The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-11-19
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (31,429 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council convened on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, with roll call establishing quorum and rules of decorum read aloud. During public communication, testimony was given on a mental-wellness grant program in schools, on the Police Training Advisory Council's recommendations for elected officials to attend Community Academy training, on rideshare driver deactivation policies, and on the Frog Ferry electric passenger ferry project. The council adopted its agenda and consent agenda by vote, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. On the regular agenda, the council held a second reading and vote on an ordinance amending the affordable housing code to prohibit anti-competitive rental practices, including algorithmic pricing devices, following extended debate referencing a prior social-media controversy and discussion of housing affordability and antitrust law; the outcome is recorded in the vote ledger. The council then took up a proposed ordinance establishing a detention facility impact fee and nuisance code provisions, prompted by extensive presentation and public testimony—36 signed-up speakers voiced a range of positions, many demanding revocation of a detention facility's land-use permit rather than a fee structure, while others supported the ordinance as one tool among several. An amendment to the ordinance was moved, discussed, and voted on, with the outcome recorded in the vote ledger; the underlying ordinance itself was not voted on, being a first reading carried over to a future meeting. A remaining agenda item was postponed to a recess meeting the following day, after which the meeting was adjourned.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 Good evening. It is 6:00 on Wednesday, November 19th. I am calling to order the Portland city council meeting. Keelan, can you please call the roll?
1 Clerk here?
2 Green here.
3 Thomas. Here.
Procedural episode · turns 4–13
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
4 Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Avalos.
5 Dunphy here.
6 Smith here. Canal here.
7 Ryan here. Koyama Lane here. Morillo here. Novick. Pirtle-guiney here.
8 And, mike, could you please read our rules of order and decorum?
9 Thank you. Council president. Welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at w-w-w-what. Agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over. Presiding officer preserves decorum. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
10 Thank you very much, colleagues. The first item on the agenda is agenda approval. I will note that agenda item four has been pulled from the consent agenda and will be placed at the end of our regular agenda this evening. Are there any other proposed changes to the agenda? Okay. Seeing none, do I have unanimous consent to adopt the agenda? Okay. Keelan there was no opposition there that I saw. The next item on the agenda is public communication. Keelan, can you please call up our first guest?
11 First up, we have brad krishnamurthy.
12 Welcome. Thank you for being here this evening. Any chair you'd like. Aren't quite as sensitive as we'd like them to be, so make sure you're all the way. Yeah. There you go.
13 All right. Go right. Yes. Okay. So. Yeah, my name is brad krishnamurthy. I'm here representing the art of living foundation as well as the international association for human values, where sister nonprofits who work in the mental well-being sphere. So we teach research, packed breathwork and meditation, positive psychology techniques for youth, adults, different sectors of society, including in prisons, for veterans, and so on. We're one of the safer Portland grant awardees and thanking the city of Portland for your contribution to. For that. We all know, and we've heard many times from here that that mental health resources are very important in Oregon. While it's important to have, you know, counselors and, you know, medical staff and so on. But what is also needed is to proactively teach the youth of today techniques to handle their negative emotions and their stressors. Right? So, you know, we regularly go to the office of violence prevention cpc meetings. And one thing I heard from the one of our Portland police officers was, like any small disagreements between the youth of today could sometimes escalate into gun violence. Right. And I don't blame them because, you know, in our schools we teach math and science, which are important to be taught. But I feel like we should also have that as a part of the curriculum. And there are research backed techniques to help people gain these skills in life. Right? So that's what we did. We did a two week program thanks to the Portland grant at kellogg middle school, and we had a very amazing response at the at the end from the staff. So we had like five periods throughout the day for two weeks. And around 160 kids went through this program as a part of their fit to live classes. So here is one testimonial that we had one of the kids shared at the end. Three days before I went to bed, I remembered and did some of the breathing exercises you guys taught. I've gotten the best sleep I've gotten in so long. Every time I leave your class and I have a period after that, it makes me feel so much more ready and focused on what we're talking about, right? And one more event we had recently for adults is we had like around 1300 people program at the Oregon convention center and ten different cbos and cultural organizations came together for this initiative. We had cbos like love stronger, elevate Oregon, us first, brown hope, chinese coalition, apano, naya. So many organizations together came and we had an amazing testimonials from there as well. The one of the testimonials from elevate Oregon, a partner organization, is the students and adults really enjoyed the experience, and experiencing our founders presence was truly inspiring and powerful. So our vision is for these techniques to reach every school in Oregon and every youth who is coming up and. We any support in that for through connections as well as funding. We're very happy to here. And I just wanted to give a status update on our progress. Thank you.
14 Thank you so much. We appreciate hearing that. We often don't hear from people who have received grants and been able to do the work. So thank you.
15 Next up we have alan combs.
16 Welcome. Thanks for joining us this evening.
17 So we'll begin soon. And we have just a three minute comment. But president pirtle-guiney, I wanted to ask if I may share the three minutes with patrick alexander. We're here from a volunteer committee, part of the Portland police training advisory council. Go right ahead. All right. Very good. Thank you. Good evening. Council president and councilors. My name is alan combs, and with me this evening is patrick alexander. We both serve on the Portland police bureau's training advisory council, known as tac. Patrick serves as tax chair. Tac was created by Portland city council in 2012. Its members are volunteers from the community. We review and monitor training activities of the police bureau and provide ongoing observations and recommendations to the bureau's training division and chief of police. Tac exists because of the fundamental need for community input into the police bureau training and practices, especially practices that allow officers to perform duties without the excessive use of force. This purpose is so important that tac has a necessary role in identifying training improvements, so that the police bureau can attain and maintain substantial compliance with the 2012 city of Portland d.o.j. Settlement.
18 As tac members, we regularly observe bureau training sessions and give feedback to the bureau training division, tac observes. In the past have held helped improve the quality of officers training, especially in the areas of crisis intervention, de-escalation techniques and practices that significantly reduce the force. Along the way, tac members learned about the police procedures, practices, and cultures. We share this knowledge with the community. Tac also joins the officers in a ride along and participate in the one day intensive known as training is known as community academy. Community academy is held several times in the year and it immerses approximately 20 community participants into a realistic, sometimes intense scenarios with officers. Participants gets a better appreciation of the level of skills required to be a Portland police officer. Also, importance of training to achieve our goals and policies becomes very apparent to all who participate in the community academy tac experience so valuable that we write that we wrote our letter to the mayor. In you and our letter, we urge you to urge our elected officials to attend a community academy and an officer ride along. Especially our letter recommends that the mayor and all city council members participate within within community academy in the next 12 months or in the future, within 12 months of their election taking office, right along with Portland police officers. Also within the next 12 to 48 months, and then again in the last 6 to 48 after that.
19 All right. Very good. I'll take it. Right now, we know that several of you councilors have participated in these recommended training experiences, and we very much appreciate that. Our recommendation recognizes past participation for you, councilors that have not yet been to community academy. We sincerely hope that you will participate in one during 2026. The next one is currently scheduled for a day in April. Participation in these training opportunities will help you and your role of setting public safety policy and allocating resources. Once you've experienced community academy, we trust you will have a clear understanding of how training supports the mission of Portland police and plays a crucial role in attaining the goal of a just. Safe and police force that's trusted by everyone in Portland. Thank you.
20 Thank you both very much. Thank you for being here.
21 We have aaron bacchus. Aaron bacchus. Nathaniel hudson hartman.
22 Welcome to hold up signs. But if you do, if you could remain seated so that other people can see, that would be greatly appreciated.
23 Sorry. That's my bad. I told them to stand. I thought, that's.
24 All right.
25 We can do jazz hands. Jazz hands. I did tell her when not to clap. For the record, my name is nathaniel hudson hartman. I've been a rideshare driver in Oregon for over eight years, and I'm honored to represent every single person in this room wearing a blue shirt as the voice for fairness, for essential rideshare transportation providers in our city and our state. And I want everybody to close their eyes, and I want everybody to picture being in one of our shoes or behind the wheel. You with me? You start your shift, you go about your business, you finish your shift, and you realize that you just made 100 bucks and eight hours. Uber and lyft would have you believe that drivers are earning more than minimum wage and that are competitive. Our salaries are very competitive, but I think our drivers experiencing homelessness or close to it would tell you otherwise. You still with me? You go home, you go to sleep. You tell your family how your day went. You wake up the next day. You say goodbye to your family. You gas up your car, you pay your car bill, you pay your insurance bill, you wash your car, you get ready for work. You go online only to find that there's a big red exclamation point saying that your account has been deactivated without a clear explanation why. Oh, and by the way, maybe you're an immigrant driver. Maybe you're still learning english. You don't get to talk to a real person. You have to text with an english speaking chatbot. You get one chance for an appeal through an opaque process. Still no clear explanation why you do your best to try to formulate something. Maybe you have google translate or a family member, and then maybe hours later, your account gets permanently deactivated. Now suddenly you're stuck. You're stuck with a really huge car loan, you're underwater, and you don't know what to do next. So you went from making subminimum wage to now not having any income at all. And I have met with seven drivers in as many days that are experiencing this economic hardship, six of which are immigrants, all of which were deactivated by a false allegation of wrongdoing. Maybe they said something that was inappropriate. And it's the same story over and over again. How am I saying something inappropriate when I can barely speak a word of english? But uber and lyft are deactivating our workforce without the right to representation, and this city identified a need through the tnc ombuds program. But this program knew that drivers did not have deactivation appeals rights. The driver resource center could act as this body an independent advocate organization with deactivation appeals rights to make sure wrongfully deactivated drivers have a meaningful pathway to get their jobs back. We've needed this for a very long time. This is why we fight. Thank you.
26 Thank you.
27 Thank you for being here, for continuing to raise this. I know that there are a few officers who are working with you, and we hope to make progress on this soon.
28 And we will.
29 Okay.
30 Next. Next up we have susan gladhill.
31 Thank you. Katherine.
32 Welcome, susan. Thank you for being here.
33 Thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is susan and I'm excited to update you on frog ferry, our nonprofit working to provide an electric passenger ferry for Portland. Our goal is to create a sustainable, fun, and community centered way to move across the city while supporting climate investment, transportation, decarbonization and economic growth. Since we last updated you, we were provided permission by the city to use two city owned docks located at cathedral park and river place. Thank you. The st. Johns in downtown neighborhood associations continue to champion the project, and we have responded to leaders in Oregon city, lake oswego, northwest Portland, and others all asking what it will take for them to get a ferry service. As conversations about river city revitalization continue, a ferry would help with that activation for destinations such as waterfront park, omsi, live nation and the baseball park. We are in the process of launching a new campaign for our third round of funding to pay for dock improvements, a vessel ticketing, project planning and the operator RFP. We are shovel ready. Our business model has always been a nonprofit and public agent partnership, a true public transit system, but without public funding. We are wrestling with how to keep ticket prices at $3.50. We provided you with a proforma in may, and just one ferry would displace 3200 tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year and 600 cars per day. We have provided an estimated $65 million in research, planning and community engagement and were two thirds the way to putting a ferry on the water, with 20 million needed to put one boat on the water. We want to start building next year and use local talent. We have a one minute video queued up if you could get that started. That shows current and proposed attractions and how the ferry can connect people between stops. We want to thank our videographer, volunteer benjamin arif, for producing this piece, and we'll give you a minute to take a look. You're now on the Willamette river. Cathedral park. The moda center, duckworth dock, salmon street, and soon to come in the beard market riverplace marina at the southwest waterfront. The omsi district. You can see major league baseball across the tilikum bridge down to milwaukee with her seasonal dock. Lake oswego. And all the way down to Oregon city. We look forward to getting portlanders out on the Willamette. Thank you.
34 Thank you very much for being here and providing an update for us.
35 That completes communications.
36 Thank you. Keelan colleagues. The next item on our agenda is the committee referral list. The one item currently on the committee referral list is appointments to the Portland committee on community engaged policing, which was referred to the community and public safety committee. That brings us to our consent agenda. Keelan, could you please call the roll for the consent agenda? And as a reminder, item four has been removed. This agenda includes items five, six, and seven. Clerk I.
37 Green I.
38 Was that did you say.
39 Yes okay.
40 All right. Councilor did you say I yes okay. Thanks.
41 Dunphy I, I.
42 Smith.
43 I.
44 I Ryan, I Koyama Lane I Morillo I pirtle-guiney. I the consent agenda is approved with ten yes votes.
45 Thank you colleagues. That brings us to our regular agenda. Keelan. Could you please call agenda item eight?
46 Amend affordable housing code to add prohibition of anti-competitive rental practices, including the sale and use of algorithmic devices and code. Section 30.01.088.
Procedural episode · turns 47–65
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
47 Thank you keelan colleagues. This is a second reading. We debated this item at our previous meeting. Is there anyone in the queue for discussion? Councilor Ryan, are you in the queue for discussion on this item?
48 Hello colleagues, I just wanted to get some words out before we go deep into this. Earlier this week, I messaged out my thoughts regarding the upcoming weeks, council meetings and one of the items I mentioned was the proposed ai algorithm legislation. My position on the legislation is not a surprise to any of you at this point, since I've made it known for many times before, I cannot support creating legislation without proof of a problem that needs solving. We need laser focus to improve our city's services and address portland's most pressing issues. My weekly messaging inadvertently transfers those two words, which turned out depending upon how you read, it could change the meaning to something very different than what was intended. My intention was to say that the rental ai legislation comes from a socialist national playbook, but the words of socialist and national were transposed to read national socialist playbook. And that, as I quickly learned from the continuing flow of uncharitable messages I was receiving, means nazism, something I reject and stand firmly against. I was genuinely caught off guard by how many people had misinterpreted and some purposely misconstrued any. My message anyone who knows me knows that I don't play dirty, and I don't rely on cheap tactics of name calling. I would not ever knowingly make statements of this nature. The original point I was trying to make is about transparency. The ai algorithm legislation has been created for local governments by a national organization, local progress, who develops progressive policy legislation to be adopted by cities and counties. I raise this for transparency's sake because this is not the last nationally driven policy that some of this council will bring forth, and it's not the first and won't be the last from local progress at the national platforms are here in.
49 Portland.
50 And I don't necessarily think that's good for my hometown. There are two things that have popped out for me. The big issue that everyone is paying attention to, regardless of where you are in the political spectrum, people want to see their government focus on economic relief.
51 Point of order.
52 I would like.
53 Is there a reason why councilor Ryan is getting to make an entire speech about a policy that we are not on yet, because I haven't heard an apology about the instagram post that inadvertently called numerous councilors of color a nazi, and all I heard was victim blaming assumptions that no one else can possibly understand. An instagram post.
54 Councilor councilor I believe that this is related to the ai price fixing ordinance, which is an open agenda item right now. Am I mistaken?
55 There need to be listened to. President, I appreciate that. Madam president. There are two things that have popped out for me. Affordability is the big issue that everyone is paying attention to. Regardless of where you are in the political spectrum, people want to see their government focus on economic relief. I want to focus our work on this council to bring that economic relief through workforce development efforts, more efficient and cost effective services, and ensuring that our tax base is getting what they paid for. And since we are talking about housing affordability today, we know the way to less expensive housing, both rental and privately owned, is by increasing our housing production of all kinds. That is my focus. If the backlash backlash to my misinterpreted statement is an indication of future actions, I will have to continue to react to unfounded attacks from those who politically are not aligned with me. I can take criticism all day long about my policy positions. That is what we are here for. But the personal attacks and discrediting and distracting from the work that portlanders need this council to do.
56 Thank you. Thank you for.
57 The opportunity to share, and thank you for listening to me.
58 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Avalos, are you in the queue to discuss the ai price fixing ordinance?
59 Yes.
60 Go right ahead.
61 Thank you. First off, I just want to respond to what I just heard because what I didn't hear was an apology. And I find it really frustrating for colleagues to spend a lot of time posting about other colleagues. I'm sorry, but I do not recall any of us going out of our way constantly to call out other colleagues, and so I expect professionalism and decorum from you. Councilor Ryan, I'm really disappointed that you made that whole speech, and. Councilor did not include an apology.
62 I'm councilor is this.
63 Able to speak? This is.
64 He was speaking to the he was speaking to the ordinance before us. Can you.
65 But you didn't interrupt him.
66 He was speaking to the ordinance. Can you please make sure your comments are to the ordinance?
67 That is what I'm speaking to. I'm speaking to the fact that we are talking about an ordinance. And yet there are posts that get made about people, and I am rejecting that. And if councilor Ryan gets to make a big speech, then here I am doing mine too. So I think it is appropriate to call that out, because I'm really tired of also being the recipient of vague posting. And I think that if we are going to expect each other to respect each other as colleagues, then we need to focus on the policies. This policy is a no brainer. This is a policy that goes along with what a.g. Rayfield just announced today. It is clear that there is a movement across the country to address the fact that landlords are continuing to collude with each other, to the great disadvantage of portlanders, and that is contributing to why we have such a high houseless population. It is contributing to the economic instability of portlanders and of our city. And so I would just encourage councilors to debate on the topic, and I discourage and I reject that non-apology. So I am excited to support this, and I hope that our councilors in the future will focus their posts on the merits of the policies and not on personal attacks. It's ironic to hear you say that that is what you experience, when that is what we all experience from you. That's all.
68 Thank you councilor. Let's keep to non. Non-auditory support and dissension please. Councilor Morillo.
69 Thank you council president. I think we've said enough about councilor Ryan's posts and so hopefully he will think more carefully about his words in the future when he's critiquing policy, because it is a pretty big mistake to make. I want to talk about how proud I am of the work that was put into the algorithmic price fixing ban. Me and my staff have worked on this policy for the past nine months. We were able to develop it with community. We were able to have multiple meetings with people who were opposed to the policy. We came together with city council and had numerous presentations both in committee and at council, and we made amendments to clarify language, to improve the policy and to make sure that it is solely targeting the corporations that we meant to target. We did everything we could to make sure that our fellow councilors felt heard, and that there were amendments made that, frankly, were not did not have to be made in any other jurisdiction. But we did them. And I'm very proud of the policy that has come forward at this time. We know that this is, in fact, a real issue in Portland. Just this morning, the attorney general, Dan rayfield, put out a statement showing that there was a settlement because they found wrongdoing with greystar, one of the largest corporate landlords in Portland, Oregon. We know that there are countless units in the city of Portland that are operated by these algorithms that do price fixing, and we owe it to renters and to people in our community to do every single thing that we can to change housing affordability. And I want to say this to housing affordability and addressing corrupt corporations that are victimizing portlanders, that is not mutually exclusive with building and developing new housing. These are things that can happen at the same time, and my office is proud to have worked on policies that both protect renters rights and policies that will help with development. So I hope that my colleagues will join me in this. This is going to be a big win for our city. This is a win for renters, and this is one small piece of the puzzle when it comes to addressing housing affordability, and we should take every chance that we get. I also want to add that today, senator wyden, who our office has been working with him on this policy as well because he hasn't been able to pass it at the congressional level, has decided to bring forward the policy again in an attempt to pass it in congress. Although speaking with his staff, we're aware that they simply don't have the votes right now to make something like that happen. What we have to do then, as a local jurisdiction is to pass this here where we can. And senator wyden office has sent letters of support. We're happy to forward that to you. And we're just really grateful that everyone has put in so much work into making this happen. And I look forward to seeing it passing today. So thank you.
70 Councilor Green.
71 Thank you, madam president. Thank you for shepherding and leading on this councilor Morillo. It's been a pleasure to work with your office on this. I want to say that this legislation doesn't come out of some special interest. This legislation comes out of the very long tradition in the united states to to deal with antitrust. It dates back to the 1890s with the sherman antitrust act. Senator sherman famously quoted, if we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation and sale of any of the necessaries of life. And so what you're seeing is actually a policy crafted after supreme court justice louis brandeis in dealing with antitrust, very much not a socialist thing, by the way, the the evidentiary basis for antitrust, by the way, in the united states is tested in the courts. We had the sherman antitrust act, the clayton antitrust act, the federal trade commission act, and later stuff. As the decades roll on, and the reason why we had all that is because it's constantly the case where private industry has a strong incentive to get together and collude to set prices above the market rate. And so if your position in the world is that we need an economic that promote economic system, that promotes free enterprise, you should be very much opposed to any form of price fixing. And so this is why I support it. It's good on the economics. It protects portlanders from fleecing in the rental market that we can expect to continue unabated unless we take action. We are taking action. This is urgent, and I, I am so ready to vote yes on this. Thank you.
72 Thank you, councilor, councilor Dunphy.
73 Thank you. Colleagues, 1400 neighbors are falling into homelessness every month in the city of Portland. 1400 families, roommates, children and people who have been failed by this economy are facing the worst, scariest moments of their lives every month. And we are living in a system that has failed our most vulnerable. If you are only going to build housing in our community because you want unfettered access to abusing renters and milking every dollar out of the people in my community, I will do everything in my power to cost you money, to waste your time, and to prevent you from hurting my neighbors. It is not hard to be a good landlord to the corporate apologists in this city, to the lobbyists, and to the delusional members of our community who believe that they are 1 or 2 good bootlicking moves away from becoming a millionaire themselves, and to the disappointing minority of my colleagues on this council, it is a moment for you to look within and to search why you are doing this work, who you serve and what the hell it is we're doing here. The Oregon attorney general just announced a settlement with a price fixing companies who only exist to abuse the most vulnerable in our community. I will save my colleagues a pedantic rant about my anti-corporate positions. I do not support walmart. I do not support live nation. I do not support uber and lyft and airbnb, or any out of state corporate scum who want to actively work to undermine my community. I am eager to pass this policy. I am worked up right now, and I will always vote for people over corporations and unfettered profit. I'm grateful that this fight has continued, and I am grateful that this fight has exposed bare who we are. As my colleague councilor Smith has said repeatedly, when someone shows you who they are, believe them. Let's vote on this and move on with the next fight. Thank you.
74 Thank you councilor. Colleagues. I figured if we were all talking, I would say something. And I want to start by thanking councilor Morillo for bringing this forward. We know that Portland is asking our council to tackle many big issues that are facing our city and our country. We live in challenging times that demand action and councilor. Nobody can say that you are not answering that call over and over again. And I want you to know that even when we disagree, I appreciate your hard work to bring forward innovative policies to this body. My goal with all new policy ideas, if they match my values, is to find a way to get to yes. And when this policy was first introduced, as I shared with you at the time, I wasn't yet at yes. But thanks to the collaborative efforts of many offices, we have before us a new version of the policy and the addition of an amendment which we adopted together last week, which solve many of the concerns that were initially brought forward. It's important to note that there are still some risks, and it's unclear to me whether or not this policy will actively bring down rents in our community. I don't ever want to give a false sense of hope to our renters who really do need help in this economy. I worry about the legal risk, as we've seen other cities enacting similar policies face lawsuits, but risks should never handicap our ability to bring innovative policies forward that seek to solve big challenges. We will never make progress for our community unless we're willing to take on a little bit of risk and take bold steps to do better. For these reasons, I plan to vote yes today. I want folks who aren't yet convinced to know that I am fully committed to receiving feedback and updates on how this works as it's implemented, and this is not the end of the conversation. It's certainly not the end of the work to support renters in our community. I am always open and ready to engage as we move big changes forward, to make sure we get them right and to continue to take on this work collaboratively as we make policies better so that more and more people can get to. Yes. Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane.
75 Thank you, council president. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this ordinance. A big thank you again to councilor Morillo and her staff. I know you have worked really, really hard. This legislation, this legislation matters. Renters make up of about half of portlanders. They deserve a city where housing is stable, affordable and fair. As a teacher, I've seen students lose their homes mid-year, coworkers forced to leave Portland because they couldn't afford to live where they work. These disruptions hurt families, schools, and our whole entire community. This ordinance brings transparency and protections to our rental system. It's a step towards housing justice, especially for those who are the most vulnerable in our community, like immigrant families, asylum seeking families. So today, let's stand with Portland renters and pass this ordinance. Colleagues.
76 Thank you.
77 Thank you, councilor Councilor canal.
78 Thank you, madam president. I spoke in favor of this last week, so I'll just kind of confine my comments to the new parts of what has occurred here. But I will say that it's really helpful to hear where everyone's at, and I appreciate the comments. I think we could probably spend a long time speaking about that first sentence of the post that councilor Ryan mentioned. I want to talk about the remainder of it, because it says that this is a solution in search of in search of a problem, which is a comment that was made last week as well. Last meeting. And I think that's a really important piece of this argument to refute here. I think we can't move the goalposts and say nothing is worth doing unless it does everything. To solve the problem entirely, we have to build solutions brick by brick. And I'm very grateful to the co-sponsors, in particular councilor Morillo and her office for building this brick. But I also think it's really important to say that ten states attorney generals joined in the coalition that filed the lawsuit that led to the settlement that our attorney general, Dan rayfield, announced today. So rob bonta, philip weiser, william tong, kwame raoul, keith ellison, andrea campbell, jonathan skrmetti, jeff jackson, and of course, Dan rayfield all joined in that some of them, I think maybe one of them, maybe a socialist, but some of them are republicans. So this was a bipartisan coalition that felt that there was a problem that was involving price fixing in housing, rental markets across the country, and in this particular company was doing it for 950,000 rental units nationwide. That sounds like a lot, but it's it's not that many. When you think nationwide and when you read what is in the complaint, you read the even just the announcement today. And I'll quote from, from attorney general rayfield, we're in the middle of a housing crisis, and families are already stretched to their limits. When the largest landlord in America uses an algorithm to price fix the rent, the result is simple people pay more. It squeezes working families. When the cost of housing is already at an all time high. And he goes on to say the settlement holds the largest u.s. Landlord accountable to win for Oregonians, our pocketbooks and the rule of law. End quote. And I think that's a really important piece here because, as councilor Dunphy put it, when the rent is high, we see more of those people that end up in the 1400 that every month become homeless in our community. The best way to reduce the population of people experiencing homelessness is prevention. By preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place. It is also the best use of the inordinate amount of taxpayer dollars that we use to address homelessness in our community, in addition to the ethical impacts. And so for those reasons, we have to work to stop the inflow into homelessness, which is really an outflow from housing and should be considered that way. And of course, the best way to do that is to lower the rent or at least prevent the rent from growing quite as quickly as it does now. As a renter, I was always going to support this. This was pretty obvious for me, but I'm really grateful for all of my colleagues who's taken time, who have taken time to join in with those ten attorney generals as well as as, as was mentioned, senator ron wyden, his office in supporting the extension of the sherman antitrust act to the local level and in the housing rental market. For those reasons, I'll be voting yes. Thank you, madam president.
79 Thank you. Councilor. Counselor Smith.
80 Thank you, madam president. I want to thank councilor Morillo and councilor Green for bringing this forward. And everyone who who is on this on this particular resolution. It is important. While I am a mom and pop. Landlord now, I was a renter for many years as a single parent, and the single biggest bill that we had was for housing. The challenge is real for so many folks who were like me as single parents and as families who can't afford the rent. And I think there's a there there are a couple things going on. I think we need to to have employers raise the salaries so that people can have a living wage to be able to afford just basic rent, but that's not happening. So as I looked over the data, I will be supporting you all today. So thank you very much for bringing that forward. Thank you, madam president, for the work that you did on the amendment that would keep small mom and pop folks like me from having to adhere to this, but it's it's important and it's critical. And I'll be a supporter of this.
81 Thank you. Counselor. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue will move to a vote. Keelan, could you please call the roll?
82 Clerk?
83 No.
84 Green.
85 Yes.
86 Avalos I.
87 Dunphy.
88 I.
89 Smith I.
90 Canal I Ryan.
91 No.
92 Koyama Lane.
93 Yes.
94 Maria.
95 Hallelujah. It's over. Yes.
96 Pirtle-guiney I.
97 The ordinance as amended, passes with eight yes votes, two no votes and two absent.
98 Thank you. Let's keep. We've got an item that's going to raise a lot of interest next with a lot of testimony. So I will remind folks again jazz hands thumbs up. Thumbs down to show your support or opposition. Keelan could you please call agenda item nine.
99 Add detention facility impact fee code to ensure fair cost sharing in high impact land uses and to reduce burden on Portland taxpayers. Add code chapter 5.80.
100 Thank you keelan and colleagues. I want to note something before we jump in here. Last month. I was going to say earlier this month, but it was last month. We took up two pieces of legislation, an ordinance and a resolution which related to our response to the federal government and their actions within our community. And we said at the time that we were bringing those straight to council because we were in the heart of an emergency where conditions on the ground were changing day to day, and we needed to act a little differently. In accordance with that. What we have before us today is the the third of that series, and the final item that I intend to refer straight to council related to response to the federal government. We have, over the course of the last few weeks, moved into a a phase in this crisis that certainly is not out of the crisis. We see that on the streets, at least in my district in north Portland regularly with the increased ice action. But a phase of the crisis where conditions are not changing as much day to day, where we can plan ahead a little bit more in order to make sure that we're deliberate in the actions that we take.
101 I'm kidnaped in the last month.
102 I'm going to ask for a silence in the room so that we can hear from everybody who signed up in just a moment. As we move into this agenda item, it'll move a little differently like those others, because it hasn't been through committee. I wanted to flag that in case folks were wondering why things looked a little bit different. And I do intend, as we move forward, to make sure that I know that there are other actions that folks are looking to bring forward to us to take in response to the federal government. We'll make sure that those get their full review. I am sure many other things will come to council, but assuming that we continue to have conditions on the ground that are not changing as much day to day and week to week, we'll send those through the normal process through committee. With that, I want to turn it over to councilor Morillo, who is the carrier of this ordinance, to give a brief introduction.
103 Thank you so much, council president, and thank you to the folks who are here today, to both who came to support the algorithmic price fixing ban and who are here to talk about the detention facility impact fee. I know that this is a really important issue in our community. And as many of you know, I think local governments have to get very creative with how we address the harms that are happening in our community. And the reality is that detention facilities create a unique, harm and unique cost to Portland taxpayers and to protesters and to people who just want to exist here. And so this is our office's response to that harm within the powers that your local government has to address those harms. My office has worked very diligently with the relevant bureaus, with the city administrator, and we have created an extensive faq that is posted on the council webpage for anyone who has questions that they may want to read through. We sent that to all of you in advance, and I hope that you had a chance to go through it. I have invited my wonderful policy advisor, susie dorchester, who has put in countless of hours of work and research and working with people in every space to put this together up, to give a brief presentation to explain the policy for folks who, because it didn't get a chance to go through committee. And I hope that that will help alleviate some of the questions that people have, both from my colleagues and for the audience, because there was some I think sometimes things go around that aren't always accurate to the policy. So with that, I would like to turn it over to susie to present, and hopefully that will help us with our discussion later. And for any of the folks who are here to testify on it as well, so that they can inform themselves on their policy. Thank you.
104 And colleagues. What we'll do today is hear from councilor Morillo office with an extended carrier report with susie. Since this doesn't have the regular reports out of committee, we'll ask any questions that we have and then move into public testimony, which I think will be relatively extensive, and then into debate. Go right ahead.
105 Hi, everyone. Susie councilor, Morillo policy advisor. I'll be talking you through the detention facility impact fee and our nuisance regulations. So we get a two for one today. Next slide please. This is going to be the run of show. Next slide. Okay. So what does this do. Why are we here. What is this all about. Next slide please okay. We're going to start first with the detention facility impact fee. The most discussed piece of this two part ordinance. So this is going to establish an ongoing impact fee to be paid by property owners that lease, rent or otherwise allow their land or facilities to be used for the purposes of detention. So what is a detention facility? This is something that our ordinance indicates is defined in title 33. So the city's zoning code, there's a well established definition of detention facility. Also what a detention facility is not. So a detention facility is not a group living situation like a halfway house. It's not a psychiatric care facility. It's not a behavioral health center. It is exactly what you think of when you hear the term detention facility. So this is going to be a fee that's annual. It's going to be levied again against property owners that lease their land or facilities for the purposes of detention. And it's going to be calculated using a methodology that's established by the city. So this is a fairly common approach to developing fees in the city. We present a fairly broad legislative mandate. And then we say, city administration, can you please work to develop the fee structure in concert with council? That is in line with that guidance? What we do know about the fee structure, because we've outlined this in the text of our ordinance, is that this is going to be a fee that accounts for the costs imposed by detention facilities on Portland taxpayers, on the communities, on people who are here, as the councilor said, who just want to exist. So environmental remediation and assistance to businesses, apartment dwellers who are impacted by facilities. We also know that revenue from the fee will cover these costs. They will work to mitigate the costs that are established to be associated with detention facilities. So again, it's the same thing emergency response over time assistance for households or businesses impacted by the facility. Next slide please. So the pigouvian approach, you're going to hear me use the term pigouvian often so much that you'll hate me, but I'll start talking about it now for the first time. So what is a pigouvian tax or fee? What is pigouvian measure? So this is something that is imposed on a market activity that is generating negative externalities, which is just a really fancy way of saying costs harms, monetary or otherwise, that are incurred by third parties that are not involved in the market activity. So one of the quintessential examples of this is a factory that is engaging in copious amounts of pollution. They are profiting handsomely from this pollution and their operations generally. Generally, excuse me, as is the landlord that's renting the land and facility to this factory. But you look at this on paper, you might say, wow, this is all benefits for the community. Look at all the revenue that we're generating. Incredible, right? But we are neglecting in that to look at the cost to third parties. So if pollution is going into the water, the air, those nearby soil that is harming individuals in a way that is very likely to vastly exceed the ostensible benefits to the landlord and the factory operator, and we are prompted then to think, what is the right number of factories that we want in our community? Given this fulsome assessment of cost and benefits? So that's what the goal of a pigouvian measure is. It's to optimize market outcomes by ensuring that the costs of behaviors fall on the parties that are best situated to prevent the behavior, not the innocent bystanders. So in that example, we would want the cost of the behaviors to be felt by the factory, the landlord that is renting their facility for that purpose. But in that hypothetical, they don't feel the cost. They don't see anything happen to their bottom line. So they're not incentivized to change that behavior. And people continue to suffer. So the costs you feel or you don't feel are the costs you won't prevent. That's something that I'm just going to keep returning to. It's if you don't feel the costs of the harm that you're generating, you're not going to be incentivized to prevent them. So this is an approach that's not really concerned with assigning blame or moralizing. It's a pretty bland economic approach to correcting an issue of market actors behaving in a way that does not reflect the full impact of their decisions. So that's why you'll see pigouvian measures often pop up in contexts where an activity is imposing real, quantifiable harms pollution, congestion, things of that nature that are falling on the public. Again, innocent bystanders rather than the actors that are actually bringing about the harm, who are again, best situated to reduce the harm. You also will typically see this in context, where parties impacted by the harm can't actually prevent it. They're going to be subject to this harm again and again and again, and they might be able to mitigate it on a temporary basis. But the reality is they're just going to keep being subjected to this harm, because, again, the people who are doing it aren't incentivized to stop it. Next slide please. Thank you. So you can imagine perhaps how we might apply this to the detention facility concept. So a private decision to lease land or facility for detention generates recurring public expenses. Again externalities. What we talked about before costs on third parties who are innocent bystanders. These are costs that are not felt by the facility landlords and operators. So again, it's all what we've talked about before over time. Emergency response, street closures, small business expenses, environmental cleanup and environmental costs to nearby residents, apartment dwellers, homeowners, everyone. Right. These costs are collective. They're not traceable to one victim. Although we'll talk about how we can do that with our nuisance regulations without a corrective fee, though, it's the cities, families. It's the small businesses that are footing the bill for the true costs of this, both through their tax revenue, because they're paying the city to subsidize the costs that should be handled by these businesses and these entities that are creating these harms, and also in purchasing their own mitigations. So time and time again, people purchasing out of pocket air filtration devices to guard against tear gas in their own home. Right. So what is the goal in this context? It's the same as what I said a moment ago, which is reflecting the true cost of doing this business and ensuring that those costs and harms are not shifted onto the public. These are people who can't prevent these harms. Next slide please. So can't this logic be applied to other contexts. Yeah. It wasn't lost on us that this could be applied in other contexts. Pigouvian measure. You may not have heard the name, but once you see it, it's everywhere. A pigouvian tax a pigouvian fee is actually a foundational tool of policy making, and it's behind some of the greatest hits of policies. So congestion pricing, plastic bag fees, stormwater fees, cigarette taxes, noise abatement fees, the entire concept of a nuisance property is actually pigouvian. But you can't just apply this in every single context. There are guardrails. There have to be certain things that are clearly present in the policy paradigm to have a pigouvian fee make sense. So again, this is about it's a fairly bland economic approach to addressing costs and harms. It's a cost benefit analysis. Essentially. It's not an ideological regulation. And when you think about applying this into a new context, you have to ask yourself, would it actually be anti pigouvian to apply a fee here? So if we're discouraging an activity that's reducing harms, that would be anti pigouvian. If we're increasing overall externalities that's anti pigouvian. So if there is an organization you know the organization to reduce the deployment of tear gas onto children's playgrounds. If we imposed a fee on them that would be anti pigouvian because they're reducing externalities. We want to encourage them to act in service of that. But you know, to state the obvious, cities have always had the authority to make policy however they would like. They can impose fees for any number of reasons, pigouvian or not. And these are often ideological fees that will then be subject to legal challenge for lacking a rational basis, meaning that they're not substantiated by data, they're not substantiated by quantifiable costs. Next slide please. Okay. So what about the measurable harms that are occurring today. Why would we want to wait for an annual fee. So the good news is that we are not waiting. So this is a two part proposal. As I indicated, the second part of our ordinance creates a standalone nuisance section that's applying when detention facilities cause certain harmful conditions. So we don't want a property owner to be allowing chemical residues or other substances to escape beyond a facility in a way that interferes with the safe use of property. We don't want a property owner to be allowing adjacent or nearby structures to be rendered unsafe, uninhabitable, a threat to public health can't live in your own home, so these nuisance provisions are not part of the fee, and they operate independently, but they're in the same ordinance. I think the most important piece of the nuisance is that we are giving the city power, of course, to investigate violations, issue civil penalties. But we're very clearly articulating that penalty revenue may be used to reimburse property owners or occupants. So again, apartment residents for cleanup, mitigation and related costs. So if you're suffering as a result of this nuisance we want to help. Next slide please. So why would the city want to use that penalty revenue to assist property owners and occupants or businesses surrounding detention facilities? Well, I mean, this is just, you know, a small number of clippings from recent articles, but people are having coughing fits in their own apartment because of tear gas. They have to sleep in gas masks because of tear gas in their own home. They're paying $500 out of pocket to build air filtration devices when they can't afford food. Children are choking on tear gas in their own house and enduring the potentially lifelong consequences of early exposure to tear gas in their own home. Next slide please. And it's also because people have asked for this. People have asked for help. They've asked elected officials for help. They need this support. And this is investigation. That and revenue coming from enforcement that will endeavor to provide that support. Next slide please. So as you can see there's a two track approach right. So this is two pieces of an ordinance serving two different timelines. So today we're looking at nuisance standards that give the city authority to respond to harmful conditions and use revenue to support impacted residents tomorrow, meaning not literally tomorrow but in the future. The impact fee structure ensures that any private detention lease new, renewed or renegotiated in the face of a land use issue, say a compliance action like a permit revocation must internalize its costs. They would be subject to a fee. Next slide please. So why do we need this next slide. Why do we need the detention facility fee. So I hit on this already. So I won't belabor the point. But detention facilities create quantifiable harm for people and neighborhoods. It's this confluence of chemical exposure risk and environmental risks, public safety concerns, administrative overhead and of course, impact to the neighbors who actually live in this community. And again, all of these harms disproportionately fall on nearby residents and businesses, communities demanding a tool to recover these costs. And they want protection from these spillover impacts. They want to see enforcement. This is in a broader context of detention infrastructure expanding nationally, billions of dollars in appropriations to expand detention facilities, enforcement that will require the expansion of detention facilities, increasing the likelihood that we will see renewed or intensified detention facility activity, new leases, renewals, renegotiations again, those triggered by compliance or permit revocation actions could leave us unprotected if we don't have a fee and we don't want to be developing a fee on the fly. I mean, it's already in the middle of a crisis that we are developing this, but, you know, the next best time to do it is today, right? So things could and likely will get worse. So let's have this infrastructure in place to respond to it. Next slide please. And then why else do we need it. I think these are the two most important reasons. But advancing community well-being making it clear that detention operations must be accountable for the local harms that they are generating, rather than shifting those burdens onto the public. Again, this is pigouvian logic. Fundamentally, if there are harms, we want the people who have the capacity to reduce those harms, to feel those costs so that they are incentivized to reduce them. And I think most importantly, it is about demonstrating local self-determination, providing a national model for how cities can responsibly govern high impact uses and protect residents when outside decisions are creating substantial neighborhood level consequences. I mean, candidly, local governments don't have many tools in this space. We all know that. And the tools that we do have move at a glacial pace. They move slowly. Land use decisions come to mind. They take years through hearings, appeals, challenges, challenges after challenges. During all that time, the community is still living through the impacts. Kids are still breathing into your gas in their own homes while paperwork works its way through the system. That's why we would contend that this ordinance matters. It's another tool. It's not a tool to supplant the land use process or any other process. It's just another tool in our toolkit. While other tools are working in service of the same aims. And, you know, why wouldn't you want another tool to combat these problems? Why wouldn't you want another thing at your disposal? And we also have to be honest about the limits of our authority, so the city can apply its law in a fair and impartial way. We can investigate violations, we issue determinations, we enforce our code. But there are operators in this world that don't necessarily have to abide by our code, or all the time they can, and selective circumstances. The federal government comes to mind, right? When compliance with local zoning is not super mandatory for them. Right? They can we can say all we like that, you know, this violates our rules, but we can't compel federal adherence the way we can with other actors in this space. So this leaves us with the classic dilemma that's articulated on this slide. It's a quote that's attributed to andrew jackson, which is essentially the supreme court has made its decision. Now let them come and enforce it, which is essentially the federal government's way of saying you and what army supreme court, how are you going to make me the federal government act? And so, you know, a determination on paper from a court might not stop chemical residue from drifting into a child's bedroom. And even while we're waiting for that ruling again, years down the line, potentially nothing is preventing a neighborhood from being enveloped in tear gas. So this ordinance is aiming to fill that gap. It gives the city a practical, enforceable tool to protect people now, not just after years of process. And it ensures that we're not left quoting andrew jackson. While our residents continue for years to absorb harm and are ultimately left with nothing. Next slide please. Okay. Final slide. So I hit this already. But why do we need these nuisance penalties? The second piece of the ordinance. It's because harms are occurring today. Kids are choking on tear gas in their own homes. Playgrounds need hazmat cleaning. We want to respond and we're being asked to govern. In the face of that. I think that, you know, sometimes there's this sense that we can proceed with governance only after we find that perfect combination of checks and balances or that policy that's entirely without tradeoffs. But people tend to get disenchanted with governance when harm proceeds. While we wait for that ideal version of governance that possibly will never arrive. So our contention is that it is our responsibility to protect people with the tools that we have today, as imperfect as they may be, and that we should keep building out our toolkit because we can always benefit from one more tool. So next slide please. Questions and discussion. This should be fun.
106 Thank you. So colleagues, we do have at least 36 people signed up for public testimony. So why don't we take any questions now. But hold on discussion until after we hear from members of the public? And while I'm waiting to see if anybody has questions councilor, I just want to make sure that we are all on the same page. I know you had filed an amendment to the original language that you had proposed. Was the presentation we just heard on the original posted language or on the posted amendment.
107 It's for the updated language and it will be a friendly amendment. It was just edits from the administration.
108 Okay. So for anybody who's looking online, we are discussing proposed amendment councilor Morillo one, which was posted yesterday as the baseline language that we're talking about today. Is that accurate? Okay. Perfect. Thank you. And I am not seeing anybody in the queue for any questions. So susie, thank you very much. And I think we are going to turn to hearing from the public now. Keelan, could you please call our first panel? Oh, councilor Kanal last minute.
109 Just a process question. So is the is the amendment going to be on the table then, or has it has it. We can't move it till later. But I think I misunderstood your last point.
110 Sorry to clarify. If you go in the exhibits and attachments, it's proposed amendment councilor Morillo one, and it's because there was some tweaking of language that the administration requested of our ordinance, and we saw this as friendly changes. So yeah, we'll be looking at that one.
111 Great. Thank you so much.
112 Yeah. Okay.
113 Let's call up our our first panel of folks for public testimony.
114 And just double checking testifiers will have two minutes. Is that correct?
115 Two minutes. Yes. Thank you.
116 We should be able to.
117 Get to everyone that.
118 Way okay.
119 Thank you. The first panel includes holly brown isabella shepherd, cole donahue, blair glennon and camille saunders.
120 And.
121 Go ahead, I'll start. My name is holly brown and I am with Portland contra las deportations and revoke the ice permit pdx. Shame on you. Shame on the entire city council and the mayor for your lack of action surrounding the abuses of ice in this city, and for your lack of action on revoking the permit, but in particular in today. Shame on councilor, Morillo and Green for putting forth this performative stunt in an attempt to gain political clout and get activists off your back, all while ignoring the most obvious solutions to isis terrorism in Portland. I want to speak to councilor Morillo in particular. You've been speaking about me on instagram recently. Our organization has watched as you put forth more effort than anyone else on city council to stall the efforts to revoke the ice permit, all while gaslighting portlanders by saying you're the most sympathetic to your goals. We don't buy it. You continue to spread the right wing narrative that this ice facility somehow serves immigrants, and you continue to belittle activists who put their lives on the line, who put their lives on the line. At ice, we don't want fees levied at the ice facility for the attacks on the community in the future, because we don't want the building to be there at all in the future. By putting forth this.
122 Ordinance to stay.
123 Quiet, it very clear that you plan to capitulate, to allow the development of future detention facilities in Portland. Honestly, this is a pay to play ordinance in which the city can get paid off by these landlords in order to keep ice functioning in Portland. That is insidious and it is dangerous. 60 days have passed since the ice facility was cited for its land use violation. The reconsideration process should already be in motion, and yet the city is allowing ice to stall the appeals process. 560 people were arrested by ice in Portland this last month. How many of these people could have been prevented from being arrested if ice did not have a literal staging ground in the center of Portland? How many lives will you continue to allow to be ruined? While you sit here and say that your hands are tied? Portland city council serves the people, not the other way around. The people are demanding the revocation of the permit, not this fee. Rescind the ordinance and put forth legislation to shut down the facility tomorrow. Today, immediately.
124 I don't want to eject. I don't want to need to move to ejecting people this evening. But if there continues to be applause and cheering, we will have to do so. Jazz hands. Thumbs up, thumbs down. We've done it in other meetings. We can do it. Go right ahead.
125 Hello, I'm isabella shepherd, representing Portland and the coalition for revoking the ice permit. Some of my colleagues will argue that this ordinance does not go far enough. Others will argue that it's an act of detriment to the fight against ice. I fall into the latter camp because it will set the precedent that violating the law comes only with the penalty of a fine that they can easily afford, legalizing their crimes, legitimizing their crimes, and acting as a barrier to enforcing the law by revoking the permit. I'll let my colleagues argue that, however, because I'm here to express my disappointment in all of you. Councilor Morillo. Your conduct has been especially unprofessional and disrespectful. You have spread misinformation about our movement and repeatedly claims that you can't speak in favor of revoking the permit because you would be recused from the vote for showing bias. If that's the case, then you should be recused because you have shown blatant bias in favor of letting ice have a base here. Yesterday you name dropped and lied about my comrade and friend holly, one of the most principled and dedicated organizers I have ever had the honor of working with, saying they don't care about revoking the permit and are just being performative. What's performative is this ordinance and your egregiously childish social media conduct. Don't the rest of you think you're off the hook, though? At least Morillo has the guts to say something and show us who she is, while the rest of you bury your heads in the sand. On one side of this table, we have residents who are dedicated enough to listen to you talk about trees laid into a work night, just for the opportunity to beg you to do something about ice. For the two minutes you allow us to speak. On the other side, we have bureaucrats who think it's acceptable to let their to ignore their constituents for months, consistently make items pertaining to ice last on the agenda, only to insult us with non-solutions further wasting everyone's time on discussing pathetic half measures. This is why we disrupt your meetings. As long as you show that you do not care about to listen to us about this crisis, nor about the crisis itself, you don't get to carry on business as usual. Our demand remains. Revoke the permit, nothing less. Thank you for your consideration.
126 I really we are not going to get through all the speakers. If I have to remind folks for silent support after every speaker.
127 Your reminders are taking longer than the applause.
128 Yet if we can shut it down, have the reminders every time and it will be much faster. I personally want to hear from everybody who signed up tonight.
129 Okay.
130 Go right ahead.
131 Hello, I'm blair glennon, a Portland district two resident and registered nurse at legacy emanuel hospital. In the past few weeks, ice has been bringing injured detainees to the Portland area hospitals, including and especially legacy emanuel, for injuries obtained during violent detainments. They are entering people so severely during their detainments that they need hospital level care, staff at emanuel are told to treat ice like any other law enforcement. We have been told by emanuel execs that they are in regular contact with the director of the ice facility, that we cannot contact the patient's family until after the patient leaves the hospital, and that we cannot provide legal resources to the patient. We have also been told we can't require ice to leave the room, even for sensitive tasks. When emanuel staff have brought up concerns about ice, upper management has pointed to their subpar policies or ignored us. Or in one case, told someone to seek therapy for moral distress. Ice has killed people during detainments in la and chicago in recent weeks. There isn't anything special about Portland that would prevent that from happening here. This ordinance doesn't go far enough as ice is using the macadam ice facility as a staging ground not only to terrorize the city of Portland, but also surrounding cities such as hillsboro and Beaverton. Our hotels, hospitals, and the macadam ice facility are providing infrastructure for ice to operate. Please act. Thank you.
132 Thank you very much.
133 My name is cami saunders. For the record, I'm here supporting Portland contra las deportations, revoke the ice permit pdx and all immigrants in our communities. I'm testifying on the detention facility impact fee to make it clear that this ordinance is not what the community is asking for. Instead, we want the Portland ice facility shut down, and the permit for the building revoked. Every single day, people are being kidnaped off our streets. Ice and dhs are brutalizing protesters. Speaking from experience as a protester and immigrants alike, and the city of Portland is doing nothing to stop it. Deadlines for appealing the land use violation have come and gone, and the city has allowed land owner stuart lindquist to stall and delay the revocation process. Portlanders deserve more than performative measures. City councilors are taking action that favors landowners interests, and yet do not act in favor of what the people actually want. The cottonwood school was next to the ice facility until this past summer, and was gassed so heavily it was forced to move. The building it relocated to was another building owned by stuart lindquist, the owner of the ice facility that forced it to move in the first place, making it clear his team intervened. To make this move happen, councilor Mitch Green said, quote, one of the things that we realized pretty early on was that we have a really effective Portland permitting and development department. We brought them in pretty early and kind of pulled together. All partners of the schools, pulled my team into it, and just came up with a plan to tackle this pretty quickly. Why is councilor Green able to step in so quickly to move the school into another building open, owned by lindquist so he can continue to make a profit, but can't use that same sway to actually challenge lindquist and ice shutting down the facility would have prevented the school from having to move in the first place. I condemn your inability to use that exact same effective department to protect your constituents and reduce terror in our neighborhoods that is happening every single day. We demand that the city council puts forth legislation to shut down the facility, rather than putting forth ordinances that do not address the root causes of the problem. We want ice out of Portland entirely, revoke the permit and shut down the facility.
134 Thank you.
135 Hello, council. I'm cole donahue from the freedom road socialist organization and the coalition to revoke the permit. And I'm testifying in opposition to the half measure put forward by councilors, Morillo and Green. This ordinance is entirely useless in putting any sort of pressure on ice, dhs or their Portland landlords. Stuart lindquist. Never mind the fact that the important fines wouldn't even begin to apply until after ice renews their lease for the macadam facility. Never mind that it's unclear where the proceeds would actually go to, and if it would actually affect those, you know, the the victims of ice terror. What's most egregious here is the notion that the way to pressure ice and stuart lindquist is through putting a monetary cost on their actions. Ice's budget is going to skyrocket over the coming years. And whenever the city eventually decides to charge them, will be more than made up for by the tens of billions in extra funding they are receiving. This isn't even a slap on the wrist, it is just charging them a fee in order to give legitimacy to their actions. Morillo. This is a quote from your faq on the ordinance that you that your staff presented earlier. Quote costs you do not feel are costs you won't prevent. I actually agree with the statement, which is why I think it is so outrageous that you are trying to cover the costs incurred by the city before taking any meaningful steps towards addressing the root cause of this suffering and pushing to revoke ice permit and to operate the concentration camp on macadam avenue. This ordinance, if passed, will give cover to the city's wholly insufficient response to isis terror. It will give the city something to point to and say, see, look, we're fighting back while just offsetting the financial pressure on city government, leaving everyone else in the dust. You don't want to feel the cost because this is something you evidently do not care about. This is nothing more than an attempt to normalize isis presence, while absolving the city of any responsibility to protect its inhabitants. Do your jobs and revoke the permit.
136 Thank you all.
137 Next up, next up, we have vladimir lopukhov, elijah thayer, casey desantis, samantha como.
138 Go right ahead while we wait for others to come from upstairs.
139 Hi, my name is vladimir lopukhov. I'm here to support Portland deportations and revoke the ice permit coalition. I'd like to draw attention to the usual stubbornness of democratic officials to adopt policies begged for by the community. The issue of the ice permit violation has been in discussion for half a year at this point. When this coalition first raised the question of ice violating the permit, the immediate reaction of councilor Morillo was to denounce the attempt to rid our communities of ice as something that is harmful to the community, as if the act of ridding ourselves of blood sucking leeches is more damaging than the leeches themselves. After pushing for months to have the city recognize the land use violation, we finally got you to recognize it just for the same cadre of politicians to adopt this as their policy. When praising the city council on social media for the first step against ice. Yet now we appeal to the moderate voter waving our fingers at ice instead of rightfully pushing them out and raising a fee. That would deter neither the landlord, who owns multitudes of properties around the city, nor the federal government agency, which recently received $75 billion in funding and can afford to take on these costs. I'm not even sure whether to call this a finger wag, as this just looks like a shuffling of cash. You've listed paying PPB overtime wages for time spent near the facility. As one of the first issues the ordinance addresses, you're effectively making the landlord pay cash to the police, which has been enforcing and blocking protests at the ice facility. You're just ensuring PPB gets appropriately paid to protect ice. This is just the city grabbing a piece of the pie for kidnaping people. All this in a sanctuary city recently codified. Shame on you. We hope the people of the working class see you for all what you really are. Bureaucrats meant to stifle a movement. When it gets inconvenient, you make small concessions, do your jobs, revoke the ice permit. This performative nonsense is not enough. Thank you.
140 Thank you. Go right ahead.
141 Good evening. Council. My name is casey desantis, representing the freedom road socialist organization and revoke the ice permit coalition. Tonight, I'd like to speak about how the detention facility impact fee is a watered down, performative piece of legislation. This ordinance normalizes the idea of having detention facilities in Portland by just slapping a fee on them. This ordinance allows privately owned detention facilities to remain in our city, while ensuring that the city does not incur any costs as a result of allowing them to be there in the first place. This makes it so that the only punishment for using chemical weapons or detaining people illegally is fines, which does not and will not prevent the use of chemicals or abuse of protesters or immigrants in the first place. According to councilor Morillo and her office, the ordinance will not affect the Portland ice facility as it currently stands under its unless there is a new contract that is signed. This makes the whole proposed ordinance performative, incapable of having any real impact. One can say that something is better than nothing, but I would say that ordinances like this play lip service and look good on a headline rather than create any real, meaningful change. It is said that this ordinance will act as a deterrent, but detention facilities already have to apply for a permit to be in Portland and the conditional use permit for the macadam facility already has fees for violating its terms. And it didn't stop stuart lindquist from leasing to ice in the first place, due to the stipulation that this ordinance will only apply to new facilities and contracts. I do question if the council is preparing for a new contract for the macadam facility, or for new facilities. If this is the case, I would question why councilors Morillo and Green would put their political capital behind this useless ordinance. It's apparent that this council already wants to move on from discussing ice and their terror in our city. After enacting sanctuary city code last month, I'd recommend and prefer saving political favors and the community's precious time for any legislation that actually has teeth or will address the community's demands, revoke the ice permit, and shut down the macadam facility.
142 Thank you.
143 Folks, I'm still hearing snapping in other distractions, and I would really like to give folks the ability to testify.
144 Yes.
145 And this is the last time I'm going to say it before I start issuing warnings where we will have to remove people.
146 You guys not paying attention to your community when they've showed up?
147 I'm sorry, I can't see who is speaking right now.
148 But you draw the line, I'm snapping, right? Like, come on, that's crazy people.
149 If we can't be respectful to the speakers, please go right ahead.
150 If you can't be respected next election, we can't kick you out to like.
151 The speaker video. People you guys are texting.
152 Please go right ahead.
153 My name is samantha como. I live in district one. I'm here today to give. I don't even know if this is considered critical support. If I'm against the bill. I don't care if you pass this or not. I'm asking you to do more. You can pass this all you want, but this should and can be expanded upon. And not just that, but we need to be making sure that portlanders are having their voices heard. From what I've seen. And this is with the absolute absolute utmost respect to councilor Morillo people are not understanding what is really happening here. And it's not just that, it's that people are feeling like their city council is not telling the truth to them. And whether or not you are telling the truth, whether or not you're not, I can't say and whether or not you can revoke this permit or not. I can't say I'm not a lawyer, but what I'm telling you guys is that you have not done a good job communicating to your constituents what is happening here, what you're doing to stop ice, and what you're doing to fight against the fascist movement this country is in. I'd like to note that currently, I believe it's over 1000 people who ended up in alligator alcatraz are missing right now. That is a death camp. Their bodies are probably rotting in mass graves. And right now what we're doing is we're sitting here talking about fees when we could be doing so much more. It's a pretty open secret at this point that the Portland police has connections to these white supremacist groups like the proud boys. Why not investigate them? Why not investigate the fact that we've had all of these right wing agitators at the ice facility, such as david medina, nick shirley, who've come down and agitated our portlanders, trying to make content and trying to get money off of this. We are literally falling to a fascist movement, and all I'm seeing from city council is just trying to adjust the way that we levy fees, trying to see if we can just add more fees onto this. I have a comment from councilor Morillo replying to me saying that this doesn't necessarily get ice out of Portland. And not just that, but we saw during the government shutdown, a billionaire went and paid the wages of all of our soldiers in the military. Why is that not just going to happen here? We have so much people, so much money, and they hate our immigrants and we need to protect them. Thank you.
154 Thank you all very much.
155 Elijah is joining us online.
156 Hello. My name is elijah zaheer. I'm with the pull the permit coalition. I'm speaking against this ordinance because it's clearly just another attempt by the progressive caucus to, at best, posture and grandstand while accomplishing absolutely nothing, or at worst, to actively misinform people as to what can be done to end the active threat to public safety that is ice. Given that the city council, as it currently stands, refuses to penalize ice or lindquist property management for the violations already listed on the conditional use permit, which include holding dozens of people past the mandated detainment limit of 12 hours, including the holding of someone for over 47 days, which, mind you, those cells are glass boxes with two metal benches and a toilet. There aren't even showers and no working phones for detainees to use. The active damage to the surrounding community. With the deployment of chemical weapons, the setting of multiple fires, the use of drones to spy inside of tenants apartments, and the use of an lrads. Why should anyone expect you to start holding ice accountable now, the only possible way you could hold them accountable and ensure the safety of immigrants and citizens alike, and the people that live in that neighborhood, is by removing that facility and preventing ice from operating within the city. The people are not asking for ice to be fined. We're not asking for city council members to hide behind a banner of victimhood, to justify not doing anything, or to waste work hours on instagram comments, or to be in their group chats while in ongoing council meetings. We want the deportations to stop and we want the ice facility on mcadam gone. And if you're either unable or unwilling to protect your constituents, why are you even here in the first place?
157 That's all.
158 Thank you.
159 Next up we have susan anglada bartley, pedro anglada cordero, benjamin gilbert, andrew nori, beatrice ibarra.
160 Please go right ahead while we wait for others to come down.
161 Hello. My name is andrew nori, and I wanted to talk a little bit about why we should. Sorry, why we should not allow Angelita Morillo to vote on revoking the permit. Her insistence on creating ineffective policies, instead of advocating for the removal of the facility's land use permit, is indicative of her lack of care for portland's immigrant community. She claims that she's unable to show support for revoking the permit because she'd be taken off of the vote, but that hasn't stopped her from showing support for letting the facility stay in Portland. She has accosted individuals and advocates from for protesting at ice. She has stated in interviews that she doesn't believe in shutting it down. She has spent more time arguing with people online who are actually advocating for real change than doing anything to help people in Portland from ice. She has stated directly that in talking with immigration attorneys and others about what the closures will mean for most people, I've come to the conclusion that shutting down macadam is not the right approach. I urge councilor Morillo to actually talk to the advocates on the ground in portland's immigrant communities, instead of for profit immigration lawyers. I urge her to try and log out of your social media accounts and actually talk to people who are your constituents. You use your social media accounts to constantly attack advocates and people trying to make actual change. And most importantly, I urge every single member on this council who is not her, to recuse her from the vote, revoking the permit. Thank you.
162 Go right ahead.
163 I'll go. My name is susan bartley. However, before my time starts, is it director pirtle-guiney? I see people texting. Many of us have come and gotten childcare for our our families and faced accusations that we're being noisy. I my voice hurts from fighting with the fash outside. Could I be heard because they're texting and giggling? We even got video of it upstairs. By the way. Councilor Smith I love your butterfly. But please, before I start, may we have people not texting while we're talking.
164 You have my attention. I can't speak for my colleagues, but please go ahead.
165 Thank you. My name is susan bartley. I'm a celtic witch of mostly irish heritage. I'm a spiritual woman, a radical historian, and I have the gift of second sight, which means I have a strong predictive ability. Sometimes seeing what will happen in political reality before it happens. This is part of why I wrote the petition to shut down the ice detention center in March, long before the protests started heating up in June. Today, I'm here to urge you to vote against murillo's proposal, because it is not an act of abolitionism or resistance. Anyone who is for the abolition of ice or resistance, excuse me or against ice cannot be for this plan. It is a statist, authoritarian and capitalist plan that creates a pay to play system for detention centers. In a moment when the federal government will spare no expense to perpetuate violence through ice through though, though, this plan will not even impact mcadam, private owners will not care that they have to raise the rent on ice in order to pay the fee. What this plan does is funnel more taxpayer dollars towards supporting detention centers in Portland. The plan also refused to future detention centers in Portland in the plural, showing that murillo's vision for the future includes a Portland with not less detention centers but more detention centers. This is sickening and abhorrent, abhorrent, up, disgusting. And the people say no. What you must do instead is revoke the permit as soon as possible, but more immediately today use eminent domain to condemn and repossess the building. The city very much has the right to use eminent domain in the case where there are toxic chemicals or major violations of the law, stop fostering this genocidal crime scene, seize the property, pay the needed amount, and reclaim it as a community center that centers the native American and immigrant communities of Portland. Extend the excellent work that is happening at the Portland airport, employing the same team to create a beautiful space that honors the protest community, especially the indigenous resistance. That shall not stop until you shut it down. There will be there will be one or more deaths or very serious injuries. If you do not do this, immediately condemn the building.
166 Who?
167 Please go right ahead.
168 Good evening. Council.
169 My name is ben gilbert. I'm a tenant in district four, a professional artist here in Portland, and a volunteer lobbyist for the Portland democratic socialists of America. As the richest Oregonians get tax breaks, the trump administration is imposing austerity on our city and state budgets. This is this is an attack on the working class. But this administration's attack isn't just fiscal. As we all know, the trump administration is hell bent on sending its forces into Portland as our city faces this assault on our residents and budget, councilor Morillo has crafted this innovative mechanism to offset some of the costs of this assault to the landlords who profit from the detention of our neighbors. You made an investment that comes with risks. You knew that accountability was one of those risks. Council, I urge you to vote yes on the impact fee to show that in Portland, unlike dc, accountability still matters. And to those who are singling out councilor Morillo. Shame. This is somebody who is doing more than almost anybody.
170 I mean everyone to let this speaker.
171 Is a champion for this cause and. Praising the right of council, the right wing of council will going after those who are putting in a ton of effort on this is disgusting. I yield my time.
172 Thank you. Go right ahead.
173 Hello, my name is beatrice ibarra. I'm here representing Portland deportations and revoked the permit today. I'm here to testify against the ordinance that got forward by Angelita Morillo. There are many reasons why this is a failure for the community, but the main one I will be focusing on today is the lack of oversight or transparency into where the funds are going. Initially, all fee revenue was to be deposited into the detention fee impact fund. The new updated ordinance does not show where the funds will be going. It just says it will be going to the city administrator. Previously, it also said the revenue of the detention was supposed to go and be deposited into the detention facility impact fund. Now, there is no clear answer as to where those funds would be going. Not only do we not know where the funds are going, we do not know the fiscal impact of the size, and we do not know the amount of the fee would be under the current. Under the current contract, there is already a fee and the city has done nothing to help out the neighborhood and the issues that are happening. The current school of civic science, nor the neighborhood, nor the nearby residential areas as grace landing or any other nearby apartment complexes the city has helped clean or help with any other issues that the ice facility is causing. City council members say that they're listening to immigrants, and that that's why they won't close the ice facility. With that, I want to know which immigrants you are listening to. Over the past week, 200 plus detainments have happened in the city, and I want to know which which immigrants you are prioritizing with your decision. You say this is a cost efficiency policy, and I say that a human life does not have a price. We should not be acting like it does, and we should demand more. We demand for ice at a Portland, and we demand for the permit to get revoked. Thank you.
174 Thank you. Go right ahead.
175 My name is pedro anglada cordero. Revoking the permit of the ice detention center at mcadam is the most consistent and effective action to combat authoritarianism in Portland. The people of Portland have made this very clear through consistent actions since the trump administration started its second term. A petition to revoke the permit was presented to this council in may 2025, on grounds of human rights violations. These violations were confirmed through ice on detainment data and acknowledged by this council. Stop overlooking the human rights violations. Councilor Morillo proposal of imposing a fee on detention center is an attempt to normalize fascism. Approving this fee would mean that while the city government is aware of isis human rights abuses through the targeting of racialized communities, the city is willing to fall into complicity by turning these oppressive dynamics into a transaction. The city knows what ice does, and it does not matter how disgusting their actions may be, as long as they pay their fee. The city calls it good. Since the beginning of summer this year, city council has spent a great deal of energy making up stories to convince the public that the detention center at south macadam is vital to keeping immigrants safe. Presently, this narrative have vanished because simply they do not hold up. Months ago, after the city issued ice with a violation of the condition of the building permit, a long bureaucratic process continues through land use regulations. The city privileges the building owner by allowing them to engage in an appeal process on mitigating human rights violations. The. This establishes a dangerous path where a landlord may use their legal resources to maintain, to remain untouched in keeping a detention center open after engaging in violation of human rights. Human rights abuses cannot be mitigated through land use. Permitting fascism cannot be normalized. Revoke the permit. Stop the violence now.
176 Thank you very much.
177 Next up. Next up we have skye reimer, lala liu, katherine lin, brianna, nathaniel's david pearl.
178 Go right ahead while we wait for others to come down.
179 Hi there. My name is skye and I'm here today to urge city council to reject this performative ordinance and to instead either put pressure on permitting development to begin the reconsideration process for permit, or to introduce legislation to revoke the permit yourselves every moment not spent on shutting down that facility means more lives are ruined and destroyed. That is what makes the slow pace of the city in dealing with this situation particularly harmful. Finally, after months of activists pushing, the city was issued a land use violation of civil society. But now you continue to allow the wealthy landlord, stuart lindquist, to delay the process to shut down the facility. A meeting was supposed to take place, as well as appeal during the first week of November. Two weeks later, it's been postponed, it's been extended and his appeal has not been shut down. Why are we allowing him to stall? City council may say that they didn't have evidence, but there is evidence every single day of the facility gassing the neighborhood and violating the terms of the land use agreement that require it to not present a danger to the neighborhood. The fact that no action was taken after a school was forced to move to the facilities. Use of chemical warfare makes it particularly clear that the lack of action on behalf of the city was a conscious choice. 60 days have passed since the Portland ice facility was cited with the land use violation for holding detainees for over 12 hours. In these 60 days, deportations have continued speeding up, with 560 detainments in the span of a single month. We've seen Portland schools hospitalized, detainees break into cars, and racially profiled portlanders waiting for the bus. Now that 60 days past Portland can begin the process to revoke the permit. Instead of doing so, councilors are putting forth ordinances like this that not only don't even apply to this facility unless a new contract is signed, but also assumes the construction of more detention facilities. We don't want more facilities and we want the one that currently exists shut down immediately. Instead of wasting portland's time on this ordinance, please put forward legislation that prevents private landlords from leasing ice. In general, we will not accept any excuses. Revoke the ice permit, shut down the ice facility.
180 Go right ahead.
181 Brianna. Nathaniel's. I support the proposal to apply an ordinance fee to the macadam facility and to all detention facilities, and I support that. We need to do more in order to make sure this facility gets shut down. And I know many of you know that. I know councilor Morillo knows that. And I'm sorry. Women of color get so much hate. I think the only people who have an argument against her is hollie. So just everyone else leave her alone. But you know, revoke the permit. The violations for the detainees is sure one violation, but under their own violations and enforcement of the planning zone, if there is a substantial increase in intensity from what was approved or substantially increased the intensity of its operations, we can reconsider the land use. Okay, we need to use every tool possible to get this facility out of here. And the ordinance fee is one tool. Revoking the permit is another tool using stuart lindquist insurance policy. Can we make claims against there and make that information public? How do we get that policy canceled? Or at least when it comes to renewal time, make it so no one wants to insure him. All right. We need to use every avenue possible. I want to remind folks during the trump administration, almost about as many deaths in the ice facility have occurred as the entire biden administration. And we have three more years of left left of this, okay, we're potentially sending people to their death sentence in tacoma. Okay. Death is not worth the convenience of routine check ins for families. We will support these families through virtual appointments. We will I will personally drive folks to tacoma. We have we have done car caravans to tacoma for the routine check ins. We can provide subsidies for folks on daycare if they have to take time off of work. Okay, some of these folks who who say this facility is needed for immigration families, I want you to talk to jose sanchez's family. It's about one year of his death from the tacoma facility and asked him if it's worth it. Okay. It's not.
182 Yeah.
183 Go right ahead.
184 I'll start by saying that yes, I would support any measure that directly hinders or challenges this regime in any way. However, that brings up my next point. Does this really effectively challenge or hinder ice, dhs, border patrol, or whomever else has joined the ss? Personally, I don't really see it as effective enough. And while I'm left wondering if the people that are separated from their families are going to be are going to have any solace in the fact that maybe lindquist might pay an art tax later in the year. At minimum, though, this amendment should go into effect immediately and should affect what has already been happening from June till now. As these institutions are inhumane, deplorable and disgusting. And quite frankly, these agencies don't even need to exist. Contrary to popular belief, ice and or homeland security did not always exist. It was created in 2003 by george w bush, because there were some bad hombres to the south of the border. In other words, this is a mess that has been allowed to fester for over 20 years because we let a different war criminal be our president, and because unfortunately, unfortunately, thinly veiled racism hiding under the blanket of pro nationalism tends to be a stepping stone in the path towards fascism. Well, yes, the facility itself. Macadam isn't technically a prison. It does serve in the process, a process that needs to be destroyed. Because what happens when someone is sent to one of these facilities? They are thrown into overcrowded holding areas where the lights are kept on 24 over seven, which is considered a form of torture, usually are kept in the same clothes for several days days deprived of showers. Basic mental hygiene essentials, medications. Oftentimes you don't even get blankets or pillows. You are given aluminum blankets sometimes. Otherwise you have to wait for someone else to leave so that you can take their blanket. Food is given depending whether or not the guards feel like it. They typically give them a bottle of water, which the inmate has to then decide if they want to drink or use to wash their person's ice has even stopped reporting how many pregnant individuals it has in custody, as miscarriages are a common occurrence, due in part to the amount of medical neglect.
185 And I'm sorry, but we need to have you wrap.
186 Sorry. Thank you.
187 I'm sorry. Will you please state your name for the record?
188 Oh, sorry. David. Pearl, district one.
189 Okay. Thank you. Checking to see if kathryn lynn or Elana lou are here. Okay.
190 Thank you all very much for your testimony.
191 Next up we have jacob lacey, lillia hines, lydia kiesling, kira Smith, mb. Lydia is joining us online. Go ahead and unmute lydia.
192 Hi. My name is lydia kiesling. I'm a member of Portland dsa and a resident of district three. Getting ice out of Portland will take a diversity of tactics coming from many different directions, using city code to deter private profiteering from isis campaign of terror is a first step. It's obviously not the only step. I want to believe that this policy has a small role in a broader municipal struggle against ice, which runs parallel to the popular struggle and which will have different tactics. I supported the ai price fixing ban. Do I wish we had a resolution that made it illegal for private equity to own housing? Yes. But I also know that both electoral politics and city administration involves chipping away at the wall in small and sometimes frustrating ways. Do I want the facility to be shut down? Yes. I want a resolution that sends every ice agent and stephen miller to a place where they experience what they are doing to our neighbors, but doing nothing because you can't do everything should not be an option. I'm asking our council to take this first step and demanding with many other portlanders that it not be the last step. Please don't let us down. Please pass this, but then keep pushing as hard as you can to get ice out of our city. Thank you.
193 Go ahead.
194 Hello, my name is lillia hines. Council members. I am here on behalf of my community and loved ones across the country and in our city, families are ripped apart, children are separated from their parents, and masses of people are terrorized and kidnaped by ice and dhs. They are trafficking people into privately owned detention centers, where torture is inflicted on those trapped against their will. One of these detention centers operates here, a heavily populated residential neighborhood where illegal chemical weapons are frequently used on protesters and residents of the neighborhood. People are kidnaped out of their actual homes on the way to work and outside of elementary schools. Isis terrorizing our city and enacting violence that calls to mind the gestapo and nazi germany. And we are here talking about a fee. A fee is not enough and will not stop them from brutalizing our community and is not what we have been asking for. A fee will not will stop nothing when ice will get probably more than $28 billion from this current administration. Show us that you actually care about the people you represent, because right now you're not doing enough. I cannot emphasize how imperative it is that you put forth legislation to shut down the ice facility and revoke the ice permit, show us that you will do what it takes to protect our community. Portlanders have been bravely showing up to protect each other. It's time to catch up. It is not too much to ask for our neighbors, friends, and community to be safe from attacks that are based in racist hatred and violence. Revoke the ice permit and shut down the ice detention center. Prove that Portland actually is a sanctuary city that protects its people. Thank you.
195 Before my time begins, I would just like to note that I think it was, quite frankly, disgusting to use a quote from a resident of grays landing when that same resident came to you with very valid concerns and was ignored. You can start my time now. My name is m and I'm here to state my opposition to the proposed facility fee councilor Morillo has already publicly stated that this proposed fee would not apply to the macadam facility unless the lease was rewritten, and to potentially future facilities. This is alarming in and of itself, because of the rapid escalation of ice brutality and operations happening currently every day in our city. The ordinance doesn't have any material benefits for affected community members in the here and now, and makes the assumption that privately owned detention facilities will continue to be built in Portland, rather than finding a way to prevent them from being built at all. This ordinance is allowing privately owned detention facilities to remain in our city for a cost. How much is a human life cost? How much money are you willing to profit off of these fines at the expense of families being torn apart, neighborhoods being gassed, and people's livelihoods destroyed? I don't believe that a city fine is going to outweigh the immense profit that landowners are making from aiding ice operations. That being said, the nuisance fee aspect of the proposed policy is only creating a fine for a violation. Instead of using the violation to push for the revocation of the permit. If these rules that already existed have been violated, would it not make more sense to adhere to the city protocol and follow through with the permit revocation process stated in the 2011 agreement? Or is the city not going to follow through with their own protocol and allow wealthy landowners to throw money towards a fee that still allows them to profit off of human trafficking? In the last month alone, there have been 560 detainments in the Portland area, and I can't help but think about how many of those could have been prevented if I didn't have a home base to operate out of in our city. This is clearly an attempt from the city to mitigate costs to them, not a solution to stop the abuses. Ice continues to execute on the daily in our community. There has been effort put in by. There has been more effort put in by city officials to discourage us from enacting real change in. There has been an implementing policy that would actually work for the people of Portland. Portland deserve better than performative actions and regurgitating regurgitated policies. Portlanders deserve nothing less than revoking the permit.
196 Thank you. Sorry. Kira is joining us online.
197 I'm going to leave my camera off because my connection's not very stable. My name is kira Smith. I am a resident in district three. This past summer, I watched dhs agents drop a can of tear gas onto an 11 year old kid who was standing outside the mcadams street ice facility, protecting himself with a cardboard shield. He was not wearing goggles or a gas mask, yet he showed up to protest the unauthorized federal agents who are kidnaping people in our city. I am proud to live in a city where youth stand up for the rights of our immigrant neighbors, and I am deeply concerned that our city council doesn't have the same wherewithal to protect the people who elected them. The current fee proposal does not address the demands of the people to be protected from the agents of a hostile federal administration. It is a milquetoast attempt to pander to conservative, centrist voters, and in no way addresses the traumatic damage this facility is doing to our communities outside of an affluent neighborhood in southwest Portland, which, yes, those people are experiencing damage, but they are not alone. If the council would listen to their constituents, they would use their authority to revoke the permit. As a former city employee, I know that this government is very capable of weaponizing bureaucracy, bureaucracy through burdensome permitting processes. If we can deny tree removal permits, then we can employ those processes towards a better outcome for the people who live here. Thank you. I yield my time.
198 Thank you very much.
199 Checking to see if jacoby and lacy is here. Next up we have dina. You, kayla davis, jerilyn dimeo. Irina hess, judith graves.
200 Go right ahead while we wait for others.
201 Sure. I'm going to make sure everyone's paying attention here first. I'm an organizing member of pdsd. I'm the wife of a military veteran, a deacon in my church, and I'm a frequent flier down at ice. I have 20 years of volunteer work for various charities under my belt. My family moved here in may of 2020. As distracting as tommy allen and his violent friends have been, I'm glad that they made an appearance tonight. They're here today to confront this city council with the type of chaos that the residents of grays landing and peaceful protesters have been experiencing down there, the harm being done to our immigrant community members is immeasurable, especially their children. This measure does nothing but roll over and give in. It puts a price on the lives of immigrants, a price on lifelong trauma for their children. The children of god are not for sale. A fine does not make that harm acceptable. Trump's administration has repeatedly shown how little they care for law and order. We pulled the data at pdx. Not one immigrant has been released out of that facility in three years. As your own presentation tonight admitted, you do have the power to make any ordinance you want and to use the existing nuisance standards to hold ice accountable instead of a performative pr stunt. Why can't this council push for no unidentified goon ordinance with a default to no bail option? Why can't this council do something about the 70 plus traffic violations these gestapo commit daily? Why can't this council seem to come up with anything other than lip service and platitudes? Portlanders don't want inaction. Comrades, lend me your voices. No lip service, no platitudes. Action, action! We want action.
202 This is an official warning that your conduct is now disrupting the meeting. If there is continued or further disruption, we will start ejecting people. Thank you for your testimony. Please go right ahead.
203 Hi.
204 My name is judith graves and I'm here tonight to give my $0.02 on the ice facility impact fee or as I personally see it, a participation fee. And you're damn right that I'm disenchanted. I'm disenchanted with the alien newspeak coming out of this council tonight. My ears are still ringing from the promise that there are going to be more detention facilities when we are already the number one nation in the world. For population of prisoners. We are done begging for incremental change and crumbs. We are demanding that you actually take us in our neighbors lives seriously. This proposal will look great in the press and I'm sure that it even may land Morillo a cushy dnc gig in 10 or 15 years. Sadly, it doesn't even fall short because you need movement upward in order to fall short. This is a pay to play. It's transactionally sanctioned terrorism, and although I do find murillo's complete rejection of closing this facility to be abhorrent, I'm ashamed of all of you. I had no idea who clay higgins was until yesterday, and now I will always remember his name because of horrible decision that he made. And as long as these lungs draw breath, I will raise my voice to condemn cowardly leaders who use their positions of authority to allow nazi gestapo thugs to run around our streets, terrorizing, beating, gassing and disappearing our neighbors. Nazi gestapo thugs who take their marching orders from pedophiles and pedophiles. Apologists mind you, yes, it is this bad. And when saint peter calls you home and ask you all to stand before him, what will your footnote say? There's a special word that the german people use for people around who just didn't do anything. They weren't necessarily card carrying members of the party. They were just going along to get along. That word is nazi. Most of those people are dead and their nuances are forgotten, their excuses are forgotten, and even their names are forgotten. But you know what is not their silence?
205 Yes.
206 Jerilyn is joining us online.
207 Welcome. Please go right ahead.
208 Hi. Can you all hear me?
209 Yes we can.
210 Okay. Fantastic. Hi. My name is jerilyn dimeo and I'm a licensed mental health therapist. And I'm testifying in opposition to this proposal. And first of all, I just have to say that quoting andrew jackson is crazy work in the context of talking about a detention center for immigrants. So just keep that one in mind, maybe for next time. So I have many years experience in the state of Oregon working in crisis stabilization, specifically with teens and their families. And during the first trump administration, there was a spike in psychiatric inpatient admissions among adolescents from this population who are either immigrants or came from immigrant families. So innocent bystanders, indeed. And in the last year, there has been a noticeable increase in self-harm, debilitating depression and anxiety, and attempted suicides within this population. I have worked with families who are afraid to leave their houses to get their kids lifesaving care, and never followed up on referrals because they were afraid to be abducted. And this is a rational fear, and I'm sure that you guys saw that ice had tried to enter randall and becker earlier in the fall. So even if kids are getting the care that they need, they still aren't safe. So as a mandated reporter, if a kid came up to me and they told me that they were too afraid to come into treatment because an adult in their life was going to hurt them, I'd have to report that to cps. Right? So how do I report ice? The data reflecting completed suicides among adolescent immigration populations in Oregon is not available yet. However, anecdotally, I can tell you that you are complacent in this and one is too many, and we are living in a reality where children are taking their own lives because of the terror deploying from the facility. You are accommodating this proposal is as irrelevant as it is completely useless. The proposed fine would have to be an exuberant amount accrued daily for it to be punitive. Otherwise what the fine to a millionaire? If only the immigrants being kidnaped had the same privilege to be able to buy their way out, right? But they don't. So the fine that you're proposing will simply be factored into future detention facilities as an additional operations fee, and increase the likelihood that they could continue to expand operations with no consequences for breaking lease agreements. I have a lot more to say, but please do. This is this. This ain't this, ain't it.
211 Thank you.
212 Okay, may I may I ask for your name? For the record, please?
213 It was submitted.
214 Jerilyn demaio. It was submitted.
215 Oh, sorry. Yeah. I'm just trying to identify you on the list. That's fine.
216 I'm dina.
217 Okay. Thank you. Checking to see if kayla davis is here. Okay. Now moving on. Oh, and arena has. Next up we have katherine. Esperanza, samuel diaz, edith gillis, jordan lewis, jared essig.
218 Welcome. Please go right ahead.
219 I'm glad I live in a city where people care. They put in the energy and the time to show it. I am glad that councilor Morillo has come up with a way in which those who are being harmed can get some sort of reparation, some sort of hope and affirmation and honor. It's not the complete answer. She knows. It's the first step. I know it's the first step, and it's a necessary step. We need to get on it and get forward. I have children who are renters, and before they can go into a facility or home, they have to prove that they are financially responsible. Their history and their intention, their ability. They have to pay first, last rent, cleaning deposit, pet deposit. They have to show they have renters insurance and there have to be held liable. They will be evicted if they do harm to their neighbors. If they pollute, they commit crimes. We need to use the same Oregon landlord tenant law enforcement on ice, and we need to also have the Oregon revised statute requirement requirements of landlords enforced. And in a way, the city is like a landlord taking responsibility and holding accountable. Those who are in its residence or in its jurisdiction. And that includes lindquist and ice. We need to make sure that we do all we can to promote the reason for trusting government. And this is one first step. I want you all to vote yes.
220 Thank you. Go right ahead.
221 My name is jared essig. I'm here today representing the rose city iron front. We fight. We filed an amicus curiae brief in Oregon at all versus trump and urge you to adopt the proposed detention facility impact fee ordinance, but only as part of a broader legal strategy to shield our citizens from the financial liability and chaos created by these externalities. Also, immigrants made America great. I'd just like to say that for the record. To protect Portland taxpayers, the council should not just adopt this fee. You should. This is a necessary legislative action. Pigouvian tax to recoup the local costs, such as the over $300,000 worth of ppe expenses generated by these high conflict zone. Number two, you should negotiate with the dhs to allow the federal protective service and other cross designated dhs officers to adopt the cost and the liability for patrolling the area immediately outside their their building. This is not a loss of state sovereignty. It's a strategic delegation of a police function to the civilian federal agency whose presence and whose accompanying political rhetoric instigate the conflict that we're all paying for. Now. We also suggest that the dhs learned from the pbb this, you know, layered enforcement model that was assistant chief dobson spoke about at the trial. You know, the you need to have dialog officers and bumblebees talking. To people. Now this creates a triple dividend. One, it gives you fiscal savings by transferring the operational costs. Two, it shields you from liability from the from the enforcement actions. We're currently on the hook for 9.1 million in civil liability payouts for use of force incidents. In response to the riots of 2020. I was present at some of those and they were riots. Let's admit it, guys. At midnight it was riots. So impose a pigouvian tax on the federal government by making them liable.
222 Yeah.
223 Please go right ahead.
224 My name is catherine, doctor esperanza. For the record, I'm testifying on the detention facility impact fee to emphasize that this ordinance is not what the community needs or is asking for. We will accept nothing less than having the Portland ice facility shut down and the permit for the building revoked. Every day my loved ones live in fear, live in fear of stepping outside their homes and being kidnaped without due process. Live in fear of being dragged into vans just because they are latino. They live in fear of being deported to a country that they don't know or remember, or have safety and supports in. And I live in fear every day that today will be the day. My loved ones who are my whole world, I live in fear that they will be disappeared without notice, without due process and without reason. And I'm scared to even share this testimony out of fear for my loved ones. I also work and lived in district four with the ice facility is located. The facility is affecting businesses, residents and coworkers who are scared to come into work utilizing this ordinance fee, which does not apply to the ice facilities permit anyways, will do nothing to address our concerns. You say the impact fee will avoid shifting the cost to the community, but it does nothing to address the costs that immigrant families and residents like me face may say that we need the facility to do check ins, yet we know that ice is not operating in good faith during those check ins and is kidnaping community members when they report to the facility. You may say that immigrants need to do things the right way, yet this administration continues to take away things like tps that allow for people, that allow for people to be documented and detains and deports people when they try to do things the right way. So city council members, please put forth legislation to shut down the facility. Please revoke the permit. Thank you.
225 Hello? Can you hear me? Yeah. Hello. City council. My name is jordan lewis. I'm a registered lobbyist for Portland dsa, and I prepared a testimony for tonight that was going to hopefully persuade a lot of you to vote yes on this, because I think a lot of people in the audience may not know that there are people on city council who are soft on ice, and they would vote no on this, not because they don't think it goes far enough, but because they are too sympathetic for ice to ice. So I'm just going to move on past that and just say, I think this is a step in the right direction. Obviously needs to go further, but I just want to ask everyone in the room, have other cities across the country revoked their ice permits? I don't know, maybe one has.
226 Are we allowed to answer his question?
227 No, I don't think so.
228 After after testimony, I'm sure that anybody who would like to answer.
229 It because they are, is it because they're literally pro ice to Portland does not have an army. In the event that we started beef with the nazi federal government, there might be some violent pushback. I don't know, just offering that. Three the singling out of councilor Morillo is really, really weird. You can get an instagram beefs with her. I've had my fair share of internet beefs with electeds, but asking other councilors, some of whom are going to vote no because they were soft on ice to censure her is just freaking nuts. Morillo has worked harder than any other elected city, state, county, federal, while enduring constant bullying from other councilors all year. And I just wanted to let you know I appreciate the work that you've done, for there are right wing landlords in this room, and I see them smirk and cheer when we gang up on the immigrant women of color who is just trying to help tenants today. Lastly, I just want to ask you all to hate ice as much as you hate the immigrant women of color on Portland city council.
230 Thank you.
231 Thank you. And I will see you down there, I see you are.
232 You ain't been down there once, man.
233 Okay. Where are you all summer, man? Come on, get real.
234 This is an.
235 Official warning that. This is disruptive content. I'd like to ask our security team to please. Okay.
236 We haven't seen you down there, thank you. You're telling us it's okay. Throw me out. Go right ahead, yes, yes.
237 Go right ahead.
238 Good evening. My name is sam diaz. I am the executive director for 1000 friends of Oregon. For over 50 years, we've worked on policies and brought funding to Oregon for clean air and transit, housing, brownfields revitalization. We partner with Oregon farmers and farmers and ranchers to protect their lives and livelihoods against data centers and warehouses and luxury homes for the rich. We've been the home for anti-displacement, pdx coalition and Portland for everyone. And tonight, I just want to thank you for proposing a new tool to the fight. And that is zoning and permitting. It is not often that I get to come to these city council meetings across anywhere in the state to figure out how to be creative and really fight for people, especially those looking for a better life, for themselves and for their families. We support. The ordinance brought forward. The two track approach is creative. It's surgical, narrowly tailored. It also reflects a standard approach for accounting for off site impacts. And we need penalties for now while the city proceeds with the enforcement order. I do want to say, and I want to share the frustration that I'm hearing in the testimony, my experience working in portland's land use planning and permitting is that if you're looking for, you'll get shut down if your neighbor complains about the smell. If you are building a warehouse, bringing thousands of truck trips into a neighborhood, black and brown folks, and by schools that are 100% free and reduced lunch, you'll get a Green light by bureau staff. You'll get extension after extension to come into compliance with permit conditions and city code. This is to the city bureau staff. It is not fair for the electeds to receive the heat on this, because I know I've worked for the city. The city bureau staff need to stop enabling harm done to human beings and this place that we call home. Stop slow walking. Basic standard enforcement of and clear and objective standards for land use in a conditional use permit.
239 Thank you.
240 Next up we have beth belichick. Amy, lestat, aidan summers, jaina sweet, katherine vogel.
241 It looks like we may have somebody coming from upstairs. Do we have anyone online in this group.
242 No not not for this group. I'll just read the names one more time beth belichick amy and lestat, aidan summers, jana sweet, katherine vogel.
243 If we have others on the list, why don't we call them as well?
244 That's it.
245 Okay. Welcome. Go right ahead.
246 Thanks.
247 Hi, councilors.
248 My name is aidan summers, resident of district four. I'm also a volunteer registered lobbyist for the Portland chapter of the democratic socialists of America. I had a lot of things that I thought I was going to say tonight. I've kind of rethought a lot of things. I want to acknowledge the difficulty of this time and the complexity involved in trying to deal with ice invading our city, and I know that the way that the system is set up affords you rare opportunities to be able to properly intervene in this. I think the impact fee is one of those areas where we can actually have some impact on the federal forces being in our city. I think there are many other ways, as some folks have mentioned, on, you know, unmasking agents. And I know that those kinds of projects are, you know, in the works. And I think those are really important as well. I agree with folks that have said that this is a first step in a continuing process, and I want to emphasize that for everyone on council that this needs to be something that we're continue chipping away at. And I appreciate this starting effort because, you know, yeah, I acknowledge it's a lot. We need to keep going. And me and a whole lot of the rest of the city will be behind you helping you work in this direction to help protect our neighbors. Thank you.
249 Hello. My name is jayna. Sweet. I'm a resident in district three. There is so much that we could talk about, including the lack of accountability or protection for the hundreds of immigrants and citizens kidnaped this month alone. But I'll focus on the violence at the macadam building. You say that there's not enough evidence. You already have the evidence, but here's a little bit more I can share. One of my personal experiences. Recently, I stood across the street from the macadam building on the sidewalk, nowhere close to government property, alongside some comrades. I was holding a banner and dancing. Let me make this really clear again. We were across the street after they threw dozens of gas canisters at all of us there, who are just standing up for our beloved neighbors. They aimed their guns directly at our banner. Shots fired. We were hit by at least 30 rubber bullets for holding a banner. The welts. We didn't do anything to provoke this or earn this kind of violence. Obviously, the welts made walking difficult. You already know what the gas does to everybody, and this is like an extremely mild example of the violence that dhs and ice are enacting on passionate, peaceful, unarmed protesters. And of course, our beloved immigrants. It is baffling to me that your solution is to genuflect to capitalism and charge a fee. And you say the fee is an example for other cities in our nature. Why nation? Why would you want to set a precedent that it's okay for the federal government to terrorize citizens, as long as they pay a little bit more pennies out of their budget? Why would you want to make a path for more detention facilities to materialize in our cities and this city? This city is supposed to be a sanctuary city. And if this ordinance is truly a first step, then you need to make that clear and show us that you are working toward getting ice the hell out of here. Do not glibly make it more expensive for dhs and ice to use chemical warfare against your constituents. Make it impossible.
250 Do more. Wrap up.
251 Thank you, thank you.
252 Go right ahead.
253 Okay, so.
254 I don't have.
255 A prepared speech. I'm not really a public speaker. I am more of a public yeller. I am an ice protester. I also am a patient at OHSU. So I'd be getting gassed anyways because I go to the OHSU knight cancer center for some treatment. So I don't I don't have cancer, but I am on chemo. Homeland security does not care about you. They know you're getting treatments like that. I mean they know and they beat you up anyways. They got beat up for supposedly littering and they put me in the emergency room. They're not securing the homeland or anything. That's not like what homeland security does. Ice is not keeping anyone safe. I mean, I sat in vigil earlier this week with members of the the clergy and neighbors at a church out in Gresham because ice has been targeting people out there, arresting people right out in front of the church and also knocking on the doors of the church. It also is a bilingual church. They have a daycare there that's not legal. They're not doing legal things. Everything I've witnessed out there is illegal. Even their contractors are doing illegal things like brandishing butcher knives and stuff like that at us. They're just sitting there. Anyways, I think you should all recuse yourselves for even proposing this to us. We want you to revoke the ice permit. We're not here to talk about fees and like. Like our lives are a drop in the bucket, or it's okay to deport these people. So we just want you to revoke the permit. So you should just recuse yourselves. Not just, like, pick on angelina morello, especially Dan Ryan. Like, what was that stuff about calling socialist nazis? I just anyways, I don't mean to be rude because I actually voted for angelina morello and Tiffany and Koyama Lane and.
256 We need you to wrap up so we can hear from others. Thank you. And could you tell us your name so that we can make sure to.
257 My name is amy.
258 Thank you.
259 Yeah.
260 Go right ahead.
261 I'm for socialism. My last name.
262 Hi.
263 My name is katherine vogel. I'm a resident in district four, and I have been protesting against ice in Portland since 2017. Peacefully. And I have experienced a lot of violence from them. I stand peacefully with my sign and I speak from my heart and they are very sensitive to that. And they use violence to get at you for using your heart. And a lot of us are facing damage to our lives because of their sensitive retaliations, to our peaceful protest. And I want to say that a fee is not an answer to the beginnings of genocide in our own country. It is maybe a tool in the toolkit. Okay, but this response allows for the continuation of authoritarian repression. It is a weak action that takes energy away from the actions that must be taken to 100%. Remove ice from Portland ice and dhs are using this facility as a headquarters to expand their operations in the state and region. The fascist trump administration is using Portland as a test and starting point for their implementation of their agenda to militarize our streets and take away our human and constitutional rights. The only way to stop ice from killing people is to revoke the permit and ban ice from operating in future facilities. A fee will not stop them. It makes space for more. You may not be trying to normalize genocide in Portland, but unfortunately half measures and capitalists useless fees do exactly that. Last time you took immediate unanimous action and we applauded you. Do not let that energy slow down by making moves that allow for authoritarian terror to continue for a fee.
264 Thank you. Go right ahead.
265 Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is beth belichick. I use they them pronouns. And I'm here tonight on behalf of unite Oregon. Unite Oregon is a statewide organization led by people of color, immigrants and refugees, rural communities, and individuals experiencing poverty. We work across Oregon to build a unified intercultural movement for justice, and we are proud to represent our robust membership base in Portland. Here today, I want to take a moment to be clear, and I just lost my place, so that's great. I want to take a moment to be clear and be put on the record. Unite Oregon opposes ice and all the harm that they have caused to families not only in Portland, but across the entire nation. As an organization led by immigrants and refugees, we are incredibly concerned with and adamantly opposed the abductions of community members without any cause, let alone just cause, just cause and due process. While we'd love to see the abolishment of ice, we also recognize the importance of making change within the systems as they exist. We support this ordinance because it provides a vital opportunity to hold detention facilities accountable for the harm they inflict on our communities, rather than placing the burden on Portland taxpayers. Currently, we have witnessed a detrimental environmental and health impacts caused by detention centers. For instance, Portland residents near the ice facilities have reported long lasting health issues due to the excessive use of tear gas, which even led to the relocation of an elementary school for the safety of its students. While unite Oregon advocates for changes in the tactics employed by police and federal agents against protesters, we also believe it is crucial to hold the agencies responsible for the for this harm. Now, at unite Oregon, we examine all policies through the lens of our guiding principles, which include environmental justice, housing, justice, economic justice and reimagining community safety. This ordinance aligns with our vision of creating a more just and equitable Oregon. We must hold those who inflict harm on our accountability on our neighbors and our broader community accountable. This unique burden that the detention facilities impose on portlanders, including costs related to police overtime, environmental cleanup and public health services, should not be borne by the very people they are infected. Thank you. Yeah.
266 Thank you very much.
267 Our last testifier is ej wolczynski ice.
268 An additional testifier online or no.
269 Is ej. Wolczynski here? That completes testimony.
270 Thank you very much, colleagues. We now move into discussion. This is an ordinance not on emergency. So we'll be considering any amendments and completing discussion today. Councilor Koyama Lane.
271 I want to voice my support of councilor Morillo and councilor Green detention fee ordinance. I think this is an important first step of many more needed. As many members of the community talked about. And sometimes we do have to throw sand in the gears of systems. And I think this ordinance does exactly that, creating some sort of accountability. I would like to name that councilor Morillo, as an immigrant, often bears the brunt of the criticism simply for showing up and doing the work, and a reminder that councilor Green is also a co-sponsor of this ordinance. I love you, Mitch, and honestly, it's not lost on me that your co-sponsor and a treatment of the woman of color up here is very different from how you're treated. This ordinance is about more than any one person. It's about coming up with as many different tools as possible. That, and honestly, if this is passed, it could help pave the way for other cities in our state to be thinking about ways to throw sand in the gears. So I look forward to voting yes on this detention facility impact fee.
272 Thank you, counselor and colleagues. We did have one additional person come down for public testimony. I apologize. Please go right ahead.
273 All right.
274 Thank you. I wasn't originally going to speak, and I'm speaking as someone who wants the ice permit revoked. I understand that the ordinance presented today is a single tool that does not go far enough. And we should use every tool at our disposal. If one applies pressure to the landlord, then good. I also understand that revoking the ice permit is a win, not if, but is ongoing. And if it feels like your constituents in this room do not understand. I want to caution against blaming us for not understanding respectfully if it feels or sorry. That's because the messaging on your end is not good enough and there is a communication breakdown somewhere. The building owner had until October 17th to hand over information regarding the investigation so y'all could move to vote on revoking the ice permit. However, his lawyers pushed that back to December 1st. The reason revoking the ice permit isn't happening today is currently because of the landlord and their lawyers. And I want to ask how many in this room knew that for those sitting in this room, revoking the ice permit is still ongoing. We don't have the luxuries to act outside the system. However, this tool applies pressure to the landlord and we have to. We have to wonder why people are pointing all the anger at y'all and not at the landlord and the lawyer. I haven't heard a single person blame. Officials also. That is true. You guys do have responsibility, but I want to push that blame. The responsibility for the communication breakdown is on our elected officials. For that. There is a communication breakdown here that needs to be addressed when, not if, they go to vote on revoking the permit and they don't have the votes to revoke because those who want it revoked successfully hinder our access to power, you will become partially responsible for ice's destruction in the failure of our movement.
275 Thank you.
276 Mr.
277 Councilor Kanal.
278 Thank you, madam president. Thank you to everyone who testified for coming and sharing your views. And thank you to the people here or not, who have been standing up against ice. At the risk of your own safety, at the mcclymont facility up in tacoma around the country, I have a couple questions for city administrator jordan, and I'm going to ask the council president for a little latitude and asking these questions as it relates to how relevant they are to this ordinance, because I do think they relate to the testimony here and would help in ensuring that our meeting is not disrupted because at least people could hear an answer to their questions that they raised in testimony. And so I have 3 or 4. The first is can you please give an update as you see it, on the permit revocation process, where it's at right now and what the deadlines are coming up?
279 I don't know that I can quote you exact dates councilor, but I do know that the. The property owner and their attorneys did ask for an extension of time to get data, and it was granted, ostensibly because of the federal shutdown, and they were having difficulty getting the data they were looking for. So it has been extended. I don't know the exact date that that clock runs out and we keep the process moving, but it is still moving. And so that's where we are right now. I, I don't know if anyone is here that actually knows the dates.
280 Sure.
281 I we might ask for anything you don't know here to be in the next monthly report if possible, but could you just clarify who granted that extension?
282 I think the staff did based on the the it's it's an administrative process and I think the staff granted the extension.
283 Okay. So you're actually leading me into the next question. Can you tell me we're in a government that separates power between the mayor and council, whose responsibility it is as of right now, to make a formal decision about whether or not to revoke the permit. Is it the administration or is it the city council?
284 Right now? It's the administration.
285 Thank you. And can you also, my last question on this subject is when is the mayor's next public engagement, where it would be relevant for a community member to bring up ice?
286 I don't know the answer to that question. When the mayor's next public.
287 Would you would you be willing to update us.
288 On that in the next city administrator's report?
289 Certainly.
290 Thank you. I'm going to ask a couple questions to clarify, and I do appreciate the amount of work that has gone in from a technical perspective on this. I think these are actually related to some points that are going to be raised in the amendment. So I might wait on if you're if it's appropriate to wait on it until the amendments moved. I'm, I'm happy to do that. But I would like to actually, you know, I will wait on that until the amendments move formally. But I will also note that we heard testimony on a different item in the technical adjustment ordinance piece. There was an amendment that related to prosper Portland, and a plaintiff in a lawsuit settlement asked for an extension on their ability to choose from properties. They won in a settlement and was not to date granted that extension. So it is troubling to me when subjective authority is exercised to extend some deadlines for property owners and not for plaintiffs who I will know are black portlanders displaced by a planned expansion of legacy that didn't end up happening, and I'll wait on the rest until the amendment is moved. Thank you, madam president.
291 Councilor, I received a note from a staff person in the administration that the deadline is December 1st now, so we can put that on the record.
292 Thank you. And I believe the testifier got it right. So thank you for that.
293 Yes.
294 Councilor Smith.
295 Thank you, madam president. This goes to councilor Morillo. Do we have a schedule of fees that go along with this this legislation?
296 Yeah, I'd like to invite my policy adviser, susie dorchester, to come back up. You will also note that in the detention facility fee faq that we created that is also posted online, questions eight and nine talk about the fees and how they will be used in case you would like to reference them. But susie.
297 Yeah that's correct. So susie dorchester again, for the record, I would just echo what the councilor Indicated. So it's in the faq. But and this is something that I outlined a little bit during the presentation. But just to elaborate on that point a little bit, it is pretty typical for the development of a fee to have the legislative body outline the broad mandate that we're looking to have the administration then execute. So executive legislative authority division. So the administration would be tasked with developing that fee schedule consistent with their experience and expertise in this space. And then they would likely, I believe, come back to council with that. The ordinance requires a report as well.
298 That was the question. You don't have a schedule of fees.
299 Yeah.
300 That's correct. So the question is no. And so the answer is that that is going to have to come back as a matter of process. And that's generally how it's done. And administrative fees are done afterwards.
301 Yes that's correct. So via the administrative rulemaking process. Yes.
302 Okay. Thank you.
303 Yeah.
304 Councilor this does leave many things to administrative rule. If you have questions about the specific fees, we might turn to the administration, though I'm guessing they haven't started that process yet.
305 They probably won't start it until this is passed.
306 That would be my assumption.
307 Yeah.
308 Councilor anything further?
309 No.
310 Thank you.
311 Okay. Councilor Green?
312 Yeah, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the administrative, the fee structure aspect of this and why the ordinance was designed in such a way to delegate that to administrative rulemaking. It's very standard practice in devising fees and tax structures, although this is a fee that seek to cure the externality, which is what we're is under consideration here, to engage in a fairly robust benefit. Cost analysis. The EPA publishes a manual called guidelines for preparing economic analysis. The latest edition is the third edition, and it outlines what the standard practices are for devising that fee. And so that's something that you don't want to write into an ordinance in a code, because that needs to be flexible based upon the data as it emerges. So we can look at the actual cost to the community, such as the $100,000 that the grays landing building has incurred already. That's just one example. So that's why it was devised in this way. I also want to say more broadly that, you know, if we're going to be able to pass laws that protect portlanders and stand up against the federal government or any actor that tries to threaten our citizens, we need those laws to have a rigor behind them and be able to stand up to legal challenges. And so this is a really good ordinance that builds upon and is a first step to building a suite and array of rock solid legislation that won't just be simply overturned. It's really important to do that. It's not the only tool in the toolkit. I know that I have colleagues who are working on other issues like councilor Kanal. You've got a range of things like like a mask ban and a sort of a tear gas ban. I won't speak for you, but but there is stuff in the hopper. This is one piece to basically say, look, portlanders are incurring this right now. The federal government is going to do what it's going to do. We shouldn't let them do it for free. We need to create a fee schedule that recovers some costs. So that way when community members approach the city and say, can you make us whole? Can you do something about paying for the environmental remediation costs that I've incurred because I had to move my school? We have a pot of money there to pay those costs, and right now we do not. So that's the spirit behind this. I readily admit and agree with all the testimony that says this does not solve the issue. Of course not. But this is not a mutually exclusive proposition. We are creating laws to to build a stronger footing for our city. So that's why I support it. That's why my staff put a lot of effort into the economic aspects of this, particularly the pigouvian, which everyone now knows that word ad nauseam spirit behind this. Thank you.
313 Thank you, councilor. Counselor. Ryan.
314 Thank you, madam president. I think this will be a question for either the attorney or for you, michael jordan. And I've been an advocate for behavioral health behavioral health treatment centers for most of my life. And as a person who also opened up safe rest villages who have statistically moved more people from chronic homelessness to stability, especially when they have access to recovery services and workforce. And as a person who's advocated for the transition from prison to free and independent living in society, society, I just want to make certain that these those facilities are not further scrutinized and rejected by society because this ordinance would apply to them. As such, I are these much needed facilities? Will they survive the stigma that that say that saves lives, or are they exempted? Are they exempted from this ordinance? As it's written, I just want to make sure we don't have any unintended consequences with this ordinance.
315 Thank you, councilor.
316 And I couldn't tell from the q&a.
317 City administrator.
318 Jordan, do you want us to.
319 Look under number two? If you need to reference it.
320 Do you want us to look to the attorney city administrator, or do you want to take that? I know this was a point of discussion as this was being drafted.
321 Yeah. Thank you, madam president, to your question. And I would certainly defer to the attorneys if I get this wrong. But the definition under our land use code of detention facility would exclude any facility except ones that have policing officers there that are detaining people in the facility for whatever reason that may be parole and probation. It may be another use, but I would say other than mental health facilities, which folks have been through the judicial system put into for criminal reasons, other than that, I'm not aware of a mental health facility that would qualify under our definition.
322 And the county's deflection center, which then they're going to be opening up a sobering center where some people will have warrants.
323 The deflection center, I would say, is not definitely not. I don't know about future facilities that the county would open.
324 I hope between the first and the second reading, we just make certain I don't think anyone up here would want that to happen. I just don't want us to pass this and then come back and realize that we passed something that made it even more difficult to put in these much needed facilities for portlanders.
325 Council president, may I respond?
326 Yeah. And, councilor Ryan, I want to turn to the carrier on this as well, because this was a question that was specifically addressed in the second draft.
327 Yes. And if you look at the faq, question number two in the faq talks about how we defined a detention facility. So we use title 33 of portland's zoning code. And it has already it already has boundaries and exclusions for things like group living, residential treatment, psychiatric care, alcohol or drug treatment programs, halfway houses, etc. Those are not considered detention facilities. So this is very narrowly tailored and is defined under existing codes like title 33 and I believe, susie, is there anything else you would like to add?
328 Just one additional thing on this. So in case it's helpful, we have a list of all the facilities that are currently classified as detention facilities under title 33. And none of the facilities that you spoke to are on that list. Again, it's all the facilities that you would expect to see prisons.
329 Having had to do that hard work and taking all those headwinds and punches, I just want to make certain that we're not making a mistake here. And so I see what's written here, and I will continue to make certain that we're clear about that as we go into the second vote. Thank you.
330 Thank you, councilor Councilor Morillo.
331 Yeah, I just wanted to speak a bit to this ordinance because I agree with the testimony that this doesn't go far enough, and I don't think I've ever said that this I think even in the video that I just posted, I talked about the fact that we have to throw sand in the gears wherever we can and however we can. That doesn't mean that one policy is going to resolve the way that the federal government, with billions of dollars, is going to terrorize our immigrant neighbors, myself included, by the way. And so what we can do at the local level is sometimes as unsexy and unfun as a fee. Sometimes we have to find creative ways to deter the harms that happen in our communities. And I think other folks have outlined this already. But the permitting process, it has not come back to council yet for a vote. And I'm going to make it very, very clear, for the record, because of some of the things that were said here, I have not given a final opinion either way on whether or not we should revoke the permit. We as councilors are not allowed to have an opinion on that until we receive all of the evidence, because it's a land use decision. And if we make up our minds beforehand, we cannot make a decision. And I think it's really important that all of us remain unbiased until it officially comes back to us, so that we can make that decision, regardless of personal feelings about it.
332 What more do you need? Cowardly.
333 We need it to come back to council from the permitting department. It's not back to us yet. But we have we have within our responsibilities as a council. We can do fees, we can do deterrence, we can do other creative things to ensure that people who are trying to profit off of suffering in our communities, that there is a cost offset to that. And I want to point out that this ordinance, the nuisance aspect of it, which I believe is listed in question nine, means that it does apply to any facility that is currently operating right now. I believe susie made that very clear in her presentation, but it seems like folks didn't hear that. So any harms that are currently being done, any harms that are currently being done by an open building right now, for example, like the macadam facility, they would have to pay the nuisance fees to. And part of those fees are to go to people who are harmed, who are living in the buildings nearby, who are getting tear gassed, whose kids are suffering cops.
334 Yeah.
335 So we.
336 Conduct in the room is disrupting the meeting. This is a warning that if there is continued disruption, you will be ejected.
337 I also need folks to understand that I have colleagues who have said that they are ready to go back to business as usual, and to stop doing anything with regards to immigration, because this is a federal issue. And so my job as a counselor is to negotiate with the values and the votes that I have here at the dais. And sometimes that doesn't get me the perfect policy that I would like. Sometimes it means that I have to work within the confines of who I'm working with. So I would hope that we would put pressure on those folks to do a little bit more. But I'm ready to take any more questions. I see councilor Avalos has her hand up.
338 Councilor Avalos go right ahead.
339 Okay. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues, and thank you, councilor Morillo, for bringing this forward. I just want to be clear about what this detention impact fee is designed to do. This isn't a revenue tool. It is a deterrence tool. Just like mandatory relocation fees made it an expensive business decision to displace tenants, this fee makes it an expensive business decision to operate or lease space to detention facilities that cause harm in our communities, and without a strong deterrent, our city becomes vulnerable to more facilities trying to open or relocate here. If a current lease ends or is revoked, operators will be looking for new sites and this policy makes Portland a bad business environment for that. Landlords and operators still have choices, but the city is no longer absorbing the social costs of those choices. And if someone wants to run or host a detention facility, that decision will come with a real financial consequence. This aligns our market incentives with our community values, and it protects portlanders before harm happens. And it ensures that we're not an easy target for future facilities. So again, thank you so much for bringing this forward and having this be an important part of the many different steps that we need to take to protect our communities. That's all. Thank you.
340 Thank you, councilor Councilor Kanal.
341 Thank you, madam president. I forgot to mention earlier I agree with the last testifier. I don't think we've communicated effectively enough about this. As elected officials. I also agree it doesn't solve the problem fully. I think the way I've been evaluating this particular proposal is does this move us forward even a little, or does it hold the line as is or even move us backward? And I, I note that I did hear several testifiers say that in your view, you think it moves things backwards. And so I want to ask a couple questions to help understand that better. And I'm I and the reason I'm asking these questions because I trust the intent from the co-sponsors, I think I align very significantly with the way that councilor Avalos just described it. But I also want to understand one thing that was just yelled out, as well as an earlier question the testimony. So can we speak to both? Because it's in the I think it changes the the amendment where the money goes. I think that there is a fund established that a potential future amendment might remove a reference to. And I would just love to to understand what the intended way that the money will be collected and stored is before distribution.
342 And I'll just note that as we speak to this, our intent certainly matters. But without we also need to make sure that we're balancing what our intent is and what our actual direction is. So I would love to hear from the carriers about intent. We may want to see if the city administrator wants to add anything about conversations they've had as well.
343 Yeah. So in working with the administration, our policy originally had a specific fund that these dollars would go towards. And then when we worked with city administrator jordan and some of the other folks that would have to implement this, they told us that there are there's basically a layer of bureaucracy. When you create a specific fund that would increase the cost of implementation and just make it a lot more complicated and difficult to do. And so their recommendation was that it essentially just go into the general fund to be used for these things so that we don't have to, you know, make it a more difficult and bureaucratic process to get it implemented. There are also concerns that if there is a specific fund, that it could potentially be targeted by the federal government in different ways. So this was a better alternative.
344 And in that scenario, would this be restricted in the way that, for example, general transportation dollars are where we we know that we can only spend it on certain things from a legal perspective? Or how does that how does it guarantee that it goes towards the things we're talking about operationally?
345 Sure. Thank you. The first of all, councilor Morillo is correct. We did talk about the cost of administering a fund within our structure. However, we can do things like accounts within funds to segregate revenues and expenditures, the administrative rules. While we haven't designed administrative rules for this yet, but I would envision, given the way this is structured and given the fact that the purpose of the fee is not only to cover the costs that the city incurs in enforcement, but also to distribute money to others that are impacted by the activity around the facility. To do that, we are going to have to be fairly specific in the administrative rules about how these funds are collected and how they're dispersed, and what are the rules for doing that. So we're going to have to keep pretty close track of all of these funds to be able to accomplish the intent of the language. As I see it right now, I don't know that we've.
346 Done all of ten officers dragging a woman across the street at ice.
347 I'm sorry. I'm sure this is important information, but the conduct is disrupting the meeting as we are trying to move forward. If you continue to disrupt, you will be ejected from the meeting.
348 Like when does it become.
349 To eject this individual from the meeting? Who's standing up so that we can continue our work? I'm looking to our security team here.
350 We're still talking about like, where do the fees go? Yeah. What, like ten cops?
351 Yep.
352 Come on, do something, please.
353 Like this.
354 Is like, this has happened ten hours ago. So they can continue. Protesters if you.
355 Can conduct is continuing to disrupt the meeting.
356 And collaboration. But y'all need to camp, right? You sweep the mutual aid, you sweep.
357 The front row. And I'm going to ask that our team eject the person yelling in the front row from the meeting.
358 I'll go. Collaborator.
359 That's the.
360 Mayor, guys. Tiffany's eating. You guys aren't paying attention when the guys buckeyes.
361 Are we able to continue? Mr. Jordan, please continue.
362 So that the administrative rules will have to encompass both the way that the fees are structured and collected and the way they'd be dispersed. And so using an account in a fund and being able to have administrative rules that are fairly specific about the criteria for how the fee is constructed and the disbursement, who would be eligible to get the fee, get proceeds from the fees. That'll all have to be an administrative rule.
363 So that's.
364 A little.
365 I share a concern that I'm hearing, which is that this you have administrative expenses and overtime, in addition to a lot of other things that might involve paying money out to nearby residents, to to community members, non-city entities. Right. But the the the question I have relates to the concern that's being raised about police officers and overtime there, because you've we've seen that I think of roughly $800,000 of of overtime was spent in the month of June alone at the ice facility, and that could drain a fund pretty significantly before there's any money left to go to outside individuals, theoretically. Right. So I you know, I don't want to get too deep into the question of how do we ensure that, you know, we did pass a budget note to try and limit the amount of overtime that was being spent on protest response in the first place?
366 Talk about starving people in death camps. Yes.
367 But I do want to understand how how that distribution would be determined. And I want to understand how a person who maybe doesn't I don't have enough insight into administrative rules. I can't imagine that the folks who are not elected officials in terms of how they're developed, I can't how would we be certain? And how would someone who has maybe less familiarity be certain that there would be a distribution of the funds that aligns with the sort of underlying principle that the people who are harmed are getting it, not the people who are bearing overtime suppressing protests.
368 Yep, yep. Thank you. There you go.
369 Councilor. Fair question. I don't believe I understand the intent of the ordinance as it is presented. At least in my view, the intent of balancing who gets paid first between qualifying expenses, both internal and external, isn't exactly clear in this, and we would probably need to get better clarity on that if, in fact, those expenses were going to be prioritized within the rule.
370 Thanks. And I know, I know the co-sponsors intent here, but I want to make sure I'm not just asking the administrator to give you the opportunity to answer that question, because I do think it's fair for folks to ask that.
371 Councilor.
372 Thank you. Do you have a way to.
373 Prevent ice.
374 From reimbursing?
375 This is a moment for discussion amongst councilors.
376 Reimbursing a landlord.
377 For the conduct is disrupting the meeting.
378 Does this not just let the landlords play the middleman?
379 This is your.
380 And the police.
381 This is your warning that you will face ejection if you continue disrupting the meeting.
382 For the police to protect them.
383 There's an individual in the back who's still interrupting the meeting wearing a red shirt, I believe.
384 Y'all.
385 I'm sorry.
386 Did you want to add anything else to councilor? Nils question.
387 Oh, yeah. Councilor the purpose in section 5.8.010 establishes that the chapter is to recover the full public costs of the detention facility fee. Now, while we are delegating to the administrative to engage in the rulemaking process, the intent is clear that it is to establish the full public cost. So there's no finite fund. So if we if we figure out a situation where that's the intent to the administrator, the if we find out a situation where like there's a surge in police overtime, for instance, and that's $1 million, the expectation in the ordinance is to say that's the basis of recovering the costs. And it's it's backward looking, because you have to kind of look at the basis of evidence to reestablish or kind of recalibrate your, your framework. But the city has ample reserves to cover any sort of like, you know, periodic cash flow issue. So that's the intention, that's the intent in the legislation. And as the as the city administrator said, you know, it's not just the direct cost to the city, but rather the broader social costs, which is why it's the pigouvian measure.
388 So that.
389 That makes sense for addressing the, the the fund could be drained concern. And I think what you're also saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the middle sentence here of the first part basically means we'd be prioritizing the external stakeholders.
390 Yes.
391 So the money would first go to neighbors, and only then be prioritizing. Is that inaccurate?
392 That's that's the intent in that section.
393 Okay. Well, I'll ask the question that the person asked, how do we know from this? And I'm sure you've thought this through. How do we know that this doesn't create a situation where a landlord raises the rent by the amount of the fee, and ice then pays that, or a detention facility operator pays that to them. That money is then collected, put into a fund and a portion of it, not all of it. You've addressed the that part used to subsidize maybe the discretionary actions of the administration, the local administration, as it relates to police overtime. I think that's a fair question to to raise, maybe not in the method it was raised.
394 If we're paying overtime, when are they going to.
395 This is a disruption of the meeting and council discussion.
396 Is it a disruption either.
397 Councilor Kanal this ordinance is not designed to absolve us of broader oversight. Okay. So if we do not want to subsidize the actions of a landlord with our police department, we need to have hearings in caps that it's inappropriate to do so. And then we need to use our broader budget authority and provide legislation that says we want stricter boundaries. This legislation is designed very specifically to recover the social costs of the presence of the facility. To to stop ice, you need a united front of working class people. You need general strikes. You need all that because that is the that is the issue we're facing. This ordinance can't possibly do all of the heavy lifting. Yeah.
398 Councilor anything further.
399 I think I agree with that last piece and I appreciate the responses to the questions. I think as I'm looking through this, you know, sometimes you read code through the lens that you have or proposed code in this case through the lens that you have. And of course, it would be read a certain way. And I think one of the great things about testimony is it lets you know how other people read this, that maybe don't have that same context or that same experiences that I do, but have their own experiences that are helpful for that interpretation. So I'm, I'm kind of trying to incorporate what I'm hearing through how we read this, and I think the rest will probably be through the context of the amendment conversation, because I am a little concerned about how that tweaks it a little bit, but I think we can talk about it if and when that is moved. Thanks.
400 Can I respond a little bit? So you made a comment about how landlords could technically just increase the cost of rent to offset the fee, and that is frankly, how unfortunately, landlords operate in many ways. And the the political reality is that ice has billions of dollars right now. The federal administration has given them billions of dollars, and we can't legislate how people have those contracts privately. What we can do is to try to address the harm that happens through, again, one small piece of chipping away at the machine that is not going to stop the entire machine. That's the reality of it. Money can be tracked such that PPB could only be reimbursed for overtime, related to actions that are taken at the facility where the fees are applied. And that's part of the administrative rulemaking that we're going to need to see. I think something that we've been advised as council over and over again, is that we're the budget authority. We make the big oversight decisions, and then we're going to have to work continuously with the administration for them to get those details out. But in my opinion, and I'll state it for the record, since it sounds like that's what you're asking, the top priority should be the people who are first impacted by these issues. So like folks living in the surrounding buildings that are getting tear gassed, people who are being, frankly, portlanders, all who are being affected by tear gas entering our waterways and the environmental impacts of that, that should be the top priority.
401 Councilor anything further.
402 Thank you for.
403 Clarifying that I'm going to wait, I.
404 Appreciate it. Okay.
405 Councilor Morillo.
406 Yeah, as long as folks don't have any other hands in the queue, I'd like to move the amendment forward.
407 Second. Colleagues, is there any discussion on the amendment? Councilor canal.
408 Thank you.
409 Can we hear from the carrier first or the proposal about the amendment that hasn't been.
410 Discussed yet?
411 The presentation previously was specifically about the amendment. So we actually have heard extensively about it.
412 Okay.
413 I want to first say I appreciate most of this. I think it I don't really have and I don't really have questions on the idea of using the definition that's already in code, clarifying secure detention facility, annual review, anything like that. The question I had was specifically, I had two one, you've, I think, answered it as it relates to. As it relates to the the fund. But I wanted to ask about the appeals process that was brought up in here and how you anticipated that going and whether or not there, because I believe the question has been raised about the process for appeals already being a little bit more permissive than not a little bit, a lot more permissive than maybe is intentional or intended.
414 Councilor would you like to address that?
415 Sorry. Are you asking about appeals within the permitting department?
416 No. It goes. Where is it? It's 5.80.050. Any private property owner aggrieved by a determination under this chapter may appeal the determination of the code hearings officer provided by Portland city code 2210.
417 Would you like the.
418 Administration to address the need for that? Yeah, the administrator jordan, is that something that you can address?
419 Well, I think so. I'll look to city attorney if I mess this up. But we have a pretty standard process for many of the administrative decisions we make that allow. Citizens or property owners that we have made an administrative decision about regarding either the imposition of a fee or a penalty for their activity, to be able to appeal that to the hearings. Officer. And so that's in our code, the section that's cited, 2210 is fairly standard process among many bureaus that make administrative decisions. And that decision needs to have an appeal process.
420 Okay.
421 Thank you. I appreciate the work you did on this amendment as well.
422 Thank you.
423 Councilor, colleagues, I just want to want to note my appreciation for the definition change. I shared some of the questions that councilor Ryan raised previously in this meeting, and the change in definition leaves me assured that this is actually focused on the type of detention facility that has public safety officers present, and not the types of residential facilities that I was concerned might otherwise inadvertently be captured. Councilor. Morillo.
424 Yeah. Thank you, council president, for bringing that that up to our attention, bringing that to our attention early on so that we could make sure that was addressed, because that definitely is not the intention of this legislation. I do want to point out to folks that anything that implicates these facilities will be sued. And much like regular land use process appeals occur. And except that the regular land use process is also very extensively appealed, which is why a process like permit revocation can sit in the courts for years. Like, for example, even if we were to revoke the permit, it would likely be appealed again by the federal government and then go to deq. And then that could take years later. So while I'm just outlining the process, I don't like bureaucracy either. That's just how it works. But I think that while while we are handling that, people are still facing the harm every single day that's being done at these detention facilities. And so this policy has to address those harms right now. That's the political reality that we live in. And so this appeals process would be a lot faster than anything else that we're seeing right now. And that's why this is necessary.
425 Thank you.
426 Councilor colleagues. Seeing no one else in the queue for debate on the amendment keelan, can you please call the roll?
427 Clerk Green?
428 Yes.
429 Avalos.
430 Hi.
431 Dunphy.
432 Aye.
433 Smith.
434 Hi. Excuse me.
435 I canal.
436 Thank you for all the clarity I.
437 Ryan,
438 I.
439 Koyama Lane yes, Morillo.
440 I pirtle-guiney. I the amendment is approved with nine yes votes and three absent.
441 Shame on you. Shame, shame.
442 These are disruptions to the meeting. This is a warning that if there is continued disruption, you will be ejected. Can we please eject the individual screaming in the back of the room.
443 Revoked or recalled? Revoked or recalled. Is eject, you! Everyone! Call everyone. Permit you are ignoring the principle. You.
444 Individual upstairs in the white sweatshirt.
445 Revoke the permit. Thank you. I saw the Portland. I shouted Portland, I saw the Portland I.
446 Contraptions. Can we please eject the individual from here? Who's chanting?
447 Shame on you, alex. Whites out of Portland. I'm out of Portland. I'm out of ice. Allen bartlett.
448 Colleagues, we are now in discussion over the amended version of this ordinance, which includes Morillo one, and the changes contained therein. Is there any discussion on the amended version.
449 Request for information? Can you clarify what just got voted on for people who might not?
450 We just voted to add an amendment to the underlying ordinance. It's posted as Morillo one. It is the. The amendment is what was presented on previously, but because that language was filed after the posting deadline, we needed to officially adopt it in as an amendment rather than it being the underlying that was posted. Even though the intent by the carriers, I believe, was to have us support this amendment, this amended version.
451 Great.
452 And so just to clarify the underlying thing that we've been talking about with the detention facility fee ordinance as a whole has not been voted on.
453 Correct.
454 Thank you. Okay.
455 We are at just over three hours, colleagues, and we do need to give our staff a quick break. So before we have any discussion, further discussion on the underlying and a vote and talk about the additional item here I want to give us. And I hesitate to do this because I know that there are folks who may be waiting to catch us on the way out, but I want to give us a ten minute break just to ensure that we're respectful of our staff's time, and then we'll meet back here to take our final actions this evening. We will be back in at 919.
456 That's all you guys done? Those are the only things we could know. Yeah.
457 How are you, Loretta?
458 We are reconvening our city council meeting. Colleagues, we are in discussion of the now amended detention facility impact fee. I will note that this is a nonemergency ordinance. So we are not voting tonight. But this is the time for discussion on the ordinance. I'll put myself in the queue to stall in case others want to talk. Colleagues. For years, and particularly in recent months, we have seen the impacts of the ice facility on its neighbors and how these impacts have redirected city resources. This is certainly not the only detention facility in our community, nor the only facility that could be impacted by a fee like this, but it is the one that I know is on many people's minds. As we've heard tonight, just a few of these impacts include the Portland. Housing bureau's allocation of funding to grays landing after residents suffered the impacts of tear gas getting inside their homes, PBOT crews, who have been pulled from their regular work to provide street cleaning services around the facility in order to remove and dispose of toxic runoff from chemical weapons, and redirecting staff resources in order to expedite the permitting process to get cottonwood school relocated for the new school year. After chemical and projectile munitions were used in direct proximity to the school and its playground, the list goes on. What these instances have made clear is that we need resources available to pull from. If any other government tries to locate a detention center here in the future, and these resources shouldn't come from our community, they should not come from tax dollars from our city budgets. We have so many other ways we want to invest in our community. So much other work to do. This isn't where we should be spending our funds, but the reality is we can't always stop another government who also has jurisdiction on this space. That is the city of Portland. From siting facilities here, what we can do is ensure that we are not pulling dollars from other critical programs to cover the social and community costs that these facilities often lead to. This ordinance is a sensible solution to manage the unwanted impacts and to take one small step in protecting our community from just a few of the many harms that facilities like this can cause. I appreciate the conversation tonight. I appreciate hearing from community members who want to see more, and community members who want to make sure that we take this step. I appreciate the administration working to ensure that this is something that we can move forward in enforcing. And the councilors who brought it forward working to ensure that there were not unintended impacts. And I do plan to support it. Councilor connell.
459 Thank you, madam president. I first want to just give a little insight to something as a lead up to what's going on here. Sometimes there's delays in the process and sometimes there's a little bit of a surprise that comes from the other side of our government. And I was a little bit disappointed. I want to note with getting a memo last night from the administration that seemed very critical of this ordinance without necessarily any advance conversation, and also a very narrow focus on just the environmental side of it. I think that really deserves to be, to be stated out loud. I also wanted to talk about the folks that, you know, we've heard from a lot of folks who have been asking about what happens if and when there is a proposed expansion from the federal government. What what do we do in that scenario? And one of the potential solutions that was raised, and the only the only office that had the both the courage and the technical acumen to actually go into that detail and figure it out, figure out a way to deal with this that could pass legal muster, was councilor Murillo's office for how to address that potentiality. That still has not happened yet, and I hope it does not. But that's a conversation I, I am wanting to to focus really quickly on the nuisance side of this because I really appreciated that, that parts inclusion, and I think that it really strengthens what we would be doing now. I think we can focus pretty significantly on the the side of it that is about the actual new fee possibility of a new facility, but I, I appreciate the clarity on the prohibited nuisance because I am very profoundly concerned about what we are doing to to prevent the use of chemical weapons that are banned in war from being used on the streets of Portland and in our neighborhoods as well. So I just wanted to express some of that here, and I really look forward to continuing the threads of this conversation that I think very similar to the two things we did about a month ago. This document has like 4 or 5 different parts of it that kind of create threads that we can carry on and talk about. So I appreciate the the work that's been put in here by by councilor Murillo and councilor Green, both your teams. I appreciate susie coming and explaining all this. I didn't know the word pigouvian before, so I appreciate that particularly. And I also really appreciate the comment. The first part of what you were saying, madam president, about ensuring that people are bearing the cost that they create. So I just I want to close by by noting it is really difficult to explain everything that we get legal advice about here. I think that that's been really challenging to to try and summarize and not create a problem. And I'm not asking you to trust us, and I don't think any of us are, but to actually look and see the work that's being done. And so I want to draw that attention back to the work that's been done by my colleagues up here, in particular my colleagues that are women of color, because they're the people leading on a lot of the actual code that's been proposed in the city and getting beat up quite a bit for it, both in and outside of this building. Thanks.
460 Thank you. Councilor, colleagues, are there any other comments to the now amended agenda item nine? Okay. Seeing none, this is a first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. So we will carry this over to our next meeting for a vote. There is one item left on our agenda. It is agenda item four. However, we recently passed rule changes that do not allow us to start a new agenda item after 9:00 unless it is an emergency or without a vote of nine councilors. I do not believe we have nine councilors present to who are interested in supporting a vote on this this evening, so we will carry this over to tomorrow. We are already planning to hold a recess meeting tomorrow afternoon, and we will add this to the agenda tomorrow. With that, I will adjourn our meeting.