The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-05-07
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (29,651 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council session, recorded as occurring on 2025-05-07, covered a wide range of agenda items. Discussion opened on the format of a recurring administrative report, with requests for more advance notice and structured opportunity for follow-up questions. A budget-related exchange addressed the classification of restricted versus designated funds, with figures on unspent grant balances stated inconsistently. The consent agenda was addressed, with two appointment items pulled for later consideration; votes occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. Extended discussion and multiple amendments were considered on a resolution directing the Bureau of Transportation to construct and maintain sidewalks and address pavement deficiencies, including amendments on alternative pathways, an anti-displacement framework, and removal of district-specific language; votes occurred on each, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The council also considered two police-related settlement ordinances, receiving public testimony describing incidents and community concerns; votes occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. Additional items included a fair wage policy code amendment and several fee-schedule ordinances covering trees, water, sewer, stormwater, transportation, and permitting, with public testimony and committee summaries presented before the meeting was recessed to continue the following day.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 Know, the city administrator is going to have the level of detail to the kind of questions I want to ask. And so I guess I just want to ask a broader like, can we discuss what will it look like in the future? Because if this is going to be the main place where we're going to be able to weigh in on what the city, how the city has been operating, and ideally have space to ask questions about what's in the report. It feels insufficient to not have people here available to answer those. And then therefore, where will those questions be? Of course, I could ask them offline, but that defeats the purpose of bringing to light and having public transparency around our responsibility to oversee, you know, making sure we're overseeing the executive branch and that essentially the executive branch is implementing the policies. That is our responsibility to propose. So I'm going to hold my specific questions. But my larger ask is that we discuss what this process looks like in the future, so it can be a more involved process. And we could actually have our questions answered. So I'll just leave it at that for now. And if you have a comment, you can.
1 Thank you so much for that suggestion. And I might request we can look at a number of options to address that. But maybe one thing we might do if there are questions specific to send those in advance, we'd be happy to be prepared and have folks in the room ready to dive a little deeper for you. If there are other ways we can have that available to really open to suggestions of how we do that, thank you.
2 And councilor, I hear that request. Originally, this report was put together as an overview of what had been happening so that we could then follow up offline about things that we needed more information about. If councilors, on the whole, want to have a discussion about the report, then we'll need to build in more time for that in our agendas. Right now, it's just built in for high level questions that we need to ask to get clarification so that we can do our follow up. And I am happy to check in with you and maybe 1 or 2 others offline to see if we want to shift that approach and give more time to discussion of what's been happening in the city on our agendas. As with everything, as we have conversations about what is on our agendas, that will require some trade offs and shortening time on other agenda items. Councilor Zimmerman, thanks.
3 So going back to the unspent balance on the last page for active nonfederal grants snapshot $132 million out of 276 $277 million. So it sounds great to get grants because that generally sounds like other people's money. But I want to ask just a finer point, mr. Berry, is there a possibility that the 132 million, which we are calling likely restricted, is also grants from ourselves, like pcf to other bureaus or other city functions?
4 That is a great question. I don't know whether pcf is included in that total, but we'll follow up and clarify in the future.
5 That would be helpful. When you do, I know that you're going to do a lot for the other councilors questions, but. Restricted and unrestricted is an important term in nonprofit and in government giving. I will refuse to apply that same standard to our own money. It is. It is our fund and how we apply it is not restricted. So that will be helpful to understand when this comes out, whether or not when pcf or others are granting, if they're actually able to deliver the projects. When I say they, I mean us as the city. Can we deliver the projects that we have? Another. Another fund trying to fund? So thank you for that. And that's my only question there, madam president.
6 Councilor Ryan.
7 Yeah, I think we're all just basically saying if the report was in the Friday memo Friday morning, that would really help a lot. And then we could have dialog before the meeting with all of you. So I think that's what you're hearing loud and clear. I was troubled a little bit by the language we're using earlier. So I'm just kind of piling on on a couple other councilors comments. So restricted is when we receive money from, say, the federal government. So it's a pass through. It's not our money, it's a pass through that's restricted. Money that comes from our coffers can be designated but not restricted. I think it's really I think it's important that we distinguish between those two. So designated is not the same weight as the contract agreement that we had with the state or the federal government. So I just wanted to make that clear. So we need better clarity on that. And then the columns need to find appropriately. So I know you were just called up here at the last second, but I think any of us that have been ceos for large organizations where you work with auditors once a year, they will make that point really clear. And I know you know that as well. So I just want to clarify that for the record. And those include what was been discussed. The arts office civic life has quite a few grants that are in that category and they're designated. I do think that the pcf question is a little more murky, and that will be a great discussion. And then we have the children's levy, which is restricted because it's a lock box that comes from the from the voters. So we have those restricted accounts within the city that were set up formally with the contract with the voters. Thanks.
8 Councilor Smith, did you have an additional comment? I will note that we're four minutes over time on this agenda item.
9 Okay. Madam president, I will hold my question and send an email.
10 Thank you, I apologize, we are moving on. Counselors to the consent agenda. Rebecca, I believe we have had items pulled from the consent agenda. Can you give us an update?
11 Two items are pulled. Item six appoint matthew sanchez to the urban forestry commission for terms to end March 31st, 2029, and item seven confirm appointments and alternates to the city sustainability and climate commission.
12 Thank you. That leaves one item on the consent agenda. Item eight. Could you please call the roll on the remainder of the consent agenda?
13 Canal I.
14 I Koyama Lane Morillo I Novick. Hi, Clark, I Green I Zimmerman Avalos I Dunphy. I Smith. I pirtle-guiney.
15 I and rebecca. I'm sorry. I was remiss in not saying item six and seven will be placed at the end of the agenda. Thank you councilors. We are now moving on to the beginning of our regular agenda. Rebecca, can you please read agenda item nine for us?
16 Direct bureau of transportation to construct and maintain sidewalks while addressing pavement maintenance deficiencies throughout Portland, improving safety and accessibility for all residents through the sidewalk improvement and paving program.
17 Thank you. And councilors. We began our work on this agenda item at our last meeting, but didn't have time to complete it. We do have for people who are not able to testify. Rebecca, could you please call their names and see if any of them are here today?
18 First we have marita ingalsbe. Marita is joining us online.
19 Thank you. Marita, go ahead and unmute yourself and you can introduce yourself and begin testimony.
20 She's promoting to testify.
21 We have anybody in the room while we wait.
22 Lynell mccauley. Luisa boec. Luisa is here.
23 Great. Luisa, go ahead and come up to the front table to join us.
24 To read the item.
25 Yeah.
26 Welcome. Thank you for being here. You can go ahead and introduce yourself.
27 I am not marissa ingleby. I'm mary ann fitzgerald, also from district four. My power was out this morning. I don't know how widespread it is around town, but I was not able to sign up for this agenda item.
28 I'm sorry. Are you on the list?
29 No.
30 So. Marita ingalsbe is on the list, I am not, I would like to speak, but I couldn't sign up.
31 Okay. And you wait. Okay.
32 Leslie hammond. And we're still trying to promote marita. One second. Marita, if you can hear us, you can unmute. Marita. You can go ahead.
33 Merida.
34 Merida. Ingalsbe.
35 Hello? Can you hear me?
36 We can. You're clear to go ahead.
37 Thank you very much. And I just have a couple slides I would like to share. Thank you very much for allowing me this time I'm going to share my screen.
38 And.
39 Are you able to see the slides?
40 Yes.
41 Yes we are.
42 Okay. So it's time to sip and swim. There's my testimony. This is a photo of southwest shattuck road just north of the new raleigh crest development, formerly alpenrose, showing the lack of even shoulders. There are just. There's just no place to walk on shattuck road. Residents cannot safely walk or bike. This is vermont street just east of the new development. Another street that does not allow walking or safe walking or biking and needs improvement. There are going to be more than 2000 trips daily on southwest shattuck road, with the new development coming in, and these improvements are already in the southwest in motion or swim plan. They've been very nicely defined and are just looking for funding. So I'm in support of this project. I would like to support this sidewalk improvement and paving program and the swim improvements. Thank you very much.
43 Thank you.
44 Merida, thank you for being here with us and for testifying today. We appreciate that. Rebecca, did you.
45 That concludes testimony.
46 Okay. And it sounds like we have somebody who showed up who was not signed up to testify. Unfortunately, we were not taking additional signups for today since this was a carryover item. But if you do have testimony you'd like to submit in writing or share with the clerk, we'll make sure that we get that to everybody. We do want to make sure that we hear your concerns. That moves us into council discussion on this agenda item. And I see councilor Avalos in the queue, but she has stepped away. Councilors, we are moving into discussion. We heard the introduction of this agenda item at our last meeting. So we don't have an additional committee staff summary or overview. Councilor clerk go right ahead.
47 Thank you, madam chair. President, I have an amendment to offer. I think everybody has it. An amendment that actually addresses an issue for district, for sidewalks. And that amendment would to be to add the words and alternative pathways under the be it further resolved that the program objective shall include constructing and maintaining sidewalks and alternative pathways. We I'm offering that because the situation in district four is that it's possible that we can't build out actual concrete sidewalks with curbs and so forth, that we need an alternative approach. In district four, lots of times, real sidewalks require storm water situations, improvements, signalization, and we're just not going to get there in district four because of the geography and past problems. So having an alternative pathway would allow us to actually do more in district four. So I offer that amendment. I'm looking for a motion.
48 Councilors. Is there a second?
49 I'll second it as one of the carriers.
50 Okay. I believe councilor Green jumped in slightly before you, councilor Smith. Councilors, I'm going to run through the hands that are up to see if there's discussion on this amendment. Councilor Avalos, are you in the queue on this amendment? Councilor Green, are you in the queue on this amendment? Go ahead, councilor Green.
51 Thank you, madam chair. I'll just say briefly, you know, there are limited dollars that we are playing with in this city right now. And the urgency for improvements for active transportation. District four has never been higher. So having a nimble approach to sort of broadening the definition of, of sort of sidewalks in this regard, there are some places where you can do concrete sidewalks. There are some places where you're going to need like a protected path. And I think that will help us meet the need of our residents who desperately need them in southwest.
52 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Smith, are you in the queue on this amendment?
53 Yes, yes.
54 Go right ahead.
55 Madam president. For those folks who who are not here, the previous two. City council meetings, I do want to make clear that this is to direct the bureau of transportation to construct and maintain sidewalks. In district one, in district four as a priority, which would improve safety and accessibility for all residents through the sidewalk improvement and paving program. I just wanted to give them what this was since we didn't have a introduction of it.
56 Thank you. Councilor councilor Kanal, are you in the queue on this amendment? Go right ahead.
57 Madam president. Just a question on this. Was the intention behind this amendment to for alternative pedestrian pathways specifically, would it be possible to clarify that or is there a is there a negative associated with that that I wouldn't know about?
58 Perhaps it says maintaining, constructing and maintaining sidewalks right there. It's referencing sidewalks, sure.
59 But in terms of the and alternative pathways, I'm just curious if that was trying to clarify intent here.
60 The intent is that a sidewalk can be a pathway. It doesn't have to be a concrete sidewalk with curbs and gutters. It can be an alternative. So construction.
61 Thank you.
62 Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue on this amendment?
63 Yeah. Thanks. I think this amendment is important for southwest in particular, and I think we have some examples of why we've got to be this prescriptive, given some nature of the way business is done in the city of Portland. So yesterday I had a great tour in southwest, and I know that there's a number of portlanders who think southwest. When we say that, we mean just the very ritzy west hills, but we're talking about some of the areas that still kids walk in the mud along busy roads in, and they fight blackberries on one side of themselves and semi trucks on the other side. And we have a bureau of transportation who will say that road is not ready for a sidewalk because of a host of things that councilor Clark and others have brought up because of the difficulties in southwest hills. But in the world of ADA, anything is better than mud, anything is better than fighting the blackberries. And so I think that this is an important amendment to this, because I've been told now by PBOT that we're just trying to change curb ramps so that we have straight on approaches. And then in yesterday's Oregonian, we watched another taj mahal curb get put in at 11th and siskiyou, your district councilor Where they already had straight on approaches. And so I am tired of being gaslit by this idea of certain things that are or are not available, are or are not functional. Anything is better than mud. Sidewalks are better than gravel paths. Protected sidewalks are better than the old sidewalks of the 80s. And I think having a gradual approach makes this cip project the kind of thing we really have to deliver in southwest and in district one in east Portland. So I really hope folks will will approve this amendment, because I think it gives us, as councilors, a hold the feet to the fire for good and bad decision making as we go forward with this program, if it gets the support. So thanks. I'll support the amendment.
64 Councilor Novick are you in the queue on this amendment?
65 Yes.
66 Go right ahead.
67 Councilor Zimmerman, you've just said in succession that anything is better than mud and anything is better than fighting through blackberries. Those two statements are inconsistent. Sir. You need to tell us which is worse. Mud or blackberries.
68 Please.
69 Zimmerman shorts. Or if you're wearing jeans.
70 Thank you.
71 You back in the queue on this amendment?
72 I'm back in the queue, but I'm.
73 Not on this amendment.
74 Yeah.
75 Counselor. Ryan, are you in the queue on this amendment?
76 Oh, no.
77 Okay. Seeing no other discussion on the proposed amendment, which would add to the be it further resolved that the program objectives shall include the words and alternative pathways after sidewalks in subsection one. Rebecca, could you please call the roll?
78 Canal.
79 Yeah. Thank you for the clarity to the sponsor for this. And given that clarification, I vote I.
80 Brian. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Dunphy. I Smith. I pirtle-guiney. I 12 eyes. The Clark amendment carries. Thank you. We are going to return to councilor Avalos in the queue okay.
81 Thank you I have hold on let me get my stuff together. I have two amendments that I am going to be proposing, but I'll do them one by one. And so I and I'll explain each of them after I move them. So with the first one, I moved to amend the resolution as shown in Avalos amendment one posted to the agenda, which is about I'm going to read it to you in a second, adding the existing anti-displacement framework specifically developed for PBOT called building belonging in the sixth resolved statement. So I move that. Do I have a second?
82 Is there a second second?
83 Okay, so with that I'll tell you a little more. So I've added this language to include an anti-displacement framework, the building belonging guide alongside the equity matrix and existing transportation plans. This tool was developed two years ago in coordination with bts, and it's actually intended to be a citywide framework that I will be bringing to the homelessness and housing committee this summer to explore its citywide application. Including. This tool ensures that we that as we prioritize projects, we're not just looking at where sidewalks are missing, but also asking, what will this investment do to preserve community stability and belonging? So that is the rationale and happy to answer questions on my amendment. Thanks.
84 Councilor Smith, are you in the queue on this amendment? Councilors, is there any discussion on this amendment? Councilor Green.
85 Thank you, madam president. I don't have any issue with adding that clause. I think, you know, it supports the other references to the city's planning processes we already have in place, and I strongly support anti-displacement, so I plan to support this amendment.
86 I put myself in the queue with the question councilor. I'm just wondering about the timeline of that report. I know that some of our reports are evergreen, some have end dates on them. Is this a report that is still active and what is its end date? I'm trying to understand how the data in the report is being used elsewhere, and how that might relate to the timeline for cip.
87 Trying to.
88 Trying to understand your question, I don't.
89 Is this a report that was created with data for a specific period of time, or is this a report that was created as guidance for use without a timeline attached to it?
90 Well, it's not a report, it's a toolkit. So it's like a framework. So I don't know. And it was already completed. So the goal in what I'm asking by adding this to the resolution is to just ensure that that is factored in, along with the equity matrix and all the other things that are listed in that clause, because it's work that PBOT specifically did about anti-displacement. I don't know if I'm answering your question, but maybe I'm not understanding your question.
91 I guess I was looking for a little bit more information about how this was supposed to be utilized, and how that relates to the project at hand. I tried to find the report previously and wasn't able to find it. That's probably my own lack of ability with searching.
92 It's a theoretical framework, just like the equity matrix, so it's also meant to be evergreen.
93 Okay. Thank you.
94 Yeah.
95 Councilor. Councilor Smith, did you?
96 Yes.
97 I do have something on this. It sounds like it would be something that I would be very supportive of, because I haven't had a chance to look at it. And being the maker of the resolution, I do trust my, my co-sponsor in his ability to say what is good or not, but I have not seen it. So I don't know what parameters I am. I would be, you know, committing myself to and had I had it earlier, I would I would understand what it is and how it would impact this, this particular bill. But that being said, we have made it very clear in our conversations to PBOT and to the administration that for sure, district one is marginalized and minimized in a way that other places are not in terms of sidewalks. And I believe that anything that we can do that we already have, we don't I don't want to be held to this tool if I don't know exactly what it is. So I would not be voting for it because I don't know what it is.
98 I do have a direct response, if you'll allow it.
99 Let's go to the direct response and councilor Zimmerman, we will go to you after that direct response.
100 Thank you, councilor Smith. I just note that when we worked together on the resolution, my chief of staff, who has a lot of experience in transportation planning, made sure we kind of listed some other policy frameworks. This would be consistent with that, in my view, and I don't think it takes away anything that's of the broader kind of directive of what we're trying to achieve here. So that's just my $0.02 on that.
101 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman.
102 Thanks, I. Those are great comments. And I and I, I'm a little bit unsure because I think, you know, councilor Greene's put a lot of work into this, but this is coming from this is this is amendment that sounds nice by itself, but I just given what's been submitted in the record, the next amendment is about to cut out the targeted areas. And so this doesn't feel like it's coming from a position of the spirit of what cip is about. And frankly, the statement PBOT shall utilize existing plans. I'm going to hold this up. This red right here and this red right here. That inequity is what existing PBOT plans has resulted in. I'm uninterested in existing PBOT plans. This plan says that our equitable sidewalk distribution that fifth and Hawthorne gets a new curb every couple of years. That fourth avenue gets redone. And yet continually east Portland, continually southwest hills are left out of the plans. I don't know what equity matrix this this plan is solving, and I don't know why we consider it the plan to solve all questions. But being brought in the spirit of the very next amendment to be brought is to cut out those two areas that I just showed on the map in red feels disingenuous. And I think that councilor Smith and councilor Green's work to identify district one and four and bring us along in that is in response to the failure of pbot's existing plans. And I don't think that this amendment will be healthy for this document.
103 Councilor Ryan, is your comment to this amendment?
104 Yeah.
105 Councilor Avalos, this is the first I heard about this amendment, and it is a lot to take on as a floor amendment. And so did you take this as toolkit, this toolkit. Is it from is it from PCEF.
106 No. So first of all I did include the amendment weeks ago. So it's been on the website. So it wasn't it's not a floor amendment.
107 I believe the last meeting.
108 So it's on the website. But no this is not PCEF related. I just emailed it out to everybody. It is a 120 page document put together by PBOT staff over several years to create a framework that could be applied for PBOT specifically, but it draws on the work of the anti-displacement work that the city is doing as a whole. And so to me, it is an opportunity to tie back to the work PBOT has already done. So if we're listing an equity matrix and all the other things listed, it made sense to me to include the very thing that they created for this purpose.
109 Have has director williams, have you spoke to this in front of us, this amendment? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
110 Good morning. Milicent williams, director of the Portland bureau of transportation. We have not spoken about this plan in particular before this body or before the committee, but it is work that the bureau did engage in several years ago. And while it is not. It does not fall in the same category as a swim or northwestern motion or some of the other planning documents, or the equity matrix, in that it was not a full adoption of the plan. It is work that the team did work on, and it can help to inform the strategy for how we prioritize. I will note that my understanding of what has been introduced from councilors Smith and Green suggests that we get people's feet out of the mud. That is not anti-displacement that is I mean, that is not displacement. That is recognizing a significant deficiency in infrastructure. And so to put sidewalks where there are none is not intended to be a displacement exercise. It may be an unintended consequence of that, but the hope is that we would not find ourselves putting people in positions of having to make decisions about where they will live, where they will do business. But it really is intended to, on a block by block basis, ensure that we're providing sidewalks, alternative pathways, ability for pedestrians and people who are in mobility devices to move around safely, as well as streets that do not have that are not riddled with potholes or rutted, because there has not been attention given to those efforts, those facilities.
111 Councilor do you have follow up?
112 I'm trying to figure out if this is going to solve any problems. If this is additive.
113 I.
114 It supports the overall effort. It doesn't hurt anything for us to make sure that we're considering the things that are part of this report.
115 I thought that's what you were saying, but I just want to get that succinct response. Thank you.
116 And director, there may be other questions if you want to stick close. Sure. Counselor Smith, are you in the queue for comments to this amendment?
117 Yes, and I'd like to have the clerk put up two pictures that my staff gave. This will put a finer point on why cip is necessary in district one and in district four.
118 Councilor is that for this amendment, or is that related to the next amendment which removes those from cip, those districts?
119 Well, this is going to it piggybacks on what councilor Zimmerman talked about, why this particular amendment may not be needed, because if we look at the data that we that we saw in the mayor's budget, it shows in the it shows in the plan for PBOT, it will show you the amount of dollars that have been spent in the east compared to other parts of the city. And if you look at PBOT 2425 numbers, it will show you that there is only $650,000 that have been spent in the east. If you look at the environmental services point, there has been $0 spent compared to the other sides of town. And they listed. And so for me that has been in place. And then they did a five year plan, environmental services there over the next five years. They have the east getting $0. It's not because the bureau didn't prioritize it. They did. They asked and they requested it. But the mayor and the previous council zeroed it out. So there is an institutional marginalization of district one specifically that if we're talking about plans that we worked on with the community, they were not adopted. It's 120 pages. I don't have time to read those 120 pages. But I know today, if cip passes, that I will be making sure that we have pathways, active transportation, making sure that those places that we did not have sidewalks or safety areas like in our high crash corridors, 122nd division, stark, and all those places. I am going to be on the case to make sure that these plans are put into place. So that being said, I will not be supporting this amendment.
120 Councilor Kanal are you in the queue on this amendment?
121 Yes I am, I just want to remind everyone that when we had our conversation about amendments that were proposed to the resolution on zenith, we had a councilor. Councilor Zimmerman asked that his motives not be impugned repeatedly to conversations that we had on amendments to the amendment request to change that. And so I want to say that we should apply that standard across the board here and take each of these two amendments separately. I think there's we're going to have a separate argument on the second amendment that's being proposed in a moment here. And I think that's going to be spirited, and I'm looking forward to it. But on the first, I think it's valid to say if we have a complaint on it or support for it and not to question whether or not it's trying to sneak something in. I'm getting a little bit. It's frustrating to see my colleagues accused of trying to sneak things in, when in reality there's often an attempt to look at the details and look at each detail separately. I will say that I agree that there has been a significant lack of equity within the city in terms of where things have been holding. One particular report that was put out in April 2024, responsible for how sidewalks, which are years to build and decide where they're going to be built and maintained, doesn't make any sense to me. So I think it's fair to say that PBOT historically has not been successful at creating equitable distribution of sidewalks in the city. I don't think it's fair to say that that makes that that should be held to this particular report and toolkit. For that reason, I will be voting in support of it, in particular, because it is my district, district two, where often the displacement has taken place from. Thank you.
122 Councilor Morillo. Are you in the queue on this amendment?
123 Yeah, I think this is just for the first amendment. And I would like to echo everything the councilor Kanal just said that we have to be able first of all, councilor Avalos did bring both of these amendments with a lot of time. I believe she emailed them to all of us a few weeks ago. They were also publicly posted on the website. We can pull them up right now. I was able to google the title of the report. I was able to pull up the report and find what it was. So I don't think that this was obfuscated from us in any way. I think we just are all balancing a lot of different things to track. But I think that as far as this goes, I don't really see the harm in adding it. It's about ensuring that, yes, we're going to add sidewalks and I don't think that's going to increase displacement. But as you talked about, there sometimes are unintended consequences in policy making. And so this is just saying this is a lens that we want to apply to any future construction that we do. And because of that, this seems like a this amendment seems like a no brainer to me to support. So I'll be supporting it. Thank you.
124 Councilor Koyama Lane.
125 Thank you, madam president. I'm feeling like there might be some stuff that I'm not picking up on. That is not being said. I'm not totally understanding what it is. I am not sure if these two amendments are connected, unconnected. Why people are seeing that. I moved to lay this amendment on the table and do the other one first, and come back to this one.
126 Councilor.
127 Councilors, there's a motion on the table to lay this amendment and open. Avalos. Amendment two. First, given what seems to be some overlap in concerns between the two of them, is there a second to that motion?
128 Second.
129 Okay, rebecca, I believe we would need a roll call on this motion.
130 Canal.
131 No.
132 Ryan, I.
133 Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.
134 Novick I.
135 Clark.
136 Green I. Zimmerman I. Avalos no. Dunphy I. Smith I.
137 And pirtle-guiney.
138 I and thank you councilor for moving us along here. I believe we now have amendment one tabled. We will come back to it. Amendment two is we'll take up amendment two. Councilor Avalos, would you like to introduce your amendment and we can look for a second to that amendment?
139 Yeah for sure.
140 All right. So my second amendment I've proposed removing references to specific council districts in the resolution not to diminish the very real and disproportionate need in districts one and four, but to ensure that the language centers equity as a citywide principle. Our commitment should be to prioritize based on demonstrated need and impact using tools like building belonging and equity matrix as or existing plans. And this helps reinforce the idea that our investments follow data and values, not district lines. Because every neighborhood deserves safe and accessible infrastructure. I'm happy to answer questions on that.
141 Councilor before we move into discussion, is there a second on this amendment?
142 Second.
143 From councilor Canal councilor Smith, are you in the queue on this amendment?
144 Yes.
145 Go right ahead.
146 Thank you. When I ran for city council, it was a personal commitment to ensure that city government provides equal and equitable opportunities for all Portland residents, especially those of us who have been historically underserved or overlooked by the city, especially those of us living in district one. The city annexed the areas of district one in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and it seemed like we are still fighting to be seen as a part of Portland. I launched the cip program, the sidewalk improvement and paving program with councilor Green and councilor Clark and councilor Zimmerman as a practical way to address some of those inequalities. Literally, at the ground level, a PBOT presentation before the transportation and infrastructure committee brought those inequalities into sharp focus. For me. Page ten of that presentation shows a map and a map that I've passed or passed around that you all can see of the city, with street color coded to illustrate sidewalk completeness. Streets with sidewalks on both sides are gray. Streets with sidewalks. On one side are orange, and streets missing sidewalks entirely are red. Districts one and four have the most red and orange, but for different reasons. District four has environmental challenges. It's difficult and expensive to build good sidewalks on steep hills, but district one has a different challenge. It's not the geography or engineering challenges, but that district one has been chronically overlooked due to underrepresentation in city hall, which the voters sought to correct with this new form of city government. The cully neighborhood needs better streets and sidewalks. So does the area around flavel, south of woodstock. But if you look at the map, the streets and the sidewalks of district one, they are obviously been neglected compared to similar neighborhoods nearby and compared to most of inner Portland. Why shouldn't the power power hearst gilbert neighborhood have good streets and sidewalks like Laurelhurst? Don't kids walking, riding, or rolling to david douglas high school deserve the same streets and sidewalks as kids attending lincoln high school, or even grant high school? Especially when 40% of portland's youth live in district one. And I want to make that that fact really clear. Think about that. 40% of the city's kids live in district one. We have to protect those kids. What are solutions for people facing mobility challenges? What do we tell folks with walkers or wheelchairs? Don't they deserve the same opportunities and abilities to wander their neighborhoods and parks as the rest of us? Or do we simply offer them the solution of move closer to downtown? You know, where the good streets are, right? And I'm sorry, displacement is not an issue. We are the furthest east in the city. We have no place else to go. We are where we are. The average salary for a family in district one is $60,000, compared to the other three parts in the three districts in the city, which are in the neighborhood of 91 to 93,000. So in terms of displacement, we are where we are and that's where we're going to stay. And so for my money and for my effort and for my colleagues, I just urge you to support this, because we need to call to call attention to the marginalization of district one and other places as it results to public works and infrastructure. And that's what we're doing. And to say that all sidewalks or work on sidewalks are not going to be done in district two and three. That's not saying that. It's saying we're going to put additional resources on top of the resources that we're spending around the city to make sure that we level the playing field for folks who are living, working and playing in district one. Thank you.
147 Thank you, councilor. Councilor canal, are you in the queue on Avalos amendment two?
148 Yes, madam president.
149 Go right ahead.
150 Thank you. I have a couple questions. First, for primarily director williams, but possibly also the attorney. So you know, in the impact statement, the third line it says particularly areas of districts one and four particularly. And whereas in the sixth and ninth whereas clauses which this amendment proposes adjusting it, it says prioritizing investments in districts one and 4 in 1 and then in the other, it says in key locations throughout districts one and four. My question is, would this be interpreted as being exclusive to districts one and four, the way it is currently written for this particular program? Because it's been, I think, discussed as if it might be, and I want to understand that better.
151 My understanding. And I'm sorry. Sorry. Linly do you want to go first? Okay. Thank you. Councilor Kanal my understanding is that we will be prioritizing districts one and four. This is not excluding the opportunity to support other parts of the city, but we do need to make sure that we are conforming to the expectations of the resolution and the guidance, which suggests that we or informs that we look at districts one and four as the priority, and then as the needs are identified, and we have some of those already identified and opportunities present themselves for us to be able to strategically make investments to enhance infrastructure and other parts of town. I believe that the spirit of the resolution would be that we would attend to those things as well. So that's my understanding of what we would be doing. I hope that that does conform with this council's expectations around what was introduced as the resolution.
152 Linly do you have anything to add?
153 No. I mean, I think the resolution, you know, your job is to give policy direction. And when you're not using mandatory terms, it gives the executive side the ability to interpret that as as the director has said, they want to interpret it in a way that is consistent with your objectives and your desires. So the more you're explaining that, the more they're able to do that. But I don't think the language here says only district one and four.
154 So and for example, if we were doing corridor work on a street or corridor that extends from district one into district two, or from district one into district four, into district three, or whatever the combination of things is, would we cut it at the line? No, of course not. We would continue that work. And so I think we have some opportunities to as we progress the work as proposed, to continue to have conversations to make sure that everyone is really clear about how we are moving the work forward. My understanding is that the resolution provides us the opportunity to develop a four year plan that helps to inform the way in which we will move the process. Through some of those projects, we anticipate that will end up on a list. To the extent that there is a list, are things that we'll want to have the opportunity to discuss with this council to make sure that, again, we're following the expectations as outlined by the resolution and the guidance that we have been given, but that we're also applying the appropriate lens to the delivery of the overall project program.
155 Thank you. And then my other question before I get into my comment is about the portion of this that is not about sidewalks, because this sidewalk improvement and paving program, and it also says multiple times while addressing pavement maintenance deficiencies. And if I could have a little information speaking to that, we haven't seen the map on anything other than sidewalks yet. I know that's in the documents that councilor Smith sent around. Can we get those shared on the screen or the map about the third topic that's addressed in here, which is safety, which is the map that was briefly shown on screen during councilor Smith's comments a few minutes ago. And I'd love to see it on that screen as well as on the zoom screen if possible.
156 I believe that screen was referring to the screen that folks who are here with us in chambers and online can see.
157 I'm not talking about this map, I'm talking about the map with the names on it for the safety, or I'm talking about the map that showed that that one. Thank you. I think what I'm struggling with, with this document as a whole is about the geography of it. And the reason is because I'm being asked to accept that seven is greater than 19. That is what I'm being asked to do right now as a representative of district two. Because if you look at the names on this list, there are 19 names in district two, and there are seven names in district four. I want to make sure that there are zero in any district, and I want to be very clear about that. Any of those seven folks who lost their lives in district four is a tragedy. But I also don't understand why we cannot prioritize from the pavement perspective. The district that clearly has a the second highest number of fatalities, which is district two. And obviously the context of this is that district one has more than any other district, and nearly as many as everyone else combined. I do want to observe that, and I have never had an issue with prioritization for district one. But from a safety perspective, I do think it is vital to point out that 19 is in fact greater than seven. And then when we get to the pavement side, I would also point out that there are roads all over, not only cully, but cathedral park that are unpaved and at the same level of density as almost any other neighborhood. And I think saying the same thing applies to the folks in cathedral park saying, move closer to downtown, go into irvington, go into the lloyd district, go to sullivan's gulch, go into any of those neighborhoods in the inner northeast and leave north Portland, or telling cully folks the same thing is equally a bad argument. I completely agree with that. So for me, I would love to vote for this resolution. I want to support this. I am a hater of potholes and on the pavement side in particular, I think it is one of the biggest things we can do to show that we're a functional city is have our pavement, including sidewalks and alternative pathways, be functional. But I am struggling with the with the idea that safety requires accepting a numerical untruth. The last thing I'll mention before seeing the floor here is that when we. This is, I believe, the first policy document coming out of transportation and infrastructure. And I think it's notable that the transportation and infrastructure committee has no district two councilors on it. And so as a result, you know, one of the things that we've we've the sin we've committed over the years as a city has often been to not have any voices from east Portland in, in the room. And I think that's a that's been a clear problem. And I think when there's people that aren't in the room, their voices are often not reflected in policy. District two is not in the room on transportation and infrastructure. And I think that's been reflected in a couple of the decisions here as it relates to the comparison. So I will be supporting the amendment with the knowledge that, you know, district one in particular does need that prioritization, but noting every one of those names is a tragedy in particular, for my district, the 19 names from district two.
158 Thank you, councilor, councilors, two notes. First of all, you just received a new document from councilor Avalos. The original one that was sent was not actually the accurate document for Avalos amendment one. So if you have a few seconds in between listening to your colleagues, you may want to pull that up. Second thing is a note that we are scheduled with this resolution through 1125. That is 15 more minutes. We have a very tight agenda. I am hoping we can get this in so folks can be judicious with your words. That would be great. Councilor Green, are you speaking to the amendment?
159 I am, thank you, madam president. I'm not going to support the amendments because I think if you strike the terms in district one and district four, it renders the point of this resolution largely moot, and we just sort of fall back on the broader transportation planning framework that we already have. And I got to tell you, I did a walk in the west Portland town center yesterday, and I walked along the side of the road on taylor's ferry that children, particularly children who are lower income children who are from the immigrant community, use to access the amenities that they need to get. And that's, you know, that's been 30 some odd years since the need was identified for a lot of these sidewalks and pathways. And so I asked the question of how long should southwest Portland wait for sidewalks? Is it 50 years? Is it 100 years? Is it longer? I don't know, I don't know the answer to that question, but I know if we don't put in very clear language that says we need to prioritize these neighborhoods now, because there has been a lack of investment in the history of those neighborhoods existing in this part of the city of Portland, we may likely never get there, and those children will become adults if they survive. It's also notable that if you read the number 12 bus down barbara boulevard at any hour of the day, you're going to see working class people. These are people who are not wealthy. These are people who struggle to make ends meet. They take transportation by necessity and their ability to reach the stops along barbara boulevard depends upon their ability to safely get to those stops. And so I think that there's a couple issues at play here. One is sort of a safety equity lens. The other piece is a climate lens. You know, if we want to lower congestion and lower the overall cost of our PBOT budget over time from a sort of generational asset life cycle cost lens, then we're going to have to make it easier for everyone in the city, particularly the parts of the city that cannot ditch their cars because it's not safe and there's no accessibility. We're going to have to make that as easy as possible. So if we want to reduce congestion in district two, where you have a high rate of traffic fatalities, you're going to have to reduce your to provide ridership opportunities and non-car alternatives. In district four. Councilor Kanal to your point, on on paving and potholes and its nexus with with traffic related fatalities or injuries, it seems to me that when you pave a street and you fill potholes, that speeds up the rate of traffic flow. So I'm not sure that that is a way to think about safety. I think if you want to think about safety, it's modal filters, it's diverters, it's vision zero, taking vision zero, and that is in our budget. I prepare to support those programs. Overall, what I'm not prepared to support is an effort to strike district four or district one from this resolution. I think it's I think we were elected to fight for our districts, and I'm doing that right now, and I'm not going to go back to my district and talk to the immigrant immigrant community in southwest Portland and tell them I did not fight for them. So I'm not going to vote for this amendment.
160 Councilor Avalos, I apologize. I thought that was a legacy hand, but it sounds like you are in the queue to speak to the amendment.
161 Yeah. Do you want me to go now then or.
162 Go right ahead?
163 Okay. Yeah. Thank you everybody for the discussion. I obviously know that I'm, you know, introducing something that people feel very strongly about. And I think, first of all, just say yes. East Portland has the largest sidewalk gaps in the entire city. No one knows that better than the people who live there, including me. And my amendment is about making sure that sidewalk investments are strategic, equitable and sustained. Not just one time political wins. I removed district specific language from the resolution because I believe that equity needs to be citywide. And if the data shows that district one needs more investment, then that's where it will go. But I don't think I should have to carve that into every policy to prove that district one deserves things. If we truly believe in this equity matrix and all the other tools that we're using to identify where need is, then I think we need to actually follow it and act on the data that already tells us where the gaps are, and making sure that we're not missing districts entirely, that are also shown in the data to have gaps. If we are directing PBOT to allocate half $1 billion, and when we get to the main resolution, I have a lot of questions about that to make sure that we are, you know, holding the right expectation for our community on what we're promising them. But I don't see how, you know, to me, this doing this is about enhancing our ability to ensure equity is ensured in this project, especially if you're the point of the project or the resolution is to ask PBOT to invest more dollars. I do not think it's right to have district lines around who deserves the most streets or the most equity as it relates to these projects. So obviously I am a district one councilor. I know very I feel very strongly about us getting what we deserve. And I think that if we are setting a precedent in general that we're going to start having district fights, that's not a fight I'm willing to have. I don't think that I need to sit here and beg for my district to receive resources that are clearly needed by the data, and so I'm trying to prevent us from making this precedent where we're going to turn this into some kind of turf war instead of just, you know, and what I also always say is that as a district councilor, it's my job to bring my neighborhood perspective to the table, but to implement citywide policy. And so it is my job to bring district one voice into the table and ensure that as we're making decisions about our dollars, that they are being distributed equitably. And if they are, then my district is going to get what we deserve. So that is the framework that I'm introducing. That's why I'm requesting that we do this, because I don't think this is the right precedent to set as we continue on and make decisions about where investments go. Thanks.
Procedural episode · turns 164–172
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
164 Councilors. A reminder that we have nine minutes left. I am next in the queue. Director williams, if we were to pass the underlying ordinance without this amendment, would you still be able to make the investments in sidewalk infrastructure in cully, where we know that they are one of the worst neighborhoods in the city for sidewalk infrastructure that that neighborhood needs?
165 Yes, I believe that that is the spirit of what this resolution intends, and that is what we would be able to do. My hope is that we would be able to use all of our tools, many of which have been engaged, even as we've made investments from our cip perspective, the reason why we haven't had significant investment in basic infrastructure across the city, and more specifically in districts one and four, is because because of historic underinvestment. And I'm not necessarily pointing fingers at anyone or blaming anyone for that. But councilor Smith did in her introduction or her overview, provide that these are areas where annexing has happened. When the annexing occurred, there was not a maintenance agreement in place. We did not have the opportunity to then go and maintain the street. That was not a part of the maintenance agreement, so we would be able to do that again. We want to make sure that we're operating within the spirit of this resolution. And while we would be able to prioritize districts one and four, as we have on several other things, I mean, we have hundreds of millions of dollars planned for certain parts of town, and it's not based on who lives there or what we believe the wealth of that area to be, but rather the need. And we can speak to all those projects on ad nauseam. But yes, we would be.
166 I'm going to cut you not speaking about those projects because we're tight on time. But what I'm hearing is that as a representative of district two, I could support the underlying without amendment. Avalos. Amendment two and still be assured that while we are prioritizing districts where many investments are needed, those neighborhoods within my district where investments are also needed would still be able to receive the investments that that they're waiting for as well.
167 Yes. Thank you, madam president.
168 A point of order information cully is in district one.
169 No, cully is. In district two.
170 Yes, ma'am. I have the airport. Yes, ma'am. My district counts all the way down to 33rd and around and over to marine drive. That is considered cully. I that is considered cully. Look. Okay. Know where my know where your.
171 District will talk about neighborhood maps. I know where the lines are. Councilor. I want us.
172 To get.
173 To a vote on your resolution.
174 I would.
175 You made a specific point. Will we be able to do cully? Cully is in district one. Councilor yes ma'am. Yes it is.
176 Councilor.
177 Yes it is.
178 I would like us to be able to get to a vote. And we have six minutes left, councilor Zimmerman.
179 I think this item has been pushed enough. I think we should blow the timeline and have this debate right here, right now, for the next, as long as it takes. Then my comments. So. While we've been having this debate, sometimes we're being interrupted in this chamber by the beeping construction horns outside that project is what the Portland equity lens has led to. Is that fourth avenue, the most service street in our community, is getting another level of service. I am not interested in preserving the status quo by putting this amendment forward. We are saying that the status quo is working, and this map tells me that the status quo for sidewalks has not worked. This is a mean spirited amendment. It is designed to protect the status quo and to say that the areas who are red in this do not need a focus. And in crisis and in problems and in anything you want to improve, you put yourself at the point of friction. And the point of friction is where the red on that map is at. That is why we have to direct funds directly to the areas that have a problem. So I'm not interested in protecting this status quo. The council introduced this, said she wants to produce by the data. And I'm just curious what part of this data is invalid. This is very clear data. So this amendment should not move forward. I started on this dais looking over to my colleagues in district one, recognizing that district four has historically had a lot of privilege in this city. But district four is more than just downtown. It is more than the northwest hills. It is also the deep southwest where we still have very marginalized communities who don't always get the microphone in this chamber. We continue to have an influx of folks who moved to Oregon into Portland, and this is their first stop is in the southwest hills. We have a diverse community there. The income levels there are different than the way the rest of our district gets categorized. The status quo has not worked for that portion of district four, and we want to support district one as well. I worked in that district. I've so familiar with district one for a long time. My family's from east Portland. I don't need a lecture on what district one needs. I'm well aware, which is why I am against this amendment and fully in support of this entire resolution.
180 Thank you. Councilor councilor Morillo.
Procedural episode · turns 181–200
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
181 Thank you, council president. So first of all, I'm going to vote no on this amendment. But I also want to say that councilor Zimmerman, multiple times on this dais, you have already been told to stop taking pot shots at people and councilor Avalos, like, we can't be judging each other's intentions. We just have to be going through this. You and I have gone through this and we have worked it out together and we're homies now, so let's just keep it chill for everybody and not imbue each other's actions with intentions that we don't actually know about. Now I'm going to move into my actual comments, but I'm just kind of tired of that happening. As far as the I think we're in a really interesting role as far as districts and holding the entire city together as something that we have to think about and balance as we navigate this new district system. And to me, equity doesn't mean that everybody gets the same thing. Equity actually means that we address where past harms have happened and where people don't have the same things that other people have. And it is very clear to me from the data that districts one and four have the least sidewalks. And it pains me to say that because there is a chunk of district three that desperately needs sidewalks, there's a big red in the area of flavel street, and I know that's something my constituents are really concerned about. The reason I'm going to not support this amendment to strike districts one and four from it is because this resolution is not prohibitive. It's not going to prevent district three from having some of those things looked at. It's just going to suggest that we look at the areas that don't have it, while also ensuring that we're going to look at some of those spaces that do. I also want to say that I think that we're conflating a few things as far as safety versus infrastructure. So while district two, for example, may have a lot of sidewalks but doesn't, but has also high level of traffic deaths, that's also because a lot of the infrastructure that needs to be built, which is not addressed in this, this is focused on sidewalks, specifically our traffic calming measures like actual barriers that slow traffic down, protected bike lanes, etc. And that's something that absolutely should be addressed and to me is separate from this resolution, because this is very specific to sidewalks. So because of that, and because I think equity means that we actually address where historically people aren't having these things, which are in the deep southwest areas where immigrant families live, where which is in district one, where a lot of our bipoc community live, and where people have been annexed and not given the resources to maintain those sidewalks. I'm not going to support this amendment. Thank you.
182 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Smith, are you back in the queue?
183 No, ma'am.
184 Okay. Councilor. Clark.
185 Thank you, madam chair. I don't believe that this is a turf war. I think we're really addressing historic wrongs. We're addressing disparity, lack of investment, which, as my colleague to my left here mentioned, has been going on for well over 30 years for district four. And he also provided the climate lens, which I was going to address, because you can't walk safely in certain parts of district four. You can't bike safely. There's no bus. So what you do, you drive and that's a climate issue. So with that comment I'm going to call the question on this amendment.
186 Councilors, we've had the question called on this amendment. I believe that leads us right to a vote on whether we should move to a vote on the amendment.
187 We need a second.
188 Need a second. Okay. We have a second. Go ahead and call the roll.
189 Rebecca canal.
190 On the motion. No.
191 Ryan.
192 I, I. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.
193 Novick I.
194 Clark, I.
195 Green. I Zimmerman Avalos.
196 In general, I do not appreciate when there's 1 or 2 more people on the to speak that we call the question. I do not think that tool is necessary. If there's only one more person that is left to speak. And so I'm voting no.
197 Dunphy.
198 Ditto. No.
199 Smith. I pirtle-guiney.
200 I that moves us directly to a vote on amendment two. This is the amendment to strike districts one and four, where they are listed in the underlying resolution. Rebecca, could you please call the roll?
201 Canal.
202 Thank you. Everything that's been stated about some of the specific neighborhoods mentioned in districts, in particular district four, but also district one applies equally to the neighborhoods in north Portland. We can just change, copy, paste the names of the streets and the questions around transportation would would matter a great deal there. I'll also point out that potholes don't just affect cars, they also affect people on bicycles. And the top two streets for bicycle deaths are both located in district two, interstate and killingsworth, and for injuries. The most dangerous street is broadway, which cuts through d2 and d3. So this is not about only cars. When we talk about pavement, I obviously support modal filtering, and a lot of the other things mentioned there as well. But I do want to point that out. And vehicle crashes are things that kill people too. I'm not the person who brought in to this debate. The map in question. That was, if we're justifying this based on safety, let's let's look at the data and see what it says. I think that's a responsibility that we all have. I will say that if this was just about sidewalks, I would completely support it the way it is. But it is not just about sidewalks. This, this. The resolution speaks specifically to pavement as well. It's just that the maps were being handed out and all the things that have been given out over the course of these three meetings where we've talked about it have been exclusive to the sidewalk side. And then finally, because I think councilor Avalos has really manifested a great deal of leadership here by taking an item that's about her own district and saying, this is a bad idea, to start talking about prioritizing investments by district rather than by neighborhood or by framework. I think if someone here were to bring an argument saying we're going to fund the fire bureau, but only in district two, that would be problematic. And I think that's a precedent that we should avoid setting. With that, I vote I.
203 Ryan.
204 Yeah, targeted plans produce outcomes and impact that's desperately needed for decades. I vote no on the amendment.
205 Koyama Lane I really appreciate councilor Kanal bringing up vision zero. It's something that gets my attention and I care a lot about. I also was nodding very heavily when council was talking about fair. Doesn't mean everyone gets the same thing. I do that lesson with my class every year means you get what you need, and we talk about how I need glasses. Does everyone need glasses? No. Not necessarily. I will also say I've been learning a lot from you and from community groups, bike pedestrian advocacy groups about vision zero. I know that it's important to look at the data and see what exactly is lowering traffic deaths. We know the recently released report by PBOT is that last year, in 2024, about half of the traffic deaths were in d1. I think that absolutely needs to be uplifted. I think it's fine to point that out when you see legislation coming from me about vision zero, that will be in there. I think that's important. So I vote no.
206 Morillo. No Novick.
207 I want to say that if I were in district one or district four, I probably would support councilor Avalos amendment and agree that we should not be making decisions based on district boundaries. However, since I represent district three, which does have missing sidewalks in some places but nowhere near what district one and district four have, I kind of feel like if I supported the amendment, I would be denying the higher sidewalk needs of district one and district four. So I think this is a pretty much a coin flip. But based purely on that emotional reaction, I vote no.
208 Clark.
209 I'm glad that councilor Koyama Lane brought up vision zero. Actually, it was another councilor Earlier because this resolution really came out of our discussion of safety and vision zero. That's where this began in the transportation infrastructure committee. And just for the record, pavement maintenance deficiencies is a euphemism for potholes. So I don't think we're going to be doing a lot of paving necessarily other than potholes. So with that, I vote no Green.
210 I'll just say that I don't agree with the premise that it sets a bad precedent to name specific areas in the city where we need to do targeted investment. I think targeted investment is a standard best practice in industrial policy. And I, I will support and I will vote yes heartily on any ordinance that says we must build more fire stations in district one because district one does not have enough fire stations. So bring me that ordinance. I'll co-sponsor it, I vote no.
211 Zimmerman.
212 All right, I'm fired up about the amendment, and I will take that opportunity to apologize if my comments were taken as an impugning of motivations. That's how it felt. And it maybe was not appropriate for the dais. But to look at this map, it got and to be a person who is signaled support for another district's needs. I got serious about it. And so I am a sharp tongued person. I recognize that it's not always welcome, and I appreciate that. The check councilor, but this amendment is not something I will support. I vote no.
213 Avalos I.
214 Dunphy.
215 Yeah, colleagues, I'm an unapologetic champion for east Portland. If east Portland got 25% of our investment in infrastructure, I would, you know, that would be we'd be miles ahead. I'm not coming for our fair share. I want extra and I will not apologize for that. If we were in a street fight, district one will win anyway. So I. I appreciate my colleague, councilor Avalos for the amendment, but I vote no.
216 Smith.
Procedural episode · turns 217–246
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
217 Equity looks different in different places. And we can go down the line from education, health, economic development, affordable housing, safe routes to schools. And I guarantee you that district one will check first on every single item. I didn't see any reason to support this in any way. Commissioner Zimmerman, you were okay because someone alluded to me that I was a beggar. And I want to say this to the. For the record, I am not a beggar. I'm a policy maker. I create policies, and I created it first. And if that's the issue, why there's all this kerfuffle over what this looks like, then just get over it. Be a policy maker. I vote no.
218 Pirtle-guiney no.
219 Ten nose and two eyes. The Avalos amendment two fails.
220 Thank you councilors, we are nine minutes over. We have nowhere else in the agenda that we can cut. We have an amendment on the table and the underlying ordinance. I am looking for a temperature check on whether we can do this with minimal discussion, and finish this as quickly as possible, or if we need more time for discussion and need to postpone this to a further meeting.
221 Can I call the question?
222 Second.
223 We haven't even discussed the resolution. Are we talking about the amendment next? And I'm strongly against us cutting. I have a lot of questions. This is a big bill. I'm not down to cut our discussion time.
224 We just had a motion placed on the table. And I'd like a clarification on the motion. Are you calling the question on amendment one, or are you calling the question on the underlying resolution.
225 On the underlying resolution?
226 I believe your second disagrees with that. So I think you need a new second.
227 Okay. You have amendment.
228 We have the amendment on there. I would like to call the question on amendment one. I feel like we've discussed it already. And then I think we take up the underlying. Madam president, sorry.
229 So we've called the question on amendment one from councilor Zimmerman.
230 Second, I do second.
231 Okay. And we have a second from councilor Clark. We are moving into voting on amendment one. Rebecca, could you please call the roll?
232 Do we not need to vote on the motion?
233 I'm sorry. We're moving into voting on whether to call the question and move into voting on amendment one. Thank you, I misspoke.
234 Council.
235 Can I have a point of order, though, because this keeps happening where people shout out emotion. They're not listed. You didn't call on them. They don't have the floor necessarily. And you're accepting the motion. There's people that are in the queue. So what's the process for accepting motions that just get shouted at you?
236 So as you just made a point of order, there are certain things you can do in a point of order. And my understanding from our attorneys is that calling the question is something you can do as a point of order to skip the line.
237 Okay, they didn't say a point of order. They just said, I make a motion. So if we're going to go by that, that still does not meet the qualification. You said.
238 Call the question.
239 That's fine. We can move forward. I'm just saying this keeps happening, and I'd like clarity on how we're going to honor people that are in the queue. If we're going to let people shout out a motion.
240 I think what we have right now is a decision that we need to make about whether we can finish this in the next five minutes or not, because we have a very packed agenda of things that have to happen to keep us on our budget timeline left today. And so I think we are finding out if we can do this quickly or not right now. Rebecca, we have a motion and a second to call the question on amendment one. Could you please take the roll?
241 Canal I.
242 Will be voting no on every motion to call the question. And I would like to suggest that in robert's rules, there is a motion to limit debate to those already in the queue. That might be a less blunt instrument for the future. So I'll be voting no on this.
243 Brian. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick no. Clark. I Green.
244 I.
245 Zimmerman I Avalos no. Dunphy, no.
246 Smith I.
247 Pirtle-guiney I councilors. We are moving to a vote on Avalos amendment one which adds pbot's building belonging guide. Again I will point out that we received two documents. The accurate one is the second document. It is a 30 page document that you all received from councilor Avalos. Rebecca, could you please call the roll on adding pbot's building belonging guide to the. Be it further resolved that PBOT staff shall utilize existing plans resolved clause in the resolution canal.
248 Given the clarifications, we heard that districts two and three would still receive some investments, if not necessarily at a prioritized level. I think it's appropriate to reference displacement here. Additionally, displacement occurs in districts one and four. The asian American communities have been displaced out of district four and go to Gresham and see how many people have come out of not only two, but one over the years as well. So I vote I.
249 Ryan. Know Koyama Lane. I Morillo.
250 This is a common sense amendment, I.
251 Novick I.
252 Clark. I Green.
253 I.
254 Zimmerman no.
255 Avalos I.
Procedural episode · turns 256–282
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
256 Dunphy. I Smith. No. Pirtle-guiney.
257 I was very concerned with the first document we were sent that didn't look like it had any relevancy to the work that we were doing. The second document looks like it could have relevancy. I wish that we had been sent it when the original amendment was posted, or that it had been sent posted alongside that because I could not find it. Googling it, I did try about a week ago, but I will with the updated belonging guide sent to us vote I.
258 Nine ayes, three noes. Avalos. Amendment one is accepted.
259 Counselors, we are back to the underlying resolution.
260 I'd like to call the question on the resolution. Or could you state that.
261 As a point of order, please?
262 Oh, point of order. I'd like to motion for us to vote on this and get it done.
263 Second.
264 Okay. We have a motion from councilor Morillo and a second from councilor Clark. Rebecca, could you please call the roll? This is the roll to bypass further discussion, a vote to bypass further discussion and move to a vote on the amended resolution.
265 Canal.
266 No.
267 Ryan. I Koyama Lane.
268 No.
269 Morillo I Novick.
270 No. Clark. I.
271 Green I want to hear what my colleagues who don't support the amendment or the resolution have to say no.
272 Zimmerman, no. Avalos. No. Dunphy. No Smith.
273 Madam president, can you call the question.
274 This is the vote to call the question. And unfortunately, colleagues, if this fails, we are not going to be able to continue discussion.
275 And, madam president, point of order.
276 I.
277 I just I need you to explain the question.
278 Right now. The vote we are taking is on whether to call the question, bypass further debate, and move to a vote on the now amended resolution.
279 And a no vote is we get to hear, folks.
280 A no vote is to discussion. Except we are already 15 minutes over and there are not things we can bump from this agenda.
281 This is this.
282 This is my point exactly. This would be the fourth time and.
283 I change my vote.
284 How do I do that?
285 This is the fourth time and we got to vote on this. No matter how long it takes, we have to. We cannot afford. When we did previous city council meetings, you did not limit other agenda items to a certain amount of time. We went over time, but now that cip is going to identify marginalized, minimized communities who have historically not had the investment with city funding, now we get pushback again, and no, we have to vote on this today. We cannot push this back another day. It is unacceptable and it's unprofessional, and it gives us less of a of an opportunity to express where our values truly are. So that's an issue for me.
286 Councilor I'm not going to take the time to discuss that as I'm trying to rush the agenda, but I hear you and I'm happy to discuss it with you later on or off the record.
287 No, ma'am.
288 Do you.
289 Have.
290 A vote? No, ma'am. No.
291 You're voting? No.
292 I'm voting yes, I want yes, we can.
293 Yes.
294 You're voting? Yes. Pirtle-guiney I.
Procedural episode · turns 295–303
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
295 Clark, I would like to change my vote to an I.
296 We have. We are tied at six nay six I I'm calling the question.
297 Is the mayor here?
298 The mayor does not weigh in on procedural questions. A66 is not a majority. Therefore, the vote fails. Councilors, I did not want to cut this short. I gave a significant extra time. We have portlanders who are waiting for our decision on settlements. We have fees that have to be approved to pass the budget. Madam president, I am very sorry, but we have to move on.
299 Point of order.
300 Of order.
301 I would like to move to limit debate to the current queue.
302 Councilor. We are 20 minutes past time and you pulled things off of the consent agenda. Adding to the time for our agenda today. What do you propose we cut?
303 I propose we take these three speakers and I'll remove myself from the queue and then vote on this.
304 Two we have a proposal on the table.
305 Second.
306 Okay. Can we do this through unanimous consent? Rebecca I'm seeing nods from our attorney. Do I have unanimous consent to end debate after councilor Smith?
307 No.
308 Okay, rebecca, please call the roll.
309 Canal I.
310 Ryan. Sorry, was that an I, councilor Ryan. Yes. Thank you. Lane Koyama Lane I.
311 Morillo I.
312 Novick I think this is a big deal and deserves further discussion is not an emergency. That's why I'm voting no.
313 Clark, I.
314 Green I.
315 Zimmerman. No. Avalos.
316 No.
317 Dunphy I.
318 Smith.
319 This is an emergency councilor Novick and I'm voting I.
320 Pirtle-guiney I councilor Avalos you are up. Okay. I have a bunch of questions as it relates to the financing. Let me pick one that's most urgent. I guess, given the 460 million annual need just to improve existing pavement assets, how are we defining success for this program within these current constraints? And further, I'll combine two of these questions. Given that PBOT is going to need to absorb some of the initial costs through existing staffing and resources. How are you going to ensure that that that this does not compromise delivery of other essential projects, if you have to divert dollars away to implement this before we have dollars to actually build the sidewalks.
321 I'll answer the second question first and I'll keep it very brief. We have within our ability the opportunity to evaluate how we can phase projects to ensure that we're not harming one project over another. To the extent that we are expected to begin immediately with delivering on these projects, we will look at what we have in our queue, what opportunities we have to shift some dollars, essentially borrow from one project to give to another to ensure that we can start the work based on a number of things. Some projects are in design, some projects are in different phases, and so the spending would come later. Some of the things that were referenced in earlier conversations about spending against grants. Sometimes you'll see 30 million spent one year and 100 million spent the next year. That's because that's all in construction. And so we have some opportunities to have some flexibility there. We will be very careful to make sure that we're segregating the dollars, not using grant funds to fund work. That would be general fund funded. So we'll work with a maintenance operations crew and our engineering services group to ensure that the work that we might shift in order to prioritize or ensure that we're delivering within the time frame expected, is something that we're able to achieve. Can you repeat your first question? I'm sorry I didn't have a pen and write it down.
322 My first question was given the $460 million annual need just to improve existing pavement assets, how are we defining success within these constraints?
323 Point of information. That's the financing is in the resolution, and I'm prepared to speak as a direct response to that. Thank you. In the resolution, we say that if this is passed, the finance committee will need to hear a proposal on how to pay for this. I have been working with dca, barry and his team to come up with a bond issue financing package. So the idea would and I think the current number that we've been talking about internally, although we haven't gone to the committee yet, that is forthcoming, that will come through. The finance committee is $200 million in bonds. We have a constraint on the ability to spend. We cannot execute anything more than, I think reasonably $50 million per year. So the idea is $200 million over four, five years, which is the horizon of the plan would allow for that level of execution. So that proposal, that side of this is forthcoming, the finance committee, but it will be paid for through bond issuance and not not an impact to the current PBOT budget. Thanks.
324 And then maybe further back to you, councilor Green. How are we managing public expectations around what this will deliver, especially in these high need areas? People who have been promised things and have not been delivered those promises. If funding remains uncertain or delayed.
325 I believe that there's a public engagement component of this. Do you want to speak to that director?
326 Sure. With regard to the funding again, that we will leave that for a separate conversation. The expectation is that with the program design, we would do a much like we do with many of our projects. We'll do a full engagement process. We will notify in some instances, inform in others and fully engage as it depends on the complexity of the project. Community members in the process. Sometimes we'll be able to look at a street and say, we can go do that, and that requires a limited amount of engagement. Others where it's more transformational, potentially, or where we might need to purchase right of way frontage or help people understand that the frontage that's in front of their home or their business really is city right of way, and we have the ability to move forward. Those conversations will take a little bit more time, but we intend to on a block by block basis. I shared with the team as we've had the opportunity to discuss this. This is a block by block, block by block effort. It's not a traditional effort as it relates to how we would deliver some of our larger capital projects. This is a very different design.
327 Thank you.
328 That's all.
329 Councilor Smith.
330 Thank you, madam president. I urge my colleagues to consider the merits of this legislation. The tangible value to all portlanders, the weight of our commitments to our shared future. And join me in passing this ordinance. You will notice later on the agenda mayor wilson has put before us an ordinance 2020 5-131 seeking $80 million to construct 1500 ADA compliant curb ramps annually per the creek settlement agreement, which I supported. But I can't help but notice we are prioritizing redoing existing ramps over addressing the ADA needs of portlanders with no sidewalks at all. So I please urge my colleagues to look at this as an investment that we have failed to do in the past, and we are writing our past wrongs and making sure that everyone in the city of Portland has an opportunity not just to survive, but they have an opportunity to safe streets and sidewalks. Thank you.
331 That ends discussion. Rebecca, could you please call the vote on the now amended agenda item nine? This is document 2025 095, which creates the cip program.
332 Canal.
333 I'm going to first say that I agree with councilor Smith that the process should be done the same way as before, and just finish the job on these items. I want to see consistency, and I want to get out of the artificial scarcity of our meeting times. And to that end, I've written a draft ordinance to move to weekly council meetings, and I encourage everyone to get on board with it when that comes to the floor, if we need to reduce other meetings, provide more funding to different parts, let's do it. Second, with apologies to my district two residents in cully as well as in cathedral park, I think the clarifications that I received today gives me enough confidence in this item that I feel comfortable with my office and my colleagues offices. Indeed, to following up with with PBOT to ensure that some of the funding would go there. I will add one thing, which is that I have two things. One, I'm a little concerned about the funding mechanism, so we'll get to that when we get to that. And I'm I'm excited to hear from finance committee enough details to, you know, let me get there. And the other thing is I do want to encourage, especially in light of the Oregonian article councilor Zimmerman referenced earlier better engagement from PBOT with the community in particular around where there are competing priorities for this work and other priorities like our urban canopy and the needs of residents. So with all of that said, I vote aye and thank you to councilors and to councilor Smith for your leadership.
334 Ryan.
335 Yeah, from 2010 to 2019, I had standing meetings in east Portland at school districts of david douglas, reynolds and centennial, where I worked with teachers and counselors before the bell rang. And in the winter it meant it was quite dark at 7 a.m. So while driving to centennial middle, lincoln elementary, and david douglas reynolds middle school, I witnessed these safety issues firsthand. And this was a consistent topic among the educators and parents of those school districts and those school communities. As such, I was thrilled to support this long overdue, targeted action. I greatly appreciate my colleagues councilor, Smith, greene, Clark, and Zimmerman for bringing us a thoughtful vision to address our historic, inconsistent investment in pedestrian safety for portlanders in east Portland and in west hills. The map certainly tells the story. I support the legislation and look forward to more discussion about the financial feasibility of the work as we move forward. I vote I.
336 Koyama Lane I.
337 Morillo I.
338 Novick I share some of the concerns that councilor Avalos has raised. We are a city where we have a multi-billion dollar pavement maintenance deficit. That deficit threatens our existence as a city. I am fully aware of the sidewalk needs of districts one and four. I'm proud to have championed the fix our streets gas tax ballot measure, which is which has built some sidewalks in districts one and four. But I think that asking PBOT to spend time planning to do things we have no money to do is putting the cart before the horse. And I also think that having heard councilor Green, I'm not prepared to say that I would prioritize $200 million for sidewalks before we have addressed the pavement maintenance deficit. If councilor Green was talking about a $6.2 billion bond, then I might be more receptive to that idea. So I regretfully vote no.
339 Clark councilor Novick. We'll have more on this later. We will have a resolution on asset management to address some of your concerns as well. So I vote.
340 Green.
341 I think today is going to mark a turning point in the history of this city where we say we are no longer going to accept neighborhoods in our city to be ignored. On the question of infrastructure, there will be related themes that come before this council on how to pay for infrastructure, such as system development charges. Everything must be on the table. We cannot continue with our past practices. We will build sidewalks and streets for all of our neighborhoods. I vote aye Zimmerman.
342 Thanks. You know, many weeks ago, months ago, I think I just muttered the idea of $100 million sidewalk fund after I saw how much money was sitting in the unused category in a variety of parts of the city. So to the other councilors who really put the meat on the bones of this idea, I am grateful. I'm also looking forward to now you know, a resolution sets direction in. Our finance committee will come up with the pay for it plan. I think it's also important to, you know, there are ways in which we bond that this is not a tax increase. And I think that's important to note for everyday portlanders. But I'll just remind folks, if we had put just $25 million worth of sidewalks into east Portland since 1986, when it was annexed, we'd be in a different spot. And I don't think that this is going to feel like anything is all that different tomorrow. But when a whole lot of us are retired from this dais and other people are sitting here, my hope is that $50 million investment over every year for the while coming forward, will look like it made a difference. And that that map that I held up multiple times today looks different, I vote I.
343 Avalos.
344 Thank you colleagues. I appreciate the discussion. Entertaining my amendments. I again just feel that they were important to discuss a larger philosophy. I want to say I am how important this program is not just for our city, but especially for communities like the one I represent in east Portland, where the lack of sidewalks in poor condition of our roads has long been a glaring symbol of disinvestment. The vision of cip to finally bring safety, accessibility and dignity to every portlander navigating our public rights of way is one that I strongly support. But as I read the resolution and reviewed the fiscal analysis, I'm concerned that we're moving forward with a directive that isn't fully aligned with our financial reality. The resolution paints an ambitious picture that I agree with, but the city budget office and pbot's own fiscal note make clear there's currently no committed funding for implementation. So in fact, PBOT faces a massive deficit over the next five years, which will force hard choices about what we can afford and when. That is not a reason to say no, it's a reason to say let's be clear eyed, responsible and transparent with our community about what's possible. Thank you to the sponsors. I look forward to working together to make sure this becomes a reality we can be proud of. And I vote aye.
345 Dunphy.
346 When I was running for office, I got made fun of on reddit for how often I talked about east Portland sidewalks. I'm jealous that my colleague councilor Smith beat me to the punch. I am enthusiastically vote I Smith.
347 You know this is a long time coming. We have been trying to get this nonrevenue cip direction to PBOT and what this resolution is, just so that the folks who are watching this on tv, this is to mandate that PBOT create a four year plan, that it prioritizes how they would put new sidewalks, paving, potholes, tree canopies. And the thing that we didn't talk about, but we should be we're in the early stages of a recession, putting $50 million or $100 million on the street. It is going to create jobs. We are going to make sure that our minority contractors have an opportunity to have an opportunity to help us steer the ship on our economy in the city of Portland. We're going to make sure that our young people who are in summer works and who are in our pre-apprenticeship programs, by the way, that prosper Portland pays for that. They now have a project to be an apprentice on, because you can't be an apprentice until you have a project that you can be on. And if we decide to fund this for the 4 or 5 years, some of those folks will be able to get their journeyman's license on cip. And I like what I heard earlier from the young lady who said cip and swim. If we don't pass this, we're going to have to cip or swim. And I think that we all want the right things for the most marginalized, minimized, underrepresented, underserved, and not served communities in the entire city. So I want to thank my colleagues for recognizing that this is very important and that it's critical, and that it is something that we all recognize that needs to be done. Director williams, thank you for your comments. Thank you for giving us a realistic idea of what could actually be done, because as you heard me before, I said, let's do 400 million. And, you know, could we actually do $100 million a year? And you you actually curbed my, my idea of what the possible could be. And so I appreciate that. And I will say I vote I for cip pirtle-guiney.
348 I with 11 ayes and one no. The resolution is adopted as amended.
349 Thank you councilors. We are now moving on to item ten on our agenda. Rebecca, can you please read the agenda item.
350 Authorized.
351 Authorized, authorized revenue bonds in an amount sufficient to provide not more than $80 million to finance curb, ramp and street improvement projects.
352 Director.
353 Councilors. This is a second reading of this ordinance. We had discussion on this at our last council meeting. We have an opportunity for more discussion if folks would like, and then we will call for a vote. Councilor Smith.
354 Yes, thank you, madam president. I heard a lot of conversation about do we have the money to do these ADA curb ramps? And I like to hear that same kind of discussion about challenging the mayor, about his idea to put in ADA ramps in the city of Portland. I think this is important. I think it will actually go in line with cip, and to be able to put those ADA ramps in areas that we have not historically put them. And this is something that I would urge my colleagues to support.
355 Thank you. Councilors. I don't see anybody else in the queue for discussion. So rebecca, can you please call the roll.
356 Canal? I Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. Hi Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos.
357 I. Dunphy I. Smith I.
358 Pirtle-guiney with gratitude for our short work here I.
359 12 eyes ordinances passed.
360 Can you please read agenda item 11?
361 Add sustainability and climate commission code.
362 Councilors. This is also a second reading. We discussed this agenda item at our last meeting. It was amended six extensively in committee. Is there any discussion on the agenda item? Seeing no one in the queue? Rebecca, can you please call the roll canal?
363 I look forward to circling back on the numerical cap on members and the exact number. But despite that not being addressed here, I think it's still a really, really good piece of work by everybody involved. Thank you, I vote aye.
364 Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green.
365 I.
366 Zimmerman I.
367 Avalos I. Dunphy I Smith.
368 Smith I.
369 Pirtle-guiney I.
370 And 12 eyes. It is passed as amended.
371 Thank you councilors.
372 Our next to agenda items are settlement ordinances. These are both emergency ordinances. I hope we will be able to vote on them both. Today I want to flag that one of these two items will likely have extensive questions about policy. I know a number of us often ask about whether policy changes have been made to ensure that we don't end up in the same situation, paying out a similar amount of money again, because we're tight on time, I am going to look to our co-chairs of our community and public safety committee and ask that if those questions arise, that be something that perhaps you take up in committee. If we don't have time for the full discussion today with that, rebecca, could you please read agenda item 12.
373 Pay settlement of joseph johnson civil rights lawsuit for the sum of $100,000 involving the Portland police bureau.
374 Thank you. And I believe we have david ferro from risk management. And is it chief dobson today who we have? Okay. Please come on up. And it looks like david is online with us.
375 Good morning. Council I'm dave farrell with risk management. This ordinance will approve the settlement of a lawsuit arising from joseph johnson's encounter with Portland police in northwest Portland in the early morning hours of March 25th, 2023, just after midnight, officers observed a stolen weapon inside a parked, unoccupied vehicle, and so they prepared to disable the vehicle and detain the occupants, who returned to it. About two hours later, mr. Johnson and three others returned to the vehicle, and he alleges the tires deflated when he started to drive. Then when he got out, an officer arrested him on suspicion of possession, possessing a stolen weapon, he alleges the officer pushed him against the hood of the vehicle, handcuffed him and detained him for 30 minutes, both in public on the street and then in the back of a pbb vehicle. Despite officers knowing that he had no criminal record and despite a different occupant of the vehicle acknowledging ownership of the stolen weapon, he also alleges that he notified officers of a medical condition that would be exacerbated by being handcuffed, and that an officer unlawfully coerced him into surrendering his own lawfully licensed firearm while he was being detained. A different firearm from the stolen weapon. He filed suit in federal court against the city and several officers who were present asserting claims for violations of his constitutional rights and for false arrest and battery under state law. After reviewing the ppv records relating to this incident, risk management determined that officers had not prepared reports regarding their interactions with mr. Johnson and their probable cause to arrest him. After interviewing mr. Johnson, risk management and pbb determined the best interests of the city would be served by resolving his claim and lawsuit. We negotiated, that is to say, risk negotiated informally with his attorney, and we agreed on a settlement of $100,000, inclusive of all attorney fees. To resolve this claim and lawsuit. The settlement avoids the cost of defending the city and the officers from the lawsuit and protects the risk, protects against the risk of a higher verdict at trial, plus an award of his attorney fees. And if you have any questions, please let me know.
376 Thank you. Chief, do you have anything to add?
377 Yes, madam president, as well as the council. This was pre before we had.
378 Could you please introduce yourself?
379 Oh I'm sorry. Yes. Craig dobson with the Portland police bureau assistant chief. This was pre body worn camera prior to this. Unfortunately, this event was investigated as stated. And in it it was determined that there was a mis several miscommunication or communication gaps between the two units who at that time had not worked regularly together, and in that there was a misunderstanding of who was point in this. As the result of the investigation, four members from those two units did receive corrective action for failing to write the appropriate reports.
380 Thank you.
381 Do we have public testimony on this agenda item? Rebecca?
382 We do. We have three people signed up. The first is mark portis. Mark is joining us online.
383 Okay.
384 Councilors, I think we're going to take public testimony and then we'll move into discussion. Mark, if you are ready, please go ahead and unmute and you can share your your comments with us.
385 Thanks. Good afternoon council. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is mark boris. I use he him pronouns and I'm with the group Portland copwatch we understand that joseph johnson and the city have come to an agreement to settle this civil rights lawsuit for $100,000, and we have no objection. Since 1992, Portland copwatch has been working towards a police bureau that's free of brutality, corruption and racism. We testify on settlements like this to prompt our elected officials to discuss the harms done by city employees, and to prevent them from ever happening again. I appreciate mr. Farrow's description of the incident. Chief dobson's presence here today. My apologies, but you're going to hear the description all over again. The incident that led to this settlement occurred in old town, and the complaint names eight PPB officers, as well as nine unnamed officers from court records. We learned that on the night of March 24th, 2023, mr. Johnson, along with three friends, all of whom are african American, were among the many people enjoying the entertainment district nightlife. That evening, the four friends arrived in the same vehicle, a white chrysler 300 that was rented by one of the friends, a mr. Patterson, who was visiting from out of town. Again from court records a short synopsis of what happened. Police on foot patrol saw a gun on the back seat floor of the unoccupied, parked chrysler. Police said they could see the serial number on the gun, so they called it in and determined the gun was stolen. It's unclear from the records whether or not that gun was actually stolen. Police learned that the car was a rental. They proceeded to put spike strips around all four wheels of the car, and when the friends returned to the car, police did not confront them, but rather waited for mr. Johnson to back up the car, and the spike strips blew out the tires. When mr. Johnson got out of the car to see what happened, he was forcibly detained, handcuffed with his hands behind his back and placed in a police car for 30 minutes. Despite having asked officers to be gentle because he has multiple sclerosis, mr. Johnson told police he had a legally owned firearm in the glove compartment and the police seized his gun. It's unclear from court documents when mr. Johnson and his companions were released. However, court documents do state that no criminal charges were filed against any of the occupants. That was the allegedly stolen gun, a pretextual justification for the officers to unlawfully and unreasonably detain, search, seize and arrest mr. Johnson. As the complaint proffers, we noticed from the names of the officers involved in the incident that many, if not all of them either are or were members of the focused intervention team or fit. Fit. The fit is the police bureau's current iteration of specialty unit with a mission to reduce gun violence. It's supposedly more responsive to community guidance than prior gun or gang units, because there is an oversight group called the focused intervention team community oversight group, which is tasked with making recommendations to PPB about gun violence response strategies through a racial and social justice lens. We forwarded the information about this settlement onto the fit cog, as they're well situated to advise the police bureau on matters where racial profiling is or may be involved. We hope mr. Johnson and his friends have fully recovered from this incident. Portland, copwatch, will continue to monitor these lawsuits for indications of police misconduct, including racial profiling and excessive use of force. Finally, we appreciate that the bureau claims data exhibits attached to the settlement is there, and we look forward to seeing more information on there, including costs incurred by the city attorney in the future. Thank you.
386 Next is bridge, crane simka johnson.
387 Thank you. Copy to the council.
388 File copies for the different levels of mayor and administrator and whatever else we.
389 Got going on in the agenda now. Good morning. What a day earlier. Oh, I'm bridge train. Charles johnson, some of you with a long history. Commissioner Novick are familiar with bridge cranes and operation bridge crane as covered by opb back in 2016. The departure mayor hales, rushing through his police contract. Portland, copwatch even after the sad passing of Dan handleman still doing an excellent job. We appreciate that some members of the council, specifically on the city website, commemorate the passing of something like a theater nerd from a posh suburb, I think is how za'im shake is going to describe it, or did describe it a couple days ago in the Oregonian. In the next agenda item, the actual victim of Portland police violence is on the smart sheet, along with one of their attorneys to talk with us earlier in this proceeding, councilor Kanal talked about settlements under $50,000. And sadly, since the day of commissioner Novick bridge crane, many of us in your constituents feel that you have not put forth a good transparent system to track, especially police liability settlements, but also also other bureaus, liability settlements. Good governments means we should have employees who continually reduce the times they make mistakes that force us to pay out tax dollars in settlements. So right now we're dealing with a civil rights violation on this agenda item that happened over two years ago. On the next agenda item will be dealing with violence and civil rights violations and injuries that happened five years ago. 2020 was a busy time for risk management, but I do hope that as we put together the public safety and whatever the policies are, that we will get better transparency on these agenda items. It was great that Portland, copwatch went into the nitty gritty, but really, you could attach all that information right on the agenda. We shouldn't have to have a pacer subscription to go and find out the details and see what was the civil rights violation that was so severe that y'all guys are getting ready to sign off on a $100,000 check, so you can go to the next item where you're going to give away, not give away. Person suffered and merits this money $375,000. I know most of you are very attentive to stopping this. We don't want our constituents, our neighbors, experiencing physical injury or even violation of their civil rights that falls short of injury. So consider having a tracking system that is included when you put this on the agenda. So we'll know that just looking at this, it was the third civil rights violation of 23, or it was the 18th case of violence during 2020. And we also need to have.
390 We. Need to move.
391 To.
392 The next person.
393 I'll be back.
394 Thank you.
395 Next is edith gillis. Edith is online.
396 Hello. Can you hear me?
397 We can please introduce yourself and then go right ahead.
398 And I want you to vote. Yes, but at the same time, I want you to be much more diligent and following the all of the recommendations of the Portland police accountability commission and national association for civilian oversight of law enforcement. I am not speaking for the organization, but I am a member of the pacific northwest family circle whose loved ones have been murdered by police. We have several hundred of our loved ones. And of course, there are many more than that than their families have wanted to have them uplifted on our web page. I want to be as honor of bill brown, james chassis, bradley morgan, or moose hayes, terrell johnson, john elephant, andre gladden, gulley, and keaton otis many, many more who have been killed by the Portland police. This would be changed if we had better policy and practice and accountability, and I want us to make sure that we pay our victims of crimes far more than this. But it not come from our general fund, but it come from the Portland police bureau and from officers who must be licensed, bonded and insured and held accountable. We need to have different recruitment, training, oversight, accountability, independent and superior medical examiners. We need to have not only cameras, which sometimes are a farce for us because they can easily block them or turn them off or lose the data or control the data. But it has to be continually uploaded and civilian oversight. And, you know, these sort of things we need to have. Cameras and, and the civilian oversight instead of police stop and frisk. We need to change the situations in which we have the police intervening and using these these tactics and training alone, all these. All these different tactics that people have for a little bit of superficial stuff were used by people in minneapolis, saint paul before they combined killing someone. So we need to make sure that we prevent this from happening. And I also want us to have pie chart budgeting. So we show that the majority of our city budget is spent on policing and change that to have it do to real police and crime prevention. And then we don't have to do this. But when we have civilians, have them paid better, not only for physical but also for mental health and for the trauma that this goes on, and to the larger community that is traumatized each time we allow this criminal behavior.
399 That completes testimony.
400 Councilors will now move into discussion. Councilor canal.
401 Thank you, madam president. Thank you for including information in the ordinance that answers my previous questions about claims data and the allegations. It helps saves time to have this data in advance. I'd also love to have some of the explanatory information from the relevant bureau, which is obviously not just police. In this particular case it is in advance, but very helpful. And thank you for it, chief. And then finally, to just suggest to risk management to restore the column about city attorney costs, which was in previous briefings. Does this claims data? This is a question to mr. Farrow. Does this claims data include lawsuits that we lost or only those which were settled?
402 It includes all payments. So if there was a judgment. So it includes claims claims that went to suit, claims that went to suit and verdict where a payment was made on a judgment. So it's all of that and all of the payments combined.
403 Great. Thank you to chief dobson. Thank you for giving us the information on the corrective action numbers and things like that. That's incredibly transparent. I don't think I've ever heard that before and I appreciate it. You spoke to body worn cameras, and that's a huge difference from two years ago to now in terms of broader than just for the individuals on the report writing side, has any other policy change occurred and then are there any policy changes that you might be able to speak to on the alleged fourth amendment violation that this this claim alleges?
404 Define that question just a little bit more, please, for me, what the first part of your question there?
405 So a response to the for the to the officers who allegedly did not write a report theoretically included the corrective action. I know you might not be able to say that that was one for one, and I acknowledge that. But have there been any policy or broader changes to help promote, for example, reducing the likelihood of the miscommunication you talked about between the two?
406 So, yes, internally within the units, there was clarification as well as sop pushed out so that the rest of the bureau would understand better how they would operate. So if you called a certain unit how how they would either take over the call or be there to support the call.
407 And is the answer to the question that both teams would write a report in the future, or is it is it which. So again, it's situational. And so it does depend on on what happens. But there was clarity added to everybody that takes police action. Absolutely needs to write a report.
408 Got it. Thanks.
409 And then anything on the fourth amendment side, have there been any policy changes as it relates to alleged violations of the fourth amendment against unreasonable search seizure?
410 Because this was a settlement and I wasn't part of that conversation. I can't speak to that because I don't have the details.
411 Great.
412 Thank you. I'd love to get the sop at some point in the future. Just doesn't need to be right now. Thank you, madam president.
413 Councilor zimmermann, thanks.
414 I just want to set some context for what we're talking about. This is the entertainment detail in old town chinatown, where a few years ago, we set up a pretty robust police detail to combat what had become the most shooting small amount of blocks, most shooting blocks in our city at that time. And that there are parking lots in this neighborhood where folks would leave their guns in their car because they knew they couldn't get through the club security to then return to their car when it was time to have a fight. So there's some context that matters for me in this. And I the in the mr. Farrow's discussion, you cited that this person was held for, I think you said 30 minutes because they found an illegal firearm and then eventually determined that this person also had a legal firearm. And the way it was described was that somehow the 30 minutes was a was a violation. What I'm trying to understand is it seems reasonable to me of if you find an illegal firearm in a person's vehicle, that there will be a, a certain amount of time to determine who's the weapon that is and that being held during that time. And during that, I guess the right word would be investigation. Seems okay, but it sounds like the 30 minutes was a concern. So what is the right amount of time? Is it three minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes? That one can be held? We wouldn't be in a settlement situation. While we determined whether or not the illegal gun sitting on your car seat is yours or not, this seems confusing to me in these documents, and I pose that to either one of the gentlemen who are comfortable answering.
415 So I would say that the challenge in this case was because reports weren't written correctly. Weren't written. We can't justify the time length that was actually there of the detention or the arrest.
416 Okay. That makes sense to me. Do we know how long it was until the lawful firearm was returned to the subject? In this situation?
417 I do not have that information.
418 Okay. I think that I am able to see some of the, you know, there were failures in report writing, but I I'm also trying to understand the mindset that if you drive around with an illegal firearm in your car and leave it in plain view so that somebody walking by in a parking lot can see it, that we now settle for $100,000, I think, I think maybe a $1 check to say, okay, we screwed up our report writing, but also you or your party was engaged in some illegal stuff with illegal firearms. This seems odd to me, and it seems like an avoidance of a bigger discussion in court, but I appreciate I will, I will say I really appreciate the transparency that has come from you, chief. So thank you for that. And I think being able to admit where we didn't do the right thing by policy, procedure and law is always good to be able to talk out loud about. But this is a challenging area in my district that went from a whole lot of gun violence to a lot less gun violence because of very proactive entertainment detail policing down there. And I think those have been big improvements, and I wouldn't want to walk away from that. But I also think sending a message that illegal guns in your car gets you $100,000 payment because somebody forgot to write a report is concerning.
419 Councilor seeing nobody else in the queue. I believe. Rebecca, can you call the roll on this?
420 Canal.
421 Thank you for answering the questions. Thank you for bringing this information forward and putting more of it in writing. I look forward to that. Continuing as we iterate this process under a new council, I think it's a vital step to view this in the way that we've received from attorneys, which is that there's a risk we would lose a lawsuit. And this was an agreed upon settlement. So from that perspective, it makes more sense to me. I had maybe a few different questions about some of this, this process as well. But with all that said, I will vote. I thank you, Ryan.
422 I.
423 I Koyama Lane.
424 I. Morillo I. Novick I.
425 Clark. I Green. Zimmerman.
426 No.
427 Avalos I. Dunphy I. Smith I. Pirtle-guiney I.
428 And the ordinance passes.
429 Rebecca could you please read agenda item 13 and deputy chief I think we're going to do we have you for this one as.
430 Well I think so okay.
431 Item 13 pay settlement of megan brooke bodily injury lawsuit for the sum of $375,000 involving the Portland police bureau.
432 Thank you. We have a number of folks up here, so go ahead.
433 In whatever order you want to, to present to us.
434 Good afternoon. My name is caroline turco. I'm an attorney in the litigation section of the city attorney's office. I'm here with mike porter, also an attorney in the city attorney's office, and assistant chief dobson, who's already spoken. We're here on the settlement of the lawsuit brought by megan brooke. This ordinance provides for the settlement of $375,000. This lawsuit was filed in April 2022, and it claims violations of plaintiff's fourth amendment rights against excessive force, as well as first amendment rights to free assembly and free speech. Additional allegations included municipal liability for unlawful practices and crowd control, and state tort claims for assault, battery, and negligence. The lawsuit arises from injuries sustained during protest near Portland police bureau's north precinct on the evening of June 25th, 2020, into the morning of June 26th. She alleges that she suffered injuries from a rubber ball distraction device, commonly called an ar. It was deployed by a member of the rapid response team to disperse protesters. It rolled beneath her and exploded. Miss brooke sustained burns, bruising, shrapnel wounds and had ongoing complaints related to claimed concussion and visual disturbances. Following the 2020 protest, the Portland police bureau conducted a comprehensive review of its crowd control policies. This review resulted in the decision to discontinue the use of rubber ball distraction devices. Ppb has since reduced their inventory to zero, and they will not return to the use of rbds. The city attorney's office, risk management, and the Portland police bureau recommend this settlement as it mitigates against financial and legal risks, including potential attorney fees. Should the case proceed to trial, we recommend approval of the ordinance authorizing the settlement, and we're available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
435 Thank you. And I believe we have joseph jessie online from risk management. Mr. Jessie, do you have anything to add?
436 No.
437 Okay.
438 Anything else from folks at the table? Okay. Rebecca, do we have public testimony signed up for this agenda item?
439 We do.
440 Okay.
441 First is megan up? Brooke.
442 Megan, thank you for being here.
443 I don't know who said that, but thank you.
444 Go ahead and introduce yourself and then you can go right. Jump right in.
445 Hi, my name is megan brooke. And first I'd like to say I kind of want to go over what a rubber ball distraction device is. So it is it looks like a grenade. It is a little bit larger than, I would say, a baseball. And inside it is 50 rubber pellets that when the pin is pulled and it is thrown, it explodes with the not the force of light, but the force of sound. So at the speed of sound and the 50 rubber balls are supposed to fly out and cause some sort of disturbance, getting people to disperse along with smoke and an intense, like sonic sound. And then it explodes. So there's like heat, fire. When that was thrown at me, it wasn't thrown near me. It hit my feet and it exploded on my body. All presumably of the shrapnel rubber balls inside hit me. Part of it lodged into my chest. It blew away part like chunks of both of my legs. The force of the blast would kill so much flesh that I eventually had to have debris. Moments where they would take a shrapnel like a scalpel and cut away the dead tissue. And I was left with scars on both of my legs. The time that it exploded, I was unable to hear anything. All I could see was stars. It blew my phone out of my hand, and I was only able to make it about a quarter block before I couldn't walk anymore, and the medics wrapped me up, took me to the emergency room. I was diagnosed with a concussion and later post-concussive disorder. I was unable to work at as an academic and career advisor, which I've done for almost ten years. I also work as a mental health therapist and had to close my practice because the injuries from the concussion made it so that I couldn't see very well. I was light sensitive and I couldn't stay on zoom because this was 2020, so all therapy was done remotely and. Sorry. So they're in kind of summary. There wasn't an aspect of my life that wasn't impacted by this experience of violence. And I think that there needs to be more done to protect protesters, especially now as first amendment rights are being more and more reduced. And I think that we need not forget that the reason we were there was because of police brutality perpetrated on black community members by Portland police. Thank you.
446 Thank you for being here. I know that sharing your experience is not easy. We appreciate it.
447 Next is victoria lowe.
448 Can I stay seated here?
449 All right. Ahead.
450 Good afternoon. My name is victoria lowe. I'm one of megan's attorneys. I'm a civil rights lawyer in Portland. I'm here to tell the council what this case is about. We are in support of this settlement because this case is about a bomb that exploded in north Portland in a residential neighborhood on my client's body, by everyone involved in the case. Her only mistake was that she was in a street. After being told to disperse. She had committed no crimes. She was voicing her opposition to police policy, as is her first amendment right. Megan's story is one of many councilors. I submitted our second amendment complaint for you to review. This is a public filing. It is allegations. Those have not been proven in court. However, the complaint cites news articles dating back to 2014 detailing how the Portland police have been injuring anti-police protesters with flashbangs. In 2014 is when I saw evidence that this started 2018. The Portland police shot a flashbang at a counter-demonstration to a proud boy March, and the flashbang lodged in the brain of a protester threw a helmet. On may 29th, 2020, for the Portland city council. Heard from the Portland police on what they called an emergency ordinance to approve a budget item for nearly 30,000 more dollars for the Portland police to purchase more munitions for crowd control. Including 100 flashbangs. We heard before me that the Portland police has reduced their inventory of rubber ball distraction devices to zero. Don't be distracted by their name game. The names are all different. A nationally renowned expert on these weapons that I spoke with told me that the explosive devices in each one of these weapons are the same. So what is the difference? Does it matter what kind of payload it was inside the bomb that exploded at megan's feet? During 2020, in seattle, a flashbang exploded on a protester and she had three heart attacks. In the instances following that, you can look it up. That article is also in the complaint. Now more than ever, it is critical for the city council to protect the right to protest.
451 Thank you very much. Rebecca. Do we have additional testimony?
452 We do. Next is mark morris. Mark is online. Okay.
453 Mark, go right ahead.
454 Yeah. Thanks. Hi again. Council. My name is mark morris. I use he him pronouns and I'm with the group Portland copwatch. We understand that megan and the city have come to this agreement to settle the bodily injury lawsuit for $375,000, and we have no objection. It's worth repeating again that since 1992, Portland copwatch has been working towards a police bureau that is free of brutality, corruption and racism. And we testify in these settlements to prompt you to discuss the harms done by city employees and the policies that allow it to happen. We appreciate that miss brooke and her attorney are present today. We're grateful for them sharing the details of the incident, and I don't want to repeat them. We hope that they are able, that miss brooke is able to recover fully from the harms that were caused by PPB. We appreciate that people will no longer use flash bans from court records. We understand that. Detective Eric kammerer, who fired that flashbang grenade that caused so much harm in his because she was filming the police with her phone, posing no threat to officers or other demonstrators. Detective kammerer has been with the Portland police bureau since 1994. For context, chief day started at PPB in 1994 years prior. At the time of the incident, kammerer was a member of the rapid response team. In 2021, the entire rapid response team resigned from their positions when one officer was indicted for excessive use of force. In 2022, the Oregon department of justice investigated kammerer's misconduct during the 2020 protests. The doj investigated four other occasions on which he was accused of using excessive force against protesters. They found insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against him. This incident was not one of the four that the doj looked into, and while he has not yet been indicted, this is not the first time kammerer has cost the city money for misconduct. Yet he remains a PPB employee to this day, was quoted in the December 22nd Willamette week article saying, I want to expose the misconduct of the city and the PPB and make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else. And two months ago, council president pirtle-guiney stated during the $938,328 index newspaper settlement. I never want to hear that we have to settle for the same issues more than once. So here we are again, our chief of police. And this detective who's harmed so many community members have been colleagues for over 30 years. When chief day came out of retirement to lead the bureau, one of his stated goals was transparency and accountability. He has since replaced that with changing the dynamic between the police and the people they serve, which is insufficient without an acknowledgment of what the dynamic actually is, and without doing the work to change the dynamic for the benefit of the people who are policed by PPB chief days, two other top priorities are to reduce crime and the fear of crime, and organizational growth and development. Depending on what's meant by changing the dynamic, it feels like the bureau prioritizes the comfort and well-being of police officers over the safety of community members. Transparency and accountability. They are but an afterthought. Thanks for your time.
455 Thank you, mr. Perez.
456 Bridge. Crane. Simca. Johnson.
457 Welcome back.
458 Thank you. And for the record, I am indeed bridge. Crane. Johnson. You know, this was even worse than when I was here just a few minutes ago. And although she was very eloquent, I think it's important to do what copwatch didn't do and say that a woman, a mental health professional, was watching out for the well-being of her community, and the Portland police bureau fired on her, put an explosive at her feet, incapacitate her to such an extent that she had to be evacuated by medics and presumably from that neighborhood, went to emmanuel hospital, where they had to. Medical professionals had to remove dead flesh, probably over a period of extended care. So earlier comments on the prior item. Miss gillis talked about the amount. You're getting off easy for the actual level of pain and suffering caused. I do hope that we come around again to be here in this room, in this format, and specifically cite the exact dollar amount of settlements that came from the Portland police attacking their citizens and constituents, particularly during 2020. But as the attorney mentioned, slash bang, she knows they were documented during going back to 2014. We know that in 2011. I don't think Novick was here yet, but people were getting brutalized right there. As occupy, a protest was pushed out of the park. There's probably a price tag that you could associate with that. So maybe, you know, I hate to be all doom and gloom, so I wish that this had been presented with maybe some positive trends. I'm not Portland copwatch they published it, but the Portland police department, since they've got so much money, a quarter billion dollars could maybe do better pr and at least say we haven't killed anybody for 132 days. Give us a break. And that would actually be a good thing for you as a city that has lots of different employees, and you have all those posters and some workplaces, they have signs that say, this is a safe workplace, no on the job injuries for so many days, and I might have to get more engaged with Portland copwatch so that they have a website that says how long it's been since there's been an injury by police to people who aren't even engaged in crime. That's something I think that's very difficult, even in the minds of most of us who have been successfully and peacefully in the streets on many of these weekends and on may day with the 5051 movement. Thank god, no violence there, but. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that somebody with an illegal gun was in old town chinatown. People could see the gun in the car. I can walk past parking lots where people have been killed by police club, rouge club, rogue, whatever it is there. So those people, the only close to injury was a person with ms. Was had their civil rights violated. Yet here we have a person who was not anywhere near an illegal gun doing nothing illegal and has had their legs maimed. So hopefully we're trending to have the police do better. Thank you very much for keeping working on that.
459 Thank you. Edith.
460 Edith gillis edith is online.
461 Hello, my name is edith gillis. Can you hear me?
462 Yes we can.
463 The us constitution and the Oregon state constitution require all government to not restrict the first amendment rights and the duties of civilians to hold government, including police, accountable. It is our job. We must do that. I have been in Portland for 42 years, testifying in city council. I have been on the streets as an observer, as a de-escalator peacekeeper, and as a street medic. I know the same person who shot her has shot and killed other people. I have seen videos. I have talked with the victims. I have seen photos that are deleted from the system after so many years. They get to do the crimes again and so city council doesn't even know. And sometimes the next chief of police don't know. Chief of police danielle outlaw already lost a lawsuit in oakland, california about flashbang concussion grenades. I've already have seen over and over and over Portland police claiming there's a riot or that they had a right to disperse crowds. First of all, I see no legitimacy in police stopping people from gathering together and saying, this is a problem, solve it. It's not up to the police to change it. But there are very unequal in their enforcement. They escort white supremacists, violent terrorists, abusers, murderers and escort them. They give them bus passes on 82nd. They note that they have all these illegal guns, but nonviolent medics, nonviolent observers are targeted by police not only in those situations where those targeted victims have done nothing wrong, but then they will also go after them, harass them at their house, at their work, pull them over with false arrests or false tickets to raise their car insurance. This is a pattern that's gone on a long time. And I've seen so many people who have been so injured and are no longer able to pay taxes, no longer able to do the good they need to do. And so I think this is a petty, puny little amount that should not you should not settle for such a teeny amount. We need to make sure that police are held accountable. And this doesn't hold any of the police who have done these wrongs accountable. And we need to change our policies that allow police to disperse crowds. And when there are safety issues, police do a lousy job of it. And when I've seen people injured, police have prevented ambulances or medics from caring for them, and police have prevented even people coming to city council throwing people down the marble staircase when they want to hold police accountable.
464 Edith, thank you for your testimony today.
465 That concludes testimony.
466 Councilors. We are now moving into discussion. I don't see anybody in the queue going once. Councilor Kanal.
467 Sorry.
468 Thank you, madam president. Thank you to risk management, city attorneys and to pb's leadership for the presentation. And in particular, thank you to the claimant and attorney for testifying, as well as all the other testifiers. I have two questions. The first one is, you know, we heard specifically that pb has reduced its inventory of these rbds to zero, and also that we would not be returning to use these, I believe, was the near quote. But also one of the testifiers pointed out that we replenished munitions last year for crowd control. Are those different? And what what rule or requirement is there to not return to using this particular one? In other words, is that intent or requirement in code? Is it in the settlement agreement or is it in directives?
469 So within the state law changed, which makes it not compatible with state law. And so that has been removed from our inventory and will be continued to be removed.
470 Okay.
471 Thank you. And then the other question is, you know, last time we talked about the previous ordinance, we talked about the fourth amendment. This one alleges first amendment violations. Can you speak to big picture? Because I know there's been a lot of things that pb has done since 2020. What has taken place with relation to first amendment protections in pb directives, sops, practices, etc? I know there's been a lot, so I'll happily take a summary.
472 So the summary we have re rewritten our crowd public order ordinance or our our policy. Within that, we've also gotten a grant to work within with professor stott from england to help us understand and better utilize dialog policing, which is an intelligence led form of approaching public order, so that we're based on four pillars one being education, communication, facilitation and then finally differentiation. And so I think in the past several months, you've seen a different style of policing from us when it comes to public order events. We've had several large public order events that have gone extremely peaceful, and we're going to continue down that route of facilitating events, working with our dialog officers to ensure that we have good communication with folks and that we can facilitate those lawful events, and then only arrest those individuals who are committing crimes that are affecting the public or the tenor of the event itself.
473 Can you speak to what happens when, in current practice, when a group that is attempting to hold a first amendment related event does not want to engage in dialog or pre-clear routes or anything like that with the Portland police?
474 So again, first amendment is important to us and protecting that right. People have the ability to choose to speak to us or not. It always helps when folks want to work with the city to ensure that we can have a safe route for them, and that they aren't choosing a route that maybe gets them into trouble with other traffic or other citizens. And so we always encourage that, but we're not going to force that. If it's a peaceful assembly, we're not going to interfere with that in any way unless there's criminal activity that indicates that we've got to handle something that becomes an emergency, if you will, where someone might be hurt because of the actions of the event itself.
475 Thank you, madam president.
476 Thank you.
477 Councilor. Seeing no further discussion, I would ask rebecca to call the roll for a vote.
478 Canal colleagues, I'm going to support the settlement and vote yes in a moment. All my comments and comments on what should be in the ordinance and exhibits for the last ordinance apply here too. I have two things I want to just raise. Among the many concerns raised by this situation and the ordinance. First, we have settlements that come later than the events that they occur. There's a larger gap sometimes for when there's a large number of incidents, such as 2020, which the protest response will continue to have claims for a while. It's not a delay. Things just take time to file, settle and bring it to council. Doesn't mean anyone's doing anything wrong. But the gap has one negative result, which is that even if we have changes to policy, it takes a long time for owners to see that and to build trust. We need to be good at something for years before people will start to believe it. And the length of time is proportional to the length and magnitude of the pattern of actions that break trust. Second, we need to talk about protests, and I understand that once an independent, neutral third party determines that there's a riot, that we probably do need a police response. And I think that that's there's no other tool that currently exists for that. But I do think that there is a need here to revisit the work of the citizen review committee and some of the other work that's been done to talk about why is our first line of interaction with first amendment events, the police, and to look at finding another solution for that over time? I don't believe that this is going to be over time is not a that was not an intentional pun, but it's also a pun, I guess because of overtime costs. But, you know, I do think that that's a conversation that I hope that this conversation, this incident and this settlement helps bring back into the forefront of our minds. With that, I, I can't speak for anyone else, but in my role, I do want to apologize to the person who had this happen to them. And with that, I vote I.
479 Ryan. I Koyama Lane.
480 I.
481 Morillo I just want to thank megan for their courage and bravery coming up here and sharing their experience. That's not easy to do. And I vote, I.
482 Novick I Clark.
483 I'd also like to thank megan for being here today. I appreciate your testimony and hope you're healing.
484 I vote yea Green I.
485 Zimmerman I.
486 Avalos megan, thank you for your testimony. I'm very sorry for what happened to you, and I'm committed to ensuring we respond with policy suggestions to ensure this doesn't keep happening, I vote aye,
487 Dunphy,
488 I.
489 Smith. I pirtle-guiney.
490 Megan, thank you for being here. I want to echo my colleague's gratitude for your bravery to our bureau. I know that we've had state law changes that have direct us, directed us to make changes, but I hope that we don't just rely on direction from others, and that incidences like this also lead to evaluations of any changes that we need to make. In addition to that, internally. With that, I vote I.
491 12 ayes. The ordinance passes.
492 Thank you.
493 I am remembering correctly, we now have a reordering of our agenda and councilors, we are moving to the last item on our agenda, which is that 2121 agenda item 21. Well, I get myself there. We have a committee staff summary from ashley hernandez, which we'll start with.
494 We need to read that.
495 I'm sorry, would you like to read this agenda item, rebecca.
496 I sure would. Item 21 at fair wage policy code for certain city service contracts.
497 Thank you. Ashley, can you give us an overview of what happened in committee?
498 Madam president? Councilors. For the record, I'm ashley hernandez. I serve as a surface staff with workforce development committee. The ordinance document number 2025 2022 5178 was considering the labor workforce committee on April 24th, where it was referred as amended. I mean, when it was referred to city council with recommendation to be passed. The ordinance adds city code chapter 5.70 for fiscal year 2024 2025, the hourly rate for contracts in both covered services will be set as 90 and $19.80 in fiscal year 2025 2026. This hourly rate will be adjust to 90 to $19.80 plus percentage increase based on cost of living cola determined by consumer price index. Urban wages earnings and. And for the west region. The full impact statement on this item includes fiscal and budgetary impacts, community impacts, and community involvement. One person submitted written testimony after the committee highlighting the fairness of the ordinance. And thank you.
499 Thank you, councilor Smith. You were presiding over that meeting. Is there anything you'd like to add?
500 Thank you, madam president, I appreciate you you coming forward and giving us this testimony. I don't have anything to add, but I do support this amendment. It came through the labor and workforce development committee, and I believe it was a50 vote. And so we didn't have any problems with this. And we want to make sure that all of our, all of our workers, employees, that they're being treated with dignity and respect.
501 Thank you, councilor Dunphy. You are the carrier of this item. Would you like to give us any information about why you brought it forward?
502 Absolutely. Colleagues in late 2024, the previous city council, the guidance of the auditor, underwent a code revision and removed roughly 600 pages of what was deemed as duplicative code. Included in that was the city's decades old fair wage policy. This is a statement of plainly declaring what an employee or contractor of the city should be entitled to, as it, you know, simply by virtue of being a city contractor, a city employee. It was brought to our attention by our friends at seiu that this policy was removed. This action puts it back. It simply adds updated language to our current practices and includes a call, a call out for escalating cost of living there. Has we checked in with every city bureau who this applies to? And almost unanimously, none of them knew that the code was gone, so no policies will be changed and there should not be any additional impacts. In fact, everybody was moving forward. But I do want to express my thanks to seiu for bringing this to our attention, and I urge you all to help. Well, this is a nonemergency ordinance, so we do not need to vote today, but I urge your support.
503 Thank you. Rebecca, I believe we have public testimony signed up. Is that correct?
504 We do. We have two people signed up. Maria flores and gloria hernandez.
505 Perfect. Jasmine. Jasmine ibarra.
506 Is joining for translation. Apologies.
507 My mic.
508 As well. That would be great.
509 Great. For the record, my name is yasmin. I'm the political director for seiu local 49. I'll be providing translation for these two women.
510 Okay.
511 Okay. Hola, president.
512 And vice president, Koyama Lane miembros del consejo. Hola. Mi nombre es maria flores. Soy trabajadora de limpieza en el edificio Portland trabajado para la compania de la ley durante mas de un ano. También soy de la llegada sindical de union, tal vez me, I am a me or my colleagues limpiando algunos pisos.
513 Hello president pirtle-guiney, vice president Koyama Lane and council members. My name is maria flores. I'm a janitorial worker at the Portland building. I work for relay for over a year and I'm also a union delegate. You may have seen me or my colleagues cleaning some of the floors.
514 Su apoyo in la restauracion de la policia de salario giusto de la ciudad six de policia. Politica marcado una gran diferencia para muchos de mis companeros. Cabron trabajando con como janitor e personal de seguridad in los edificios de la ciudad.
515 I'm here today to ask for your support in restoring the city's fair wage policy. I know that this policy has made a significant difference for my coworkers, who have worked for years as janitors and security staff in city buildings.
516 And ustedes tienen el poder de garantizar trabajos con salarios cuando. Empecé me salario era de veinticinco por hora, pero gracias a esta politica aumento. Noventa. Para me familia este es la diferencia ha sido muy importante.
517 I understand you have the power to ensure jobs with fair wages. When I started a year ago, my wage was 1825 per hour. But thanks to this policy increase to 1890, the difference has been important for me and my family.
518 Es una casa ahora con un salario un trabajo. Establish gracias a la union. Estoy ahorrando para solicitar un préstamo de casa saber. Qué tengo un empleo seguro? Un salario digno de la confianza para planificar un mejor futuro para mi familia.
519 My dream is to own a home now with a fair wage and a stable job. Stable job. Thanks to my union, I'm saving to apply for a home loan. Knowing that I have secure employment and a fair wage gives me the confidence to plan for a better future for my family.
520 La politica de esto es una manera en la ciudad. Puede demostrar valora el respeta a sus trabajadores una. Compensation esta no solo. Record nuestros dispuesto, sino también nos permite a seguir adelante con este trabajo tan importante. Gracias por su tiempo por su esfuerzo para establecer esta politica a precioso attention e apoyo maria flores.
521 For the fair wage policy is a way for the city to show that it values and respects workers. Fair compensation not only recognizes our hard work, but also allows us to continue doing this important job. Thank you for your time and for your efforts to reinstate the policy. I appreciate your attention and support. Maria flores.
522 Thank you so much for being here. Maria.
523 Pirtle-guiney.
524 Vice president, Koyama Lane y miembros del consejo. Mi nombre es gloria. Hernandez. Soy la janitor and justice center a trabajado para la compania de relay durante dos anos. También soy miembro de union, local 49.
525 Hello, president pirtle-guiney, vice chair, Koyama Lane and council members. My name is gloria hernandez. I am a janitor at the justice center. I worked there for the company and for the company relay resources for 22 years, and I'm also a member of my union, seiu local 49.
526 Centavos por hora no tenia seguro médico cambio cuando relay me contrato finalmente acceso seguro médico asequible un plan de pension diaz festivals para dos mejores salarios.
527 When I first started as a janitor, I earned $7.85 with no paid vacation or medical leave. That changed when relay resources hired me. I finally had access to affordable medical, medical insurance, a pension plan, paid holidays, and better wages.
528 Justice center no. Siempre facil, especialmente durante la pandemia. Las protestas el trabajo en ocasiones, incluso basura solo para tratar de entrar la edificio. A pesar de todo a trabajar todos los dias porque mi trabajo es importante.
529 Working at the justice center hasn't always been easy, especially during the height of the pandemic. Protests made it difficult to get to work, and at times I even had trash thrown at me for just trying to enter the building. I still showed up every day because my job mattered.
530 Cuando la ciudad politica de salario dolares por una una gran diferencia para mi familia. Cuando mi esposa no puedo trabajar durante nueve meses, s aumento la renta y los gatos algo de otra manera. No habia perdido ser posible.
531 When the city razed the fair wage policy to $15 an hour, it made a huge difference for me and my family. When my husband couldn't work for nine months. That wage increase helped me cover rent and expenses, something I couldn't have done otherwise.
532 As the politica sindical. Convention is coming to three centavos por hora cuenta con beneficios solidos de mi familia.
533 Now, thanks to the city's policy and union bargaining, I make 2123 an hour with strong benefits that support my family's well-being.
534 La politica de la ciudad de trabajadores como yo salarios ayudan a seguir adelante y hacer este trabajo dificil, pero esencial esto esta politica de los trabajadores. Gracias por su tiempo y consideracion.
535 The fair wage policy shows the city values workers like me. Fair wages help us keep going and do the difficult but essential work. Please restore the policy and continue supporting workers. Thank you for your time and consideration.
536 Thank you so much for being here and sharing your experience. Gloria. Do we have anybody else signed up to testify.
537 That completes testimony?
538 Okay.
539 Counselors, is there any discussion on the ordinance before us?
540 Thank you.
541 Counselor Ryan.
542 Yeah, I just want to make a point that at the end of 2024, the transition team brought us, like, felt like bucket loads of code changes that we had administratively move into the next to be in compliance with the charter. It made all of us quite nervous. So thank you for catching this and I hope the transition team and your office at the administrative level is looking into this, because we did mention that. Then I phrased it as we've all moved a lot in life, or at least I have. And there's the times I did it right where I went through everything carefully before I moved. And then there are the times where I didn't do that, the majority where I had to pack things up quickly. And then when I got to the new place, I had to sort through it. That's what we're doing. So just know that I appreciate you for catching this. Thanks.
543 Thank you. I put myself in the queue. I just want to thank councilor Dunphy for bringing this forward to us. As yasmeen and your members, both those who are here and the rest of the members who caught this. As councilor Ryan said, we're we're digging through some of the things that slipped in there. And it's important that this one was caught in time to make sure that we put it in back in before we do our budget work. I really appreciate all the work that went into this. And, councilor Smith, I appreciate you making the time on your agenda for it.
544 Thank you.
545 Is there any other discussion? Okay. Councilors, this is a non emergency ordinance, so it will show up on our next agenda for a vote. With that we will close agenda item 21 and move back to agenda item 14. And we are opening agenda items 14 and 20 all together in order to have a unified committee staff summary and additions from our chair. We will then take public testimony and see how much time we have for discussion. We'll do discussion on each of these individually. Rebecca, could you please read the agenda items?
546 Agenda item 14 amend fee schedule for tree permits. Agenda item 15 adopt rates and charges for water and water related services for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 20 2616. Revise sewer and stormwater charges and fees for fy 20 2526. See 17 revised sewer and stormwater rates for fy 2025 2618. Adopt fees and charges for water system development and water related services during the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2025 and ending June 30th, 2026. 19. Revise transportation fees, rates and charges for fy 20 2526 and amend transportation fee schedule and fix an effective date. Item 20. Amend Portland permitting and development fee schedules to improve cost recovery and service levels for customers.
547 Thank you christopher. I believe you have a committee staff summary from the finance committee that covers all. Is that seven? All seven of these?
548 Good afternoon, madam president. Councilors. For the record, my name is christopher haire and I serve as staff to the finance committee. The ordinance before you document number 2020 five, dash 123 was considered by the finance committee on April 1st and was referred to council with a recommendation to pass, as amended, the ordinances document numbers 2020 5-1323137 were considered in the finance committee on April 7th. Of these, 2020 5-1, three three and 2020 5-1353137 were referred to council with a recommendation to pass 2020 5-132 and 134 were referred to council with a recommendation to pass as amended. Collectively, these ordinances amend and adopt various city service rates, fees and charges for fiscal year 2025 through 26. Document number 2020 5-123 updates the prk 2.03 fee schedule related to tree services. It increases the fee in lieu of preservation and planting by 4.9 to 5.5% and development review rates by 5%. It also eliminates several non development permit fees, reduces the administrative review fee under enforcement by 50%, and increases all restoration fees by 5%. 2025132 establishes water related service charges with a retail rate increase of approximately 8%. 2025133 adjust sewer and stormwater charges, fees and service development charges. Dash 134 set sewer and stormwater rates, and dash 135 adopts updated fees for water system development and related services. The average increase in each of these ordinances is approximately 5%. 2025136 revises transportation fee schedules. Approximately 75% of all the fees are held constant or increased by less than 5%. Higher increases apply to select fees, especially where fees have not yet reached full cost recovery. 2025137 updates permitting and development fee schedules, with fees increasing by about 5%, the committee adopted amendments to document numbers 2025123, 2025, dash 132 and 2020 5-134 prior to referring them to full council, and the effects of those amendments are detailed in the full committee staff summary online. The full impact statement on these items includes financial and budget impact analysis, community impacts and community involvement, and economic and real estate impacts. The committee received public testimony on the following items for 2025-132 relating to water rates and charges. Two individuals testified in committee. One individual submitted written testimony prior to committee action, and one individual submitted written testimony after committee action but prior to full council. General themes included acknowledgments of the increase in cost and workload for certain services that require increases in rates, fees, and charges. Concern around the continued increase of water costs and affordability, and requests to evaluate striking certain charges and fees as considered for prk 2.03 for 2025134 relating to sewer and stormwater rates. One individual submitted written testimony prior to committee action, and general themes included concern around stormwater charges and areas where stormwater services may not currently be provided for 2020 5-136 relating to transportation fees, individuals submitted written testimony prior to committee action. General themes included. Request to remove certain charges for non permitted work and administrative review appeals, and finally for 2025137 relating to permitting and development fees. One individual submitted written testimony prior to committee action, and the general themes included a request to remove certain charges for non permitted work and administrative review and appeals. This concludes the committee staff summary.
549 Thank you for that amazing level of detail and speed. That was fantastic, councilor Zimmerman, these came through your committee. Do you have anything you'd like to add?
550 I feel like we just got told these are not the droids you're looking for. So these, you know, these fees came through and there was some discussion on a few of them. The, you know, the tree code, some slight amendments. And I would put it in the de minimis amount of changes for the overall budget, but maybe significant for the individual in Portland. There was a little bit of discussion and around parking fees, and then the utility rates had an increase that there was some discussion at council or at the committee regarding the difference between the mayor's proposed and what the committee ultimately ended up adopting. And I think to summarize my colleagues who are on the committee, if I say it wrong, please jump in. But to summarize, fairly significant overall city change in to the negative. If we would have adopted what the mayor asked for. But on the individual ratepayer, it was only about a 50 cent difference, and the idea around that was that most families can take on a 50 cent difference. But the overall system impact was fairly large. And so you did see some changes there. This does not encompass all the fees that exist in the city. This encompasses a set of fees that have to come before ordinance. And I think that's that's all I'll say. And we can kind of go into discussion if there's individual questions.
551 Thank you. Councilor, I see a number of folks in the queue for discussion. We do have some public testimony that I'd like to make sure we get to today. Councilor Dunphy, are you looking for a point of clarification that you need before that?
552 Yeah, just really quickly under the revised transportation fees document, exhibit g is a blank document currently online. There is information available on the draft exhibits attachment. I just wanted to see if anything has changed between draft and final.
553 That is a great question. Why don't we make sure that staff are looking at that? I'm looking to haley to see if she has somebody who can check that for us. Can you repeat which ordinance that was on?
554 Absolutely. This is document 2025 136 revised transportation fees, rates and charges and amend the transportation fee schedule and fix an effective date. Specifically, exhibit g community events on my computer. At least it keeps pulling up as a blank a blank white pdf. But in the draft exhibits, there is a document there that shows fee increases.
555 We're going to have staff check that and get you an answer and move to the next question. So they have an opportunity to do that. Councilor Green, did you have a clarification that you need before public testimony?
556 I can save it for after. I was just wanted to talk about my motivation for the amendment on that rates thing.
557 Great. And I apologize, councilor Clark. I jumped over your hand.
558 No problem, madam chair. I just want to mention that, and I don't know, maybe this is preempting your comment, councilor Green, but we had in the transportation infrastructure committee had a pretty robust discussion of the water and sewer fees, just so everybody knows. And I believe those were actually recommended. The increase was recommended by or the decrease by mayor wheeler, not the current mayor. Just be clear on that. And one of the interesting things that everybody should know is that the water bureau has a terrific model for having a different rate schedule for low income people. And it's a really great model. And other bureaus are actually looking at possibly replicating it. So I feel really good about the decision that we made. And we ask councilor Green to carry it to the finance committee. Thank you.
559 Thank you for adding that, councilor. Councilor Ryan, is your question clarification needed before public testimony?
560 I think it will help. It's for those of us not on the committee. This is our first reading. And the mayor, you worked on this before the mayor's budget, and I know you touched on it briefly, but I think will be helpful for the rest of us to true that up to see the differential between the mayor's budget and what this is before we go to the final vote.
561 Understood. And I think for folks who didn't catch it before, there are changes that were made here. The mayor's budget made assumptions about the proposed ordinances, and because we changed. Some of those, we are actually starting slightly out of balance.
562 And I get that. I just think we could.
563 We can get you the numbers.
564 Exactly. And then I think what was confusing is that when you come in at this hour, it looks like specific bureaus are submitting fee schedule increases for council approval. And other bureaus have fees for service schedules that we're not looking at. Is that true?
565 We do have some bureaus who set fees administratively, and other bureaus who are directed to come to council.
566 Before I vote. I just want clarification on why.
567 And I note that one of those that sets fees administratively is parks. So other than the fees for urban forestry, there are other fees we don't see here. Annie, do you have background on why that is, or is that a question we need to get back to folks on?
568 I'm sorry, I do not, but I will get back to you on that.
569 Thank you.
570 Appreciate it.
571 Okay. Councilor Kanal is your question something we need to answer before public testimony?
572 I think it might be helpful.
573 Okay.
574 It's on the tree. Permit. One 2025 123 under the financial and budgetary impacts, it talks. It was a little confusing to me. It says that PCEF provides funding to urban forestry. And then it says that para anticipates reducing and eliminating non-development fees, and that PCEF funding will replace the program revenue. My question is, is that referring to the same thing, or is this new piece f dollars? And if so, did we run it? Did the committee weigh in on that?
575 Councilor Zimmerman, would you like to address that?
576 Yeah. So this did not that was not a change that came from the committee that was already brought forward in. I think the PCEF committee, their plan. Right. Their five year plan is that they were they were supplementing future moving forward, supplementing part of the urban forestry program. And those changes were reflected in what urban forestry submitted to us. The changes that the committee adopted for urban forestry were, were my words fairly limited in currently, if you have a violation, it costs a portlander money just to appeal the violation. And so the committee pulled that back and there was another, another similar fee in that same realm. And I think that the staff budget report to us put it in the like, no more than $15,000 a year that that represented in that change. And so it was just going further than what PCEF was already reducing that from 50% reduction to 100% reduction on that, that violation review fee. So pretty small. But was part of the program before we got ahold of it.
577 Thank you.
578 Councilor Smith, is your question something we need to answer before testimony?
579 No, I can wait. Thanks, counselor.
580 Clark, I see you back here. Is that for after public testimony? Perfect. Rebecca, could you please call up folks who are signed up to testify?
581 First for item 14, edith gillis.
582 Good afternoon. This is edith gillis. Can you hear me?
583 We can welcome edith.
584 There were many students who worked very diligently, many hours over several years to improve the Portland city tree code. And they were patronized, lied to and betrayed. And this is why sometimes people will then despair of going through the process, and then you'll see them out on the streets, angry. One of the ways we stop that is to respect them. When they do that, what we need to do is lower the cost for people who are appealing this and lower the cost for people who are caring for trees. But we need to maximize the fines for people who kill, poison, destroy or log or steal trees. And we need to put more care into increasing our tree canopy. City of milwaukee has 40% of every lot, every type of land, residential, commercial, public must be a minimum of 40% tree canopy. And we should have the tree canopy that maximizes cleaning and cooling the air for public health and safety, and for reducing our costs later on for sewer and for fire, etc. We need to have trees that are going to adjust to the air pollution and the changes in climate, and we need to invest in trees as a way to reduce crime. We need to invest in trees for equity that east Portland not be hot and a killing place, but that it be a place where people can gather and community and belonging and have hope and take care of each other and have crime victim healing instead of anger with hot tempers and hot temperature. We need to reduce the cost of people who mean well and having trees and cannot afford it. But we need to increase the cost for those like developers. Ted wheeler delayed the tree plan so that schnitzer and others could give him campaign donations. After destroying the trees. We need to reverse that.
585 Thank you for your comments today, edith.
586 Next for item 15 is lauren rosenkranz.
587 Lauren, welcome. Go ahead and unmute yourself and introduce yourself when you're ready.
588 Hi. Can you hear me?
589 We can. Yes.
590 Okay. Good afternoon, elected leaders. My name is lauren rosenkranz. I live in district one and I'm here as a voting member and co-chair of the Portland utility board or the pub. While we appreciated the opportunity to engage with the council committees last month, we felt it was important during this time of transition to highlight some of our priorities for full council consideration. The pub serves as a community based advisory board to ensure improved transparency, accountability and oversight of portland's utilities. We seek early information sharing and sufficient time for the public's authentic engagement in decision making, which has been a challenge during this transition. With decisions moving quickly and little time for notification, let alone effective engagement, we urge you to, we ask, to have a clearer point of contact with council to ensure that we stay informed and engaged when utility policy or budget decisions are scheduled for your consideration. Just as a reminder, we serve as informed representatives of the community and we ask you to value our time engaging us early enough to have influence and impact in utility decisions. The pub center's equity in our considerations, and we believe that every person is entitled to clean and affordable drinking water, healthy communities and healthy watersheds. We appreciate that through council committees and the proposed budget, that the utility rates proposed today are a return to those from prior financial plans. However, that we the affordability of current ratepayers should remain a priority. The city should also prioritize intergenerational equity on top of that, which requires investments today to avoid pushing infrastructure burdens on to future generations. With that being said, the planned rate increases are not sufficient to maintain services and projects, so our effectively a reduction. And while the pub supports the bureau's approach to reductions, they're utilizing the only options. We do remain concerned about the impacts and risks on workforce and infrastructure. The plans do not anticipate new challenges, cost pressures facing the utilities with construction escalation costs years of lower than lower than projected rates and rate increases. Unknown liabilities caused by deferred maintenance and new costs for charter transition and citywide issues. The utilities must be allowed to update financial plans based on new and increased costs, and impacts should be considered in developing future year rate guidance. Affordability remains a core focus, along with ensuring adequate investments for sustainable and resilient system. Expanding access to target targeted financial assistance is the most effective way to respond to increasing rates and to protect the most vulnerable. We are also concerned of the lack of a citywide equity tool to. Often, equity programs are the first to go during cuts, and I'm running out of time, so I will defer to our written testimony. We just ask that you ensure that every process applies an equity lens, so that decisions consider the benefits and burdens of actions. And my colleague karen williams has more to say.
591 Thank you.
592 Next and last is karen williams.
593 Good afternoon. Thank you very much. My name is karen font williams. I am the co-chair with lauren and have been a voting member of pub since 2019. I live in district four, as mentioned by lauren. We do support the 6.33% combined rate increase for the utilities and in addition, we had supported the bureau's proposed 5% increase to system development charges for the utilities. The sdcs fund debt payments from investments that have already been made in the system, capacity to accommodate increases in demand. These are one time investments that are calculated based on the direct impact to the system. As community members, we also recognize the housing deficiency in Portland, and we are eager to support justifiable solutions that incentivize sustainable development and address these gaps. However, our board remains concerned about the blanket suspension for all housing. Development of system development charges. Without clear metrics on the impacts to the utilities budgets, we do understand that it is difficult to project the potential financial impact to the utilities budgets, but we do believe that a loss of these, this one time revenue can be significant when we already lack significant funding for deferred maintenance and needed infrastructure improvement. As you may have read in the auditor's recent report, they have warned of the risks to the city of underinvestment in routine and preventative maintenance, the backlog of costly and increasingly urgent unfunded needs, and the intergenerational inequity of that neglect. We do support policies encouraging sustainable development that is, at a minimum, climate neutral. But we do believe that for those who profit from their investments, they should contribute their fair share of the cost to access water services. The city's waivers that encourage affordable housing and their supplemental assistance programs are justifiable investments for all ratepayers to fund. We do ask for your reconsideration of the sdc suspension. Given the likely trade offs of reduced funding for maintenance of water systems and watershed restoration for current and future generations, our board is eager to collaborate with you on these difficult decisions, and we appreciate your feedback not only on our role, but priorities for the utilities and how we can effectively engage with you. Thank you for your public service and thanks for listening.
594 Thank you so much, karen. Councilors. We had a hard stop at 130 today and it is 133, so I am going to close agenda items 14 through 20. I am going to recess. I'm saying all of this first before I gavel. I'm going to recess today's meeting to tomorrow at 2:00. We will add time tomorrow before we hear the insight survey to allow us to pick up the appointments that we didn't get to today, and hopefully then have time to reopen these fees and get a few of them off the table. What we don't do tomorrow, we will need to open back up on the 21st before we pass our budget, and I will be asking folks to attach emergency clauses to those items at that time, so that we can still move them in time for our budget work. We will be reconvening at 2:00 as the budget committee. And as a reminder, we will also be convening tomorrow as the budget committee that was initially scheduled to convene at 245 for the prosper hearing. We will end up pushing that a little bit later in order for us to take up the items that we are carrying over to tomorrow's council meeting at 2:00 from today. If that was clear as mud, I'm happy to say it again after we recess the meeting, but for now I will recess today's council meeting. We will meet back here at 204 to ensure that our staff has that full half hour break for our first convening of the budget committee.