Skip to content
The Portland Record
Automated data, not yet fully editor-reviewed. Figures on this site are collected automatically from the linked official sources and currently publish without line-by-line editor review. Records about a named person's votes, attendance, or statements still appear only after the editor approves them — one at a time, or in a batch that is labeled as such. See the methodology and report errors via corrections .

← Recent meetings · October 2026

The record · Transcript

Council Session — 2026-10-06

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (12,743 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.

watch the recording

Tue, Oct 6, 2026 · meeting length 1 hr 38 min · council salary-time ≈ $1,255

Council salary-time = 12 councilors × ($133,207/yr ÷ 2,080 hr) × meeting length. Attendance varies and salaries are fixed regardless of meeting count — this contextualizes the council time a session takes; it is not money the meeting "spent."

Session TL;DRAI draft · not editor-reviewed

Key points

Where the council disagreed

Roll-call votes from this session date

None published yet. Votes from this session appear in the vote ledger once verified; this summary never states a vote result.

AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions and not yet reviewed by the editor . It describes the discussion only. Each point links to the transcript turn it rests on, and a program checked that the words it relied on are in that turn; the wording of the point is the draft's own. Positions are given without names because captions do not show who is speaking — follow a link to see for yourself. Captions contain errors.

0 Good morning. It is Tuesday, October 6th, 2026 at 9:34 a.m. I call this meeting of the community and public safety committee to order. Could the clerk please call the roll?
1 Zimmerman. Smith. Kanal here.
2 Morillo here. Virtually.
3 Novick.
4 Here. Could we hear the statement of conduct?
5 Welcome to the meeting of the community and public safety committee. To testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at. Www.Portland.gov/councilor/agene or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting in person, testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard for public testimony. During today's meeting, individuals may testify for 90s unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted. When your time is over, the chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. State your name for the record. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifier should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
6 Thank you. So we're we have a reordering the agenda this morning because due to traffic jams, say, people who are going to be part of the presentations on the fireworks and on the great shakeout have been delayed. So instead we're going to start with, you know, the global state budgeting for public safety. Then move on to the second hand dealers amendments, then great shakeout, then fireworks. And actually, I'm I'm disappointed that the other two councilors aren't here because the first item is actually the clerk call the first item. Sorry.
7 Yes. Item number one. Document number 2026-351. Discussion of global state budgeting for public safety concept.
8 Thank you. So this item is here in. This is basically a heads up that I wanted to give members of the committee about something I'm working on that is is public safety, but is far beyond the city. The criminal justice system. And I think I might have talked I certainly talked to councilor Kanal. I think I've talked to councilor Aye, Morillo about this before, but the concept is the criminal justice system has a kind of a bizarre feature that doesn't exist in any other area of public policy. There's a group of people, namely prosecutors, that have an unlimited budget, for one thing, namely prisons. When prosecutors and judges send people to prison, the state has to pay for it. There's no discussion of budgetary trade offs. There's no incentives to use prison less. It's just, you know, it's as if prison is free. And since any free good tends to be overused, and since most people who study criminal justice carefully recognize that prison, by and large, is a rather ineffective way of preventing crime, the concept that I've been floating with county commissioners and with an assortment of legislators is. And this is something we take a long time to achieve, is. What if the state went to a system of giving each county an overall public safety budget and said they give school districts an overall budget and said, you can spend this on whatever public safety things you want. When you send people to prison, the cost of that comes out of your budget. So what the hope for result is that county commissioners would then sit down with their das and with all their experts and say, okay, we have this big pot of money. How much of it do we think should go to supervision? How much to jails, how much to reentry programs, how much to alcohol and drug treatment programs, how much to restorative justice, maybe reallocate some of it to the sheriffs, to the sheriff, deputies or police and come up with a rational allocation of resources, which where prison is recognized as a cost and people have a decision and decisions are made about, okay, if we have an opportunity to send, we could send somebody to prison for four years or send them for two years, and we could use that savings to do something else. So I've been discussing this topic with some of the key legislators in public safety. Vince jones dixon of Multnomah county is really interested, and we're actually having a meeting of lipstick, the local public safety coordinating committee, where this is going to be discussed on October 26th at 130. So if anybody's interested in that discussion, I encourage you to come and and we're also going to have an academic from the who's affiliated with the university of chicago, who's one of the big national brains on public safety, who's intrigued with this idea. And he's going to present as well. So again, I just wanted to give you a heads up on that. It's conceivable that in some future legislative session, support of this idea might be suggested for the for, for our legislative agenda, but mostly because this is something we're working on and there's a public discussion of it in a few weeks, I want to make sure people here were aware of it. So that's any any questions? Councilor. Councilor Kanal. Thank you, chair.
9 Novick. I appreciate the update on this and I think I guess I have two questions. One is just a pure overarching process question. The city role in this conversation is effectively limited to, are we advocating for this.
10 Right now that right now Steve Novick is. I think that ultimately the question would be, would we on a in a in a legislative agenda, support it? At this point? I think that there will I'm hoping there will be preliminary discussions of the issue among legislators. I don't think there's going to be a bill this session. What I'm hoping is that by next session, people will actually be have something to forward. Okay, so those of us who happen to be here, the next legislative session might be asked to weigh in on whether it should be part of our agenda.
11 Yeah, I guess the question then that's thank you for that. The other piece is you mentioned. So you said you can spend this on whatever public safety things you want. When you send people to prison that comes out of this budget. And then my question is, I guess, how broadly are we defining public safety in terms of the universe, of what what budgets are being combined?
12 I'm not proposing a specific definition. I think that, but it would include whatever the state is currently giving money to the counties for like community corrections. Okay. Restorative justice grants. Okay.
13 So that's the first part, the restorative justice you mentioned. You also mentioned drug treatment and reentry programs.
14 Well, I mean, there is there is money for those through medicaid, through the health department, etcetera. What I'm envisioning is that the reason I bring that up is that to the extent that those programs are underfunded through the current health care system, maybe if you had a lump sum budget, you could use some of the money that you might be saving on prisons to top up those services. But that's just I mean, again, this is very general concept that might not make sense, but that's why I put that in there.
15 I appreciate that the I guess the thing that I would want to make sure is that we're being clear with the legislature that it doesn't allow for the rebalancing to go the other direction, because I can imagine in the counties up here that the direction that the money might shift over time would probably be a direction that we agreed on. But I don't know if that's the case for all the other counties in the state. So I'd be curious about just whatever protections there. I don't think you have to have that answer right now. And I don't mean to put I'm not trying to put you on the spot with it.
16 But and I mean, I should tell you that the sheriff's reaction to this idea was, I don't want the legislature at being. I'm afraid the legislature would just cut the global public safety budget every year. So I don't think that she's particularly excited about about prisons, but I think she kind of thinks, well, at least there's one budget they can't cut. So that's going to be part of the discussion.
17 Well, as we all know, the legislature loves to put money towards transit and health care and education. So I guess that's a fear that we all. Should share. Thanks.
18 Well, I mean, I mean, I will say that the reaction I got, and I'm not going to name names, the reaction I got to some of the key public safety legislators was rather encouraging that they did not dismiss this idea. Some of them said that there one particular one, I think I probably quote him on this, but I won't. He said that his goal is to have us be the safest state with the least level of incarceration. So this sort of fits in with that. So again, good goal. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Whoops. Okay. I thought that might be counselor Zimmerman. But it's another random bald guy. So could the clerk please read the read. The second item.
19 Is the new item number two, document number 2026-327. Amend second hand dealers code to strengthen compliance requirements and update program fees. Amend code chapter 14 b .90.
20 Thank you. This item was referred to committee to allow some additional workshopping time by my office and the revenue team. Following some questions from councilor Kanal on background checks, we took that time to put in language clarifying that the only only people directly engaged in management and ownership of the business and those who are authorized by the business to actually buy and receive regulated property, require checks so as to what councilor Kanal questions. A security guard would not be required to have a background check, for example. The changes are made at Novick two, which is posted yesterday and which I'd now like to move and ask for a second and then bring the revenue team up for further discussion. So I hereby move Novick two. I'll second. Councilor moves councilor Kanal seconds. And now I'd like to ask the team up to sort of refresh us on what the original amendments amendments were, which include eliminating the distinction for fee purposes between occasional and non occasional dealers. But I'll let I'll let them take it away. Remind us that what the original amendments were on second hand dealers and add anything you think needs to be added to my discussion of what we're changing. Proposing to change in Novick two.
21 Good morning, tim mercer. Tax division manager for revenue. Thanks for the time this morning. So reminder on this package this was this was included in a package rather. So this is one piece of a package looking at kind of all of the regulatory programs that revenue administers. Four of those pieces of this package are have been, you know, moved to council. And this one was held back. So we took a holistic look at all of the regulatory programs we administer. We wanted to get rid of one of those programs, as well as update fee schedules for all of the programs, most of which hadn't been updated in quite a long time, if ever. So specifically here for second hand dealers, the the major changes. The point of these changes was around updating the fee schedule, eliminating the occasional or occasional dealer classification. And that's simply because it takes the same amount of time for us to administer an occasional dealer permit, as it does the full permit. So it didn't make sense from a cost recovery standpoint to have two fee structures and then just kind of tweaking some of the language in the program to hopefully improve the administration of the program. So that's kind of the high level background on on what's going on here.
22 Thank you. Any questions for the team?
23 Are we on just the amendment or on the just. Yeah. All right. Thanks. I guess I just want to understand because the amendment itself adds and it's it's a little confusing because the track changes is all showing. But my understanding is the amendment is just the. Eight sorry. 20 point I want to make sure I get this right. 14 b dot 90 dot 40 part b eight, which is at the sort of bottom of page ten. And I just wanted to, to, to, to clarify with you in terms of. What has changed here, what this would do is, is basically currently it's for people who can buy. And this would take it to also be the principals of the company. Is that correct?
24 Actually, what the language referred to as people who acquire. And I actually thought that that was rather vague, because that might suggest that somebody who actually takes an ownership interest in something. So we wanted to I wanted to make it clear that it's people who are authorized to like spend the business money to buy things.
25 Okay. So the clarity, but in terms of the, the, the original intent was people who pay for it seems. Right.
26 Right.
27 So this makes it clear. But then it also adds the principles. Right. And, but it doesn't it doesn't include everybody who sells. It doesn't include everybody who's a security guard, right? Like so, okay, just making sure we get that on the, on the record. And then I don't actually know if it defines verify this. Yeah. So management and operation, including any owners is the principal there. And I'm sorry, I'm like scrolling around here because the track changes a little. Can I get a clarification on what part d means? This is the first section on the top of page 11. I'm broadly supportive. Obviously I seconded it for. Eight, the header a, b, c, but I'm curious as to what would constitute a change. Like is this if they move, is it what are the sorts of things that would happen. Oh no. Cause a change.
28 Yeah. I think what we're we're intending there is if somebody had an arrest after their background check, for instance, they should that would constitute a change of their personal history form. And they they're supposed to notify us of that.
29 And so would that be the, basically the content that's in b one through seven, the sort of immediately above seven sections.
30 That's correct. Yeah. That's the that's the section that refers to the personal history form. So if if something that's laid out on that personal history form changes like an arrest or some other. Large piece of that, we would be expecting that they would file another personal history form with us, which would allow PPB to make the decision about whether to do another background check or change their status or something along those lines.
31 Okay, then my question for chair Novick is why did you choose to have the background check be performed by PPB, as opposed to one of the other potential background checkers within the city or people we have contracts with?
32 Well, actually, historically the background checks have already been performed by PPB, so that's sort of just a continuation of existing practice. Okay. Thanks. Any further discussion of the amendment to the amendments? In that case, could the clerk please call the roll on Novick two?
33 Yes. Thank you. Zimmerman absent. Smith absent.
34 Kanal to the amendment.
35 I Morillo. I Novick I. The amendment is approved with three votes and two absent.
36 All right. Now, any discussion of the. And actually, I would ask you guys to stay up just in case people have questions about the underlying the underlying original amendment. Any discussion of the original amendment, including the elimination of the category of. Second of occasional dealers, etc. Councilor Kanal.
37 Thanks. So I have no concern about the idea of eliminating the category. I think the presentation last time was really helpful in that regard. I'm not. My concerns have generally been around this same section of. Of the b section. I will note, I guess. Let me start with the question, how has the. One of the things that came up when we referred it back to the caps committee is engagement with the folks that would be affected by this, and I just was curious if there had been more done on that since the time that by either your office or by the staff, since the time that we talked about it last?
38 No, no further engagement has been done.
39 Okay. On your end at all?
40 No.
41 Okay. So I, I personally went into a. Pawn shop that has several locations around the country, including here in Portland, and talked to the manager there. It's not a representative sample because there are plenty of pawn shops that are not part of large national or regional chains. And but I will say that that there there was immediately no concern because their their comment was effectively like the company already requires all this anyway, because it's part of a larger company, I haven't had a chance to get to a couple other places I've identified to look into as a. Sort of representative sample, you know, combining it with this in terms of a smaller location, in terms of a second hand music shop specifically, my concern has largely been around anything we do that makes it harder to buy used musical instruments will make it harder for people to get into that, and I think that's a concern I still have. But I just wanted to kind of get that on the record. We have contracts with a few different companies to do background checks as well. I am concerned about the idea that this sort of. The original presentation implied that there was sort of a not an assumption of there being something sketchy going on at all these sorts of establishments, but that there was a high enough risk that this that the idea of imposing the burden of a higher level of data being forcibly shared with PPB in order to to work there was justified. That case has still not been made to me fully. I do think that the amendment improves it by making it clearer who is is subject to this and who's not. But I'm still not 100% certain about that piece. So I guess the other question, I know the answer because I know it's not fully staffed up yet, but, you know, the data and privacy office has not been part of this conversation yet. And I am interested in that sort of evaluation of legislation like this in the future. Thanks.
42 Understood. And I think that we did I mean, the the categories exist because there is a history of trafficking in stolen goods in these various and musical instruments. Apparently, there is such a history.
43 You were I should. Yeah, that is correct, I think. But I'm not 100% certain I'm going to. I'm not 100% certain if it's the best place to go. If one has stolen a musical instrument because of the the sort of social media groups and things like that, that you can, you know, connect with people and sell something quicker. On having said that, the thing that does make obvious sense, in which we've heard from some of the folks I've talked to as well, is that the when it would make sense to go to a store, a regulated establishment is if there was some sort of connection to an employee there. That is the thing that would make it relevant. So I I'm not disputing your underlying point there, but it is certainly a concern. I'm just trying to understand the, the, the ratio, the, the relative comparative level of, of concern about two different risks.
44 Thank you. I should note that I've been reading colson whitehead's harlem trilogy, which focuses on a fence who is also the owner of a furniture store. So the, the idea of fences actually has a certain level of romance for me, although of course I'm opposed to it. So any councilor Morillo.
45 Yeah, I was just curious, does anyone have any responses to what councilor Kanal said? I know he didn't phrase it as a question, but I think those are some of the things that I've been thinking about as well. And I mean, to be frank with you, there's only three of us here today, so I want to make sure that we get things answered so we can. If it is, it does feel good, then we can move it through.
46 Councilor Morillo would you mind restating the specific question you're referring to?
47 I mean, I think the things that I really have questions on eternally, until the data privacy office gets really established is what, you know, things we keep approving as a council and moving through before before that is established. And I think that's part of what councilor Kanal touched on.
48 Well, I think that I mean, other than clarifying exactly who is subject to the background check, I mean, I think that we're just talking about continuing information gathering that we're already doing. Is that correct, team?
49 Yeah. That's correct.
50 So if the amendments were not approved, we would continue gathering information. We just have some, in my view, ambiguity in the language as to who is subject to the requirement.
51 Right. The changes are some clarification on who is subject to that requirement. As, as as you just stated, the addition of the background check fee, which hasn't been there before. So in regards to background checks, those are those are the substantive changes. We are already doing these background checks without a fee.
52 I apologize and bringing up the fee before and the the amount of the fee is.
53 20.
54 Leland taylor, regulatory program coordinator the background check fee would be $25.
55 Keep forgetting.
56 That is another addition.
57 Councilor Kanal can I ask? So okay, I have no problem with the idea of cost recovery. $25 makes sense if that's what it costs. I understand if you do private background check, there's there's costs as well. So this is a comparable I guess I have two questions. One is then this is d two, which is like ten lines lower than the section we were just talking about on page ten. It says it will be assessed to any principles and any employees. So the expectation is that the person themself is paying for it, not the company. Is that can we speak to can you speak to how that decision was arrived at?
58 I don't actually think that's our expectation. So I think typically, and lila can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it's very typical for the employer to pay the fee. And that would be our general expectation. But we're not explicitly saying who needs to pay the fee. There's just a fee applied to background checks, which are done on the subset of individuals that you just mentioned. So folks acquiring property and principals.
59 So I would understand that makes sense what your your explanation makes sense. The text says effective January 1st, 2027, a background check fee of $25 will be assessed to any principals and any employees operating in the city of Portland that would require regulated property, wouldn't it? I mean, assessed for each background check would make that intention clear that you want it for each one and not one per company, but not necessarily say who's paying it. I think it's a am I wrong in reading that as saying it's on the the person themselves.
60 That's not the intent of that language. But I see I see how you could get there. Yeah.
61 Councilor for some reason I'm not looking at the right page.
62 One more page. Two. This is it's it's here. So I don't know why I have it on my version.
63 I believe that text was removed from the most recent amendment. What I believe that text was removed from the most recent amendment.
64 Okay.
65 Oh, okay.
66 So then, you know, you're right. I had the, the old and the new version open. Can we get a okay, now I'm confused. Can we get a track changes version? Because if that's in the version that was referred to us and then it's in the amendment, it's removed, but it's not marked as removed. Does that make sense?
67 Like, yeah, I hear you. I hear your concern.
68 I that's a, let's see, that's a reasonable request.
69 We and I have a different question while that's going on, if you.
70 Want to. Let's see. Well, the question is, can we. Can we put together a track changes version, which we should have had already over the next few minutes.
71 That's we're working on it.
72 We ponder that. Councilor go ahead and ask your further question.
73 Yeah, it's regarding and I'm going to make sure it's in here now. Yeah. The it's part seven of. 14 b .90.040 b seven. And this is a question for the city administrator. I understand that the idea here of any other information that the city administrator may reasonably feel is necessary to accomplish the goals of this chapter is sort of in line with how we're writing code now of not specifying necessarily specific bureaus, but instead putting this into the sort of hands of the administrative rules to determine. And that's within the city administrator's role. What sort of things, what would be the process should this, this ordinance pass, will be the process for figuring out what would go into those requirements.
74 I would sit down with various bureau leadership and really outline that and really have them provide me some recommendations with options as it relates to how this thing could truly function and flow from there and from there. From a process standpoint, I would more than likely make a decision on that.
75 Councilor okay, would it would engagement be a part of that role with the, the people that are being regulated? And I don't just mean the companies.
76 I think engagement and equity would have to be a component of that. And that's some of the conversation piece that we would have.
77 Okay. I, I will say I appreciate that clarity, and I like that answer in terms of answering the question. It gives me pause in the sense of any other information, seems to me to be sort of a figure it out administration. And I, I'm, I haven't I'm generally not supportive of those in any context. So I'm trying to just understand here in terms of the level of data that would be asked for, especially if you're if the starting point of the process, which makes sense, would be going and talking to the bureau that's receiving the data. So I just wanted to get that on the record too. And I might ask about whether or not we can remove part seven there.
78 Councilor Kanal can I address the drafting concern with the red line of that specific d2 language? So sorry, chair, can I do that? Yes you may. Thank you. Spencer nils, chief of staff for councilor Steve Novick. I believe the guidance in drafting from the clerk is to not redline amendment language and instead reflect it as it's as it would result when amended. And so that d2 was something that had been added in the initial amendment. And so you wouldn't redline that piece, you would just now reflect that it's no longer there in the in the subsequent Novick two amendment. So it's kind of confusing and that it's getting lost in the new amendment, the superseding amendment. But that's the that's the reason it's falling following the drafting guidelines, which can kind of get confusing sometimes. So not intentionally trying to hide, taking that out or anything.
79 Yeah. No, I appreciate the clarity. Not trying to imply there was any bad intent there. I think this is something that if that's the drafting guidelines, we should probably ask the clerk to, to update those in some way, because it is that seems as though it cannot but create this problem in the future. If something is being proposed to be added or removed, and then an amendment to it would either restore deleted text or remove added text. But it doesn't help me right this second with what else? So do you have a version? These are all pdfs online, so maybe if I get the the versions to do a compare versions on it. But what else has changed in Novick two? Because if you look at the explanation up at the top, it talks about just adding b eight. And it does talk about removing d two. But I just want to make sure that there's any. Anything else that I'm missing.
80 As far as my recollection that is all we're changing. It was really just to provide that clarity around who the background check applies to. So it's very small change. But yeah, that's, that's all I recall us changing.
81 Okay.
82 All right. So that addresses the question that I'd asked earlier about imposed upon. And I appreciate the clarity there still have the other concern regarding the the part seven. Thanks.
83 That's a councilor. Are you satisfied with that? And we can we don't need to create a track changes version.
84 No, I do think, you know, I'll probably follow up with the clerk about. It would be helpful to have access to the word versions. Also, if one wants to make an amendment to it, it's also helpful. Like if I wanted to remove part seven right now, it's kind of like, where would that, you know, right. So.
85 On item seven, any other information the city administrator may reasonably feel is necessary? I want to ask the team, do you think that do you think that that's essential? I mean, councilor Kanal suggested he might want to remove it. I mean, how much heartburn would that cause us?
86 I don't I don't think that it's necessary. I've not yet had to utilize that portion of the text or anything close to it. So I think that that is okay to to withdraw.
87 City administrator, any further thoughts?
88 The only thing I would say in situations like this, having texts like that does give some flexibility in the standpoint of looking at intent and how we are able to move forward, intent of any policy. So having that flexibility within any ordinance gives the ability for us to work through any things that we may later find out that need to be added to it.
89 And I recognize that. I think we have I just want to point out, you know, in parallel to this whole thing, and I'm going to get you the exact there is a there is a context piece that I wanted to add here, which is that there's a directive review process going on at PPB right now that would take more of the, the privacy question outside of public view on procurement. And so I have a concern about the idea that the the entity that's receiving the information in this could demand more of a population that is generally, you know, these are not well paid jobs. Right. On the whole, I imagine there are a few folks who are doing okay. But so I people that are not necessarily in a position to push back. So that's my my broader concern there is that I think that it's valuable to have it come back as a process and as a transparency piece and give folks the opportunity to say, actually, why do we need that information? I understand an arrest that's that's obviously relevant. But if you go through the other seven parts, there's other things in there I'll flag and I apologize. I'm going back and forth between several different tabs now so that that's sort of my my concern there. I don't have this concern, by the way, with part seven of 14b9040a, which also happens to be part seven of that one that talks about any other information. The city administrator may reasonably feel. It's the same text, but it's it's as applied to the the dealer itself. So I just want to clarify that for for purposes of. Not not making it seem like we're trying to take something else out.
90 Councilor are you intending to move to eliminate that item?
91 Seven yeah, I'm trying to make a written version of it.
92 Okay.
93 As rapidly as I can here. But it is. And while we're at it, we should talk about line numbers because it makes it a lot easier to, to do this quickly. But yeah, it would be on the top. If you look at the the version in Novick two, just to. Since that's the version we're currently operating off of, it's in the middle of. Page ten near the bottom, actually, part seven there of 14 b .90.040 b seven. And I'll get this over to the clerk as quickly as I can. It would just strike part seven in its entirety.
94 Sorry, can you say the sub section again?
95 14.90.040 b as in boy seven.
96 Do I not have.
97 Sameer? And also with the application.
98 Can you. And then what are we asking? Principles in place with my fingertips.
99 Okay, spider-man. As the clerk received the language from councilor Kanal.
100 Not at this moment. With the committee. Like to take a recess.
101 What?
102 A recess is an option.
103 Sure. Let's recess for ten minutes and reconvene at 1025.
104 Remember the name of the place.
105 I can't.
106 Get the.
107 All right. We are reconvening. And does the clerk have the text of councilor Kanal amendment?
108 Yes, it's been in code review. No.
109 It's. What?
110 Yes, we have it.
111 Okay. Councilor Kanal.
112 Yeah, I guess I'll formally move amendment Kanal one to strike 14 b .0.90.040 b seven.
113 Do I hear a second?
114 Second.
115 Second councilor Kanal moves. Counselor Zimmerman narrowly beat out councilor Morillo to second. Councilor Morillo.
116 It's not a contest.
117 Councilor Novick. While it's going through code review, I do have a few more questions if that's helpful to by the clerk some time.
118 I think that the time has been brought.
119 Okay, I do actually just have more questions then, but we can do this amendment first and then I'll go into that.
120 Okay. I don't see any discussion on the amendment. Could we call the roll on the amendment?
121 Kanal one moved by Kanal, seconded by Zimmerman. Zimmerman, I Smith absent Kanal. I Morillo. I Novick I. The amendment is approved with four eyes and one absent.
122 All right. Returning to councilor Morillo.
123 Thank you, chair. I cannot see who's up front, but whoever wants to answer this, I was just curious a little bit more on the process part of this. So our employee personnel history forms, including arrest records, are those disclosable public records and how long are they kept?
124 I don't know the answer to either, I don't.
125 Yeah, so as far as we understand, they're kept by both revenue and PPB once they're submitted. So that the list of stuff that's that's in code that is submitted as part of the personal history would be kept by both departments. I can't speak for PPB about how long they keep them, but we're keeping those records. We've been keeping them since the start of the program. We. Have we done any purging?
126 I have not done any purging.
127 In terms of whether or not they're. Disclosable as a public record, I. I would assume not, but I would have to ask an attorney on that question. I don't know for sure. And we've never as, as far as I know, had a public records request that included that information.
128 Okay.
129 Is there anyone here who can help answer that? Because I think that might sort of sway, because I think I just have a lot of questions about some of the data collection stuff. And we have the data privacy office that's currently being established, but we keep moving forward with different policies and tech without going through that because it's not, you know, they're still in the hiring process and all of that right now. So it's just something that's on my mind. And while I appreciate that no public record has ever been done, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be done in the future. Right. And I think we live in a different time politically now with with how things are going. So I'm just curious about that. And like the long term impacts on someone. How many does someone know how many employees PPB has rejected under the current review in recent years, and how much that check actually costs the city?
130 Can you speak to how many?
131 I don't have exact data on how many personal history forms have been rejected by the Portland police bureau, and there are not a lot, but there are have there have been a few.
132 In terms of the cost, PPB was the one that sort of told us what they would want to charge for this work. And our understanding is that, you know, the background check process can be dramatically different in terms of the length of time that it takes, depending on the person being checked. So, for instance, someone who has lived in Portland their entire life is probably a lot easier background check than someone who has lived in numerous states in the last few years. So there's kind of a wide range, and I think it's fair to say that they sort of picked a number that covered a large majority of the background checks.
133 Okay, that makes sense. And how long do the reviews? It sounds like there's a lot of variance, but how long do the reviews usually take, and can employees still buy provisionally while they're waiting for this check to be done? If it does end up taking an extended amount of time.
134 So employees can't acquire or buy regulated property until they've been approved by PPB, I see that the standard processing time is 2 to 4 weeks. Typically. Sometimes they come back faster, sometimes it takes longer, particularly if there's a criminal history in states that don't have digital records.
135 Okay.
136 And, and I, we do. I did a dive into our code really quick. And it's 14 b .9.040. Currently, subsection d of all of the personal information is subject to the requirements of the Oregon public records law, or s 192.311 through 192.405. So we would follow those expectations if we received a public records request.
137 Okay, so I'm assuming that means I don't have that code in front of me. So I don't know exactly what that outlines. I'm assuming that just means it's all a public record.
138 I would assume it means it's a public record with redaction, but I don't have that code in front of me either.
139 Councilor Morillo spencer is trying to get get information from kevin maguire of the city attorney's office on this. So I don't know how long it'll take. I think it's a very good question. I don't know how long it'll take for us to get an answer as to whether it's the public record, discloses disclosable.
140 Okay. Thanks, spencer.
141 I mean, given that the issues about, you know, how long we maintain the information, whether it's disclosable or sort of don't relate particularly to the amendments, but to sort of the underlying law, and I agree that there's questions that need to be answered, but I don't know that they're essential to answer them before we take a vote here today. Oh, councilor Kanal.
142 Yeah, three things first, just to clarify, I referenced a PPB process before, and you can learn more about that at Portland.gov/directives. And I was referring to the replacement of 1205.00 with 1050.00. Just want to get that on the record. Secondly, to councilor Novick point, I think this is kind of similar to a previous ordinance you had as well, where there's code that's not really being utilized. But one of the net effects of the change is to have it be utilized more, or to have it be utilized more clearly, maybe as a better way of framing it in this case. And so I think that's that's fair. I think your point is fair that you were just making I just I also know that that it's helpful to understand what the. I'll frame it as a question. We've set up this office. It's not fully staffed yet. There have been there's there's an ordinance. There's 15 other things that are happening that relate to data and privacy around the city right now, ranging from autonomous vehicles, data centers, amazon drones all over the city. What is the plan? Big picture, as a city for when we're going to have this thing that you and councilor Morillo proposed and council agreed to set up to actually be the filter between ideas, you know, evaluating these ideas. What is the what is the timeline? What's the expectation here? Because this has come up in a few different places now that we don't, we have this system in theory, but not in practice yet. And so I don't know what the what the what's a realistic expectation anymore?
143 Well, I'm going to ask the city administrator to answer that. But I think that there is a distinction between this case and like chronic nuisance proposal, because that was indeed a situation where something wasn't being used and we were thinking it might be used more, whereas we already are doing these background checks. We're just trying to clarify who exactly is subject to them, but I'll ask the city administrator to respond to the question about what the prognosis is for setting up the office and having it operational.
144 Are you talking about the.
145 Data privacy office?
146 Once we have the position office is already in the process of being set up from a staffing. The question is regarding. We're out right now doing an executive search for the actual bureau lead for that office. Once we have that, and I'm thinking we want to have all these things in place this winter. So I want to have majority of all our executive roles finished by the close of December about all necessary. So if we are currently working through, I think the advertisements should be closed this month and we're interviewing in the month of November. We should have someone on in December for this office.
147 Okay. And I appreciate the the deliberate nature of that search. I'm not trying to ask you to cut corners here or anything like that, so I appreciate that. At what point do we expect that? I think part of the idea, and correct me if I'm wrong, in particular. Councilor. Morillo. And Novick, because you wrote the legislation that set this all up. But I think part of the idea is that if there's a proposed, you know, administrative rule, PPB directive or council piece of legislation, mayor's executive order, whatever, something that is a new proposal that this would get before a final approval would get evaluated by the data privacy office. And at what point do you expect that that will be a regular occurrence or a possible occurrence?
148 Hopefully, we currently now have practices where we go through data privacy through our bts bureau in reviewing that type of information, having that independent office, I think you'll really be looking at that. I'm thinking potentially kind of the start of the new year of having something like that where you it's not a part of the bts criteria and the work that they do, but it's something totally set aside from that independent office. But that is still contingent on making sure that we get the right person on board to help lead that work. We'd have to figure out kind of kind of a stopgap if we weren't able to be able to do that, to kind of figure out what could we do in that interim piece to be able to have that person on board. But I don't want any assumption that we're not doing this type of work currently. It's just not that independent review. As council approved through their ordinance, to have that kind of independent review of the work and ensuring that it happens at a certain standard. So we'll still be working through that piece of it. But I'm thinking January timeframe for short answer. But we still have some components of that being conducted throughout the city.
149 Appreciate that. I guess then the question would be, the last question would be, what did bts think of this? Of this proposal that we're discussing.
150 Would have to get somebody from bts and to kind of answer that question. If we don't have it.
151 I don't know if they would have been consulted on sort of a clarification of an existing process.
152 Probably not.
153 Yeah.
154 I don't believe so.
155 It councilor Morillo correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that our assumption in creating the data privacy office was that it wouldn't just look at new proposals, would also look at our existing processes under preexisting laws and rules, to see if there's ways in which we could improve on our protection of privacy or or, you know, our decisions on storage, collection, etc.
156 I think that that is very correct, I think. So I
157 I get your point. You know, we can approve the amendment, and then maybe the data privacy office can review it later. I think the thing that I'm concerned about is that like a few weeks ago, we voted for an approval of a grant for PPB to purchase new surveillance tech. And. I voted against that because, again, the data privacy office hasn't had a chance to look at it. And the thing about data collection and data governance is that it's much more difficult to claw things back once they have been approved and implemented than it is to just start off saying, we're not collecting this data and then and then keep moving forward that way. So that's all that I'm kind of concerned about. But yeah, I hear your point. And I know that the administration is working diligently to hire someone and set up the data privacy office. I know kelly has been, you know, talking with our office a lot about that. So. I guess I'm also just kind of wondering, like the number of things coming through this committee, can they wait till the data privacy office is established so we can get that lens? Or is there a specific reason why there's urgency to move it through now before it gets that data privacy assessment? Because it's pretty clear. Bts first of all, bts is fantastic. They do amazing work. They don't have data governance analysis in the same way that the data privacy office will. And that's just that's part of why we did it, right. If the city was already doing something sufficient in this area, then we wouldn't have had to make a whole separate office for it. And Portland has been very behind. Other cities have already had a data privacy office, and this is standard in their work. So so that's the heartburn I have about it, I suppose.
158 Yeah. And what I would say is that, I mean, we're already doing the background checks. So this is not approving anything new. It's the intent of the background checks is to add this $25 fee. But primarily to clarify exactly who is subject to it and to clarify that it's only people who are authorized to actually purchase and take possession for the business of the regulated property. So I don't think that we're opening. We're not opening the door to something that we weren't doing previously. I also want to say that we have heard back from ken mcguire, and he believes that the personal privacy exemption to the public records rule would cover at least some of the information on the on the form. He says that there may be some parts of the form that aren't exempt. He'd have to have to look at it more closely. But he thinks that some of the information would likely be protected by the personal privacy exemption. Any further discussion? All right. In that case, the clerk call for a vote on the underlying amendment.
159 Thank you. Yes. And I also just want to clarify that no one signed up to testify on this item.
160 Thank you. I forgot to ask.
161 And so this is the motion for the ordinance as amended, moved by Novick. Was there a second?
162 I'll second it. Yeah, I'll second it.
163 Thank you. Zimmerman. I Smith absent Kanal.
164 I reserve the right to change my opinion at the full council, but I'll vote I today.
165 Aye, Morillo I.
166 Novick I.
167 The motion to refer is approved.
168 Thank you. Could the clerk please call the next item?
169 Item number three. Document number 2026-350. Great shakeout earthquake drill preparedness presentation.
170 Thank you. Take it away, team.
171 All right. Well, good morning all. My name is marisol lozano peralta. I work with the community engagement and operations team at the Portland bureau of emergency management. I have been with the bureau since January of 2024, and I also have my colleague here with me.
172 Jeremy van buren, and the community preparedness manager for the Portland bureau of emergency management.
173 Thank you. Can we please get the next slide? Thank you. One of the responsibilities that I have here at the bureau is to coordinate the neighborhood emergency teams. Unidos, which is also part of the neighborhood emergency teams of Portland, or net for short. If you're wondering what the. Net program is, it's a group of portlanders that are trained and ready to respond during a disaster. And we often talk about earthquakes with the needle. So that's why we are here today. Next slide please. In this picture here is just a reminder to let us know that it doesn't matter how large an earthquake can be, it will still be somewhat impactful for us. Just last week we had an earthquake of 4.2 magnitude in tacoma area. And again, there were no significant impacts to that. But again, it's just a constant reminder to allow us to to remember that we are in an area that is prone to earthquakes. And that's why it's important that we keep our community prepared for this. Next, please. We're going to skip that one. Thank you. And right here, as you can see, this is the cascadia subduction zone, which actually goes along the Oregon coast. And it's exactly where two parts of the earth, the earth, meet. And that is actually not a good thing in my just cause, a very large earthquake eventually. And again, that's why that's another reason why we emphasize the importance of being prepared for earthquakes. Next slide please. Okay. And cascadia earthquakes have an average of every 246 years we had. We have documentation from our last one being back in January of the 1700s, which was approximately what puts us like 327 years. So we're a little bit behind on that. And the geologists predict there's a chance of 30% that we might have an 8.0 earthquake within the next 50 years. Fortunately for us, we have a great team of public engagement professionals from the city of Portland and around the region that work together to put this platform that it's resources and how to better prepare for an earthquake. And it also comes in different languages. And yes, thank you. Next slide. Public alerts. You will not only learn how to put a kit together, but you will also learn how to create a plan that works best for your family and your neighbors. Next slide. Well, it is important that we have the right plan and also the right supplies to survive during an earthquake. It is also important that we put these steps into practice, which is why it's important that we remember these three steps, which is drop, cover and hold on during and if and if you happen to be in a wheelchair or on a or in a mobility device, you will lack cover and hold on. Thankfully, here in Oregon, we have the opportunity to practice this together during the great Oregon shakeout. Now you may be wondering what is the great Oregon shakeout? Well, that's actually a drill that was designed, again for us to practice the drop, hold on and cover and hold on. And, and it actually happens every year. It takes place on October 15th at 10:15 a.m. So we'd like to invite you all to participate for this upcoming Thursday, October 15th at 10:15 a.m. So please join us for this drill. Next slide please. And most important, please take a picture of it. Post it online. Use our hashtag that we have 2026 or shakeout. This will help us bring awareness to our community and how to better prepare for these types of disasters. Next slide. And we also like to recommend that you download this app to your phone. This is an earthquake. Shakealert that basically what this does is that it senses the waves of an earthquake, and if it fits the right profile, it will quickly send a message out to the community. And this app actually reaches about 50 million residents and also visitors in the area of Oregon, Washington and california. And again, this is this is something to, to, to protect life, safety and our vital systems. Next slide please. And if you are a gamer, we also have lewis and Clark college and a few of our neighborhood emergency team volunteers that had the great idea of come up with this game called cascadia nine game. That is actually a place where you can practice as well. Your earthquake skills, you know, and what to do after an earthquake. And again, you can find that for free at cascadia. Nine dot and if you like a little bit more challenge and a little bit more hands on when it comes to practicing the skills, we also have the shaky grounds cafe that was also created for from one of our net volunteers. Again, this this is very challenging. I know jeremy already tried it and didn't do too well. Only about 72% of people are able to come up with the puzzles that they have in there, that every time that you solve this puzzles, you earn a supply to survive after an earthquake. So again, this is located in oaks park, close to the Sellwood bridge. And this is all from us. Well, thank you so much for allowing us to be here and talk about earthquake preparedness. If there are any questions, jeremy is here to answer those.
174 Thank you. I actually do have a question, but I don't know if there's no reason for me to think that any of you would particularly know the answer. Do we know how many homes in Portland are bolted to their foundations?
175 We. Excuse me. We don't have that information. That is information, though, that we are going to be soon asking our neighborhood emergency team volunteers to assess. We. We do also know when houses were built. And we can kind of infer from that what seismic codes they were subject to when they were built. So that can give us a shadow of an idea. Yeah.
176 For anybody. I can't believe people actually watch city council committee meetings, if anybody does. I mean, that's something that for a lot of houses, it can cost as little as 5 or $6000 to bolt the home to its foundations. It'll actually survive the earthquake. I think that in some places, there's a requirement that when a house is sold, it needs to be bolted down. And at that might be actually an idea that we might consider at certain point. But I just wanted to sort of put that I mean, there are some homes where it's really hard. I think actually one of our previous pbem directors took cost her $30,000 to build her home to its foundation. But it's, I mean, my, I did it in my home in Multnomah village, and it really was like 4 or $5000. So that's just something in addition to remembering to drop, cover and hold, that's something that just wanted to put on the table is a good idea.
177 Councilor Kanal first, thanks, everybody for being here. Anytime we get pbem, here's a good day. And I see, I think that's Jamie in the back and Dan as well. And I appreciate everybody back there for everything that you do as well. And I guess the two questions I had first, the shakeout is during a committee this year, it is during a committee, the whole that I'll be chairing. So I wanted to follow up with you about how you'd like us to, to draw attention to that in that context, because I don't know about maybe maybe your committee is not as as popular, but people do watch ours. I think people watch them both. But so I just wanted to flag that. And then did you say 50 million people have that app get the notifications? That's that's more than I expected. So I just wanted to make sure I heard that right. So thanks.
178 Thank you.
179 Any further thoughts suggestions? Well, councilor Kanal, since you hypothesized that maybe some people watch this committee, I suggest that we all take the opportunity to train for October 15th by dropping and covering ourselves for just just a minute.
180 Yeah, yeah.
181 One.
182 Is it over? We're coming.
183 Up on the top floor of this building on top of.
184 All right. Thanks, everybody.
185 Just fyi, I want to let you know we do have rooms for this as well in these chambers. So if you just can't make it underneath your desk, you can go into one of the rooms.
186 All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'm glad to know that we'll be, you know, doing the drop cover hold in the committee of the whole on the exact time. And could the clerk please call the next item?
187 Thank you guys.
188 Thank you. Item number four. Document number 2026-352. 2026. Fireworks season recap and enforcement presentation.
189 Good morning. I'm Dan douthett and I'm the public information officer with portland's public safety service area. Thank you for talking about fireworks this morning. I'm joined online, I believe, by deputy chief brian hughes with Portland police bureau and also fire marshal carrie schimmel is available to answer questions. I'll give you a brief overview of what the city has done over the past few years to reduce the impact of fireworks on the community, and then give time for chief hughes to discuss enforcement. Next slide. Fireworks are a seasonal problem around July 4th and somewhat around new year's eve. What is typically considered fireworks season begins several weeks before the 4th of July, and then continues into the days beyond the holiday. We know fireworks cause fires and injuries. This past July 4th, about 30 fires were attributed to fireworks in 2025, 27 fires were tied to fireworks. There weren't any injuries that were known in Portland this past year, but they happened around the region and we know in many years they do cause injuries. Locally. There are sometimes responsible for deaths. In 2021, an apartment fire in northeast Portland killed three people. Fireworks cause an increase in 911 calls. July 4th tends to be one of the busiest, if not the busiest days of the year at the 911 call center. This is a problem because it increases 911 wait times for people that are in urgent need of help and can potentially delay responders. Portland officially banned all fireworks in the city in 2022, including those that are considered legal in other parts of the state. Next slide. So fireworks are illegal, why are they still a problem? Well, despite the ban, fireworks remain popular throughout the region, including the ones that are illegal throughout the state. Policies differ in the region. Only a few places have similar bans to what we have in Portland. The last I checked, Vancouver and milwaukee have similar bans, but in neighboring jurisdictions it varies. The city has limited resources available, both for public education and enforcement. About more than ten years ago, Portland fire and rescue spent resources on education and leading up to the 4th of July, and this is between 2012 and 2014. Spent between 60,000 and $80,000 on advertising, and it had very little effect on the on changing the culture of fireworks in the community. Next slide. Aware of these challenges in 2025, a team of representatives from the public safety service area and 311 considered ways to reduce the impact of fireworks on the community. We took a narrow focus at looking at how do we reduce calls to 911? And by working with 311, we developed an online reporting tool and also temporarily expanded three one one hours on the 4th of July to help the public access the tool. The online reporting was intended as an option other than 911 to track fireworks, with a long term goal of identifying hotspots in the community that could help with possible education and enforcement. The information could also be available to investigators if fireworks caused a fire. I can tell you this past 4th of July, there were three fires investigated, but no fines as a result of a connection to fireworks. Next slide. The online tool has been in place for two years. Starting in 2025, we noticed improvements in both the 911 wait times and in a reduction in 911 calls. Between 2024 and 2025, the average 911 wait time went from 26 seconds to 8 seconds on July 4th. This past year, it went up slightly, but was still significantly lower than in previous years. The online tool wasn't the only factor, but it certainly helped. In addition to having more trained 911 staff, the support from 311 public education and a greater awareness of the total fireworks ban now that it's been in place for four years. Next slide. What's next? Well, we intend to continue promoting the online tool leading up to July 4th and around new year's eve. We now have two years of hotspot information from these reports. This data can be provided to police and fire if resources are available. That could help with enforcement efforts. If chief hughes is available online, like to give him a moment to comment on enforcement from pb's perspective.
190 Thank you everybody. Hi, I'm deputy chief brian hughes. For the record, Portland police bureau, I apologize. I can't be there with you today. I'm off site doing some training, but wanted just to weigh in on some comments here regarding the fireworks and enforcement of the fireworks ban. Of course, the 4th of July tends to be one of the more busy days of the year for the police bureau, but I want to recognize the harm done to the community with regards to fireworks. As been stated, numerous fires, the fire risk as well as just overall quality of life. We. We see so many illegal fireworks being lit off on that day and what we are looking at doing is, is redirecting resources, potentially canceling time off requests or not allowing too many people to have the day off there in order to really staff up our numbers, to be able to have the opportunity to engage in some of this work. So thank you for giving me a chance to speak on the matter.
191 Chief hughes, thanks for thanks for being here this last 4th of July. Was there any enforcement? Was anybody cited for illegal use of fireworks?
192 No, not that I'm aware of. I am not aware of any any happening this last 4th of July.
193 I realize that people are really busy, but has there been any communication to officers that if they happen to be actually driving by somebody using illegal fireworks and they're not on a time critical mission, they actually should stop and issue a citation?
194 No, not at this point. They always have the discretion, of course, to enforce any laws in the state of Oregon or the city of Portland, but no, no specific direction. And that would be something we would look to incorporate in 4th of July going forward.
195 I think I actually mentioned that idea to chief day, like before the last 4th of July in 2025. I mean, I think at this point, when there's no enforcement at all and people know that we might as well not have the law. So I understand that resources are limited, but I would hope that every year we could at least point to like 3 or 4 instances where people were cited so that the public would know there is some chance that you'll get cited. And if we don't start doing that, and if I happen to be still here in a couple of years, I think I might suggest we just repeal the ban because it's because it's pointless. And I have to say that I am do have some personal experience with this and that my dog, like many dogs, completely freaks out when there are fireworks in my neighborhood. The fireworks tend to go from 7 p.m. To 2 a.m. So in order to avoid seven hours of terror, I've been spending the 4th of July and new year's eve out of town. I realized that there's a lot more serious impacts of fireworks than a scared dog. But you multiply my experience by tens of thousands of other portlanders. And it is, I think it I mean, it's not as big a deal as, you know, violent crime, but I would hope that it's a big enough deal that we could at least make an effort to cite a few people a year.
196 No, I think you're spot on there. Councilor. Novick. I think it's incremental change. There's of course, those that may be hearing me speak today that would say, well, there's like a thousand people that are doing illegal fireworks all over the city. How are you going to, you know, select and decide who to enforce that on? And that's something as a police bureau, we have to be very careful about because, you know, if we're talking about, you know, an officer comes across somebody, you know, if they're driving in a in a specific neighborhood or they happen to be out there, like, for example, we'll put more officers kind of in the downtown core just for, you know, density of population than we would necessarily in Sellwood. So you'll have more officers patrolling the downtown that those some of those areas in the middle of downtown than you would in Sellwood. So they're, you know, they're depending on where that officer is in Sellwood. It's it's a challenge. It'll be a challenge to, to provide that kind of equitably around the city. And I think that might be something we would have to look at is, is, okay, who's getting a ticket, who's not getting a ticket? And when thousands of people are doing it, like I said, it's just we have to be careful of that. I think it's something I want to flag.
197 But what does that mean? I mean, obviously we can't. That doesn't mean that we can't do anything unless we can are able to cite everybody who's using illegal fireworks.
198 Well, it's incremental right? You know, you can't just throw your hands up in the air, I think, and just say, well, everyone's doing it. So we're going to do nothing about it. When you start making some changes incrementally. And, you know, like you said, people understand there's some consequences for for that. And, you know, we would, we would have no control over the consequences. Of course, that's, you know, we would just issue a citation and then it would be the courts to decide what the consequences would be. But it's that immediacy. You know, that chief day talks about that when you go out to the airport, for example, and see that the airport police have a police car sitting on airport way near cascade parkway, that you slow down, right? Because there's potential that you could be issued a citation if you go over the speed limit out there. And so I think the same applies here. You know, we start issuing some, some citations where it gets around and we start to slowly maybe change things incrementally. It's a it's, I think, I think it's worth trying.
199 Thank you. Any further questions or discussion? Councilor Zimmerman.
200 I guess I would just imagine that in those catastrophic stories where we, you know, hear of a of a single family residence fire, for instance, that the level of negligence goes up when in fact the firework was illegal to start with versus in the before era when it was illegal use and it still happened. And you can classify that as an accident, a reasonable accident before we had a ban. And I think that that is a is a deterrent for most well-meaning people, as well as like the consequences when something is, is illegal on top of, of the other, you know, catastrophic stuff. It's not actually the ticket, it's the responsibility thereafter, which for me, I think carries some weight. I've always thought that the ban was not very enforceable. If you just any drone footage over the city of Portland on 4th of July. I mean, it's a wonderful show. It's all illegal, right? But the the risk for those who do want to do the right thing, I think it has I think you have seen a decrease over the years in neighborhoods. In particularly our our dense. You know, I think about it wasn't that long ago. We had a fire right on alberta, right. The north, those dense neighborhoods. And I think that that has improved over the years, but certainly valid points in terms of how do we enforce and should we, you know, thanks.
201 I can mention just two other potential options that we haven't explored. One being to work regionally to see if we could align fireworks policies throughout the region and also explore legislative options at Salem, or I'm not sure what's available out there, but there does seem to be quite a supply of illegal fireworks throughout the state that are illegal everywhere. And I don't know if there's been any effort to look at what could be done to stop that, but those are not things that we have explored. Next slide.
202 Yeah, my instinct generally, as with as with drugs, my instinct is that reducing the demand is generally more effective than trying to constrain the supply. But if we're doing nothing, if the state's doing nothing to constrain the supply, that would be that would be nice for them to at least give it a shot. And by the way, I don't want to gloss over the fact that it is important to not overload the system with 911 calls, and the fact that we've made progress in that is commendable. So I appreciate that update.
203 I would just be cautious of going too far down a legislative path here. When you're when your neighbor jurisdiction has a whole different classification of fireworks, the term fruitless effort kind of comes to mind. So as long as Washington state is selling a whole brand of fireworks that are wholesale illegal in Oregon, it's a matter of it's going to happen. And it's like trying to stop water. So, you know, with respect to, you know, what is legal in Oregon, because most of the stuff we talk about that has caused problems in Portland, frankly, is not even what's legal in Portland in the before era. It's stuff that's coming across the the state border. So I wouldn't I wouldn't want to push too hard in some sort of grand plan to achieve nothing. That's kind of how I would think that the legislative intent would be. I also, you know, this is one of those where I want to be really respectful of the rest of the state and that the way our community is built up is different. And I don't want this presentation to be taken as any sort of advocacy, at least from my chair anyway, for a larger statewide ban, because I actually think it will have no impact on Portland, but it also would be another kind of Portland reach into other parts of the state and those communities who are still they're very much, you know, they still have shows and they still put on they still have fireworks. And it's part of the community. And it's not something to be afraid of. It's not something to walk away from. It's, it's, they're, they're good events. It just our city is differently built and dense and we've made a choice years ago. So I just think about that in terms of what our neighbors are and the likelihood of stopping stuff coming through is that's probably not worth the squeeze.
204 I instinctively tend to agree with that. I think the focus should be on seeing if we can enforce our own laws, rather than trying to figure out if there's anything we can do regionally. But I that might be a not an entirely informed opinion.
205 Can we end it with, again, a reminder tap, tap, tap, please. You know, limit who you call if you see illegal fireworks. It's not a not a moment for a 911 call.
206 Thank you. Yes. It's not a moment for a 911 call, but it's still something that I mean. Sometimes you can just ask your neighbors to stop and point out that it's illegal. I've actually done that with teenage kids in my neighborhood, and they were polite about it.
207 You get off your lawn.
208 To what? I just told them. My dog's really scared. And they're like, oh, okay, we'll stop. So sometimes that works. Thank you very much. And seeing no one else in the queue, we can give people back one hour in 19 minutes. And this meeting of the community and public safety committee is adjourned.