← Recent meetings · September 2026
The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-09-29
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (27,817 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.
Tue, Sep 29, 2026 · meeting length 3 hr 5 min · council salary-time ≈ $2,374
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
- The council held the first of two work sessions on the city's planned 2027 federal and state legislative agendas.turn 4 in the transcript ↓
- Government relations staff explained that their office does not set policy but instead helps build one unified city voice for lobbying in Salem and Washington.turn 5 in the transcript ↓
- Staff presented a draft 2027 federal agenda that keeps a balanced approach defending the city's values and authority while watching for new opportunities after the election.turn 16 in the transcript ↓
- Staff presented a draft 2027 state agenda organized around priority areas including local authority, transportation funding, and behavioral health services.turn 18 in the transcript ↓
- Some members said they were not given enough advance notice about pre-session bill deadlines and legislative days to help shape priorities beforehand.turn 77 in the transcript ↓
- The council's next and final work session on this year's legislative agenda is set for December 2nd, ahead of a later council vote.turn 187 in the transcript ↓
Where the council disagreed
Should the legislative agenda explicitly elevate behavioral health funding above the office's other stated priorities?
- One positionSome members wanted behavioral health moved higher on the priority list to send a clear signal to state lawmakers about the city's top need.turn 82 in the transcript ↓
- Another positionOther members said narrowing the agenda to a single priority like behavioral health would undermine other interconnected priorities the city also needs.turn 97 in the transcript ↓
Should the city support state legislation requiring anti-speeding technology devices for repeat traffic offenders?
- One positionSome members supported the proposal as a way to stop dangerous repeat speeders without taking away their driving licenses.turn 129 in the transcript ↓
- Another positionOther members opposed the idea, citing privacy and surveillance concerns that they said conflicted with other privacy positions in the same agenda.turn 157 in the transcript ↓
Should city-owned vacant industrial and commercial land be converted to housing use?
- One positionSome members wanted to convert vacant, unused city-owned industrial and commercial properties into residential housing to increase housing supply.turn 58 in the transcript ↓
- Another positionOther members opposed putting industrial land toward housing, arguing the city needs to preserve job-producing land for residents.turn 82 in the transcript ↓
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. Recording times are not stored for this session, so the links go to the transcript turn. 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 This is councilor Smith. I'm on line. Adam, can you let the clerk know that I'm online?
1 Aye, Morillo councilor Smith, this is rebecca. I'll make sure diana and chambers knows you're here. Thank you.
2 Perfect. Thank you.
3 Kick us off. Good morning. It is 934 on Tuesday, I believe. September 29th. We are opening this work session, and I am going to turn things immediately over to councilor Kanal, who the council president has asked to run our work session today.
4 Good morning everybody. Colleagues, today is the first of two work sessions on our 2027 federal and state legislative agendas. We're going to be hearing a presentation from our office of government relations and then moving into some questions. I want to start by just thanking director chase, evan, everyone from jack, everyone from ogr who has worked so diligently to prepare for today. We know that it is a difficult job to prepare a legislative agenda that has gotten more difficult as now you have to combine administration priorities, mayoral priorities, council priorities, and feedback from previous years and form one unified legislative agenda. Having said that, we also know that you did a really great job of it last year, got to a place where we could pass legislative agendas with a 120 vote, and I know we can come together this year once again to identify top priorities and advocate for portlanders in both Salem and dc. So the purpose of today's work session is to build towards focus, strategic, state and federal legislative agendas that reflect where there is shared interest across council, the mayor, and the administrative branch. So ogr is here with us today to first share more about the issues that were submitted through their call for issue sheets and other input, and to share preliminary draft agendas. The goal is not to finalize every single detail of the legislative agenda today. In particular, on the federal side, we'll have more to wait on, but it is to continue narrowing and strengthening the agenda so that by the end of this process in December, we have a clear set of priorities we can take to both capitals with a strong and unified city voice. A few weeks ago, we had a work session on behavioral health to tee us up, and today is the beginning of that larger discussion. So we have ogr has a presentation that's about 30 minutes long. The idea is to let them get through the full presentation, and then open it up to questions and feedback in about four categories. First is technical q&a, then discussing the sort of underlying principles, I think operating principles, vetting criteria, things like that. Then we'll do the federal legislative agenda, which we expect to be relatively short. And I'll explain why in a moment. And then the bulk of our time will be on the state legislative agenda. Yeah. Any questions on any of that before we get started? Director chase, the floor is yours. Thanks, everybody for being here.
5 Well, thanks so much. I'm sam chase, I'm the director for the office of government relations, and we'll introduce jack. And and we've got evan mitchell and jack arriaga, who we will introduce further in a moment. And so I'm just going to kick it off here and get going. I want to thank the council and the mayor and the administration and the subject matter experts. And the city folks have been, you know, in incredibly team oriented as we've worked through so many of these difficult issues that are part of this legislative agenda, and you'll continue to hear the theme that you always hear from us, which is when we we act collectively, when we act in a unified voice, we are so much stronger and more influential and powerful in our partnerships with the state legislature and, and federal decision makers. So. That we're okay. So just a quick review of the agenda. Here's what we're going to be going through today. There are three areas where we hope to collect more of your input and context as we go through this process. One is just around government relations operations. How are we working together collaboratively on government relations? How are we processing your decision making? How are we facilitating? How how is that moving forward? So that's one important bucket. And then we'll discuss federal legislative agenda. And that will probably be a little skinnier this work session, because we want to see how those results come forward in the in the election. And we'll have some updates and modifications in December and our December work session. So we're really leaning more toward the state legislative stuff, which has a tighter timeline right now. But nevertheless, it's all open for dialog, and we want to engage in all of it. The work session goals are here. We really the short version of our work session goals is to really understand are we getting it right? Did the do the materials that we've put together for the federal and state legislative agenda look like they're capturing the areas where there's some consensus among amongst council, the administration, the, the, the mayor's office, you know, are we aligned? Is the city aligned on the on these issues? And if so, we can we can continue to move those forward and start to work on some of these other areas where there's not as clear consensus. So we'll talk a little bit more about that. And then about government relations operations. Of course, we put a document in your packets around how we operate, and it's really more of a description of how we're currently operating. It's not a rule book, it's not a guidebook. It's what our understanding is of how we've collectively worked together on these issues. And it's kind of a right or wrong. That's how we're doing it. And we want to be transparent and showing you how we're doing it. And so, you know, welcome and appreciate any any communications there. So I want to be a begin with a clear explanation of how ogr works with this body. Our role is not to set policy. We're not policy makers. Instead, we facilitate decision making support, a balanced and transparent process, and communicate city priorities to our governmental partners. In fact, the more transparency, the better for us because then we know where we stand. I often say, I just need to know what to tell the team to go do down in the legislature, not to have them problem solve the the policy making per se, but to give you choices on where and how we can move forward on those, on those sticky issues that develop. We speak when we're working with the legislature by bringing folks down to testify, by engaging and communicating ourselves. We speak. We speak on behalf of the city. We do not speak for the city. We speak on behalf of the city. And I think that's an important distinction. We we continue to prioritize internal vetting, thoughtful issue development, consensus before taking external action. The city has significantly more influence. When we have that unified voice, transparency is essential. Early and frequent communication with us helps advance our shared priorities, avoid surprises, and ensure you have the information that you need. And you know, one of the things that we work hard to understand is your individual priorities and the priorities and interests of the bureaus and, and so that we can track and monitor those things. But, you know, the way that we operate essentially is that ogres resources are for the use of the city's collective action and unified action. And so that's a distinction that's different than working on individual issues that are emerging within parts of the city, that that may be building some momentum, but don't yet have the consensus or haven't yet made the case for significant significance that would really affect the city's ability to deliver services. So that's a distinction that we work with. At the same time, we work to try to understand what those those issues are and track and monitor. And we I think we've been pretty effective in being able to stay in touch with folks about issues that we know that matter to them most. You know, one of the issues I bring up often is, is education. One might say it's the most important issue of the day. You know, people have different perspectives that it is not that it's not on our agenda is not to say that it's not the most important issue of the day. For example, it is to say it's the direct relationship to the city's core business and our and focusing on our ability to deliver the services that the city delivers, provides. That's an example of where we work to try to prioritize with you. And I want to address kind of and get into something that's a little bit sensitive, which is there are times where there are strong perspectives about moving something forward that's not aligned with the city's agenda. And folks have independently elected officials. We we do not have any authority or interest in monitoring that, but our request is to work collectively as a city and to and to work with us when those issues come up that are. You know, driving your your interest potentially and going out externally. Can we help inform you about that issue? Can we help make sure that you have an understanding of where the city lies on that issue, where the legislators lie on that issue? And, you know, we do it in a way that we feel like we hope is really empowering your understanding of the issue and ability to work on it. And it's our motivation to do that because we want you to keep coming to us. And so, you know, it's really important to us that we're not breaking some trust by you bringing us an issue early on that you maybe haven't worked out with the rest of the city at that point. So I'm trying to say that as directly as possible, because I have that conversation a lot. And it's it's something where our staff are kind of sometimes in a tough position because we're trying to, to try to have everything work well oiled machine. And so when we have a certainty about where the city as a whole lands on an issue and we're and we're addressing an issue that's, you know, maybe part of the city or, or some are advocating it gets difficult. And, and, and we're happy to do the work. You know, if there weren't challenges, we wouldn't have jobs. But but I just want to state that that's something that we constantly want to keep working with you on. And the more we perfect that the stronger and more effective we are down in the legislature and at the federal level. Okay, I'm going to move on to share a little bit about the process. The process is a really important part of the transparency for us. So it's really an ongoing process. Every year we start over again and, and, and they blend into each other. But essentially, we kick off the annual process in about may and we ask for issue sheets. We had more than 100 issue sheets submitted. And and so that's what you're. And those get vetted over each with its own kind of little way of getting vetted over the summer. And we try to be as collaborative and inclusive as we can with all the interested parties in the city and go through that process and then, and then develop this first set of recommendations. That and the behavioral health work session was a part of that process to really flesh out a big, you know, priority. And so then we bring those and try to put those into the agendas in ways that provide a little bit of flexibility as these issues develop with legislative engagement over time. But we try to be inclusive. And then and then there are some issues that really don't filter onto this, haven't filtered onto this agenda. I think we're something in the area of 20 or so that aren't on there. And this is a tool. So, oh, let me just say, and then we're going to be coming back. So today we want to hear from you what's missing, what needs to be refined, what needs to be developed. We'll also be working with legislators to prepare for the legislature. And then we'll come back in December. I think it's December 2nd, another work session, and that will give us time, the two weeks time necessary to then file the agenda for your approval before the end of December, preferably the last sort of council convening before end of December. And then we'll have a legislative breakfast and we'll be off and running. The issue evaluation criteria is, I think, a emerged as a more and more important tool as we've gone through this process, I think it's really been helpful for us to have your clear sort of assessment, guidance on how to evaluate the issues and what are the core principles. I won't go through all of these, but I think, you know, some of the some of them are fairly self-explanatory. And of course, in your packet, there's a more descriptive review of these, these, these items. But you know, is this and this is intending to focus narrow our agenda to the point where we are really focusing on maximizing the city's impact, maximizing the work that we do to defend our local authority, you know, protect us from unnecessary regulation, protect us from unfunded mandates, but to really drive those core things that we need, and the more focused we are, the more effective we can be in those really big priority areas. And so we're, we're constantly looking to, to try to refine and do that work. So, you know, these are some of the examples. Political viability is an important one. Yes, that may be the right thing, but how viable is it? Is it is it something we take to the legislature now, or is it something that we work on over time and, and, and get some wins along the way, or build a bigger coalition so that we can go in and really resolve and address that issue once and for all, you know, issues like. You know, tax reform are ones that are very significant, but political viability is going to take some time to get there. City's ability to impact, is it something we are ready to actually go and move forward? Is it something that the city is is going to go ask our partners in the legislature to give us authority to do something, and we're ready to do it. They're going to give us money. That's going to be the shovels are are just waiting to hit the ground because of. But for their resources, those kinds of strategic evaluations. So certainly happy to talk more about that. But is there a clarifying question, councilor, that we want to address right now?
6 Yeah. Councilor. Koyama Lane.
7 Yeah, I just wanted to clarify and make sure that it's crystal clear what you're hoping from us and that making sure that I heard it correctly, that if we are going to testify in Salem for or against something, that we make sure we reach out to you, give you a heads up. And I've done that before. And usually you ask that, I just say I'm speaking on behalf of myself. Is that what you're asking for? Just want to make sure I'm.
8 Yes, yes. And, and thank you. And we really appreciate it. I mean, I want to say that the council has been really I mean, there are times where there's like not quite perfect, right? But honestly, it's been really quite good. And, and, and the partnership has felt so good with this council around that dialog. And so yes, that, that is it. And, and, you know, the sooner you can tell us you're going to go down and testify, the more information we're going to be able to get you and to share with you. And we might say, hey, this is going to be a challenge for us, you know, but but that's information that you still we respect your decision at the end of the day, whatever that decision is. And we really appreciate the opportunity to be able to give you our input beforehand. That's really that's really what it is.
9 I would go, hi, evan mitchell. I would go a level deeper and say that I often get text messages and phone calls and staff grabbing me in the capital saying like, hey, councilor Koyama Lane is here. What's she doing today? And so when you catch us by surprise, we don't look as organized and coordinated as we do or as we could, whereas I can say, oh, you know, she's planning on testifying on x, y, and z. And so it's really helpful for us because everyone has eyes on you all when you're down there and they're reporting to us and asking us questions about what you're hoping to accomplish.
10 And is that even if we're down there, like supporting with a proclamation, just not even speaking just there, you want us, you want to know when we're going to be in that building.
11 It's really helpful because it just, it shows that we know you're there. And then when people ask questions, we know. And then that shows that the city is coordinated and collaborative, and it empowers and helps whatever council might be down there to, to, to have the staff knowing and doing that. And then also there may be, even if it's a proclamation, I think it's less about what the technical issue of the legislation is, is about the, the public appearance and, and just being all on the same page.
12 That's helpful.
13 Thank you. Yeah, that's a great question. And thank you for asking, because just an important part of how we all work together. Okay. We're going to move on to the federal. Before I jump and toss it off to jack, I just want to share a little bit. You'll hear some more from each of them about the challenges. We know that there are big challenges ahead in the state legislature. We know that there are, you know, enormous challenges with the the h.r. One, the so-called big beautiful bill and the implications that have been delayed until January 1st so that they could get through the elections, that those are going to be, you know, very significant. The wildfire funding that continues to, you know, be a drag. Other significant and revenue issues. So a legislature that says, no new program, we don't want new things. And so it's going to be, you know, I would I would say the most difficult legislative session for this body since the great recession. And so when we are developing an agenda that has new ideas, I think it's. And there, you know, there always are. And that's understood. But it's going to be a challenge. And when we show that we're understanding the place where they are and that we're collaborators to help them problem solve by not bringing them a tremendous number of requests, but a targeted, focused set of requests. They lean into that and they feel like that's a partnership that is valuable to them. And it gives us a lot of power because Portland, again, is in kind of a unique place, which is, you know, we're not always the best spokesperson even for our own issues. So there's kind of just, you know, strategically there, there are some and partnership wise and collaboratively, we have kind of a different way of approaching some of the work. And so, okay, with that, I'm going to turn it over to jack arriaga, our federal relations manager.
14 Are we just starting.
15 And take it away?
16 Thanks. Good morning. Council again, for the record. Jack arriaga, federal relations manager so, in the face of a great deal of uncertainty at the federal level over the last two years, you know, we contend that the city has maintained a really strong posture of staying true to our values and mitigating successfully mitigating some of the most harmful threats and impacts coming from the current administration. That includes both to the city as an organization and to the community we all serve. At the same time, we continue to engage proactively with our congressional delegation, federal agencies and others to seek solutions to the city's most pressing policy and funding needs. So as we look ahead to 2027, I'm going to stay on the last slide for a minute. Thanks. I'll let you know. So as we look ahead to 2027, with control of congress potentially shifting in the upcoming election, we could see some additional engagement opportunities arising if the Portland area members of our delegation find themselves in the majority in either the house or the senate next year. And if democrats do take control of one or both chambers, they will almost certainly be focused on conducting oversight of the executive branch and trying to reclaim some of congress's power of the purse in deciding how federal funding is distributed. But a caveat that with the senate filibuster likely to remain in place and the supreme court largely aligned with the administration, congress's willingness and ability to exercise checks and balances on the executive branch next year will probably remain limited under any electoral outcome. So for the city's 2027 federal agenda, we're proposing maintaining a balanced approach that's focused on defending the city's values and authorities while working to advance priorities when those opportunities arise. So I'll briefly summarize the main policies and funding needs proposed by the initial draft 2027 agenda, and then underscore a few important highlights. So first, under the prevent federal overreach and protect targeted community section, the city is going to continue opposing any federal actions that infringe on the rights of those in our community, including immigrants, and defend the city's sanctuary status. As part of that, we're proposing expanded language, underscoring the rights of all eligible voters to cast ballots without interference or intimidation. We also continue to prioritize bolstering privacy discrimination protections and other rights under the strengthened civil rights and racial justice section. Recognizing
17 The challenging economic environment and increasing cost of living for residents. We propose ongoing advocacy to support economic stabilization and growth, including through workforce development. Small business supports, investments in arts and culture, and other community initiatives. As we work to reduce homelessness and increase housing stability, a key strategy will be advocating for expanded federal funding that builds on this year's passage of the 21st century road to housing act. And as we look to enhance community safety and behavioral health services, protecting the social safety net will almost certainly become a greater focus of our federal engagement in the coming year. As the government implements those changes that sam referenced to medicaid, snap, and other programs affected by the enactment of h.r. One. As we turn to the final three priorities, we've updated the infrastructure investment section in our proposed draft agenda to clarify that the city's priorities for the upcoming federal surface transportation reauthorization next year that is anticipated to advance in the coming session. We'll also continue to push and will also continue pushing to ensure climate and environmental justice despite heavy federal headwinds, by engaging in federal rule making processes as we've been doing, and leveraging what federal funding opportunities do remain available, including some of the tax credits passed under the the inflation reduction act. So as always, we'll also keep defending the city's local autonomy to control revenue, maintain, manage our operations, regulate how public spaces are used, including emerging technologies like ai and autonomous vehicles. So on the final slide, we've identified what we see as some of the city's top opportunities for federal engagement in the coming year. As I mentioned at the outset, this list may expand following the election, but it is unlikely to change drastically. But no matter, the outcome of the election, will remain focused on making progress and getting results where possible. Despite the perennial challenges at the federal level. So with that, I'll hand it over to evan.
18 Great. Good morning. For the record, my name is evan mitchell, state relations manager. I want to spend a few minutes talking about the 2027 state legislative agenda. Sam talked a bit about the legislative landscape, but I'll briefly add that this is going to be a long session. So we should expect a much broader range of issues than we saw during the short session session. The state's budget guidance specifically directed agencies to assume no new revenue. And similarly, legislative leadership has directed rank and file members not to ask for new programs with new funding asks. These dynamics will make it especially important that we're clear about our needs. And of course, there's no shortage of needs. Ogr received about 90 issue sheets from council, the mayor's office and bureaus. This gave us a broad picture of what people want the city to engage on, and our job is to distill that down into a focused, proactive, manageable agenda that gives us a framework to engage on the many, many other issues that will come up during legislative during the legislative session. So in your packets, you'll see the draft agenda is organized in two parts top legislative priorities, where we expect the city to engage proactively and areas of importance, which will guide our review of legislation introduced during session. Next slide please. This slide shows sort of the the top buckets of issues that we have laid out. There's a lot more detail in the agenda in the actual agenda document. I assume I'm going to assume that not everyone had a chance to read it and kind of walk through what's in those buckets quickly. So first, as we did in 2026, we wanted to elevate local authority as a core priority and the foundation for the rest of the agenda. As the state face faces continued fiscal pressure and difficult budget decisions. We want to be very clear about the city, about the importance of being able to protect the city's ability to govern, manage its services and respond to local needs. That includes protecting our local authority and local revenue, as well as avoiding unfunded mandates. This section also includes several areas where we're asking for changes in state law, like fixing public meetings law and protecting the the city's ability to run small donor elections. This is also one of the places where we call out the need for property tax reform. The common thread here is making sure that the city has the authority and resources necessary to deliver its responsibilities. Next is transportation, with a central focus on predictable, sustainable funding for local roads, operations, maintenance and preservation, as well as safety improvements and support for public transit. After the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions, we know we need to continue emphasizing the importance of the 50 3020 state, county, city highway trust fund distribution formula, particularly as legislators try to find creative ways to address odot's budget challenges. There are several other issues called out in this section, like adequately funding the maintenance of the state's properties and right of way within the city. Creating a dedicated funding source for the disposal of abandoned rvs, vision zero and traffic safety, including changing laws to target extreme repeat speeding and protecting our local authority and prioritizing safety. If legislators decide to take another deploying avs. Next up is behavioral health. This is another priority area based on council guidance and the discussion that we had a few weeks ago with health care, Multnomah county and local providers. As we discussed then, the focus is on improving access and throughput within the system. So preserving and backfilling regional inpatient psychiatric capacity, adding psychiatric respite and subacute capacity, and addressing reimbursement for inpatient psychiatric care. This section also calls out our ongoing work with oha to make medicaid reimbursement available for Portland street response and chad. Next is housing and homelessness. There's been a lot of talk among state legislators around which elements of the housing and homelessness continuum the state should continue to fund. So here we try to emphasize maintaining the individual pieces and continuing to build capacity, particularly around eviction prevention, housing stabilization, shelter, affordable housing production and preservation, and the infrastructure needed to support housing production. We've also worked with local affordable housing providers to make sure the agenda reflects some of their current challenges and needs. And once again, we've called for the mortgage interest deduction reforms, essentially ending tax deductions for second, second and vacation homes with the savings redirected to to housing. There is also some Portland specific asks in here, including final gap funding for the the broadway corridor housing project, as well as policies supporting adaptive reuse, land banking and a statewide rental registry. If that concept is revisited this session. The. The next up is the economic development section, which is framed around strengthening portland's economic base and the revenues that support public services. The draft includes state investments or continued state investments in industrial site readiness and brownfield cleanup, workforce development, support for the arts and small business, including protections from predatory lending products emerging in Oregon. One theme we heard in different ways across the city was that the state's economic development tools need to be clear, implementable and tied to measurable public benefits. This theme also comes up elsewhere in the agenda. Next is civil rights and access to essential services. This section brings together civil rights, privacy, due process, election security and continued work to protect access to sensitive places like schools, school busses and courthouses. Amid ongoing federal immigration enforcement action. It also calls out sustaining state investment in legal aid for immigrants and refugees. The overarching goal is protecting our constitutional rights and the ability the state and local government to respond to federal actions that conflict with oregon's laws or constitutional protections. Large load development and data centers is a distinct priority this year because it was raised by many of you, and it's an area where the legislature is working on policy for 2027. The draft focuses on the major questions around these developments, transparency and negotiations and incentives, measurable community benefits, infrastructure, electricity and water capacity, ratepayer impacts and preservation of local land use authority. And finally, climate infrastructure and resilience brings together several areas where we need ongoing state partnership. This includes continued state focus on safety at the cei hub, completion of the major flood safety work happening along the columbia river. Policies that address climate impacts like making large polluters contribute to their damages. And supporting. Distribute distributed solar technologies like balcony solar. Amending the recycling modernization act to defend its long term effectiveness, as well as making progress toward an Oregon transmission authority. The common thread here is practical state partnership on risks and infrastructure that are too large or interconnected for the city to address alone. Next slide please. Finally, the agenda includes areas of importance. This section is intended to guide our bill review once session begins, when thousands of bills will be introduced, that will need to be evaluated for their impact on the city. It captures many of the themes I already talked through, but also makes sure that we don't lose sight on other areas of municipal responsibility like community safety, government operations, and parks. I also want to be clear that not every issue we received is in the agenda. At this point, we received about 90 issue sheets, and there are 20 that are not yet on the agenda because they either didn't meet the agenda development criteria. Sam talked about, or they need additional work that should not be read as a decision, that those issues are not important and shouldn't be included. Rather, this draft is a starting point for identifying where we currently have sufficient clarity and alignment to be proactive. Our goal today is to make sure we're heading in the right direction and are appropriately identifying the issues where there is consensus. We can keep working to develop the remaining issues as we work toward bringing you the next version in early December. With that, I'll hand it back over to sam.
19 Thank you. We are ready to get into discussion. I will just share. Just clarification. We win 90 state issue sheets submitted and 15 federal. So we had just over 100 in total. And so now I'm going to open it up. And here are some of the questions that we've put on the table, but would love to take any any questions or comments context and really ready to open it up. And I'll let councilor Kanal do the facilitation.
20 Thanks, everybody. So we've got time for across the multiple sections of this, everyone to have 8 or 9 minutes per councilor as we go, and there's a few folks absent, so it might end up being higher if we need to. We'll take a break. When we get to about 11:00, give or take. As I mentioned up at the top, the idea was to start with technical q&a, and then we'll get into anything specific to the the evaluation criteria. And then we'll do federal and then state. And the reason for that is because the state will take the longest. And so that was what was requested by staff on that piece. Obviously, the lines are not 100% clear on that. So just wanted to to sort of lay that out before we get started. Councilor what.
21 Do you mean by technical versus what?
22 If there's something you'd like to see change in the agenda, or I'd like to give advice on the agenda that wouldn't be considered. Technical q&a. Councilor Koyama Lane question earlier is a good example of technical in the sense of what's your ask of us, or what does that mean, that sort of thing. If you'd like to, you know, if you have kind of a combination, it's okay to wait. We've got time today, so we should be able to get through everything. Look, look, I have a question as well.
23 So would you like us only in the queue if we have technical questions right now?
24 You can stay on the queue. I'll just come back to you. If we.
25 Can make it easier, I'll get out. Yeah.
26 Okay. We'll go to councilor Clark and then we'll go to the next part.
27 Thank you. I'm sorry I was late this morning. I had a flat tire. I had to go to les schwab. I'm not sure this is technical or not, but I was really around the concept of prioritizing. And I know with 4000 bills that you're going to be running around like chickens with your head cut off, but it might be helpful for me. I don't know about other folks to try to sort these issues between what are generic, that are always going to be on our list, always with, you know, other cities, the other 240 cities across the state, which would to me would be preemption, no mandates without funding those kind of fundamental issues that will always be on our list versus what our current priorities right now. And I think we've talked as a group about behavioral health being at the top of the list. Now we know that transportation is supposed to come back. So how we parse out those priorities and make clear that some are always going to be there, some are, you know, germane to what the legislature needs to pick up, like the transportation package. And some are unique to the times, which would be the behavioral health. So just how we sort through that. I'd just like to have you talk a little bit about that because it's helpful. We're all we're always going to have a certain priorities, but some are just timely. Can you address that?
28 So I'm going to hand it over to evan and jacques for any comments on that. But I, I, I will say it is an area where there's some gray. I mean, there is not a clear cut. There's no playbook that's clear. And so what we try to do is every cycle kind of have this cycle where we're just setting the new agenda and modernizing it. And that is our agenda. And some of the things may be a little more generic transportation. You know, preemption in general. And so some of those things are developing. And so we have to know those are priorities that, hey, we need to stay very closely connected with you all around. Where are we going to go with that issue that that emerges as it comes forward? There are some issues, as you say, we're aligned with a bunch of others and kind of always on there. If something comes up, a preemptive, you know, thing that comes up, you know, we know those other coalition partners are going to be also on board with that. But but, you know, when it comes to climate, when it comes to transportation, when it comes to homelessness and housing, yes, those are always going to be on our agenda. But we're refining about how and, and where we focus in on, on those, those, those core areas.
29 So will you.
30 Be coming back with a resort of those or resort of those?
31 I don't know that we'll be coming up with a resort of the priorities, but we will. I mean, those are the buckets that we will be bringing in all of those areas. We will be bringing back. Those will be focus areas that will be staff assigned specifically to making sure they're tracking and monitoring those areas. So, you know, that's and then we're going to have our sort of regular cadence of engagement will go to heads of staff meetings. We go to city leadership meetings, we will go to and have briefings, as we've had in the past for council, where we have regular briefings during session. It will be much more frequent, but we want to do that, even leading to sessions so that we have opportunities to engage with you on these issues as they're emerging in real time. It's it's it's always a struggle because sometimes real time is like 24 hours. And so then we try to reach out as best we can to collaboratively, but at least then we try to reach out in a way that is working with the trusted leaders in the city to help us, you know, identify a move forward quickly. If, if we feel that there is not consensus or we're not moving in a way that feels right, we take that extra step to reach out even further to council. So that's sort of an example of how we might tie into that. But I'm going to see if you guys have anything to add.
32 Yeah, it's a great question, councilor Clarke. And we think about this a lot. I would be happy to sort the issues into some buckets for you. So you can kind of see how they fall. Most of the issues on our agenda have some sort of coalition that has formed around them. And if not, it's usually really hard to carry that ball forward. Each one, I would say, has certain elements that become Portland specific. You know, for instance, we're really leading the charge in terms of of conversations that we have with other cities around avs, because waymo wants to start here. And so it's most urgent for us. And so we've been listening to you all and trying to figure out like what direction you want us to have, and then also engaging other cities in that work. Behavioral health is another area where we've been really deeply involved with healthshare and the county, trying to, to kind of figure out what we can all advance together. Public meetings. Law is another area where like llc is technically leading the effort, but they need cities that are pushing forward and providing examples. And so I've been really active, actively involved in that work for the last couple of years. There's other agenda items that are really specific to Portland, like right of way funding for ODOT in Portland. There are a couple. Slowly, we're seeing other cities starting to complain about kind of how this work gets done and how effectively it's done. But really, it's been Portland out in front, leading that charge for the last 5 or 6 years. You know, other areas. I am very nervous about where the state is heading on shelter and and rent assistance. We've already seen big cuts to rent assistance. The co-chairs are now saying, shelter, we don't want to fund it. It's not state business. And so, you know, those are areas where we're going to we're going to have coalition, but we're also going to have kind of a unique voice, given how many shelter beds we operate. Given the importance of rent assistance on moving people out of shelter. So those are just a few examples, but I'd be happy to sort of sort all the issues to make it clearer. What's like supporting coalitions, for instance? You know, there's a big coalition growing around make make polluters pay, which is essentially asking polluters, asking large corporate polluters to contribute to the damages that they've done. We're not going to lead that effort. We'll show up and be supportive and help and mention it in meetings, but probably won't spend an extensive amount of work until the coalition tells us they need help with something. Our delegation isn't going to be the problem with that one. So happy to to do some more sorting and talk.
33 With you. Thanks, evan. I since you mentioned autonomous vehicles, I'm just going to take the opportunity to note that on page one of your the long form that you put together, you talk about preemption as a number one fundamental. But then under safe and predictable transportation system, you have a bullet that calls for the safe, predictable state policy for autonomous vehicles. I just want to flag that because the public works committee is taking that issue up. And to try to combat preemption, we're going to work on coming up with our own ordinance. I don't I don't remember if we talked about that, but just so you know, there's sort of a conflict here. If we lose out, I think your bullet, you know, is is well stated. But just a heads up that they're we're working on that.
34 Yeah. And we've been watching your your committee meetings and, and definitely plan on tailoring that, that item right now. My goal was to signal to waymo that if they plan on bringing legislation back, that it better include some basic stuff like insurance standards and how these vehicles interact with emergency vehicles. Certainly maintaining our own infrastructure. But I definitely recognize there's a conversation happening here that we need to make sure the agenda reflects.
35 I know I.
36 Verged into the substantive from a technical, but just since you brought it up.
37 Well, I just would add, I think that's a great example where some back and forth with our legislative allies also is helpful in having them see the work that you're doing and learning from how you're evaluating and processing your decision making around waymo or autonomous vehicles, and for them to be able to learn and benefit from that is going to help empower our team, but also empower the legislature to to make better decisions to, to be well informed in their decision making.
38 Well.
39 If we can actually succeed and prevent preemption on autonomous vehicles will be the first in the country. So thank you. That's the end of my questions for now.
40 Thank you, councilor Clark. We'll go to councilor Zimmerman and councilor Smith.
41 Thanks. I guess I'm looking for a little bit of advice in one area. This seems kind of like a standard block of platform, and I'm not feeling particularly standard. So I it is it's a kind of a second tranche to councilor Clark's questions, which is if we come in with our same old thing, but we just also added behavioral health. I don't think that that's particularly impactful. Kind of seems like a waste of a year, frankly. So how. If we have those, those standard things, I guess I'm like, yeah, okay, but how do we send a message in Salem of like, no, no, no, of course we care about transportation. Of course we care about preemption. We are here. We are not screwing around. And we are talking about this topic more than any other topic, whatever that might be. I guess I'm trying to understand how to craft that. This is new for me in that sense, because. I guess I, I have an idea how to rally around a big idea. I don't know how to rally around this extra idea who's in a pot with a bunch of extra ideas who've been there for 15 years. That's what I'm trying to understand a little bit.
42 I really good question. And I think that gets into some of the nuance about kind of how are we processing with you, and then how are we interfacing with our legislative allies and, and the legislature? And this is a document that honestly probably gets read here internally. You know, I'm vigorously by the council strong, you know, but but I am. Like for behavioral health, for example, we would we would go down on a behavioral health topic and that would be a topic in itself. There might be a, a one pager about behavioral health that's actually fairly concise and short that legislators will be able to process in a short amount of time, holding hands with the county, holding hands with the behavioral health region, other jurisdictions from throughout the region, building that coalition. And then that is its own kind of priority topic that we work on. This is this is like our guidebook. And then we have all of that list of those 105 issues, you know, that are very specific about what we want to accomplish. So we are able, we are able to say to our team, we need to get x, y, and z done. And, and they get a sense from this like, hey, we're in the right direction doing that work. That's what this really is for us to be able to make sure we're collecting what your intent is. But then with something like behavioral health, or if the, the 2030 split for transportation is getting, you know, or somebody coming after that, there's a preemption developing on something that takes away your decision making. We're going to mobilize, and that will be the thing, but we're not going to be going in and handing. This legislator wants to see it. Great. We love that conversation. But it's it's a much more focused interface that they see from us when they're legislating during the session and preparing.
43 Okay. I want to put up maybe finer point on your question. The agenda. It's virtually impossible to make all of you happy. I think we should just say that like the bureaus, the administration, the mayor's office, you all like it. We have to be broad to make everyone happy. But when it comes to our legislative communication, that's when we, I think, have an opportunity to tailor. And so I've been thinking a lot about how do we roll this agenda out with our legislators. Once you all approve it, what is the legislative breakfast look like? Is there a press conference? Is there like, how do we tell the story about the state leaving us high and dry on behavioral health and shelter and housing programs? And I think that's where we have an opportunity to, to lean in on those issues. Obviously, we care about transportation. We've been really active and involved, but part of it is also you all telling us and agreeing, like, if you want behavioral health to be the number one focus, I'd love to hear that from your colleagues and have that direction coming from you all because that helps empower us when, you know, bureaus are asking, well, why isn't my thing getting getting the most attention or the mayor has questions.
44 Takes me to my next question I'd like to get a sense for as I go through all these, these submissions on the pages with the yellow headlines. I'm going to pull out just one as an example. But there are dozens and dozens of examples where this would would be the case. While digital equity is important, and I appreciate that bts put something forward. I swear to god, if you spend five seconds on that that you could have spent on mental health, I'm going to lose it. And so it's not that we disagree with digital equity. It's what do we want to spend our time on and our resources on? And maybe I'm thinking of it wrong in that we have a a Portland bucket in Salem. And once we hit the top of it, we kind of they give us our fill and they move on to the next folks. And I kind of am thinking of it that way. So my technical question to kind of how did these bureau items raise to the point of being in front of us? Were they already vetted at the administration and mayor's level to say, yes, we want those to go forward, or are we in the popcorn mode of bureau? Good idea. Fairies.
45 So we are I would say it's it's a tradition that has moved forward over many years where we've really collected from the bureaus and the, you know, council and the mayor. And when we're asking bureaus for information, we are expecting that that is. Those are priorities not of some individual in the bureaus. Those are we we look at their work as in interpreting and implementing the will of the elected leadership, the policy makers of the city. And so we expect that when something like digital equity is being presented, that that is in line with the desire of the city to move forward. Now, the size and scope of that compared to others is important.
46 So I should read that as of all the things that bts could put on the agenda, they chose that there are 5 or 6 things. One of them is going to be that.
47 There are. It may be that many of theirs, if not all, got on. That doesn't happen in every case because we still run the. The filter and the about pl viability impacts the city. Those factors, the the point about it, it's hard to make everybody kind of, you know, is one that I think actually what I'm hearing from you is. In line with my perspective, which is compromising by just putting it all on. There is not the best strategy. We continue to want to focus and narrow, but there are issues that come up, digital equity issues or other issues that come up. And we we know there there's some impact to a bureau. And so, you know, we try to put the things that we think have political viability and, and match those criteria in, in the priorities. But then we have a whole lot in the areas of importance. So we put a lot into areas of importance that we track and monitor. And as those things develop, we can we can engage more in those.
48 Okay. And don't get me wrong, I just use that one as an example, right? I've worked on that issue. I continue to support it. But what I'm trying to get a sense of is, has some level of choline already occurred at the administration, or are we getting everything that left the dca level.
49 Dcas sign off on the ask of the bureaus?
50 All right. So this is a dca level. No no cut down above dca has happened yet. And that's part of what today is about with these lists. Because they say they're not part of the agenda. They're just concepts. I'm just trying to get a sense for where's the funnel stopped. And it sounds like it stopped at the dca level. And now it's to collectively administration and council. Is that fair?
51 Yes, yes. This is us to say, hey, are we getting this right? And is is there too much in here? I think that's a that's a excellent point to be bringing up. And if there are things, you know, where we're getting some feedback to say, hey, check the boxes next to these items. These are super big priorities for us. Or, you know, put a minus next to maybe less of that's needed, but it's very welcome, a minus next to this or that. But you know, we're really here to say we're really searching in these conversations with you, the behavioral health conversations, the conversations we're having with the mayor, administrator, council, we're searching for what are the things that are rising to the top rather than looking so much for you to, to, to take things out. But where are we continuing to have our biggest priority focus? And so the way more in the center than the digital equity stuff, but there may be some fairly viable options to pursue on that.
52 Okay. Thank you. I'm just like I said, I'm just trying to get a sense for how to form this and how to be impactful this year, because I am so tired of status quo in terms of our legislative agendas and I mean ours, the collective cities across oregon's legislative agenda. So this is helpful. Thank you.
53 Thank you. Councilor Zimmerman will go to councilor Smith then. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
54 Thank you, interim chair. Thank you, sam, for for bringing this forward. My my technical question is, did we put in any pre-session bills?
55 Do you want. Yes. We did not file any specifically for the city. We worked with various legislators on a number of them and and made sure there were placeholders. But we don't have any of our own like city of Portland bills right now.
56 Okay. So those those those pre session placeholders, do you have them recognized in this report so that we know what those are separate from the bigger list.
57 They are represented on the agenda. But no.
58 So I think that's important from a technical standpoint. It's me and you've been talking about a pre session bill that I've been working on that I have a placeholder on with senator dick anderson from lincoln city. And what we're trying to do is identify property, and something's going to go through the public works committee that me and councilor Clark are working on when we get the assets, all of our assets, because what we're trying to do is increase the amount of housing in the city of Portland. One of the ways that we can do that, we believe, is that city properties that are vacant, that are not being used, that are not on the tax rolls, that we can turn those over from light industrial commercial into residential. And so, senator dick anderson is the vice chair of the housing committee. So he put a placeholder bill in for me in regards to this, this whole housing thing that would allow cities by ordinance to to follow a public hearing of their own after this is after this is done, to be able to identify properties in the urban growth boundary that we can use for residential use. Now, some of this, it will limit the contact that will have to review this. And if you put this language in, they will not be able to. Yes. Thank you. They will not be able to stop it. So we're trying we're actually working backwards. And I think that from a technical standpoint, we should have had two lists. We should have had a list that we could do. Pre session with the pre-session bill started in the first week in September, and I don't think we were we were asked about any of those and I knew about the process, but I just went ahead and started working with senator anderson over the summer so that he could put that in one of his committees, which generally. On the policy side, if you. Those things that go in pre session are the things that are going to go, not things that we put in in December. They know that those are the priority things. And that's why I asked, is there a separate list for the pre-session things that we are having placeholders for that we should know about? Because this big list, I'm like, Eric, it's it's like overwhelming. It's not getting to the point because when you ask other cities, they say, what is your big priority? Tell me your top three, what are your top three things that you guys are going to be fighting for? You know, you usually fight for something for a bigger like behavioral health in general. And then you have a couple of things that specifically that you want. You either want policy things or you either want money things. So I, from a technical standpoint, what would help me? What are we fighting for under these issue areas? Is that under policy or money and how much what are we fighting for? I just need to know what that is because looking at this big list, it is way too much and it is not going to give us the power that a city of our size can have. When people start saying, oh, Portland is coming in hard for x, y, z, not all these 100 items. I know it's tough to manage all of us, but I think we have to have a little bit more strategic narrowing of what we're doing. And everybody has an idea, and everybody can go down to Salem and testify on their on their favorite bill or whatever. And I like to be able to coordinate. I always do that with you, but I think it's very important from from the standpoint that we know what the policy issues are, that we supporting what the money issues are and what are the ones on the pre session. I didn't get a chance to, to do this because we didn't have a system set up for council to talk about pre-session bills. It's only on the under the big bill. So it's it's kind of a moot point.
59 Let me jump in here and then turn it over to evan. I think the I'm encouraged by the kind of communication we're getting around, being focused and prioritizing and like, let's really, I think this session, more than any other session that we've been or certainly since the great recession, is going to be one where we're going to need to be hyper focused. I would say I kind of look at this as somebody who I'm not an expert. I'm going to admit this here. I'm not an expert in the legislature, in the legislative strategy and how to, you know, position everything moving forward. That's why I really rely a lot on evan and the team. And we have our contract with thorn run. And and of course, a team that's down there. And so I, I, I'm always a little bit surprised at how few bills we're filing and how many bills that we're putting in before sessions, because there's so many different avenues to get that work moving forward. Right. And so we, we've focused, I think this, this conversation has, you know, three elements federal agenda, state agenda. And then our operating and our operating is really what I think of as like, what's our strategy? How are we working with you all in terms of strategy, but we're really focusing with the agendas on policy. What is it you want me to tell them to go get done? And then I kind of just tell them, go get this done. Okay. And, and, and they identify what those best strategies are super happy to I mean, we have a lot of expertise here in legislative advocacy. And so, you know, consulting and engaging you on that is very welcome. But that's kind of we've really approached this as what's the policy? What is it you want us to get done? Now I look back and I think the narrowing of it helps a lot because this team does a lot. And it there's so much behind the scene. So but what I would say is, you know, look back at some of those reports that we do end of session reports. And there are a huge number of deliverables. And, and, and so we don't need to be in a place where we're just getting the big stuff done because we can get the big stuff done and some of the other things done. And we're able to. I think if I look back at the last sessions and what the team has done down in the legislature, I don't think there were any issues that didn't get through or didn't get where they needed to go because of lack of capacity or attention of our team to be able to deliver.
60 But there were some that did not get through.
61 Yeah. And that and that that will happen again. And but, but but I think that this team is always looking to balance and it's great to be getting input where, hey, those those issues aren't quite as important as the. And so that's the, that's what we're going through here is to try to really understand what are those really core priorities. Yes, there's a big list and we can keep things on the big list. But but what are we really driving. And, and I think that's, that's the key that we want to understand. And then happy to also discuss more the strategy. But that's just right or wrong, how we've kind of approached it.
62 And I think it's very important. So I think from a standpoint of it's 12 of us, right. And so when I used to do advocacy work down in Salem, what I would do with the folks that I was working with, I would say, here's the deadline. It's four weeks in or whatever. If you don't have a hearing by this date, your your bill is dead. I think you need to treat us like a individual, like, like a client of sorts. And tell us in the beginning, when we first start session, here's where we got to be. If this bill doesn't pass out of this hearing, our priority bills, it's dead. Because people don't know that. They're still thinking that bills are still alive, that that don't have no shot at coming because they died. They didn't even get a hearing. They didn't even come out of hearing. If you do that from a technical standpoint to us, just send us a, a white sheet and say, okay, here are our bills that are that are coming up. It's in x, y, z committee. If it doesn't come out of here, it's dead. Now we're down to this number of bills. And I've I'm telling you, the most success that I've had with advocating for bills and money down there. I've gotten pre-session bills and I've had pre conversations with chairs of committees and getting other folks on board who sit on those committees. And so for me, it's just, it's hard to sit here and then hear you say in December, by December things are done.
63 So. Councilor Smith, I want to talk more specifically about this. I was horrified when I came to the city and learned our agenda setting process, and that we didn't have you all weighing in by the pre-session filing deadline. So I spent my first two years trying to get the agenda setting process to speed up. What I learned through that is that between the budget setting process and the end of that, you all don't have time to give us the information that we need to have pre-session especially when they move it up to the beginning of September like we did. So what we've done, and I'd be happy to sit down and walk you through this, is we went and we looked at, you know, what do we think the highest priority issues are? What do we think? Like who's working on that already? And we went and we talked to legislators about those items and made sure that there were bills that would be in the stack that could become the thing we need it to become. If you all choose to.
64 You took our job away, which you did.
65 But that's why.
66 We're doing.
67 That's why we're doing this.
68 I want you to understand this seriously. You took our job away because you don't think that we can do a budget and identify priorities at the same time, and that's not true.
69 I tried.
70 No, no no no, that's that's that's.
71 How.
72 I got it from you.
73 I want to make sure they had a chance to answer the question.
74 I just want to I think that the, you know, we're trying to communicate as best we can. It was very challenging to engage during the budget session. I'm not saying that if this council wants to make that a priority, that absolutely we are available as much as needed. We love the interaction as much as we can get. So I just want to I just.
75 Want a choice. That's all I'm asking you. Just give me the choice.
76 We moved. We set this process up and this extensive. There was never a process before. I mean, well, there always has been a process, whether it be okay. But but our intention was to try to engage like we are trying to engage as early the may deadline for issue sheets. We're trying to engage as early as possible and create enough time to really vet and discuss and engage individually with council members collectively. You know, we want to have briefings where we're available to council members and and staff going to heads of of staff going to be as communicative and and briefings during session and then highlighting things that are coming up flagging and, but we're not saying December is like when it happens, we're doing that work now we're talking we're going to legislative days. We're talking to them about this gray area of trying to help identify issues for them as we're preparing them with you, because we're going on a cycle from last year's. We have last year's agenda. And so we're cycling that and modernizing it every year and going through that cycle. I am, I am, you know, if we are taking some of your job away from you, that is not our attention and we don't want to do that, that that is we're trying to be as transparent, open as we can. And it if we can do a better job of making sure you're getting some of that strategic information, those timelines beforehand, I hear that and we don't we don't want you feeling like that. And so I think we can kind of think about how we adjust and make sure that we're plugging those pieces in as in timely a way.
77 Just to note that says, okay, we have pre-session filing coming up. We got ledge days coming up in September. Everybody doesn't know that. You assume that we know it and we don't. Yeah, as a group. So we got ledge days. Are there some things that we need to get in on pre session? Boom. That's just so simple.
78 Let's make sure we're doing that. Thank you. Let me let me do this is appropriate. Does everybody get our intergovernmental update. If you're not getting those intergovernmental updates which come out that's separate than the communications we send to council. That's just our regular newsletter. Just flagging that that that sometimes one doesn't know who's getting it or not. So I'll just flag that. But councilor Super happy to sit down and share a little more detail and then also be working toward how do we communicate that better out to council and mayor and administrator as a whole?
79 Perfect. Thank you.
80 Thank you.
81 Thank you, counselor Smith. So before I move on, I'll be councilor. Pirtle-guiney. And then Green. Before that, I just want to note, we've kind of combined three of the categories. It seems like or at least two of them. I think maybe it might be helpful to say there's these framing questions that you can see up on the screen here, but there's also the idea of start with your technical stuff, but there is also going to be clearly some connection between that and the, the criteria, as well as at least the state agenda. If you have federal things, we imagine that that jack will be neglected a little bit on this one, but we also want we do have another work session on this for the federal. So anything that's federal coming up that you know now should be mentioned today, but we will have a chance and I believe late November or December is our other session after we know what the congressional landscape will look like post election day. Okay, I'm going to move on to councilor. Pirtle-guiney. And then. Councilor Green.
82 Councilor Kanal. My plan is to ask a few technical and big picture agenda questions here, and I will get back in the queue for some smaller item specific comments that I have on both agendas right after others have a chance. And I will break that. Just to say, since it came up from councilor Smith, I will not be supportive of us having an agenda that includes moving industrial land to housing land. We need good jobs for all of the people who we know we need to build housing for also. So if that does become an ask to put on our agenda, please make sure that comes to the full council so I can make a pitch to my colleagues to not lose our job producing land in our city. We don't have a lot of it. I am wondering if the order on this sheet and I know the the issue areas are just or the areas of importance are alphabetical, but the order of the agenda, does that influence the order of priority for you all? And what I'm thinking about is how are we sharing with legislators? These are the things when push comes to shove, when the legislature says to us, we don't have a lot of capacity left, where do you want your money going? How are we showing from the very start where we want our money going, and I will jump to the ask here, which is I want to make sure that our agenda is very clear that if we have limited dollars, we want dollars into behavioral health. So do I need to ask you all to move behavioral health from number three to number two? I assume it shouldn't be number one, because that preemptive piece is so important. Do we need to shift the order there or is there some other you talked about future documents you're making where we are showing here are the proactive things that we are actively pushing for, as opposed to the things on the agenda that are more reactive, right? I know that in some ways, this is a document for us so that we all know what you're doing, but I want to make sure that we are somehow showing early on. When push comes to shove, we must get the money here, or this is what we're proactively doing. The rest of this is critically important, but it's how we respond to other things. Where does where do we show that.
83 Oh, I will.
84 Just say that I think if if there are other ways that this council would like to organize these priorities, I think, you know, perception or not, the order is important. And and so that would be welcome. I think that. Your other. Well, so.
85 I would I would be happy to jump in. I think what we're hoping to hear from you all today is your reflections on the agenda. And what I'm hearing thus far is less is more. We want to prioritize behavioral health and money to behavioral health. One of the things that we think about a lot is color and money and what, what happens with money. And so we think about the buckets of funding, the sustaining of, of existing budgets and continuing service levels. You know, we're also going to be thinking very, very soon here about the governor's recommended budget and what we want to ask her to put in her budget. We're thinking about, you know, one of the things we think about as our lottery fund asks, and only having maybe one for the city, since it's a small and diminishing pot of funds. And so that's the point of this conversation. If you all want us to delete everything except for behavioral health. I mean, we'll have to talk about that. Like, but that's what we're looking for is your guidance on how you want us.
86 And I don't want us to delete everything. I do think having the full document is important. I think it's important, like I said, for us to be able to see where how are you going to react to things? Because for for the city of Portland, the reactive agenda, I think, is also incredibly important. I just want to make sure we also either that we also have somewhere that shows top line proactive here are our priorities, or we get into the conversation about the ordering of the buckets here, which I hesitate to bring up because I know we can get really nitpicky if we do that, but somewhere I still believe we we talked about last year, should we have a single ask for behavioral health? I don't think you can get us to say yes to a single ask, but I still believe that that should be like somehow shown as, hey, legislature, you're not used to us asking for this. We know there's a lot that the city needs, but actually, none of those other things will matter if we can't do this.
87 I think those are things that we can also address. And we kind of do a often a cover memo or letter that goes with it. And where we really drive home those, those, those even more top priority. And so that's a place where we can try to articulate that in an even better way. I do think evan's point about color of money is a really important one, because nobody's saying, hey, Portland, you get 100 million bucks how you want to spend it. Nobody's saying that. They're saying get 50 from here. And, you know, hey, you know, we want to hear what you think about the housing and homelessness, you know, continuum and, and the, with that committee. And they're thinking all about that, those legislators or, you know, and we can say behavioral health is this priority. And we can we can find ways to be very outspoken and direct about that with legislators and look for places proactively for that funding transportation. Another example where it's just going to come at us, we're going to have a lot of questions, and the creative thinking is going down. The legislature is going to they're going to be a lot of creative thinkers that think, hey, we can just get rid of this 2030 part of the split and, and, and make sure that we're saving all these state jobs. So, you know, without thinking about all the local jobs. So that's kind of, I think the important element of it. But I think it's kind of like a dream right now because we're usually in the, in the, our job is to kind of keep it focused and, you know, really narrow. And so it's really, it's really helpful to hear this council saying, you know, let's be even more narrow and focused around what those really core things are. And I think we can try to come back and work over the next couple of months on how do we how do we get through that and, and, and get a little more clear around that without giving up the opportunity to advance some things that, you know, may maybe also feasible?
88 Well, my, my thinking just, and I, I do want reflections on this is that maybe we come back with a lot of this language as sort of internal supportive guidance for our bill review and where we, we make our effort, but that really, we have a much more simple, straightforward agenda that calls out just a handful of your your major priorities. And. Well, I saw councilor Green, you were shaking your head when I said, let's get rid of the rest. I'd love to hear what other. Like, what are the other core priorities for you all? So we can think about how to shape that. You know, this is the document we're going to give to legislators that says that these are the things we must walk away with.
89 And I'm fine with something like that. I'm fine with it being in a cover sheet. I am cognizant of the fact that the council president isn't here, and I am assuming you have had conversations with the council president about how to lay this out for us, and I don't want to suggest that we run roughshod over that without him here to defend the direction he's already given, but something where we can see that. I have two other things I want to note here. I'll get back in the queue, like I said, to talk about some specific items on the agenda that I want to make sure to highlight or ask questions about. And the first is there was a conversation about the interface between issues we're actively working on at council, that we also know that the state will actively be working on. I just want to note one that I don't see reflected on the agenda, though I think it does fall into that don't preempt us space, and that is that we'll need to make sure that we're having conversations back and forth around. Tnc's, councilor, Novick and I and a few of our other colleagues continue to do work with both the tnc companies and the drivers union to make our ecosystem here in the city work better and make sure that that's a profession that's actually paying a reasonable wage. And I know that the state will be taking that up also. So we'll just want to make sure that we're in close connection with folks at the state through you all, as that moves forward. I wanted to note that I also am wondering if you can share with us a little bit about what you see as your charge on avs, waymo drones, this autonomous vehicle space, because I know that the committee is going to be taking that work up. We haven't had a council wide discussion about what our values are on that. It's a really big emerging issue, and we're sending you down to Salem knowing you need to do something and have an opinion. I don't want to take too much time on this, but if you could share with us in like two minutes what you think the charge is right now, so that if we all disagree with that, we can make sure to either bring it up today, tell you offline, or tell folks on the committee so that we can get clear about what our direction is. That would be really helpful for me.
90 I think, on the av issue, there is, you know, clearly protecting the authority of this council to maintain its own decision making and then monitoring and engaging and, and, and, and hearing the conversation that happens as you're developing and working through this issue and communicating those priorities. Insurance, you know, safety issues, the issues that are coming up over and over as themes here are ones to communicate to legislators. But we are we are not, you know, but but preemption is really the, is, is really the, the main thing that we can definitively say right now. But what else would you add?
91 Yeah, I mean, I see our charge right now is as making the case for not being preempted and getting our seat at the table and securing that so that decisions aren't made without us. And we're very transparent with legislators that you all are having a conversation down here and that we're waiting to see how that plays out. And we talk about the dynamics and all the things we've heard from you all. And so the main thing is, you know, no one has firmly committed to sponsoring a bill yet. There's conversation about that. So charge number one is tracking those conversations, making sure that we know who's thinking about sponsoring legislation. What are they thinking about doing? Is it a starting is it the same starting place as last year? And then making the case for why these need to be local decisions? Because waymo's making the case for why they shouldn't be great.
92 Thank you. Can I just say that it's coming to the public works committee on October the 13th, and by that time we're going to have a pretty good draft, I think, based on everyone on the committee's input on this. So stay tuned. I think that's the first first blush.
93 Great.
94 Thank you.
95 Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney. We'll go to councilor Green, then we'll probably take a break right after that.
96 Thank you. I'm also going to sort of return to the format that was sort of
97 Suggested here and work through your questions on the slide. And then I get back in the queue later for more sort of detailed stuff if we have time. I think by and large, I was really pleased with the sort of structure and timing and kind of approach to dealing with all 12 councilors, the city administrator and mayor in creating a sort of coherent vision for the the city of Portland. I think it's I think one of my concerns walking into this building was my priority is going to be reflected in the legislative agenda. And they were. And I think it's largely true for every one of us. And so I think you guys nailed it with that. And what I'm seeing here is sort of a roll forward of that practice of the kind of impact and scoring approach. And I think, you know, we've had some discussion up here about how to prioritize. And I think I think, you know, you see those 70 some odd pieces and you're like, oh no, are these all the same priorities? But you've laid it out clearly in your memo what what the priorities are. So there are eight priority areas and maybe those need to be fewer. I don't know that they do, but they are. It's local authority revenue safe, predictable, sustainable transportation systems, the behavioral health thing. I mean, those are all huge and important issues. And I wouldn't want to subsume any one of them to a sort of deferred state. And the way that I think about this just generally is of those categories. What areas are you prioritizing where there's interactivity between them? And I'll just give one example, the behavioral health system discussion that we've had. I think we all recognize that if we don't deal with that in a concerted fashion, then it's going to undermine our housing and homeless continuum work. It's going to undermine our eq, dev and competitiveness work. It's going to undermine our. You know, you just name it, right, that that's a critical issue. And so I think about these things as a system and they're sort of there's a recognized interdependence between them. And so if you have to make a decision on what to pull off, I, I'm going to sort of place the charge. And I think you guys are capable of doing this because you have the experience of recognizing that if you pull one thing off, if it starts to unravel that system of connectedness and render some parts of the legislative priority not viable, then then don't take that part out. Right? There are some things you can trim and you won't see that. And that's the cut point for me. And you'll see that maybe if you look at each specific tiny little thing. And that's so I'm so I'm actually quite comfortable with this. I do not support making it just one thing because it undermines our, our other things. The for me, my top issues, I see that. So I submitted three from my office. I see all three of them in there. The transportation stuff is huge for me. Obviously. I think it's huge for everyone, like the. Taking another stab at getting the good package that we all deserve. That's the short term fisc fix for our primarily transit system is in local and local kind of road network is what I care the most about. But we put in also support for the transit oriented development work that I think senator pham is going to carry. And that's the long term fix. That's how you pay for our transit system over the long haul. It's through economic, it's through housing development to then create the ridership. And so those two pieces, to me, are part of that recognized interdependence, where we're bridging one legislative session with some future ones. And so I think that if we can get that one right, if we can pass that tod thing this time around, I think there will be future sessions where we start to see our transit systems be able to pay for themselves, at least in the Portland sense or the metro sense. I was really pleased to see a metro legislative item on there on land banking. This is a, you know, portland's the largest city in the metro. We've talked a lot as a council about how land banking fits into our broader kind of housing production goals and affordability goals and social housing and all that. That's a that's a critical piece. And you can't do it without metro. So I'm really glad to see that we're elevating metro's priority there, and I want to support that. I probably have some very specific questions as we get into it, but I think just top lines, keep up the good work. I really think you guys are quite communicative and give me the opportunity to express my concerns. And, and, you know, if I'm if I'm missing some detail for you, you give me an opportunity to provide that detail. And I think I'm, I think I'm seeing that in the work product here. So, yeah, we can have a debate about whether we need to trim this down. But but I think I think these are the right topic areas. And I just, you know, would urge my colleagues to look at the, the memo that really lays out what the priorities are, because it's not just 78 different pieces that have equal priority.
98 Thanks.
99 Thanks. Councilor Green, we're going to take a break. I just want to do a quick housekeeping note. We've got, I think, five councilors who haven't spoken yet in the queue and possibly a couple people who will come back around for a second round at it. And when we get back, feel free to start incorporating anything else into it. But of course, you're welcome, of course, to break it up into multiple rounds as well. We'll come back at 1112. See you in ten minutes.
100 All right. We are back. We'll pick up the queue where we left it off. We have.
101 Councilor Avalos followed by Novick.
102 Thank you. And I believe we've moved a little bit away from just technical. Yes. We can kind of give some broad sweeping. Cool. Well, thank you so much, ogre, and thanks for meeting with me earlier as well. So let's see. First, I'll say I appreciate that this is, you know, still kind of early stage of the process. So I know that this is our chance to really shape what the final agenda looks like. And I think my broader goal for the final agenda is to focus not just on what we think is politically achievable, but also like what portlanders actually need. So I think that's one of the tricky things that we're all navigating of, like, what are the kinds of things you put in this where you obviously want to put things that are realistic, but I want us to be pushing the envelope a bit just because portlanders are obviously they have a lot of different needs that we all represent and are bringing to the table, and I want that to be part of the calculus as well. There are a couple of things I want to just elevate things that I have brought up, and I think some that others have brought up as well. And I know that you've got that large list of, you know, everybody's submissions. And I think I submitted like 14 or 15. So I know that was a lot, but I wanted to just get all of the policy concepts out there and just show, you know, in particular what I think portlanders are needing, but also just on issues of affordability and access. I think that's kind of the theme for me. So one of those kind of pie in the sky, but I'm going to start speaking it into existence is the renter tax credit. This is something that I have been hearing from community. I went to a roundtable that senator pham put together, and this kept coming up at the discussion tables. And so I did some research on it, saw that we are I think it's like half of the country already does it. And it's something that would put money directly back into the pockets of our most rent burdened households. And so again, pie in the sky. I know that that is obviously a big revenue ask, and we're not in a big revenue ask kind of year. But I think it's important that as we are looking at shifting, you know, our priorities and as they're making decisions about what are the things that will bring affordability back to Oregonians and portlanders, I really think that needs to be elevated to the top of the discussion. Also, eviction prevention resources that people can access before they receive a final eviction notice is super important. We just kind of have all these people that are right on the edge, but, you know, receiving that eviction notice that just puts you in a whole other spiral emotionally, you know, financially. And just as far as affecting your future. And so I really want us to be better about being preemptive on that or preventative on that. In general, stronger immigrant protections. You know, the legislature made some great moves last session that I appreciate, and I just want us to continue to find ways that we are going to, as a state, intervene with the federal government and their efforts to, you know, hurt our communities or immigrant communities. And so things like keeping federal immigration enforcement out of sensitive locations and protecting people's data are at the top of the list for me on that. And then as far as transit oriented development, I know that senator fam is going to be advocating strongly for that is something that particularly impacts east Portland. And it's also something that I had a conversation with TriMet about, which I found interesting, just kind of their they shared their general philosophy and interests. And, you know, I used to live by the hollywood mac station that used to be my, my mac's station. And just seeing the housing that they're building there and just the efforts they're making to increase housing along the transit corridors, I think we need to continue to support and see kind of what, what that looks like at the state level. And then what does that look like for us on the city level after that? I also want us to take a serious look at who our tax system asks to contribute and who it benefits. So one thing that is starting it sounds like to get a little bit more traction is reform of the mortgage interest deduction and ending subsidies for second homes so that those resources can expand equitable homeownership. I think it's pretty self-explanatory, frankly, to me. But I think ultimately, you know, when you have so many people who can't even afford their first home and there's a lot of tax revenue going to folks that have mass in mass, other homes, then I think that's something we need to be getting some of that those dollars back and putting it back into community. Also investing in home repairs so that low and moderate income homeowners are not displaced simply because they can't afford, you know, critical health and safety and accessibility or habitability improvements. This is I think we've done some work on that. I know verde helped push that a couple years ago with the healthy homes bill, but I just we're continuing to need resources to help people age in place, stay in their homes. There's some great organizations that do work like that, like taking ownership pdx, for example, and I would love for those efforts to continue. And then as it relates to data centers, this is definitely a hot topic across the state. And we had a discussion about it here recently. And so just establishing meaningful guardrails for data centers, including transparency, protection of local authority, and ensuring these enormous users of electricity and water and public infrastructure are actually paying their share, rather than passing those costs onto working people and ratepayers. So I think we need to continue to elevate that and see what is the city's role in here. But I, I think the my concern on the data centers is preemption and wanting to make sure that the state is doing the right thing and letting us, as cities decide, you know, how we're building our cities. And we definitely need to have a more thorough conversation at the city level about that. So those are the things I wanted to elevate as it relates to the broader concept of like, how do we wrangle these, you know, 12 folks and go forward in Salem with a unified agenda? One, I appreciated that last year. You know, there are ways to. What am I trying to say? Like, if people need to go in a different direction. That we can communicate with ogre, I guess like if we're going to go support another bill or if maybe it's not like the council's decision that, you know, we can do our own individual efforts. So I think I'm still trying to explore what that looks like and means. I don't have anything necessarily off the top of my head that I'm like, oh, this is something that I'm going to have to go alone, and that council won't come along. But I just, I guess, want to figure out what that looks like. And I hear you all saying to like, just making sure that we are in constant communication so that you all don't seem, you know, unprepared or like you don't know why a councilor is down there. So I'll definitely do my best to ensure that we're communicating about that. And ultimately, I mean, I think we. I think we're doing okay at trying to capture as much of consensus as possible. There are very clear themes. I think the seven themes that you have outlined are, I feel aligned with and agree that those are good, the good areas to kind of put our energy. But ultimately, I think we just need to keep figuring out what those feedback loops look like, especially as we are entering a long session. So it'll be our first long session as a council, and I'm not sure how that's going to be different, especially because there's just a lot more moving parts over a longer period of time. So I don't have full answers right now on what I would expect. But and I am grateful to that. You all have those like weekly check ins. I think those are great. So yeah, just continuing to work with the council, the council president to ensure if there are times that we need to like say, okay, we got to huddle because there is a big conflict here and it's on a big issue. And we're, you know, we're hearing different things from council, like just being proactive about coming back to seek our input. So I'll leave it at that for now. But thank you so much for your time.
103 Thanks.
104 Thank you. A couple of things I would just say is, you know, as an example, on the issue of sort of how do you evaluate political viability and, and move forward on an issue? One, I think important approach that we're really framing around the housing and homelessness is around the continuum. And so the issues that you submitted, I and that you just discussed, I think are generally we're hearing generally support for, you know, I think all of those issues in sort of a general way, what we're trying to do is say that we would work move forward because there's so many housing issues and there's so many in front of the legislature. We're really focusing on the housing continuum and finding ways that we can leverage resources from the beginning of of eviction prevention right up front, the continuum to shelter to permanent supportive housing models, to preservation, all the way up to housing production and including, you know, even broadway. But and so there's, there's different policy pieces in that continuum. But collectively, our hope is that council is good with the continuum of, of options that are putting forward. And then we'll, we'll engage with you as the legislative session moves forward. And some of these become more viable because we're not just working here with 12 councilors, administration, mayor's office, we're also needing to work on housing issues with the housing alliance, with housing, with metro, with with these these bodies that are coordinating and, and refining their messaging as well. So those are, I guess that's just an example of kind of how we go about. And so then there's sometimes there's issues like the renters tax credit and how do we do we engage in that during the legislative session? Do we do we take some of those bigger ones that that that council wants to move forward on and, and start working more proactively in coalitions and identifying, you know, getting how do we get it to the point where it's politically viable enough to pass through the legislature?
105 Thank you. And that actually raises one more point I wanted to make. I we've talked about this before that, you know, I've been working pretty closely with representative wise somebody that, you know, we've been talking about the renters tax credit, for example, and just also trying to figure out what it looks like. You know, I'm trying to work more with my, you know, east Portland legislators and see kind of what they're working, see how I can support them, give them context, especially because a lot of my east Portland reps sit on the housing committees. And so, yeah, just want to continue figuring out what that looks like because we all have our relationships, we all have our initiatives that we're working on with legislators. And I just want to understand, you know, what's our protocol and how you all, at the end of the day, feel included and feel like a part of that. So you're not surprised. But just in general flagging that, I think there's interest from us as councilors to be more collaborative with our legislative partners. And so I think we should keep thinking about what that looks like to maybe put some structure around it. If it needs structure. I don't know that it needs it right now, but I just flagging that. I feel like there's a you have a lot of councilors here who want to work with legislators in their districts to work on projects and making sure that you're in the loop on those, too.
106 Yeah.
107 I mean, I think and, and totally understand that that makes sense. That's, that's what, you know, your job is to work on policy across all of these sectors. What I would say is the sooner we know about some of those things, when you're, when you're learning something from a conversation with a legislator, if you're going to go talk to a legislator, we'd love to know before so we can share with you maybe any perspective afterwards. We still would love to, to hear that what, what maybe came out of that and then work with you on, you know, how you're going to show up or, or, or engage, as we've already discussed a little bit. But I think that and also identify is this conflicting or is this in line with the city's sort of, you know, work for we do have in the again, the operating best practices for international or sorry for intergovernmental relations. There is an addendum on there that has, at the request of council last year, some language suggesting how you can say, hey, I'm I'm not representing I'm representing my own perspective, not not council. And so that's a good go to as a habit when you're uncertain.
108 Thank you.
109 And I would I would just add, I, I think it's great that you're working with folks who represent the same district. I think that's really meaningful. And yeah, we it's, it's really helpful for us to hear about what the policy issues are. And example that I keep thinking of is last year, councilor Novick team sat on a work group with representative pham, and they were focused on a whole bunch of different issues. But there were some specific legislative concepts that came out of it. And so as they started talking about the legislative concepts I sat in, I listened, I, I was able to do some vetting internally to make sure that those concepts could go on our agenda. And then we were able to help with rep, with rep tran's legislation in Salem, which I think makes us all look good when we're kind of coordinated in that way. And it also gives us an opportunity to address if there are issues that we need to talk about with, with the whole of council, because that's not necessarily what you all are thinking about at any given day. It helps us give an opportunity to elevate it with you all so we can make sure that we're all aligned.
110 And I, and I hope that one of the things I hope is that our team has shown its trustworthiness in terms of being confidential about issues that aren't ready to be vetted further yet. And so with that, my, my, you know, hope is that if there are places where our staff can be participating or join a meeting or engage to listen to a conversation, we may say, hey, we can't do that or whatever, but we'd rather lean toward knowing and being able to be present for information sharing where it's happening than not.
111 Thanks. We'll go to councilor, Novick. And then Koyama Lane.
112 Thank you. Chair. I wanted to say, first of all, how much to use ted lasso's phrase, I appreciate you. I've been appreciating sam chase in various roles for 32 years now. Really appreciated working with evan on the issue of whether we can get medicaid to start paying for psr and chat appreciated jax being involved in the question of whether we can use this huge prospective railroad merger to stop the trains from blocking traffic in southeast Portland for hours on end. So thank you all for the work that you do. I had one bit little worry about the agenda, which is that the the state agenda, which is the beginning under safe, predictable and sustainable transportation systems. It mentions transit in the intro, but then there's nothing about transit in the bullets. And I just have to say that I think that preventing TriMet from continuing to fall apart is more important than demonstrating oregon's commitment to advancing high speed rail in the pacific northwest. Maybe I'm nitpicking because it is in the intro, but I'd like to see it be a bullet to. I appreciated seeing some of the small things in the agenda, seeing that. Supporting the criminal justice commission's request for renewal of the restorative justice grants. I'm really glad to see that. Glad to see balcony solar on the list, although I realize I need to talk to ibew about that. There's a couple of things that I might be suggesting that we add. One might be too late, because I don't know if it would have had to be in like a pre session file bill, which is having citing criteria for the bottle redemption centers, like having something that says that you shouldn't have something that involves a lot of pedestrian traffic in an area that's unsafe locations, unsafe for pedestrians. So I actually should maybe talk to rob knows about that and see if maybe it's not too late to get in something there. Another thing I wanted to mention is the Multnomah county court system has asked for 13 more judges, and there's a couple of reasons I think we might be interested in that. One is that, and I actually just this morning emailed PBOT about this. I haven't checked in with them in the past couple of months. I mean, if we were able to dramatically expand the number of speed and red light cameras, that might mean we need more resources for for the courts. So those are the two little things that it occurred to me I might be asking about, adding.
113 Thank you, councilor Novick actually on, on a couple of those issues. We have been working with representative knows and a couple of other legislators that are looking at various bottle drop related legislation. So if there's specifics that you want in there, certain elements around siting, it gets complicated because a lot of the the folks who are advocating advocating for the gleaners and, and canners actually want to be close to transit and pedestrian access. And so we should, we should just talk a little bit more about that issue and what you want to accomplish, because we're trying to figure out how to thread that needle right now on the Multnomah county court system, we actually got two requests, one from hb related to eviction court capacity and one from PBOT on this exact issue that you brought up. And so we're working with the county and talking to ojd about how we can, you know, get involved and make sure that the 13 judges they request are going into those spaces. Oh, balcony solar. I would be very curious what you learned from ibew because we have not checked in with them yet either.
114 I was just looking at an article about it and realized they're worried about it. So I haven't talked to them yet, so I probably should. But I think the idea is very exciting. Thank you so much.
115 Thank you. Councilor Novick. We'll go to councilor. Koyama Lane. And then I'm next in the queue after that.
116 Thank you. Okay. What worked well in 2026, I noticed we were able to work on stronger relationships, have more engagement. This council was able to shape and give more feedback because the previous year, while you actually did adjust and asked for our feedback, a lot of that agenda had been set before we even took office. I found you all to be very accessible, open, eager to connect. And I mean, I, I honestly, I'll speak for myself. I've been really impressed. I will even make a comment in committee about something. And then before the committee is even done, one of you have reached out to my office and you're like, oh, let's talk talk more about that. My team feels like they have access to you all. I when I reach out, even if it's last minute, I'm going to work on giving you a little more lead time. There's always a response of like, oh, yeah, okay, this is how we would thank you for giving us a heads up that you're going to be in Salem or you're going to testify. Here's some background. How can we be supportive? So thank you. How can government relations improve? I think just continuing to engage early and often, which I see happening in the coordination. I found the legislative issue sheets to be helpful. I heard at least a couple other councilors say that they filled them out. I'm not sure if you can share, like, did you get them from most of council? All of council.
117 We got.
118 I'm not sure.
119 I would say about half.
120 Okay.
121 And we do have that list in your packet of all of the issues that were submitted. And it does show who was, I think in there who submitted as well.
122 Okay, great.
123 So you can collaborate with your colleagues or whoever.
124 For me, it was helpful. While we have conversations, and I do notice that you all take notes and try to take those pieces with you. I think having those issue sheets being really clear was helpful. My office filled out five of them. Four of them I can see have been incorporated. And yeah, folks can also look at those sheets to see some of my top priorities. A lot of them include transportation and traffic safety, homelessness, the housing and homelessness continuum, and then continuing to fill the gaps in oregon's behavioral health system. In terms of if anything's missing, I don't think this is necessarily something to add, but it's more like a cross-cutting priority. But just I want to continue to uplift aging and disability access. And that's something that we can and should continue to be thinking about, like within housing and transportation and workforce development and public services, it's not necessarily a separate issue. So those are my answers to the four questions. Thank you.
125 Thank you.
126 Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane. I am next in the queue. I wanted to start just a big picture framing with the idea that I agree with councilors, Novick and Green broadly, both of what they said. And I also think I really appreciate this process because we're we're ultimately, we need an ogre that we can point to and say that everything you've taken a position on is based on something that's in writing, and I understand that's why the agenda is so broad, is because it has to cover the things that you don't know are going to come up amendments, things like that during the session. I appreciate that. I also have no concern about the idea of of deeper prioritization that's specific to the particular legislative session that we're up against. I don't I don't think we should be focused on symptoms. So I don't agree with the, the particular proposal of, of everything being behavioral health focused. I think that's an important thing, but not the only thing. And we should be looking at why we're in that mess in the first place and trying to resolve that. So that's the big picture. I did want to say thanks for improving the issue evaluation criteria that you made some small changes to, but meaningful ones. I particularly appreciate that you added at the end of political viability, the importance of elevating a solution may be elevated over political viability. And how you describe collective agreement this year, I think is an improvement as well, going to areas of importance, because I think that affects both agendas. I wanted to say, first, thanks for adding traffic injuries to traffic fatalities in the in the community safety piece. I think there's some new text that's that's new this year. It's kind of vague on supporting effective policing and public safety practices. It's, it's good, but it needs to also add in equitable and constitutional. I think there's a couple of these. Adjectives and adverbs, but particularly adjectives that are a little confusing to me as we go forward, not in terms of what they are or what they mean, but why that one and not another one. So I just wanted to add that, for example, it says, adding it adds in appropriate before an alternative and unarmed response. And I, I don't know what that's supposed to limit how that would limit. So I'd like to see that that word out so that we can support unarmed and, and community alternative response. I think it's great that you separated out emergency management to its own section and given it the highlight and importance it deserves. I would love to see a connection between that and north Portland emergency routes last year or year before representative nelson put up a bill on trying to get funding for the design review of the columbia boulevard bridge over the north Portland railroad cut. And I wanted to see text in here that allows for you to advocate for that, because right now we have a lot of people who are in bad shape if an earthquake occurs on the north peninsula. So I wanted to just get that out there. Similarly, on the sort of verb side, this is on the autonomous vehicles and the transportation section, but also pretty much all of the technology, privacy, technology and data piece it has. You know, protecting is a good verb promoting responsible use of data. And then it goes to monitoring emerging technologies. I think that's far too weak for what we need to be involved in, but actually ensuring that the city has a role. You talk about preventing preemption, but just trying to strengthen that verb to give you more of an avenue to, to actually engage in the space other than just monitoring is kind of passive sounding. So that's my areas of importance. And it's like broad picture stuff. I want to shift to the state agenda piece. Under local authority. You talk about this is the first section here, and I like the framing paragraph. By the way, on both agendas, you talk about. We need to add in new and emerging threats to privacy and safety as a local authority issue specifically caused by drones. And I'll note the amazon drones piece, which came too late for any issue sheets. But we have in terms of into the news for us. And I want to make sure that that's something that we're talking about here, making sure that we're we have preemption on both the state and federal level with some of the issues with amazon drones. But those are like up the block from me, and I'm trying to make sure that we're able to get in the in the space before anything is just open season there. But also alpr is in waymo. I think there's a broad conversation there. I appreciate you including public meetings, law and small donor elections as things to protect in this space as well. Switching to part two. Had a question here. Additional tools to address repeat speeding. It sounds like that is code for something and I'm curious what that is.
127 Yeah. And I don't know if councilor Koyama Lane you want to talk about the the repeat speeders bill that you submitted or I'm happy to talk about it briefly. So there's a concept that's being worked on that would essentially allow a piece of technology to go into someone's car if they've been convicted of speeding on multiple occasions and continue to do it. And so that was submitted by councilor Koyama Lane office. We've heard about it from legislators and have had a couple of community groups come in and I think, meet with some of you and come to us. And so definitely interested to know if there's alignment on that one and can get you more details about the actual technology and what, when it would be used.
128 Go for it.
129 Thank you for the question. So this is something that families for safe streets is leading nationwide, an initiative that urges states to mandate effective anti-speeding technology rather than taking away people's licenses. And it's for the most dangerous, reckless drivers, repeat offenders. Some people call them super speeders, pose a significant threat, and statistics show that 75% of drivers with suspended licenses continue to drive. So families for safe streets is pushing this at the state level for folks to look into this. And there are some elected officials at the state level who are planning to be bringing this forward.
130 Can I just ask councilor?
131 Yeah.
132 You brought it up. Is it in this section, or are we talking about one of the yellow sections?
133 No, the this is under top 2027 legislative priorities, which is the in the state legislative agenda. I think it's a page or two back. It's part two. And it's I don't know where that is. Found it somewhere. It's not in that section.
134 I ask only because I've seen that.
Procedural episode · turns 135–143
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
135 Yeah.
136 It.
137 And it's the third bullet point under that, the end of it. Advanced strategic investments and policies.
138 Oh that's what you consider in companies seeing that. Okay. Thank you.
139 I was just asking what that what that quote was for. Because I know that sometimes you write broader to, to be all encapsulating for it. I can't speak for anybody else. There's not a consensus on that one. I think there is. I have major privacy and surveillance concerns around that particular piece. I respect the underlying need, and I have a lot of respect for families for safe streets, but I don't agree on that particular one. And then sort of to close out the the transparency, privacy, all that stuff, the avs piece, we need to call it, call for safe, predictable state policies. I think predictable is actually limiting to our local authority, because that's an argument that they're using to say local jurisdictions can't have their own policy. I think we need to protect our authority to ban them. And I want to be I'm not talking about regulating. I want to protect our authority to ban them. And then we can have the conversation about if that's the right option for the city. Since we're on transportation, the word TriMet does not appear anywhere in anything other than a legislative issue sheet submitted by PBOT and councilor Green. I think you combine them. So I want to see TriMet explicitly mentioned there. There's transit reference, but just, you know, transit agencies elsewhere in the state. I want to make sure that we're advocating for Portland specific and that I know that TriMet is broader than just Portland, but obviously we should be advocating for the part in Portland. And I think they are really focused on the lines that go out into the suburbs. But we're dealing with the stuff here in the core that we really need to be funding. Shifting gears, I really appreciate what councilor Avalos brought up about tax policy that differentiates first and second homes. I would love to see explicit advocacy for the ability to do local rent control. It's implied, and it just doesn't go all the way there. There's a piece here where we advocate for broadway corridor. We'd love to see if we're going to mention something in d four, which I think is good. Let's also mention some other things. I'm sure there are projects elsewhere in the city that could also be asks. Getting to the entire fifth section on economic development is so vague that I don't even know what you're advocating for here, and so I would love some follow up on what that means, and to see some refinement of the language to be a little clearer. There's nothing in here that seems objectionable, but there's nothing in here that seems like I can even assess what it what it would allow or not allow you to advocate for. This is economic development. Jobs in portland's competitiveness. I'm not suspicious of it. I just didn't know how to even engage. As I was writing notes. I was like starting to write things and trailing off over and over again. So when you get to civil rights, I think it's interesting because I started by talking about privacy. I loved what's in here, but I don't see it reflected throughout the document. Like, so I would love to, to kind of just point to that as a way to shift in there and to explicitly mention the first amendment and freedom of speech. And then the last thing I wanted to note that's very specific in here is on the climate piece. There's there's references to defense of local authorities, and then separately supporting the sci hub state project. I'd like to see more allowing local direction for, for the sci hub, especially in light of the conversations we're going to be having over the next several weeks. So that's my very, like hyper specific piece in here, but I think really, really big pieces that are, are vital to look at is just that sort of normalizing throughout the civil rights piece, which I'm very grateful to still see in here. I was worried that that was going to get attacked this year. So I'm very happy for that. One thing that's not in here on the state side, but is on the federal side, is qualified immunity. And we do have qualified immunity concerns at the state as well as the federal level. We also have absolute immunity on the prosecutorial side that I'd like to see something in here about trying to go back at. And I didn't see that. And I'm curious if we can follow up maybe offline and try to get something in there about it, because I'll notice that like there's no section on public safety specifically in, in here or good governance or whatever. There's multiple angles into that topical area. It is in the areas of importance. And, but I'd love to see that explicitly mentioned. And since I've got a little bit, I'm going to just quickly run through my federal agenda stuff. Love the framing paragraphs are longer in this one. I think that makes sense. We'd love to see stronger language on immigration. I know there's a lot of like defense language there, but I think it would be good to have an affirmative case for it, too. I would love to have social housing mentioned. Among the many things we want money for in the housing space. It's kind of a laundry list and just doesn't have that particular one mentioned there. Really love that you put 911 staff as first responders. It uses different text in there in a couple different places, but that concept is really important and I think matters a great deal to both the bureau and the and the workers. And then similarly qualified immunity is mentioned here, but it says reform it. And it's just kind of a weak it's it's mentioned there, but it's it's like, let's get involved in a conversation as opposed to let's do something about it. And I want to, you know, I don't know what we're going to have in terms of lay of the land, but just that verb. And the last thing I'll mention here is again, mentioning freedom of speech and criminal justice reform. Ideally, the federal law enforcement accountability piece could get built out a little bit too. It's it's like a mention, but we have a conversation about. How to how to do the things we do better and what we're limited in doing by, by the feds and the state. And that's kind of the broader picture of that text. So I wanted to run through all of that. That's a lot I know, but I wanted to get it on the record while I could. My one question is, how are you approaching
140 In terms of the resources space, because there's there's in parallel to the agendas on the policy side, there's grants. We had a conversation in the last couple of weeks at council about, you know, we're taking grants, but do we like the thing we're taking grants for? And obviously, money is good, but not necessarily depending on what it's. So is there text in here or is our intention to have this agenda frame not only our approach to policy, but also to in terms of like values, judgments on what grants to go for? Because I know you're involved in that even though you're not the grants management division. So that's my question about how this is used.
141 Well, I'll start I'll start with that question. Which is really largely are you thinking about the federal side in terms of grants largely or state the. Some grants are pursued through bureaus and they're really interpreting whether that's in alignment with the policies put on, you know, transportation or. But when we're engaged and and we're working with the priorities that are set in these agendas as the framework for that. Now, all of the implementable. There's still questions to work internally around, hey, are we having to shift money away from what we want it to be doing to do this? And those questions were more involved in, is this aligned with the policy, guidance and direction that council has given to us? So I think that's how we kind of approach it when we're brought in on the grant side. And, and very critical is that we can implement right away. So that's kind of a little bit where it ties into what you're saying, which is, is this something the city is going to be able to implement? That is a very critical question for us that we're always asking, because if we go ask for something and then it sits and sits, that not just hurts us on that grant or legislation, but it hurts us on future asks as well.
142 Thanks.
143 I would address your a couple other things. Economic development is going to take some time over the next couple of months. I. I hear you on that and there are some generalities in there and that that that body of work we continue to hear consistently across the board with the city. The economic development is an important priority. And so we're we're putting what placeholders we have in place now, but that is work that will need to continue. I want to address a couple of things that have come up as examples where we want to help be a resource, but where we're sort of looking for more clarity. And so the issue of speeding, for example, you know, we're hearing different perspectives on that. And so this is where we ask of you work with your colleagues to try to find a landing place where we can hear the same thing that, you know, is there a landing place where this can be vetted, you know, amongst yourselves to, to identify, oh, if it has this component or that component, then we're comfortable with it. Another example, hearing different sides of that. Councilor Smith, in terms of your concept and council. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney kind of different places. If there's if there's it's really helpful for us to be hearing some clarity, you know, in terms of, hey, ogre, your resources are city resources. And, and this is the collective direction we want to try to go. And, and so that is not a judgment on any of those policy. You know, we, again, we're not the policy makers. We just want to be able to have some clarity around where to go. If we're if we're divided, then that division is going to get even worse when we go down to the legislature and it's going to be ineffective and we're going to be spinning wheels trying to serve two sides of an issue. So we when there's not consensus, we we lean away. We still help track and monitor information, but we really kind of lean out from proactively pursuing.
144 And to just add a little bit more finer point on the economic development section. I think what you're sensing there is that we really didn't get any guidance or clear guidance. The mayor gave us a really specific proposal to consider. The prosper asked for some for us to follow the lead of the prosperity council, which. And to support some recommendations that I think some of them, I think will have consensus on in this body. Some of them I do not. Some of them I don't think. And the legislature legislative leadership just isn't prioritizing the prosperity council in the way that how they talk about it. So what we tried to do here is we looked at the things that we've been able to support in the past, like funds for industrial site readiness and brownfield cleanup. We've heard from councilor Smith about workforce development in certain programs in the past, councilor Dunphy or council president Dunphy had items specific to arts and culture that he wanted called out. But we're looking, you know, with our economic development kind of platform and priorities as a city could be, I think, a lot clearer. And part of what we're looking for is direction from you all on what it is that you, you want to accomplish in that space.
145 And sometimes we can help inspire a little bit of momentum. But there's also economic development typically kind of seems to come together a little later in the season for some reason. And those ideas start to emerge closer to session where we see something's got some legs or not. And so that's another touch point where we'll be engaging with you a lot around things that are of all those, one of the issues where we'll see an evolution happening.
146 Thanks.
147 So I'm going to go back through. I know the queue got reset with the share screen on and off thing. So I'm going to go through and it's going to be based on basically who had used the least time before. So and then I'll go back to full second round. So we'll start with councilor Novick and then go to councilor Green. And I'll continue through the queue.
148 Thank you, mr. Chairman. This might sort of go without saying, but I forgot something, which is that senator wyden is talking about potentially using the tax codes to get the nba to think about maybe doing something to keep the blazers here. He's mentioning some things that he might do in the finance committee, like take a look at, quote, the use of tax free bonds to build arenas, goodwill, amortization of teams, purchase price and tax treatment of teams, value appreciated over time. And it basically he's saying nice little tax provisions you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to them. And actually there is a previous example of a place having a team because a senator did just that kind of thing. In the 1960s. Stuart symington of missouri said that basically said if kansas city doesn't get a team in expansion in 1969, I'm going to try to take away the antitrust exemption from mlb and the kansas city royals exist as a result. So I would not discount senator widen's efforts. And it might be obvious that we support them, but we might want to make it explicit that we support them.
149 Thank you.
150 He could be in.
151 A video.
152 That.
153 Even more powerful position, potentially in November or January.
154 Yeah, ditto as well, councilor Green.
155 No.
156 Okay. Jump back in if you'd like to go to councilor Zimmerman next and then to pirtle-guiney.
157 Thank you. So of course, I'll underline our continued emphasis on behavioral health beds in the Portland region that is not accessible to the criminal justice system. There is nothing more important to the city's future than that. So I'm asking you to put me to work, frankly, in the legislative session and let let's get a win on that. I, I will also I'm I'm actually kind of bothered that PBOT put forward that that that speed option. I think they packaged it in a way that makes it sound interesting, but I share councilor Connell's deep concern on privacy issues. And at the same time, in the same legislative agenda, we have folks who are interested in. And I'm certainly going to be lending my voice to surveillance pricing bans. Et cetera. Et cetera. I don't I would like some consistency. So for me, that's a nonstarter. And I think it's a it's a it's unfortunate that a bureau put that forward. The other options that were there seemed okay. With respect to, I guess I'm, I. I have a question in terms of. I really appreciate that the emphasis for the state to take care of their rights of way. And so just to put that in normal person language, that means ODOT needs to clean up the trash on their over overpasses, underpasses, on ramps and off ramps. That's what that means. Does it belong in the transportation section of our agenda, or is it in the economic or is it in the housing and homelessness? Because I'll tell you what, if they say, we gave you this money to clean up the trash on our property, and so therefore you don't get money for potholes, I'd be irritated. So I'm just trying to think about that a little bit.
158 It's a very strong connection to the economic development and the perceptions and the branding of the city. And, and so there are with many of the, you know, which ones go under preemption, which ones go under transportation, which ones go under c.e.hubb or, you know, so that is a question that we're, we're very aware of. And so we, we sort of just take our best, put it in a location and we can move those around. But then if we put a transportation issue in the economic development, there's, there's issues there. So, you know, when we report on those things, we report on them in those categories. And so when you see our end of session report, they'll often kind of report on like you'll see under the economic development, there'll be a reporting on the right of way and they'll talk about that. And this is really, again, a little more internal than when we go down and, and bring, you know, issues on our economic agenda. We don't have an economic development agenda. We have this. But when we talk about issues of the economy right away. Absolutely.
159 So I'd like to I'd like to flip the idea on its head a little bit. When I was a deputy city manager in a southern Oregon city, all we wanted was the right to clean up, right? I-5 cut our community in half, just like it does here. We wanted the right to clean up. I think the second half of that sentence is, and we want to build back, right. We want to build the state for the services to mow their grass. Metaphorically. I think there's a lot of alignment across llc that it's there's one aspect about getting paid to do their work for them. But in crisis, I think most cities just want to know that the governor and odot's leadership is not going to say, no, you cannot have a cleanup along that on ramp because we own that land. And if there's a turf war out there, I don't think we're very interested in it. And and I've encouraged to be transparent, I've encouraged this mayor and the last mayor to just do it and dare the state to sue us. And I still have that perspective because it was so detrimental to the communities across Oregon. So it's related. But I think there's there's further expansion for what that could look like. And I think most cities would actually agree. We just want the right to be able to clean up space that's in our jurisdiction when it gets so bad. So I'll leave it to you for what's the best place to put it. But I would have an ear open to what other cities are doing on this and what their thoughts are as well, because that gets to my last point, is that I actually am really looking for opportunities for Portland to improve its reputation with communities across the state. And I think how we engage at the state legislature, that we look maybe in places where we can make new friends or folks who don't necessarily think that they will align with us, that we do, that we lend our voice to topics that are not necessarily the topic that always comes out of Portland, but that brookings can care about as well. That bend can care about that, that the counties can care about our rural areas. I think that there are so many things that we're working on here that are complementary, and I think we have an opportunity to not be a punch line for a good portion of the state. And I and I think our legislative agenda and our partnerships in Salem can help with that. It's not a one size fits all, but I certainly have that interest. So I appreciate your all's work. Jack. Will will talk more at a different time, but you got it.
160 Plenty for you to.
161 Jack.
162 Thank you so much. I, I, I think that so one is the right of way. And I think that that's one that has been on the agenda for quite some time and has been an issue that has a lot of detailed kind of elements to it. There is a need for the the dollars to be able to bill for the place that we that we as a city want to be is that we are able to, to do those cleanups appropriately, compassionately, with services that help people get to the right place and do it, do it right, and keep those places from just moving from one side of the highway to another and just, you know, cycling through that over and over again and then having an agreement with the state that allows us to do that work just as you're talking about, to get in there and do that work and bill for it so that that's where we are. We want to land, and we need $7 million in a biennium to do that, 3.5 million a year. So there's that. And then I also just want to underscore the the relationship. A lot of the work that we do, a lot of the, you know, how we're framing this work is about building that long term relationship with the state. And it's not just our Portland area delegation that all all very important. But what about those others that Portland, you know, will never be able to entirely shed the reputation that it has just because big cities in the state. But we do a lot to mitigate that and build, you know, an understanding that, hey, everybody. Portland. So as Portland goes, everyone in the state depends on that. We have a symbiotic relationship that's very important. And so we really appreciate the mayor's efforts. The mayor is very engaged with oma Oregon mayors association, reaching out, inviting them all to come to town and do the parade, you know, and staying very engaged with the mayor's consortium, building those those statewide and with some counties around the state, we have council members that are going to the league of Oregon cities conferences, the national league conferences, building those relationships. We have. Councilor council vice president on as the llc liaison working on these issues. And and when you show up outside of Portland for other electeds, it has a tremendous effect. And you can talk about almost anything. And that's fine. But that hard work. And they see that hard work happening, and they see that we're showing up at those things and it makes a difference. So we appreciate that.
163 And I would make a specific ask around that. So right now there is a conversation happening around the state, around your cei hub policies that you all are considering. And the industry groups have done a really good job of inflaming other cities. So their city managers and their councilors and their mayor think that we are intentionally trying to take away their fuel. That's the way it's being framed. So, you know, we've been doing a lot within ogr to try to mitigate that. We're working with the republican leadership in Salem because they want to bring legislation to preempt cities from having any say in the facilities that hold gas in their communities. But talking to your colleagues and the people that you know and other cities and bringing this up directly is really helpful. We are getting I think we've done an excellent job over the last five plus years of being a better partner to other cities and working with loc to find the spaces where we can be collaborative and all be on the same side. And this is an area where our past is being used to sort of harm our present. So I would appreciate the help talking to elected officials about that.
164 Thanks. So we have about 18 minutes left before we got to do some wrap up things here. There's I think I have pirtle-guiney Clark Smith and councilor Green. Are you going to get back in the queue? It's okay either way. Yes. Okay then. So I'm going to ask everyone to keep it to about four minutes each that we have time to get through everything. And then I'll make sure that ogr has a chance to wrap up. And if there's anything you don't get a chance to answer as each person's going, please just hold it and we'll go that way. So I'll go to councilor Pirtle-guiney and then Clark.
165 Great. I'm going to just run through a few things that I didn't see that I had hoped to see, or where there were some words missing I hoped to have in here. And I'll I don't need a response because we have short time. But if my colleagues have said other things, I understand. I don't expect that these will all get incorporated, but I wanted to raise them. The first is my colleague in district two, councilor Kanal brought up the seismic work that needs to be done on bridges over the railroad cut. I would like to see and ask for funding for that. At the federal level, we know that dollars are tight at the state level. We have not been successful getting dollars at the state level. If there are small pots of money available, this is not the size that would compete with the other things on our federal agenda. This is a different scope of ask if there are pots of money that are available for pre work, for seismic safety, for smaller projects at the federal level. I would like to see us make an ask for funding to make sure, make sure that we're upgrading the right bridge, because I think there have been some questions at PBOT about whether the columbia boulevard one is the best one to upgrade and get at least one, and hopefully two of the four bridges across the cut underway. I know the actual construction itself is still a ways off, but there's a lot of pre-work we could be asking for money for on the state agenda. We talk a lot about unfunded mandates, but I'd like to make sure we're also talking about cost shifts, because I'm worried that what's going to happen is we're going to see things that we are already doing, because it was a funded mandate. Slowly, or see funding erode over sessions, and it will not feel like a big deal because it will be a small amount each session, and then it will suddenly be a big deal. So I'd like to make sure that we're explicit as we talk about local authority, about cost shifts as well. I would like to make sure that whatever we do, we are not losing the thread on behavioral health. If we can move it up on this sheet, great. If we can't, let's at least not lose it from place number three where it is right now. I think that the only way we make progress there is if we make a big splash by making clear how big a deal this is to our community as something that was not on our agenda in this way previously. On the housing portion of the agenda, I know we've talked about land banking. That's really important. Let's not lose that. I also know that there are some legislators who have been talking about housing co-ops. We got money out of Salem for housing co-op in Portland last year. And if there's any conversation around policy changes that would make it easier for folks to create homeownership co-ops, I think that's a great place for us to just say, hey, this would be helpful in our community. Section five economic development. We do not talk about high wage jobs anywhere. In this section. I would like to see the words high wage jobs or opportunities for portlanders in high wage industries. In that section, as we talk about where state economic development dollars go, right? Those limited, limited dollars from lottery funds, as we talk about zoning, as we talk about the prosperity council and where the state's emphasis is, we should always be talking about needing jobs in our community that allow people who work here to afford to live here. That means we need high wage jobs. Similarly, on number seven, when we talk about data centers, we talk about commitments tied to measurable jobs. Can we please say high wage there? And when we talk about clear standards for evaluating large electricity and water users, can we make clear that if you are a large user, you need to be paying for those resources accordingly? You should not get large user breaks in the cost. If anything, it should be large user surcharges. And finally, in section number eight, we have dropped the language about moving fuel storage. We need to bring back the language about moving fuel storage. I understand that the governor is not interested in the conversation about moving the tanks. There are still legislators who are talking about it, though. There was a study that was conducted a few years back. Can we please include that language where we talk about ce? I have thank you.
166 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. We'll go on to councilor Clark and then Smith.
167 Great. Just really briefly, I also want to appreciate what you were saying, evan, about you're really anticipating what's coming and how different it's going to be. So I really appreciate that. And to the question of where do we land? I think we can talk to the council president about potentially a process for us to try to prioritize or see what we can do. Well, I'm definitely interested in talking to him about that. I just want to one more time emphasize behavioral health. I want to follow up on, I think, what councilor Greene was saying, that this is more than just behavioral health. It's a lot more it's really economic development. When you think about our reputation as a city and how we deal with the humanitarian crisis on the street, a public health and public safety crisis, that we need to change our reputation as well as make take care of people who need help and make ourselves feel a little bit safer sometimes. So I just want to emphasize that that's much bigger than just behavioral health. It has lots of connecting parts. And this mess back to, I think what councilor Kanal said earlier really started in the 1980s when ronald reagan cut all the programs, cut the public housing programs, cut the mental health programs, and we have never made up for that. As a state. We've never filled the void. And there's a real cost to us now. It's all at all rolls downstream. So it really started in the 80s that this disintegration of our institutions and the, the support that the federal government added. And one last point is that I know that we need to exact discipline here and there. And I know that in the session there's going to be 4000 plus bills, and probably we're going to be asked to weigh in on 25% of them, even though they may not be on our list. So that's where we have to exact discipline to. And I know you're under a lot of pressure to do that. O city of Portland, what do you think about this? Even though we you know, we haven't discussed it, I really appreciate your judgment, the judgment that you use to do to make those decisions, whether it's to add a letter or be in the room or whatever it is. So I just want to, you know, I appreciate the work that you do and how hard it is and how complicated it gets in the end. So thank you. Thank you for this. It was a great, great start.
168 Thank you, vice president Clark. We'll go to councilor Smith and then councilor Green.
169 Thank you. Thank you for the work that you're doing. Just reflecting back on the last year, I think it was it was really well, you always call me when you think you you need something or me to come down or to weigh in on something. I think that now that our our actual committee times have been moved to Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and I know mondays are a really hot day in the legislature. So mondays are open for, for our office. If there are opportunities that you want us to come down from district two in my office, I can certainly do that. Fridays are a good day as well because we're in our district offices and. District one. I'm so used to district two because I'm I guess I'm always in district two.
170 We welcome you anytime, councilor Smith.
171 Thank you. Thank you. I just just for the record, I had a very good conversation with prosper Portland. I was back at the congressional black caucus conference in dc a couple of weeks ago, and I spent the day with. Director wesley, who we went and talked to five different legislators. He had never met them before, so we just assumed and people just assumed that he, you know, he was meeting folks and he knew people and he he did not. And so it was great to accompany him. And I heard something that I didn't know. I didn't know that prosper Portland owned union station. And so he has this great big plan about revitalizing northwest Portland through the through the station and all these things. And I thought it was amazing. I didn't know that. And so for me, I guess the question I'm going to ask you, so if prosper is going to go down to Salem and ask for stuff and have a priority list in the city of Portland, everybody puts us together as one. And so the process of when you're talking, are you speaking on behalf of prosper? Because I know they have their own people too. How do we distinguish between what's going on with prosper and what's going on with the city of Portland? Because we have a lot of programs that we passed in the budget that are being funded through the prosper lens that we certainly can take credit for, because we we passed those things. And so I just want to know how to walk through those landmines.
172 Yes. Thank you for asking that question. Jack can talk a little more about union station. There's some history there and work that we've been doing. It's as you said, there is not a distinction in other bodies between prosper and the city. And so we work very closely with prosper to be representing them as a city and, and really have these same standards of, you know, is this unanimously supported? Oh, it's not well, there's some work that needs to get done to bring council along or bring the mayor or the administrator along. So we're looking for the same formula here, this this gray formula of like close to consensus because it's not helpful if, if, you know, any time there is an independent part of the city, be it elected or administrative and, and it's not clear that we what the position is representing that just creates challenges in the legislature. So, yes.
173 It was really helpful for me to sit in some of those meetings where cdfi's are were very prominent in the conversations that we were having. And I was I was excited about it. And so I like the idea of being able to say, this is what we're doing because people don't make the distinction prosper. And sometimes I don't either because it's just it's our economic. When you were talking about, we didn't have very many, but we do because we put those resources through either Portland housing bureau or through prosper. And that is our wing. I look at it as our economic development wing and. And just in closing, I'd like you all to keep doing what you're doing. No worries about our our play center. You know, bill in the pre session because we're going to bring it through public works and we're going to bring it up to the big committee to get signed off on. So you don't have to be you know, everybody has an opinion about things. But just for the record, I'm not trying to take active industrial sites out of service. I'm trying to look at our assets that are vacant and empty, haven't been used for 100,000 years, and figure out how to activate them to be able to bring in general fund money to the city. And it's not just industrial, it's light industrial, it's commercial. It's, it's some some stuff that's in parks, a lot of stuff that's in PBOT. I looked on the parks website and they have a site that can be used on powell boulevard that we own that can be used for residential. So it's things like that, mixed use in all those things. I don't want to take jobs from anyone or the potential of future jobs, but I do want to make sure that we have the livability that is needed in the city, and that we utilize all of our resources that we have available to us. And it's not just for the city of Portland. This would be this would give cities around the state that opportunity. So keep doing what you're doing. Call us anytime. It's not a hassle. So just call us and it's easier just to call me on the phone. And so I know you. I'll call you several times, sam. So just call us. We're willing to do whatever it is that we need to do to be helpful to government relations.
174 Thank you.
175 And we really do look at council as a resource and the mayor and the administration as a resource to really amplify. And at times, you know, there are certain voices are the the most influential. And so we're sort of agnostic on which one it is. We just want the most influential voices in this table. So we will definitely be tapping into, you know, council members and, and the mayor and administration for different elements. But yeah, I hear that we we will.
176 We also would like sector, trade sector businesses coming into east Portland and district.
177 One businesses.
178 Traded sector businesses. If we can get some incentives.
179 And I will just say.
180 Again.
181 I want to make sure councilor Green gets a chance. He's last in the queue and then I'll let you close it out. So sorry, councilor Green. And then ogre.
182 Thank you. Councilor Kanal just briefly, thanks for raising up the sci hub stuff, evan. It's helpful to know that the industry is lobbyists are inflaming the other councilors. I don't want my constituents to become inflamed, so I. I will go to the next league of Oregon cities conference and and let them know that two things I want to just emphasize item 34 on the on the big list here. That's. I think councilor Avalos put that in. That's the sort of kicker reform piece. Just want to emphasize the importance of that, and I like it pairs well with. I think what I want to say on item 78 is if we can accomplish that, then we have funds for capital projects and emergency spend. But item 78 speaks to, let's see here, statewide utility rate assistance. And that's sort of, I think, envisioned as a sort of like, here's a, here's a pot of money to discount for your low income discount programs. I think that we should be thinking about advocating for the language in whatever the bill eventually gets passed on that using funds to write down the cost structure of your utility programs, right? That's more sustainable, that's more durable. And, you know, obviously Portland water bureau has a very expensive capital project underway that will create upward pressure on rates for a very, very long time. And so thinking creatively about how infrastructure funds from the state can sort of buy down the cost of that is also, I think, an economic development and affordability stabilizer that I'm not sure anyone's ever thought about in this, in this context before. So it's I think about it the same way I think about rent assistance. Rent assistance is important, but if you only do rent assistance and not debt buy downs, then you're missing an opportunity to sort of invest now for long run savings. So just, just to bug in your ear, I understand that these things are not bills that we're putting forward. They're they're just out there. But if we can influence their direction at all, I'd like to support that. Thank you.
183 All right.
184 Thanks, councilor Green. I'll pass it over to you to close out the content director chase. And then I have a housekeeping note at the end.
185 Great. Thank.
186 Thank you so much. Thanks. Once again. I will you know, we we have had a lot of input here. We will go back and review the notes. We'll go back and look through the work session conversation. There were clearly some kind of more immediate places of input. And then there were some bigger things that we need to, to work on and work in as we go through October and November. Preparing to come back to you again on December 2nd for the for the next work session, we will be setting up opportunities to engage with you before then over that period of time, I also. And so there's a lot I won't repeat. All of you know, we'll collect all of those things and then try to manage that as best we can. And then we'll continue to share back with you. If you have specific edits. We love the stuff that we got here input today. If you have other things that you want, direct edits, things that you think, hey, this really shouldn't be on the agenda or I really like this and make sure it's on. Please feel free to let us know on those things. We don't want anybody to be surprised, and we want to just be doing this as transparently as we can. The the last thing I'll say, just as an example, where councilor Smith talked about this issue, where there's maybe a difference of perspective on council with the issue that she sees as really a strong benefit for the city. You know, whether that is the case or not, going through a process where there's some deliberation with council and a committee that's talking about that issue and vetting it will hopefully not only give us a place, a landing place that we can get some clear direction, but it may also be really helpful to inform and empower the the work that might move forward from that which addresses some of these issues, because these are going to be issues that the legislature is going to be struggling with on a lot of these topics. So we can learn a lot and be and, and also help our by doing that hard work, internal vetting that gives us more fuel to go down to the legislature and be even better partners with helping them think through some of these policy solutions. So I really, I think, you know, I'll just close in saying there's a lot of different kind of perspectives, you know, at the city and some of those things get aired publicly at times, right? This is a place where this council, this mayor, this administration have come together over and over again and said, this is too important. It's all important. But this is this is so important that we get this, you know, voice across in a unified way that I've been really proud to work with this team. And it feels like a team when we do that. And so we appreciate you and, you know, really look forward to any questions, information, engagement. We really appreciate it and like it. So we will continue to reach out and it'll be a busy time over the next ten months.
187 Well, thank you, director chase, as you noted, December 2nd is our next work session on the next and final work session on this year's legislative agenda is between the second and the end of the year. We'll be voting on them at council. And the only other thing to note is that we are back here at 2:00 for a work session on the office of community and civic life today, which councilor Koyama Lane will be presiding over. And with that, we will wrap this one up at 12:31 p.m. Thanks.
188 Thank you.