The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-06-23

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (25,572 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Here we go. Okay. Good morning everyone. I'd like to call the meeting of the public works committee to order. It is Tuesday, June 23rd at 935. Diana, can you please call? Roll.

Good morning.

Kanal present.

Koyama Lane here. I'll be there in person in a moment, I promise.

Green here.

Smith here. Clark.

Here. Thank you. And, claire, can you please read the statement of conduct?

Thank you. Chair. Good morning, and welcome to the meeting of the public works committee. To testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at Portland.gov/council/agenda/pubc works committee or by calling 311. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In person. Testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. Please state your name for the record. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. And finally, virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.

Thank you. Claire. Colleagues, we have three primary issues on the agenda today, and I've had to do some reordering so that we could accommodate people's schedules. What I without objection, what I'd like to do is adopt the city. The committee minutes, then ask the PBOT bus bench advertising group to come up, then follow with asset management and then end up with the ordinance that's coming to us from councilor Smith and Koyama Lane, the no turn on red ordinance. Any objections to that? No seeing none. Okay. Thank you so much. So before we go to our main items, we need to adopt committee minutes for our meetings on April the 14th and the 26th. I need a motion to approve.

So moved. Second.

Thank you.

May I read it into the.

Oh, sorry.

That's okay.

Sorry I skipped right over you.

That's okay. Thank you so much. Item number 1st April 14th, 2026 to may 26th, 2026. Public works committee meeting minutes.

Thank you diana. Sorry about that. So we've got a motion from councilor Smith, a second from councilor Green, without any objections. I think the minutes are approved. So let's see. Is it diana? Yes. Diana, can you please read the next item?

Item number three. Document number 2026-212. Amend advertising on bus benches. Code to allow advertising on city streetcar benches and shelters. Amend code. Chapter 17.45.

Thank you diana. The current code limits advertising on bus benches. Who knew? And the shelters at TriMet. Since the code was written, the Portland streetcar has really taken off and PBOT would like to be able to advertise on the streetcar benches and advertise the streetcar on the benches and shelters, so I'd like to hand it off to dc paul to explain that and tell us about the proposal.

Good morning, vice president and chair Clark and councilors. This item is a straightforward one, but an important code update relating to the Portland streetcar branch and shelter advertising city code. Chapter 17.45 was written decades ago to allow advertising on transit benches and shelters, but the code currently only names TriMet for that authority. Since that time, Portland streetcar has become an important city owned and operated part of our transportation system, with benches and shelters that were not contemplated when this code was originally written. This amendment would clarify that the city owned streetcar benches and shelters can be included in future advertising contracts. It does not change trimet's existing authority and TriMet has been informed of the change and does not object. And with that, I'll turn it over to rich from PBOT to walk through the proposed amendment and requested action.

All right. Thank you, dc paul. Good morning, chair Clark, vice chair, Smith, councilors. My name is rich eisenhower with PBOT, chief of staff, team of policy analyst. You know, dc kind of covered a lot of the items, but just kind of going over details that we're requesting a code change to title 1745 to allow for the city to include Portland streetcar to advertise on our streetcar, our shelters and benches. Just a reminder, the streetcar system is owned by the city of Portland. It includes all the shelters and and benches located throughout the system. The current code itself gives TriMet the authority to place advertising on its benches and shelters, but it does not provide the same authority to Portland streetcar because the code itself was written prior to the existence. Existence of Portland streetcar. This amendment would update that code to include streetcar in the code language. So like I said, the code itself was written, I think back in like in the 80s prior to streetcar being existence in 2001, we celebrate our 25th anniversary next next month. The timing is also important because our current advertising contracts that we have for for advertising, both trimet's contract and our contract both expire this year. We currently have an RFP that was issued a couple weeks ago that closes next month to look for a new advertising vendor. So it's important that we want to be able to include our shelters and benches within that future contract that will be awarded later this year. Just some examples of pictures shown here. The picture on the left is just one of our standard Portland streetcar shelters. The one on the right is an example of a TriMet advertising shelter for your reference. The code itself, it's pretty limited in scope. Basically, it just gives the ability of the city of Portland, along with TriMet, to advertise on shelters and benches. The authority that TriMet has under this section does not change with this work at all. And then finally, just there's no additional cost associated with this, this amendment, and it does not change streetcar service or operations. The advertising content itself and standards will continue to be managed through the advertising contracts that we currently hold, or will hold new ones in the future. Just an example of the picture. There is a recent vehicle wrap that we have with partnership with central, central, east side for for an example, regarding revenue, we don't really expect this amendment itself to result in significant immediate increase in revenues. The current contract has what's called a minimum annual guarantee in the contracts, which currently is set at $350,000 over the course of the contract. Of the five years that we've held the contract. We have not ever exceeded the minimum annual guarantee. With our current vendor, but we're hopeful with adding additional items that can be advertised on. That could increase in future years. Also, we've been working very closely with TriMet as our partner. And they are fully in support of this this change as well. That is the entire presentation. So thank you again for your time this morning. And we're here to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, rich, and thank you, priya. Do we have any questions for our panel? I know I do, but yes. Councilor Smith oh, there you go. I see your hand up. Go for it.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for for bringing this forward. So this seems to be somewhat of a clean up ordinance.

Yes.

How does our current advertising contract what does that look like. What do we do? I'm not familiar with it.

The current contract handles advertising on the vehicles themselves currently. So the wraps like the example that I showed is part of that. So it's it's it's direct. Advertisement. It's also sponsor. It's sponsorship with community partners like OHSU or the central east side or other businesses along our alignment.

So you said this may generate a bit of revenue over time. Will that revenue stay with the streetcar system or go elsewhere?

It will stay with the streetcar system to help pay for operations.

And with this new change, will that change or create any new maintenance, permitting or right of way impacts?

No, I don't, I don't believe so. I mean, it's really just allowing existing structure that's already in place allowed for TriMet just to allow it for Portland streetcar and all the work itself with the like the advertising installations and other things are done through the contract.

Okay. Okay. Perfect. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Other questions? I have a question. Why don't we just join up with TriMet and piggyback on their contract, their advertising contract?

I mean, that's in theory. We have we have we issued a joint RFP with TriMet in partnership with TriMet. It's on the streets right now.

So we.

Are working together looking for one vendor to provide services to both agencies. We will hold our individual contracts at the end of the day, but we are doing this in partnership and together.

Thank you.

Okay. I think you answered that question. I would love to to veer off into other issues around this, like fare inspection on the streetcar, but that's not the issue today. But maybe someday we'll we'll bring that up. I don't see any fare inspectors. Good morning. Okay. If there aren't any other questions. Oh, there. There she is. Okay, good. Good morning. Okay. Who wants to go first?

Good. Good morning. Good morning. The number of locations that the advertising can go are going to increase from the contract that TriMet currently holds to now. Right. If we have streetcar stops as well.

Right. Well, we currently have a contract with the same vendor TriMet currently has. So we will each individually hold our own contracts. So we have an individual contract with intersect intersection media today for advertising on our on our streetcar vehicles only. And TriMet has their own contract for their, their their vehicles and benches and shelters currently.

Okay, but the total number of locations available for advertising will increase if we adopt this.

Yes. Well, we'll we'll have the shelters be able. We have 68 stops, I think shelters that would be available for advertising in the future. Do you.

Expect that the minimum that the minimum annual guarantee will increase proportionally.

Right now they've they've struggled trying to attract enough advertisers to come into Portland to to, you know, exceed that value. So we're hoping with this new revised RFP that we have on the street that will attract a new vendor that will can bring in additional ads to our city to help increase that revenue to exceed the minimum annual guarantee. I mean, that's our hope. We're hopeful for that.

Okay. But we're not anticipating the actual minimum written into the contract increase.

No, I mean, those terms will be negotiated in the contract itself. What that minimum annual guarantee is, for example. But just historically, we've never exceeded that value over the last five years.

Okay. I might circle back, but I wanted to give my colleague a chance to.

Councilor Koyama Lane. Do you have a question?

Thank you. Chair, I have a little bit of a comment. Go for it. Well, I plan to support this. And I also just want to put a little plan, a little seed. That's something that I have wondered that maybe we could do with some of these ads is think about at some point promoting resources, promoting, for example, the hotline for the Portland immigrant rights coalition. I love the idea of like seeing that out there promoting 311, being able to get some of our resources out there to community in this way. I just wanted to plant that seed.

Yeah, thank you for that.

Councilor Kanal, do you have another question?

Yeah. Thank you. With the relation to the advertising policy, so that that's that's included in the contracts, is there anticipation that that would change? And I'm specifically asking around, you know, like, are there restrictions on types of ads, ads for tobacco products, political ads, things like that.

There's typically restrictions on because we're in a like a vehicle area about like traffic operations and kind of signage, but usually the, the content of the advertising itself is kind of protected under the first amendment rights. And we can't regulate necessarily the content of the ad itself.

Well, actually, that's been an issue in the past for TriMet. I know, I don't know if there's anybody here from TriMet about limiting certain kinds of advertising.

Yeah. I mean, you can't advertise tobacco products on tv. So I, I'm aware that there are restrictions in the that, that don't affect.

I'm not totally for sure that we'd have to look into what the exact contract language says. Maybe rich.

Can come back and answer you individually, but I know there's been discussion at TriMet on limiting certain kinds of advertising. I. I'm assuming it's probably the same thing for the streetcar. We just don't know what that is right now.

I mean, the vendor has done a good job of getting quality ads to both TriMet and the city, so we hope that will continue in the future.

I'll be happy to bring back information on what that looks like, the language in the policy, and get back to you, councilor.

Sure.

That's what I was going to say.

Okay, great. I appreciate your getting back to us on that. You know, some of us don't have any history with transit. And so we all have inquiring minds and we like to dig in on issues and really use this as an opportunity to learn more about how the system works, how advertising works. So thank, thank you for your tolerance of our questions. And we do like to dig in. In fact, I'm going to ask you said you're having difficulty in attracting advertisers. What about sponsors? Are they considered advertisers as well? The sponsors.

They go through the same contract. We've been pretty successful with those in the past. I mean, we've we've had sponsorship before. When the streetcar system started, we transitioned to advertising five years ago to add that as additional revenue source. But historically we were reliant fully on sponsorship.

So the sponsorships are in the advertising contract?

Yes.

Okay.

Great. Any other questions, committee members? Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the discussion. I think I'm going to need to see a little bit more about what our parameters around advertising would look like before I'm prepared to take a vote on this. I think the thing that I worry about is are we going to sell ad space to ride share or sort of waymo types of companies on the very things that are the alternative to those things? I mean, I think that would present a very strange experience for portlanders using transit or streetcar. And so at this time, I'm not prepared to vote yes on this, but pending further information, be happy to. Of course, you know, make that vote appropriately.

Does that mean that you want to abstain if we go for a vote today?

Well, I would just be a no if we went for a vote.

Okay. Thanks.

Interesting. All right. I don't know if well, that's an interesting question. I mean.

We can provide that information. A lot of it is we'd have to work with our city attorney, because there's a lot of legal aspects of what we can and can't allow.

Are you in a particular timeline, rich? Or maybe this is a question for our bureau director. I'm not sure. Is there a timeline for getting this done?

We plan to award a contract sometime this fall. Our contract expires later this year, so we would like to be able to award a new contract to include the shelters and benches.

You said later this fall.

Yes.

Good morning.

Good morning. Millicent williams, director of the Portland bureau of transportation. Thank you for your question. Councilor. Might I propose that we come back at an upcoming committee meeting, if not the next one, the following to be able to provide the input that you're needing to be able to make a decision. I think your questions are certainly valid and warrant a response that satisfies your conscience. To be able to make a affirmative or whatever vote you would like. But I think you we we have the opportunity to provide more information. Great.

Thank you for your flexibility. I really appreciate it. And committee member oh, you have another question, counselor?

I just while you're doing that, to be more specific about what I was looking for, because it's the same type of question, is political advertising specifically for upcoming ballot measures? And if there's any sort of fact checking related to.

That, that was I probably could have been a little bit more exhaustive in my expression of what we would be confirming. But yes, it will be an exhaustive effort. Thank you.

Thank you again. Thank you for being here, rich and priya, we really appreciate your putting together the slides and helping educate us. I think this really is an educational process for us, since some of us have never dipped into the ads and we do have on our agenda upcoming a discussion of waymo as well. You mentioned waymo or just autonomous vehicles. So claire, will you just make a note of that for future meeting? We'll want to fit this in. And if you don't mind sending that to all the members of the committee, maybe I don't know through claire, however you want to do that. But I think we're all inquiring minds and we all want to see what we're working with here. So thank you so much today. And we'll we'll pick this up again soon.

Just just point of information. Do we need to do anything? Do we have to refer this back or are we just not move? It is sufficient.

Why don't we ask our legal counsel? Is there something that we need to do?

You can just continue it to a future meeting.

Okay. We will continue this to a future meeting. Thank you for that. Thanks. Thanks for the clarification.

Thank you very much.

You bet. Thank you for your work. Diana, would you would you call the next item? And hopefully there wasn't any public testimony.

I was just going to say, just to confirm from the last item, there has been no public testimony. Okay. So the next item, item number two, document number 2026-211. City asset management strategy progress report.

Thank you diana. So colleagues, you know, this is a high priority for me and I think for all of us and what we what I've asked is that we just get a kind of a, just a check in on where we are. The asset management plan is supposed to be coming to us, I believe, in September, followed by an asset management finance plan by the end of the year. So this is just a check in. I think the last time we heard this was in late February.

February.

Yes. And just as a reminder, you know, the city owns I any something we're between 75 billion in public works and assets, but total maybe 85 billion of assets across the city. But most of those assets are in public works. So I want to invite dc a dana paul to, to join tate as well. I know that we're we've been trying to put together a collaborative approach across all of the bureaus and how we address asset management. And I don't know if you remember in February, I was pretty anxious about getting a list. I'm really interested in seeing the list of what what assets are actually at risk so that we can zero in on those things. But I know tate is here. Tate white, who's actually now the deputy director of the of bts and is kind of doing both jobs, but she's been working on trying to set up that kind of standardized process across all the bureaus. So welcome, tate, and thank you for being here. I know in the room we've got many of the asset management core group members are here or they're online in case we have any questions. And we're hoping actually to have our see a raymond lee here any moment, I believe, to also weigh in on this conversation. But why don't we start with you, tate? Please take it away.

Thank you. Chair Clark. Good morning, chair Clark. Vice chair. Smith. Councilors. Greene. Koyama Lane Kanal. My name is tate white. I use she her pronouns and I am the deputy director of the bureau of planning and sustainability. Today I am going to provide a high level overview update on the development of the citywide asset management strategy, which we also refer to as cams for short. Since I took on the new role with bts earlier this year, I'm helping to bridge leadership and momentum of this strategy, which is in response to both an audit recommendation as well as the council resolution. And it's really important to inform the development of citywide systems and standards that were largely missing from the previous form of government. There is still going to be ongoing asset management work and improvements that are happening at service area and bureau levels, and so we wanted to acknowledge some of that today. These efforts really inform the strategy and vice versa. So they're feeding each other. I will present on improvements to citywide assets reporting and review risk and data related to the various public works bureaus before ending with how this can dovetail dovetail, excuse me, into the future funding strategy that cfo biery is leading, and I'm happy to be joined by the various asset management experts from public works in the room, so they can be here to help answer questions as needed. So here is a reminder of the governance framework that we are using for strategy development. The core group has a standing weekly meeting and citywide representation. Although invited, the biggest gap in participation from bureaus that own assets is the Portland police bureau. However, the bureau of fleet and facilities is actively participating, and they manage over half of their assets. So working group one will make recommendations for how the city evaluates, prioritizes and invests in assets over their full life cycle, integrating risk, climate and resiliency into decision making. Working group two will recommend improvements to the process for how asset management decisions are driven by service outcomes, equity and community trust. Working group three will recommend the data, systems and digital capabilities required to support all other asset management functions. The core group will review and synthesize these recommendations into a vision, several objectives, as well as actions to achieve those objectives. These are intended to jump start and guide continued improvement and inform the financial plan. Here is a high level update on the major work items that we've completed or are in the process of completing. According to the roadmap that I shared in February, core group members are leading the working groups, which have brought refreshing new perspectives from staff that don't normally sit at these tables. After over five years of working in asset management in Portland, I've witnessed a positive culture shift through this process. Workforce development and training in asset management has been a welcome byproduct. I've had multiple participants approach me and share that this is the most fulfilling thing they're doing right now at the city during a difficult time of a lot of change. So that being said, there are dozens of people across the city that are dedicating significant effort and expertise to this effort. So currently we have mature asset management bureaus with governance structures that are specific to their bureaus. And then we have other bureaus without defined asset management programs or clear governance. So central to the audit recommendation was defining clear governance for asset management decisions. And the core group has emphasized the structures need to be repeatable and transparent across the city. The working groups have discussed the need for defined standards and systems connected to community outcomes and risk that in turn, inform decision making, and we expect them to make recommendations on this. Training and workforce development have come up repeatedly. As I mentioned, we are seeing this happen organically through the process, but we also want to apply it as a lens to the objectives and actions. So we make sure we're ensuring successful implementation and really supporting staff through this process and pulling everything into frameworks and a prioritization model that guides investment decisions. This collaborative process has been critical to bring staff across the city together to form these decisions that have citywide implications, while facilitating the necessary culture change. So the city asset managers group, or cam for short, has been producing an annual report for almost 20 years as part of the work to develop a city wide strategy. We are also implementing improvements to how and when this report is delivered. Producing the report is often very labor intensive, with no clear or accountable owner. As I transition to my new role earlier this year, PBOT really graciously stepped up to lead the report development, and they have moved data to power bi to simplify the production and structure of the report. This change was made based on feedback we received from council last year, and we wanted to make it more concise and useful to you to promote sort of line of sight and, and help you really make decisions based on the high amount of data we actually do have available. So a major purpose of this report is to inform the budget decision making process with the loss of general fund surpluses for capital set aside and the change in the form of government, this report is less relevant in the spring, and we're recommending a shift in the timeline of when it's delivered, instead reporting or releasing it in the fall so we can start to inform the budget process from the beginning and also expand the audiences for that process so that directors, deputy city administrators, as well as council see that and have the same information. So here are examples of two draft pages from that report. The page on the left shows a service area summary, and the page on the right shows bureau level data about asset condition and funding gaps according to asset class. In accordance with industry trends, public works has the most data available. However, there are still varying levels of confidence in this data and some gaps. As you can see in the in the gray bar, the bureaus of fleet and facilities and technology services also report out their available data, but they are challenged by by funding their own funding model. But they do their best community and economic developments. Knowledge about their assets is improving. As prosper Portland and the housing bureau start to retain ownership of their assets more, and they're starting to build their asset management programs. Prosper Portland and the spectators venues program report what they know, and the housing bureau plans to participate more as that that ownership model changes. The arts and culture program will be featured in the report for the first time this year as the. They are taking over administrative oversight of the city owned Portland. Five venues that have historically been operated by metro. And. Finally, the public safety service area is represented by Portland fire and rescue. This service area is largely underrepresented due to the critical nature of their competing priorities and a lack of dedicated asset management roles. I mentioned this because it's one reason kmg has consistently recommended a citywide asset management office to help provide resources to these less mature bureaus, and also build citywide systems that can support the whole enterprise. So here is a slide that you may remember from a previous public work session on fiscal year 2627. Current service levels. It provides helpful information about the scale of public works operations, asset replacement values, and the funding backlog. This is the type of information the citywide asset report will update for the fall to inform the next year's budget development process. The next four slides will provide helpful insight into the current understanding of public works assets with the highest risk of failure. And again, I've asked public works asset managers to join today as they are really the subject matter experts for these slides, and they're very impressive and competent professionals. So the Portland water bureau is top five assets or asset classes with the highest risks of failure are shown on this slide. There are often multiple options available to manage these assets. And those are also included. A high risk of failure is a combination of likelihood and consequence of failure. High consequence of failure. Asset excuse me. High consequence of failure. Assets receive more proactive management strategies to avoid or mitigate failures. Lower consequence of failure. Assets may be run to replacement or repair. And then of course, high risk of failure does not always mean a failure is imminent. It's really important to know these things because it really feeds into how they manage assets. Some assets are intentionally managed to the end of their lives to get the best return on investment, and it's not always necessary to replace them as they degrade. For example, you wouldn't replace your tires too early in their life cycle. So the bureau of environmental services uses a risk framework to score each portfolio against strategic level of service criteria, to assess the relative health of portfolios and the potential impacts if they fail to meet those criteria. Portfolio risk scores are mapped to a risk matrix. Each quadrant of the risk matrix is paired with a high level risk mitigation strategies that guide how to focus limited resources to address portfolio risk. Strategically. The objective is to mitigate risk down to an acceptable tolerance, not to eliminate it entirely. These strategies are translated into recommended actions that inform downstream business process like capital improvement planning, prioritization, for example, the risk matrix confirmed that the waste water resource recovery and collection system pumping portfolios carry an unacceptable, an unacceptable high risk. Based on the recommended strategies, the most effective response is to increase capital investment in these portfolios to prevent critical system failure. Portland parks and recreation asset management starts with a comprehensive understanding of growth and maintenance needs, service levels, demographics, and the number of people served by assets are factored in to arrive at an opportunity score. Likelihood of failure, consequence of failure and demographics are used to further calculate a risk score before more detailed evaluation and vetting is done. On the slide, you can see what p and r has identified as their highest risks. And I can go back to any of these during the q and a last summer, PBOT completed a criticality risk assessment that evaluated asset classes based on their likelihood of failure and the consequences associated with that failure. The asset classes shown here were identified as having the highest criticality for the bureau within these asset classes. Pbot further identifies specific risk factors to help prioritize limited resources and target investments where they can have the greatest impact. For example, traffic volume is one factor considered for bridges with volume structures receiving greater priority. Failure would have broader impacts on mobility and system performance. Additional high risk factors include poor or very poor condition assets that have exceeded their expected service, life and damage resulting from external events, such as severe weather or vehicle collisions. As a leader in the asset management space, public works service area has started exploring fields that would be most useful in a consistent system of record or an inventory of assets to build a foundation to do this work. Currently, public works bureaus have some of this information for many of their assets, but the data is stored in their own enterprise asset management or work order systems based on their initial review of these fields, public work asset managers have shared that data availability, relevance, and reliability vary within and across bureaus and asset portfolios. They would like to explore this potential further through the strategic planning effort. This is an example of a great ongoing project for the incoming citywide asset manager to really take leadership on, and potentially even expand citywide. Okay. Almost done. So asset management isn't a standalone program, but instead a comprehensive approach to making the best decisions and managing large portfolios of capital and natural assets. It is really an umbrella concept and a set of systems that encompass how we manage public assets and deliver services to the community. This is why such a collaborative process to understand what is already happening across the city and outline agreed upon objectives and actions to strategically move us forward in the same direction as helpful. There isn't one simple solution to solve our asset maintenance funding gap, but focusing our talented workforce on building systems and standards to help us do our work better together is part of the journey of continuous improvement. The strategy elements, combined with a recent compilation of key unfunded projects collected by the debt manager, along with related bureau and service area initiatives, will all be key inputs and drivers for the cfo's future financial plan. On the right of the slide, you can see examples of strategies that have been shown to be best practices in making informed and timely decisions about our asset investments. The cfo might choose to to use some of these. We are thankful for council's emphasis and requests for immediate action, because resources strategically invested now will save money in the future. So this brings us to the last slide on next steps for the strategy. Working groups are moving quickly to finalize recommendations in July, and the core group will review and integrate into a coherent and concise strategy. We will continue to coordinate with the various related initiatives happening across the city, and set up briefings with the executive steering committee to present our finalized vision, objectives and actions. Thank you for passing the citywide asset manager role with the budget, so recruitment for that can start next month, I think. I sincerely believe the strategy will set this person up to make real progress on this work, and it will be a useful tool for them coming in. Of course, we look forward to presenting the first iteration of the strategy to council this fall, and we don't expect it to sit on the shelf. The intention is for it to be referenced frequently, used to request and justify resources, and updated regularly as continued and tangible progress is made. Thank you all so much for your time. We can open things up to questions and discussion.

Thank you tate, I really appreciate your report, particularly the specifics by the public works bureaus. I really appreciate that. I don't know who wants to speak before we do. Q and a, if you do see a lee or if do you see a donna paul, if you'd like to add any remarks to that. I think it's just interesting listening to tate that there has never really been an owner of asset management in the city of Portland. Everybody's been doing their own thing in their own bureau. And. And you mentioned there were 20 years of planning.

Reporting.

Yeah. Okay. That's kind of amazing to me. Without capital strategy. And you said that the group meets weekly. I don't know what you're all doing weekly, but that's a lot of meetings. But I appreciate I appreciate the work. Do you want to add any comments about what the future here?

Yes. Thank you, vice president, and thank you for having me here today as well. One of the things I'll share with this committee is when we look at asset management, when we look at how are we maintaining planning and really revitalizing a lot of the infrastructure assets that we own as a city. This is going to be one of the biggest decision points for this body that it will ever make, because it will have long term implications for the next 25 to 50 years on the organization as it relates to how do we move some of these things forward. Keep in mind, individual departments have been working on this work for years, but there has not been a consolidated approach as it relates to how do we move these projects forward when the key things that we'll be working on in this new administration is filling this chief asset management role for the city, along with trying to really create a new role within this organization that we haven't had before, which is a city engineer having the chief asset manager role in the city, engineer work hand in hand, and how do we build a capital improvement program citywide? It's going to be essential towards our long term success. And honestly, one of the biggest decision points that are becoming before this council, but also our citizens, our community will have to vote on how do we move forward and which packages move forward as it relates to reinvesting in our infrastructure as a city? You know, I did a citywide asset tour of the city, and I'll be quite frank and honest with you. It was depressing looking at where we are currently as a city and we have not made as leaders that investment back into our city, as our as our previous leaders, 50, 60, 75 years ago made into this city. And I think those roosters are coming home to roost now for us as an organization. And we're going to have to be committed to how do we sustainably and strategically build towards the future of this city, especially in some of our districts that have not seen that type of investment? And there are some of the older parts of our community as well. So I, you know, this is a strategic movement forward for us as an organization, and I'm happy that we're making this investment to actually plan this out and not just plan because we do a lot of planning, but actually put something in place that we can actually achieve something as it relates to making this type of investment in the city.

That's terrific. That is music to my ears. And, you know, we've had multiple audit reports just saying that city, you're not taking care of what you have. It's not just this this auditor. It's other auditors as well have noted that. So we're really, really behind the eight ball here. And I have to say, I thought the school district had done a pretty good job of trying to get on a cycle of maintaining their schools. And you know, we vote on that every couple of years, 3 to 5 years. And it's normally about the same level. And they, you know, pick off certain schools. And we just have not done that as a city. And it's frightening because the risk I feel that we're facing when we have broken water mains here and there, and I'm deathly afraid of what's going to happen in the parks when somebody falls off of or through a broken bridge and forest park or somewhere and then sues the city, we're going to pay for this one way or the other. So I'm glad we're getting ahead of it.

Yeah. When you look at best management practice of cities, they're rolling off bond packages on a cycle. You know, once one bond package is almost three fourths down, they're already rolling out the next bond package. And we have to get in that type of rhythm as a city and get our city accustomed to running bond packages like that. So we're keeping up with our capital infrastructure. And one component that a lot of cities don't do as well, but some of the leading cities do do as well. What does that maintenance program as well? That is preserving and maintaining those assets until we can get to another capital program and we're just not building those things and just saying we're done for the next 25 years. We have to be doing things to upkeep those assets to ensure that they're meeting their full life span.

Colleagues, I would like to think that the work that we did previously in transportation took a stab at it, particularly operations and maintenance, which we dedicated the majority of the tough and to. So we took a step forward. And I just appreciate all my colleagues doing that. But we need to do that. We need to do more. And I'm so sad that the parks budget parks levy really reduced the amount of money that we're putting into maintenance. It's not a good thing. Like I said, I'm really afraid about liability, but do you see did you want to add any comments to that?

I think city administrator lee covered it very well. I want to thank you, councilor Clark, on this committee as well for championing asset management. I think the staff of the city appreciates the attention to this very important topic. And cully, you know, he he covered all the important points. But what what I want to focus on is in the implementation. We are eager to implement the steps that are needed with the asset management strategy that will be coming to you in fall on our on the public works. And we have this pilot of coming up with the inventory of all the assets. And so each bureau has been tracking the inventory in its own way. Now we're coming up with a common way in which we can, a coordinated way in which we can do it across across the bureaus. And, you know, then there's the financial plan. The cfo is working on the citywide financial plan. So I'm excited about tying all these pieces together. And we are grateful for the attention to this and look forward to continuing the conversation.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I think some of us, we expressed in February, when we had an update, that we're anxious to get that list. We're anxious to sink our teeth into what needs to be done, what the priorities are, bureau by bureau, what's really at greatest risk. We've got lots of hands up. I think we're going to have a good conversation here. So let me turn first to councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you, chair Clark. Thanks for the update. Really excited to see the progress here. City administrator lee, I really appreciated your comments on recognizing both that we haven't done this in the past and this is part of that maturing work, but that part of your vision sees an enterprise level view with with some, you know, chief engineer, I didn't even know that was on the table. But that's, that's that's good because I think this is the first piece of it is to say, you know, council public, here's our asset management picture. But then how do you then take that administrative and executive purview on that, which is pretty necessary. So excited to see that going forward. I do have some questions about what's not here and maybe what we might expect. I think the bar charts for asset value condition are really helpful. I think it helps us kind of get a quick sense of. Across certain asset types, the distribution of condition. I think that's a really efficient chart. What I what I don't know if we're going to be doing, but what I'd like to see if it's possible I. Everything takes resources. And if it's not possible in this iteration, it's not possible. But some sort of view that looks at our assets and, and quantifies the risk, right. So there's a qualitative risk assessment. But then you can imagine a world in which you've got methods that do sort of a monte carlo simulation of given some variable variables and conditions. Like a good example would be a colder than normal winter, like what is what is the what's the marginal impact on that sort of event in sort of the erosion and depreciation of, say, a PBOT asset? You also might imagine some of those wetter years contributing to sinkholes and contributing to failures. I think about dash road that were recently experiencing. And so that sort of thing allows us to sort of take a pretty rigorous quantitative approach to this way we can figure out not just whether or not it's, you know, high, low, medium risk in a quantitative sense, but really construct a, a distribution of likelihoods. And then based upon those likelihoods, you can wait the cost of the failure. And then you can say, what is our threshold for risk? If our if we're willing to accept as a city a 5% tail risk of failure. Okay. But so, so what is the metric we're planning towards? Is it the expected value or is it the tail risk? So I think that's, that's where we need to go. And I think that takes a little bit of resource to do. Yeah. That's those are specialized skill sets. And I'm sure those skill sets exist in the Portland. But you kind of city of Portland, we need that mandate.

I would also add to that councilor as well. You have in certain asset management tools, you have scenario based planning, right, where you can kind of build out these scenarios on multiple levels, funding, you know, if something happens differently from an environmental standpoint, to have that ability, we'd have to research what we have now and what we need to be building towards in the future from an asset management tool to be able to run off these type of scenarios. So council can see the spectrum and universe of scenarios that we're considering and what we'll be recommending to them. So you can kind of weigh in on those things as well. But great point.

Thank you. Yeah. And that's really important because, you know, oftentimes I think there's an Oregonian article out this morning talking about, you know, how council has just sort of foisted more cost on, on everyday portlanders. And I think it's a fair thing to think about, but that only looks at the cost side of the picture. There is a benefit side of the picture as well. And so when we think about this from a ten year, 20 year forward looking planning basis, we know that these are costly and we know that they're expensive and that there are going to be range the expenses. But I think the benefit of making the investment is that you don't have the sinkholes, and you don't have the kind of increasing rate of potholes. And so being able to marry those two in that integrated forward planning sense is how we how we tell that story and with confidence to voters, you know, I'm going to beat up on the past commissions a little bit and say, I think councilor Novick made this point is because we failed for decades to invest in, say, PBOT. We. We left the current city with a mess, a very poor condition. Assets that we're going to have to dig our way out of. And our solution to that in the short run is a regressive fee structure called the transportation utility fee. That is going to be that is painful, but it also if we didn't do that, we would have a much higher degree of failure rates in the near term. And so this is a very disciplined approach. I'm really excited about the work. I'm going to continue to support it in the budget, and we've got some bright minds in our community that can help us with that kind of quantitative, risk informed approach. So thank you very much. I think this is citywide. This is not just public works, right? So we have the p5's in here.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Okay. And then the moda center is now another liability that we've taken on. All right. Thanks.

Thank you for those comments, councilor Green. I really appreciate it. In fact, your comment about the venues, we are woefully behind in evaluating them. The keller, the providence park, the schnitz, the moda, all of those that we own, we have neglected to to care for them in large part. So I appreciate you bringing that up. But I think your comments are really germane to climate change. And that's kind of the risk that we're looking at as well with these incredible events that have been coming through, you know, living on the river, I see them go right through the what do they call the the rain, the storms and the air. I mean, it just there's just more and more coming at us all the time that we need to factor in. So I really appreciate your comments. Councilor. Koyama Lane.

I was going to add something really quick.

Just sorry.

No no worries. I just wanted to acknowledge that the climate team is working on a climate change risk assessment, just to acknowledge there are many things happening at the city that I think can really provide helpful inputs to this work.

Good to know.

Good to know. Councilor Koyama Lane.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you. And chair Clark, I appreciate your leadership on the transportation utility fee and also on this. You've been talking about asset management before. I really knew exactly what that entailed and you've been talking about it from the beginning. So thank you for your focus on zooming out longer than just, you know, a couple years, but thinking long term. Thank you. Thank you for your leadership. Tait. I think you're doing a good job. I mean, I oftentimes look to chair Clark and she says, you're doing a good job. So I'm appreciative. I would love for you to tell me roughly how many buildings and facilities are in our public asset portfolio.

Wow.

How about just billions? Just billions.

Great question. I will have to get back to you on that. Working with my colleagues, I will say, you know, we have the bureau of fleet and facilities that oversees a lot of city facility assets, but there are still facilities in the other bureaus portfolios. So that's why it's a complicated question to answer.

And more or less than 100.

Much more.

More or less than 500 more. More or less than 1000.

Probably more.

Okay, so great segue from where we were getting. I just want to kind of put the moda center request in context by letting making sure folks really do know that we own a lot of public assets case anyone hasn't noticed, I've been a little bit loud about asking questions and about the moda center proposal, and part of that is because we do own a lot of assets. And when I was at mount scott doing my moda pop up, someone said, hey, look at that nasty roof on that bathroom. Just want to say we could, you know, we have a lot of assets. I also want to point out that this isn't going to be the only time we're asked to commit significant public dollars to a major facility. So I also hope that we can use this conversation for future facilities because we own, you know, we're we have a lot of assets. We will get an exact number from you and let the community know what that is. I will share that out. But really, I'm hearing that community wants transparency. And around this, thinking about this core group that is described in here, is that a body that will maybe be able to, at some point, help vet and advise on some major capital assets across our portfolio, kind of like this moda center one, probably not this one, but you know, future future ones.

Yes, that's a great question. The one reason I reshared the governance framework is because that is a really important component of the audit recommendation. And we're testing that governance framework to develop the strategy and will reflect on that to to potentially use it moving forward for asset management decisions. And we see other cities that have kind of those types of steering committees of sorts that are advised decision makers like councils on these decisions. So that is a future potential.

Great. I can see that being really helpful. Thank you so much. And I look forward to hearing back on that number of major buildings and facilities in our portfolio. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane, I just have to add, since you brought up moda, that there aren't very many facilities where you're going to get a 3 to 1 match from other entities, the state, the county to help us fix something up. I wish we could get that for all the other things that we own as well, but this is an advantage right now.

Yes, absolutely.

Olivia Clark: And I know that is a something that can move you. And I quote you sometimes and I'm like, because councilor Clark really likes the matchy matchy. That's what you called it before.

I call it a squishy, squishy.

Squishy, squishy, matchy matchy, I hear that.

Thank you. Thank you, councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you, chair Clark tate. First, thanks for the presentation. Thanks, dc paul kelly and thank you for putting this on the agenda and leading on this for a while. I really appreciated the methodology portion, not only for how we're kind of catching up with the ongoing aspect of it as, as council deals with difficult infrastructure funding decisions, I think having transparent methodology for evaluating priorities that is city wide will help not only us, but the public understand how we're deciding what we invest in. I will say that this methodology needs to include city council at the front end, not public recommendations from the administration that we are first hearing up here. Not that that's happening now, but I know in other areas of our work that has come up. And so I want to make sure that that's I'm just getting out ahead of it on this particular issue. Let me ask, just as a way of and I, I have used this as a as a shorthand, a litmus test for the progress we've made on this. And you and I have had this conversation since like 2023. Do we currently have a map of all city owned land and a list?

That's the next thing we got to do.

I know director soter was very helpful. Former director sauder as as she was leaving the city and helping set us up with a start to that. And again, it's similar to the the other question about all our facilities is there every bureau, not every bureau, but asset owning bureaus have different ownership. And so they're on sort of different lists right now. And we do have some great gis professionals at the city where my guess is our closest thing to that is probably in our gis systems and layers that we have, but that's something we want to explore further and, and eventually deliver through this process. So when we're talking about the strategy, for example, that would probably be an action somewhere in that strategy to, to achieve that prioritized objective.

I'm so glad you brought that up because I just feel like that is the next thing after asset management is we get a list of everything that we own because we do not know all those things that we own.

Yeah. And I.

Think, did you want to say something?

Great question, because I actually asked that question myself of actually trying to figure out where all the real estate that we own as a city, because it's done in all different bureaus and everybody has a different process as it relates to how they acquire the land and how they're maintaining that land as well. And it's something that I want to tackle next, is looking at that and really trying to figure out a way. How do we consolidate real estate as a city where we're not all over the map as it relates to who has what and why they have it? Where are they holding on to that real estate for? Or is there a bigger comprehensive plan as it relates to how do we use this real estate to leverage other things in the city that we want to accomplish? So great question. As it relates to the real estate end of it. And there's conversations that I've been having internally in the last month or so about how are we wrapping our minds around how do we consolidate something like this? Because right now, it's hard to plan for anything big as it relates to how we do housing, how we're investing in these things. If we don't really understand our universe and what we truly have.

Yeah. So, you know, obviously I appreciate all that. I, we have a land banking conversation that we need to have. And I know. We just said, okay, there it is. And that's a, and that's one thing that this sets us up for the housing conversation, the, the consolidation. But I also say I use it as sort of a litmus test for where we're at, because land is literally the easiest thing to track because it doesn't move. Like if you're trying to track our vehicles, that could be a part of this garage or that garage. They move around, you might double count, you might undercount, there's problems. Land doesn't do that. So I think like, that's, that's sort of a, I'm using it as a immediate. And I do dream of a day in which we have ownership marked as city of Portland and not ownership marked as this bureau or that bureau. When we go to Portland maps.com and, you know, that's looking it up by address, and nobody's going to do that for every property. But I do think that that that's the next step, another next step. The citywide asset manager that you envisioned, what authority do you envision that position having once filled in relation to capital planning and investment, things like that.

Huge authority. That person will be operating outside of my office, so they will have access to all service areas that we have in the city, and they will be making a recommendation to me as it relates to how do we move some of these things forward, and how do we lay this out in a comprehensive fashion where council can kind of digest this information because it's it's going to be an exorbitant amount of information as it relates to our assets, how we're going to maintain it, and what's going to be the plan moving forward to finance these things as well as I kind of see it almost like a three headed monster internally into our organization where we have the asset manager, we have our city engineer, and we have our cfo really planning out a strategy for us on how do we move this stuff forward. But I'm also going to be looking through the lens of equity as well. Historically, in these type of programs, equity has kind of been on the back burner, and I don't want to see that happen for us as it relates to how do we build this out, and what does the equity lens that we're putting to the work that we're trying to accomplish as an organization? And I want to make sure this criteria is clear and understandable, not just to our elected bodies, but also to our community. And they understand what are those levers and trigger points that are causing us to make the decisions that we're making regarding why we may be moving forward or recommending funding one project over another, because we know they're all needs throughout the community. But some, from a financial standpoint, a cost of money may be more beneficial to us to invest in now than put it off to a later date. But these are all decision points that I want to make sure that we bring back to this body. So we're all on the same page of explaining what does this mean based off the decisions that council is making and the impact that it's going to have on the community?

Thanks, I appreciate that. When we were talking about slide three, it's not on the content of it, but when just kind of where in the presentation, you mentioned that there was a lack of participation from Portland police. I know that that's also the case for the communications consolidation, and that's also the case for a couple other places. Is there a let me let me ask two questions on that one each way for the sort of direct planning. The north precinct facility is, old wood needs to be replaced. There are issues in the justice center as well. Participation seems to me to be very helpful for the Portland police, and I'm unclear as to why that is. Are you doing the work? In the absence of their participation, to assess their assets to the degree that you can.

For those particular facilities, the bureau of fleet and facilities really manages them, and they have

Actually completed a public safety facilities master plan within the last five years that does really great analytical work and provides great recommendations related to those facilities. But I'm glad you bring it up, because it's one reason why this needs to be city wide to capture critical facilities like that that are in need of repairs or upgrades. And again, Portland police bureau has many competing priorities. And we do have their regularly invited. And we have some engagement. But I think because the bureau of fleet facilities oversees so many of their main facilities, they maybe don't completely see understand what their role could be and what the benefit could be to them.

Yeah, we've had a lot of priorities, conversations for the police recently, and I imagine one fewer person at the ice facility might help with that conversation. But my broader question is if how are you addressing the pattern of nonparticipation in city wide activity, given the difficulties of the org chart structure that you have? Because I know you don't supervise the police chief.

Police is a tricky situation. The bureau itself does report to the administration. What the mayor holds for police is the hiring and firing of the police chief himself. But the actual bureau itself is underneath the administration. Preview. Preview.

So you could require the bureau to participate.

That's my expectations.

Thank you. Relatedly, in the absence of dedicated staff for asset management across. Say, why is this not something. And I'm asking you now, I guess in your capacity as acting dca for public safety, couldn't this be something that is considered an enterprise service? And start the process of of moving asset management out of the bureaus and into at least the service area level as a interim step?

I think it's a great question. I want to analyze and think about that more and let that let me digest that a little bit more of how that would systematically work. Because you have police, but you also have public works, which probably has the largest majority of the assets in the whole city. So I would want something that kind of mirrors the two. From that retrospect. Let me think about that some, and I can most definitely follow up on that. And I think it's a valid point.

Excuse me, if I could just clarify. Alan vote, who's part of the community safety division, does participate on the core group. And so I think, you know, we also have that kind of representation, which I the Portland police bureau is probably taking into account as well.

Great. Alan is fantastic. So I'm happy to hear that he worked with him in the past. The. I wanted to ask sort of two other questions that are related to slides four and five. The four one was about. As you're making recommendations, it's more of a comment, actually. The other one's a question as you're making recommendations. My suggestion would be to when we talk about consolidation, differentiate what is consolidation within the administrative side of the house and what is consolidation that moves authority out from council. A lot of the. And this has nothing to do with anybody on this side, but. But a lot of the recommendations we've been getting, I've been seeing one about changing a certain type of activity from a franchise process to a licensing process. Franchises have to be approved by council licenses fairly notably do not. And so one of the. That's not necessarily the intent, but one of the outcomes of that is that council wouldn't weigh in on a on a pretty important thing. So I'm just trying to make sure that as we we differentiate that because. And this is why I think council being involved at the front end is helpful. And then the last thing in slide five, you mentioned a lot of priorities. Consistency isn't one of them. And I know that there's often a perceived tension. I think on a day to day, a perceived tension between consistency and not equity so much as urgency. Maybe what I mean by that, and I see I'm gonna use PBOT because I think it's an interesting way to do it. Instead of doing some potholes and some crosswalks and daylight, these eight intersections and do that, if we just did every crosswalk in the city, it would have a very significant not only financial savings because they're cheap, but also it would give community members a consistent experience, city consistent experience citywide on what they can expect when they are approaching an intersection of streets and for pedestrians as well. And then once that happened, we could evolve to the next thing and the next thing. And I think we're because there's a little bit of everything all over the place, and we're going to be talking about that in a later ordinance today of, of some streets being treated differently than others. I want to at least understand, is consistency a priority at all in the day to day experience of interacting with, I think the most visible asset that we have, which is our roads.

And I would answer, I would say yes, but some of this councilor Comes down to priorities as well. And I think some of this is reflective in some of the conversations that we see amongst us as leaders in the organization, as it relates to what our priorities are. We just putting out the fires of today, and that is causing this kind of mismatch of not just staying consistent. I think if we can settle upon what our priorities truly are and everyone be I'm not going to say everyone. We have a good portion of our council that is is in line with that, and we have alignment on what that is. I think that drives more home closer to the consistency that you're talking about. But since we don't have clear line of priorities as a city, I think that's where we start running into these situations where we're spending a lot of money here. We're trying to appease everyone instead of saying, hey, this is the plan. This is how we plan on achieving this as an organization. These are the resources that help us do that. And if we're looking for more, this could be a capacity question. And this is what would be the administration's recommendation on how we alleviate that as a problem. If we see something else brewing within our community that we need to address. But I think what drives that, that consistency, love, that need to have that. But I think as we have more conversations regarding, okay, this is the priorities that we have as a city and this is the things that we want to focus on. I think that addresses itself long term for us as an organization.

And to briefly add on to city administrator lee's great points, the strength of mature asset management systems is that it allows organizations to move from being reactive to being more proactive and really strategic and planned that way. And then going back to your question, the the core group has talked a lot about how do we show visible progress to the community that they can actually appreciate. And I just heard that in your question a little bit, and I think that's definitely been part of this discussion.

Thank you. Thanks, councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: I want to tell you, I just so much appreciate that comment, actually, all your comments, but particularly on consistency and because if we don't show that progress, we're never going to be able to implement any kind of long term capital strategy. So we have to show the public that we're on it. And, you know, one of my kind of facetious comments has been, you know, vigilante pothole fillers and and is there a way we can train people to do the striping on their own, you know, because it's a huge amount of, oh, I'm okay, I'm sorry, I know. Okay, sorry.

Tactical urbanism.

Tactical urbanism, whatever you want to call it. But just I'm just so worried about resources and no, no, no vigilante pothole fillers. Okay, okay. But I know it's happening in some places I can, I know it is.

I think our city attorneys would probably say no from a liability standpoint.

I think it's I think it's worth mentioning. I think it's worth.

Mentioning that if the tough starts coming in and then we don't see progress, that you will probably see it happen regardless.

Oh yeah.

You might see pictures of me doing it at that point.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah. Yeah. We're going to make a delivery of blacktop in front of your place. And I also want to mention you, you brought up licensing and there's so much inconsistency across, particularly the parks bureau. And this has come to my attention. And we haven't talked about this as a group, but I am thinking in the future, working with priya and parks of bringing a panel in to talk about that very issue and about the fact that we have assets that are only maintained because of volunteers that we are. We have such an incredible army of volunteers that take care of things all over the city that we wouldn't have the kind of parks we have without those volunteers. But there's an issue around licensing, asset management, disposition of those assets like we did Sellwood, etc. Etc. That will have a future conversation. I'm glad you brought it up. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for your comments. I, I really respect your experience and education because you were one of my first teachers about appropriations when I was in senator whiting's office and you were at TriMet. And so you taught me all the accounts and everything that I needed to know. So I, I really respect your information and understanding of, of government and public works and. Councilor Kanal. Yeah, there are $80 billion in assets in the public works service area, which they are responsible for more than 90% of the city assets. So I do understand what you're saying, but I think we are in the right place today to talk about the things that we need to get on top of. And as I was listening to this and I and I don't want dc a donna paul to, to give me the, the eyebrow look, because I'm going to ask this question and I know that ca lee will look at me the same way, but I really want, if we get this report back by September 30th, I also want you all to identify how our underserved and underinvested in neighborhoods will be prioritized in this process, and I can imagine that east Portland, I don't know where all our city properties are, but I imagine that they would be right up there at the top. And just as we we noted that potholes are rampant throughout the city, but we. We understood that potholes and sidewalks were were really underinvested in in district one and district four, and that's why we brought forward cip. So as you're looking at this, I want you to keep in mind that we do have a roadmap and that cip should also be looked at as as a priority when we're putting additional resources, because we know that we're going to come back and we're going to try to figure out ways in which to to fund cip so that we can at least get $100 million worth of work on the streets. But if you all could have that ready, and I hope it doesn't mess with your with the mayor's executive order, but it really is important to see those areas that we have been underinvested in and that really have the most egregious deferred maintenance dealt with in a way that's that's meaningful. And first, not just, you know, where we walk out of every day. We, we understand that we're in the central city and that's what we see first every day. But I invite you all to come out to my district office so that you can see a different look. It is a different look from from the central city area. That's one thing, and I hate to even talk about this because me and the the chair were talking about this yesterday, and my staff wanted me to ask this question. What should council expect in terms of the potential of doing general obligation bonds? I am really and like you, I, I don't want to ask the public for like, not one more time. So will you have that kind of information of how much we would need once we get this assessment done on, on the 30th of September, because I thought we would have more information today than we had been given in this. I thought we were going to get a whole list of things.

And I would say on that September date, I would say, give me a little bit more time because I will be hiring the asset manager role to be coming on. Hopefully, I'll start to advertise in the coming weeks since the budget has been approved. Now, to be able to get this roll on on boarded and let them really get their feet underneath them. I want to be able to come to council with a comprehensive plan and report, so that may push me a little out past the September time frame, but I also want to have the conversation with council as it relates to bonding as well. From a general obligation standpoint, what I'll be able to give you, I can give you a comprehensive list. It's going to take some time, though, to kind of break down from a standpoint of what I would recommend to council as it relates to, to the categorization and prioritization of that list. And I know that's ultimately what council is looking for.

Yes.

And that's why I say, give me a little time on that. Let me get a person on board. Let me get this citywide city engineer position filled and enrolling. So these individuals can really start moving and churning and burning as it relates to the work that's been doing. A lot of the work that has been done thus far has been a lot around the governance structure, which is critical and really reviewing and how we're moving projects up and down the list and the rationale behind it. But I'm going to really need the help of these two individuals, along with our cfo, to really make a solid recommendation on the best management practices and where we stand currently as a city and what we want to build towards as it relates to that comprehensive list, with rankings in it by bureau, because when we go to the public for general obligation bond, it's going to come in packages and we have to make the decision, you know, which package we want to move forward. Is it? A parks package is a combination of parks, PBOT and public safety. What's going to all be in these packages that we would want to move forward? I've told the council of this, and I'm looking, and I would love to be able to do a bond in 28 and really having that conversation in 27 with a proposed bond package for 28. But that's a lot of work that has to take place in.

2929 I'd like you to have that in.

29 can I.

Just add before you go on, councilor Smith, is that just to remind everybody that that that resolution and the budget amendment that we passed way back when that set this process up, says that you don't have to come back with a finance plan until the end of the year. It's September is when the asset management plan comes forward, but the money part of it doesn't have to take place until December. So there's time.

Yeah. And if you want to look at this differently, now's the time to let me know so we can start planning for this. Okay. So when we come back to council, I'm really hitting the marks that council is looking at as it relates to the deliverables in this plan. But I just want to just caveat I want to get these positions on so they can really start working through these things. So we have us a comprehensive document moving forward.

Thank you. I didn't, I guess, see, I answered your questions for you. In the in the last question that I had. And I wanted to, to be able to, to write that down because I don't know that I heard it. What are the biggest gaps that you've identified so far in the city's asset inventory and long term maintenance planning? When you were when you've been doing this over the last year?

The biggest gaps in the inventory, I might look to some of my asset management colleagues because I've been more at the strategic planning level, whereas they are more embedded in the technical side of things. I we have a working group three that is focused on data and systems like that. So I don't know. Chris silky, if you can come up.

Aye, Morillo. Chris.

Hello, good morning, chair, vice chair Smith for the record, chris silky, asset manager for parks and rec and also the chair of the citywide asset management group. If I could clarify your question, you're asking about gaps in terms of the asset inventory or about mature. Okay.

And the long term maintenance schedule and planning.

Yeah. So we're we're diving into that as we speak. And I think it's fair to say right now, it actually is reported in the city wide assets report where we have a to be determined column for all the different bureaus. And in general, the public works bureaus have a much more much more resources, much more sophistication around the asset management programs. And in general, the other bureaus are are advancing in their maturity.

I like that that is so kind of you.

I'm advancing in my maturity too.

Yes. Thank you, thank you. I just kind of wanted to kind of get an idea. And I look forward to what you bring in September.

Great.

Councilor Smith if I can add to a point of clarification in September, we look forward to bringing the asset management strategy to the council. And I think tate is taking on the lead on that. With respect to the inventory, we are working on having a consistent way in which we can form the inventory. But putting together the inventory itself, I think we can come back to you with a date by which we can report that to this committee. There's a number of dependencies. One is the house each year doing their inventory lists. The second is resources to be able to do this work. With core services realignment happening, there are some transfer of assets, resources that might. You know, we are still working with a you know, with dc warren and their team on how we would be prioritizing this. But I look forward to coming back to this committee and reporting on when that exact timeline will be. So I just wanted to it likely would not be in September back.

Yes, yes. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Councilor Smith. And thank raymond lee had to leave for another meeting, so I'm sure we'll have him back when we talk about this again. But I just want to mention two. Thank you for your comments. But I wonder if if that list can also be divided up by district. Is that something that you were asking for?

Yeah, yeah, exactly. When I spoke about the underinvested areas and underserved areas. And I think we know where they are. And so it would probably be easier to identify those within the districts. The, the separate council districts.

I just bet you some of those pipes crossed the districts, some of those needy pipes, right?

Whether it's the asset management inventory or whether it's a prioritization in unified cip, one of the requests that I've had for the team is to include district information, geographical information, so we can track where the investments are happening and also have an equity lens in the way we prioritize the projects. So we are equally eagerly invested in having that information. Councilor. And we look forward to bringing that to you.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, councilor Green. This is our last comment on this topic. I think we're going to take a break after your comment or your questions. And and then we'll come back for our last item.

Thank you.

This has been a rich discussion. I appreciate the line of questioning, councilor Smith, that you kind of brought forward. And then that engagement on sort of getting a glimpse of where the city administrator sees the bonding timeline kind of fitting. And I just want to make it really clear for folks who are following along that we're not proposing to bond for the entire backlog, which would be not possible in a jurisdiction of this size. The cost is staggering. The point of this, if you're following along, is to say, we have a disciplined approach to look at our, you know, risk adjusted backlog. And based upon that, we can we can blend in probably in blended funding models to the cip, a bonding strategy that amplifies and gets us access to capital that we may not otherwise have been able to make use of to really deliver for Portland. And so sometimes these things get clipped and people get little sort of snippets of a, of, of a discussion. I just needed to be very crystal clear that I think the work of this committee is going to set us up to have the kind of bonding discussion that is very much grounded in a iterative, staged and disciplined approach that that I think everyone on this committee and its predecessor has been committed to since the beginning of this new form of government. So thank you.

Thank you for that comment. I really appreciate it. I don't think we're not rushing to go to the ballot on anything. I'll let's take a ten minute. Let's come back here at a 1115 and we'll resume. Thank you so much. It was a great presentation. Really appreciate your time and all the effort and all the people in the room who were listening along. We appreciate everything that you're doing in asset management as well. Thank you for coming.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Already.

I know.

Oh, there it is. I'm on. Okay. Thank you. We're going to resume post break now and I'm going to ask diana to please read the next item.

Item number four, document number 2026-213. Direct the Portland bureau of transportation to evaluate and implement. No turn on red restrictions at signalized intersections within the high crash network.

Thank you. Diana, can I just make a joke here that there is no stopping these people there? Yeah, they're just we're just on it. Vice chair Smith and councilor Koyama Lane, they are on it. They have an ordinance today to address pedestrian and bike safety at signalized intersections in our high crash network. So what I'd like to do, I'm going to hand this off to my vice chair, Smith, to give us an overview of the proposal with, I'm sure, councilor Koyama Lane also making a statement. And then we're going to have a presentation, but I'll let I'll let you explain that. How about that?

Yes. Thank you. I am so happy to to introduce this today, colleagues, today I am introducing an ordinance that will fundamentally change how we try to prioritize safety at our most dangerous intersections. For years, Oregon law has allowed drivers to turn on red after stopping provided a sign didn't explicitly explicitly forbid it. But on our busiest, most complex streets, these outdated rules have exacted a deadly toll on our most vulnerable road users. Our neighbors who are walking, biking, or using wheelchairs. The data speaks for itself at hotspots like 122nd avenue and halsey street. Over 80 crashes occurred in just four years. Tragically, these collisions result in life altering injuries and fatalities. Drivers looking over their shoulders for gaps in traffic are inherently missing. The pedestrians and cyclists crossing to their right. We can no longer wait to address this issue. While turning on red is a state law, PBOT has both the authority and the engineering guidance to limit this practice to save lives. And that's what this is about saving lives. This ordinance directs PBOT to systematically evaluate and install no turn on red signs in our high crash corridors and equity priority areas. We are not doing this in a vacuum. We've already seen the success of no turn on red in pedestrian head starts in the northwest pedestrian district and school crossings. This is an incremental, proven strategy to reduce crashes by approximately 9% at signalized intersections. I'm going to turn this over to my co-sponsor, councilor Koyama Lane, who has been a big proponent of vision zero, and she's going to talk to you a little bit, why she's interested in this and in supporting this.

Thank you, vice chair Smith. It feels really good to be able to look on this dais and see broad agreement around something as important and fundamental as traffic safety. I want to be sure, first, to thank vice chair Smith for her leadership on this issue, for her partnership in bringing this ordinance forward. Councilor Smith, I see you are a tireless advocate for the black community in Portland. You are a tireless advocate for district one. It's really worth recognizing that when she's fighting for safer streets, healthier neighborhoods, better outcomes in district one and throughout Portland, and even if it's just specific to certain areas, it's making our entire city safer and healthier. That's how cities work. The benefits don't stop at district boundaries. They don't stop just in certain areas. I think it's really important that we resist the temptation to approach city government in general with a scarcity mindset, an idea that if one area or one district receives some extra attention or investment, especially if it's an area that's been historically neglected, that another area or district somehow loses, you know, when a neighborhood becomes safer for a child walking to school, when an intersection become safer for an older adult crossing the street, when we prevent a serious crash anywhere in Portland, we all benefit supporting improvements outside our own districts isn't just acceptable. I really see it as a responsibility. As city leaders, I appreciate that this ordinance acknowledges portland's vision zero framework and action plan. It identifies our high crash network as a priority for intervention, focuses on vulnerable road users, centers equitable outcomes, and reflects collaboration across bureaus and service areas. That's exactly what we want for this work, and I need to be really, really clear because I have had a lot of conversations, especially over the last couple of days, because sometimes when an ordinance or resolution is then posted, then some people see it for the first time, that's okay. That's, that's kind of that's how this works. As we move forward, I want us to stay really focused on vision zero and ensuring that every dollar we can find for transportation safety is really directed towards saving and protecting as many lives as possible. Traffic deaths and serious injuries are preventable, and our investment should reflect that reality. I want to highlight the importance of public education and community engagement as this policy is implemented, hopefully is implemented. Adopting a policy is only one step. We have to make sure that portlanders understand what changes and why, how each of us can contribute to making our streets safer. A strong public education campaign will be essential to the success of this effort. And I'm not just saying that because I'm teacher Tiffany and I like education, but it has to be part of it. So this ordinance provides an opportunity to help both the council and the broader community better understand the relationship between vision zero and the safe systems approach. So the two are closely related, but they're not the same thing. Vision zero is our goal, eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries on Portland streets. The safe systems approach is how we get there. So Portland zero strategy includes safe system principles that recognize a basic truth. People make mistakes. Our transportation system should be designed so that those mistakes do not result in deaths or life altering injuries. The safe system approach is built around several core principles that death and serious injuries are unacceptable, that people make mistakes, that human bodies are vulnerable, that responsibility is shared, that safety should be proactive, and that redundancy is essential. It also focuses on five key elements safe speeds, safe streets, safe people, safe vehicles and post-crash post-crash response. I know I'm going on kind of late. Maybe I can say some of the rest of this later, but while vision zero appropriately prioritizes the streets and intersections that make up portland's high crash network and account for a disproportionate share of traffic fatalities in our city, we should also be working towards safer systems throughout our neighborhoods. Every portlander deserves to feel safe getting where they need to go. I want to recognize the advocates and community members who have engaged thoughtfully on this issue and just want to say, as the street trust noted in its testimony, we should view a no turn on red policy as one important tool in the toolbox. It's an important one, and it's one. The broader goal is to continue identifying and implementing treatments that reduce conflicts, improve accessibility, and prevent deaths and serious injuries. At the intersections where portlanders face the greatest risk. I'll save the rest till later. Thank you.

Chair. All right.

Sounds good. I'm going to turn to my vice chair and ask, do you want to call up certain witnesses?

So are we going to do the witnesses first? Do we have any folks online.

People who have signed up to testify or do you have. Yes.

I have a we have a panel. We have Oregon walks. Okay, okay. And we have division midway alliance.

I'm online.

You're online?

Yes.

Thank you.

Hi. Nice to see you guys.

And we have eva frazier from bike loud, who I think is going to kick us off if that's okay.

Yes I thank you eva. And and thank you for moving your schedule around to come here today. I really appreciate it. Introduce yourself and sure.

Hello. Good morning. Thank you for having me. Counselors. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about the no right turn on red. So my name is eva frazier. I'm with bike loud nonprofit organization here in Portland that advocates for safer streets. Right turn on red is often treated as a normal part of driving, but it's important to note that it wasn't universally adopted before 1980, before congress passed the energy policy and conservation act of 1975, turning red on red was generally prohibited in the us. Congress legalized right turn on red in response to the gas crisis, at a time when the average car got 13.1 miles per gallon, it was implemented as a potential fuel saving measure as two lines. In a 99 page bill, the same bill allocated $750 million to building new coal mines. That's $4.6 billion of today's money. So obviously, 50 years later, things are a little bit different. Our world has changed. Our streets have changed. Portland has invested in walkable neighborhoods, bicycle infrastructure and transit, things that make Portland an incredible place to live. People want to and need to be able to bike to navigate our streets outside of a car. If you've ever spent time walking or biking on car heavy streets, you understand what it means to be a vulnerable road user. I'm here testifying today because intervening in high crash corridors is what we need. Data driven strategic action is what makes vision zero a reality. So I'm here supporting this. No right turn on red. We support the move to implement no more, no right turn on red intersections and install leading pedestrian intervals. But we're especially excited that there's a provision for education because we need to educate everyone, especially drivers, on why this is a good idea. Drivers need to understand that we're not taking something away. We're making their driving experience easier, more comfortable, and safer for everyone on the road, whether they're inside a car or not. Green means go. Red means stop. Make it simple. Research has found that right turn on red increases conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists. But even when a crash does not occur, these conflicts matter. If you're pushing a stroller, rolling in a wheelchair, walking with a cane, or holding the hand of your six year old, you know the challenges of getting across the intersection before the light changes, let alone navigating around impatient drivers. A no turn on red ordinance would not eliminate every traffic injury, but it would simplify intersection, reduce conflicts, and better align Portland street design with our vision zero goals. It would acknowledge that a policy created during the gas crisis of the 70s no longer serves us, and the realities of a city that prioritizes safe access for people walking, biking, rolling, taking, transit, and driving. I urge you to support this ordinance and work with PBOT and vision zero to make this as effective as possible, given our limited budgets. Thank you.

Thank you. Terrific. Hi, mike.

Hello, everyone. Committee chair Clark, vice chair Smith and councilors, Green and Kanal and Koyama Lane. Thank you for the invitation to come join you and speak this morning. I'm mike dennis with Oregon walks, and I'm here today to offer support for the no turn on red ordinance plus to share a couple of areas for further consideration as this moves forward. First, thank you so much, councilor Smith, for your leadership, your courage, your passion and desire for action, and for getting this conversation and this ordinance moving forward. And thank you as well to elijah and scott. I also want to thank co-sponsor Koyama Lane, who's been a tireless champion of vision zero, making it a priority of the city and the council. And thank the rest of the committee for your leadership. And I think we feel very lucky to have you in our corner as advocates for walking and rolling. I want to start with data. Oregon walks fatal pedestrian crash report analyzed every pedestrian fatality for everyone who walked and rolled and was killed over a three year period. And three takeaways really stand out for me. First, people living in east Portland are disproportionately affected. Second, a majority of fatal pedestrian crashes occurred on roads designated by PBOT as high crash corridors. And third, people who identify as black who are experiencing homelessness, who are older adults or who are people with disabilities, are all at disproportionately high risk of being killed in collisions. So this data and some of the data you all talked about as well, urgently, is telling us that we need to fix our streets to save lives. No turn on red is an established tool in the toolkit to help. It can make intersections safer, and we applaud this ordinance's approach of identifying the most impactful locations, focusing on high crash networks and focusing on equity areas. Applaud how it leverages PBOT experience and and subject matter expertise, and also applaud that it's setting up a first phase to really test road test everything, see how the costs and the impacts come together. As councilor Smith has mentioned, this is not a silver bullet, but it is progress and we need progress. I want to take just a second to share a few areas for further consideration as this develops. First, monitoring and enforcement are both featured in the language raising questions of how do we assess the trade offs around accountability and safety and equity and costs. And second, mentioned just some of the costs in the impact statement. Need a little tighter scrutiny. I know that that we're working on that, and I think there may be some language to update that. And related to the costs, we just want to recognize that there aren't funds that come with this ordinance to implement it. Raising questions about trade offs, where the funding comes from and how we can control costs so that we're really putting our dollars to the most important places.

And just so that you know that this is coming from the tough, this is coming, we we did a set aside. I don't know if you followed that, but thanks to councilor Koyama Lane, there was a set aside, put aside for vision zero to do these kinds of things. So there is a funding source for this. And we're going to be updating each intersection. And I think it went from 1500 to $4000. And we're putting that in a in an amendment to update the numbers that we originally had. But we do have a funding source for this.

That's great to hear on the numbers, the per intersection numbers. And also, yes, there's a 12.5% coming out of the tough provision zero, and certainly want to think through the the approach and how we are landing these intersections and these no turns on red at the right places. So appreciate your comments on that and the update.

Thank you.

And last, I would just share PBOT involvement and engagement is going to be critical to success. And the question we're kind of wrestling with is, how can PBOT and their expertise best be harnessed? So a very last thing I'll say, and this is really thinking on a grander scheme on a higher plane than maybe is helpful. We also just want to urge the committee, as was mentioned, to lean in to the vision zero action plan as a strategic north star and cornerstone to really help guide investment. So we're we're putting our dollars in the most impactful place. This is something that Oregon walks has been in a conversation with the pedestrian advisory committee about. We may have a couple of like very high level ideas and thoughts we could share with the committee at a future point in this. But for now, we want to just circle back and say, no, turn on. Red moves the ball forward. It makes Portland safer and it saves lives. Thank you. Thank you, councilor Smith. Thank you, chair Clark and co-sponsor Koyama Lane and the full committee.

Thank you so much for your remarks. I really appreciate that. And whenever we call to to get information and feedback, you all were really willing to to share that with me and my staff. And so I look forward to continuing that relationship. And we did go back and when you mentioned about the numbers, we did go back to

Pbot about the numbers and said, okay, look at this. Where are we? Are we where we need to be? And so we work with them. And those numbers did increase. So thank you for for noting that for us. That was that was so important. I want to see if is lorena.

Yes.

Hi, lorena.

Hi. Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes.

Okay. Okay. Good morning everyone. Thank you for having me. My name is lorena mora, and I'm the programs and partnership manager at division midway alliance. And I'm speaking today in support of councilor Smith's no turn on red ordinance. So division midway alliance is a place based nonprofit serving residents and businesses along one of east portland's highest crash corridors. Our work focuses on building a safe, resilient, and economically thriving community through culturally specific, community driven programs. And also transportation equity is central to that work that we do. According to the 2025 Portland deadly traffic crash report, pedestrians accounted for 51% of all traffic crash deaths, with 20 pedestrian fatalities reported in 2025. We frequently organize community safety walk and bike events along the division corridor to raise awareness about transportation and pedestrian safety issues and promote safer travel for community members. The division corridor intersections continue to be one of the greatest safety concerns. During our workshop and focus groups, we repeatedly hear from community members how improvements like protected bike lanes, raised medians, and more frequent crosswalks have still not helped with making division corridor or several parts of east Portland street feel safer. Many of the community members we serve rely on walking and public transit every day to get to work, school, medical appointments and to run errands and some of the dna guided safety walks training. We teach the community how to make eye contact with drivers and stay alert. Because drivers making right turns are often focused on finding a gap in traffic instead of looking for someone in the crosswalk. No one should have to rely on making eye contact just to safely cross the street. This ordinance would help the high crash corridors in district one by addressing one of the safety risks, turning conflicts between vehicles and people walking or biking, prioritizing no turn on red at intersections with high pedestrian activity near transit stops, schools, parks, libraries and other community destinations is a practical step that will help prevent crashes and save lives. Additionally, we urge the city to prioritize infrastructure investments in east Portland to improve safety, accessibility and mobility for all community members. On behalf of division midway alliance, we ask you to support this ordinance and continue investing in transportation policies that put the safety of people first. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much, lorena, and I really appreciate it. You all had a culturally specific training about three weeks ago, and I was able to attend, and it was targeting seniors and youth in the community. And we walked around the 122nd. We were in the mill park neighborhood. And I think what was the the side street that we we walked on.

117117. No sidewalks.

Exactly. So we walked in, we felt like we were in daycare because we were all walking in single file. And what they did was what's so important is with the division midway alliance did they taught us how to walk in the street without sidewalks. And there's a white line in explaining to the seniors that you can walk in the street as long as you are inside this white line. And so we all walk the white line in that in that area. And then we went we walked to to mill park, got some more education and training, asked questions, and then the street around mill park, it didn't have the white lines. And what lorena and those folks did, they asked, okay, what could have been better? And everybody appreciated the white lines. I don't want folks to go out there and put their own white lines out there, but it was really nice because they got used to it. And then we walked around and on 122nd and division, there is a no turn on red. And so there was additional training that was done. So what you all are doing is important and it may not seem like you get, you know, hundreds of people, but I think just, you know, chipping away at it, continuing to do that education, continuing to reach to reach out to culturally specific communities to make sure they know how to walk in their neighborhoods. They're not driving all the time. I, I was kind of fearful when I was out walking last year. And this is what, what kind of inspired me to figure out some ways in which I can make people who are rolling, walking and riding bikes to, to have a safer experience. And after looking at the high crash corridors and seeing that seniors and folks of color, they were they were getting they were getting targeted, not not specifically targeted, but they were a, a target community that had been experiencing fatalities and injuries out on 122nd. And so with this ordinance really does is it gives PBOT the the latitude to identify those those 30 high crash corridors, which I can safely say about 80% of them are in district one, but they can pick and choose. And since we are actually we're we're replacing those those lights, we can do that in a way that that is meaningful and more cost effective. Where is peter? Here he is here.

Do you want to invite cindy?

Yeah. And I'll and I'll. Is andy here?

Yes, yes.

She's online.

Thank you.

And before peter or and.

We have.

Director williams speaks. I'm going to have indy speak first. But I just wanted to shout you out lorena. And the good work that you all are doing and thank you. Keep it up. Continue to invite me and my staff because we enjoy doing that. Thank you. Yeah. Indy.

Thank you, vice chair Smith, chair Clark, members of the committee, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning. For the record, I'm indy namkung I'm your fourth panelist this morning, everybody. I'm the transportation justice coordinator for and a registered lobbyist for verdi. Verdi partners with communities who are most impacted by environmental injustices to develop solutions that can create economic and collective well-being. We're based in the cully neighborhood, but we work closely with and provide services and support for members of low income and immigrant communities and communities of color around east Portland and Gresham. We hear from people pretty constantly about their concern for the safety of transportation in their neighborhoods. So roads like sandy boulevard, 122nd avenue, where traffic travels a dangerous speeds. We hear about struggles with poor lighting and unsafe crossings, unfinished sidewalks, and really limited access to transit on our streets. And we know that black and latino and indigenous pedestrians are much more likely than our white counterparts to die or be seriously injured from a traffic crash across the country and here in Portland. Beyond the immediate physical harm, this also impacts people's opportunities and sense of safety and freedom. In Portland, I grew up with two parents who worked full time jobs, so I walked myself and my sister to school just by herself, starting at a very young age. But if my parents couldn't trust that it was safe for us to cross the street in our neighborhood, how would that have affected their work, our family's income, our futures? And how is that affecting Portland families today? Those are the really the questions that brought us here this morning. So I want to speak in appreciation of the initiative from vice chair Smith and her staff, as well as councilor Koyama Lane, in taking this issue up and working with the advocates present this morning and others who aren't present to develop this proposal to this point. As you've heard from eva, we've been living with red on red policies for a while and definitionally, they prioritize speed and convenience for drivers over the safety of everybody using the road. And again, low income communities of color have been carrying the heaviest costs of that arrangement. The unwinding such a long standing deal would be challenging for PBOT to carry out on their own. Council has a really important role to play in giving the bureau the direction that they need. Oh, pardon me, my window just did something silly. The direction that they need and the backing that they need to make this happen. And also I want to uplift an outstanding question that's that I have around opportunity costs that I hope the committee will explore. And I believe the forthcoming amendments may answer for us if this ordinance passes, knowing that PBOT resources are still quite constrained, what will it take in terms of resources costs to implement it? And what, if anything, would be delayed or deprioritized to do it? I want to be abundantly clear. This answer is probably not a reason not to proceed, but council and the public need to understand how this work integrates with and can happen alongside the other critical vision zero tools like lighting, like sidewalk completion, like traffic calming that our communities also urgently need. So I'm asking you to work with PBOT, your pedestrian advisory committee, and other knowledgeable advocates and leaders to make sure that this can all happen. I think the forthcoming amendments that are going to clarify the overall project cost pair no turn on red signage with complementary strategies like leading pedestrian intervals, and will clarify site prioritization. I think that's all going to be super helpful in dialing this in and moving it forward. Finally, I just really want to echo eva and mike and some of this morning's earlier conversation around long term capital strategies to urge you to work with PBOT to develop a more complete picture of the places where council intervention is needed to ensure PBOT has the resources and direction and backing to meet our vision zero goals. This is not the only thing out there. I'm hopeful that this could look like a to do list for council action that could supercharge the city's ability to progress as far as we can, as fast as we can, and in some places, get out of our own way. We'd be really excited to discuss this in future and support you in this effort. So thank you for your time and all of your work on this.

Thank you. Andy, I'm going to ask diane, is there anybody else, anybody signed up to testify here today?

No one signed up for testimony.

Thank you. Let's proceed.

Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to testify that did not get on the list? We just wanted to make sure that we had all those voices. Andy, thank thank you for that. And I'm going to go back in again. And I worked with wendy crawley to, to help me with the with the numbers so that, see, I, I'm, I am really, I think that y'all pay attention to everything that we do. So I'm going to say it again. Councilor. Koyama Lane passed an amendment to the tough that sets aside money for vision zero type activities, which this qualifies for. And so we have money in the budget to do that. And as I'm looking at wendy's assessment, and we're going to change some of these, and we'll have a a manager's amendment to change the numbers that we have before we take it up to big council. But she did identify 400,000 per intersection and approximately up to 800,000 to do all of these, these 30 high crash corridors. And it may be less, but 90% of these are in district one in most of the underinvested underserved areas. And so I'm looking forward to that. And I'll ask director williams to speak. And then then after that, peter, you can you can add your technical comments.

We also have plenty of questions from the other councilors, too.

Okay.

I'll be very brief. Thank you very much. Millicent williams, director of the Portland bureau of transportation. Thank you for the opportunity to do this really incredibly important work. You've acknowledged that you've worked with the city traffic engineer, wendy cully to adjust the numbers related to what it takes to do what appears to be a simple thing, and probably a cost effective thing, a cheap, a cheap solution, when in fact it is not. So each intersection would be not 400,000, but 4000, with a total of 800 000 for 30 intersections. No, sorry, the total would be 100. I'm sorry. I'm looking at.

Thousand per intersection.

200 priority intersections would cost approximately 800 000. If we were to do 30 priority intersections in the high crash network on the high crash crash network streets, 90% of which are in district one, that would be roughly 120 000. So we would be using, yes, tough funds to do that. Also leveraging some of the existing funds that the transportation operations team has dedicated to signals signalization and the very work that you're proposing to ensure that we are able to cause the dollars to go as far as they can, leveraging the investment to make sure that we are both meeting the objectives that are already a part of what the traffic operations team is designed to do, as well as meet the spirit of what's intended through the funding that comes from the tough. Acknowledging also that there are a full list of other things that we will want to make sure we're considering as we're thinking about how to best invest that vision zero investment, that comes from the tough funding that we have received. So excited about the opportunity. I will hand it over to peter kuntz, who is the internationally acclaimed, award winning. Yes, he's an amazing engineer that we have on our team to speak to some of the technical that will help to inform how we move this work forward.

Thank you.

Chair Clark, vice chair, Smith, councilors. Thank you very much. Peter kuntz. He him pronouns and the signal systems manager for the city of Portland. The director said it very succinctly. We will do this work and combine it with other works, really looking to bundle the work so that we're doing safety improvements as we improve our assets. So things like pedestrian head starts will add the no turn on red sign as a part of that. So that will be just a added value on top of the work that we're already doing. The high crash corridor, the work that the vision zero team has done to lay those things out have really matched our design standards. So it just is a matter of time until we get to those. Your direction on this is very helpful in terms of encouraging our staff to make sure that we're looking for these triple wins where we have them, and we can deliver on those safety improvements very quickly with your direction. So thank you very much for the support here.

The other thing that we did not talk about was the enforcement piece, and me and wendy talked about this, and there's there's a piece in there for Portland police bureau, and there's some technology that we can use, which is the lidar. While it is not the enforcement piece, it gives additional information. It can tell if you if you were turning on red or not. And that information can be moved over to, to the police or whoever is doing the enforcement, if it's from PBOT or.

Would be police, that would do the enforcement.

Okay. Yeah. And so could you explain to the council, to my council about leader peter, and give them a good description of what it does?

Sure. Council. Smith, you've clearly done your homework on this. This is wonderful. Lighter is an emerging technology that we have been exploring with our research with Oregon state university. They have tested this for us and validated that we can install these sensors temporarily in a way that essentially will highlight when a no turn on red violations are occurring. And then we can share that information as necessary to highlight where enforcement might be best placed. It's tying very closely with the safety cameras that we've already installed, but it's giving us an opportunity to look ahead so that when we make those investments, we'll get the the best out of that, that those limited resource that we have. So we're super excited about this new technology as a way to essentially do a light touch to understand where the safety investments are really be best applied.

I love the stacking of this capital stack for, you know, us doing this work. This is, this is really good. I love it and I think that it's going to save lives. And it is also going to put folks to work. And so for me, it is it is a triple threat of a kind of policy that that we're going to put forward that is going to use the taxpayer dollar in a way that is so meaningful and you can really feel it. I'm going to turn this over to councilor to chairwoman Clark.

Olivia Clark: Thank you, councilor Smith. This has been a great discussion. I've already learned a lot. I just wanted to ask a question before I turn it over to councilor Green in the ordinance under f, it says that that PBOT will provide the council a written implementation plan within 90 days of the passage of the ordinance, and then it lays out all the elements of the implementation plan. I'm going to ask director williams, is that reasonable? Is that enough time? I'm a little worried about resources because it lists the. This is just the first phase of intersections. The estimated cost, the funding source. The anticipated installation timeline. Is. This really 90 days give you enough time. After presuming this passes.

Well, I looked at peter, who would be helping to ensure that this happens and he nodded. Yes. So what's good about this work and what's great about the team, is that they're always looking for ways to improve the system. So there's a lot of work that's already been done that they can depend upon to inform this strategy. So we believe that 90 days would be sufficient to be able to report back to this body how we intend to implement the work. And excited about getting started. I did want to mention also not anecdotally, as much as it is something that I should have mentioned when we were talking about the cost per intersection, and that it is a little bit more costly than one would think. I had asked this team to do some work on an at an intersection where there was a right turn on red restriction, and what was explained to me was that it was not just as easy as going up on a ladder or a boom truck and taking off the sign, but it actually required a certified electrician to remove the sign, because the pole at the location of the sign was electrified. And so there needed to be a great level of care taken with even placing or removing signage and other things. So I just wanted to mention that because I know a lot of times people are like, oh, that costs so much. Oh, why does it a good electrician? Yeah, if you can get one is quite expensive. And so we do have electricians in house, but sometimes we do have to work with the consulting community or the contractor community to do that work. But even if it is in house work, we're using different tiers of employees to do certain work. And so it does increase the cost. I just wanted to acknowledge that. But yes, we should be able to finish the work.

Thank you for that clarification, and thank you for giving me confidence that you can do this in 90 days.

Peter said. So. So I believe.

Peter says so, but let me just also note that we don't have any tough money until next year. It doesn't you know, we don't we don't have these funds for a while. So we're going to need more time for those funds to accumulate. I'm just a little worried about the.

That is something that we've thought about. Thank you for raising the concern. We're going to be using our montgomery ward credit card to put all these things on. Know what we intend to do is track really closely. If we are making expenditures that are dedicated toward the tough. Making sure that we account for it appropriately, and then, when appropriate, backfill the the gap that may be left.

Okay, good. Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you. Thank you to the sponsors for bringing this forward. I'm highly supportive of the ordinance. I think I guess my question really is about I haven't seen this style of ordinance be used yet in this body. Usually. Usually we're doing ordinances, code changes, or we're doing sort of resolutions as kind of requests of the administration to do a thing. And so I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is novel to me. So I'd like to sort of talk through with the sponsors how you settled on this approach and why you think it's superior to, say, a resolution or a code change? Anyone of you?

Well, either one would have to be an ordinance. And so we put it in ordinance form, the way that council operations likes to have it. But the way we we outlined it so that people could see exactly what we were planning to do and what the what the issues were like, you know, the a, b, c, d that now that therefore.

Let me clarify my question because I, I think it's the right thing to do. I think what you've done is you brought forward an ordinance as a directive from council that says, this isn't really a suggestion or request. This is what we. This is the will of council. Yes. And I think that will be important as we move into our broader set of business because. You know, we we pass laws that change our code, and then you hope that the administration executes that that legislative change. And then we have to come in and do oversight. But it's there's probably a sliver of an angle here to say, this is a codified directive. Essentially, this is a sort of has force of law. And so.

We gave them a little bit, we, we, we gave them a little bit of direction. And based on some of the, some of the things that we found from vision zero. But I think that saving lives of people who are walking, rolling, and in our high crash corridors, that is the. That is the crux of what this no turn on red is that we identify those those 30 high crash corridors. And in fact, the the 30 is going to be less than $200,000. And so we wanted to start something. I don't know if you heard about the the fatality that we had on, on halsey and 111th. And, you know, we have older adults that are that that are losing their lives in our community and they're coming from my district. And so for me, this is I think this is something that people can understand and that this is the way that we've done most of our our ordinances. And I know what you're saying, we you change code 25.236. And instead of doing this. And so we have another code change that we're going to come up with, with the curb extensions and making those curb extensions mandatory instead of voluntary or preferred. I appreciate that. And that's coming up too. So there'll be simple things, but but I don't want to I don't want to pretend that, you know, the numbers are at about 9 or 10%, that this is going to be the end all to beat all because really reducing speed is going to be the thing that that reduces fatalities. But this is just one more way to do it. And so I hope that you can.

No thank you, councilor. And I'm going to vote yes on this.

Councilor are you thinking that this is just cluttering the.

No no no no, I this is a committee and this is the place to have some of the kind of broader discussion. And for me, this feels like a bit of an innovation on the way that we do business because we typically file resolutions or code change ordinances. And this is not a code change ordinance. This is a directive ordinance. And so I'm trying to sort of have the discussion on why that's a good tool here. I think it is. And I want to be crystal clear. I'm not saying this is not a priority, and I really value that you guys stepped up to do this. I think I think there will be other needs for us to engage in ordinance language, to get the administration to do things that they're not already doing. And so I'm really trying to make sure we're establishing a record of, of why it is that we're showing up in this, this specific type of way, because we've done a lot of resolution stuff that sort of says, well, you please look into this. Give us a report by x, y, z date. This is quite different.

So this is identifying money. So if you identify money you got to put an ordinance through.

Okay. So that's.

That's that's it.

Yeah.

Councilor. Koyama Lane. Did you have anything to add to that?

I was just.

Looking to see if any. I saw a couple nods with, but if there's anything that wanted to be added from PBOT about. About the ordinance and.

It seems.

Like could this be a resolution?

It could, but it's also this is also a question.

This is not a question that we should be answering this question.

It's a it's a legal.

It's a it's a.

Legal question. And I think I appreciate councilor Green asking this. And and I also hear what vice chair Smith is saying is that part of it is. Wanting to give really clear direction and show how important this is. And also the piece because there is there are specific dollars attached to this that that is that is some of why we're choosing to go this direction.

Thank you. I'll be curious to see what the amendments are. There's been some discussion of amendments here, maybe more than one. I'll be curious to see what those are. But I think this is a great step forward. I would be interested in in addition to this, maybe not this action, but another action pursuing a directive to put some of those flex posts in the daylighting section that hoboken, new jersey, does. That has been the reason why they don't have any more pedestrian fatalities at their intersections. And there was like $20 that their that, that that's costing them. And so. Thank you.

Yeah.

You're welcome.

Colleagues, we only have 20 minutes left if we're going to act on this. So. Councilor Koyama Lane, you're next in the queue.

I'm going to say my first one really quick. I know it's not that important, but director williams, are you purposely wearing your vision zero orange today or that just happened?

I am not, but thanks for noticing.

I it's helpful to hear that it's helpful to you all to get council direction. And in terms of encouraging the staff to lean in a certain direction, I understand that we need complementary strategies to continue exploring. So this is really a comprehensive thing. I do you know, I shared earlier, this ordinance is a starting point and, and pointing out to other things that we're kind of just said. But I know the pedestrian pedestrian advisory committee has suggested additional measures like the programing, traffic signals to rest on red. I've learned more about that, you know, so if it's the evening and you're not coming up to like Green, Green, Green, but that you are forced to slow down and stop that, that helps. And that making signal timing adjustments when feasible. That was just mentioned. I was wondering if you could share a bit. I hear some of this from our citywide vision zero lead, dana dickman. But some of that is happening or has recently been happening. Is that do you guys want to talk a little bit about that and make sure the public knows?

Sure, yes. We are very active in all those various spaces. As the testimony described. We are using every tool in our toolbox, resource constrained. But recognizing that this work is important. And so we are willing to explore a wide variety of alternatives to meet the moment when we're trying to address every district in the city of Portland.

And what is I mean, we can talk about this later. I'm wondering what is needed from council to help continue to keep that ball moving. As we said, I had heard that just in the last couple of months that there were some some re signaling some changes.

And if I'm being completely honest, the biggest barrier to us being able to do as much as we might like to do is a lack of funds. So the work that you've already done to help to identify funding allows for us to, in lean in to the innovation, lean in to the improvements, lean in to the overall implementation and maintenance of the work or the system that we have in place. The, the. I don't want to suggest that any one part of our organization efforts cost more than another, but this is pretty costly work. The safety work sometimes is rather costly, although there are many innovations that are are cheaper to implement, such as the flex posts. But that that's the main thing that's needed. Our teams are ready to dig in to solving problems, and while the direction is helpful and supports our efforts to move forward, we. Without absent direction funding, would allow us to move forward in ways that you all and the public would expect. I think people are expecting us to do things. The answer that I hate to give people my most least liked response is we don't have funding. We don't have authority to do that based on our budget. I don't like that to be our answer, although it often is. So if we had funding, we could be more thoughtful. We talked about it just this morning in a PBOT all staff where we talked about. Now, because of the tough, we are now able to breathe for five seconds and plan our work. Not just be reactive, but to be proactive. And so that's, that's the main thing that I think will help us to be able to do the work that you're proposing and that you'd like to see.

That makes sense. And it will be excited when we have those funds. And I agree with executive director dennis that this moves the ball forward. It saves lives. I really appreciate that. Vice chair Smith has been so open in working with different groups and reaching out and having conversations, and it sounds like there might be some openness if we want to talk about some some language adjustments. Happy to help with any of that after this meeting. Because I know like while it's beyond the scope of this ordinance, there are a lot of great ongoing conversations about how to slow people down. We know speed remains one of the most significant factors in determining whether a crash becomes a fatality. So yes, I will stop there. Looking forward to supporting this ordinance today as a first step.

Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane. And we have about ten minutes left. So. Councilor. Kanal.

Thanks, chair. Clark I don't know how the timing will work on this. I have some questions that came up from the presentation and some that were answered. So thank you, councilor Smith and Koyama Lane for bringing this forward. Definitely in support of the underlying value here of of supporting pedestrian and bicyclist safety. A couple things I want to get on the record here to ensure that we're prioritizing the resources that are limited on the conditions that are most negatively affecting safety. One clarification first, there's in the ordinance impact statement. It refers to background information provided in two places, but there's no exhibit. What is the background information that's being referenced in the financial and budgetary impact section and in the economic and real estate development impacts.

So I.

I have some new information from wendy, and I believe that is the, you know, what the cost is going to be and what the number of intersections that we're going to, that we're going to look at instead of the 200, it's going to be the 30. And instead of the 800, it's going to be the 4000. So it's going to be under $200,000.

Okay, I just so but there's nothing in here I'm missing. There's. Will it be added at some point?

It is. It is going to be added. Yes. There's going to be a manager's package that's going to be added before we send it up to the council.

Okay. I'm hearing about the 9%, but I'm unclear on how many of the crashes that we're talking about are actually caused by, or have a nexus to a right turn on red. So I know, you know, for example, the number of people. You know, the, the number of people killed in the city last year or any of the previous years. Do we know how many of those had a nexus to a right turn on red?

We would have to come back to you with that information. I don't have it offhand. We have analysis on each of the crashes that have resulted in fatalities. I will be able to provide that for you, but I don't have it on hand right now.

Okay. Where did the 9% come from then? Is that the.

It's the number of intersections that are proposed in on the high crash corridors. 90% of them are in the in district one.

Not not not the 90.

Are you referring to the safety benefit of 9% crash reduction? I believe that's from the federal highway administration. I think you referenced it in your testimony, but I believe that's a federal highway administration crash modification factor number that they've studied many different cities and brought that information together. Now, there is some distinction between a city, say, such as Washington, d.c. That is banned, right turn right across the city or new york city, who historically has always had a ban on right turn on red. So I think the understanding of the rules of the road is an important factor in terms of driver behavior and having the crash benefits come out to be what they'll be as a part of our implementation in Portland. So I think that's part of our work that we have yet to do, is to understand if we apply them on the high crash corridors, what will our benefits potentially be based on the crash history that we've had and the the site specific elements of each intersection that we're going to deploy them?

And I appreciate that. And I'd want that information before being asked to, to vote on something. And to be clear, even if it if it is 9%, I'm not expecting everything we do to solve every problem. I think that's you know, I agree with councilor Koyama Lane that solving a part of it is good, even if it's not everything. I'm just trying to understand because there are trade offs, right? How? I guess it may not be 200 priority intersections anymore, but if it was the timeline for that, does that align with the 90 days? Like how, how long would that actually take to roll this out?

The rollout we would have to schedule with the crews. I think that's a to be determined sort of situation based on the equipment that we would deploy and the locations. Some locations are going to be very simple. It's going to be putting up a sign on a post. Some will require overhead work that electrical crews will do as the director suggested. So we'll sort through that in the next 90 days. Essentially plot that out and then make sure we can deliver the short term wins for the low hanging fruit that we can do tomorrow, or the ones that maybe have to go out a couple months to make sure that we get all the equipment and have the crews scheduled that are maybe require more traffic control, that will be a little bit more involved.

Process and councilor I didn't, the complete work is not going to be done in 90 days. The plan to do the work is 90 days. And so once we get the plan and we can dissect other things. But I think it's important that we get this ordinance out today and that we vote on it. And, you know, I'd like to to move to be able to put this out there, madam chair, so that we can get this vote. I mean, after you get after you get finished. No, no, no, councilor After you get finished.

Okay, I, I appreciate the, the desire for urgency. I, I haven't even gotten. Yeah. Are any of these intersections or how many these intersections are red light intersections on the high crash network. If you could ballpark a guess or are we expecting most of them to already have those cameras?

Oh, the, the automated enforcement cameras, we, we probably haven't done that crosstalk yet to, to kind of confirm exactly which intersections are the high crash corridors that have automated enforcement. So that would be something that we'd explore in the next 90 days.

Okay. So the thing that came up that was surprising for me, and which I absolutely need more information on before I'd be comfortable voting yes on this is this whole business of lidar. Can you walk us through? I mean, I'm not I want to reduce traffic deaths. I don't want to create a surveillance state. So I'm trying to understand what the trade offs here are. And this is the first time I'm hearing about that part of it. So if I can get some more information on that, what are we looking at here?

Okay. Sure. Lidar is a essentially a better than the camera surveillance that is essentially tied to all the other tools that are commonly used in traffic engineering. So lidar essentially is just we use radar, microwave radar today that doesn't pick up all the different people that are on the street. So lidar is just an enhanced technology that is not surveillance based. So we can't get images of from lidar. It's just essentially objects. So it is from all my research, essentially surveillance technology free. It's not it wouldn't be used for surveillance at all by any stretch of the imagination.

Would we be contracting this out for ongoing operations, or would it be something we're just buying physical material from somebody?

It's buying a physical material from someone that we can use, and then bring that data back to our our essentially servers.

So nobody outside the city would have access to that.

That is correct.

And would it be managed by PBOT or by PPB?

Pbot.

Okay. Is that written down anywhere, or is that something that you can work on in the amendment process that we're talking about?

Absolutely.

Because I'm seeing, I guess the broader question I have is about h, because h, and you have the h, and I start talking about the the education period. And then I about the maybe enforced and h mentions PBOT and PPB, but I doesn't mention any particular bureaus. And I just would love to get an understanding of what's your, what are you envisioning there? We tried some of us to instruct PPB in the budget to prioritize overtime spending on traffic priority projects that failed. I don't know about the capacity issues there. Off the top of my head as it relates to this, without knowing the scale, the scale of their work workload that be added based on this. So if you can give more information on that for specifically the I portion, that would be really helpful to me. I.

May I councilor Yeah, please. On both h and I, those are items that we would need to engage in deeper conversation with PPB on. The education first approach is something that we are supportive of, but the ultimate enforcement, again, rests with them. So we would need to have that commitment from PPB as a function of doing this work. And so I am not able to, as the Portland bureau of transportation speak to the 30 day education period without having a partnered conversation with PPB to ensure that the goals that are intended here would be met and understood fully.

I appreciate.

That I don't plan to bring this to the big council until we have all of that information, but I'm saying that we need to start this conversation because it is going to be a conversation that that that has to it's going to have the administration, PBOT and PPB involved with it. So it's not something that I'm getting ready to bring, but I know for sure we need to start this, but we need to we need to pass this and take a vote on this today. You can you're certainly welcome not to vote for it, and I understand, but it's not going to the. I am not requesting that it goes on the big the big council yet until some of these things are are nailed down.

So I appreciate that commitment. I I'm not understanding. My understanding is that the point of the committee system is to get something that is complete, if not necessarily in its final version by the time it gets to the council. Right now, I'm hearing I don't have an attachment. I. Pb is not here as far as I'm aware, so I'm just asking the questions I got and I it's not my fault. I got, you know, ten minutes left.

No, nothing. Nothing is your fault. It's you can vote no. I'd like to limit debate, madam chair, and to see how we can do that. We end at 1230 so we can take a vote. And those who are really concerned, they can vote in the negative. And I will certainly take all of your concerns into consideration.

I'm happy to entertain a motion.

I'd like to move this ordinance forward.

Point of.

Order.

I don't I think councilor Kanal still have the floor.

Sameer Kanal: So I'm sorry. Yeah. Thank you.

Just making sure does that last piece of the h follow up you just mentioned, director williams. Does it involve another council touch point, meaning you said I appreciate you clarifying the limits of what you can say on behalf of another bureau. But if after your, you know, after this vote or whatever, after this meeting, if you go and discuss with PPB and then there is an idea, a joint idea of what how you'd split up responsibilities, what that would look like for I guess both h and I does that is the anticipation that that comes back to council is anticipation that that is part of the final vote on this. If it's at the full council, or is this something that just happens in later?

Thank you for the question, councilor. I don't believe that. That's a question that I can answer. It's regarding. It should be something that I believe the city attorney's office would have to address or this body would need to address. I am not able to speak to whether or not we would be coming back to council with that. If we were invited to, we would.

Okay. And then you. It's been mentioned, councilor Clark point. Sorry. Councilor Smith pointed out that the earmark for vision zero was put into the tough and the money would come from that. After the tough passed, did you in PBOT lay out what you want to use that money for? Is there a plan for it or is it right now we haven't gotten that far. Meaning is there an understanding of what the trade off is?

We did very soon after the passage of the tough. Understand that councilor Smith was interested in moving this work forward that has come. It has been taken into consideration as we think about the overall plan that we are working on right now, and we hope to come before this body to address in the coming weeks.

That's great news and good job. On that last question, if it was mentioned that PBOT involvement engagement is going to be critical to success by our our first testifiers, what's the conversation around PBOT engagement looking like here? Do we anticipate it's going to be just the people who have an address on these streets? Is it going to be people who use the intersections? I'm listening to feedback in my district about Willamette crossing right now, and about limiting limited geographic scope to the engagement. I'm just trying to understand how are we going to avoid some of the somewhat avoidable, but certainly predictable backlash if there's, you know, by doing the engagement prior to rolling things out?

Thanks for the question. Your observation is well noted, and we speak often about the extent of our engagement and who should be included in the project influence area for something like this. This actually would require a larger effort than just going to the people who we think would be using the street. This is a city wide engagement effort. We have to let people know that there's going to be a change to the way that we are essentially doing business. And so this is more of a campaign versus just a targeted outreach effort for folks who live in adjacency to or close proximity to the, to the intersections that would be working on. So it'll be a widespread effort. I don't anticipate that just because it's in district one, that someone from district four would never go into east Portland to traverse the roads and need to know that there is going to be the expectation that they do not turn right on red. This also, in my view, sets us up for the broader conversation, which I think is a valid one, which is how do we return to a space of the expectation being that no one turn right on red at any intersection marked or not. It's similar to the parking setback for vision clearance. People should not be parking up to the stop sign. They do. We are now having to put things in place to enforce that, but if we just depended on the base law, people wouldn't be doing it anyway. So we have some opportunity to do a widespread campaign around how we are adjusting the infrastructure to meet the expectations outlined in this ordinance. And it would not be limited just to those who we believe or anticipate would be most affected by it.

Thank you. Thank you, chair Clark.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. I didn't have my thing on, so I'm happy. If there's no more discussion today to entertain a motion.

I'd like to move this forward for a vote.

Second.

Okay. The motion has been moved by councilor Smith. It is document number 2026 213 and seconded by councilor Koyama Lane. Are there any further discussion? Okay. Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Kanal.

Vote yes on referring it today with the. Note that I want those questions answered or I'll be a no on it at the full council. So I.

Koyama Lane thank you everyone. I vote aye.

Green I.

Smith I.

Clark I.

With a vote of five eyes the motion to refer the ordinance document number 2026-213 to city council with the recommendation that be passed, has passed.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Thanks to all of our witnesses and it was an excellent meeting today. We dove deep into a lot of important issues. I want to also note is that eva, eva, I really appreciate that historical context that that meant a lot to me to hear what you had to say. I really appreciate that. And we obviously will massage this more and we have more to learn, but really appreciate the co-sponsors bringing this forward. So with that, friends, I will adjourn the meeting. Our next one is July the 14th, and we'll have updates on the agenda before then. Thank you.

Thank you.