, conclusive, or accurate as those statements make it appear to be viewed in isolation. I do absolutely think that our impact statements, the protocol for writing them, how they're fact-checked and approved, needs a refresher. In particular, I've seen some budgetary impact statements in the last year that are plainly inaccurate. That's a systemic failure. There is some question about whether impact statements can be amended. I think that's only a question we should be having if we have our house in order and how they're written. But if we're serious about having rigorous conversations about the staff time needed to stand up legislative initiatives, then we should probably also be serious about the impact statements. And we will need a much more transparent transparent and reliable process for those statements than we have now. But as for tonight though, I think you have a point, but it's not a change that, uh, that will meaningfully impact the actual effect of the legislation. And so I won't be supportive of the amendment. But, uh, we are of course welcome to move forward on this, uh, however you want. However, I will say to, uh, City Administrator Lee, to DCA Oliveira, to, uh, Director Levine, Director Levine, I would personally appreciate to see some more measured language in these impact statements when future legislation that may actually appropriate funds for this project comes before us. So thank you. Councilor Murillo, and then Councilor Koyama Lane.
[00:58:45] Angelita Morillo: Yeah, thank you for this. Um, Councilor Green, thank you for bringing this forward. I, I feel the same way about it, and I think that my yes vote on this will be contingent on this amendment passing for a few reasons. I don't think that us as councilors have been able to pass policies without making pretty robust impact statements that have been wielded very strongly and politically at times. And you'll get crucified if you don't have a good, well-done impact statement, and your policy will not hold up to scrutiny if it's not there. And who gets to pass a policy without a strong impact statement also varies. So because of that, Um, I could not possibly think of a policy or an agreement that requires a higher scrutiny in an impact statement than this one. And so because of that, I will be supporting this amendment. I think that this is really critical, and there have been a lot of numbers that have floated around that have confused us, that have confused the public on what the real things are that we're looking at. Thank you. And we can't get to the heart of this negotiation with any clarity if we don't have those facts before us. So again, thanks for bringing this forward. I will be supportive of that, and if the amendment passes, I will be supporting— I could support the underlying.
[01:00:12] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Councilor Koyama Lane.
[01:00:15] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I'm also supportive of this amendment. Thank you, Councilor Green. You know, just to reiterate, it doesn't amend language of the ordinance. It's, uh, the impact statement, and I think it makes that more accurate, and it would help me feel much more comfortable moving forward on this IGA. I think it's really important that we are being clear and presenting the facts when we're putting things into the public record, and hope that we can pass this amendment.
[01:00:43] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Smith.
[01:00:47] Loretta Smith: Thank you. Um, Council President, who actually wrote the impact statement?
[01:00:57] Jamie Dunphy: Someone raised their hand up.
[01:00:59] Loretta Smith: Is that someone?
[01:01:01] Unidentified speaker: Thank you. Hello.
[01:01:11] Loretta Smith: Thank you, DC Oliveira. Um, I forgot your name.
[01:01:15] Steve Novick: Oh, Carl.
[01:01:15] Unidentified speaker: Yeah.
[01:01:16] Loretta Smith: Hi, Carl. I'm Loretta. Um, so I've seen these impact statements, and we've done them in our office, and the point that, um, Councilor Green is making— will that change? Does it change? Is it— I mean, If we change it, is it a material change? Is it a big deal? Um, explain that to me because I'm, I'm not sure what— this is the first time that I've seen this happen because I— we approved a whole new department without even having, uh, a budget. So yeah, I don't know what folks are talking about.
[01:02:02] Donnie Oliveira: And thank you for the questions, Councilor. Uh, Donnie Oliveira, for the record, Council, I'm joined by Carl Lyle, Spectator Venues Manager. Uh, first question you asked was who drafted it. Uh, Carl drafted it with support from City Attorney's Office. It was based on the study that was contemplated when the bridge agreement was drafted, um, back in 2023. Um, as far as the second question of, um, the impact to the ordinance, as already stated, this doesn't change the underlying term sheet or the ordinance. It just redacts key language within the findings. I just want to use the moment to also just emphasize that if and when the city comes back to council with definitive documents, the full expectation is we will have a more complete understanding of the details of a deal that would inform an updated impact, both positive and negative, right? Both to coffers and to the—. And the public. Underlying impacts of economic activity in our city based on a renovated venue. We do not have those details or we'd have included them. So we used the best of what we had today, which we thought was still material, but it does not change the underlying to remove that language.
[01:03:15] Loretta Smith: So this is not something that we need to die on the vine about because this is not the binding contract that's coming out in December. This is just our IGA. And while you're sitting here, I want to address a question to our city attorney because he— his office is the office that is supposed to tell us whether or not the impact statement is good or bad. And so when I'm putting something forward, I give it to Robert Taylor's office and they tell me, and so I listen to them. So for me, I can't tell you that it is written with— that it's not written, that it's written poorly, or, you know, it, it, it— I don't want to get into the weeds on this. I just— this is not an important element of what we're doing. The IGA itself is the meat and the potatoes of what we're trying to approve here today. Is, is that— you know, because we've put these impact statements through, and yeah, We write them with our best estimate, but it's the— it's not the whereas, it's the therefore. So that's what I look at. And I won't hold this IGA up on an impact statement. I think it's— we've approved ordinances without having a full budget. I think that's egregious, but that's a whole nother issue. Councilor Smith. But I just wanted to note, Carl, thank you for putting that forward. I look forward to seeing what the final product is going to be in December.
[01:04:59] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
[01:05:05] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, Council President. And I will just start by saying that I think I agree with every single thing, Council President, that you said about this. We need to be able to trust that impact statements are neutral, and maybe these are both neutral. I don't know, but I certainly can't in 20 minutes do my own due diligence to determine if which one is which one is better, which one is more accurate. So I just. I just want to use this moment to make a plug as we continue to chip away at the things we need to do to make sure we are operating as a professional body, that professionalizing our impact statements stays on that list. And Council President, I know that you are counting down the next 2 months, but whoever is in that seat in the middle of our dais next, I hope that this is on the list that you keep ticking through. Thank you. On professionalizing our body. We need to have a source for these statements that we can all trust, where we're not being asked to evaluate which financial statement is more accurate in 20 minutes on the dais, which I don't think any of us can reasonably do. Um, so I just hope that that continues to be something we are working toward. Thank you.
[01:06:33] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[01:06:34] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Novick.
[01:06:37] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. So I apologize for engaging in line-by-line stuff here, but I just have to say that I really like part of what Councilor Green has done. I'm not sure about some of the others, so I'm just gonna spell out if I were, you know, on the spur of the moment to say what this was, what I would vote for, this is what I would vote for. I'm perfectly okay with getting rid of the second paragraph that you're striking out, the economic activity to the region and state of the Rose Quarter, blah, blah, blah, blah, ending with $6.6 billion to the Rose Quarter campus. So I'm totally okay with getting rid of that paragraph. The next paragraph I think is more of a statement of fact, so I don't know if it's necessary, but I'm a little less excited about getting rid of that. And then I'm uncomfortable with saying a robust and independently verifiable analysis has not been performed because that, then I'm sort of casting aspersions on the economic impact analysis which was commissioned by the city, and I don't feel competent to cast aspersions on it. So in the next paragraph, I would be okay with not having your introductory robust language, but having this suggested language, and then not having the, this report relied upon methods, data, and assumptions. So I apologize for the line-by-line-ness, but I really like the idea of getting rid of that one paragraph. I'm just not sure I can go along with the rest of it.
[01:08:03] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick.
[01:08:04] Unidentified speaker: Councilor Knoll.
[01:08:06] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. I guess my question, I'm going to start with the very— the easiest part, up to. Those 2 words being added to the first paragraph, second line of the economic and real estate development impacts. That seems like taking an inaccuracy and making it accurate, right? Has something changed? I guess is my first question. Is it no longer up to 573? Is it now 573?
[01:08:32] Donnie Oliveira: I'm looking— I'm getting up to speed.
[01:08:35] Jamie Dunphy: Up to 573.
[01:08:37] Steve Novick: Yeah, I mean, I think that's accurate, right?
[01:08:39] Jamie Dunphy: I mean, it was proposed up to 573. What actually will be sure.
[01:08:46] Steve Novick: Right?
[01:08:47] Jamie Dunphy: So I think the really important thing to remember here is that this action is about the joint authority only. The information included in the impact statement about the broader project was really just included based on what we have today, which isn't ideal. It isn't everything. It doesn't answer everybody's question. That's what we had, and it was provided as context for sort of the bigger project. Like, it is the reason there would be an IGA to establish a joint authority. But the action that's in front of you is not making those decisions. Those are all coming later. So I think that's just—.
[01:09:20] Sameer Kanal: No, I understand. Yeah, I'm not making a broader comment on the impact statement or impact statements at this moment. I have thoughts on that that we should talk about because I think the discussion started by Council President and carried on by Councilor Pirtle-Guiney is meaningful to get into. But I do think it's fair to say that it makes a thing that is supposed to be factual, that is currently not fully accurate, would make it more accurate to add the 2 words up to. So my question would be, in that context, is that something that, that would— just as a starting point, is that something that folks would be willing to amend in? And I guess that's specific to Councilor Novick because you mentioned every other part, but I think you didn't mention that part specifically, and Council President.
[01:10:11] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[01:10:13] Jamie Dunphy: Was that a direct— would you like a specific answer? Um, at this time I'm not actually comfortable with amending the, uh, impact statement regardless.
[01:10:22] Sameer Kanal: Uh, so then with 70% of our legislation coming from the administration, that, that creates reasons— these are premises for future pieces of legislation. People come back and cite this stuff. There's a bigger precedent question then of if we can't amend impact statements, then we're gonna need to be voting no on a lot more things. And I don't think, I've never seen anything legal suggesting that we can't do that because it's how we, you know, in a resolution even, we talk about wording things in specific ways. We talk about having the way in which the, Same idea is described. We change names of things. It's the same idea in terms of the way we summarize what an impact is, especially when that is done somewhat subjectively, if not necessarily how something's described, but what's included and what's not included, right, is a subjective choice too. So I'm a little concerned about that piece from the broader philosophy of it. And I don't love the idea of we have to get this right. But now is not the time when this is one of the larger issues that we've been dealing with the whole year.
[01:11:38] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[01:11:40] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Koyama Lane.
[01:11:44] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you, Council President. And I want to call out and appreciate Councilor Pirtle-Guiney for just making sure it's really clear that we need to be working on professionalizing our impact statements so there can be trust. So there's, um, there's a real process that, that we all understand and is clearly outlined. I agree that that needs to be a priority, and we're only about 21-ish months into this new form of government, so there's still work to do. It makes sense. Um, I also appreciated what Councilor Smith was saying. You know, the meat of this really is the IGA. It's the ordinance. Um, I, I don't want us to get too hung up on, um, the impact statement, and that's also why I think that if we could maybe just do a little work on that, since it is not the meat of it, and we could maybe bring along 3 more, 4 more, maybe 5 more councilors along, along this, I think that would really be ideal. I've been really honest as a public school teacher. I've been very wary of putting public dollars towards a project like this unless there's really clear public benefits. And also, I see that the joint authority is really just a requirement step for moving forward, that it's important that we're showing NBA, the commissioners, that like we are adults in the room, we're coming to the table. I would really like to see our body kind of come together a little bit. Um, I am wondering if it's possible for us to even have a short recess if Councilor Novick and Green and maybe Kanal can do a little bit of workshopping. I don't know if you 3 are open to that and seeing if there's a couple changes that can be made. Um, is that something—.
[01:13:35] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Green, yeah, feel free to respond.
[01:13:39] Mitch Green: Uh, thanks, Councilor Koyama Lane. I really appreciate the spirit and the officer— office—. I—. Or offer I don't think I have appetite for that, only just because I don't think it's going to result in an amendment that people can— that 9 people can accept tonight. This is a second reading of an ordinance, and I don't want to be overly difficult on this, but I wanted to lay into the record my serious reservations, and we're doing that right now. So I feel like I agree with Councilor Dunphy and Councilor Pirtle-Guiney in recognizing that we need We do need to tighten this up as a practice going forward. I— but I'm not the only one up here, so if we— if there's appetite for folks to keep that going, I, I won't stand in your way. But I— but as the carrier of this amendment, I'm not particularly— I don't need that tonight. Um, but I can, I can make some final comments on why, why these are important and why I said what I said.
[01:14:33] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Um, to put this into the record, so that's important, but I'd be curious to know if you feel like that's So I'm hearing your, your biggest concerns is that this is a second reading, so we would have to have an emergency clause to get it done tonight, and we're working on a time constraint where we really need this to be voted on tonight.
[01:14:57] Donnie Oliveira: We would appreciate a vote tonight, Councilor. Yes, thank you.
[01:15:02] Loretta Smith: Um, well, I'm disappointed.
[01:15:05] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I'd like to see us be able to kind of come together around this administrative part, but I do understand that 9 votes is harder than 7.
[01:15:16] Loretta Smith: What?
[01:15:17] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Sorry, I'm hearing mumbling. My question to you all, it might be moot at this point, but would it still be workable for you all if there were adjustments made to the impact statement to be moving this forward, or do you have big flags around that?
[01:15:35] Donnie Oliveira: Changing the impact statement does not materially change the ordinance. We have no concerns about the statement changing.
[01:15:42] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Okay, so that seems pretty clear to me, and I think it's worth it, friends, to just take a recess. I could use the bathroom anyway right now and take a little time and see if we can I think it's worth it. Okay, that's it.
[01:16:06] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Green.
[01:16:12] Mitch Green: Yeah, I just had gotten back into the queue because I just wanted to say the reason why I— first of all, I should have done this last week so we could actually workshop this. This is the second reading, so I'm sorry. I just wanted to say that I My apologies on that, but I didn't want to just vote no without laying some principles into practice because I actually do agree with the IGA. I think it's a fine approach. So the reason why I said it is I think it is a statement of fact to say that a robust and independently verifiable economic analysis has not been performed because it hasn't, because we've talked about that in this body since we've started discussing this. Councilor like, we did one in 2023, but we've had work sessions on the shortcomings of that. We've also talked about that in other venues where it's not as public. And so that's pretty clear to the public, I think. And I think even our own city staff have been frustrated that we have not been able to do that refreshed analysis because we have not had the partnership from the people we would need help to do that with. And so I think that's just a generally acknowledged fact. Putting that in there was for me to say, we know this, and given this information, we are comfortable with what follows, what the underlying is. And so if there's not appetite to play around with this on that, I don't need to drag us out any longer. We have other important business to get to tonight. We have a handgun ordinance or a concealed carry ordinance that I actually want to talk about tonight. So that's part of my hesitation for not wanting to recess. And, and work through the, um, this process. I don't think Councilor Novick wants to do that, so I'm not sure who— where we would get with that. So I'll just say my piece there and leave it at that.
[01:17:53] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Smith.
[01:17:56] Loretta Smith: Um, Councilor Green, I do not want to do that. I don't have the appetite for it. I'm very excited about today because it is opening night for the Blazers. Um, our new owner is in town and every little nitpick that we make is an opportunity for him to say that this is just the craziest council ever and he doesn't want to stay here in Portland when we know that— I'm gonna let y'all talk if y'all gonna talk. Councilors.
[01:18:27] Jamie Dunphy: Alex, can we have order, please?
[01:18:29] Loretta Smith: Council President, get order. So, um, I would like to not do this, Councilor Green. I appreciate this, but I don't even know if you— that you really took this seriously because you should have done it last week. And if you— if it was something that you felt strongly about, we should— we could have been working on this over the last week. But this happens time after time that people bring serious things and want people to take it seriously when they bring it from the dais about very serious issues. And so I, for one, don't want to spend the time on it. I think— well, let's take a vote. That's what I'm saying. Take the vote. Uh, Council President, call the vote.
[01:19:12] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, I'm gonna get us through the— I'm— colleagues, uh, I'm gonna call on my— on Councilor Ryan, and then I'm closing the queue. So anyone who wants to speak further on this, please get in the queue, and then we will move to a vote on Green 1. Councilor Ryan, followed by Avalos and Kanal.
[01:19:26] Dan Ryan: Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um, Council President, I will say that, um, when Prosper Portland's here, I always bring it up. I'm the one on the body that always says we need to work harder on our economic impact statements. So I'm all into that. I'm not into doing it at the 11th hour for one specific item, and I'm ready to vote. Thanks.
[01:19:43] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Colleagues, the queue is now closed. Councilor Avalos and then Kanal.
[01:19:50] Candace Avalos: Thank you, Councilor Green, for bringing this forward. And, you know, we yes, sure, it is, um, the 11th hour. And also, sometimes we need to make hard decisions. We need to put something forward to get us to yes on a vote, and that is our job as legislators, and nothing forbids us from doing that. So, uh, I am not going to hem and haw over a legislator taking the time to propose a solution instead of just saying, no, I'm voting no, and, and I'm not going to tell you why. The councilor put together a vision, an amendment, and brought it forward for us to discuss. That is literally our job. So I am getting pretty fed up with hearing often on this dais that we can't do it now, we shouldn't talk about it, we don't have time to discuss it, we don't want to ponder it. Well, ponder it. That's your job. That's actually your job. So, uh, thank you, Councilor. I plan on supporting it. I think that what you've done, um, you know, just the spirit of what you're asking I agree with. Um, I also don't have to— don't have big issues with the IGA, partially because we just need to get it going, right? I want to just know, do we have a deal or not? And until we get this IGA forward, we can't know that. And I need to know so that I can plan accordingly for my constituents, because I'm very concerned, as we all know, since I voted no on the term sheet, about how this is going to impact District 1. So thank you for, um, your work and for doing the job of being a legislator. I would urge my colleagues to do the same more often.
[01:21:15] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you.
[01:21:18] Jamie Dunphy: Uh, Councilor Kanal?
[01:21:20] Sameer Kanal: No.
[01:21:20] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Green 1?
[01:21:26] Keelan McClymont: Moved by Green, seconded by, uh, was it Koyama Lane?
[01:21:30] Jamie Dunphy: Koyama Lane.
[01:21:31] Keelan McClymont: Thank you. Uh, Clark?
[01:21:33] Olivia Clark: No.
[01:21:34] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[01:21:35] Mitch Green: Aye.
[01:21:36] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:21:39] Eric Zimmerman: No.
[01:21:40] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[01:21:40] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:21:43] Unidentified speaker: No.
[01:21:45] Keelan McClymont: No.
[01:21:50] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:21:53] Unidentified speaker: Aye.
[01:21:54] Steve Novick: A reluctant no.
[01:21:58] Unidentified speaker: No.
[01:21:58] Keelan McClymont: The amendment fails with a vote of 5 ayes and 7 nays.
[01:22:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, colleagues. Is there any further discussion of the either the ordinance implementing RIGA or the report appointing members? Councilor Knoll.
[01:22:15] Sameer Kanal: Thank you. I mentioned last week that I'd be voting no on the ordinance, and I intend to stick with that. My rationale is entirely because I do think it's fair to expect, as Councilor Avalos referred to earlier, that if you're gonna vote no, you should say why. I think that's a fair expectation. That it's not— for me, it's not about the impact statement. It's about a concern I've raised several times in executive session that not having the ability to have council have any influence over the folks who are in there in terms of appointment authority, either as a councilor or as a designee of the council, prohibits us from having the level of transparency into this that is possible. We were asked for feedback. I also offered, what if there was a councilor or council designee in there as a non-binding member, and that was said that it would be explored and then came back and did not have that as an option. So I've been pretty disappointed in that. It's not that I think that the folks who are going to be appointed in the report are not qualified. Of course they are. It's not that they aren't even necessarily the best potential people for it. It's the idea that this process has been the way it has been because of one branch driving it and expecting the other branch of government to just fall in line. Councilor We heard that in the last amendment too, just in the debate over that as well. And sometimes it's just we should fall in line. And I appreciate the colleagues who are honest about their position being that we should just fall in line. And sometimes it's now's not the time. Well, now's never the time to stand up for the legislative branch's authority. So for me, I will choose to do that here and vote no. Thanks.
[01:23:52] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Councilor Avalos.
[01:23:54] Candace Avalos: Yeah, thank you. Just to add some final thoughts on this, I really did struggle as I was thinking about this between last week and this week, because of, um, the, the concerns that Councilor Kanal has raised that I share, and also, um, you know, in deliberating this amendment we just did, just what kinds of statements the impact and economic statements make and the precedent that that might have. Because yeah, at the end of the day, it's written in law, right? It's written somewhere that somebody can reference and say, well, you said this and you decided that this was the economic impact. Um, so I'm, I'm very concerned about that. Um, I think ultimately I am going to vote to move this forward simply because, again, I need to know answers, and I'm tired of not knowing, and I'm tired of not having a team of people ready to go figure out what the answer is on if we have a deal. Um, and so I'm going to support it, but, um, I think I've made my position about this whole deal very clear. I made that clear by voting no on the term sheet. Uh, I'm going to support moving us forward, but I have a lot of high expectations come December, uh, and you'll be hearing about those then. Thank you.
[01:25:03] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Councilor Avalos. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on document 2026-362?
[01:25:14] Keelan McClymont: Clerk?
[01:25:15] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:25:16] Keelan McClymont: Green.
[01:25:18] Mitch Green: No.
[01:25:22] Keelan McClymont: Aye.
[01:25:23] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:25:24] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[01:25:26] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:25:27] Keelan McClymont: No.
[01:25:27] Sameer Kanal: No.
[01:25:31] Unidentified speaker: Aye.
[01:25:34] Keelan McClymont: No. The ordinance passes with a vote of 8 ayes and 4 nays.
[01:25:45] Jamie Dunphy: And can we please call the roll on document 2026-363?
[01:25:49] Keelan McClymont: Yeah, um, this is a report, so we'll want a motion to accept the report.
[01:25:53] Jamie Dunphy: I move to adopt— to accept this report.
[01:25:57] Keelan McClymont: And then we'll need a second.
[01:25:58] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome a second.
[01:26:00] Olivia Clark: Second.
[01:26:02] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Councilor Clark online, I believe? Yeah.
[01:26:06] Olivia Clark: Yes.
[01:26:06] Dan Ryan: Thank you.
[01:26:08] Keelan McClymont: Calling the roll on document Uh, 2026-363. Um, Clark?
[01:26:16] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[01:26:19] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[01:26:20] Eric Zimmerman: Aye.
[01:26:21] Keelan McClymont: Avalos?
[01:26:22] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[01:26:23] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[01:26:28] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[01:26:29] Keelan McClymont: Kanal?
[01:26:31] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[01:26:33] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney?
[01:26:35] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: With my gratitude to the city administrator for answering my questions last week, aye. Aye.
[01:26:43] Keelan McClymont: Murillo.
[01:26:45] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[01:26:47] Keelan McClymont: Novick.
[01:26:48] Steve Novick: Aye.
[01:26:48] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[01:26:49] Keelan McClymont: The report is accepted with a vote of 12 ayes.
[01:26:52] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. I'm gonna go ahead and give us a restroom break. It is currently 7:22. Let's have us back here at 7:35.
[01:27:01] Candace Avalos: Thank you.
[01:39:57] Robert Taylor: Order.
[01:39:58] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you all so much for the break. Keelan, can we please move to our next item, number 2026-123?
[01:40:06] Keelan McClymont: Amend code related to prohibitions on possession of firearms within certain city buildings to allow affirmative defense for persons with concealed handgun licenses. Amend code sections 3.18.020, 14A.60. Thank you very much.
[01:40:28] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, this is my item. This ordinance makes it illegal to carry a handgun into City Hall, the Portland Building, or the 1900 Building, even if you have a concealed handgun license or a CHL. Right now, the public cannot bring guns into the— into these buildings unless they have a concealed handgun license. City HR rules prohibit employees beside police, security, and the like from carrying a gun on city property, even if they have a concealed handgun license. But non-employees with a CHL can bring private firearms into this building. This ordinance would end that exception. The only folks who would be allowed to bring a gun into the buildings where we hold public meetings would be police, security, and a few other groups that are required by state law. In this moment, as our state mourns another horrific gun tragedy that is unbearable for me as a father personally to fully contemplate, we have to continue to protect public spaces where community gathers. I brought this bill back— bill to the Community and Public Safety Committee back in April. We were having some intense protests in the room earlier that year, or about that time. At some of those protests, pro-ICE and anti-ICE activists were both in council chambers yelling insults and slurs at each other. Outside of the building, there were confrontations and threats. Any number of people in chambers could have been carrying a licensed firearm, and in tight, intense environment where activists are intentionally trying to get each other to overreact, the correct number of guns in these rooms not in the hands of professional security is zero. Whether that's a bad guy who loses his temper or makes a terrible mistake, or a good guy who tries to help but isn't distinguishable from the bad guys to our armed security. The right number of guns is zero. Last year, the Oregon Senate passed SB 243 and gave local governments like Portland a local tool to prohibit concealed handguns in buildings where we hold official meetings. Because the state preempts local gun laws, SB 243 is the only tool that we can use to prohibit licensed concealed handguns in our buildings. The SB 243 option has already been adopted by our colleagues in Multnomah County. It works the same way as the longstanding option to limit concealed handguns on school properties, which has been adopted by school districts and universities across the state. This ordinance brings SB 243 to the city of Portland. Sometime back in March, when security was giving us all tours of the shelter-in-place safe rooms in this building, I decided to ask around and find out if anyone who had been working on bringing SB 243 before council. And I found out that the Public Safety Service Area had an ordinance already drafted and they viewed it as a priority. I offered to carry it on their behalf. Neither my staff nor I wrote a single word of the first version of that ordinance, but we were glad to forward it on behalf of the administration. And after 6 months in committee, my staff has spent countless hours on this and has crafted careful amendments that were adopted by the CAPS committee. After that work, I'm proud to carry this as an equal partner with the administration. And to that end, I'm going to recognize CAPS Chair Novick, who signed the discharge petition to bring this to council for any remarks. And after that, my staff— I'll ask my staff for a brief presentation in lieu of a community— committee staff summary report. We'll also have remarks from Integrated Security Director Manny Guerra, PPB Deputy Chief Brian Hughes, and the City Administrator. So, Councilor Novick.
[01:44:00] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. This item first appeared at the Community and Public Safety Committee all the way back in April. It was then scheduled 5 additional times and actually discussed 4 of those times, most recently on September 15th when there was a successful motion to table the item. I voted against the tabling of the item and then signed on in favor of discharging it to full council because I felt the committee had done as much work on this item as needed and as possible, and it was time to get the proposal in front of the full council to decide whether we supported it or not. The committee deliberation resulted in significant improvements to the legislation, which Eben will walk through shortly. I want to thank the council president's office for leading these efforts. Thank you, Councilor Green. And for the council president's patience, and also the city administrator in the Public Safety Service area in assisting with briefings and information sharing. I support this legislation in its current form and look forward to the council's discussion.
[01:44:43] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Eben, will you just walk us through a brief presentation on this?
[01:44:49] Eben Jundeff-Hoffer: You bet. I will keep this as quick as I can.
[01:44:51] Jamie Dunphy: Introduce yourself for the record.
[01:44:52] Eben Jundeff-Hoffer: My name is Eben Jundeff-Hoffer, policy director for Council President Jamie Dunphy. Just briefly, the legislative intent here is to prohibit the public from carrying firearms into City Hall, Portland Building, or the 1900 Building, regardless currently, this is just a brief recap of what the councilor said. Members of the public cannot carry firearms into the building unless they have a CHL, and city employees may not carry firearms regardless of whether they do or don't. After this, that whether you do or don't rule will apply to both classes of people. Firearms licensed and unlicensed alike will be prohibited for city employees and for members of the regular public. Thank you, Mayor. Unless you're talking about security, police, et cetera. Let's look at the relevant law real quick. This is ORS 166-370. Here up at the top, any person who intentionally possesses a loaded firearm while in or on a public building is guilty of a Class C felony. That's your baseline for people who are not licensed. However, under current law, down at the bottom in 3, that does not apply to somebody who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Okay. The SB 243 option essentially changes it from the bottom text in blue to the middle text in green, which is notwithstanding paragraph A, if we have adopted such a policy, rather than the section not applying, the section becomes a misdemeanor but is still a crime if the person has a CHL. Just looking at this clearly for the language, What is that option that we can exercise? The 243 option. It says that the governing body of a city may adopt a policy, ordinance, or regulation providing that the affirmative defense, which is that that does not apply, doesn't apply to the possession of firearms within a building owned or controlled by the governing body of the city that is used by that governing body for official meetings. So by passing today's ordinance, we would be satisfying the requirements of this. Thank you. And carrying a firearm with a CHL in this building would become illegal. There may be some question, is there not another way we could go about this? As the councilor said, no. State law very, very strictly preempts a city or locality from doing anything with gun laws that are not explicitly laid out in statute. This is the tool that the state has given us to prevent CHLs in these buildings. Thank you. This is the one we can use. It really is quite binary. Do this or do nothing. There are some other requirements in this. The Senate bill requires that we give notice to the public that this is the rule in these buildings. We need public visible signs at all of the entrances and exits of the building and also for a list of all of the buildings that qualify to be on our website. They are also— these requirements are also repeated in the ordinance directives to make sure we don't miss them. So briefly looking at the ordinance itself, this changes city code in 3 places. There are 3 places where we regulate firearm carriage in city code. The most important one is 318.020, rules of conduct at city property. Violation of this allows us to exclude or eject people from the building if they break those rules. All 3 of these places in code have exceptions for concealed handgun licenses. It would remove those and change the language just saying that that does not qualify in the key buildings. It also requires the city administrator to adopt administrative rules defining which buildings are included and how a building becomes included or becomes no longer included in the prohibition list, and adopting an SOB for security. So if you do come across an individual with a CHL, what do you do? Indicating progressive discipline, first of all.
[01:48:40] Steve Novick: Thank you.
[01:48:40] Unidentified speaker: Yes.
[01:48:41] Eben Jundeff-Hoffer: Telling the person that this is a problem and then moving steadily up to moving them out of the building. Just some of those clear things. We are asking the administration to define governing body and official meetings so we're clear to the public about what that is, listing the buildings that we're talking about, and again, establishing that criteria. To be clear, the buildings we're talking about are City Hall, the Portland Building and the 1900 Building. And this administrative rule should contemplate what happens if City Council, for example, decides to hold an official meeting at an offsite location, or if we are holding official meetings of certain ABCs at offsite locations. How do we contemplate that? That is passed to the administration to give us that rule. To be clear, for enforcement, Progressive enforcement is first notice and opportunity to cure. This is not allowed, please fix it. Then ejection or exclusion, and only if necessary, contacting PPB to take action. We don't want somebody who doesn't know that this is a problem and is doing nothing wrong ending up catching a charge. And then I think this will be it for us. A brief comment on what this will look like operationally. Current practice, if a person tries to enter one of these buildings with a concealed handgun, with a firearm, security at the door will encounter them, find out that that's the case. They say, hey, I have a concealed handgun license. At that point, they call PPB to come to the building, verify that against internal systems, and then based on the conclusion of that, move the person through the system. It's a somewhat time-intensive process.
[01:50:26] Candace Avalos: Thank you.
[01:50:26] Loretta Smith: Yes.
[01:50:27] Eben Jundeff-Hoffer: After this law— after this becomes law, it will be a simple, do you have a weapon or not, binary. If you have it, it's time to move on. I'll just say here at the end, quite a lot of other buildings in Oregon listed here do have CHL limitations or prohibitions, and quite a lot of other states around the country allow these CHL prohibitions in local public meetings as well. I'm happy to speak to later if there are any questions about how the HR rules work on this, but for the time being, that will conclude the presentation.
[01:51:03] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[01:51:04] Jamie Dunphy: Actually, could you put the last one up, the last slide up for me, please? Because, colleagues, I want to put a finer point on this specifically. It was suggested at the CAPS committee that a major HR violation is less of a serious concern for a city employee than a missed in front of you, HRAR, Human Resources Administrative Rule 4.12, is a serious rule. I personally think that the risk of losing pay or losing your job for bringing a gun to work would be pretty serious, maybe even life-changing. There's a small group of city employees for whom that difference of seriousness actually is really significant because HR rules cannot be enforced against elected officials. That's us. So if any elected official happens to be regularly carrying a firearm into City Hall, yes, this ordinance does make a meaningful change in that person's risk profile. For other employees, in my opinion, the risks of carrying at work won't largely change very much. So colleagues, before we move into comments, I would like to invite Director of Internal Security Manny Guerra, Deputy Chief we'll ask Deputy City Administrator Hughes and City Administrator Lee, who doesn't have to come up because he sits up here already, to give us a couple extra comments, but then we will move into technical and clarifying questions, public testimony, and council discussion. And, uh, Director Guerra, would you kick us off?
[01:52:30] Manny Guerra: Hello, council. My name is Manny Guerra, for the record. The reason why we're wanting to push this forward, especially on our end, is that having a sterile environment is actually a great opportunity for us to ensure the safety of everybody involved, not just council members, but also members of the public. Anybody that comes in with a— even with a concealed firearm license and has a firearm, one of the difficult things to do, especially in the middle of any kind of major situation where we may have an active shooter response that we need to perform, we're going to have a problem with trying to determine who is who, especially in a chaotic moment like that. So this actually gives us a sterile environment where we know who within City Hall actually is allowed to have a firearm, which is our team, PBB, and as Councilor Dunphy, Council President mentioned, a few other folks, you know, federal agents, others, other folks who are able by the state to carry a firearm within current council chambers. I believe for us this would be a great way forward just to ensure a little bit more safety. And I would hope that we could all vote on this and it would provide that extra layer of comfort on our end.
[01:54:04] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much. Deputy Chief, how are you, sir?
[01:54:07] Donnie Oliveira: Good, how are you?
[01:54:08] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President.
[01:54:09] Jamie Dunphy: My name is Brian Hughes.
[01:54:10] Sameer Kanal: I'm the Deputy Chief for the Portland Police Bureau. The proposed ordinance would, would not change things significantly for us. We take the lead from Portland and City Hall security staff, we have a great working relationship with them. And as I've said previously, we would work to establish compliance with the law. Generally, we do that with just our presence and conversation. And should the ordinance be approved, that would authorize Portland police officers to potentially make an arrest for violating this ordinance. I believe It's my understanding that it would be a misdemeanor arrest, but we would still have the option to do that.
[01:54:57] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Deputy Chief. And City Administrator Lee.
[01:55:00] Raymond C. Lee: Thank you, Council President. I think one of the main things that we're looking at with this change is really trying to look at best management practice as it relates to the safety and security of council, staff, and our public as they're entering in our facilities. This has been a common thing that I've seen in all the municipalities that I have served in as it relates to prohibiting firearms, especially inside of the chambers themselves. So I've been very supportive of the language and the ordinance that has come before council to ensure that we continue to try to put council in the best situation possible to remain safe and secure while you're conducting the business for this city, and we want to continue to try to do that as city staff.
[01:55:51] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you all very much. Keelan, do we have folks signed up for public testimony on this?
[01:55:57] Keelan McClymont: We do have people signed up.
[01:55:58] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, colleagues, I'd love to make— to get to public testimony, and I'll see very quickly, do we have any technical or clarifying questions for me, for Evan, for any of the folks who have presented? Councilor Ryan.
[01:56:11] Dan Ryan: Thank you, Council President. I just want to know about implementing the surveillance, the way that we can double, you know, except for coming in on 4th, where there's a pretty good screening criteria. When I went to a meeting yesterday in 1900, there's nothing there. And when you go to the Portland Building, it would obviously have to improve. So I'm not seeing in this legislation the expense and implementation of that? 'Cause we know that the bad actors that we would wanting to prevent to do this, we would obviously need to step up our screening.
[01:56:46] Unidentified speaker: Yeah.
[01:56:47] Raymond C. Lee: And I'll let—.
[01:56:47] Dan Ryan: Maybe I missed that. Did you mention that?
[01:56:49] Raymond C. Lee: No, we have not mentioned that. I'll let Manny speak to kind of that startup cost as it relates to getting us ready from an equipment standpoint to enforce this.
[01:57:00] Manny Guerra: So this is Manny Gary again, security manager. Just to let you know, Councilor Ryan, we actually do have the equipment already place when we need to. So we have 2 sets of the Evolve system, one that we used over at 1900 when, as you remember, you were commissioner.
[01:57:15] Dan Ryan: Oh yeah.
[01:57:15] Manny Guerra: And we were in City Hall over there.
[01:57:17] Dan Ryan: So on the 2nd floor, but not on the 1st.
[01:57:19] Unidentified speaker: Exactly.
[01:57:20] Manny Guerra: But we have 2 sets, but also we also have the handheld micrometers that we could still use as well. So those are still active and we still use those whenever we have any off-campus style events. So we do have those in place, and it's all for— and we're able to move those where we need to go. So it would not be an additional charge for additional equipment, just for the bodies to man those equipment. Does that answer your question?
[01:57:53] Dan Ryan: It does. It's more of implementing a new practice. As opposed to equipment? You're telling me you have the equipment but you— we don't have the practice in place?
[01:58:05] Manny Guerra: We, we actually do. Um, it's not, uh, very similar, like I said, to what we did over at 1900 Building. Um, the, the reason why the 1900 Building we used on the second floor at that time is that, um, the first floor is also shared with, uh, PSU, right? And so there's a reason why we had an 2nd floor just for the fact that it was at that chamber. So that would be the continued practice there. Portland Building would be the same style where we would have the actual event usually in the back conference room that we can set up the 2nd AV system in that back area. Not— it's not— it's portable, so it's really easy to move. It's not going to be a major change for us. Uh, we already have practices and we already have done this and implemented this, so, um, there is not going to be any additional work on, um, doing implementation wherever we need to go.
[01:59:02] Jamie Dunphy: And can I just add a clear— a little point of clarification, Councilor, uh, Ryan? This is with regard to the public meetings specifically, not the everyday— like, if someone is going into the 1900 building to apply for a permit, that is not what this is. This is more if we are meeting if the Planning Commission is meeting, if there is a meeting of the governing bodies in which the public is invited, that security will be there. But if folks are going to the Portland Building for a meeting, if they are going to the 1900 Building, if they're coming here for a regular meeting, this would not be specifically enforced. Thank you. Councilor Murillo. Also, if I said that wrong, Manny, please pick correct me, but sorry, Councilor Morillo.
[01:59:46] Manny Guerra: That's correct.
[01:59:48] Angelita Morillo: Okay, Manny has confirmed. Um, I just wanted to ask, uh, one clarifying question. So for the security team or the folks that do, you know, obviously carry guns because they are security, um, and it— and they, I'm sure, all have concealed carries as well, um, are they just universally allowed to be the people with the guns or Or is it like when you're on the clock you can, but you wouldn't be able to coming in as a regular person or something?
[02:00:19] Manny Guerra: Councilor Morillo, you just want to make sure that you're talking to, uh, me directly, Manny, correct?
[02:00:25] Angelita Morillo: Oh yes, sorry.
[02:00:26] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, no worries.
[02:00:27] Unidentified speaker: Yeah. No worries.
[02:00:28] Manny Guerra: And I apologize also that I'm online just due to an injury that I have. So anyway, you know, so the answer is yes. The only time that our security can actually have a firearm within City Hall is during, um, during their work hours, and that's it. They cannot come into City Hall if they're off duty with their firearm.
[02:00:51] Jamie Dunphy: Gotcha.
[02:00:52] Angelita Morillo: Okay, thank you. That answers my question.
[02:00:55] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Maria. Councilor Kanal.
[02:00:58] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. I just wanted to, to check, um, Has the technology that was described earlier been run through the data privacy governance, all the systems that are in place while the office is being checked into? That just raised a question for me, Manny, your response about the security that was in place at the 1900 building coming here, the technology specifically.
[02:01:23] Manny Guerra: The technology with the new office, no. So this technology was brought on board before that office existed. The technology that we have does not collect any data. So that's something that we're going to have to do in the future and then come back to you with what they find. If that's something you want to move forward with, we can definitely do that.
[02:01:46] Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I'll follow up with you on that a little bit. I appreciate that information though.
[02:01:52] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Keelan, can we please call public testimony?
[02:01:59] Keelan McClymont: We have 3 testifiers signed up tonight. First up, Marnie Glickman.
[02:02:03] Jamie Dunphy: Welcome, Marnie. Introduce yourself for the record, please. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
[02:02:09] Marnie Glickman: Good evening, councilors. My name is Marnie Glickman. I am the executive director of Braided River Campaign, a District 2 resident, and a registered city lobbyist. I'm here tonight in my Moms Demand Action red shirt to testify in support of this ordinance because gun violence is preventable. Like you, I wear many hats. Before I begin, let's acknowledge the gun violence that occurred in our state last week by reading a statement posted online by Moms Demand Action. We are holding 7-year-old Sailor Graham, a student at Silver Rail Elementary school, and 54-year-old Becky Drury, an inclusion educational assistant, in our hearts as they begin their healing journey after being wounded in a mass shooting at the school last week. 3 children were killed: 5-year-old Rome Summer and 2 unidentified children ages 8 and 11. Megan Lambert, a 25-year-old teacher, was also thank you. After every tragedy, we mourn, we comfort each other, and we recommit ourselves to action to end gun violence. We can do it. Schools and workplaces should be safe spaces. Like, likewise, we must protect lawmakers, city employees, community advocates, voters, and democracy herself. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, yes. Quote, banning firearms inside capitals and city halls ensures that public policy is shaped by debate and democratic consensus rather than implicit threat of force. This ordinance will help maintain neutral political spaces in our city. It is important because political violence continues to rise in our country with no end in sight. This ordinance will help decrease the likelihood of accidental yes. Second. Motion passes. Second reading of Ordinance Number 2. This ordinance also may aid law enforcement when a crisis or altercation occurs at a public gathering. This policy can make it easier for police to identify and neutralize an actual threat without confusing them with law-abiding bystanders. Let's come together tonight to prevent more gun violence. Please vote yes on this measure to make City Hall a safer workplace and a democratic space for everyone. Thank you.
[02:04:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you so much for being here.
[02:04:48] Unidentified speaker: You're welcome.
[02:04:50] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Kip Silverman.
[02:04:54] Kip Silverman: Hi, apologies, I have a little bit of a cold. Um, my name is Kip Silverman. I use he/him pronouns. I am a resident of District 2. and have been a Portlander since 1998. I co-chair the Portland Committee on Community Engaged Policing, but for the record, I am only speaking on behalf of myself tonight. I am here to support amending the code related to— I can't read the whole thing, but the code in front of us. As someone who co-chairs public meetings, which are sometimes quite heated and contentious, as well as attend city council meetings, which on the rarest occasions may also be contentious. I'd feel much safer if, God forbid, something were to happen and the designated security staff were— weren't sure who the threat was because several people all pull out guns at the same time. This was the case when Jared Lee Loughner attempted to assassinate then-U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords. He wound up kill— Jared Loughner wound up killing 6 people before being apprehended by bystanders. There was an armed bystander who happened to be a trained marksman, but he did not use or discharge his gun because in the chaos he cannot tell who would be the target. This is a common scenario, and while in this case that bystander was well trained, most people carry personal firearms. May not be well trained, if at all. If I'm to be very honest, and I can make a slight joke here, but I don't trust most people to competently use a toaster oven around me, much less wield a firearm in a moment of crisis. The reality is that fewer guns are— the fewer guns that are in a room, the less likely it is anybody will get shot. Sensible precautions should minimize possible threats.
[02:06:49] Unidentified speaker: Please support this ordinance.
[02:06:52] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. Thank you very much, Kip.
[02:06:56] Keelan McClymont: Next up, we have Amie Wexler.
[02:07:00] Amie Wexler: Good evening, Council President Dunphy and councilors. My name is Amie Wexler. I use she/her pronouns, and I'm a District 2 resident. I am also the executive director of the Alliance for a Safe Oregon. We are a statewide gun tragedy prevention nonprofit. I am here today to urge you to pass this ordinance and prohibit concealed carry firearms in city buildings used for official public meetings as authorized by the Oregon Legislature. To an earlier comment, the, the City Council does have the ability to ban concealed carry weapons for the entirety of the time that the building is in use, not just during public meetings. Of course, you may have decided to just do it during the time of public meetings, but In any building that is holding a public meeting, you can ban concealed carry weapons at all times. I just want to go back to my prepared statement. At the Alliance for a Safe Oregon, we work to prevent gun violence and build safer communities. And we know that the consequences of gun violence extend far beyond the immediate victims. The presence of firearms can affect how people move through their communities, how safe they feel, and whether they feel free to speak up. That last point is particularly important here. Thank you. Democracy requires more than the right to speak. It requires the ability to speak without fear or intimidation. I direct you to the study Guns and Democracy, examining how firearms can threaten the freedoms of speech and assembly that are essential to our democracy. Think about the people who come before this council. They are parents advocating for their children, survivors demanding action, neighbors raising concerns about public safety, and residents challenging decisions made by their government. Some come here to speak about deeply personal and painful experiences, and others come to express unpopular opinions or to challenge those in power. Every one of them deserves the opportunity to participate without worrying about the presence of concealed firearms in the room. Even when no threat is made and no shot is fired, the presence of a firearm can change the atmosphere. It can make people think twice about speaking, sharing their experiences, or challenging someone else's views. Thank you. We should not accept that as the price of participating in local government. To be clear, this is not about assuming that everyone who legally carries a firearm intends to cause harm. It is about recognizing that public meetings serve a unique civic purpose. The city has a responsibility to make these spaces safe and accessible for the people who use them. The Oregon Legislature recognized this responsibility when it passed Senate Bill 243, giving local governments the authority to remove the concealed handgun license exception for firearms in buildings they own or control and use for public meetings. This ordinance puts that authority to work here in Portland. It is a targeted measure that establishes a reasonable boundary in the places where our city conducts its public business. Councilors, Portland should be a place where people can disagree passionately, debate difficult issues, and hold their elected officials accountable without the added concern of concealed firearms in the room where decisions are made. No Portlander should have to weigh their personal safety against their right to participate in democracy. Multnomah County has taken the step. Portland should do the same. I urge you to pass this ordinance, implement it clearly, and ensure that the public knows which city buildings are covered. Thank you for your leadership and the opportunity to testify.
[02:10:09] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much.
[02:10:12] Keelan McClymont: That completes testimony.
[02:10:13] Jamie Dunphy: Colleagues, I thought I said something kind of wrong, and Ms. Wexler correctly pointed out that the ordinance will be in effect all the time. This is a new standard policy for our public buildings. However, the additional security screening protocols are currently related to when there are public meetings. And so at the 1900 building, handgun concealed carrying will still not be allowed, but we wouldn't be putting folks through a magnetometer, magnetometer, uh, Or paying for additional security outside of where we would already be doing that additional security for public meetings. So colleagues, we are now into council discussion. Thank you for those who came to testify. I will start with Councilor Knoll.
[02:10:56] Sameer Kanal: Thanks. Those 3 colleagues, colleagues, those 3 testifiers shared 3 things in common. They all supported this. They all do really good work in other areas. And I recognize that there's an overlap here as well. And they all live in District 2, so I wanted to shout that out as well, and I appreciate y'all for that. Uh, I, um, I wanted to just get on the record, um, that I appreciate the work of the PSSA on this. There was some scheduling stuff around getting all the councilors who are members of the Community and Public Safety Committee, um, a briefing on this. Um, that is why I voted to table this when it was there, because I was under the impression that there was a lot more that I had— didn't yet know from the briefing. Um, and so I felt like it didn't make sense to have a vote until I'd heard that briefing. Um, the briefing was very informative but did not fundamentally change the underlying assumptions about what this did and, or add any new concerns to it. So, um, by that point it had already been discharged, but just wanted to get that on the record as to why I tabled it and why I'll be supporting it today anyway. Um, I appreciate, uh, the conversation here, and, and I think there's a lot to follow up on, but Councilor Herbold. Really big picture, you know, we had a situation here where a protest in the chamber led to someone jumping over this and coming up within a few feet of me and a couple of my colleagues. And, you know, not an ideal situation. And at no time during that did I think that having another gun in this room would help. And I think when we're thinking about how people react to proceedings of local government, especially people who are in strong disagreement with the work or the advocacy being done here by other people or by councilors, and when we think about the reasons why the strength of opinion, the strength and passion of that response is so high from folks, it's usually based on feeling neglected, feeling unheard, feeling in some cases traumatized by an institution, either this government or another. And so honoring that, even if we don't necessarily agree with it, and engaging with it is a core function of our jobs. And I think that there's often very easy to resort to the idea that we should refer this in our brains to a response that involves force, a response that involves silencing, a response that may in fact involve violence. And so for us to, um, to choose not only to reject that premise for ourselves and not try to arm counselors, but also to say that the broader context is improved when there is no or are fewer at least firearms in the, in the building is a really important step. This was something that was on my list of things to look at. I'm grateful that other folks took it on at PSSA and then Council President Dunphy's office, and I'm very happy to support it today. Thanks.
[02:14:08] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Councilor Kanal. Councilor Koyama Lane.
[02:14:12] Tiffany Koyama Lane: This is a good policy and we should pass it. That's it.
[02:14:18] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Green.
[02:14:22] Mitch Green: Uh, thank you, Council President. I just want to recognize, you, you said early on, but folks might have already forgotten, but your office put in significant work, uh, in committee and also in partnership with the, with the bureaus. That's commendable. That's good. That's good legislative work. Uh, I read through all the committee staff summaries. Um, they're, they're comprehensive. Really appreciate all the testimony today. Good bill must pass.
[02:14:48] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Avalos.
[02:14:52] Candace Avalos: Yeah, thank you again for all of this work, and seems pretty straightforward. I don't want to see any guns in these buildings. I don't give a damn that you have a concealed carry. You should not be carrying a gun in a building where people are coming to share their voice, where they're coming to engage with their government. And so, yeah, we should get this passed immediately because it's common sense legislation. And given gestures at everything, the more that we can remove dangerous weapons from public spaces, the better.
[02:15:23] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[02:15:24] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Okay, colleagues, last call for any further discussion. No? Okay. This, uh, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, this item now moves to second reading. Thank you very much, colleagues. Keelan, can we please call our last item for the day, uh, document 2026-309?
[02:15:50] Keelan McClymont: Support the preservation of core access to protect taxpayers from extreme weather costs.
[02:15:57] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. This is a resolution We have with us from our Council Operations team, Kevin Alvarez, with a committee staff summary report.
[02:16:09] Kevin Alvarez: Good evening, Council President, Councilors. For the record, my name is Kevin Alvarez and I serve as a policy analyst for the City Life Committee. The resolution before you, document number 2026-309, was heard in the City Life Committee on September 22nd, 2026, where it was referred to full council with the recommendation it be adopted. So the resolution states that Portland categorically opposes any legislation, whether in the U.S. Congress or Oregon State Legislature, that would limit or eliminate access to the courts by preempting existing laws or by granting fossil fuel companies immunity from laws or lawsuits seeking to hold the industry accountable for deceptive conduct and the cost of climate change. The resolution also affirms the city's support for the rights of cities, countries, tribes, and states to pursue litigation and legislation seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for climate change-driven harms. The impact— the full impact statement on this item includes financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement. One person provided verbal testimony at the committee meeting on September 22nd, and 6 16 people submitted written testimony prior to committee action. The general themes of testimony included accountability of fossil fuel companies for the cost of extreme weather events and climate-related damages currently borne by taxpayers, federal and state legislation that would grant fuel— sorry, fossil fuel companies immunity from climate-related lawsuits, state-level make polluters pay climate Superfund legislation, that would apply the Superfund model for soil and water pollution to air pollution, supported by a coalition of more than 50 environmental advocacy groups seeking city support of its 2027 state legislative agenda, and submission of an organizational sign-on letter on behalf of 6 environmental and climate organizations from Portland and across the state with verbal testimony noting that additional organizations had joined since it was last submitted. That concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
[02:18:15] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, Kevin. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, this came from your, your City Life Committee. Any opening remarks?
[02:18:22] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Uh, that it did, and I would just add to the committee staff summary that there was some conversation about when and how we weigh in on items that are, are federal items and the importance of this resolution because we are asking the federal government to preserve our right as a city to enter into these legal actions and the key— that key piece of us needing to maintain our rights as a city in that way. Otherwise, I think the committee staff summary captured it all, and I will let the carrier speak to the importance of moving this forward.
[02:19:03] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Novick.
[02:19:06] Steve Novick: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so a number of states, cities, and counties around the country, including Multnomah County, have brought suits against the fossil fuel industry for damages caused by global warming. Um, the suits focus on the deceptive conduct of the fossil fuel industry going back decades trying to deny the harm caused by global warming. Um, there's this legislation pending in Congress to deprive those jurisdictions of the right to go to court. By the way, this issue is also in front of the Supreme Court right now, so we'll find out if the Supreme Court allows these suits to go forward. I realize that we could spend every minute of every day denouncing something that the Republicans are doing in Congress or otherwise, but as Councilor Pirtle-Guiney said, I thought I couldn't resist bringing this one because it is— the legislation is a direct attack on our ability to act. And also, in my previous job, I worked in a coalition of states on environmental issues, and one of the things we did regularly was file amicus briefs in support of the right of jurisdictions to bring lawsuits like this. Hmm. So that was why I felt okay bringing this forward, even though— without worrying too much about the the possibility we wind up spending all of our time on federal issues. I also want to draw your attention to the resolution recites portions of the state of Delaware's complaint against the fossil fuel companies, demonstrating that they knew everything there was to know about global warming starting at least, at least 1959. And at some point, I'd like to see a debate between about who is the more deceptive industry, the cigarette industry about cigarettes or the fossil fuel industry about global warming.
[02:20:49] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Novick. Uh, Keelan, has anyone signed up to testify on this item?
[02:20:53] Keelan McClymont: We have one person signed up.
[02:20:55] Jamie Dunphy: Okay, I'd like to start by getting our public testimony, and then colleagues, we can do, uh, technical clarifying and council debate. So could we please call our first testifier?
[02:21:03] Keelan McClymont: Uh, Cherice Bock is joining us online.
[02:21:13] Cherice Bock: Good evening, councilors. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to thank you so much. Thank you so much. To testify about this item, and thank you to Councilor Novick for bringing it up. I think that we probably can all agree that this is a good idea, that we need to have the ability to hold polluting companies accountable for the harm that they've caused and do that through legislation and litigation. And so this is a great indication to make sure that we say that we really want to keep that right. And so I don't want to take up too much of your time, as I think this probably is something that most of us agree on and appreciate the support of, uh, 7 councilors already who have signed on to a national letter about this. So thank you, Councilors Avalos, Green, Kanal, Koyama Lane, Murillo, Novick, and Pirtle-Guiney, and would love to have the rest of you support on that national letter that indicates to our congressional delegation that this is really important to us. Thank you. You probably have all received quite a few emails in your inboxes from constituents in Portland who really care about this and want to make sure that we hold big polluting companies, corporations accountable for their pollution and climate harm. And this is a big issue that we're working on with a statewide coalition of over 50 organizations around the state to do state legislation. Legislation, and the Make Polluters Pay Climate Superfund bill is in your list for indicating your support for the legislative session. So I hope that you will also support that. So I am looking forward to you all supporting this resolution. As, as was mentioned, we had 6 local and statewide organizations that signed on to the letter at first, and I submitted it again this morning with 9 organizations, so you can check that out for more details. But I think that that gives you a general overview of why this is important, and thank you all for caring about this issue.
[02:23:19] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much for being here.
[02:23:21] Keelan McClymont: That completes testimony.
[02:23:23] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Keelan. Okay, colleagues, we are now into technical clarifying questions as well as council discussion. We'll start with Councilor Koyama Lane.
[02:23:31] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thanks, Council President. I am broadly very supportive of this. I'm just, I'm a little confused because this— how is this different from what we just brought forward around the CEI hub? It seems like this is almost exactly the same thing. And so I would love for someone to explain that to me because I'm supportive, but I was also supportive of that. And so I'm just a little confused to see May I respond?
[02:24:03] Jamie Dunphy: Please, Councilor Novick.
[02:24:05] Steve Novick: Councilor, the premise of the legislation relating to the CI Hub, which you referred to, was that we can't trust the City of Portland to bring a lawsuit to enforce its own franchise agreement. The premise of this resolution is that we think that it should be legal for cities to sue fossil fuel companies for their deception about okay, well, I like it.
[02:24:34] Tiffany Koyama Lane: I support it.
[02:24:36] Unidentified speaker: Thank you.
[02:24:37] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Councilor Green.
[02:24:39] Mitch Green: Uh, thank you, Council President. Uh, thank you for bringing this forward, Councilor Novick. Um, you know, resolutions are the way that we express our will as a body. You can't just— individual councilors can't say the city's going to do this. So resolutions are how we do this. I think it is important in this moment to say this is what the City of Portland believes should be the policy framework. There's 21 pieces of written testimony. All of them support it. I know of no person who doesn't want to do this. So let's just do it.
[02:25:09] Unidentified speaker: Thanks.
[02:25:11] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Knoll.
[02:25:12] Sameer Kanal: Thank you, Council President. Thank you to Councilor Novick for bringing this forward. And I know your team worked hard on it as well. And yeah, I think there's not much to say here that hasn't already been said in that written testimony, and I appreciate Councilor Green calling that out. But protecting our ability to fight for our people is a really important thing. This has the additional benefit of sort of establishing council intention and authorization for OGR. So I think the Office of Government Relations. So I think that that's a really important piece of this that is operational and immediate. And so I think that it has an impact that some resolutions that we've done in the past don't have that level. So I'm excited about that aspect of it and excited to pass this and grateful for your work, which is, you know, of a line with your past work as well. So appreciate that and appreciate your team, Councilor Novick, as well.
[02:26:11] Unidentified speaker: Thanks. Thank you.
[02:26:12] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Knoll. Colleagues, any further discussion of this item? Councilor Murillo.
[02:26:23] Angelita Morillo: So sorry, I might just be a little bit brain foggy because I'm still sick, but so for clarity, if you were to distill what this resolution does, it just says that the City of Portland could sue fossil fuel companies that are polluting, correct?
[02:26:40] Steve Novick: May I respond?
[02:26:41] Jamie Dunphy: Councilor Novick.
[02:26:41] Steve Novick: Yes, um, Councilor Morillo, it also, as Cherice Bock noted, um, and as Councilor Canales noted, um, says that jurisdictions should be allowed to do Superfund-like legislation to hold fossil fuel companies accountable as well as bringing lawsuits, because the federal legislation opposes— would override both things. No more lawsuits and no more climate Superfund-style legislation has been passed in some places.
[02:27:13] Unidentified speaker: Okay.
[02:27:16] Angelita Morillo: Are we unable to do those types of things without this resolution, though?
[02:27:21] Steve Novick: No, no. The resolution just announced— just denounces the efforts in Congress to prohibit us from taking those actions.
[02:27:32] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Gotcha.
[02:27:32] Loretta Smith: Okay, thank you.
[02:27:34] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you, Councilor Morillo. Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this is a resolution. We are moving to a vote. Keelan, can we please call the roll on document 2026-309?
[02:27:49] Keelan McClymont: Clerk?
[02:27:51] Olivia Clark: Aye.
[02:27:51] Keelan McClymont: Green?
[02:27:53] Mitch Green: Aye.
[02:27:53] Keelan McClymont: Zimmerman?
[02:28:00] Eric Zimmerman: Absent.
[02:28:01] Keelan McClymont: Is it, um, sorry, Avalos?
[02:28:04] Candace Avalos: Aye.
[02:28:04] Keelan McClymont: Smith?
[02:28:06] Loretta Smith: Aye.
[02:28:07] Keelan McClymont: Kanal?
[02:28:08] Sameer Kanal: Aye.
[02:28:09] Keelan McClymont: Pirtle-Guiney?
[02:28:10] Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Aye.
[02:28:11] Keelan McClymont: Ryan?
[02:28:12] Dan Ryan: Aye.
[02:28:13] Keelan McClymont: Koyama Lane?
[02:28:19] Unidentified speaker: Councilor You're muted.
[02:28:24] Jamie Dunphy: Let's try—.
[02:28:26] Robert Taylor: You're muted.
[02:28:27] Keelan McClymont: I'm not muted.
[02:28:31] Tiffany Koyama Lane: Aye.
[02:28:32] Keelan McClymont: Thank you. Morillo?
[02:28:35] Angelita Morillo: Aye.
[02:28:36] Keelan McClymont: Novick?
[02:28:36] Steve Novick: Aye.
[02:28:37] Keelan McClymont: Dunphy?
[02:28:38] Jamie Dunphy: Aye.
[02:28:39] Keelan McClymont: Resolution is adopted with 11 aye votes and 1 absent.
[02:28:43] Jamie Dunphy: Thank you very much, colleagues. That concludes our agenda for this Wednesday evening. We are in recess until 2:00 tomorrow afternoon, Thursday the 22nd, at which point we'll pick up our, our fall tow. Thank you very much. We're done for tonight. Have a good night, everybody.