The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-10-22
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (31,028 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council convened its regular session on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, opening with a pre-gavel proclamation recognizing Breast Cancer Awareness Month, featuring remarks from a youth advocate, a Knight Cancer Institute program director, an American Cancer Society volunteer, and the Pink Lemonade Project's CEO on early detection, screening access, and dense-tissue disclosure requirements; figures on screening declines and survival rates were stated inconsistently across speakers. Roll call confirmed all councilors present. During public communication, testifiers raised issues including federal immigration enforcement actions, rideshare driver pay and deactivation policies, and the Prime Contractor Development Program's status. The council then heard and voted on a $300,000 settlement in a police-records case involving a wrongful conviction claim, with discussion of accountability, prosecutorial immunity, and officer discipline; a vote occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The council also passed a second-reading ordinance adopting state building codes, and after extended debate and multiple amendments, advanced a resolution directing disparity studies on city contracting and workforce participation, which was held over to a future meeting. Finally, the council debated and adopted, with amendments, the Portland Urban Forest Plan addressing tree canopy equity, funding strategies, and district-level reporting.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 Good morning all. We have a pre gavel presentation today. So before we officially begin our meeting I am going to turn the floor over to councilor Dunphy.
1 Thank you. October is breast cancer awareness month. And for those who don't know, prior to my time working here in city council, I spent the last five years working for the American cancer society cancer action network, working to make sure that we can use public policy to reduce the burden of cancer for families everywhere across the state. I'm honored to be joined today by a a lot of really great advocates who are in the fight against cancer. I'd like to, if I can, briefly invite up our our very brief panel. And I will note to our panel, we each have one minute to talk. So come on up when I call you nikhil surya, doctor, alexandra zimmer. Missy, spelunky. I can't remember your last clunky and and susan stearns with the ceo of the pink lemonade project.
2 Thank you.
3 Nick, why don't you take us away?
4 Good morning everyone. Thank you for inviting me back this year. My name is nikhil surya and I'm a sophomore at saint stephen's academy. Last year I shared my mom's story, a story of hope, awareness and early detection. This year, I'm grateful to stand here again, not just as her son, but as a partner in spreading awareness with the city of Portland, American cancer society, OHSU, knight cancer institute and the pink lemonade project. Together, they help families access information, screenings and the kind of support that saved my mom's life. My mom's journey began with a mammogram that showed she was clear, but it also noted she had dense breast tissue. Dense tissue can make it harder for doctors to spot cancer in a mammogram, so her doctor recommended an mri. That mri revealed the cancer the mammogram had missed. Catching it early made all the difference in her treatment and recovery. Without that mri, my mom might not be here today. Since sharing her story last year, I've learned how much awareness and policy go hand in hand. Starting September 2025, a new fda rule requires all mammogram facilities to tell patients if they have dense tissue. That simple change will help millions of families make informed choices and catch cancer early. But awareness only matters if people understand what to do with it. And that's why proclamations like today's matter so much. So today I ask everyone to schedule your screenings, ask questions, and spread the word. Together, we can turn awareness into action and hope into healing. Thank you.
5 Thank you. Nick. Doctor zimmer.
6 Hi, I'm alexandra zimmer, I'm a breast cancer program director at the knight cancer institute and I I'd like to focus on the you know, we know that breast cancer is a very common disease. And, you know, kills a lot of people from time to time and modifies the lives of several families. And I think the focus on early detection is the most important at this moment, because, you know, with early detection, you can actually improve the the five year survival, survival, survival to up to 90%, 99%. So that's impressive. And the best way to to understand to do that is look for your your health care provider. People at 25 years old should have an evaluation to understand their risk. And the majority of people will not be high risk and will then have the recommendation to start with mammograms. And then of course, there's the recommendations for further tests. But at least with mammograms at 40 years old, and that should be continued for every every year or every other year. So that's an important thing. And I just want to express that people should look for help, even if they don't, if they lack, you know, insurance or anything like that. We have at OHSU focus on trying to to get access to people and our breast imaging center at our south waterfront is working now evenings and weekends to have people tested, having access to mammogram. We have other areas with that and also have the van program where, you know, it's a mobile mammogram that can reach to people. And also the breast health for all program, where people uninsured or underinsured can have access to that as well. The treatment has improved a lot through the years. We have new things going on and and access to our center. I want to, you know, make sure that people are aware that we have access to world class treatments here in Portland as well, and we will continue to work for that and hope for everyone to reach out.
7 Thank you, doctor zimmer. Missy.
8 Good morning. Thank you all for inviting us here today and recognizing breast cancer month. My name is missy, and I will be fighting breast cancer that has metastasized to my bones for the rest of my life. I've been a volunteer with the American cancer society aces for ten years, ten with relay for life and nine with the cancer action network. I was drawn to aces because they fight for every cancer and every life. Aces is mission is to save lives through early detection, research and patient support. We encourage people to use the aces one 800 phone number. If they don't have insurance or their insurance doesn't cover other cancer screenings, they're able to direct them to local resources who will assist them, as well as provide educational information and patient support with regards to collective action toward eliminating barriers to care. We're working at the federal level to make sure affordable care act tax credits are extended, and also fully funding the center for disease control breast and cervical cancer screening programs, because we know that early detection will save lives. So thank you again for your acknowledgment of breast cancer month.
9 Thanks, mitzi and susan.
10 Hi. Hello, counselors. Thank you for having us. Jamie, thank you for the invitation. And priya and nick, really for their leadership to pull together this impressive panel today. I'm susan stern, ceo of pink lemonade project. Pink lemonade project is a Vancouver, Washington based community nonprofit that serves all of Oregon and southwest Washington. We offer the full cancer continuum of support from education and awareness through after a diagnosis, support education, financial and emotional support for those diagnosed with breast cancer. We know that COVID has been hard on our disease. Breast cancer is the top diagnosed cancer and one at 1 in 7 women are at risk of breast cancer in the pacific northwest when the national averages are 1 in 8. We also know with new data that screening has dropped more than ten percentage points in both Oregon and Washington since the pandemic. So breast cancer awareness month is critical, and we appreciate opportunities like this to talk to the broader public about how important breast health is so that we can, in fact, catch cancers earlier, catch breast cancer earlier, and hopefully improve the quality of life, reduce the harsh treatments, and extend lives of so many affected by this disease. So appreciate your leadership. We love a proclamation opportunity and always appreciate the partnership with the city of Portland. Thank you for a few minutes to talk about this important community health issue.
11 Thank you all so much for joining us this morning. And on behalf of the mayor, I have a proclamation that I'm going to read. Whereas October is globally recognized as breast cancer awareness month, a time to raise awareness, promote early detection, honor survivors and remember those lost to the disease. And whereas breast cancer remains among the most common cancers in the united states, affecting, as susan was saying, 1 in 8 women in their lifetime nationally, but 1 in 7 here in the northwest. In 2025, an estimated 316,950 women and 2800 men will be diagnosed and more than 42,000 women will lose their lives. And whereas men and people assigned male at birth can also develop breast cancer, though they are often diagnosed later due to low awareness and delayed reporting of symptoms. Whereas health disparities by income, race, age, and gender continue to create unequal outcomes. And whereas when when detected early breast cancer has a 99% five year survival rate. Highlighting this life saving importance of regular screening and timely follow up care. And whereas federal requirements ensure patients are informed of their breast density after a mammogram, as nick was saying and advised on the supplemental screening, such as mri or ultrasound, when appropriate, a critical step for detecting cancers that may be obscured in dense breast tissue. And whereas the American cancer society is dedicated to improving the lives of people with cancer and their families through advocacy, groundbreaking research, and comprehensive patient support, striving to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to protect, prevent, detect, treat and survive cancer. And whereas, the pink lemonade project provides education, mentorship, and financial and emotional assistance to families navigating breast cancer across Oregon and southwest Washington. And whereas, the OHSU knight cancer institute works to free the world of the burden of cancer, one patient at a time, treating thousands each year and advocating advancing hundreds of research and community projects across Oregon. And a youth advocate inspired by his mother's breast cancer journey, has partnered with the city of Portland, OHSU, knight cancer institute, American cancer society, and the pink lemonade project to expand awareness in the community, demonstrating that compassion and advocacy have no age limit. And me. Whereas councilor Jamie Dunphy has championed this youth led initiative by sponsoring this proclamation and elevating it before the Portland city council, helping unite community partners including the American cancer society, American cancer society, cancer action network, OHSU, knight cancer institute and the pink lemonade project around a shared commitment to awareness, early detection, equitable access and hope. Now, therefore, I, keith wilson, mayor of the city of Portland, Oregon, city of roses, do hereby proclaim October 25th to be breast cancer awareness month in Portland and encourage all residents to observe this month by participating in activities that promote awareness, support research, honor survivors, and prioritize regular screenings to save lives. Thank you colleagues. Thank you all so much for being here this morning.
12 And did you have a question?
13 Hi. Thanks for being here. I just wanted to ask you a question. Could you give us more information on why you think the screenings have dropped 10% since the since the pandemic.
14 Completely related to COVID. So there's data out of the national cancer institute and epic, which is our sort of underlying health information system that shows that screening dropped over 90% in spring of 2020. So people are afraid to go into the health care system. Life has been busy. It's the pandemic. People are trying to support their kids learning from home, all of that madness. And so trying to get people back into the routine. Screening mammograms is just been a bit of an uphill lift, I would say. The other critical change, just since we're talking about it. And thank you for the question. The leading guideline organization for the standard of care of cancer treatment across the united states is the united states preventive services task force. A year and a half ago, the task force reduced the recommended reduced the recommended age of screening mammograms from age 50 down to age 40. So there is a ten year window that we want to get the word out that women should be going in for screening mammograms. And we also know that the trends right now is there's an increase in people under age 40 getting diagnosed with breast cancer. So the breast health awareness is even more critical, and people of all ages should be noticing changes in their breast health, regardless of gender, age, or I mean, they should. Yeah, regardless of gender and age.
15 Thank you so much. So I always look forward to coming. And I had to ask you a question to enlighten me more. And I also want to just acknowledge nick and the proud mother in the audience.
Procedural episode · turns 16–24
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
16 Yeah, nick's a brave son. He's doing a great job. All right. Thank you for the time this morning.
17 Yeah.
18 Thank you, councilor Dunphy, for bringing this preamble to us and helping to raise awareness today and for helping to raise awareness about the mayor's proclamation by bringing it to the council meeting with that colleagues, I will convene today's Portland city council meeting. It is 9:45 a.m. On Wednesday, October 22nd. Keelan could you please call the roll?
19 Good morning. Clerk here. Green here. Zimmerman here. Avalos. Present. Dunphy here. Smith. Here. Here. Ryan. Here. Koyama Lane here. Morillo here. Novick here. Pirtle-guiney here.
20 And, mike, could you please read our rules of order and decorum?
21 Yes. Council president, welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at w-w-w-what. Portland.gov slash slash agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over. Presiding officer preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
22 Thank you very much. Colleagues. Before we begin, I will note that our agenda should run us right up until 1:00 today, giving us a half hour break before our work session that begins at 130. I know that our staff and many of us need that break to get some food, stretch our legs so that we can fully concentrate on the work session this afternoon. I believe we can get through everything in time. It is scheduled to be able to, but if we have things run long, I will cut us off at whatever item we are debating. At 1:00 we'll finish that amendment or section of the debate or agenda item that we're on, and we'll need to carry over the rest of the agenda to a future meeting so that we can make sure to give everybody that space and still convene close to on time, our afternoon work session. The first item on our agenda is agenda approval. Are there any motions to reorder the agenda? Okay. Seeing none, do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? Okay, keelan, there are no objections. The second item on the agenda is public communication. Keelan, can you please call up our first guest?
23 First up we have grady preston, a second joining us online.
24 Hello, councilors. Can you hear me?
25 We can hear you, grady.
26 Hello. Great. Thank you. Good morning. Councilors. My name is grady preston, the second. I live in district three, in the creston neighborhood. I'm here today not as a resident only, but as a person who believes in the promise of this new government. You are all elected to be bold. You were chosen to break the white supremacist, patriarchal. Hold on this city. Don't second guess yourselves. This council was built to do things differently, and the people of Portland are counting on you to lead with courage, not caution. Councilor Dan Ryan. The people sleeping in tents under bridges don't have time for delay. Your years of hesitation weakens the impact of this council and undermines the very change it was designed to deliver. Councilor Eric Zimmerman. These meetings are not your personal podcasts, and you should stop wasting valuable city time with your political theater. To my councilor Angelita Morillo, thank you. From the bottom of my heart. You bring the passion and energy of my generation into these chambers and it matters. Your voice resonates with those of us who feel unheard. Please continue being fearless. We need you to keep pushing. Now, let me speak plainly. We are under siege, not just by corporate greed causing poverty, displacement and neglect, but by a rising tide of authoritarian violence that threatens the very soul of Portland. And every night I see what happens when it goes unchecked. Eyewitness brutality. I see lives shattered and permanent trauma etched into the bodies and minds of my neighbors. These vile, gleeful, proud boys wearing ice badges are pointing live weapons at disabled people, threatening lives and laughing about it. Tear gas seeps into our homes. The air we breathe is laced with the ash of superheated heavy metals and chemical irritants, poisoning our eyes, ears, lungs, hearts, pancreas, skin, livers, stomachs and brains. Our pets are dying. Our local ecology is being annihilated, schools are closing, and community members are being forced from their community. One of the most horrifying acts I've witnessed was the assault on quinn harvell, a blind man who priest who peacefully protests outside the Portland ice facility. He's known in the community as a gentle, lawful, always caring a stuffed animal, he sits quietly on the curb across the street, holding his stuffy towards the agents. He doesn't shout. He doesn't provoke. He simply exists as a symbol of resistance and love. And yet federal agents target him without warning. They grabbed him violently, dropped him on his head. A blind man, peacefully, lawfully disabled and assaulted. For what? For daring to be visible. This is not enforcement. This is cruelty. This is fascism. Why isn't the city, county, and state leaderships charging these agents with kidnaping? Why are they allowed to commit hateful violence and abuse law without discipline? I don't hold the law, the legal authority to stop it. But I gave that power to you. Be the change. Be the inventors of a future where progressive retribution meets fascist overreach.
27 Thank you. I'm so sorry that we need to make sure to have time for everyone. We appreciate your words and being here to speak to our work.
28 Next up we have vadim mazursky. They canceled their request. Mark pauses next to also canceled. Next we have nathaniel hudson hartman.
29 Good morning. Welcome.
30 Morning. You all look lovely today. And my mother's a two time breast cancer survivor, so I really appreciate the acknowledgment, the proclamation. Save the tatas. But for the record, my my name is nathaniel hudson hartman. I've been a rideshare driver in the city of Portland, the state of Oregon, for almost nine years now. But more importantly, I represent our essential transportation providers. You'll see none of them here today because they are out working our streets, getting people around safely. Some of them are living out of their cars right now, and I'm here today just to remind you all how. How actually amazing 2025 has been for uber and lyft. You look at their financials, they are paving the road to profitability on our backs. They are the scorpion. We are the frog. And I know the frog has taken on new meaning in our city. So I want to let that sink in. And I don't do it to be cute. I do it to illustrate our desperation and how we are under the thumb. Know the stinger of these companies. And all you have to do is look at their financials. Uber has just announced recently another $20 billion stock buyback. Yet our driver community, we have several members that are sleeping out of their cars or one bad day away from homelessness. I want to draw your attention to a screenshot here of a recent trip where a passenger was charged $116 and the driver was paid only 18 out of that for two hours of work. Because we do not have compensation standards to ensure that we're making a fair and livable wage. I'm representing a driver right now, a family of four, an immigrant driver who was deactivated not on one, but both uber and lyft once for legally changing his name, accused of intentionally falsifying documents. The other one falsely accused by a drunk passenger of intoxication. This driver's name is ali. He is a muslim driver. He has not touched a drop of alcohol a day in his life, but him and his family are underwater, underwater, amassing thousands of dollars of debt. Why? Because drivers do not have a fair and transparent appeals process by law, like they do in Washington, like they do in colorado, like they do in minnesota, like they do in new york. You see where I'm going with this? And we have no support center. It wasn't that long ago that this council over the summer passed a $2 fee increase without a way to support drivers. And we are still desperately that urgency is only gone up. So we can't have a pay standard. We can't have deactivation appeals rights, we can't have fair transparency for our passengers without a driver resource center to tie it all together, to give drivers the support that we need. And so I again urge every single one of you. The time is now. The time was two years ago. Please, let's go to work. Thank you very much.
31 Thank you so much for being here.
32 Next up we have jean jackson.
33 Good morning all and thanks for this time. I would like to know whether the mayor, mayor wilson has the authority to cancel. Oh, thank you. To cancel die. That was adopted in 2013 by the council without current council approval, as it was done in 2013. Either the council needs their own lawyer, or you're complicit with the mayor's attempt to bring back jim crow. I have never known a mayor of the city of Portland that would for one second commit such a cowardly, cruel and blatant act of racism. We already have a president that wants to erase the history of people of color. Now the mayor. It does not matter what we as black people have suffered to defend this country. Your America will never be our America. Your Portland will never be our Portland. This is reminiscent of the jim carrey movie the truman show, where he discovered that everything in his life was a lie. And to quote claude brown's manchild in the promised land, what do you run to when you're already in the promised land? We're constantly having the rug pulled from under our feet. I would like to know how much money has been spent on the prime contractor development programs, technical assistance, and the administration cost of the prime contractor program in the past three years, with a breakdown of that cost as to who received what assistance and for how much, you will see that the program has never been a budget buster. It's only because of the illegal acts committed by the previous cpo and his staff that they want. The mayor wants to get rid of this program rather than dealing with it. Now, the hiring of another cpo not only has little knowledge in this area of minority businesses, but absolutely no interest or commitment to the program. And the city is paying $135,000 to the hispanic chamber and the minority contractors association to just shut up and dribble. One of the cruelest things is that the mayor's executive order was July 13th. During that time, prime two prime contractors, pcd contractors, were the lowest bidders on projects in July and early July and were not notified until September 30th that their bids were going to be rejected and rebid to the open market. With all of the numbers that have been exposed, they had those projects scheduled to perform the work and not bidding on other projects because they didn't want to overbook their ability to perform, and they're spending money holding onto employees for work. That is not going to happen. And now they have to compete with larger firms in the open market. And it's like minnows competing with sharks. The pcd program, which I wrote, has never been a race based program. And to cancel it until a disparity study is done is totally unnecessary.
34 We appreciate you being here today. Thank you for bringing this forward for us.
35 That completes communications.
36 Thank you. Keelan colleagues. The next item on our agenda is the committee referral report. At some point, we're going to have a better way than me reading this out loud. Adopt the fiscal year 2526 fall supplemental budget and make other budget related changes was referred to finance authorized revenue bonds in an amount sufficient to provide no more than 41 million to finance city fleet maintenance facility improvements to went to finance. Authorized the city to acquire certain permanent and temporary rights for construction on southwest upper drive. Went to finance. Outlined decision making criteria for the designation of council. Meeting items on the consent agenda. Went to governance. Appoint and reappoint members to the development review advisory committee. Went to the homelessness and housing committee and. Authorized street car settlement payment was referred to full council. Colleagues. That brings us. We don't have a consent agenda today. So that brings us to our regular agenda. Keelan can you please call the first item on our regular agenda.
37 Item for pay settlement of adam gregg lawsuit in the sum of $300,000 involving the Portland police bureau.
38 Thank you. Keelan. Colleagues. As a settlement, this comes straight to council as an emergency ordinance. So there is no committee staff summary or chair report. But we do have mike porter and rose radick here to remind us of the basics before we hear public testimony.
39 Good afternoon council. We are we are asking council to approve a settlement in the case of gregg versus city of Portland. This case stems from a 2015 conviction for heroin distribution. Mr. Gregg pled guilty and served over four years in prison for that offense. While mr. Gregg committed the crime. The key issue in this litigation is how miscommunication led to his guilty plea. At the time, the district attorney handling the case believed that someone had died after using the drugs mr. Gregg had sold. That information turned out to be wrong. City records show that the d.a. Had been told the victim overdosed but survived. However, at least one police report incorrectly referred to the person's death, and another was later changed to say the victim had died. One of the responding officers, matt brown, actually performed cpr at the scene and likely saved that person's life. His original report accurately described the victim as alive when submitted. Unfortunately, it appears that during a clerical records process, officer brown's report was modified to indicate that the victim had died. It then appears that the d.a. And defense attorney both proceeded under this mistaken belief that someone had died. That misunderstanding influenced mr. Gregg's decision to plead guilty years later, after learning the person survived, he filed this claim, his case claiming that he was misled. The prosecutors have been dismissed from the lawsuit due to immunity, which means that if this case went to trial, the city would be the only remaining defendant. That creates a real risk that a jury wanting to hold someone accountable could place full responsibility on the city. A verdict against the city could result in millions of dollars in damages and attorney's fees. The proposed settlement, $300,000, avoids that risk and reflects the calculations used in oregon's wrongful conviction conviction statutes for similar cases. Finally, we would like the council to know mr. Gregg has turned his life around. He is now a student, lewis and Clark law school, and spends his some of his free time volunteering in the community. The city believes the settlement closes a difficult chapter for everyone involved, recognizes the mistakes that occurred, and reflects mr. Gregg's rehabilitation. For those reasons, we recommend the council approve the settlement.
40 Thank you very much. Mr. Do you have anything to add? Thank you. Okay. Councilors, any questions on the content before we hear from the public and then move into discussion? Okay. Seeing none keelan do we have anybody signed up for public comment?
41 Yes, we have four people signed up. We have I'm going to call them three up together who would like to approach the testimony table as a group. Mark poris, phillip, charlie. Michelle. Wesley.
42 Welcome. Thank you all for being here today. You are welcome to begin as soon as you're ready.
43 Thank you. Good morning council. My name is mark poris. I use he him pronouns and I'm with the group Portland copwatch. Since 1992, Portland copwatch has been working towards a police bureau that's free of brutality, corruption and racism. And this item falls under the corruption heading. We understand the parties have come to an agreement, and we have no objection to the city writing a check for $300,000 to settle this civil rights and malicious prosecution lawsuit for an event that happened over ten years ago on may 23rd, 2015. This is different from the usual cases. We testify on people in mental health crisis who call for help and are killed by PPB like michael townsend. Mistaken identity and the inherent racism in policing like that of an unarmed black man, manny Clark, who was shot in the back and killed. Even though PPB was looking for white men and the many individuals brutalized by police while expressing their first amendment rights, including the nine journalists and legal observers who were plaintiffs in the index newspaper's lawsuit. This one's different. Maxine bernstein wrote about this case last September in the oregonian's editorial board, followed up shortly afterwards with an opinion piece titled a lawsuit to hold the justice system to account. The story, according to court documents. And the oregonian's reporting, is that mr. Greg and another man, mr. Cook, were both sentenced to prison for their roles in selling heroin to a man who died of an overdose, or so they were told, by two Portland police officers and two Multnomah county deputy district attorneys. The glitch was that the man did not die of an overdose. Although police reports written by PPB officers carrie hutchison and tequila thurman said that he did, and the deputy district attorneys used that misinformation to get both men to agree to plea deals and serve time in prison. In fact, according to court documents, officer thurman was told by the girlfriend of the man who overdosed that the man was still alive the very same day of the overdose. Three days later, officer thurman wrote a report that omitted the fact that the man survived the overdose. Officer hutchinson's report, written the following day, noted that officer thurman interviewed two individuals who had been with the man the night before his death. Mr. Cook was sentenced to 366 days in prison, and in may of this year received a judgment in his federal lawsuit awarding him $45,001 plus costs and attorney fees, according to city officials. These amounts don't yet appear in the monthly city administrator's closed claims report, because final billing and related expenses associated with the claim haven't yet been paid, according to court records. Mr. Greg filed this lawsuit to obtain compensation for the five and a half years he spent in prison, believing he had killed a man, all based on the defendant's lies. I neglected to mention that mr. Greg did not learn that the man was still alive until after he was released from prison, and had gone looking for the man's family to apologize and seek their support for his plan to go to law school. The corruption exposed in the da's office on this case is now a separate and it's ongoing piece of litigation, as mr. Greg has appealed, the court's dismissal of the deputy district attorney's from the suit. Today's settlement, though, will end the city's involvement. If it's approved. A district attorney's office work is always preceded by police work, according to the oregonian's reporting. The lead prosecutor stated that he simply believed what was in the police reports when negotiating. When the police work is negligent or incompetent at best and corrupt at worst, people will be prosecuted or falsely prosecuted and lose their liberty in the process. Thanks. Mr. Chase. After me.
44 Hi, my name is philip tchotchke. I use he him pronouns. I'm also with the group Portland copwatch. We appreciate the inclusion of the bureau claims data along with the ordinance, which states that the one year total paid out to claims for the PPB is more than 5.7 million, not including this settlement of 300,000. The associated $45,000 court judgment, plus attorney fees for mr. Cook and not including the settlement of 3.75 million, once paid out the. It will push the total to at least 9.75 million this year. This ordinance does not mention it. So for the record, the Multnomah county court case number is 23 cv 44 189. We are disappointed that after reading this ordinance, a person could have absolutely no idea what terrible things happened that caused the city to settle for 300,000. We hope the city will provide greater transparency in the future. According to section two of this ordinance, it is classified as a bodily injury lawsuit only. This is not a bodily injury lawsuit. That is a copy and paste error in fitting for a case in which two officers wrote faulty police reports. Until the community and community and public safety committee starts hearing these cases, we support councilor Kanal request for increased transparency on these settlements and that the full council continued to discuss the policy decisions or violations that keep us coming back to testify on police misconduct cases in the hope that future harm can be prevented. This ordinance states that no public involvement or input was sought, and no future public involvement, or is anticipated or necessary. The community is deeply impacted by police corruption incidents such as this one. If you want community community to trust the police bureau, then the police bureau must be trustworthy. Here are some potential lessons for the community for this case. When the police knock on your door, it might be better not to answer. If the police give you information, do not expect it to be the truth. Be wary of officers ability to write factually accurate police reports, and prosecutors ability to verify the facts of the case. If you are sentenced to prison, in part because the police said you killed someone, do some research and find out if that person is still alive. Because the state and police may have failed to provide basic facts of the case and exculpatory evidence as required by law at the pcc eap meeting tonight, they will be discussing the exculpatory evidence directive. Chief day wishes to weaken the directive and risk more cases such as this one. The city should provide provide all exculpatory evidence to the da proactively and not wait for the da to ask about police witnesses that might be unreliable. Thank you.
45 Okay. Good morning council I'm charlie michelle wesley, a member of many northwest tribes here. And I'm here with Portland copwatch, but including personal input. So where do things stand now with the police officers who lied to mr. Gray? Officers thurman and hutchinson are both still employed by PPB. We do not know if either officer was disciplined for falsifying information, as neither officer has a case listed in the dps's professional standards and economics sanction database. What we do know is in October 2024, officer hutchinson was promoted to sergeant. However, we are pleased that mr. Gray is in his third year at lewis and Clark law school after serving nearly five and a half years in prison. His display of ingenuity turned this injustice into a means to protect and serve others. We greatly appreciate that mr. Gray volunteered to serve on the Portland committee for community engaged policing, although his term was cut short, as we understand it, because the city attorney claimed there was a conflict of interest due to this lawsuit. We remember vice president Koyama Lane words during deliberation on marnie clark's settlement. She said, when trust is broken and needs to be rebuilt, I believe as a value that those who have been harmed really need to lead the way in what that rebuilding looks like, and also get to decide when there is real change. This is exactly what mr. Gray was trying to do when he volunteered to serve on pccep. When the city attorney removed him from that committee. We bring this up because the city is currently performing background checks on the already appointed members of the community board for police accountability. It is no secret that there are appointees with criminal histories who better qualified to shape true accountability and policing than those who have firsthand knowledge of the harshness of the system, a system that includes a moral character policy of honesty. And if out of policy consequence is supposed to be termination. However, barriers to accountability is aided and abetted by the same suppressive injustices. Another PPB principle, procedural justice states, involves giving people a voice and being trustworthy. But mr. Gray and others, with that actual truthfulness, are removed to keep the truth from succeeding. Amartya sen talked about procedural justice, and I quote, in seeking resolution by public reasoning, there is clearly a strong case for not leaving out perspectives and reasonings presented by anyone whose assessments are relevant, either because their interests are involved, or because their ways of thinking about these issues throw light on a particular judgment. And in closing, as a recovering addict for 25 years myself, the primary reason recovery programs are so effective is foundational principles of honesty. With PPB. Without honesty, the remaining principles are meaningless and continually lead to lawsuits which are not accountability nor justice, and keep some of the most ethical, knowledgeable, community voices overpowered and often with tragic outcomes.
46 Thank you.
47 Thank you all for being here.
48 Next up we have jared essig.
49 Welcome. Thank you for joining us.
50 Good morning. City council and Multnomah county district attorney. If you're listening, my name is jared essig. I'm a appearing on behalf of the citizens of Portland and Multnomah county and representing the rose city iron front in September, 12th of last year, 13th after the day after Oregon live exposed this prosecutorial negligence or corruption and the police misconduct that resulted in this unlawful, unjust incarceration of mr. Greg, I appeared before Multnomah county presiding judge judith maderazo and an ex-party off docket hearing, and I asked her to adopt the policy that had been proposed by senior deputy district attorney kelly rhoades, but had been not adopted by the district attorney's office, and she agreed miraculously. And it's now verbally ordered so ordered by the Multnomah county court that they will not accept a negotiated plea offer unless in a case involving a homicide, unless there is a proof of death in the form of a medical examiner's report or a other affidavit. Testimony from some reliable witness. And now that should have been done by the prosecutor in this case. That's why this whole qualified immunity thing has to be eroded, because the da's office is the primary culprit in this misconduct, not the city. And you should direct the city attorney to work with me to hold the district attorney's office accountable and to ensure that the the judges abide by judge matarazzo's verbal ruling that she made to me. I'm going to appear tomorrow before her again with a written order, and ask her to memorialize that and institutionalize it in the local court rules. I'm a I'm a pro se litigant, and I'm a amateur lawyer, so it'd be nice to have some professional legal advice and help in my public advocacy efforts, which will save the city money in the long run. Now I want to shift o. Also, the court records are sealed. I couldn't get court records for state versus greg or state versus jeremiah cook. This violates the Oregon state constitution, article one, section ten, which which guarantees the right to a public trial as well as the us constitution of public justice, is not a cloistered virtue. We need to see these records to understand what happened and hold our public officials to account. I also want to shift gears a little bit and say a lot of leaders want to hold, want to hide behind the police and then blame them when things go wrong. That's not okay either. We need moral and intellectual leadership from people like yourselves and from the judge. Now, authoritarianism, anarchism both support each other. It's really easy to blame the federal government while refusing to deal with the problem of the ideology of violent revolution, and which is very popular in Portland. In fact, terrorism is more popular than the police are. Okay, so declare a curfew with the ice facility. It's really easy. You can avoid the deployment of national guard.
51 Very much. We appreciate hearing from you today.
52 That completes testimony for this item.
53 Thank you.
54 Thank you. Keelan colleagues. We will now move into any discussion before taking a vote on this agenda item. Councilor canal.
55 Thank you, madam president. So I do have a question for mike. It wasn't a technical one, so but I'll just build to that. So first and foremost, I do agree with a couple people who said that this issue was primarily but not exclusively a county issue. But I also want to point out that due to state law providing prosecutors with near absolute immunity from civil liability, the county and da's office has had the cases against them dismissed. In other words, while the da's office and police officers were both originally respondents to this lawsuit, it's now just the police officers involved that we're addressing here. And I want to point out to my colleagues, I personally believe and I mentioned this in our work session on the legislative agenda, that prosecutorial immunity to this level is ridiculous. Multiple advisory groups to this council have recommended that the city take a stand on this issue at the state level, and I would like to see the city's office of government relations instructed, through the legislative agenda, to lobby on an ongoing basis to eliminate it. And this is also something that I believe would support our police officers ability to be held to a standard that is fair for them. Related to that, but a little different, is my question. There is a portion of this that was alleged in the lawsuit to be responsibility of the city of PPB. So I want to ask two questions. One is, have there been any policy changes as a result of cases like this one? And was anything done specifically with. And I want to stress with not to, has anything been done specifically with the officers involved on this particular case?
56 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. So to your to your questions. Yes. As a result of this case, there have been modifications, some of which were alluded to in the testimony specifically that the that there will be confirmation of, of of death when death is a is part of the case. As to the report writing, there's been continued training. I would also respond, I think it's appropriate to your question that there were investigations into this. That's how we know that. Officer brown, for example, had his report, was accurate and then was modified through the system. Officer thurman has been on leave since before this litigation commenced. And so that investigation is just is on hold. And officer hutchinson had a sustained finding for misinformation ending up in a report in violation of a directive. So those are that's sort of consequences of the result of this.
57 Thank you very much. The only other thing I'd like to mention going forward is I do agree that we should mention two things in the the documentation for settlements. One is the case number. I do think that would be very helpful for the public and frankly, for councilors to, to, to do our own homework on it as well. I know it's often provided elsewhere, but and the other piece is if there are related cases, I did not know about the case related to mr. Cook until I got an email from a constituent referencing a $45,001 settlement there that, because it's under 50,000, did not come here. So for those who don't know, $50,000 and above come to city council now used to be $5,000 prior to January 1st. So I think having that be involved and it would be very helpful. And I'd ask, I guess it's probably not you or your office, mike, but the risk management folks, whoever files it. So with that said, I guess the question before us to me is does an open confession to a crime and conviction selling heroin that resulted in overdose lose you your civil rights lose you? Your right to be given the accurate information about the impacts of that crime. And I think the obvious answer is no. Which means I think the obvious answer to this vote needs to be I thank you.
58 Thank you, counselor. Colleagues, I just want to note on the record, there was a question raised in testimony about section two of the ordinance itself, which talks about bodily injury. What the attorneys have shared with me is that we categorize claims in two ways either bodily injury or property damage. This more closely aligned with bodily injury. While that's not exactly what happened, that is the category it would fall in as opposed to property damage. So that's why that's listed in the emergency clause. I don't know if either of you want to speak to that at all, or if we should just move on to the next question.
59 Just briefly. That is sort of.
60 How the claims are set up, as there's kind of two buckets that they can go into property damage kind of reserves and claims and bodily injury. So bodily injury ends up having to cover emotional distress, civil rights violations, employment claims, things that aren't what you think of as like a physical injury. It definitely is something, though, where we could change the wording if we want to have it. Kind of clarify a little bit, even if that's just how it's set up in our system and how the templates get set up. We could change language to reflect more clearly what it is if you'd like.
61 Thank you for clarifying that. It may be that that's more of a broader forward looking issue. Councilor Clark.
62 Thank you, madam president. I don't have a question. I just want to make a statement. I'm not very happy about this settlement. Generally, I don't want to vote to reward an admitted drug dealer. At one point. I'm also someone who had a felony on their record and and had that erased earlier in my life. But I've heard from other counselors here on the dais outside meetings that councilor Smith, councilor Novick and others that point out that this person turned their life around. I also recognize that pursuing this could potentially cost the city a lot more than the cost of this settlement. So I will reluctantly be voting yes on this. I also want to take exception to some of the testimony we heard this morning, that I think that saying this is corruption is really an overreach. Maybe it was sloppy on the other end of the continuum, but I don't think it was corruption. So I just want to say that thank you very much.
63 Thank you, councilor. Counselor Smith.
64 Thank you, madam president. I believe this settlement is an important reminder that how we do things is as important as what we are doing. As city officials, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard because the public put full faith in us to do so. This individual paid his debt to society while living with the guilt of taking a life. He did not actually take. I couldn't imagine what it feels like to have felt that you, for five and a half years, that you killed someone and you didn't. I admire the drive, the tenacity. Of mr. Greg. And putting himself through law school is exactly what we would want for people who have served their time. This is exactly what I want, and I think the system that helped people rehabilitate themselves is the system that I want to be a part of, and we have to be held accountable when we mislead folks as we're trying to prosecute in our very hurried lives. And we have to be very careful how we do things. It's not because of what he did. It was how we enacted as being the person who is in charge and the person who is supposed to be doing things by the book. And I don't know if it's overreach that the previous cop watch folks said that it was corruption. Well, I think it's somewhere in between, but it is definitely something we should not do. It was definitely, as we looked at the data, it was it was put in two different places. So we have to be held accountable for that. And I appreciate mr. Greg being able to rehabilitate himself, and I'm looking forward to see what he does with this law degree. Thank you.
65 Thank you. Counselor. Counselor Zimmerman.
66 Thanks. I just have some questions. How many prosecuting attorneys does the city of Portland employ?
67 None, counselor.
68 None. Okay. Did we prosecute this case?
69 No, we did not.
70 Okay. What for? The distribution of heroin. What is a standard jail sentence that a person would get if they pled to that?
71 So I'll answer your question. There's a a sentencing guideline or grid that the courts use and the recommended or the presumptive sentence. That's the language they use in this particular case would have been 80 months.
72 I'll say it again.
73 80 months.
74 80 months. Okay. So in your estimation, does the jail sentence that this person served for distributing heroin match no normal course of what a drug dealer would have received?
75 Counselor Zimmerman I think that to answer your question, I would say that the presumptive sentence is the sentence that would the court was presumed to give when under these facts, mr. Greg's allegations are that at the time he felt that given the court's posture, that he would have been able to get a reduced sentence if he'd been able to argue this point and didn't know it. I think that's the distinction between the two, the two sides of this argument.
76 Okay. That's helpful if if a person is facing a drug dealing charge in our courts, does the guilt of the drug dealing itself matter with respect to whether or not a person who purchased those drugs died or did not die? Is drug dealing illegal? Whether you live or if your victim lives or dies.
77 It is illegal. And the charge in this case an element of it was not the status of the victim. Okay. Yeah.
78 One of the testimonies received was malicious prosecution, and I, I know that a lot of portlanders center their public safety concerns at the city, but I want to use this opportunity to remind folks that the city of Portland does not prosecute any cases. In fact, it's an entirely different government who prosecuted this case. I. To me, this looks like a failure. On behalf of the defense attorney, it looks like a standard jail sentence for a person who's convicted of dealing drugs. I am concerned that. We are continuing to site turned their life around as a reason why, in this situation where some false information was in a police report is an argument for a payout that is that is troubling to me. I think that if we're on the hook for any misinformation in a police report from the moment for something that a different government prosecutes and that a person cops to and pleads guilty to, that if they don't turn their life around, would we not be in a situation where we would settle? This? Seems interesting to me that that's coming up. But. If I would be far more comfortable making this settlement agreement, if you were here telling me if the person was had served a sentence related to the death of another human. But that's not what I'm seeing in any of the documents or in any of our briefings that we received, that the sentence was served unrelated to the death of a person. Because distributing heroin, it wasn't distributing heroin, comma. Someone died, I guess I'm. Concerned about a precedent that we'd be setting as a city that after you turn your sentence, if you can find any scrivener's errors, any information, errors, anything at the point that the city of Portland is the piggy bank to come to and not Multnomah county, who has the duty for investigating and negotiating plea deals and prosecuting cases, I, I don't want to say that. The information in those police reports should be ignored. I think my colleagues have made really good points about that. And you've you've indicated some some changes there. What I'm failing to understand is why, when there's another government who prosecuted this case, a judge who who put out this sentence, a defendant who pled to this charge. Why this lands here. So. Given all of that and this idea that we're going to negotiate with drug dealers, I feel very dissatisfied with being brought this settlement. I think we should go to trial. I think portlanders expect us to go to trial when you when you do, the time for the crime you committed and pled to. I don't see the the concern here in the way that it's been described in these documents. So I do appreciate that we've gone into some detail previously. I thank you for that. I, I appreciate your professional opinion on this. I'm uncomfortable with just how many of or, I guess, our aversion to going to court on some of these. I think it would be in the best case for us to say you dealt drugs, you did your time for dealing drugs, not for killing a person. And they can make the case in front of in front of a court. But I won't be supporting the the settlement. I understand there is considerations about greater loss, etc. But I do think there is a point in which we have to look at some reasonable facts here that we're being sued for by a person who did time for the crime they committed and which they pled guilty to, and it had nothing to do with the death of a person. But somehow we're letting that false fact come in and say that because of that, they're they're dealing of drugs is somehow not something to be held accountable for. So I'll stop there. I do appreciate folks who their comments that have been made. I think they're all all well put. I agree with councilor Clark. I don't expect that there was other undercurrents in this. I think that mistakes happen and we've dealt with that. But there are other checks in terms of prosecutorial. And this is three days ago, by the way. I'll say not the current day, not the last day, but the one previous in 2015. So I think that this case should rest at Multnomah county and not the city of Portland. And I if the case needs to be argued, I think that that's the right place for it and not these chambers. But thank you.
79 Thank you, counselor councilor Novick.
80 Thank you, madam president. First of all, my inclination is always to go with the city attorney's recommendation as to a settlement when they're saying that if we don't settle, we have a risk that the taxpayers will wind up paying more. There are some circumstances in which a proposed settlement seems so morally abhorrent that I would say no, let's roll the dice, even if that means the city pays more. And I understand people be concerned about making a payout to a drug dealer. However, I want to second the point made by counselor Smith, which is that this guy spent years under the impression that he had killed somebody. And unless he is a complete monster, then suffering under that impression for years is to me a likely to have been at least as painful as if he'd been savagely beaten by police officers. So I want to assume that most people are. Even drug dealers are not monsters. So the fact that this guy suffered for years under the impression that he had killed somebody to me, means that despite generally I wouldn't want to give money to drug dealers, the city attorney's recommendation is not morally abhorrent. So I fall back on my general idea that as a matter of fiscal responsibility, I defer to the city attorney's judgment as to what the risk, what the financial risk is.
81 Thank you, councilor. Counselor Smith, we'll get back to you after others have an opportunity to speak first. I hate to do that when I'm next in the queue. That's a bit awkward, but here we are. I appreciate the comments that my colleagues are making. I want to be clear that when we're talking about a settlement, it's not about mr. Gregg. It's not about his past. It's not about his future. It's not about whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. And it's also not about whether the sentence was right. It's about two things. Is it less likely that we messed up in this case, in a way that may have affected his civil rights? And what is the legal risk compared to the cost of settlement? And I want to make two things clear. I don't believe that we should be taking the ultimate responsibility for this. I think the facts of the case show that the real responsibility rests with the county and the da's office, and I believe that we have amazing city employees who do incredible work for portlanders every day. And nothing about this case changes that. But because we have amazing city employees, we have to hold ourselves to the highest standard. And when we fall short of the standard, we have to make it right. And in this case, I believe that there's enough risk that we fell short of our standards, our legal standards, and there's enough risk that the cost of moving forward would be greater than the cost of settlement. And therefore, I think the natural conclusion is that we need to approve this settlement. Councilor Morillo.
82 Thank you, council president. I definitely agree with everything that you stated and that councilor Smith stated before us. I think the reality is that the law has to be dispassionate. So this is not about our personal feelings about greg as a person or a member of our society. This is about whether or not his due process rights were violated and his due process rights were violated. And while this wasn't being handled within the city of Portland, we do have some responsibility. It was our officers that lied about whether or not he had killed someone. And I think most people who have any compassion in their hearts, regardless of the life that they lead, would be concerned, upset and have long lasting emotional damage if they thought that they their actions had led to someone's death. So I also just want to push back on some of the comments that we heard previously, because our legal system is not consistent and judges often use their discretion to make decisions about people's lives. I think there were multiple studies done that show that weather changes can impact whether or not a judge is going to give a harsher or lighter sentence. If someone's sports team loses, they could give a harsher, lighter sentence. People are very complicated, and there is a lot of discretion in how people make decisions. That changes day to day. So someone being apologetic for what they have done, I think, absolutely impacts a judge's discretion in this. So we at the city of Portland were responsible for our police and the things that our police say and do, especially if it can impact someone's sentence long term. And we do have to take responsibility for that. I also think that we really have to. I really appreciate councilor Clark sharing part of her history here with us today. I think that's extremely powerful. And she's a city councilor Now, and I'm happy to serve alongside her. And that means that when we say we're negotiating with drug dealers, what does that mean? When someone has served their time and is now doing different things and has a law degree, they're not a drug dealer anymore. They are a person who is doing something different with their life, and they deserve to move on and to be a productive member of our society. So we have a responsibility here. We have a responsibility for our police. We have a responsibility to move through this without passion and to just say, are we partially responsible for this? And our police are and we are responsible for our police. So I am going to vote to approve this settlement. And I hope that that people understand that no matter who you are or where you come from, you deserve to have your civil rights protected. You deserve to have due process. And at a time where our country is actually taking away so many people's due process, I hope that the city of Portland will show that no matter who you are or where you come from, you are owed that in a just society. Thank you.
83 Thank you, councilor. Counselor. Smith.
84 Thank you, madam president. And I just want to go back and piggyback what councilor Morillo said. Under the constitution, we are granted due process of law. Under the 14th amendment. We are granted equal protection under the law. And I want to ask you a question. I'm sure we don't have the the tape or the transcripts to show, but I bet you a dollar to a donut. Mr. Greg was told, if you do not take this, this plea deal, we're going to charge you with murder. You gave us 80 months as a possible timeline of what he would have spent. 80 months is 6.2 years. How much would would he have gotten if he was charged and found guilty of murder?
85 So, councilor Smith, I can I'll speak to that. The the presumptive sentence for the drug charge was 80 months. The the was in fact a written offer from the da's office to his attorney that said, if you don't plead, there will be potential federal charges. And those federal charges were not murder would have brought many more months or years of of time in a federal prison, not a state prison. And some of those would have been likely based on the record related to the death of the person who overdosed. So yes, it would have. He was threatened with a longer sentence.
86 So we can safely say without this plea deal, he was looking at a lot of time, and so he made a choice to take the lesser of time which he was afforded due our constitution. Right. And he was getting everything that anyone who was in this position would, would have been able to receive. There's a negotiation, there's a deal when you're doing this. And so I agree, you don't have to agree with with what the person did. We don't like it. It has the potential of causing all kinds of things with our kids and our grandkids and those kinds of things. But at the same time, if our police gave information that caused him to make this decision, I'd say in addition to the da's office, we are equally, equally responsible. So today is not about like councilor Council president said. This is not about if we like this person as a person. This is about equal protection under the law. Thank you.
87 Thank you, councilor Councilor canal.
88 Thanks. A lot of my colleagues said a lot of what I was going to say. So I'll just hit it quickly. Strongly support councilor Smith's assertion about our high standards and holding ourselves to them. I agree with both councilors Clark and Zimmerman about frustration with the county's lack of responsibility here, and we'll talk about the legislative agenda when we do. I agree with councilor Zimmerman's point that turning your life around or not is sort of immaterial to the question of whether of the settlement itself, it's a nice to know piece of information, and I appreciate hearing about it. But I think that even if the if this plaintiff had done the same stuff after his sentence was completed, the question is immaterial to the settlement. The settlement is about did we create a harm and would we be paying it? Or in this particular case, is there a risk that a court would find that so that that makes sense? I will say one last thing, which is that. I, I do I really appreciate the conversation about whether or not this was corruption or a mistake. From my read of the record, it did appear to me to be a mistake. On behalf of the officers personally. That was my my most likely outcome takeaway here, and I think that it's still important to hold officers to a standard of conduct that's been set without necessarily saying you did this intentionally, right. That's a that's a criminal question sometimes, but not necessarily in our administrative context and also not in the civil context. Having said that, I totally understand why there's a lack of trust, and I think that's really important to look at the patterns of why people might be saying that in our in our conversations and our testimony. I understand why why people might come to their own conclusion that it's more likely than not that something was something wrong was done here. That doesn't mean I agree. I just understand that there's been enough distrust created over the years to see how it's easy for someone who doesn't have all the information we have, in part because we don't necessarily give all the information that we have might get there. And I think it's a perfectly fair assessment, even if I don't necessarily agree with it in this case. And I want to close by thanking councilor Morillo for saying exactly what I was going to say, which is that due process matters to everyone, whether it's any of us up here, mr. Greg, or an immigrant, we need to be standing up for universal rights and principles. Thanks.
89 Thank you. Councilor. Seen no one else in the queue? This is an emergency ordinance. It requires nine votes to pass. Keelan, could you please call the roll?
90 Clerk?
91 Hi, Green.
92 Hi, Zimmerman.
93 No.
94 Avalos.
95 Hi, Dunphy.
96 Hi, Smith,
97 I.
98 Canal hi, Ryan. Hi, Koyama Lane. Hi, maria. I Novick.
99 I.
100 Pirtle-guiney.
101 Hi.
102 The ordinance passes with 11 yes votes and one no vote. Thank you, keelan.
103 And thank you to our legal and risk teams for their work on settling this case.
104 Thanks, russell.
105 Keelan, could you please call the next agenda item?
106 Item five amend city code to adopt state of Oregon building codes by reference. Amend code title 24 and sections 25.0, 1.020, 26.0, 1.030 and 27.0, 1.030.
107 Thank you. Keelan. And this is a second reading of an ordinance. If there is no discussion or debate, we will move to a vote seeing none. Keelan could you please call the roll?
108 Clerk?
109 Hi.
110 I'm sorry, councilor, did you have a comment on this? Yeah, I apologize, I thought that was a legacy hand item five.
111 Okay, okay, okay.
112 Go ahead. Keelan. Thank you.
113 Thank.
114 Bye. Bye. Okay. Thank you. Green. Zimmerman.
115 Hi, Avalos.
116 Hi, Dunphy.
117 Thanks to terry harris with this I vote yea.
118 I canal.
119 I.
120 Ryan.
121 Hi.
122 Koyama Lane I Morillo I Novick. I pirtle-guiney. I the ordinance passes with 12 yes votes. Thank you.
123 Keelan. Could you please read our next agenda item?
124 Item six research disparities in public contracting, workforce and employment in Portland and report back to city council.
125 Thank you keelan. And before we start, I want to thank councilor Smith. This was on our agenda a few weeks ago, and because of some other timing issues, we needed to bump it to today. I appreciate your partnership and figuring out a time for it to come back. Colleagues, we have a committee staff summary, I believe, from craig. I'm not sure if he's online. I know he was out yesterday. He's here. I'm looking to our council operations manager. We will figure out where our committee staff. What?
126 Excuse me. Okay, okay.
127 Madam president, I can give you some background so we don't have any.
128 Why don't we start with the committee chair report? And I believe you're the carrier as well. Yeah. So I think councilor Green may have presided. So we'll come back to councilor Green with a chair report. Why don't we start with the carriers report?
129 Yes. We actually put this up twice. And I brought it forward and I was looking to use already existing resources to pay for disparity study. And I was told that I couldn't do the state of Oregon and I couldn't do the port of Portland or any other previous disparity study that was not specifically for the city of Portland. So at any rate, we had to put it back on the docket. And thank you, councilor Green, for presiding over that. I had a family funeral to attend, but I brought this resolution to the labor and workforce committee on September 25th for one important reason the city must conduct disparity studies to support our contracting practices and adherence to mayor wilson's executive order that requires analysis of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other qualifications of the contractors competing for projects. When we discuss disparities in government contracting and procurement, we aren't talking about mere differences in how government contracts are awarded. We're talking about who are are the awarded, who awarded those contracts. And in many cases, the recipients are not members of communities of color. Disparities arise when contracts are awarded based on factors other than the applicant's qualifications and ability to do the work, often due to bias based on a person's race, race, ethnicity, and sex discrimination on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or other protected classes. In government, contracting is illegal under the civil rights act. I still strive for that day when discrimination against women and people of color has disappeared. But until that day, disparity studies are an essential and necessary tool for identifying discrimination in government contracting and procurement. That is why I brought forward this resolution. I believe this is the work required of us at this moment, at this time, in this very volatile kind of federal reign of, of, of tyranny on cities and states as it relates to die. The other piece is that I have to bring to the clerk's attention is that either we sent you the wrong updated resolution for the disparity study, and that was put online. We have to amend the current resolution that's online, and I'd like to do that. I don't know if this is the time to do that, madam president.
130 Why don't you wait until we hear the committee staff summary and the overview, and then we'll have you move an amendment before we take public testimony. Is that okay, counselor?
131 Okay. Excellent.
132 Okay. Should we move to that? Okay. Mr. Cook, thank you for joining us. I think we went a little faster than folks were expecting on some other items. I apologize, but I'm glad you're here.
133 My apologies, madam president and councilors. For the record, craig cook, council operations policy analyst and staff to the labor and workforce development committee. The resolution before you document number 20 2537 seven was heard in the labor and workforce development committee on September 25th, where it was referred to council with the recommendation to be adopted. The resolution directs the city administrator to initiate two studies to evaluate disparities in city contracting and workforce participation. It requests the city administrator engage a qualified consultant to perform these analyzes and directs that the studies be conducted in a manner emphasizing community engagement. The amended resolution sets the deadline for the city administrator to submit this report as December 31st, 2026. The resolution acknowledges that funding for the requested studies must be requested in the 2025 fall technical adjustment ordinance, and the work cannot begin until funding is identified. The resolution also commits council to supporting the city administrator and utilizing the findings of the disparities study to inform policies and practices practices that promote equitable access to contracting and workforce opportunities for all Portland residents. The full impact statement on the item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts, economic and real estate development impacts and community impacts, and community involvement. There was one amendment in committee adopted during the September 20th 25th committee meeting, which changed the deadline for the request to report from March 1st, 2026 to December 31st, 2026. One person provided verbal testimony in advance of committee action. General themes included importance of having a diverse, robust and professionally trained workforce. Strategic pathways to ensure equitable workforce development in light of mayor wilson's executive order on compliance with nondiscrimination laws, eo 2020 501. Insight from disparity studies to center workers who wouldn't otherwise have equal access to opportunities. Previous studies that were requested by council but not funded, and exploring. Working with prosper Portland and others to ensure funding for studies. That concludes the committee. Staff summary. Thank you.
134 Thank you very much. Craig councilor Green. Anything to add?
135 Yeah, I just want to add that the discussion at committee was very robust. I think one of the themes that came up is we reaffirmed the importance in this moment, not to sort of shy away from our values commitments in the city, but to invest in the studies that we need to do to say, without a doubt, we are justified in saying we do. We do think that our procurement policies and our contracting policies should be. Should try to correct previous harms. And so we had that discussion. All committee members present. Voted to sort of co-sponsor this resolution. So this was a very unanimous committee based approach. And we were just really excited to bring this forward. One of the things that we did talk about during that meeting was how that there are also intersectional disparities that emerge for people of color, women, the lgbt community. So this is this is far sweeping work, and it's important that we we find the money to pay for it. And that's, I think all I needed to add to that.
136 Thank you very much, colleagues. Are there any questions for about are there any questions about our committee staff summary or any technical questions. Councilor Avalos.
137 Thank you. Yeah, I have a couple of technical questions. So first, thank you to counselor Smith for bringing this forward. I think this is super important, especially in this day and age. And so I think that's why my questions are about just trying to understand first, given that the last city disparity study was done in 2009, I guess I'm wondering why it took so long to revisit the work and how we can ensure that studies are happening on a more regular cycle moving forward. I don't know who that question needs to be directed at though. Go to councilor.
138 So thank you for the question because I think it was the previous it had to be the previous council and mayor, and I don't think we can talk about all the things that should have been done and could have been done by previous councils. And I think that the important thing is that we we have decided to deal with this in this council, this quickly. And I am actually going to put a first amendment in to say that we need to have the report by may 31st and not December. And the reason why I say may 31st is that we have to have this information before we go into the next fiscal year, or will be in limbo for two fiscal years before we actually have the diversity data on contracting. So that so so to answer that question, I don't know why they didn't want to do it. You have to go talk to all those folks and ask why they didn't do it. Because they were very pro minority contractors and supporters of of dei and equity and all those things that that try to make sure that we're equitable as a government. So, I don't know, I won't even try to respond for them.
139 Thank you. Yeah, I, I appreciate that context, but I think then more specifically, let me ask this if the if they authorize this funding for 2022 and it was never done, what happened to those specific dollars? Is that an answer that I can get. And I see that jonas is out.
140 So for 2022.
141 Yeah. So that was what I understood that they had authorized.
142 I believe that we have.
143 Hayley blonsky here able to answer some of these questions.
144 Okay. Hello, council.
145 For the record, my name is hayley blonsky. I'm a senior project manager for the city operations service area. In answer to your question, there were never funds allocated to the disparity study. It was just the the resolve to do the study. It was wanting to act upon it. And then those funds were never actually realized in the budget process. And so that's why the study wasn't conducted. We are our understanding of this current item is that council intends, and we do have an item within the fall tau to have funding recognized for this. And so that was the major hangup for the previous council.
146 And how much funding is it.
147 The funding in the fall. Tau. So it's a two part okay. 450 and that's for both contracts and workforce. So it's two part okay.
148 Thank you. That's all. Council president.
149 Madam president and the reason why it was 450. And the reason the original reason why I pulled it from the from the original council date, committee date was because I thought it was going to cost $2 million. And then I learned, after talking to our procurement director that it was we were going to get a pretty good deal because of the partnership that they were going to do with prosper Portland, who was doing another similar disparity study. So that's why it's only 450,000. Thank you.
150 Thank you for clarifying that. Councilor councilor Avalos, thank you for the questions. Councilor Kanal.
151 Yes, thank you, madam president. My question, it was related to we had and this is probably a procurement question or I might put dc barbieri on the spot here. But the this is based on the testimony we got in the, in the public communications as well. I also got an email from a different constituent. It was about whether or not the prime contractor development program is entirely being ended. And if we could just get that confirmed and if so, a reason why. For that.
152 I believe we have somebody here to speak to procurement.
153 Good morning. Council president. Council vice president, councilors. Councilor Kanal. Actually, yesterday I held a convening, the first meeting to revamp the prime contractor development program with all parties being present. But that, of course, will be dependent upon funding to be able to stand it completely up in terms of support. That also includes everything. Everything was discussed, including risk, risk support, bonding and insurance.
154 So so being. Revamped, not being ended.
155 It was never ended. It was paused due to funding and the fact that the pool was so small, and it was also leaning into a certain demographic and was not diverse.
156 And then my other question is more of a technical question for the clerk. I just wanted to to note that in committee, both myself and councilor Green indicated a desire to be co-sponsors on this. I'm very glad that I was, but I just wanted to make sure I daylighted that in case that's still possible to do. Just for the historical record on this, because I know councilor Green supported it very strongly. Committee as well.
157 Thank you, councilor. Counselor Green, if you'd like that to be added, why don't you send a note to the clerk, councilor? Clerk.
158 Thank you, madam president. Thank you, councilor Smith. I'm very supportive, but I do have some questions because I'm also really concerned about the budget. I'm. This is what's keeping me up at night as we start to think about 26, 27. So I just have a couple questions for you and councilor Green, potentially. You mentioned the port of Portland and the state of Oregon have done disparity studies. Yes.
159 The port of Portland and the latest one that was done in the 2023 3 or 2022 was done by the state of Oregon. So I originally asked, could we use that as our baseline and in the committee. And I was told by former dca morrissey that we could not that we were not able to use someone else's disparity study. It was a statewide study, not exclusive to Portland, but a lot of their disparities came from the Portland area. So that being said, in order for us to be right with the world and being able to protect ourselves from the federal government, we wanted to make sure that we had disparity studies that were specific to the city of Portland in our procurement practices and what we were doing. And so that is why I'm supporting this, and that's why I put it forward. And the other reason, you know, shortly after that, we learned that there there possibly is a budget gap. And I thought, oh my god. So I can't put this on because we don't have any money for this. But after learning that this was going to be recommended in the towel, and it's for $450,000, and that's a decision that we're going to have to make when that comes before us. But we're going to get a work session today so you can learn a little bit more about it.
160 I appreciate that. I just was wondering if there's some way we could build off the state study, if there's if there's any way we.
161 I think they are. And I think that councilor Green is going to add some things that we would be building off of that study. So they, they, they're going to have a good baseline of information.
162 Okay. Let me just ask another question. And maybe this will come up in this afternoon's conversation. But I'm just wondering, can we share the cost of this with some other institutions in the region. So we're.
163 Basically sharing the cost with prosper, and that's why it generally costs for one disparity study. It generally costs $1 million. Okay. So we are kind of piggybacking off prosper Portland because they're actually doing a disparity study too. And I think that the the folks that are doing theirs, they're giving us a break because it's going to be the same demographic in the same city. And that's why we needed to do it so quickly. And that's why we wanted to make sure that we we put this on our docket.
164 I just wondered if maybe we'd ask for some contribution from TriMet or some other government.
165 Trimet and the county are both pursuing studies within this contract as well alongside us, which is what helped bring our rate down a little bit.
166 Okay, great. Good. Good to know. That's really good information. And then I just lastly just because of the cost and we'll deal with that. We'll talk about that this afternoon is just if this is something that could be phased, you have to do it all at once.
167 You would want to do it all at once because you need that information. If we phase it in, people change. And I imagine. Procurement director.
168 Would be the cost would increase.
169 The cost would increase. Exactly. And I imagine the people will be different too, because if there's there's some contracts that we're not putting out and some due to that delay, it's probably going to cause a lot of people to go out of business. So as we're trying to phase things in, it may phase some companies right out of out of business. I think we need to do this quickly and we need to do it now.
170 Okay.
171 Thank you. May I may I also add that policies will be derived from this actual study and our practices will align with those policies as well. So this is this is probably very important as we realign and engagement with the executive order.
172 Okay. Councilor is that all?
173 Councilor Green.
174 Thank you, madam president. I just wanted to weigh in on the deadline that's in the resolution and just provide some context for the rest of the council on what we talked about during the committee. The original deadline was amended based upon conversation. I think that councilor Novick and I think also councilor Kanal had engaged with, with haley about the feasibility of the timeline, given that we would find the money in the tao, and I think the spirit of that conversation and feel free to step in at any point. Councilor Novick was that we want the deadlines and the resolution to be achievable. And so if we thought that I think the original one was March, if we thought we wouldn't secure the funding for this disparity study work until after resolution of the fall. Tao. That places us in a very difficult timeline to execute and get a final report by March, and we want to make sure the work is good and not, you know, sort of just a oh, you know, deadlines are deadlines. We don't take them seriously in our resolution. So that's that's why the deadline was shifted back, I think I think haley assured us that it's it's entirely likely that we would get the results of this much earlier than the December 1st. But I just wanted to lay that out for folks as we talk about this, this part of the resolution.
175 Councilor Green with a sense of urgency, understanding that we have to make sure that our policies are aligned up before next year's fiscal year. This gives us the urgency when we start looking at that at our work session, and all those set asides and those carryovers and new money that that this is one that has to pass because it is going to impact all the hundreds of millions of dollars that we contract out into the community and that we accept from the federal government. So this is one of those must do's. So if we can push it back to December, I think that just pushes back our sense of urgency, of how important this is to what we do. We're infrastructure, government, we do contracts all the time. That's how we make our money. And we got a $2 billion water project out there that is unprecedented, and we cannot allow this to, you know, sit until December 31st.
176 I mean, I tend to agree with you. I guess I would ask, is it possible we've got some folks from the bureau staff up here? Can we can you weigh in on the timeline stuff? Given what we've heard from councilor Smith.
177 I can not definitively say that we can have it by March. That was the original estimated date when? When I first engaged with the contractor. That may slip until probably at the probably toward the end of the fiscal year. I can definitely reengage with the contractor and see if we can expedite some of the activities. And I can come back and report that.
178 Yeah, even if we said June 15th or or may 31st, I mean, at least it gives us an opportunity. We have some cushion in there if we can get this passed in the town.
179 And I think that that's kind of the the crux of it is as soon as we get the law passed and that is part of the package, it would allow us to go execute that contract based on the timetable that the contractor provided. They're estimating about a month of preparatory work and then 2 to 7 months for month, 2 to 7 doing the actual surveying and data collection. And then they're estimating about a month and a half for their own analysis. So depending on we could go have a conversation with them acknowledging this is the scope for both the city's two studies as well as the county and TriMet. So we could also talk about kind of order of operations with them, of, you know, what analysis they can kind of prioritize first to get it faster. But I don't see it as coming in March just from an execution of contract standpoint. And if we're looking at June, I think we would just need some time.
180 So let's okay, I can I can compromise on this. Okay. We'll leave the date at December. But everybody at this table right now, understanding that it is urgent that we try to get this information back before we pass fiscal year 2627. And so we'll leave it as is. But there is a sense of urgency, particularly if we pass the towel that has the resources to pay for this expenditure.
181 Yes.
182 Absolutely. Okay.
183 Councilor Novick.
184 Yes. I confess that I should know this because we just didn't have the town finance the other day, but does the current proposal from the administration assume for $450,000 expenditure for this, or would we have to? Would it.
185 Is in the town? It is. It is in the town.
186 Okay. And we now just agree that we're going we're going to leave it at we're going to leave it at December.
187 Leave the December date, you know, but with the understanding that I am going to be calling and being some of you all's new best friends.
188 We look forward.
189 To it.
190 Yes. Very unique.
191 Koyama Lane can I get clarity? Does the town include 400 or 450? Because I'm hearing and seeing those different numbers in different.
192 I believe it's 450.
193 Let's look to jonas so that we can get some accurate information, maybe about that and also about how that number relates. I think councilor Novick was talking about the presentation in finance, how that number relates to the numbers that were shown to finance.
194 Yeah. Thank you, council president. Thank you. Council, for the record, jonas berry, city's chief financial officer, sitting in for the city administrator today, the amount that's in the ordinance is currently filed is which was heard by finance committee yesterday and will come back for final vote I believe is 400,000. And so we have a little work to do to figure out where the other 50,000 is coming from, why that wasn't reflected in the towel, but we'll be ready to come.
195 And maybe you're right. Cfo berry. Maybe it is just the 400. I thought it was 450.
196 Yeah, we'll do a little digging to make sure that we have the the, the right number and the final tor that passes, or we make sure we're aware of the actual costs and have d.o.j.
197 Excellent.
198 Councilor did.
199 You get your question answered?
200 I think so. Can I also just clarify? I know that we'll be talking more about the tor later. And for the 400, 450,000 that will need to be voted on separately as an amendment to the ordinance, which is the tor. So vote for this resolution would be kind of a value statement of saying that we support.
201 Exactly. Yes. It won't be an extra. It's a part of the hotel package. This is not an amendment to the to the amended tor. It is already in the tor.
202 Okay.
203 Thank you. Counselor. Counselor. Ryan.
204 Yes, thank you, madam president. I just first of all, want to thank you, counselor Smith, for bringing this forward. I also just want to acknowledge you, director donaldson and former director taylor. Rest in peace. That I assumed there was something in the budget because we looked at this data all the time. And it's because the former council had to look at every contract. And so it was brought up frequently. It was so helpful, at least in the procurement space. So I just want to acknowledge the hard work that your group has been doing on this for several years, and I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks. And I get why it's important to formalize this at this time. Thank you.
205 Counselor, I just.
206 Pulled up the dp for this. It is 450 okay.
207 Thank you haley. So maybe we can figure out that discrepancy before tau comes to a vote to council.
208 Can I.
209 Ask one more question? Because she's.
210 It is 450 in there.
211 Thank you for clarifying. Councilor councilor Ryan.
212 Yeah. Another question. I you know, I often don't know the answer to the question that I asked, which makes me different than some politicians. But I do have a question. Isn't there a fund that went from the city to prosper to help with this?
213 Not that I'm aware of.
214 Okay.
215 I'll look into that.
216 Yeah, I can I.
217 Can do.
218 Some digging. Yeah.
219 Councilor canal.
220 Thanks. Yeah, I councilor Ryan made me remember something. Which is that actually on his way out of the role, our former procurement director, michael taylor, who. Yes. Rest in peace. And by the way, if you wanted to hear more about him, there's December 19th of last year. There was a a lot of conversation at the council meeting, I think was instructive. But one of his interviews as he was exiting the position at the city was about the need for a disparity study specifically, and it's in if you search his name, it's I think it's in the Portland business journal. But just that that's, I think, particularly relevant that there is so many little spots along the way from so many different leaders of the city talking about the necessity for this action to be taken. And I appreciate the perspective from councilor Ryan as well as councilor Smith on this and all the different spots. But I think we could find hundreds of times where we said we needed to do this. In the past, since 2009, and I think it's time we do it.
221 Thank you, councilor Colleagues, we do have public testimony, but I know that it is helpful for the public to know what amendments are coming before we take public testimony. Councilor Green, do you have an amendment you'd like to put on the record?
222 I do, madam president. I'd like to put on the record. And this is filed already on the clerk's website. But I had some conversations with councilor.
223 I do mine first, and then you amend mine the new, because I have to amend the entire resolution.
224 Let's let councilor Green put his amendment on the record. He has the floor right now. And then, councilor Smith, why don't we come to you for amendments as well?
225 I'll note that, councilor, it looks like the amended version is inclusive of what? You. Okay, so anyway, so what I'm doing here in the amendment is speaking to some of the written testimony I received from some of our labor partners that wanted to make sure that we, as we do this disparity study, we're capturing sort of all relevant data that might have outcomes and impacts on the outcomes, in particular, that we're also looking at the impacts of project labor agreements and community benefit agreements on disparity outcomes, and that we're also taking a sort of race and gender look as well, because that's also a piece that's pretty determinative. So in the now therefore, be it resolved section of the resolution, I'm adding under item one where it says utilizing data from the state of Oregon, the port of Portland and prosper Portland, as well as obtaining. I'm just inserting any relevant data specific to the city of Portland to make sure we have an expansive universe of data on which to pull in. Subitem two, I'm just sort of appending at the very end of that procurement directive, I, I'm saying that in addition to conducting disparity studies to perform the analysis, ensuring that the study adheres to best practices and legal standards, I'm adding comma with attention paid to the potential for disparities to emerge from the intersection of race and gender. I then add another bullet after item three, so that becomes item four that says that the studies analyze impacts of project labor agreements or community benefits agreements on disparity outcomes. And that's it. And that's what I'm adding. I think what this does is it just adds other relevant information for us to look at and doesn't take anything away from the core value of, of the resolution. And I would I would ask the councilor to be friendly to this amendment.
226 I am friendly to that amendment, but it may not be amending what you just said, because I don't think the council president understood that it is an entirely different resolution that I'm going to be amending. And so you're amending my second resolution, not the first.
227 The thing that's attached to the website is, is going to be consistent with what you're what you're going to offer.
228 Okay. Let's hear.
229 Councilor smith's amendment. And if we need to do a little wordsmithing to make the two amendments work together, we can certainly do that during discussion. Right now, we just need to get things on the record so that we can make public testimony. Go ahead counselor.
230 So I'd like in the first in the resolution that I have, I'd like to scratch the first line that says research disparities in public contracting. Clark keelan, can you see that? Striking research disparities in public contracting, workforce and employment.
231 Are you proposing to amend the title of the item?
232 Yes, it's yes. Yes, ma'am.
233 Can we amend a title of an item and still have it be that same item?
234 I would like to check my answer, but I believe the answer is if it's on the same subject and it still falls a single subject rule, it's appropriate.
235 Okay. Thank you.
236 And so it will read a resolution of the Portland city council. Labor and workforce development committee. We're going to scratch the first, whereas and the title is going to be. The new title resolution to initiate two disparity studies on city contracting and workforce participation. We have a new whereas whereas the city of Portland spends millions of dollars each year on procurement of goods, services and construction and dash, whereas the city has a responsibility to ensure its public dollars are spent in a way that benefits the community. It serves semicolon and next. Whereas the city of Portland is committed to advancing equity, anti-racism and inclusive economic opportunities through its contracting and workforce policies. Semicolon. And whereas, executive order to the city employees to comply with all federal law, parentheses eo 202501. Pair paragraph requires compliance with all applicable applicable federal civil rights and nondiscrimination laws, including comma, but not limited to the civil rights act of 1964. Semicolon. And whereas, eo 202501 presents an opportunity for exploration into new strategies to support small businesses and develop the local workforce in preparation for participation on public contract opportunities. Semicolon. And whereas council has received passionate testimonials from the local small business community in support of the city, conducting a disparity study. In addition to improving services. In addition to improving access to resources like business technical assistance and workforce development services that support participation on public projects. Semicolon and next. Whereas the last disparity study conducted by procurement services was completed in 2009, semicolon. And whereas peer cities have invested in conducting a disparity study at least every five years as a back practice, as a best practice semicolon, and whereas a a disparity study would provide updated data about business availability, challenges, changes and enhance the chief procurement officers ability to accurately assess the efficiency of various procurement programs. Next, whereas a contract disparity study would allow the chief procurement officer to examine the utilization of mb, wsb, and other diverse businesses in city construction, professional services, comma goods and services, contracts and the next. Whereas a workforce disparity study would allow the chief procurement officer to evaluate how construction work, how construction work hours on city construction contract contracts are divided among apprentices, workers of color and women, and the next. Whereas the city previously authorized a disparity study through ordinance number 190781, which was passed on April 20th 20, 2022, to evaluate disparities in contracting and workforce participation. Whereas the city recognizes the importance of conducting a comprehensive disparity study that considers data from the state of Oregon, the port of Portland, and prosper Portland to ensure a thorough analysis of disparities in contracting and workforce participation. And whereas, prosper Portland is currently engaged in a disparity study study comma led by keelan independent research to analyze disparities in the utilization of disadvantaged minority women, emerging small and service disabled veteran owned businesses. D w. In its construction related contracts and public private partnership agreements. And whereas the state of Oregon has conducted a disparity study, also led by qin independent research to evaluate disparities in contracting and workforce participation across various state agencies. Let's see.
237 Councilor.
238 While you pause there, I'm noticing that most of these are the same as what is currently online. Do you want to draw our attention just to the differences? That might be easier than reading through it all.
239 It's not the same. So I can go down.
240 Can we get a written copy of the differences? Because this is way too hard.
241 I thought that. We I want to I want to make sure.
242 So far I've noted two differences the deletion of the first, whereas and the insertion of the word new in the one two, three, four, five sixth, whereas, but everything else. Appears the same.
243 Whereas the breaks. Let me ask you this keelan do you have my updated resolution?
244 We have what was sent to our office. This morning, 919 this morning.
245 That is the one that is the the clean copy of the new resolution and all the deletions that are on there.
246 I don't I don't know that it's a strikethrough underlined version. I think it's.
247 You don't have a strikethrough at the bottom.
248 No.
249 So if my staff could send everyone the strikethroughs that you sent me at the bottom.
250 Are there changes to other whereases?
251 Yes. They're just they're just stricken.
252 Okay.
253 From the record.
254 Which ones are struck from the record?
255 Whereas in December 2024, the white house council of economic advisers published a report and meta study on racial disparities in government contracting, established several important facts that stricken in the points under that are stricken. And so we go to now, therefore, be it resolved by the Portland city council labor and workforce committee, one says that the city administrator initiate two disparity studies to evaluate disparities in both city contracting and workforce participation. Utilizing data from the state of Oregon, the port of Portland, and prosper. Portland number two says that the city strike requests that in go directly to that the city administrator, in partnership with the chief procurement officer, engage a qualified consultant with expertise in and conducting the disparity. Study number three strike directs that and begin with that the disparity studies be conducted in a manner that emphasizes community engagement throughout the process, ensuring that input from historically marginalized communities is strike documented and input reflected in the work. Number four is the last strike. Strike request that the city administrator submit a written, written report on strike. That, and that the findings and recommendations of the disparity studies strike two city council and ad be presented to the labor and workforce development committee upon completion and strike and no later than March 1st, 2026. Go down to the next sentence and strike after participation. Strike the end. And then there's one more in the next paragraph. Under the. Be it further resolved before the bid for for the result, work cannot begin until funding is identified and strike the semicolon in an under. Be it further resolved that strike city council, labor and workforce development committee commits to supporting the city administrator and at the end it says adopted this insert date strike. That strike the last sentence Portland city council labor. No no no. Keep that. So that's finished.
256 Okay. I think folks need a written copy of this. There were a fair amount of changes there. Councilor, if you can try to get a written copy of that to everybody while we listen to public testimony, that would be helpful. I suspect that we are going to see some wordsmithing to this. Yeah. For folks testifying, we have two amendments that we expect to be considering. Neither have been officially moved and seconded yet, but we know that they are on the table. Why don't we move to. Well, there are two hands up. Councilor Morillo, did you have a question? Before we move.
257 To point of information, I just want to make a so councilor the language that you sent me while we're in this session. All of that. Unless that has changed since you sent that to me. All of that language is in my amendment, so it's already on this website. So folks want to read the full, complete resolution as it stands with my amendment that's there.
258 That's the old one. I believe.
259 That's the one you sent me at like 930 9:45 a.m.
260 Okay. Why don't the two of you figure out if the language that is the base for councilor Greens amendment is accurate to what you are trying to amend or not? Let's get that worked out while we hear public testimony so that we can continue moving. Councilor Morillo, did you have a question before we move to public testimony?
261 No, I was requesting it written so that we could follow this. And this is also just going to be another push for me to say that I think that we absolutely need mandatory deadlines for when we submit amendments, because doing this on the fly is not good for anybody. I can't process everything that is being said verbally right now. It's just not good governance.
262 Absolutely right. And what should have happened is we should we should have gotten it.
263 Let's keep moving. Let's keep moving. Councilor Kanal okay.
264 This was not a.
265 Yesterday amendment was.
266 What I'm trying to say.
267 Understood. And councilor Morillo you will see a proposal from me soon that includes some posting deadlines for amendments at full council. Let's move to public testimony so we can hear from members of the public, where I suspect we are going to hear requests for additional amendments as well. Thank you all for being here and answering some of those more technical questions. We will likely need you back as we consider amendments, so please don't go far. Keelan can you please call up our. We may be able to do it in one panel of public testifiers. Or do we need to?
268 Okay.
269 Can you call up our first panel of public testimony?
270 First up we have terrance hayes lawn bowling, zack culver. Randall friesen, and lori wimmer.
271 Parents I can go. Thank you. How you doing? My name is terrance hayes. Councilor Smith. I would like to just thank you first for recognizing the need for disparity study as a small business owner that do business with the city, I would love to just double down on the fact that there is still a lot of work ahead. The city has done well in hiring some folks, and I think we need to continue to hire equity officers and people that are focusing on not only making sure that small and minority businesses getting opportunities with the city, but just as importantly, that they're succeeding and they're having success. It is very complicated when it comes to small businesses ability to have success with city and governmental agencies. That's just a fact. Every disparity study have continued to say that over and over again. I would recommend that one of the things that we look into is quick pay. I've talked about this before. Small companies, especially small minority companies, struggle with city and government contracts because net 30 makes it really complicated to pay your employees on time. Just I would love for that to be a focal point. Thank you all for your time. And again, councilor Smith, thank you for bringing this forward and fighting for it.
272 Thank you.
273 Can I see okay.
274 Good morning, councilors. For your record, lori wimmer representing northwest Oregon labor council. My written testimony is also in your record. I am pleased to testify this morning to the concepts and the resolution to study racial and sex disparities in city contracting and workforce participation, and I hope that you will indulge me in a few suggestions to make this study, these studies more robust and relevant. We hope that the purpose of your inquiry is to determine whether the city's diverse values are reflected in worker demographics, that public dollars buy that questions worth asking, though only if we also want to know not just whether bipoc and female workers, for example, are able to get a job, but whether they're hired for a good job, meaning family wage job. Such an analysis would not focus solely on a headcount, but rather would look at the types of work diverse communities are able to access. For this reason, we believe that the studies must determine the earnings and benefits by race and sex as well. The best way to unearth true earnings opportunity is to look at the contracts let by the city for union participation. Being a part of a union increases the median wealth of households of color, for example, by up to 228%. And that's according to the center for American progress. Union membership addresses structural inequalities through better wages, benefits, retirement training, safety, and job stability. If it were up to me, every dollar the city spends would would reward these good union contractors who help workers and our communities to thrive. The study should also examine the owner to worker pay ratios of businesses who contract with the city to ensure that Portland is not inadvertently working with businesses that are contributing to the ever widening pay gap. It's grown dramatically in recent years. Top firms have an average of 290 to 1 ceo to average worker salary, and low wage firms have an appalling average ratio of 632 to 1. Again, it's not just the equity value of letting contracts to women and bipoc owners that matters. It's also the opportunity for their firms employees to share in the prosperity their toil generates. Too often, that second level look is not part of the analysis. So thank you very much for considering my ideas. Happy to take your questions.
275 Thank you.
276 Members of council, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. For the record, my name is lauren bowling and I'm here on behalf of the ironworkers local 29. Diversity, equity and inclusion for the ironworkers is fundamental. On average, our state registered apprenticeship program has between 250 and 300 apprentices, and our numbers hover around 35 to 40% diverse, while our overall membership is 24.5%. Just for reference, the 2020 census data showed that 83.2% of the state identified as white, non-hispanic or latino. We are certainly not perfect. We are doing the work to create a more diverse, skilled and local workforce. As lori mentioned, we are supportive of the proposed disparity study. However, we also think there are things that could be done to improve the usefulness of the study. Councilor greens amendment one covers a majority of what we'd like to see, but I think it would also be important to say and look at when a project is done under pla or community benefit agreement with enforcement teeth compared to when a project with done under an equity agreement or something without legitimate enforcement teeth. We really need to make sure that this study shows us which policy tools are more effective at achieving our goals. The other thing that we would really like to see is workforce diversity. And especially when a contractor is given an exemption from labor standards, we often hear that those contractors have a diverse workforce, but we really like to see data that actually shows that is true. And this is especially important if we want to grow our diverse contractor pool. As for construction, if you need to get a cobid certification, you must have either the relevant license or relevant work experience to actually get that certification with the state. The other thing that we would suggest is looking at local academics or researchers to conduct this study. As non-profits, they are typically much cheaper, and I think as well, it's important to note that prosperous firm only has one person who actually lives in Oregon on their website. You know, I can't say it enough, but local understanding is really key to ensuring that we get the best data. The other thing that we would encourage is transparency, and we hope that council will push to make sure that data collected from the study is made public so that we can continue to explore and track our workforce and contracting data. Disparities study now will have long term effects on how the city of Portland procures future projects. This needs to be done right to ensure that both workforce and contractor equity are addressed in future policy making, and we believe a focus on creating more diverse workforce is the best way to achieve the goal of fostering a more diverse contractor base as well. Thank you for your time.
277 Thank you very much. Go right ahead.
278 Hi. Good morning. Good morning, president pirtle-guiney and vice president Koyama Lane and members of the council. Thank you for allowing me to address you today. For the record, my name is randall friesen. I serve as the executive director of the columbia pacific building trades council. We proudly represent over 16,000 construction workers, construction professionals across 22 local unions and 14 of the 15 building trades crafts in the Portland metropolitan southwest Washington areas. We are here today to support conducting this disparity study. This is a vital, necessary tool for gathering the essential evidence based metrics we need for our local contracting and procurement standards. A comprehensive study is crucial for two key reasons. It will identify which of our current policies are effective and which are not. It will also provide critical insight needed to achieve genuine, meaningful contractor and workforce diversification goals to ensure the study is a success and provides the most valuable data, we respectfully request that the council mandate the inclusion of the following three key parameters and some we've already covered this morning. So thank you. Just to reinforce that, we would like to see that the council uses Portland specific demographic data. The study must be conducted using demographic data and certified payroll specific to the city of Portland and the metropolitan area in general. If you use a broader like throughout the state of Oregon, it's going to skew the results, and it wouldn't be as accurate as it would be for our region. And we don't want to undermine the study's findings. Inclusion of all relevant firms the study must gather workforce data on all firms, including certified businesses, as lauren stated, to include db, cobid firms, et-cetera and any firms that are currently excluded or exempt from equity goals or specific project labor standards and agreements. We believe this will provide a more accurate and comprehensive representation of how various policies are working in practice to fulfill our community's economic and equity goals, and how exemption or enforcement of policy relates specifically to the workforce. That's not necessarily just to the contractor, but to the folks they also hire. We also want to utilize local based expertise, again, to to touch on that note, I think and know that if we used local community based organizations to do this study using Oregon, state of Oregon, or, excuse me, the university of Oregon, they could do a study like this and it would be less money and better results. Right? Or more accurate is what we're looking for. So the affiliated unions we represent are deeply committed to improving the lives of working people in our communities. We're very proud of the hard work they have demonstrated and diversifying their membership at a time when federal policy related to diversity, equity and inclusion is being challenged. It's worth noting that many of our unions already have a diverse membership that exceeds many of the goals established by agreements like the regional workforce equity agreement, a u of o study reinforces our belief that the union model remains the best choice for achieving sustainable, measurable equity in the workforce. As 55% of bipoc and union programs had an average wage of $40 or more, compared to just 20% in nonunion programs. Thank you for your time. I appreciate you all.
279 Thank you all, zach.
280 All right. Good morning. Council president and members of the council. Thank you for allowing us time to provide testimony on the disparity study. My name is zach culver and I'm the business manager for liuna local 737, which is a labor union representing over 3000 members across Oregon. It includes construction laborers working in local communities around the state for many decades, highly skilled and trained liuna members have worked on and continue to build critical projects throughout the Portland area, such as the public library bond, the north columbia wastewater treatment plant, and bull run facility filtration project. As a member driven union, our membership and joint labor management registered apprenticeship program reflect reflect the makeup of our local communities. Since 2021, the laborers apprenticeship program has registered 503 total individuals. Of those, 503 individuals, 47 self-identified as people of color, 21% identified as women. During that same time period, 94 people of color, 40 females, and one non-binary individual have completed our apprenticeship program. About half of those who registered are still engaged in our apprenticeship program, making progress towards completion. Publicly funded projects that include apprenticeship utilization standards offer our apprentices the opportunity to earn family sustaining wages, and critical on the job experience that is necessary to complete their training and advance their careers. Based on the 2021 university of Oregon labor and education research center, lerc study, the number of females and people of color who enrolled as new apprentices in 2020 had increased by 50% compared to the previous decade. We believe this important increase in historically underrepresented workers entering the construction field can be attributed to the public policies that have established minimum apprenticeship utilization requirements for certain projects, in large part to intentional efforts by both unions and contractors. Investing in state registered apprenticeship programs. Liuna encourages local public policies that continue to reinforce and expand their fair opportunity for historically underrepresented workers in our construction industry, so the laborers want to support and commend the city for considering this contracting disparity. Study at the current moment. Should this resolution be adopted, we hope that the resulting findings can reflect the continuing need to prioritize participation of contractors who are invested in fully approved, registered apprenticeship programs, supporting advancement opportunities for the next generation of skilled, skilled construction workers. And I will go ahead and submit these for the record. Thank you all for your time today.
281 Thank you very much. Keelan. Do we have additional public testimony?
282 We have one more testifier. Corey stubenrauch is joining us online.
283 Okay, corey, go right ahead.
284 Thank you. Good morning, president pirtle-guiney.
285 And vice president Koyama Lane and members of the council. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed resolution to study disparities in city contracting and workforce participation. My name is corey stubenrauch. I'm an organizer and proud member of smart local 16. We represent over 2000 members in Oregon and southwest Washington, and currently 265 state registered apprentices. Our apprentices earn while they learn with full family, medical and retirement benefits at no cost to them. They also receive a college degree when they graduate from our program with no student debt. We pride ourselves on providing families sustaining careers for over 135 years. More than just a nice story, I'm part of this history of lifting up working people as a proud journeyman with 17 years of sheet metal experience in the field before coming, becoming an organizer for our union. Diversity, equity and inclusion are core values for my union because they make us stronger as part of our commitment to diversifying our workforce, my union began an intensive program for diverse apprentices that empowers them to succeed by partnering with partnering with successful members, by partnering them with successful members and mentors who share their lived experiences. The program allows small cohorts to advance through our program, together with an active and conscientious commitment to their success from fellow members and employers. We have already seen great success and are working to grow the program so that more historically underrepresented people can join our trade, reevaluating the way that workforce development is done is crucial to meeting the needs of our diversifying workforce. That is why our union has partnered at the national level with the two childcare options that smart is providing for our members. I know that programs like this make the difference in being able to follow a career path in construction. I detailed the impact of the childcare crisis on workers in the construction industry during tradeswomen build nations in 2023. When I spoke to over 4000 women in construction about my personal experience, despite my love for the craft and dedication to my union, I had to briefly step away from sheet metal due to challenges I faced finding adequate, affordable and accessible childcare. Women are underrepresented, are underrepresented part of the construction trades and contracting industry? Let's make sure that this study not only looks at one facet of an intersectional issue, but instead also addresses women in the trades and how we can continue to make these career pathways a viable and attractive option for women. The choices you make today will have long term effects on the workforce that the city of Portland has available for future projects. The decision that you make needs to be the right one to ensure that both workforce and contractor equity are addressed for the future. Without my without my union, I would not be a trades woman. Please do not do anything that would close the door for those that come after me. Thank you for your time.
286 Thank you very much. Thank you to all of you for testifying today, lending your support and also bringing your suggestions. We do have another item on the agenda after this that will need a solid hour to get through, because we have amendments to that item as well. I want to see what we can do right now as we move into discussion, but I want to note that we do need to close our work on this item at noon. So we have two amendments before us. Councilor smith's amendment. I think everybody now has in writing and councilor Greene's amendment, which is posted online. Councilor canal you are in the queue, go right ahead.
287 This is a question.
288 Are we are we all on the same page about that? The track changes are from the same starting point for each of these two amendments, because I know there was a question around that and I'm a little confused if anyone's done the compare versions yet.
289 I believe that councilor Greene's amendments with 1 or 2 small exceptions, fit the tracked changes that are on councilor Smith's amendments. So, for example, if you look at the therefore, be it resolved in councilor Greene's version, he is amending from resolved clauses, or therefore clauses that begin with that the and not direct or requests. There are a few small differences that I believe hayley has caught for us, but for the most part, councilor Greene's amend the amendment brought by councilor Smith, not the underlying.
290 Just the blue text is what I'm amending to whatever councilor Smith is bringing forward here in these red lines. And that's that works with the crosswalk.
291 So if I were to take this, except all changes, that would be what you started with, correct? Okay.
292 With a.
293 Few exceptions that I think we should let hayley know.
294 There are exceptions.
295 One exception is in the now. Therefore, section councilor Smith's version says not there now. Therefore be it resolved by the Portland city council labor and workforce committee requests. I don't know from a legal technical perspective, if we can change the now therefore clause to specify a committee over council. So that was one flag. And then the last difference that I caught was in the resolved section. In greene's version, there is a piece that says, let me pull up this other councilor. Greene's version notes that there will be a presentation to first, the labor and workforce development. So this would be five in greene's version, five says findings and recommendations would be presented first to labor and workforce development committee and then to entire council and councilor Smith's version. The presentation is solely to the labor and workforce committee.
296 Okay.
297 And then have either of these been formally moved?
298 Nothing has been formally moved.
299 That's thanks for my clarifications.
300 Councilors. Would either of you like to move your amendments so that we can move? Right now we are in debate on the underlying resolution. Councilor Smith.
301 I'd like to move my amendment to the original resolution.
302 Second.
303 Okay.
304 Councilor Ryan, second councilor Greene, are you in the queue to discuss the amendment?
305 Yes. I would just like to offer that my changes in blue that are posted just be folded in as a friendly amendment to your amendment, so we don't have to take it up separately.
306 Exactly, I accept it.
307 Okay. So we are now looking at a combined. Well actually let's go to the second or councilor Ryan, do you accept.
308 Absolutely.
309 Yes.
310 Okay.
311 So councilors, we are now in debate for a combined version that includes both sets of amendments councilor Kanal to the amendments.
312 Yeah.
313 I support these broadly. I had two questions and a comment. So the I'm, I didn't I'm still not 100% clear why each of the two. Whereas clauses that were removed were removed or three sorry. Whereas clauses in this amendment, it seemed to me that this was helpful context and helped sort of advance the argument. So I wanted to to know why. And that's these are the first one on whereas equitable access, access to contracting opportunities whereas and then the ones that kind of cross the page gap there, whereas the city's efforts to combat and whereas in December 2024.
314 We were trying to be a little bit more concise.
315 Okay.
316 And then the other piece of it is I and haley just mentioned this, I, I don't I would not support now therefore be it resolved that the labor and workforce committee requests this is an action that the council would be taking, and I'd want it to be clear that that's the case. I don't have a problem with changing it elsewhere to where the reports go, but just that that header, I think it narrows the scope of what we're what we're asking for. And I'm also not sure if there is a legal question, but even if not.
317 Thank you, councilor. I do think that on the therefore be it resolved part, once the council takes this action, it won't be the labor and workforce committee requesting this. It will technically be the full council requesting it. So I'm not sure legally what that means about what we need to say there. Colleagues, I am next in the queue for debate. I appreciate both of these amendments being brought forward. I am generally supportive of where both are going, but I wanted to note a few. One concern and a few things that I would love us to consider either adding separately or as a part of this amendment package. Unlike my colleague councilor Kanal, I actually do have a concern with stating that the report will be brought back to the labor and workforce committees. Committees are by nature a a subgroup of council. So by saying a report will be brought back to council, I think we could refer that to a committee for consideration first instead. We don't know next year what our committees will look like. We have had robust discussions about having different committees. This committee could be folded in with other work. It could be the same work, but have a different name. And I think that it would be much cleaner for us to just talk about reports coming back to council, or perhaps saying council or the relevant council committee, rather than calling something out by name. I wanted to note that. I also want to note that I think where in the Green additions to the amendment number four, we say that the studies analyze impact of project labor agreements or community benefit agreements. We should also add or the regional workforce equity act. We have a very strong specific agreement that we are party to at the city, and I think that we should compare other, other work to that agreement that we've often raised as a gold standard in the community. I wonder if the councilors would be interested in accepting that. And the third thing that I wanted to suggest, again, this could be a friendly to this amendment or I could bring it separately, is the idea that after four we add a new five, and I apologize to do this on the fly, which would say that we analyze earnings of workers by race and gender under projects of the city, contracted with those agreements. The agreements above project labor agreements, community benefit agreements and the regional workforce equity act as compared to projects of the city that are not contracted for under those agreements. That was three things I apologize.
318 Point of information. You said that was going to be you're going to make it number five, because I see that there are already five.
319 There would be a new five because it's related to four, and the current five would move to a six if we were to do that.
320 Got it.
321 Madam president, I like everything that you said up to that point, because I'm not sure if that's the same thing that we're trying to solve for. On your fifth point, I think that's a whole different ball of wax. And I think your other suggestions are right on spot.
322 On the first two.
323 The first three.
324 Adding regional workforce equity act, changing from the named committee to Portland city council or an appropriate committee.
325 Exactly. That you.
326 Did not like.
327 You did not think.
328 That last one is something a little bit different from the disparity. And I was did you understand that?
329 I from to my understanding, it is getting down to the actual outcomes of the study.
330 So would that help? The last I heard some things in there that I wasn't quite sure of.
331 Ultimately, quite frankly, ultimately the study is supposed to be somewhat neutral binding research technique. That technique can can take into account comparisons, but we can draw those comparisons based upon the data that we have internally. But it's basically a very vanilla study to basically ask ask questions and to identify those participants as well. And then from those outcomes, we then develop policy and actions. So the resolution is guidance, but it should not get into the operationalization of the study.
332 So that's why I was concerned about that last.
333 So I didn't mean to sound like a procurement wonk, but.
334 No no, no you're not I'm just trying to it hit me in a way that I didn't. I think that's outside of what we're trying to do. But I'm.
335 The.
336 Third piece.
337 But I will say this council president, that there is specifically carved out a workforce element to the study. And in that study, we can say, identify markers that will definitely address your concerns.
338 So the third. Piece wouldn't direct how the study was done, but would just note that we needed to have that workforce piece in the study and that specifically that workforce piece needed to analyze the difference in. Workforce earnings and benefits, earnings and benefits of workers by race and gender on projects that were contracted through a project labor agreement, community benefit agreement or regional workforce equity act, as opposed to projects that were contracted in other methods.
339 Right. And I don't think that that deals with the disparities. I think that is going underneath the hood on on how. On how minority contractors pay their pay their folks versus non folks, non minority contractors who have bigger contracts. And I think we're just getting into it's not dealing with the disparity. We need to understand the top line disparity within the contracts that we do.
340 So I want to keep us I want to keep us moving. What I'm hearing is that the first two adding regional workforce equity act to number four, and anywhere where we call out a committee name.
341 At city.
342 Council.
343 Striking the committee name and saying Portland city council or a relevant committee. Exactly that. Those would be friendly to you.
344 Yes, ma'am.
345 Councilor Ryan, would those be friendly to you?
346 Yes.
347 Councilor Green, you're now a part of this too. Would those be friendly?
348 It would be, yes.
349 Colleagues, I'm happy to get that in writing to you. If somebody can send me a version of this electronically, or if that is straightforward enough that we don't need it in writing, that's fine as well. Does anybody want that in writing those two things?
350 And I sent it to you.
351 Perfect. Okay, I'll work on that. Councilor Novick.
352 Yeah, I just had a couple of questions. Questions one, I just wanted to ask staff do councilor Greens amendments cause any heartburn for you in terms of adding to cost and timing?
353 In terms of research? The breadth of it, it could it could potentially impact impact the group, the group study. Yes.
354 Okay. How long would it take to figure out the extent to which it might impact cost?
355 I will have to engage with engage with the parties involved in order to be to roll that out and see how much it costs. It could be a very significant, but the execution of it, the outcomes could be, could, could be a challenge at times.
356 Okay.
357 Thank you. And also I just have to say I'm confused looking at the we talked about going back from March to December, but looking at the current version that I see online and written, I don't see any reference to either March or December. So is that deliberate? We're no longer putting in a specific deadline.
358 I'm looking for it.
359 This is the.
360 Version that councilor Smith's office circulated. And so in the resolved section, it says upon completion in what is now the number five, the March 1st date was stricken. But we can add back something as well.
361 So, colleagues, what haley has up is the amended with councilor Green's rolled into it, I believe, and you're working on rolling in the two things that were accepted as friendly that I raised. Is that correct?
362 Yes. The number four has the aria piece added, and then the number five reflects the change where it now says studies to city council or a relevant committee to.
363 Councilor novick's question, there is no date currently. It just says shall be presented upon completion. Correct? Councilor Novick did you have additional questions? Okay. Councilor Ryan.
364 Yeah, I just have a question for you, councilor Smith. I wasn't involved in the details of this, but listening to the testimony, we heard that we wanted to look at wages for women and and people of color, and I couldn't tell if this is now included in this resolution. And I'm confused. Why not.
365 Looking for wages? Because we're looking for the disparity first. That is what we're paying for. We're looking for the disparity.
366 Just in who's employed but not what they're making.
367 Exactly. I think if we want to add additional things like this that we should I mean, it's going to take additional money, I believe, to do that analysis of all the salaries and all that. That's a whole different ballgame. And I think it's getting into other people's work. I think they if I think if it's something that people want, if contractors want it, they can they can pay for that. What we need for our executive order is how are women and people of color despaired in our contracting?
368 Now, I get that with the with the owners and such. But, you know, we got into a lot of workforce conversations, which is the value added, in my opinion, on where we're going, because that's always been what has been omitted. And we're not going to really get to the heart of the matter about apprentice and.
369 Apprentice of.
370 The matter is who's getting contracted. That's that's the top line. That's what we need to deal with because the issue is cobid firms and women owned and and minority businesses are not being contracted at the same rate. There are several sublevels that I would like to go under, you know, in terms of how many contractors use their wives for fronts. I mean, yeah, that that part I mean, it's getting into some of those things. We have to deal with the disparity. Let's just see that show minority and women are being despaired.
371 I'm clearly glad I daylighted this because you're pretty passionate about the conversation, just like.
372 I've been dealing.
373 With.
374 This for for over 20 years.
375 I wanted to get under the hood and talk to you about it.
376 Right. I think we need to do that in something else when we have a little bit more money.
377 Yeah.
378 We don't have enough money for all that.
379 Well, I'm just really glad that you lifted the workforce that was here. And then that made me want to ask these concrete questions, because this is the this is the.
380 Biggest tool we have.
381 In equity in our city. This is our biggest impact we can do for equity in our region. Is this legislation. So I just.
382 Want to make the struggle is real.
383 Took some time to have this conversation. Thank you councilor. That's not a friendly conversation or amendment to add at this time okay okay.
384 One could raise that after we vote on this amendment if one wanted to.
385 Yes, sir.
386 I don't know that we'd have time for that.
387 To do that for sure, because then we're getting to the heart of the matter of this conversation of equity.
388 Councilor Morillo.
389 Thank you. I so it sounds like we're not going to have time to fully finalize this today. And I'm asking because I really appreciated with some of the folks who came up to testify, said about making sure that we're using local academics to look at some of these studies. And I guess I would push back and I would say that I think it is important to see not just who we're contracting with, but also how their employees are treated in the positions that they're getting at the city. Because I know me and Dan Ryan are greeting, can we memorialize today?
390 I do.
391 But I think I understand what you're saying is that there has to be a narrow scope, and maybe this is a separate issue to look into, but I think the consistent issue that we also have at the city is that we are looking at the people at the top and what they're getting, and not what the employees who are doing the work are getting. And I worry about, you know, I think that making sure that we get an analysis on the positions, pay and benefits of women and people of color at the city so that we can see are they actually getting into managerial positions or are they in director positions? They only ever doing different types of work. You know, I think all of that is really important to this. So I would approve those types of amendments, but I don't have language at the top.
392 Yeah we can look at that.
Procedural episode · turns 393–401
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
393 Counselors I want to make a suggestion because we are over time, and I know that we have a few other things we need to get done this morning. Still, I'd like to suggest that we limit debate just to anything else we need to say on this amendment. Vote on this amendment, as amended. As haley had had it up on the screen.
394 Yes.
395 And then there's a fair amount of additional work that it sounds like folks want to do. That's work that is more often done at a committee level. But we had some things brought to us today that were not brought forward in committee. I think we can finish that work at full council. I don't think we need to send it back to committee, but I would suggest that we then entertain a motion to hold this over to an additional meeting, to take some of these other topics that are not directly related to the amendment before us.
396 Madam.
397 Point of order. So are you saying we need to take a vote if we're going to approve this? First. I would like to we can take this at an additional meeting, but we need to take it back to the labor, if that's what you all want. Let's take it into my committee and have a deeper conversation about it.
398 I think we could do that at committee or at council. I would entertain either motion, but I would suggest that we vote on this amendment that's on the table.
399 Yes, ma'am. I agree with you.
400 So seeing no one else in the queue, keelan, could you please call the roll on the now amended amendment brought forward by counselor Smith with changes from counselor Green and myself, which haley has up before us, and which I believe the clerk has a copy of.
401 I think we need to be able to see what we're talking about because we we can't scroll with her. Right.
402 Okay. Haley.
403 Could you slowly.
404 Minute one.
405 That it has, could you slowly scroll through so folks can see this.
406 Yes.
407 And I can also just abbreviate. So the there was a title change the first whereas in the original resolution was struck the term the mayor was removed from the executive order piece. Here new strategies included as part of this. Whereas statement, the bulk of the rest of the original remains the same until we get to the end of the whereas statements where the final two whereases are now stricken as well, and yep, okay.
408 Go back, read the two parts that are being.
409 Oh.
410 You want to read the second part? Got it. Okay,
411 Okay, because I'm okay with either one. I just don't think we can get through all of the conversation today.
412 I know it's a mess.
413 Okay.
414 And thank you haley.
415 Yeah.
416 Okay. If folks are ready, let's keep scrolling.
417 And then I did. Correct. And then now therefore section where it now just reads Portland city council rather than Portland city council labor workforce committee, per our legal advisement.
418 Resident you.
419 I had two friendly amendments accepted. My quick scan earlier was that they were. But if we're going to.
420 One of the changes was in number four right here. That one is aria. And then the second change that I took up was the resorting this back to a presentation to city council or a relevant committee.
421 I think we may have missed 1 or 2 of the places where it called out a committee. But if we're going to take this up another day, I'm happy to bring a specific redlined version for those other ones.
422 And those are mainly just at the bottom here and here, where it just states that the labor and workforce development committee acknowledges the funding piece and then is going to be supporting the request. So I can revert those if that's preferred.
423 Please. Point of information. Those are both going back to city council to say city council. Okay.
424 Okay.
425 We were about to vote, but we now have two hands up. Let's okay. Councilor Novick is yours for after the vote.
426 No. It's before. I just want to be a broken record. I just want to verify that staff said that some of these amendments, including the ones that I certainly agree with in concept like setting the impact of project labor agreements, might affect the timing and the cost of the studies.
427 That is correct. It can definitely impact if we won't, we don't engage with the previously negotiated contractor. It could adversely affect the timeline, not by months. It may be over a year.
428 I mean, the I mean the timeline, given that we don't have a deadline maybe is not as relevant, but I am worried about the about the cost as well.
429 The cost can be significantly more.
430 I think that response was that response, though, to adding regional workforce equity.
431 Act that to.
432 If some of the other concerns that were raised that we've not yet incorporated.
433 I think that we can have a conversation with those parties and come to some sort of understanding about the necessity and need.
434 Okay.
435 Colleagues, we really need to move to a vote. Councilor Dunphy.
436 Yeah, I just want to note that I think we're missing adjectives in this.
437 Yeah.
438 We will have an opportunity to make further amendments. So. Councilor Clark.
439 Just a question about that. We will it will come back. And we can also talk about lurk and what the role of lurk might be here, that they may be able to either, you know, work with the contractor. Okay.
440 Let's vote on what's before us.
441 So that the city council that the city.
442 Okay. Keelan, could you please call the roll on the now amended amendment, which is before us, which haley has the official copy of?
443 Clark.
444 Hi, Green.
445 Hi, Zimmerman.
446 I Avalos.
447 I.
448 Dunphy I.
449 Smith. I know. I Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. Nay pirtle-guiney. I the amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and one no vote.
450 Okay. Councilor canal.
451 Thank you, madam president. I'm looking forward to getting the opportunity to work on this a little bit more, including the point that councilor Dunphy just raised, including the whereas clauses and some of the things that councilor Clark and others have mentioned as well. It is clear we're not going to be able to do that in this council today. And given the advice from councilor Smith on where to take it, I move to refer this back to the labor and workforce development committee.
452 Now.
453 Unless you'd like to second that councilor.
454 I'm not second it. I want this to be approved and we can talk about that other stuff on another amendment.
455 Your amendment was just approved, councilor.
456 So what are we sending back to.
457 The now amended version so that these other topics can be discussed?
458 So so we're not passing it as a goal. We're bringing it back to committee. I thought we were bringing back the other issues in a different in a different resolution.
459 Councilor what I'm hearing is that there's a lot of interest in discussing other amendments. And we are 15 minutes over. When I had said we needed to move on to the next agenda item. So what I would like us to do what I thought that I was asking you a moment ago was, would you prefer to take up some of those other discussions before we pass the final in committee, or at a.
460 Future council meeting.
461 Until after you after we took the vote? So, no, I didn't understand what you were saying.
Procedural episode · turns 462–470
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
462 Okay.
463 I think if we're going to do something and this is the problem, I just found out about this amendment. No, listen.
464 To me.
465 Councilor Kanal just made an amendment.
466 I'm trying to get a point of order. Point of order. I just got this, and I did a friendly amendment to councilor Green because I thought it was good for this, for this resolution. And now people are not wanting to do it, and you're trying to bring it back to my committee when we should just pass it so we can get this stuff done.
467 Councilor we don't have the time to take up all of the discussion that I hear our colleagues wanting to take up today, so I can hold this over to another council date, or we can send it back to committee for more work. I am happy to do either of those, but I don't think that we have the time to get through all of the discussion folks want to have.
468 To pass it to another. Council date.
469 Okay.
470 I'll withdraw the motion, I misunderstood. Sorry.
471 Yeah.
472 So you misunderstood what? So he misunderstood so we can take the vote?
473 No, no, no, I'm just withdrawing the motion to refer back to committee. I'll let everybody else determine what happens next.
474 So, colleagues, I am going to hold this over to a future council date. We will bring it back as quickly as possible so that we can continue this discussion. If everybody who has brought up other ideas can, please bring amendments pre-filed to that meeting, I think that would be very helpful. If stakeholders have other things you've brought up that you want us to consider, please find an advocate on council to work with and get that in writing before this comes back to full council, so that when it next comes back, we can do straightforward work and get it passed. Keelan do you need anything else for us to formally hold this over and move to the next agenda item? Okay, could you please call the next agenda item?
475 Item seven adopt the Portland urban forest plan to improve public health, build resilience to climate change, and promote environmental justice. Okay.
476 Thank you. Colleagues. We were in the middle of debate on this item when we ended a previous meeting. And. We had, I believe, two open sets of amendments. I believe we had adopted some of councilor Dunphy's amendments and had other amendments open. And I believe we also have a Novick amendment open. So, councilor Dunphy, could you please start by letting us know which of your amendments are open and giving us a brief overview of what they do so we know where we're starting?
477 Absolutely.
478 My remaining five amendments that are on the table are in two chunks. I have Dunphy amendments one, two and three as a package, and Dunphy amendment six and seven as a package. Dunphy amendment one, two and three would specifically. Dunphy amendment one talks about completing a funding plan for ramping up annual project completion goals, prioritizing low income, low shade residential neighborhoods. Reporting annually starting in November of 27 on locations. Funding strategies, innovation district level. Key performance indicators. Dunphy two simply adds, ensuring that at least one pilot area of the pilot project is included in district one for the street tree maintenance program, and Dunphy amendment three adds the phrase phased to prioritize low income and low canopy areas as it pertains to street tree maintenance program colleagues, you also note that in the official documents on the file, we have received specific feedback from public works about this. They have across the board said that these are minor and can be accommodated. And so that is Dunphy package one, which incorporates amendments one, two and three. And I would move those as an amendment okay.
479 Do we. I believe these were already open and moved in second. You're right. So those are on the table.
480 These are all.
481 There's Dunphy one through three. We have Dunphy six and seven open as a package. And then we have Novick. I believe yours is one amendment with three things in it.
482 Should I?
483 Let's explain six and seven also really quick.
484 Yes. Quickly. Detail six and seven.
485 Six. Seven.
486 Dunphy. Amendment six is specific to their performance menu measures and includes requesting specifically adds three words by council district. This is to specifically give us a report about how these performance measures are being used, or the plans for them going into it, broken out by district and Dunphy. Amendment seven creates a new cross bureau team to propose potential permanent funding mechanisms to council. And those would be together as well.
487 Okay. Thank you. And councilor Novick, please remind folks your amendments.
488 Yes, actually, I had two. One is to action item 2-3 and I'm going to pass pass them out now. Item 2-3 would take the the amendment to item 2-3. The recommendations would take the current language fund and implement a comprehensive citywide street maintenance street tree maintenance program by November 2027. Establish a plan for the city to assume legal financial responsibility for street trees et-cetera, and replace that with sustainably funded implement. Replace that with the language that was originally in the plan that came to committee, and make it sustainably fund and implement a comprehensive citywide street tree maintenance program to reduce financial burdens for portlanders, improve the health and safety of the city street trees, and support habitat connectivity. I note that councilor Dunphy and I are both proposing amendments to this section. I. If we're voting in his first, I would vote for his because I think it's better than what we have now. But then it would move to revert to the original language. And my concern here is that although the Portland clean energy fund is already paying for the first five years of a program to take over street tree maintenance, I or the clean energy fund moves in a five year investment. Investment plans. And I personally am concerned about the idea that taking. Although I think it would be great if the city could take over the burden of maintaining street trees. I do not want to presume that for the foreseeable future, taking over the burden of street trees from people in rich areas is more important than anything else we might do with clean energy fund money. And to the argument I've heard from some people that, well, it doesn't say the clean energy fund, my response is, well, where the heck else is the money going to come from? On item two four, I would replace the current language. Identify financing strategies that include new funding sources, cost saving measures, and other ways to improve pedestrian accessibility and reduce costs to property owners for repairing sidewalks damaged by trees and by 2028, develop a plan for how the city could assume legal and financial responsibility for street tree related sidewalk repairs that takes into account, blah, blah, blah. I would replace that with the original language. And they in the plan, which was simply identify financing strategies, cost saving measures, and other ways to improve pedestrian accessibility and reduce costs to property owners for repairing sidewalks damaged by trees. And again, I think that ideally, the city should be paying to address damage to sidewalks caused by trees. But in a context where we have a transportation system that is woefully underfunded, where we have our streets literally falling apart and no current plan to fix them, I am concerned about language. That, to me implies that we are assuming that the city is going to assume legal and financial responsibility for sidewalk repairs, and I realize language doesn't say definitively, yes, we will, but I'm not comfortable saying we should develop a plan for it until we've decided we're going to do that. And I think that such a decision should be preceded by a debate about other, other priorities.
489 Thank you. Councilor. So we had these three packages on the table when we left before in the order we were planning to take them. We were going to do them in that order. Dunphy one through three, Dunphy six through seven, and then Novick one and two. So I would like to move us to discussion on Dunphy one through three. Councilor Avalos, I see that you're in the queue. Were you in the queue on a different piece or on a broader topic?
490 I was going to make a comment about councilor Novick's amendment.
491 We do them one section at a time so that we can keep our comments cohesive. Thank you. Is there any discussion on Dunphy one through three? I'm going to give folks a moment because I know we're warming back up on this topic. I'll note why we while we take a moment that we had originally intended to end this meeting by 1:00 so that we could have a half an hour break and start our work session at 130. I think in order to complete this work, we will need a little more time. I hope we can finish this by 115. We are going to go until 115. If anybody needs a break, please just take it on your own time so we can get through this. We will then break from 115 to 145 to give everybody a half hour lunch break. We will start our next work, our work session 15 minutes late, and acting administrator biery is going to somehow figure out how to shave 15 minutes off. Thank you for the thumbs up before I said this out loud that you would try to do this, I appreciate it. Councilor Ryan, I stalled enough.
492 That's okay. Thank you, madam president. Councilor Dunphy, I, I read your amendments, and we've had a lot of conversations about this. Obviously, it was in the committee, and I'm looking at at the urban forestry staff, and I think what I thought, I thought they were already planning to do these things that you're mentioning. So I guess I'm confused on you're nodding your heads.
493 There is a.
494 Why why are these necessary?
495 You know, there's a lot of plans that the city has where in the body. It talks about prioritizing district one, east Portland, low income areas, low shade, all these sort of things. I'm trying to be explicit about it in the individual notes. I will just mention that, for example, PCEF dollars throughout the entire program explicitly say that they are prioritizing low income areas of the city and heat islands. But if you look at the actual dollar breakdown of where dollars are being invested, we are about 50% of compared to districts 2 or 3. So I want to be explicit wherever possible. Absolutely. I fully believe that the urban forest plan will address this, and the work generally will be guided by these principles. I just want to be explicit about it in every situation that I think is is relevant.
496 Okay, I'm glad we're having this conversation. And I've been listening to urban forestry for a minute, and I always hear them talk about everything that you just said. So it's almost like we're getting a friendly amendment from the staff, like, you're okay with this. So what's happening right now? Okay, ladies and gentlemen, they're all going like this. All right. Thank you. Yes. That's all I need to talk about.
497 Thank you.
498 Councilor.
499 Councilor Green.
500 Yeah. I just wanted to say briefly I support these amendments because I think it is important to be explicit about where we want to make our investments with priority. It is unequivocally hotter on the east side of Portland. Just a fact. And it's also the same reason I supported cip, where we were being very explicit on sidewalk prioritization that affects district four. I think it's also fair to say district one is in sore need of infrastructure called trees. So that's why I'm supporting this today, guys.
501 Thank you. Councilor colleagues, is there any further debate on Dunphy one through three. Okay. Seeing none keelan, could you please call the roll clerk?
502 No.
503 Green. Zimmerman.
504 Hi. Hi,
505 Dunphy.
506 A Smith.
507 No.
508 Hi, Ryan. Hi.
509 Koyama Lane.
510 Hi, Morillo. Hi, Novick.
511 Hi, pirtle-guiney.
512 Hi.
513 The amendment is approved with ten yes votes and one no vote.
514 Thank you very much. Councilor Dunphy. Could you you actually, you overviewed amendments six through seven for us. So, colleagues, I would like us to take up any discussion or debate on Dunphy six through seven.
515 I'd just like them separated. Thanks.
516 That was a motion to separate. Okay, counselor, would you like us to take six first or seven.
517 First six, please?
518 Okay.
519 Can you remind us what it is?
520 Yeah.
521 Six. Amends the performance measures on page 71 to include a district level lens for all performance measures. It specifically adds three words by council district. This aligns with some of the work that is already going on in the bureau about investments across the city.
522 Thank you, councilor. Councilor Zimmerman, thanks.
523 I appreciate separating them. I have definitely appreciated the memo I received from the parks and public works section. My reason for separating is I do have concern around Dunphy seven in the response that I got from the parks bureau. Really, I respected what they had to say about maybe not putting themselves in the position to develop that funding strategy. And I, I really value that they brought that up in the competing interests of city priorities. I, I think it best if we stop having smaller groups try and say this is the method, because all that ends up doing is having methods that are competing and not looking at the whole picture. Because if your job is to serve, solve this one problem, I think you you view it with a certain lens. So I'm less likely leaning toward a no vote on Dunphy seven. While I understand his point, I do appreciate the parks bureau memo on this, and they're thinking about why it wasn't included originally. Thanks, councilor Dunphy.
524 Thank you. Councilor.
525 Colleagues, is there any discussion to Dunphy? Six, which is the amendment before us on the table?
526 Okay.
527 Keelan, could you please call the roll on Dunphy six.
528 Clark,
529 I.
530 Brain I.
531 Zimmerman I. Avalos I. Dunphy I.
532 Smith canal. I Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I maria. I Novick. I pirtle-guiney no. The amendment is approved with ten yes votes and one no vote.
533 Thank you colleagues, we now have Dunphy seven before us. Is there any discussion on Dunphy? Seven. Councilor Novick.
534 Zero to councilor Zimmerman's comments.
535 You know, I had some notes written out. I'm next in the queue. But honestly, my concerns are quite similar as well, so I will just put myself in that category to any other discussion on Dunphy seven councilor Dunphy.
536 Yeah, I was wondering if cfo barry might be willing to speak about the financial plan for this and the concern specifically here.
537 I'm sorry, councilor, I'm just not the.
538 For number seven, we're asking to convene a new cross person cross bureau workgroup on the financial plan for this. There were some specific concerns about. Who's the right person. And this puts it in cfo's position. And so there was concern about whether or not that's the right position, whether there's an expense, whether that is something that.
539 Yeah, I guess I would just say, councilor, I am not prepared to talk about what those costs may be. Certainly happy to accept that if that's the will of council and take that forward. You know, we do have a lot of things going on at the city, and this will certainly compete for those limited resources. But that's something I'm willing to accept and take forward as effectively as we can.
540 And colleagues, I hear the concern for sure, and this is not a hill I'm going to die on. I'm still going to vote for it. But, you know, vote your vote however you want to see.
541 Thank you.
542 Counselor. Any other discussion on Dunphy seven okay. Seeing none, let's move to a vote clerk.
543 No.
544 Green.
545 Hi.
546 Zimmerman. No. Avalos.
547 Hi, Dunphy.
548 Hi, Smith.
549 Canal.
550 Hi, Ryan. No.
551 Koyama Lane.
552 Hi, Morillo. Hi.
553 Novick.
554 No.
555 Pirtle-guiney.
556 No.
557 The amendment fails with six yes votes and five no votes.
558 Thank you. Keelan councilor Dunphy, thank you for bringing forward all of those proposals. Councilor. Novick. We have your amendment number one on the table, which amends action item two three. Is there any discussion to Novick one? Councilor Avalos.
559 Yeah, we kind of ended the last meeting on this note, and I had had a couple of comments about it back then. It looks like this hasn't changed from the last time. Right. So these amendments are exactly the same as they were proposed last time. Yes.
560 I actually thought that one of them has changed and I forget to be honest. Which which one? It is the I can't remember whether I had alternate language for two or 3 or 2. Four. So what you have in writing is that I would look at both of them.
561 For sure. I think still, the general gist here for me is I'll speak to. So first I'll say that we talked about this a little bit last time, but a plan would be non-binding as it's currently written. I know that we had some discussion with staff about it, but I remember that being one of the outcomes of that question. And I understand why people are concerned about committing the city to anything that we don't feel that we have funding for, especially as we're staring down a another brutal budget. But I think the concern that I'm hearing and I share by removing this language and therefore the direction to make the plan, is that once we get those costs back, it's going to actually take longer than to come up with the plan. So what advocates were trying to communicate is that they feel that we don't want to unnecessarily delay the construction of the plan. It's not binding as written, and it is, you know, have having it constructed in a way that pushes and directs the the city to make those plans now can include all of these other financial analyzes, and we can have that broader policy and financial discussion. So I will not be supporting these amendments for that reason. But I just wanted to add lift up what I was understanding the advocates were saying, because people had they had questions about why they didn't support your amendments. That is why. And that's also why I do not. So I won't be voting for these. Thanks.
562 Thank you, councilor Councilor Kanal.
563 Thank you, madam president. I worked with several groups. The staff of PBOT and parks to develop this, along with the advocates that are being referenced here. So this amend this language, the the version that is now original to us today was an amendment that I put forward in committee. I understand the concern around the idea that the text we currently have might be committing us to effectively doing whatever the plan says, sight unseen. I that's not how I read it, but I think it is a legitimate concern. I also fully agree with councilor Avalos about the idea that we're both creating an interim step and not outlining the process. So I had a suggested piece of text because I it says establish a plan for the city to assume, and that appears to be both the actual text that's being changed here and where the concern actually lives. It's not fixing text that references other texts. So I wanted to ask councilor Novick if the if a phrase such as, for example, develop a plan that would, if implemented, allow the city to assume would resolve the concern around a establish being very directive in terms and potentially implying that it would be implemented no matter what, and also by explicitly saying, if implemented and putting that would in there, establish that there is a further decision point beyond this decision point for whether or not to, in fact enact that plan.
564 I would say that I think that would be preferable to the language. Now, however, I would prefer to simply go back to the original language that came to committee after a robust process, which the advocates all said was a good process and which is more open ended and says sustainably funded, implement a comprehensive citywide street maintenance program to reduce financial burdens for portlanders, improve the health and safety of the city street trees, and support habitat connectivity.
565 So I'm a little confused because I'm talking about two three right now, I believe, and my understanding.
566 Is I.
567 That is not the amendment I'm seeing proposed in writing. I saw the reversion into four.
568 Actually, I thought I did, I did you not get I just I just passed this out.
569 Oh it's out there.
570 Did not even see that. Okay. Well given that let me, let me say that I am open if these amendments should fail as they currently are, the reversion to something like what I just said, establish or sorry, develop a plan that would, if implemented, allow the city to assume for both two three and two four. And I do sincerely hope that that is a open conversation, because I do hope that these two amendments fail. As a result of that, I think I will say that there was a you're right that there was a process that was developed and went through to get to this point. I also praised the community engagement work that malcolm hoover and team along with. I think it was cells did in developing this. But I also will say that the process to get to these amendments was equally, you know, robust in terms of working with advocates, working with PBOT staff, in one case, working with parks and all the cases. And they are the ones who actually wrote this text. It wasn't coming out of a council office, it wasn't coming out of the advocates. It was actually city staff that developed the text. That is where we're where we are now. So I'll be voting no on both of these. I'm open. If they should fail to having a conversation about how to improve it while still retaining the, well, everything, councilor Avalos said. So I won't repeat it. Thank you.
571 Thank you, councilor.
572 Councilor Green.
573 In the interest of time, I'm just going to echo what councilor Avalos and councilor Canal said and say that I will not be supporting these amendments.
574 Thank you councilor. I share councilor Novick's concerns about tying us to funding or legal liability before we're ready to do that. I also think it is helpful to get plans in advance so that we can make those decisions. Well, councilor Novick, I will be supporting you on your first amendment because I do believe that the language there will get us a plan that we may be somewhat locked into. I'll note now, so that I don't have to speak later, that I will not be supporting the second amendment, because there what I'm looking at is identifying financing strategies, but not requiring that we move forward with them. So I feel comfortable with the language that was changed in committee in the two four section. Colleagues, is there any other discussion to Novick one which amends action item two three? Okay, seeing none keelan, could you please call the roll?
575 All right. Clark,
576 I.
577 Green nay.
578 Zimmerman I. Avalos nay.
579 Dunphy.
580 No.
581 Smith. Canal.
582 Nay.
583 Ryan.
584 Yes.
585 Koyama Lane.
586 No.
587 Morillo.
588 No.
589 Novick I.
590 Pirtle-guiney I.
591 The amendment fails with five yes votes and six no votes.
592 Colleagues.
593 Is there any discussion on Novick two which amends action item two for okay, seeing none keelan, could you please call the roll?
594 Clark,
595 A Green? No. Zimmerman a. Avalos nay.
596 Dunphy.
597 No.
598 Smith. Canal.
599 No. Ryan I. Koyama Lane no.
600 Morillo.
601 No.
602 Novick I.
603 Pirtle-guiney. No amendment fails with four yes votes and seven no votes.
604 Okay, colleagues.
605 Is there any discussion to the underlying urban forest plan? Councilor canal.
606 So first let me say that I stand by what I said a few moments ago and I am still open. If there is a desire to to address that, to that change, because I don't think that that loses any of the gains that have been made in terms of the text that was, in my view, improved in committee separately, I do think that there it's worth noting that having property owners bear financial responsibility for street trees and street tree related sidewalk repairs deepens and furthers inequities. I think that there is a clear argument that that accepting a street tree can create a liability for people in lower income homeowners and lower income neighborhoods, because they may not know that they're going to have several thousand dollars around for for repairs. The city has a demographic profile on the website by neighborhood. You can look at it. I think it's neighborhood demographic profile. Civic life, I think maintains it where you can see a pretty clear correlation. It's not perfect, but between the level of the percentage of people who live in poverty in each neighborhood, inversely to the percentage of tree canopy. And so there are reasons for that, that go in both directions causally, as well as coming from a, you know, tertiary source. There are parts of each of those that that perpetuate the other inequities. A better way of putting that. And I'll also note that as you look at these as well, it's just a couple pages higher or lower that that also correlates with the percentage of portlanders of color in each of these neighborhoods as well. So I want to look at options for maintaining our street trees and sidewalks beyond property owners footing the bill. If a plan that we created allows for the exploration of adjustment by voter approval to any charter amendments, I'm open to that, too. I think that's what the purpose of these amendments are about, is to is to say, how would you get from here to there? Identify a potential destination that we're interested in looking at and and having staff say, what would it take to get there and what would it take to do each of the steps along the way? If one of those steps fails? And sometimes that would require an adjustment, sometimes it would require completely giving up on it in the case of a charter restriction. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least say, hey, if there's a charter restriction, it is theoretically possible to refer something to the ballot to change that charter. And then if voters agree, then it's a good idea because voters said so. And I think that that we often get a little too stuck in how things already are in this building. Instead of being willing to trust the voters on it in certain scenarios. And I think while we have limitations in terms of the funding for how to get there, that's really important in the big picture. We can't make a decision without doing first the research. And I think these improvements that we've already made, getting locked in through approval of the urban forest plan, will help us to do that. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
607 Thank you, councilor.
608 Councilor Novick.
609 I just wanted to say that I very much appreciated the suggestion that councilor Kanal made earlier on changing language, and if he wanted to move his proposed change back as an amendment, I would be happy to. Second, in addition to that, I'd like to say that I appreciate the those of you who have said that despite my concerns about how it might be interpreted, none of this language commits us to do anything. And as a result of that, and the fact that we've had a robust, robust discussion, I am planning to, however, winds up voting to approve the urban forestry plan as a whole.
610 Thank you councilor, colleagues. I put myself in the queue because councilor Kanal and Novick are bumping this to each other. And as the person who just said that, I don't want to bind us to anything, but I do want the plans. I will motion that we strike in action. Item 2/3 the word establish after by November 2027 and insert the language. Develop a plan that would if comma if implemented comma plan for the city to assume legal and financial responsibility. I guess we're we're crossing out establish a both there.
611 And replacing it with.
612 We're crossing out establish a in between November 2027 and plan and replacing it with develop a plan that would comma if implemented comma and then it continues plan for the city to assume. I believe that's what councilor Kanal said before.
613 I actually said all but the last verb there, which was allowed develop a plan that would comma, if implemented comma, allow the city to assume.
614 Allow the city to assume. Okay.
615 I'll second that if that's what you're moving.
616 So colleagues, we have crossed out establish a plan for and replaced it with develop a plan that would comma if implemented comma allow.
617 And that was in both two three and two four.
618 I was doing that just in two three.
619 I'll second it anyway.
620 But would you like it in two four? Also, I was just trying to move us along here. Okay. In two three. Seconded by councilor Kanal councilor Morillo are you in the queue for debate?
621 Yep.
622 Go right ahead.
623 Okay, great. I feel like this is watering down what this proposal was meant to be for when we were talking about it during the climate committee, something that came up is that the city. We are obsessed with making plans to make plans to make plans, and I literally cannot take it anymore. Are we going to plant trees and and protect our canopy? And are we committing to that as a value and as a thing that east Portland needs and that all of our districts need? Are we going to commit to being climate resilient or not? Because the city has already done numerous studies on our tree canopy and what needs to be done? So the only question is, are we going to actually put our money where our mouth is and commit to making this work? And I feel like this amendment further waters it down again to a plan to create a plan. And I just, unless I can be convinced otherwise that maybe I'm reading this wrong, I think I'm probably going to be a no on this.
624 Thank you.
625 Councilor councilor.
626 Avalos I'm getting the same rate as councilor Morillo I appreciate the efforts. I know the intentions, but I think that it is written well as is. I would like to keep the language so I will be voting no on this amendment.
627 Thank you. Councilor, colleagues, is there any other discussion on this amendment seeing none keelan, could you please call the roll?
628 Clerk? Hi, Green.
629 Hi.
630 Sorry, was that irony?
631 What do you want us to be?
632 No.
633 It's it's I.
634 Thank you.
635 Zimmerman I Avalos.
636 Dunphy.
637 No.
638 Smith.
639 Canal I. Ryan I. Koyama Lane no.
640 Morillo.
641 No.
642 Novick I.
643 Pirtle-guiney I.
644 The amendment is approved with seven yes votes and four no votes.
645 Colleagues.
646 Is there any other discussion to the urban forest plan? I'm shocked.
647 But.
648 Councilor Ryan, are you raising your hand?
649 I just want to thank the urban forestry team. You've been really patient with us. Can we just acknowledge that? So thank you for showing up late at night and again late into this meeting. And I'm hungry, so I should stop right there. Thanks.
650 Thank you. Councilor. I think we would all echo the appreciation for our staff who have put this together and bear with us through a few different meetings here, and I think everybody up here has a lot they want to say, but we're trying to move quickly. Keelan seeing no one else in the queue. And with apologies to all of the advocates and staff who have put a lot of time in and aren't getting to hear all of the remarks that we prepared, could you please call the roll?
651 Clerk I.
652 Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Dunphy I. Smith canal.
653 This is on the actual underlying rate correct? Yes.
654 Ryan I. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I. Novick I.
655 Pirtle-guiney I.
656 The resolution as amended, is adopted with 11 yes votes.
657 Thank you colleagues. With nothing further on our agenda, we actually made it by 1:00. So jonas, you get your full time. We will be back here at 130 to begin our work session, and I will close today's city council meeting.