The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-01-29
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (19,573 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 Labor and Workforce Development Committee of Portland City Council met on 2026-01-29. Roll call and a statement of conduct were read, and the meeting opened with an update on plans to implement a sidewalk improvement and pavement plan for Districts One and Four, referencing Resolution 37705. Presenters from the Bureau of Transportation and Public Works Service Area discussed missing sidewalks, pavement condition, funding strategies, bonding mechanisms, stormwater management costs, and project prioritization across districts, with figures on mileage, costs, and budget backlog stated inconsistently across speakers. Discussion also covered equity in construction job access, coordination with other agencies, and dashboard transparency tools. The committee then took up a report requirement on Portland Police Bureau recruitment goals and costs, discussing staffing levels, recruitment bottlenecks, retirement projections, and comparisons to other public safety systems, with figures on officer counts and vacancies stated inconsistently. Amendments to the resolution were introduced, discussed, and amended further; votes occurred, and outcomes are recorded in the vote ledger. No members of the public signed up for testimony on this item or on the general public comment item for the committee. The meeting concluded with closing remarks about the relationship between potential Portland Clean Energy Fund revenue and existing police budget allocations.
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 I call the meeting of the labor and workforce development committee to order. It is Thursday, January 29th at 12 p.m. Diana, will you please call the roll?
1 Good morning. Dunphy here. Kanal here. Novick. Green here.
2 Smith here. Thank you. Christopher, will you please read the statement of conduct, please?
3 Welcome to the meeting of the labor and workforce development committee to testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance in the committee agenda at wwe. Council agenda. Labor and workforce development committee. Or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In person, testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over, the chair preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. A virtual testifier should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
4 Thank you. I just want to note that councilor Novick is here. Today. The committee will update a plan on the sidewalk improvement and pavement plan for district one and district four. My favorite subject Portland police expansion costs, ppe report and public comment on the labor and workforce development committee. Diana, could you please read the first item, please?
5 Item number one update to plan or sorry. Update on plan to implement sidewalk improvement and pavement plan in district one and district four.
6 May I have a motion?
7 We adopting?
8 No no no no I see millicent williams, PBOT director and our dca. How are you?
9 I'm doing good. Thank you, chair Smith. Good afternoon. Councilors. For the record, my name is paul. I'm the deputy city administrator for public works service area chair Smith, thank you for your champion championing this initiative and for your leadership and councilors, thank you for your investment of time, focus and continued engagement on this important conversation. Next slide please. In may of 2025, the Portland city council approved resolution number 37705, the sidewalk improvement and paving program. And since that time, PBOT staff and coordination with cfo biery and debt manager matt kiragu have been engaging in evaluating strategies to to determine overall delivery capacity and to identify the funding necessary to meet the ambitious goal of building infrastructure improvements across all districts in the city, with emphasis in parts of our community that have for far too long been underserved. As we move towards implementation, we'd like to acknowledge that this program positions the city of Portland to proactively meet future transportation demands, improve quality of life for residents, and build a more sustainable and connected infrastructure system for generations to come. This strategy ensures that project implementation efforts are aligned with city's broader goals of sustainability, safety, livability, equity, fiscal responsibility and long term asset performance. By delivering projects through structured and responsive framework, the city can protect its infrastructure investments while enhancing quality of life for all residents. While we have a brief presentation to share about the project delivery today, we recognize that leaving ample time for questions and discussions is important, especially about fiscal considerations. And for that reason, we're pleased that cfo biery and his team are here to support that portion of the conversation. And with that, I will turn it over to PBOT director melissa williams to provide some updates about the bureau's plans to deliver on the objectives outlined in the cip resolution.
10 Next slide please. Good morning. Thank you.
11 Donna paul. Good morning, chair Smith and members of the committee. For the record, my name is millicent williams. I am the director of the Portland bureau of transportation. This image is far too familiar as we've come before this council many times since last January to provide a picture, figuratively and quite literally, of the condition of our sidewalk network. This map shows missing sidewalks in district one and district four. Say they don't have sidewalks. They are correct. This map shows that missing sidewalks are most common in the areas that were annexed into the city 30, 40, 50 years ago. We have roughly 3200 miles of streets, some of them masquerading as streets on tv and approximately 120 miles of streets with no sidewalks on either side and another 52 miles of streets with sidewalks on only one side. Next slide please. This is a way to visualize our pavement condition. While the scale makes it hard to see the details on this map, it is easy to see that we have a widespread citywide problem. The darker red lines are streets in very poor condition, and the lighter red lines are streets in poor condition. This paints a pretty grim picture. Our paving budget has continued to be reduced over the past years, and our paving condition is deteriorating. With every opportunity that we have to measure how well or how poorly we're able to do. This map also contains some light purple lines. Again, I recognize this is a bit of an eye chart. These are the places that currently have gravel streets. When we took over ownership of these streets from the county, this was how we received them without the funds to pave them. We have over 50 miles of gravel streets in the city. We use what limited funds we have as strategically as possible. This means that we focus on investments on pavement that is still in fair condition, because it is the most cost effective investment. Every dollar invested in preventative maintenance can save up to $10 in future pavement reconstruction. And I'd like to note, also, before we go to the next slide, that we've made some changes to the pavement management system within the bureau. We have our pavement manager here who can speak to some of the ways that he is transforming that work, but we recognize that it is time for the bureau to do something a little bit differently. And so we look forward to sharing out how we're going to be approaching that work in the future. Next slide please. So the next couple of slides are going to provide for you in a chart format. The goals of our project as it's currently conceived. It's broken out in two charts the sidewalk construction improvements and then the pavement construction improvements. The goals of cip are clear, and our intention to deliver on those goals is also very clear. We know that if we are to work on the sidewalks, we will enhance pedestrian safety and access for all users. We will expand the sidewalk coverage and fill gaps, and we will be able to support active transportation. I've often joked with the team, it's not a laughing matter, but I've shared with folks. When we say active transportation, what do we mean? Sometimes the language of transportation is a little confusing, and so I seek to demystify the language around transportation. And so if we mean walking and biking when we say active transportation, we can say that and everybody knows what we're talking about. So or rolling we are going to promote equity and investments. We've talked about the numbers of plans that we have that help to inform the way that we make choices around how we're going to improve our network. We will continue to coordinate with infrastructure, other infrastructure projects we've mentioned in previous conversations, even this week, about the benefits of the unified cip. But I would like to note that even without that body being formally established and fully engaged, we do a great deal of coordination across the lines of the bureaus that are working in partnership. We will engage the community, and we will ensure that we're using tools and systems that ensure environmental sustainability. Next slide please. As it relates to pavement construction and the improvements that we anticipate seeing, we hope to preserve and in many instances build pavement assets. We hope to improve overall pavement condition. One of the things that we measure is our pavement condition. It's called the pavement condition index or pci. The goal is to have a pci of 70 or above. Our numbers are woefully below 70 or above. I was speaking with a colleague, former PBOT, who is in the city of tigard now, and she shared with me that their pci is at 70, so and they are able to do that because of investment, intentional investment in the transportation system. And so we are working to figure out how they were able to transform in the spaces that they had opportunity to how we can perhaps replicate some of that model as well.
12 Was that in the city of tiger?
13 Tiger? Yes.
14 Okay.
15 We hope to optimize life cycle cost efficiency. And so I kind of referenced it in the ways that we're reimagining our pavement management system. We recognize that in the past we've perhaps waited until a road has reached complete failure. With a goal of then identifying funding to do a complete reconstruct what we are learning and what we see now, especially given the climate that we're in, that money may never come. And so how do we adjust to meet the moment, and how do we work with the existing infrastructure that we have to ensure that we do have that long term, sustainable, smooth pavement, smooth, complete sidewalks that people expect out of their city and that they expect their transportation bureau to deliver on. We want to ensure safety for all road users. That has been mentioned many times. As we've talked about cip, I think people have made some had some misunderstanding about how we are emphasizing the work and thinking that it was only on getting things built, but it's how we get them built and how we are serving community through that building and through that fortification that ensures that while people are using the rights of way that we'll be working on, that they're able to do so safely and that we are holding close and as a key priority, safety in how we deliver and how those systems are used. As was the case with the sidewalk construction improvements, we will be looking at how we best promote equity in the investments. I know councilor Dunfee, you've asked us to do some further work, some exercises on how our investments have been made, specifically in support of district one. And so we look forward to continuing in that conversation about how we've prioritized ensuring that we have a complete network for the residents that you serve, but not just the residents in district one, residents across the city. As was the case with our sidewalk work, we will coordinate with our utility and capital project partners from across the city and the region. Sometimes the work that we will need to do will not just be confined to the city. There may be some need for county coordination as well as state coordination, so that we can have the most comprehensive conversation as well as system. And there are ways that we partner already. We'll just continue to do that work, and we'll enhance multi-modal integration. At an earlier committee meeting today, we were talking about ways to enhance multimodality, how we shift people away from using one primary mode to potentially looking at options and alternatives to using more. So pedestrian throughputs are going to be important through ways that are. Excuse me, I shouldn't say thruway people don't. That's not a good word to use. Pedestrian facilities as well as spaces for people to bicycle if they choose, and greater access to transit.
16 And and that's so important that we emphasize that, that we want to make sure that pedestrians have the ability to walk and have safe walking routes, not just to schools, but in their neighborhoods, and that we do it for cyclists and motorcycles and for folks who are in wheelchairs. So these active kind of places and for people to to go that they have that ability to cross streets and feel safe and secure.
17 Absolutely. We have a program right now. It's called the missing links program, where we look at the segments of roadway and sidewalk and prioritize how we can do the infill to make sure that we don't see those gaps where people are walking along, and then all of a sudden there's nothing and they find themselves in the street. We have a way to and we have information available to help, to inform even the project list that we would bring forward for cip that is inclusive of that type of work. So we can talk more about that later in the presentation.
18 I was thinking that maybe since Multnomah county promised us some sidewalks, and maybe if if we are leading these sidewalks to daycare centers, that maybe we could use some of that $400 million that they have in the preschool money that's just sitting there.
19 That's a tremendous opportunity, we believe. I know that we've in the past worked with pbs regarding some of the ways that their students access schools and were able to partner to have appropriate infrastructure. So I believe the same could be the case with Multnomah county, and we have a strong partnership with them. Thank you. Thank you. And then, as was mentioned with the sidewalk construction improvements and the plans associated with that, we also want to make sure that we're reducing environmental impact. Looking at alternative materials, alternative processes to ensure that we're maximizing the benefits while minimizing the harmful impacts.
20 Councilor Green.
21 Thank you, madam chair. Really appreciate this conversation and this update. I just kind of wanted to respond to something that you mentioned, director williams, which I think is so prescient and urgent, and it's very connected to what jonas had said the other day about, you know, when we do this, we need to optimize for life cycle cost efficiency. And that's very, very much in line with this sort of let's not let's not think about budget by budget, by budget, but let's think about this kind of multi-year get well approach to our fiscal health. And so I just wanted to make sure folks who watched these committees and these work sessions connect the dots, because I saw that connection.
22 Thank you so much, councilor. And I'll share. I'm pleased about the partnership that the bureau and the service area has with the cfo's office and his team. We've not had conversations without that type of lens to view the work and the honest conversations about what's going to be necessary for us to advance not just this work, but other work that we have in plan in our plans.
23 Councilor Novick.
24 Thank you, madam chair. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to recite my favorite horrifying statistic from PBOT, which I got sort of reconfirmed with shoshana cohen recently, which is that we would need to spend an extra 45 to 50 million a year just to keep our streets of city-wide concern in their current mediocre condition. So I just want to shout that from the rooftops. If your payment manager has new innovative ideas, that cuts that down from 45 to 50 to 30 to 35. I'd love to hear that, but to me, that is a critical statistic, because that means that without more money, we can expect our most important streets to continue to deteriorate, let alone improve.
25 Thank you. Councilor Novick. And yes, jody yates and dave minor are both here. I can speak to that in greater detail, but yes, that statistic is, as you have mentioned, quite horrifying. And if that's what's happening on our streets of citywide significance, what's happening on those that may not have that designation? Next slide please. I'm sorry.
26 No I said thank.
27 You okay. Next slide please. Thank you. So PBOT delivers projects every day ranging from small pavement repair or sidewalk infill projects, as I've mentioned, to large scale capital projects. So projects ranging in size from $100,000 on up to $25 million. There are key principles that guide our work, including oversight activities, assessment of risk, project life cycle tracking and this is where we focus on scope, schedule and budget. Cross-disciplinary coordination, performance metrics, and the ever present and necessary stakeholder engagement. Next slide. I recognize that you can't actually see the details on these dashboards. Councilor Smith but you've asked us about ensuring that we can provide dashboards for the public to be able to find out more about what we're doing and where we are doing it. This is a real life snippet of the dashboard system that we have in place for all of our projects, and so we will be able to and the public will be able to go into a dashboard system, click on a few different filters and find the information that they'd like to see. Even today, as we're engaging in construction work, especially in the city, but all types of work throughout the city, no matter the phase, people are able to go into the system Portland maps and find out where we are actively engaging and PBOT does, in my view, a tremendous job of ensuring that the community knows what's happening in their community and when it's going to be happening, and when things will change, and how we can be community partners in making sure that they're aware of what's going on. But I recognize the importance of being able to share with community and gain trust with community through information sharing. And so if they can see that a project and this is a real project, but I didn't want to put the project manager, I didn't want to make him nervous. He's an excellent project manager, by the way, but. The the the the bar graphs tell a story. We shouldn't have to dig too deeply to find what we're looking for. If you're looking at the orange and blue bar graph, you can see that spending is happening in one place for a period of time, and then you see a spike or you see a drop. And that helps us to ask the questions, why is that spike happening there? What isn't happening in other places? Who are the people who are contributing to these numbers? And so it's broken down not just by the project attributes, but if you look at different slices of the dashboard, you'll also be able to see which contractors are working on it. We'll be able to determine what percentage of db firms are working on projects. We'll be able to tell you to the dime and to the dollar how much has been spent on a phase where we are with the schedule and when we can expect to close out projects. So we recognize that that's important for people to be able to see. And there's no secret with what we're doing, we want to have an open dialog and an open system for people to be able to go in and see what's going on. Next slide please. So as I mentioned, we deliver projects all the time. And even today we have a hybrid model for that delivery. There are some projects that we deliver in-house through our maintenance operations group. But there are others that based on size and complexity, we contract out. Such will be the case with projects that we identified through the cip initiative. There will be some that we will be able to self deliver. There will be some that we can field fit, others will require some engineering, which we have engineers that are able to go through that with our project leads and design structures and streets and sidewalks that would be able to be delivered either by our teams internally or by contract teams. We're looking at how to subdivide the work, not in order to avoid any triggers for procurement, need to engage in a different process, but really to determine how we can, again, most effectively use the dollars. If we're looking at a street and we know that this block is okay, this block needs more work. This that may be two different projects, but that's not necessarily what we intend to do in terms of trying to create a sense of distrust around delivery. But we do want to make sure that we can be most effective and make the most impact as quickly as possible. And so it's going to require us to use a hybrid model. We've also begun to have conversations not just about cip, but even our ADA program with some of our contractors who have been delivering on ramps, especially all over the city, about how they may be able to engage with us in a design bid, build design. Bid, build design, bid build process. I, I knew I had it right, but I also wasn't sure. So a design bid build so that it is wholly owned. They own not just the responsibility of delivering in the timeline that's necessary, but also they carry the risk of not getting it done. And so but that's not something we're looking for. We don't want for people to feel like we're coming for you as much as we want for folks to know that we're working in partnership, and we believe that they can be a part of our solution and further, our ability to move further, faster, and with speed not being the goal, but efficient use of resources being the goal. Next slide please. So you've seen this before as well in earlier conversations, some of you. Anyway I'm sorry, I recognize if we've presented this in tni councilor Kanal. You might not have seen this slide, but I wanted to make sure. And also, councilor Dunphy, I wanted to make sure that you had an image of what is possible where we are. Long story short, we have a $6 billion asset management backlog. Even with significant investment, it only goes a little way to fill the void and fill the gap. As we've had many discussions over the course of the past several months, the challenges that PBOT has are decades long in the making, and with the recent actions that have been taken both at the federal and state levels, we find ourselves in a rather uncomfortable position. And so it will be important for us to, again, not just be strategic about the work that we do, but strategic about how we talk about funding that work and making sure that we're maximizing the investments that we do have. There will be the opportunity for us to pair investment from one source with another. I will use the fourth avenue project as an example. It's not a good example of a cip project, but as an example of a combined effort. That project. While $25 million, so considered a large capital project, the funding for that came from fixing our streets, which is a ballot measure, which was the paving part of the project. Councilor Novick. It also, there were contributions from metro, from TriMet, from biz and water. So there there was a comprehensive approach to getting that project done. And we see the transformation that was possible. So when we are able able to leverage dollars to to enhance the investment, that's what we seek to do. However, we don't want to allow our conversations to get in the way of us moving forward as well. So there will be a need for significant support from this body and the full council as we begin to make strides to either improve or make changes in the right of way in our corridors, that we're able to have the conversation about why it's important for us to move now and with some urgency, and that just because we touch something one time doesn't mean we won't come back, doesn't mean that. But we do have to address the needs that we have and we need. We do need to do so with some urgency. So the bureau is appreciative of the opportunity to be able to be a part of not just the conversation, but the construction of the program to be able to deliver for portlanders across the city. Again, we recognize that this resolution does highlight specifically districts one and four, but there are many roadways and sidewalk projects that extend beyond the boundaries of districts one and four. And no, there's councilor, Dunphy said. There aren't just for the record. So but I want to acknowledge that we have a lot of information and data to share about how we can prioritize. We do want to make sure that we're serving all portlanders well through this program, and look forward to continuing to engage with this committee, with the transportation and infrastructure committee and the committee of the whole, to ensure that we're meeting your goals and your objectives as we work to serve the city of Portland well. And with that, I will turn it over to the deputy city administrator, who will close out this portion of the presentation.
28 Thank you, director williams. Next slide please. Thank you. So, councilors, we've said this before to all of you and we'll you'll continue to hear it from all of us at public works service area. That investment creates opportunity. Portland is deserve a safe, reliable, accessible, inclusive and affordable transportation system that supports portland's prosperity with a high quality of life and inclusive and connected community and a low carbon footprint. And as we work together with you to build a transportation system that helps our city thrive, we can also provide family wage jobs, support local businesses, and strengthen the economy through investments that make the system a reality. And with that, I will turn it over to cfo jonas biery for his insights on how to best fund and ultimately work towards the goals of the cip program.
29 Next slide please. Yes, great.
30 Thank you, director williams. Thank you, madam chair and committee. For the record, jonas biery, the city's chief financial officer. Just a maybe 90s of kind of feedback here. This is a slide that was presented previously in conversations with finance committee. So some of you have seen this before. It's anticipated in both the cip resolution and in the planning that future borrowing is likely to be a critical element of getting funding for these projects. We've been working with PBOT staff and with the cip resolution sponsors to identify viable sources of that revenue to repay the debt and just say, certainly appreciate that that collaboration and coordination and identifying a plan to bring forward what's currently under consideration is that after this coming budget cycle and completion of the fiscal 2627 budget, to be able to come back with the benefit of that detail and knowledge, to come back in summer with a request for borrowing authorization ordinance for council specific to this project, sized in an amount that's appropriate to the to the revenues and budget that's identified during that budget cycle, and have that come to council in summer so we can gear up and issue those bonds in early calendar 27. So to provide some funding to accelerate those projects in the spring 2027 construction season. So that's kind of the short version, and happy to dig into more detail as we've started to dig through our answers. Proposed answers to some of the questions on the on the slide here in front of you. And with that, I'll pause. And madam chair let you take it from here.
31 Thank you. So just I was trying to look up something about the aerial tram, and I haven't been up there for forever. Are there any? And that's in district four. Are there any safety concerns around the tram? Do we have appropriate safety measures and sidewalks? I haven't been up there lately. Have you?
32 I mean, it's it's pretty it's pretty well appointed.
33 Thank you. Thank you, councilor Smith, for the question. The aerial tram, aside from being the singular transit tool that has never gone down, it has extensive support for its safety, both as people are traversing to either the lower southwest waterfront station or at the top at OHSU. Extensive infrastructure has been put in place to ensure that people can get to that safely, as well as using the other modes in that area. The folks who are under the tram. There were initial concerns when it was being conceived of and built, but since that time there have been no concerns and in fact, that part of town has become even more desirable because of the tram. People are excited about being a part of that neighborhood, because of that amenity and the unique nature of that. But the infrastructure there is largely quite well appointed. There are a couple of pockets, though I will share, that aren't necessarily related to the tram in in southwest that we need to give some attention to. And perhaps we've we've talked about those. I know the transportation and infrastructure committee like the spaces around the international school and some others, but we're aware of many of those. But as it relates to tram, that there aren't any concerns there.
34 Okay. Perfect. Councilor Kanal.
35 Thank you, madam chair. If you could pull the slides up with the maps again, I'd appreciate it. I was surprised to see the title of this included the names of the specific districts and then the presentation. Didn't you do have the lines on the map, but just noting that when we passed the cip at full council, there was legislative intent talking about how there could be projects in other districts. And since it came up, I just wanted to ask, you may see kind of, oh, about three quarters of the way from left to right and up near the top, just above sandy, there that pocket of red lines. And then if you could go to the other map, please.
36 President park.
37 And then you see that pocket of all the, the light purple around the same area, and then these big thick black lines, which I believe indicate council district.
38 Yeah.
39 So if someone could just tell me that area that I just pointed out, what district is that in.
40 That is district two. Thank you.
41 All I wanted to say. I have a question on a different thing.
42 Is that in cully is that in cully councilor.
43 Which is in district two.
44 Cully is the industrial area. It's several parts.
45 There is a little bit of.
46 It and I just want.
47 To city park. I have a question on a different thing.
48 Thank you. But I just want to since you added this, I wanted to make sure that folks know there is a piece of district one that serves cully that we do have a sliver of cully in district one. So and we figured that out.
49 My other questions were around the the jobs. I understand that most of the projects that are going to be funded through this program will be geographically located in d1 and d4, but I wanted to understand two things about that. One is, how are we going to make sure that folks who live in other parts of the city are recruited for the construction jobs and are able to access that work? And the other part is, if prosper specifically has a role in the outreach and recruitment of workers, specifically workers of color, across this process.
50 I'll answer the last question first by stating that I would need to check with prosper to find out how they may be able to help to ensure that those contractors that are engaging in the work are doing all that they can to recruit the workers from across the city. Regarding the first part of the question, it's a two parter, and jody yates is here to talk about our own statistics, about who delivers the work within the bureau as it relates to the demographics of the contractors and the contractor staff that would be delivering the work. We can provide that information as well. We are not suggesting that because the work is being done in district one, two, 3 or 4, that it's only work that's available for people who live within districts one, two, 3 or 4. We are just acknowledging the prioritization or the the emphasis on those areas based on the resolution.
51 Appreciate it. And I'll note, there were some other things that that relate to the north Portland deepen saint john's and cathedral park as well that will circle back to. But my my broader concern is ensuring that a district that suffered from gentrification, from marginalization, from the loss of, of generational wealth is is able for those who have managed to hang on and those who live there now to have access to these jobs, because these are among the the best paying living wage jobs in our city as those come up. So just wanted to make sure that was on the record. Thank you, madam chair.
52 Thank thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Dunphy.
53 Thanks. I have a couple of questions that I don't feel even honestly qualified to ask, but I'm going to try. Okay. Jonas biery, this is for you. When we are bonding or issuing bonds like this, do we bond against, I mean, do we use assets that the city owns and or as, as? Not leverage, but as collateral? Collateral? There we go. Do we use that as collateral in our bonding capacity? Do we look at like, does that affect our ability to to bond? And also does it does the kind of thing we are bonding against change the amount that we're able to borrow? I mean, like if we are, for example, having a levee that is mostly going to staff time versus a bond where we are building an asset that will exist. But also it's not like a an asset that could be repossessed if we defaulted or something. But how does that all work? I just don't understand.
54 Yeah. Yeah, great. Great questions. And. So I'll, I'll provide an answer and then councilor Tell me if I'm answering the question in the way that you're looking for. But I think I understand what you're asking. So when the city issues bonds, what's often called collateral, the language we use is security. And so what that means is the legal things that we are saying. We will commit to pay the money back, and there can be different levels of that. It is not to answer your first question, typically asset specific. That may be a corporate structure. That's not something that's typically used in public finance. So usually the majority of things that the city. The majority of the city's issued, well, maybe back up. The vast majority are for the utilities. And so the security for the utilities, for the water system, the security, the dedicated payment source is water revenues for sewer system. It's sewer revenues outside of utilities. Most of the debt that the city issues for other non utility projects is backed by the general fund, meaning the security. The dedicated pledge to repay legally is the entire general fund. And so what that means is we're making a legal commitment to bond holders, investors in the city, the people who are giving us their money with an expectation of return. They expect that return to come from the general fund first. So any what that would mean is if we had a real general fund squeeze and we had overcommitted that revenue stream, we would have to reduce any other expenditure or come up with any other way we could, which could involve sale of assets to make sure that they're paid first. That sounds pretty dire. The good news is how we often structure these. We do have some debt that's paid directly from general fund resources. Often we use that general fund secure as security because it's strong. It's a big, healthy bucket of money. But we identify specific revenue streams to actually pay the debt from. So an example might be in the past, if we've had debt related to spectator facilities, we would have that maybe be secured by the general fund, but paid for from revenues generated at those. Facilities. Specifically with PBOT. We've done that, for example, with funding prior PBOT projects, existing projects that are currently being funded, where it's secured by the general fund, paid for by general transportation revenues, for example. So that's the way we protect the general fund, use it to get that borrowing strength, but ensure we have a kind of a dedicated revenue stream so that the general fund does not get called on to make that payment. That's related, I think, to the second part of your question, which is does it matter from a cost of borrowing perspective? It does. If we were looking at just transportation revenues, let's imagine it's gas tax revenues, and let's isolate that. If we were trying to issue a bond that was only secured by and paid for by gas tax revenues, that's a limited revenue stream within decreasing or unpredictable future and would be not a strong security. We would pay more. We would pay a higher interest rate by having that as a social security versus using the general fund higher. The highest possible is a voted tax levy, which means we'd go to voters request tax increase that can only be used to pay the debt. And so that's kind of the highest tier of that general security structure.
55 That is helpful actually even got through my thick skull. So I think I get it a little better. Don't ask me to repeat it, but I think I get it. Director williams, maybe actually, this might even be better for dc. Paul, my understanding with regard to specifically the paving and siting of sidewalks is that the expense of stormwater management is the real cost. That, like the bag of concrete, isn't particularly expensive, but you got to figure out where the water goes. And as we're thinking about expanding significant new sidewalk infrastructure, is there an opportunity for either cost savings or just better efficiencies between PBOT and bts collaborating on on managing that?
56 Absolutely. I think the unified cip will be a great avenue for making sure we are finding efficiencies and opportunities for projects that will happen together in the same timeline and outside of unified cip as well. I think bts and PBOT can work together to see how we can maximize efficiency efficiencies, not just stormwater. Also, with the ADA replacement, that is also another avenue for efficiency as well. So we will definitely look into all those opportunities.
57 Excellent. Thank you. I think that is all my questions for right now. Yeah. Thank you.
58 First of all, I just wanted to follow up on the question that the council president just asked. It's my recollection that the stormwater management cost varied wildly across the city, that in southwest there tended to be the stormwater management tend to be a much bigger deal than in other parts of the city. So there's projects that weren't done in southwest otherwise because they're just too expensive.
59 I've asked jody yates, director of the maintenance operations department, to come forward to answer some of those questions.
60 For the record, my name is jody yates. I work at PBOT as the deputy director for maintenance operations. Councilor Novick. You are correct and part of the reason for southwest to be has higher costs is a lot of the stormwater infrastructure doesn't exist currently in southwest Portland. And so it's not only how do we manage and treat that stormwater, but how do we even have the conveyance system for it. Those are pretty limited in southwest. In other parts of the city, there is existing stormwater structure.
61 Thank you. And I also wanted to go off on an irrelevant tangent about the tram. I can say from personal experience, the tram is the most reliable form of transportation in Portland because in 2012, my dad, we had an ice storm. My dad slipped and broke his leg. He was up in the hill. My brother and I couldn't drive because the streets were crammed. It took us an hour and a half to get a bus that would take us 45 minutes to get a streetcar. Then when we got to the tram, it magically was running on time every four minutes. So I actually tracked down sam adams and emailed him saying how grateful I was.
62 Councilor Green.
63 Thank you, madam chair. Yeah, thanks so much for this update. Just a couple remarks. You know, this isn't free. Everything costs money even if you bond for it. And so I just for folks that are not in the tni committee or the finance committee, we have been increasingly talking about different revenue opportunities that are, you know, I think will come before this, the broader body at some point to to approve. And I think that that's, you know, transportation utility fee in particular, perhaps could be the source of some of this bonding. I also would say that, you know, for my district in particular, because I think when we think about the prioritization, because I think this gets to councilor Kanal concerns. And first of all, I have no doubt in my mind that we're going to get projects in d2 because I think as long as you're on this body, you're going to keep saying, where are my projects in d2? I'll note that I did grow up on 78th avenue between mason and skidmore. There's still I mean, there's just a gravel road between 79th and 78 there. So I feel you I would like to see that paved. That said, I think in district four, given the stormwater constraints, I think it's highly likely that most of these projects that would be identified for prioritization would be in that sort of class of shoulder widening, I guess what we're calling goat trails, things that really don't get into the that other incremental infrastructure cost, because I think it will still provide a significant amount of benefit to my my constituents who have been asking for that. There may be some areas like around there's a new alpine. The alpenrose dairy development is going to be really high capacity. We might need to do some infrastructure intersection enhancement there and maybe a safe route to school type of projects, but I think most of it's going to be the really low cost. So when we think about prioritization, there's there's the list of projects, but there's also the bucket of dollars. And I don't envision this being like we're all each district gets the same. A pro rata share of dollars or even district four gets more dollars than district 2 or 3. It's going to depend upon what's right. Is that how you're thinking about director williams?
64 That's right. We want to do what's right and what's best and what's fair, and what sets us up to be a true community partner across all districts. So as we look at our many, many lists and many, many prioritization exercises, you're right. First of all, that in southwest, many of the projects likely will take on a different character. We've created systems within our overall design manual, and some of the things that we will allow some of our exceptions to allow for alternatives. There was, at a point, a very hard line around the sidewalk has to look like this. Well, we recognize the sidewalk may not be able to look like that if we're. And it may not even be a sidewalk. To your point, it may be a goat path. It might be a shoulder widening. There may be any number of things that we look at in our toolbox of opportunities to serve that will look different than. But we'll look we'll potentially look different, but we'll serve really, really well. And quite frankly, a lot of times people are asking for just that. So I'm a big fan of listening to and giving the people what they want. And so we're going to listen to and provide people what they want. In some instances, we will have to make some insistence on doing more or doing something differently. But one of the slides that I did not include, and that I'm glad that you brought it up, is that we have thought about the complexities of the projects, and we've done a proposed set of buckets. There's the low level, low hanging fruit. Again, we can very quickly go and address those things. There are some that require a different level of effort, a different level of coordination. And then there are some that are years long in the making and that take on a completely different character. So we're looking at all of those options. And the reality is that if you fix something here and it's connected to something even over there, you do need to do something in between. We don't want to we don't want to look foolish. We want to demonstrate that we can see that there is a gap, and that we are able to be responsive to what that gap is in ways that make the most sense. I know we've been before council before, and there were questions about, well, you're working on this on this side of the street, but there's a pothole down there and nobody did anything about it. And some of the reasons for that are not just because there isn't the budgeted authority to do that thing. But frankly, sometimes in jodie inman support me in this. Sometimes they don't have the right equipment to do the thing that you think makes sense for them to do. Sometimes it's not the right staff to do the thing that you think it would make sense to do. Sometimes we do have to be mindful of what union a certain group of staff are in versus another group of staff, and be attentive to making sure we're managing around those restrictions and limitations. So it's not that we don't see it, and it's not that we don't care, but there are things that are I don't want to say barriers, but things that we need to consider as we think about the future of our work. So know that as this program evolves, we will be coming to you, all of you, for your insights, thoughts, recommendations. I know that in previous conversations, not necessarily in a council meeting we've shared with at least you district, at least you councilor Green a list of all the requests for service in in your district. As you were looking at how you might be able to invest some of money toward solving a problem. And I think that your team was quite surprised to know that there were actually 300 things that had already been reported that people have requested us to provide service to. And so we want to make sure that we're doing what's right and best, and we we won't be taking steps without making sure that we're bringing you along all the way. That is really important. Again, just as much as we're gaining trust and favourability with community, it's important that we have a good relationship and trust and favorability with this council. And it's not just a political conversation. It really is a practical one about how we can deliver service. Well.
65 Thank you. Thank you, director williams. That makes it very easy for me to go back out in my community and talk about this. Good work.
66 Thank you.
67 Thank you, director williams. Thank you, everyone for coming. We're at time right now. But one thing that we did not talk about, and I don't like to talk about numbers, but if in case folks who who have not been following this cfo biery, we have been talking about authorizing $200 million and actually bonding for 100 million so that we can do 50 million a year and maybe possibly 200 over the course of four years. And because there's such a big conversation going on statewide about transportation, I didn't want to give anybody any heartburn right now talking about this, because I know a lot of our funding is based on state funding. And so we have to look at the entire ecosystem of the transportation transportation dollars so that we know what we're doing and what we can do and we can't do, and what we have to take away and not take away. So those are the things that we're working with. We're working towards a $50 million a year over the next four years to be able to get this done in district one and in district two, and to also bring jobs into the community. We we know and understand that this is an opportunity to to have apprenticeships and to to get a journeyman to get their journeyman status. And this will help many folks to do that. So I'm excited about it. I'm glad to talk about it. Even if we if even if you're not on the agenda, I'm always talking about cip. So I try to figure out how to put it in every conversation that I have on this dais. But I thank councilor Green for partnering with me on this, because this is so important and it's critical to many people. And this is this there's a lot of complexity to to just, you know, filling a pothole or paving or doing a, a sidewalk. If we can do it large enough to do all the things that people need in the drainage, it's so huge. But we are up for the challenge, and I appreciate the work that all of you have done over the last year since we did the resolution, and hopefully within this next year, we'll do a ordinance that will mandate all of this good work that you guys have been doing. So I appreciate it, and thank you so much.
68 Thank you, councilor, and we look forward to giving all of you hard hats and shovels so you can go out and help us to start transforming our city, one road and one sidewalk at a time.
69 Can you get my name put on it?
70 We can get your name put on it. We have. I don't care if we just put.
71 A piece of tape.
72 It might be that because we do want to be cost efficient and make sure we're not squandering money on customized items, but I do think it is important. I often go out with the teams to witness and do the work. I filled a pothole or attempted to. I got halfway through it and had to turn the shovel over. Those folks are out there every day doing really, really hard work, and I think it is important for us to not just understand the finances around it. But like you said, the process and the complexity. And it's not always as simple as it looks, but we invite the opportunity to continue to engage in the conversation and to show you our work and to continue to partner. So thank you for the opportunity.
73 Excellent. Thank you. Diana, could you please read the next item.
74 Item two require deputy city administrator for public safety to provide a report on police officer recruitment goals and costs.
75 May I have bob cozzie elizabeth perez, brea brown and nathan lemy come to the dais. Good afternoon.
76 How are you doing?
77 All right.
78 I am doing good, too. And this is this is some exciting work. And I think that we've been having this conversation privately about how much does it cost for this or how much it costs for that. But I just want to tee this up to my colleagues that I'm bringing this resolution. It comes before us at a moment when Portland is navigating two intersecting realities our long our long standing commitments to climate action and community safety, and a $120 million budget deficit that forces us to make decisions with precision, not assumptions. My goal today is not to elevate one value over another. It is to ensure that whatever choices the city makes in this coming year, we're working from real, verified data. Right now, we know a few things with certainty. Portland's police staffing levels are well below the national average that go from 2.3 to 2.5 officers per 1000 residents we are currently having. We currently have 877 officer positions with 65 vacancies, which puts us at roughly one officer for every 725 residents. We also know that response times, investigative capacity and community based policing outcomes are directly tied to staffing levels. These are metrics our public safety service area leadership has identified as essential to public trust and public safety. We also know that the bureau has articulated a goal of adding new officers to be able to meet the needs of the community, but what we don't know and what the resolution seeks to clarify are the fundamentals. What organizational structure would support that level of staffing? How long would it realistically take to recruit, hire and train the adequate number of officers needed? What would it cost, not just the recruiting and training them, but to sustain them over time, including salaries, benefits, overtime, equipment and ongoing professional development, police cars, all of those things. And how do those costs scale as Portland grows over the next decade? These are not small questions, and they cannot be answered with guesswork. They require comprehensive assessment from the deputy city administrator of public safety, working with the chief, the city administrator and the mayor. This resolution directs that work and sets a deadline of April 30th, 2026, so that council has the information it needs ahead of the next budget cycle. I want to be very clear this resolution does not endorse any particular funding source. It does not take a position on the November 6th ballot measure. It does not predetermine a policy direction. What it does is ensure that regardless of what happens at the ballot box, this council will have the facts necessary to make evidence based decisions on the budget. There is a growing public interest in how we fund public safety, including interest in alternative funding sources. Those conversations must be grounded in real numbers, real timelines and sound organizational analysis. This resolution gives us the foundation to have those conversations today. So thank you so much for listening to my long introduction. But I needed to to make clear some of the things that we're we're we're going to be forced to make decisions on this year. And I thought it would be good for us out of this committee instead of the public and community safety committee, because we're talking about actual actual workforce and how that's going to impact our workforce. So I appreciate you all coming today. And who wants to start first?
79 I can start elizabeth. Elizabeth. Elizabeth perez, today, I am the enterprise services director for the public safety service area. I also want to share that a.c. Mcmillan is here from PPB. If there are any direct questions for PPB, first, I want to send my regrets on behalf of dca cause he is having emergency dental surgery today. So we are maneuvering a lot. We had two all staff meetings today with the entire service area and a number of other of other important meetings that we are navigating. So I'm just going to share a few of the talking points that dca had prepared. And then we're happy to take any questions that folks have. So first, want to just share our appreciation for your interest in grounding public safety staffing discussions in clear data, realistic timelines, and transparent accounting of costs. The resolution does align with the city's shared goals of making evidence based, fiscally responsible decisions about investments in our public safety system. The requested report is feasible and largely builds on work that is already underway at the public safety service area, Portland police bureau and our business services, preparing a comprehensive organizational assessment by April 30th is achievable assuming we have alignment on scope, assumption and level of detail early in the process. So if we're directed, we'll work with council to clarify expectations, assumptions and discuss how this work can best inform future budget and policy discussions. With that shared understanding, the public safety service area can deliver a product that meaningfully advances council's goals.
80 Thank you. And one of the things that I think that we need to do, we have to add an amendment to our resolution to give the updated edits. And, diana, I don't know how we do this. Do we wait until we do the the resolution vote or do we do that now.
81 If you would like to introduce it now and get it on the record, that would be great.
82 Okay. I would like to get on the record. Smith amendment one, to require the deputy city administrator for public safety to provide a report on police officer recruitment goals and costs. And I think you all have a copy of it.
83 It is posted in the item. Yes.
84 And colleagues in front of you, you have the the updated amended Smith one. And I hate to do this ahead of I always like to do this ahead of time, but I apologize for getting this to you on the on the dais.
85 Thank you.
86 Yeah. I'm second.
87 Thank you.
88 I just was not sure if you were asking for it yet.
89 Yes. So we have a second. Pardon? Christopher.
90 If there's no discussion, we could call the vote if you'd like.
91 We were going to call the vote at the end. Or do you want to call it now?
92 We can discuss the amendment.
93 Yes. So were there any other things, elizabeth, in that, in the resolution that you think that we should improve upon?
94 Not at the moment. We really appreciate the fact that we were able to work with your office from the beginning. So there's no changes that we are asking for.
95 Everywhere I go in district one, there are two things that people talk to me about. It's about homelessness, livability, and it's about public safety. And everyone they they want more public safety, whether that's coming from community based organizations, but they also want police officers. And I think what this will do, it will give us a baseline, because if there is a ballot measure in November and that ballot measure passes, and let's just say it says it's going to take 25% from PCEF, which is very, very controversial at this point. But and it says that we're going to pay for 400 officers, I can guarantee you on January 1st that month when I do my town hall meeting, they're going to ask me, when do we get our police? And to understand that it takes about 18 months to actually hire someone from the beginning of the process to the end. And so I think that some of those things, and that's why I want to realistic determination. And I don't know if we put the note, but I was talking to the governor and I said the issue around public safety is a big deal, but until we get the capacity to expand salem's process with dst, I don't know that we could meet any of those goals. So could you kind of explain what the what the timeline is? Because we actually we can't take over the entire training session. All the other police recruits have to get trained in Salem as well. So we can't just bulldoze our way and take all the slots. Do you know how many slots that they're that they have? Actually, I heard it was 100 per.
96 I do not, but a.c. Mcmillan might.
97 Thank you. Could you come up? Thank you so much and introduce yourself.
98 Amanda mcmillan, Portland police I it depends on how many academy classes dps puts on down there and and how it's formatted. Obviously as you know, we're not we don't we drive some of that depending on our need. For example, this year, my understanding is they're not going to have an academy starting in the month of June. That changes how we do things. Our targets have varied and we've got, I think our partners at bsg can help us out with numbers and what that looks like over time. They've projected a lot of that, just a difference in a couple of people, even a quarter, and how that plays out over time. But yes, we're we are beholden to what dps can accommodate down there. Our goal 80 to 100 a year. Right now we're trying to push toward that 100 number. It's a big number.
99 It is a big number. And in light of and what I want this detail to be to to consider, consider the retirements that are going to take place. Because if we train and educate 100 and we got 100 coming out, we're still not ahead. So I'm I'm really wanting some realistic goals and numbers because people are going to be asking for this if this actually passes. And so I want to be able to say that we put out a report that identified the where we are right now, not not where we think we're going to be if we expand, but where we are right now, realistically, and then based that on the numbers of people who can retire, when about two weeks ago we had a we had a committee hearing and human resources came before us and said, right now there were 450 people as of December 31st, 2025 that were eligible for full retirement, full 30 year retirement. They didn't break down. How many were police? But looking at those numbers and in in partnership with hr, I want you all to look look ahead into the future to see exactly what it is so that we can give a real time number in in timeline. What's going to happen over the next ten years, and how do we have to do how do how do what do we have to do to actually get to that point? If we're talking about 400.
100 And I'm wondering, nathan, do you want to talk about where we're at now?
101 Yes.
102 Yeah. My name is nathan lamey. I manage the team that does budgeting, strategic planning and performance management for the public safety service area. Thank you. I've been I've worked with the police bureau originally until I got moved out to the office of the dcas of public safety. I've been around for about five years. And some of your questions you're asking, they've changed substantially over the five years I've been with the bureau. When I began back in 2021, this was in the midst of the great resignation that took place around COVID and racial justice protests that were taking place, a large number of absences and how many, I think we peaked for sworn at about 130 or so. We also had a hiring freeze due to the budget and the state of the city and the world. There was a hiring freeze put in place citywide that included police bureau. We didn't take applications for a while. So your question of sort of what the bottleneck is at one point in time, dps was the bottleneck that we weren't able to get people in the classroom and get them trained. But there was a point where the bottleneck was that we closed the bottle. We weren't accepting applications and inviting people in. Once we opened that back up again, the bottleneck for a short time was around backgrounding. Before people go off to training, they need to get backgrounded. We had laid off and we hadn't filled some of our positions for backgrounders because we weren't doing hiring, so that meant that people weren't able to get through that step in the process. Once that part started moving again, then it became getting folks trained. The state had laid off a lot of their training folks. They had reduced the number of academies they were doing. So it's a moving target over time about sort of where you're going to see the constraint at this point in time. The sort of biggest constraint for the police bureau is just the number of viable applicants. You know, they are bringing in as many applicants they can they are able to be processing them in a fairly timely manner. But ultimately, it is a selective job to get selected to be a police officer and finding enough people who are interested and meet all the qualifications has been the tough spot. So we all the time are reporting out to police leadership as well as to members of the administration about some of our projections. It goes into the budget documents that we're submitting right now about what we think hiring will be and what spending will be in future years. And that continues to be the the sort of slowing factor and why we still have vacancies in police bureau is that we're not able to get enough qualified applicants. In the other part of the equation, as you mentioned, is separations. You know, we are currently going through the sort of end of a wave of folks who were hired in the late 90s and early 2000 who are now reaching the end of their careers. There was a large hiring push at that time. We have a sort of cliff where we are seeing those people retire out and leave the service at the same time that we're going to see that sort of drop off, and we expect to see a lower number of retirements. We have seen an increased number of people who are leaving the career mid-career, or they're transferring to other bureaus in the state. So you may be aware there is a shift of how we did retirement pensions. Previously, everything was held within the city of Portland with fpd, and now new officers are hired, are part of the pers system. That is a portable pension. So we're seeing a substantially different pattern of employment for folks who are hired before and after that, when they were locked in, when they needed to stay with the city, if they wanted to maintain their seniority and their pension. A lot more folks stayed here. Now, with that flexibility, we're seeing a lot more turnover. So in our projections, we have projections that go out five years right now that sort of show those changes. We've updated those on a regular basis. Happy to update those and provide more information. In April.
103 I was looking for more of a a ten year, 15 year projection because I don't know that we can reach 400 in 5 years. Councilor Green.
104 Thank you, madam chair. Yeah, just I want to speak to the amendment here. What I see as I think a really good improvement relative to the underlying. I think it it reflects the service areas expertise. And I see that back and forth and that good work that you've done with them. I think on the on the whole, as amended, I don't have any particular issue with this. I think it's I think it's good to provide this level of information, especially if voters are going to go out and try to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to cut into which I think, frankly, would be a terrible idea into the Portland clean energy fund for for this, they should really know. They should really know whether or not we could actually execute that. And it doesn't it doesn't seem to presuppose what our intents are in the resolution. So thank you. So yeah. So I you know I'm going to support this I do I do have to note though that, you know there's not a financial and budgetary impact to this resolution. And that may not be relevant, but I, I only raise it because there's some councilors who will bring forward resolutions and people will get wrapped around the ax on, hey, you didn't do your financial analysis, and I know it always costs something to do extra work that's not in there. And I just needed to say that for a record.
105 Thank you. Thank you so much.
106 Anyway, I I'm prepared to support this.
107 Okay, I appreciate it. Councilor Kanal.
108 Thank you, madam chair. First off, I have a lot of experience with things getting piled onto the folks that are at this table without an additional resource for it. And while they're very good at it, they shouldn't have to be. So I just wanted to to lead off with that. So I am going to also support the amendment. I have one note on it that I want to talk about before I get to that. First, thank you all for being here. I have to point out that the rare but seasonal treat of nathan's winter mustache is always appreciated. I want to start by pushing back on the idea that ranking based on a ratio to population is helpful. Most of the time when we talk about the statistics relative to population, we're using the fbi's statistics, and that's from their uniform crime reporting. I want to read a quote. It's ucr data are sometimes used to compile rankings of individual jurisdictions and institutions of higher learning. These incomplete analyzes have often created misleading perceptions which adversely affect geographic entities in their residence. For this reason, the fbi has a longstanding policy against ranking participating law enforcement agencies on the basis of crime data alone. Despite repeated warnings against these practices, some data users continue to challenge and misunderstand this position. It goes down later and talks about when providing and using agency oriented statistics, the fbi cautions, and in fact strongly discourages data users against using rankings. This is originally designed to prepare against to protect against ranking based off of crime, but it also talks about the statistics in a different section. Similarly with relation to ratios. I just wanted to talk about yeah, ratio of officer count to population, largely because crime data is different, the crime landscape is different and the needs may be different. I'll also mention that we are different because we have mobile crisis response, which is a different difference with some of the other cities that are often compared to. So in terms of having a set, this number is the right ratio. The fbi has said that. And this, by the way, came out during the first trump administration in 2017. There's another couple reports in 2019 getting to the amendment, though, I want to just say, whereas clauses are things that are ideally non-controversial things we all agree on. So I had a couple questions about specific ones that I wanted to flag here. I don't see a definition of what we're using for community based policing. That's a different term than community policing, which is often used. This is in the first whereas clause in the third. We talk about two of the metrics. I'm guessing that there is a metric. I'll actually ask this one and try to get an answer for it. There are two metrics in the response times and number of investigations. And I'm assuming this amendment passes. I'm going to vote for it. I just want to note when I use the numbering, I'm off of that. I'm using the amended version. It uses response times and number of investigations. Is there a broader, comprehensive list of metrics that you're working off of when you when you use this? I don't think those are the only two you're using. And I'm asking more on the psa side, I think because I think that's who helped develop this particular text.
109 But in terms of metrics of success here. Yeah, I mean, response times, investigations, clearance rates are all items that would be taken into consideration. I think one of the pieces is elizabeth talked about in her opening. The underlying assumptions are one of the questions. Originally this was written of make an assumption that we're 400 new officers. It strips that from the language of the amendment and instead says, make a comprehensive plan. And a comprehensive plan is a very open ended request. And those underlying assumptions, especially if we're talking for a ten year time frame, would have considerable differences in what cost would be if additional sworn personnel were given and they were all to go to precinct patrol, versus what is more likely that they would be split between investigations and new detective positions. That would be new management positions. There's a suggestion here to open a fourth precinct. What those shifts are would make impacts if we were to if this is to pass and we're to make a presentation, expect that there would be relatively wide and sort of broad estimates in those out years, ten years out to say this is what a high level and a low level is. We're talking probably three labor contracts out with the ppa. I know not what will be contained within those contracts and how they would shift things. And councilor.
110 Councilor Kanal, when I was talking to dca, when we originally put the 400 in and he was saying that the reason why the comprehensive is there, because it could be very well more than the 400. And so we have to be clear not to underestimate what it is.
111 Yeah, I fully agree with the the choices made here on this. I'm more trying to clarify. I have one thing that I am concerned about. These are otherwise questions that I'm getting to that just three things left here. You mentioned the four precinct model as a co-chair of caps. That hasn't come up in that committee yet. So I'm just curious why that's here and specifically in a whereas clause. Are there other models that have been brought up? I mean, expansion of community partnerships is great, which is the other thing mentioned here, but I'm just curious as to what is the should we read into the fact that this is included in here when a lot of other models are not? And I know pb used to have more than four, that this is the plan. I don't understand why that's particularly in here and other options are not.
112 It is not the plan. I think these are ideas of what we could move to. I think there has been conversation among the public safety service area, as well as among counselors of should our precincts match our districts. And so I think that's just one thing that has come up. It doesn't necessarily mean that we need to move towards that, but it is an option and it's something that we've heard. So I think when we're coming up with the the report, that's probably one that we'll look at is what would it take to staff that forth and then other models to fill the need for Portland. So that's the only one.
113 That makes sense. That makes sense. Well that also include the justice center replacement or whatever we're going to do on the central precinct, because I know there's some significant infrastructure issues there, capital issues there.
114 That's a great question. And we're having conversations in a lot of different rooms about what we're going to do about the justice center.
115 Okay. For that part, please, please feel free to bring us in not just on a budget perspective, but in the public safety side for fifth and sixth. I'm going to talk about this more later. I'd like to see us looking at context in addition to this context. I actually like everything in there. But the other systems around us there are. And one of the reasons why comparing is difficult in many cities. The police bureau runs the 911 department runs parking enforcement. There's the context of Portland street response and chat. It's very hard to to compare these apples and oranges and in our case as different, which is different from combined in cities and counties. We also have m-c-s-o. We have partnerships with mutual aid. We have the dps context that's been brought up. So I'm going to talk about that a little more later. The one thing that I wanted to say that I disagree with on this amendment, and I am going to formally request to divide this one out, is the seventh one, and this is the the last. Whereas if there's a poll or a vote that shows any trend of increasing public interest, I would love to see it. Otherwise. I think the only time we'll know if there's increased public interest is if there happens to be a vote on this. I don't I don't want to recognize something that doesn't exist in here. And so I am going to request that that be divided out at this time. But everything else in here I think is a really dramatic improvement. I want to thank councilor Smith's team and also everyone who worked on it behind the scenes. And that's all I have on this.
116 So what you're saying is that we should not consider a future ballot measure as as a public interest.
117 Yeah, I think there's growing interest from the petitioners, but I don't I haven't seen any evidence in a poll or anything that shows that there's any evidence or any public, sorry, any growing interest in terms of a trend beyond the petitioners as of yet there may be.
118 So let me tell you what I've what I've heard.
119 And just to be sorry, just to be clear, I'm not asking to remove it. I'm asking for a separate vote on it. So we vote on everything else in the amendment, and then we vote on this part separately.
120 No. So let me and the reason why I tell you, I'm telling you now is because there is a growing interest. There was a poll done, a citywide poll that shows that there was a growing interest in this. And so that is one of the reasons why it it lit off a light bulb in my head that maybe we don't have all the information that we need to have, and maybe my constituents need to know what that is. So if we I mean, we can take a vote on it. But I just think that it's just it is it's not a it's not a, a big deal, because we do know that there is a poll that that was out and they did contact people. So there is a growing interest and they're using that as, as a a reason to put something on the ballot.
121 So just to there's two things here. One is the substantive on the single poll doesn't necessarily show growing interest. It shows a snapshot.
122 So if we.
123 Took this used to be higher before and is now at you know, let's say it was.
124 Why don't we take the word growing out. But but also satisfy you.
125 Let me make sure I. I would prefer to just have it be voted on separately, which leads me into the procedural part of it, which is that you, the councilor who made the original motion, can designate which element is voted on first. But any one councilor Can request a separation for two separate votes on everything else and on this. So my suggestion would be to do the bulk of it first, and I think that hopefully appears like it might be unanimous here on on the rest of the amendment. And then just consider whether to amend this one other whereas in but it is up to you, madam chair, as the sponsor of the document to the order.
126 Okay, so, diana, how can we do this to have a separate vote? I don't believe that it's necessary, but if there is, if there's others on this, on this dais who who want to change this, it's fine. How should we do this?
127 Okay, so there's two ways to go about it. First of all, you can, can all can make a motion to amend the amendment. And we can go through that. The second way is to cut it out and have a vote on everything except for the one whereas clause that he is interested in debating. So those are the two ways.
128 To do it. I'm doing the latter. I'm making a request to divide. And I'm aware that that the councilor Needs to the sponsor of it needs to give the order, whether it's everything else first and then the one or the one first and then everything else.
129 Correct.
130 So. So why don't we do this? Why don't we do the the one first and take a vote. And then we will vote on the resolution.
131 There's still the rest. There's still the rest of the amendment. We haven't we haven't done the rest of the amendment.
132 Well that's what I'm talking about. Let's let's pull yours what you want pulled out first and let's have a vote okay.
133 Thanks.
134 To be clear. I need clarity on what that separate.
135 So in Smith one there is a a lot of amendments in here. And the only one that will be pulled out is the final new. Whereas the one that begins there is growing public interest. And as per chair Smith, we would be voting on that portion of the amendment first.
136 Okay.
137 And and then everything else of the amendment together.
138 And have you been clear as to what that whereas will be turned into?
139 Are we just taking out a growing public interest? Is that what you.
140 Have, taking it out?
141 No. The the entirety of that whereas clause is either in or out and we have voted to amend in or out. This would be a vote. A yes vote would be to include the new whereas clause as a whole that begins there is growing public interest. A no vote would leave it unamended and then separately, we would make a yes or no vote on the rest of it. To make all the other changes would be a yes vote. To leave it the way it is would be a no vote.
142 Thank you for the clarity.
143 Thank you.
144 Madam chair. Yes.
145 Before we proceed, I just wanted to say that personally, I like the idea of taking out the word growing. I'd be okay with it that way. So I don't know how that fits into what we're doing procedurally, but just wanted to make that statement.
146 Thank you. And I didn't have a problem with that either. But since councilor Kanal believes that this is such an issue. And it's in a whereas clause, so I wouldn't take it so seriously that it is it is a big deal. It's not saying that it's a it's a true statement. And you have identified that you don't think there's growing interest. But I am telling you that there is a growing interest because there has been a poll on it, and people have said that they will vote for it if, if, if, if put forward with an alternative source of funding and they were asked the question, would you support this if it was to take 25% out of PCEF. So there is a growing interest because we've never had this before. So obviously there is a growing interest, but we'll take the vote. Diana.
147 Okay, so just on the seventh whereas clause.
148 Yes.
149 Dunphy.
150 I.
151 Kanal.
152 No.
153 Novick.
154 No. With the caveat that I'd be a yes if we remove the word growing. So I think right as of now, we haven't removed the word growing. So we have to be a no.
155 Green.
156 No.
157 Smith in the no would say that it would take it away.
158 The the no. The no means you would be going with canal's version and and. Yes. Okay. There we go. Thank you. Okay. So with two eyes and three nays, the motion fails.
159 Thank you. And thank you for bringing that to my attention. Let's take a vote on the on the underlying resolution.
160 Just a point of information. You still have a councilor. You haven't spoke to it. Do you want to hear from them first?
161 I had a question. Okay.
162 Councilor Dunphy.
163 Yeah. Thank you. I have just a quick question for you all about the deliverables on this. I have been I have been stuck with a conversation that elizabeth and bob cozzie and I had probably chief de six months ago about a new recruitment bottleneck that is almost certainly going to appear, even if we are going in a certain direction. We're going right now, which is that we are relying on vacancy savings to pay for overtime and that those vacancy savings will, as we add more staff, we will have less vacancy savings for the overtime. And the officers that we were individually using are now going to be also in a training capacity, potentially like having having a recruit right along with them, which means that their capacity is even less so that at some point we will hire potentially hire the maximum amount of officers, but have a a year long period in which we have not enough officers on the street. We have lower officers on the street than we do now. If we were to also dramatically move towards increasing the the overall number of recruits, if we were to add 400, wouldn't we have a similar bottleneck in the near future? And also, are you all running into that bottleneck yet with the current recruitment efforts that are happening?
164 Nathan. Oh go ahead.
165 You yeah. So I guess in terms of the costing perspective, if we were to do this analysis, my assumption would be not infinite resources, but there would be available resources. Yes, there is definitely a structural issue with the police bureau's budget as it stands that it cannot pay for all of its authorized positions as well as the overtime. And there is that 18 month, two year lag between hiring somebody and when they're effective on the force. For the purpose of this, I think the assumption would be this is what the goal is. Let's assume we get funding to do that. Where do we go towards that with costing, in terms of whether there's a bottleneck in terms of having, you know, adequate number of trainers within the police bureau to be able to provide that training. We have not hit that point right now. And, you know, this is one of the assumptions we need to interrogate. If we did this is would we assume we'd be able to bring in more applications and more qualified applicants in the future? So if that's still the bottleneck that, you know, the we've been estimating over the past 18 months or so, usually that we're bringing in between 75 and 100 people per year as new recruits. That amount has been sustainable for the number of trainees that would be able to get through the academy, and then that would be able to have peer support as they go through probation. If we're instead to have an assumption that, hey, let's assume we're going to double the number of applications we get, we double the number of qualified applicants we'd a need to talk about why is that assumption fair? But if it were, then we would potentially start hitting up against that barrier where there'd just be too many new people on the force that they wouldn't have somebody who's experienced to to double up with where that is. I think we need to to talk with the bureau about sort of what that demographic shift would be. I mean, we're already at.
166 That problem really is more about the fact that, like where we are now rather than this new infusion, like, I guess what you're saying is, like, if this were to come, it's coming with a chunk of change, not trying to just deal with the existing problems we already have and potentially maybe even if this came with a large chunk of change, that that would make the problem less acute. Today. The ones we're dealing with now.
167 We're already at a point where I believe it's about a third of sworn officers have been hired in the past five years. So we've had an enormous turnover that has been going on, enormous infusion of new life and energy into the bureau. Is there a point where that tips and it's no longer sustainable?
168 I don't foresee that because we're we're we're doing it now. We can do the 80 to 100 a year now. And and really that's governed by the number of applications we get. And so as we, you know, are really leaning into our recruitment efforts. It's my my gig to monitor that. And are we able to sustain our interior processes to get people through backgrounds and all that that's required with what we have coming through the door. And so we're looking at that and I'm chatting with my folks regularly about, are we still good? Is this a sustainable level because we're not lowering standards or expectations for our applicants? Can our backgrounds handle this kind of workload because we're not going to cut corners, we're going to still do it right. And so that's something we have to monitor. But it's entirely governed by the number of applications we have coming in because we're getting ballpark 5%. You know, so.
169 Has I know that there is a concerted recruitment push across the entire service area and a whole plan that this council has, has approved and funded. Has there been any challenges to the previous to that plan to that, like the efforts to recruit right now because of the enormous amount of new recruitment that's happening at the federal law enforcement level, meaning like ice is staffing up really fast? And are they dipping into our pool of potentially qualified candidates in any regard, or that that you can tell.
170 Potentially qualified candidates? Probably the key phrase there, no, I don't I'm not seeing that. We're not experiencing that in any way. The folks that we're looking for, you know, we hired eight today, eight new folks. And no, we're not going to see overlap with what we're looking for and what I think they're looking for.
171 Last question on that. It's not this is not even a fair question. So no, I'm not going to ask it. Never mind. I will just say and I won't make any of you weigh in on this. I have a lot of worries about what's happening on the federal level with regard to the culture of employment among law enforcement and the standards that are being set by example. We are seeing, obviously, the examples where the federal law enforcement are hiring a lot of folks, not giving them the kind of training that PPB gets. I worry that there's going to be a moment in which the federal situation relents in some capacity, or something happens, and those ice is no longer the the terror that is happening in our neighborhood. And suddenly these poorly trained folks are going to be looking for another career and suddenly, oh, look, PPB is hiring 400 people. So I just worry about us hiring people who have some bad habits in the future. But that is a problem not to deal with today. I just want to note that I don't I don't want us to hire former ice people. Thank you. That's all.
172 That's an ordinance request.
173 That's another one.
174 Yeah. Councilor Novick, please.
175 Thank you, chair Smith. First of all, president Dunphy actually was reading an article last week, maybe reading the same one about the ice recruitment, taking people away from other jurisdictions and potentially cutting into potential recruits. I think that is a real concern. I haven't seen it raised here. I chair Smith, I was very excited about this resolution, in part because it dovetailed with something I was thinking about doing if I remain as co-chair of public safety, but I wasn't really focused on the timeline, so I wanted to describe what I was thinking of doing and have you and the public safety service area talk about how that might work with your timeline? So what I was thinking of doing is having a discussion in the community and public safety committee where the police came forward and said, not just here's how many more officers we want, but here's what we think are reasonable human trafficking unit would look like, here's what we think are reasonable, domestic violence unit would look like. And then also having a more nuanced discussion about increased investigative capacity, because one thing that we could say is we should hire more detectives. If you talk to aaron schwartz, he would say, well, you could also hire more patrol officers and give the patrol officers more time to do the initial investigation. So those are some of the discussions that I was hoping to have over the next year. And if you are postponing, I mean, if the reporting date was like next October or something, then we could have this document in part informed by those discussions. On the other hand, maybe this document you're talking about could help inform those discussions. So one thing I was wondering is, are you envisioning that this report would be organized that way, saying, here's how many people we want for x unit and y unit. Here's various alternatives about how to improve investigation. How did you imagine it?
176 Look.
177 I think we could when I mean, there's a blanket word there, the comprehensive and comprehensive could include exactly what you're talking about. We could see x, y, z number in each area. And as we're as we're talking about this elizabeth. Is this something that we could in our comprehensive look our 30,000 foot look if we're and see we don't know. And that's the reason why we took the number out. We took the 400 out because we actually don't know. But as you're looking at this and seeing what what the needs are going to be, is there a way to disaggregate which departments are going to need the most help or or how are we going to use these people once they're hired?
178 Yeah, I think it's both. And right, like in order to get a detective, they have to come into the door as an officer. Right. And so I think we could do both in terms of time frame. I would look to to nathan and amanda on that one, but overall, it is something that I think we've talked before, councilor Novick. And I think it's doable.
179 Well, let's, let's, let's talk about it further. And as we're going into it, there's so much language in here that gives us latitude to, to to do what we think we will need to be able to be really sure about what what are the options. So let's let's talk about it. Let's, let's talk about some of those things that councilor Novick is, is suggesting because I think they're good. They're good ways in which to to set this report.
180 Yeah. I'll just say again, just really appreciate being brought in at the beginning. And so whenever we're able to do that and then, you know, if and when this passes would like to start immediately working with you all on what are the expectations. So we make sure that the report in April is comprehensive in the way that you would like it.
181 To be, because I would want the two co-chairs of the current community police and public safety committee, which I also sit on, to be able to have some input into this. They have been working on this issue for a long time. So I want to make sure that we're we're not missing something. Councilor councilor Kanal.
182 Madam chair, there was one other thing that I wanted to mention.
183 Oh go ahead.
184 So I actually, begging your pardon, would like to revisit whereas number seven, because I actually liked it other than the word growing because I think your intent there was to sort of recognize that there's going to be this push to get additional officers one way or another, and you want the people thinking about that to have rational expectations about what's possible, at what speed. And I'm willing to agree that there is public interest, in part because councilor Pirtle-guiney and I commissioned a poll last year where we asked if people be willing to consider increasing the tax in order to avoid cuts to public safety, parks and homelessness. And the I and a lot of people said, yes. And I imagine a fair number of those people were particularly concerned about public safety. But I also agree with councilor Kanal, unless we have a poll from last year saying x level of interest and a poll of y level of interest, now the word growing doesn't work. So I would propose I want to move to restore whereas seven without the word growing.
185 So moved.
186 I need a second.
187 Okay.
188 Just have a point of information. We still haven't voted on the rest of the amendment yet, is that correct?
189 Right?
190 Correct.
191 So this would be an amendment to her amendment. So it is okay.
192 Okay. And then we vote on so we vote on amendment to the amendment, then the amendment. And then we could discuss and vote on the underlying resolution three three different things.
193 And we in folks we have 18 minutes and we still have to go and listen to public testimony. Do we have public testimony?
194 No one has signed up.
195 Okay. So.
196 I'm not in the queue for that.
197 Okay.
198 Do we have any other discussion about this? Can we take a vote? Diana.
199 Give me just a second to catch up with what we're doing here. Okay. So that was moved by councilor Novick and seconded by councilor Smith just to confirm.
200 It was moved by me and seconded by councilor Novick.
201 Okay. The amendment to your amendment just being clear. Okay. All right. So, Dunphy. I Kanal. No Novick. I Green no. Smith. I with a vote of three I and two nay. The motion to amend the underlying emotion, the underlying motion has been approved.
202 Thank you. And so we still have to vote on the amendment before we do the underlying. So can we take a vote on the amendment?
203 Sure. So, Dunphy. I Kanal. I Novick.
204 I and I want to second councilor Kanal point that I think because the greens to that this is a real improvement in the original. So thank you.
205 Green.
206 Hi, Smith.
207 Hi.
208 With a vote of five ayes. The motion to amend the resolution, as shown in Smith one, with the change in the amendment from councilor Novick has been passed.
Procedural episode · turns 209–217
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
209 Thank you.
210 Councilor Kanal.
211 Thank you. So, madam chair, I hope you'll indulge me because I didn't have a chance to read this until later. I did look at a couple things in here, and I mentioned earlier that the context was really important to me. So you could I did prepare something I'd like to, to pass around here as a potential additional amendment. I hope it's considered friendly, and I certainly hope it's considered minor. I did email it in to the clerk as well as to you, christopher. So it makes three changes. The first and third are let me get you a copy to for the folks on that side. Thanks. The first is to the fifth, whereas must maintain staffing levels at adequately meet the public safety standards and best practice of a major us city. And I added, as well as the context of other public safety systems in serving Portland e.g. Boec, parking enforcement, Portland street response and chat, and county, regional and state public safety systems. Because I think it's really important that we look at dps pipeline issues, we look at those other contexts I mentioned that's reflected also in the additionally, which is the last section adding in, as well as changes to other parts of the public safety system which may affect PPB workload. I mentioned Portland street response explicitly there, as well as portland's public safety system down below, where it says adequately funded and staffed in alignment with the city's growth, portland's public safety system, nationally recognized best practices, and the core values of the city of Portland. I think those two are probably connected and very minor in the middle. I also am proposing just asking for more information on retention. And this is fundamentally that if we recruit 500 officers with 499 separate, the net is one. And so I want to make sure that in addition to and one thing we haven't brought up here is I believe it's Green 13 was the the public safety set aside created in the budget process. And then through the tor $1.1 million was put into PPB to address many of the issues that actually council president Dunphy brought up around ensuring that we don't have this duplication of cost where we're paying to hire and train officers while we still need to have the overtime expense of filling the workload that they will take on once they're done being trained. So anyway, back to retention, it adds, shall include information on retention patterns and proposals for retaining PPB personnel, recognizing that recruitment will increase staffing levels only if it outpaces retirements and other separations. And I'm hoping that that this is not a large workload change, because I also know it's already being done, and I just wanted it to be collated into the same document. So that's that's my my request to add these three things in there. And I hope it's considered friendly.
212 It's not considered friendly because what you're doing is you're adding to the scope of work, and you're adding to the entire public safety system. When the question that's going to be on the ballot is specific to police and not the public safety system. And so I'm trying to get some information specific to the police, not specific to the entire public safety system. And what I would suggest and what I would like you to do is I would like you to put your own request in through the as the co-chair of the community and public safety, I would like you to put your own resolution through to get additional information about the overall public safety system. And then we could do that. But I think this is going to cause us not to be able to meet the deadline of April 30th. I don't know, maybe. Nathan, can you tell me adding the entire public safety system to this.
213 Point of order.
214 This this is not what it does.
215 That's what. That's how I read it.
216 So it's it's simply recognizing the context that we live in a system in the first, whereas in the third, it simply says that it says projected cost ratio. That reflects the increase in and saying it should also reflect the changes that are already being made, that council already approved. It's simply context setting. I'm not asking for a report about psr. I'm not asking for a report about any of the other parts of the system. I'm simply saying that we should recognize that those other things exist.
217 So recognizing it means that you have to put it into the report. And so, as you say, as well as changes to other parts of the public safety system which may affect PPB workload. So you're asking us to look at the entire workload. I, I assume that you would be looking at those some of those things, but when you put it in language like this, you, you want me to look at how will this impact the Portland street response? How will this impact 911? And I think that those things have to be looked at. But the way you identify it, it requires a bigger scope of work. In my opinion.
218 It would.
219 The causality is the opposite. It's not. How will this impact 911? It's how does 911 impact PPB?
220 Tomato, tomato? It's not friendly. So. Any more discussion about this and trying to include this into the and I apologize to you councilor Kanal, because I should have had the entire this thing up late. I have a tough time trying to look at stuff on the dais, and we should have had it up there correctly to begin with, so you could have put your request in. Do we have any other discussions about the new the Kanal one amendment?
221 I. Councilor Green.
222 Yeah, I jumped in the queue because I was going to support my reading of it is just it allows us to do a robust, holistic analysis of our PPB hiring pipeline capability because we have these other interactions on our public safety system. That's how I read it. But you've you've said it's not friendly. So are you moving this? Are you going to move it? Okay. Did I second.
223 Okay.
224 Councilor Novick.
225 My question is for the public safety service area folks here, which is in doing this report, would you kind of naturally do it in the context of the concerns that councilor Kanal the issues councilor Kanal raises? Just looking through his amendment, do you think that the that you would look at staffing levels in the context of other public safety systems that you would naturally include information on retention patterns and proposals for retaining personnel? You'd be thinking about other parts of the public safety service system, regardless of whether or not this this resolution talks about that.
226 Yeah, I think there are several variables that we're going to be looking at. Anyway. As nathan pointed out earlier, we're looking at a couple of different generations of contracts for ppa. So there's a lot that's going to be changing between now and in ten years. There's nothing that is certain. So again, we kind of look to working with council on what your expectations are from us and what we will be considering.
227 So would this help you? Have you have you seen Kanal one?
228 We just. Yeah.
229 So would this help you pull this report together by April 30th?
230 I think I mean, it would inform what we're doing, I guess a practical example that is timely is that councilor Novick had an amendment around welfare checks, where we're expected to report every four months about moving welfare checks, potentially to other alternative responders. We'll be reporting on that in the next couple of weeks. That is still a policy decision. There are still practical questions there, but there is a chunk of calls that could hypothetically move from the police bureau to Portland street response or another alternative responder. If those calls were to move over, that would impact the workload that the police bureau has.
231 Okay.
232 We do not yet know whether those calls could move over, should move over, would move over. We would put that as a paragraph that, you know, if these calls, you know, if x number of calls moved over, then there may be a change in the number of sworn officers that would be required, number of welfare checks. You know, we're talking about a decade, number of welfare checks has increased significantly over the past decade. Again, there's a lot of uncertainty about whether or not we were to move them to psr or another alternative responder, whether those are going to go down because of the housing policies we have, because of the state of the general economy, there's a lot of uncertainty there.
233 So so.
234 What I'm concerned about is I'm concerned is this going to give you is this going to add more to your scope of work that you wouldn't be able to meet the April 30th deadline? That's what I'm concerned about.
235 I think if, if again, if, when and if this passes in whatever form, if we are able to start working with you immediately, I think we can meet that April deadline.
236 Okay. Okay. Perfect. That's what I'm concerned about, changing the scope so much that it's going to require a little bit more work.
237 And I'll just note again, if we are able to work together and things shift and change as we're going through this, as long as I think we have really good communication and we're able to say, hey, I think we're going to be able to make this deadline, but only if we do x, y, and z. I would just want to keep that communication flowing. I think as long as we are able to meet the spirit of the resolution and you all agree with that.
238 The original.
239 We can make it happen.
240 The simple, original spirit of the resolution. Because I think this is getting more detailed than I would have liked it to be then. That's why we had the original language in. And so let's call a vote.
241 Can I go?
242 I'm sorry, councilor Dunphy.
243 Yeah, I just wanted to say, I think that there is something that I've seen happen, and councilor Kanal touched on it a little bit. And I think if I understand what the spirit of what you're trying to get to, it is easy for an outside party to say, oh, look, the city of Portland has x many police officers versus the city of chicago, but an officer in chicago is not necessarily the same thing as an officer in Portland. And that like in that context, they would call a 911 call taker and a police part of the police or something like that. There are people that we do not refer to as part of the police bureau that would be considered. We don't call them there. But, you know, hand gestures are I'm sorry. And so for me, what I'm reading this is that really like that context is really necessary to be able to come back and say these are the levels because otherwise we come back and say, well, we want the same levels as new york. But, you know, they have like traffic control people out like unarmed traffic. So I think that I think that my reading, at least on this, is we're going to get to the same place with the better context. There is a bigger question there, though, that we will because we sort of just don't. It's not comparing apples to oranges. We will always sort of look like we are lagging in some compared to some cities, but I do think that this would give us some good context to be able to push back and say, and this is why.
244 And the other piece is chat Portland street response. They're in one time only.
245 Money chat is psr is not.
246 Psr is not. So chad is in one time only money. Thank you. And so to solve for a department that is in one time only money. I have a problem with that because it's just making the scope of work that much more because we have a budget cycle coming up and we could actually cut out chat. So why are we putting chat in?
247 I'd consider it friendly if you wanted to remove and chat from the first one. It's not in the other two parts.
248 Okay.
249 I'm happy to do that if that's okay with you.
250 That is fine with me. We got four minutes left, everybody. Diana, what should we do to to get the vote on the amendment of amending the amendment for Kanal one?
251 It's been moved and seconded.
252 It's been moved. The amend Kanal one has been moved and seconded. So taking the vote on that, unless we are amending that in any way and then we can move on to taking the vote on the full moving it to council.
253 Just clarifying and I'll ask my seconder that we want to move it other. But there's been a friendly which is to remove and chat.
254 I consent.
255 I'll email you the updated version, but it's literally two words in the 12346.
256 Whereas okay.
257 Fifth whereas sorry.
258 Okay a question, madam chair. Yes. Are you okay with this amendment as currently amended?
259 Yeah, yeah, yeah I'm fine with it.
260 Okay. So we are now voting on the motion to amend the resolution as shown in Kanal one with the changes as discussed.
261 So I.
262 Know we're going to get that money for chat to be ongoing someday. But I.
263 Novick I.
264 Green I.
265 Smith I.
266 The motion with five eyes. The motion passes.
267 Yes. Now to the underlying resolution.
268 Technically the underlying has not been moved or seconded. Can I get.
269 A so moved second?
270 Okay.
271 Okay. So the motion to refer the resolution.
272 Dunphy I.
273 Kanal I.
274 Novick I.
275 Green I.
276 Smith I.
277 With five eyes the motion to refer the resolution as amended. Document number 2026 042 to city council with a recommendation it be adopted has passed.
278 Thank you. Thank you, everybody for all of your comments in additions and subtractions. We know it's important information because this this has been swirling around and it didn't sit well with me over the over the christmas break when I when I read the story. So I was like, I don't even know what the cost is to get to that point. So why are we. So we have one minute left.
279 Can I read into the record item number three?
280 Yes.
281 Item number three, public comment on the labor and workforce development committee. No one signed up for testimony.
282 Thank you.
283 So just so people understand that any new money that is received from PCEF does not supplant the current budget. And I hope people understand that it does not supplant the current budget that is being budgeted to the current police budget. Do you all understand that? And so that's going to be very tricky. But I think this this report is going to help to inform people and give people a little bit more information than what is on a a ballot measure three sentence. Well, I am getting ready to close for the good of the order. Does anyone have anything else? Thank you.