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

← Recent meetings · September 2026

The record · Transcript

Council Session — 2026-09-16

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (31,767 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.

watch the recording

Wed, Sep 16, 2026 · meeting length 3 hr 38 min · council salary-time ≈ $2,797

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

Session TL;DRAI draft · not editor-reviewed

Key points

Where the council disagreed

Roll-call votes from this session date

From the vote ledger — the written record, editor-verified — not from this summary or the captions. Tied and split votes are listed first; other votes from this date appear once verified.

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 Good evening. Before we begin our meeting of the Portland city council, we have a pre gavel celebration for the lincoln high school constitution. Councilor Zimmerman turning it over to you. All right.
1 Thank you, council president. While I'm speaking, I'm going to invite the lincoln high school constitution team up to the the front table here if you'd like to come. I know ian will lead the way, but colleagues, I'd like to use this time to honor lincoln high school's 2025 constitution team, who won the state championship in Oregon and then the national championship in Washington, d.c. They were the seventh team from lincoln to win the national championship of this prestigious we the people, the citizen and constitution competition, and the 12th team from all of Portland. Their year was marked by some controversy and some confusion, though with a miscount in scoring, demoting them from first to third while they were in Washington, d.c. With salem's sprague high school initially being given first place. But when councilor Greene and councilor Clarke and I visited them a few days after the corrections were made and it was announced that they were actually first in the nation. And of course, we're quite ecstatic already. We're seeing the alumni of the 2025 team making a real difference in our community. They're running legal research projects, teaching classes to immigrants to pass their citizenship exam, serving on neighborhood association boards, running voter registration drives, founding civic dialog minded exchange programs, writing children's books, and being selected for portland's rose queen and even interning here at city hall. Some of you may have seen the man in the center there. This team was also the last one to head to Washington, d.c. With the late and great steven griffith, who served as a coach on the team since 2001 and dedicated his life to youth civic education and was his. And this was his fourth time winning the national championship. The. More than 12 coaches, many of all of whom worked full time at the city's most prestigious law firms, graciously give their time to help the team's students become highly proficient in civic and legal matters. Programs like the constitution team, which exist in schools across the state and in all four of portland's districts, are vital in advancing the importance of civic engagement and increasing the polarized world. As you prepare to move on to the next phase of your lives, I have no doubt that this program will be massively influential in how you think and act and vote. Hopefully some of you will come back and be the next generation of councilors, mayors and administrators here in Portland. I want to congratulate the lincoln high constitution team. And before our esteemed last day employee, ian reads the proclamation, I do want to turn it to council president if any other councilors wanted to make remarks.
2 Colleagues, if anybody wants to make any remarks, feel free to jump in the queue. Otherwise, we're going to turn it over to these amazing, talented folks. But councilor Clarke.
3 Just hugely proud of you guys. It was so much fun to come to lincoln and meet you last year. Really enjoyed it and congratulations.
4 Thank you. Councilor. Morillo.
5 As a fellow constitution team nerd, I obviously have to say congratulations. How exciting for all of you. Very curious if you got to meet anyone cool or exciting when you were in dc in Washington, did you?
6 Yeah. We got to meet suzanne bonamici, who's our representative.
7 Very cool. When I was in d.c. We got to meet ruth bader ginsburg for the last time, and it was very, very exciting for our team. So I think that there is really nothing more important right now than being able to study the constitution and our laws, because we're at a time where free speech is being attacked, activism is being attacked, and we have a federal government that is really not supporting people of different viewpoints. So the fact that we have young people who are studying that, who know how to fight that and are armed with knowledge, I think is really important. So thank you so much for studying and for doing that. Can't wait for you guys to lead.
8 Thank you. Councilor. Morillo. Councilor Green.
9 Yeah. Thank you so much for being great representatives of district four. You guys are very smart and you should go challenge all of us for our seats. Thanks.
10 All right, with that, I just want to introduce ian reyes, who was an intern in my office during the spring and summer. As ian's internship has just concluded. We wanted to celebrate him and his teammates with this pre gavel and this proclamation. The mayor has also joined in in this celebration by providing the proclamation for ian and his teammates. And I've invited them to to read that tonight. So he's been involved in everything since he started with us. His hands have been in every project and everything we've done, and it's been a great privilege to have him here, and I look forward to wherever you are next. So with that, ian, why don't you take it away?
11 It's been a great privilege to be here. I'll say before I start, whereas the lincoln high school 2025 constitution team demonstrated extraordinary dedication to civic education by winning both the Oregon state championship and the we the people, the citizen and the constitution national championship. And whereas the team became the seventh lincoln high school team and the 12th team from Portland to win the national championship, reflecting portland's longstanding commitment to civic education and youth leadership. And. Whereas the students demonstrated remarkable perseverance through a national competition that included an initial scoring error before the results were corrected and lincoln was rightfully recognized as a national champion. And whereas the team was the final lincoln constitution team, coached by the late stephen griffith, a dedicated champion of youth civic engagement, who coached the team for more than two decades and helped guide four national championship teams. And whereas the success of the constitution team reflects the extraordinary dedication of its students, educators, coaches, families and community supporters who work together to prepare young people to understand and participate meaningfully in our democracy. And whereas the accomplishments of the constitution team alumni demonstrate the lasting impact of civic education going on to serve their communities through public service, education, neighborhood leadership, voter engagement, and civic advocacy. And whereas, Portland recognizes that an informed, engaged, and civically minded young generation is essential to the strength of our democracy and the future of our city. Now, therefore, I, keith wilson, mayor of the city of Portland, Oregon, the city of roses do hereby honor the lincoln high school 2025 constitution team for their outstanding achievement as Oregon state and national champions celebrate their commitment to civic engagement and recognize the students, coaches, educators, and community members who made their success possible.
12 Colleagues with with unanimous consent, I'd like to suspend the rules and give our folks a round of applause. Congratulations. Thank you very much.
13 So much.
14 Okay. And you can go. Keelan, can we please call the roll.
15 Koyama Lane here.

Procedural episode · turns 16–24

Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.

16 Aye, Morillo here.
17 Novick here. Here. Green. Here. Zimmerman. Here. Avalos.
18 Present.
19 Smith. Kanal here. Pirtle-guiney. Pirtle-guiney. Here. Ryan. Here.
20 Here. And can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
21 Good evening. Welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.Portland.gov/council. Agenda information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states. Otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over, the presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifier should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
22 Thank you very much, colleagues. Our first item, as with every week, is the approval of the agenda. We have a rather large agenda, and I'm hoping we can get through all of it today. Are there any. Do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? Is there any effort? All right. Great. The agenda is approved. Keelan, please move to public communications.
23 First up, we have karen hogue.
24 Good evening councilors. My name is karen hogue and I live across the street from 855 north east church street in district two. Last week, this house was given a three month foreclosure extension due to advocacy by a d one councilor. While a lot of detail was presented about the circumstances of the owner, there was a dire lack of info about the history of this property and its effect on the community. She has had city liens against the property for 17 years. She has had chance after chance to take care of her property and has not. I was stunned that a foreclosure extension was granted to her based on personal matters. I wonder how many other owners on the list would like that same courtesy. I appreciate that my councilors, Kanal and purdy pirtle-guiney, raised concerns, but they and the council did not get the full story, including the four written testimony submitted for the meeting. Kevin foster did not present a report from the clear out that happened this summer or go into detail about neighbor complaints. While mike massett was helpful to the neighborhood. He also did not provide you with documentation of the testimony neighbors gave that initiated the ordinance violations. You were not told about the foreclosure action in 2024 and why it was pulled back. You were not told that the guy enlisted to fix the house. A supposed contractor did not repair it. Instead, he tore off the roof and put plastic on, scraped the wood siding and left it bare and cooked food on the porch. You were not informed that this person was removed by the city, not the owner from the property, along with a dead cat, a dead dog in a tote, and the horde in the house and yard. There was and is an animal feces infestation in the yard that attracts rats and flies. It was also in the house when a police officer went in and rushed out, throwing up. You were also not told what the neighbors have endured or what they encounter now because of this derelict property. What I saw was an incomplete report of the past situation, and no report of what's going on now in our neighborhood. I am gravely disappointed that my neighbors and I did not have the advocacy that the owner had for us. These problems are not on pause for three months. We still live with rats and flies, roof plastic spilling everywhere. Ongoing safety and hypervigilance issues because of partying, break in attempts, and camping on the property by people with serious weapons. When is it our time to be noticed and respected? I encourage the councilor to get reports from kevin and mike and evaluate the entire foreclosure process so that it is fair to all parties. Also, drive by this once beautiful turn of the century home that was driven to the ground and is probably not habitable. I have loved this house, viewing it from my porch, but sadly, it will most likely disappear due to years of neglect by the owner and by the city that refused to take right action. Thank you so much.
25 Thank you. Thank you very much for being here tonight.
26 Next up we have rachel jamison.
27 Good evening. Welcome. Make sure to introduce yourself for the record.
28 Rachel jamison. Go ahead. Good evening, mayor and council staff. My name is rachel jamison. I'm a lifelong everyday portlander. I grew up in district two. Currently live in district one. I've spent the last nine years as a public servant with the water bureau and nearly three years on the cpp bargaining team. I'm here to speak frankly about the stalled contract negotiations affecting our public employees and the potential consequences of these delays. Right now, employees are being treated as though our contributions are expendable. We are unseen, unappreciated, and consistently denied the same benefits already offered to other unions across the city. The city's bargaining team has made little movement, and the inequity is unmistakable. They are signaling that this workforce, despite being absolutely essential, is somehow less deserving. And that is unacceptable. If these employees are forced into a strike due to these delayed negotiations, the public will face serious immediate consequences. I'd like to highlight some of this work that is being taken for granted. Analysts who help manage violence prevention efforts in gun violence hotspots will not be there to coordinate interventions and keep communities safe. Recreation programs that families rely on, including programs that keep youth engaged and supported, will be suspended. Bilingual staff who communicate with residents about the safety of their drinking water will be unavailable, leaving many families without crucial, understandable information about public health. Coordinators who monitor, plan and track the systems that keep wastewater out of our homes and rivers will no longer be preventing those dangerous overflows. Affordable housing contract staff who are working in the middle of a housing crisis will be unable to move critical projects forward, impacting your constituents who need stable homes right now. The mapping and planning of road work, repairs and safety improvements will stall, delaying fixes to hazards residents encounter every single day. Advocates who support victims of violent crimes will be unavailable when community members need them and their assistance the most, and life saving training programs that ensure our infrastructure is safe and ensure our sibling union members are protected from workplace hazards will halt. These programs are not optional. They prevent injuries, protect workers, and safeguard the public. A strike would not simply be disruptive. It would undermine the systems this city
29 Relies on for public safety, stability and basic daily functioning. So city council, you have a meaningful role to play here. You can urge the administration to change course, to stop delaying, and to bring these negotiations to a fair and timely close. These employees deserve parity, respect and a contract that reflects the vital work perform for every resident of this city. Thank you for your time and I strongly urge you to act.
30 Thank you very much for being here.
31 Next up we have david sherman.
32 Welcome. Feel free to introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome. Share your pronouns and you have three minutes.
33 Hi, my name is david sherman. Good evening councilors. I'm here to talk about the property at 855 north church, which is council voted last week to extend three months a decision on foreclosure. And I'd like to talk to you about the ramifications of of that vote. I watched the meeting, and what struck me was that there was no consideration and no, no hearing from the neighbors that that wrote in with their concerns. And instead, the discussion focused on the absent owner and her concerns. And she's she's hospitalized, which I have legitimate sympathy for that. But the problems that the property are not new. My wife and I moved in six and a half years ago, and in that entire time, the property has been either vacant, occupied by squatters, and it has been deteriorating continuously the whole time. The key point I'd like to make is that I think the neighbors deserve to be heard as well. The things that are are going on, which karen also spoke to, are a concern with safety, where the house is a magnet for people that are squatters, that come to drink and to smoke and to engage in activity. And any neighbor that walks by this house at night or during the day will feel considerable unease. It just doesn't feel safe. The the the second problem is one of health and that there are rats on the property and the rats spread throughout the neighborhood. And there are surprising and impressive number of flies on the property that spread throughout the neighborhood. And the third problem is one of plastic litter. When the roof was removed, which you heard earlier, two years ago, the. The a temporary tarp was put down, made of woven polyethylene and polyethylene, that that material is made of thousands and thousands of spaghetti like ribbons. And the the tarp has disintegrated with the lack of the roof not being put on. It's just it's a permanent structure there now. And every day, fistfuls of hundreds of those ribbons spread throughout the neighborhood. They land in our lawns. They land in our gutters. They land all over the place. And it's, it's glitter. And so those are the ramifications for us, the neighbors, for three more months. I'm not sure if another vote is possible. If it is, I would ask you to consider that. And the neighbors that live here that are enduring this house ask you that if a vote is not possible, I'd like you to consider that that three months is a date on a calendar for you. But for the neighbors, it's three more months of reduced safety, of vermin, of health concerns, and of plastic litter. Thank you very much.
34 Thank you very much for being here.
35 Next up we have ocean hassell.
36 Welcome. Go right ahead. Jump on in.
37 Counselors, for the record, my name is ocean hasso. I'm a member of the city of Portland professional workers union bargaining team. Thank you for your time tonight. My faith as an episcopalian requires me to strive to respect the dignity of every human being. This is in my church's baptismal covenant, and for me, I live out the requirement of my baptism by being on the cfpb bargaining team. I want to uplift the dignity of my colleagues and for them to earn a dignified living. And yet, it feels like the city doesn't recognize our dignity. For nine months, every other week, we've bargained in good faith. The city, however, consistently shows up empty handed. The city says it's too broke for colas to keep pace with inflation, and won't move us to the wage step system. Every other city union already has, yet the city can find money to pay executives to disappear, finding $1.3 million for severance packages just in the last year alone. It even found $120 million for a billionaire basketball team owner who made his fortune selling risky car notes. We're not asking for much. All we're asking for is what all other city unions have clear and consistent wages, and the basic respect of a city that shows up prepared to bargain. Yet the city and bhr drags us out, showing up unprepared and offering pennies. This is disrespectful and wasteful. Mind you, each day of contract bargaining costs the taxpayer about $12,000. I don't want to be here tonight. I'd rather get to work and settle this contract. But it seems to me that the city would prefer labor problems over labor peace. Well, let me share with you what the book of hosea says about problems. For they sow the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind. Thank you.
38 Thank you very much.
39 Next up we have rachel whiteside.
40 Welcome. Come on up.
41 Members of council, thank you for your time tonight. My name is rachel whiteside. And I am here on behalf of the nearly 1000 protect 17 members who keep the city working performing vital services in nearly every bureau that benefits the Portland community. Portland works because we do. We get the development permits issued, keep the water flowing, traffic moving and the roses blooming. We support the city's I.t, keeping it secure and safe from outside attacks so that every city worker, police, fire and yourselves can do your jobs. We are there in moments of crisis. Thank you psr members and times of rejoicing. Portland works because we do. As you're aware, we have been in contract negotiations for nearly 18 months. You might not be aware that this is the first time our Portland chapter has ever failed to get a deal with the city during regular negotiations. We're talking about a seven decade bargaining history. Ask yourself what is really different in this moment? Protect 17 members are dedicated public servants who just want to be able to afford to live in the city they serve. Do you know that a food box was placed onto a floor of the Portland building so that coworkers could donate food for their for their peers who don't have enough at the end of the pay period. To quote one of our members who signed our pledge to strike. No city worker should need to rely on food assistance. The living wage in Multnomah county for one adult with one minor dependent is more than 1000. Sorry, more than $110,000 a year. And a thriving wage is more than $185,000 a year. Our members don't earn a thriving wage and need our cost of living increases tied to inflation, just to maintain their current living standards. Our members see the ballooning positions created as part of the city's governance structure, as well as the golden parachutes. When these people move on after just a couple of years. Again, to quote a member, it is unacceptable to ask workers to take pay cuts while the leadership class thrives. Please, I urge you bring us a fair proposal in mediation this Friday so we can settle these negotiations and get back to doing what we do best keep this city working. We are protect 17 and Portland works because we do. Thank you.
42 Thank you very much.
43 That completes communications.
44 Thank you very much. Thank you everybody for coming down tonight. Colleagues, our next item on the agenda. We're going to hear an update from the city administrator on a status of the ongoing responses to federal interventions in the city. City administrator lee.
45 Thank you, council president. There are no new updates on the ice facility litigation since our last time updating the council, but I do want to briefly flag our. Proud to be a sanctuary city pride campaign. This campaign invites businesses, faith communities, schools and nonprofits across Portland to display posters affirming that we are proud to be a sanctuary city and that everyone belongs here. The posters also include information about what to do if someone witnesses an ice enforcement action. They're available in eight languages english, spanish, russian, ukrainian, vietnamese, simplified chinese, arabic, and somali. Printed posters are available at city community centers, Portland building and welcome week events, while supplies last and downloadable print ready versions are available at Portland.gov/sanctuary. We encourage community partners to participate and help us make that message of belonging visible throughout our city. Thank you.
46 Thank you, city administrator colleagues. Any questions for the city administrator? Great. Keelan can we please call the consent agenda?
47 No items were pulled from the consent agenda. I'll call the roll. Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick I Clark I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. Absent Kanal. I pirtle-guiney I Ryan I dunfee.
48 I.
49 The consent agenda is approved with a vote of 11 ayes and one absent.
50 Thank you very much. Colleagues. Next seven items are second readings. We're going to read them or call them individually and hope to get through them with some expedience. Can we please call item number six.
51 Document 2026-306. Create a new non-represented classification of council public information officer and establish a compensation range for this classification.
52 Colleagues. The second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no one in the queue. Keelan. Please call the roll on item number six.
53 Koyama Lane. I aye, Morillo I Novick I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. Smith. Oh sorry. Absent Kanal I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan a Dunphy. I ordinance passes with a vote of 11 ayes and one absent.
54 Thank you. Can we please call item number seven.
55 Document 2026-247. Initiate foreclosure action on 7545 northeast sandy boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
56 Colleagues of the second reading of a non emergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, can we please call the roll?
57 Koyama Lane I.
58 Morillo I.
59 Novick I Clark. I Green. By Zimmerman Avalos. I Kanal I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Dunphy. I. The ordinance passes with 11 ayes and one absent.
60 Thank you very much. We please move to number item number eight.
61 Document 2026-248. Initiate foreclosure action on 7545 within northeast sandy boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
62 I think we just read that one.
63 Oh did I?
64 2026-248.
65 There's two 2075.
66 What one is within.
67 There's two of them on the same thing. Why do I not have that on my agenda? Okay. I'm wrong. I don't see that on my thing. Oh I see, I my my script is wrong. I apologize colleagues. Thank you. Keelan. You are always right.
68 No I'm not.
69 This is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none. Keelan, can we please call the roll.
70 Koyama Lane I.
71 Morillo I.
72 Novick I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman Avalos. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Dunphy. I the ordinance passes with 11 eyes and one absent.
73 Can you please read the next item? Item number nine then.
74 Yeah.
75 Item number nine.
76 Thank you. Item nine. Document 2026-250. Initiate foreclosure action on north columbia boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
77 This is also the second reading of a non emergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no one in the queue. Keelan. Please call the roll.
78 Koyama Lane. Aye, Morillo Morillo. I Novick I Clark I Green Zimmerman I I I pirtle-guiney I Ryan I Dunphy. I that ordinance passes with 11 ayes and one absent.
79 Can we please read item number ten.
80 Document 2026-253. Initiate foreclosure action on 7101 through 7103 southeast division street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
81 Is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion of this item three seeing no one in the queue, can we please call the roll?
82 Koyama Lane I. Aye, Morillo I.
83 Novick I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman I Avalos. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan I Dunphy. I the ordinance passes with 11 ayes and one absent vote.
84 Thank you. And can we read item number 11.
85 Document 2026-260. Initiate foreclosure action on 5706 southeast lambert street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
86 Guess what? This is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance as well. Any further council discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, can we please call the roll.
87 Koyama Lane I. Morillo aye, Morillo. Novick I. Clark I.
88 Green Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Dunphy. I ordinance passes with 11 ayes and one absent.
89 Thank you. And can we. Item 12 now.
90 Item 12. Thank you.
91 Document 2026-256. Initiate foreclosure action on 2734 through 2730. Oh, wait, did I just know? Northeast. Out. 2738 northeast alberta street for the collection of delinquent city liens against the property.
92 Yet again, second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, can we please call the roll on item number 12?
93 Koyama Lane I. Morillo I. Novick I.
94 Clark I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Dunphy. I ordinance passes with 11 ayes and one absent.
95 I would like to thank everybody at home for what affectionately has been called a pirate party. I. That was a lot of it. Please call item number 13.
96 Document 2026-263. Consent to franchise transfer from zenith energy terminals holdings, llc to ysc. Springer holdings, llc. Amend ordinance 188554.
97 Okay colleagues, this is also the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Is there further council discussion? Councilor. Morillo.
98 Thank you, council president. I just want to say that I will not be able to support the franchise transfer this evening, because we did not approve some of the amendments that I feel would have made the transfer much more palatable to me and to the many advocates who have fought for decades to make sure that there is accountability for oil trains in the city. We were trying to add accountability measures so that if the city fails to hold this oil company accountable, the public has recourse. That is very common within environmental law, and we did not get a seventh vote for that. And so because of that, this is moving forward as is. And I, I can't really, in good conscience support this. I think that this was a very common sense measure to make improvements. And this council was unwilling to make those changes. So because of that, I'm going to be a no vote. But I just wanted to reiterate why it is I will not be supporting this at this time. Thank you.
99 Thank you, councilor Morillo councilor Green.
100 Thank you, council president. Like councilor Morillo, I won't be able to support this ordinance at this time. Council has the right to place conditions on franchise agreements that it deems reasonable. That's in the language of those franchises. I think it was always reasonable to have public process, to hear from the community, to gather ideas from the community and talk about ways to build trust together as a community with with the fossil fuel company, which has a long history of, of broken promises in this town. I think we missed an opportunity there. So at this time, I can't I can't sign my name on this. Thanks.
101 Thank you, councilor Green.
102 Councilor Kanal yeah. First, I just want to say thanks to the staff that have been working on this throughout. I understand that like when people vote yes or no, often it can feel like a reflection of the work that you've done, and I don't want it to feel that way. When I join at least two of my colleagues in voting no on this, but I just wanted to to mention that I also I imagine this will pass and hopefully we'll be able to continue the conversation with the new ownership after that takes over and try to help work on that trust going forward. Because right now, because of the previous owner, it's not there. And that's not what this vote is about. For me, this vote is about the the specific qualifications and how there wasn't a clear sort of criterion and rubric for that. And I didn't find that the information that I'd requested, which I was led to believe existed, actually existed sufficient to meet the criteria that that would have allowed us to be confident in the technical, legal and financial qualifications of the, I guess, the recipient of the franchise transfer. So that's why I'm going to be voting no. But I wanted to sort of express some optimism going forward because even though I am voting no, I imagine this will pass and see that we can can continue these conversations to try and build that trust going forward and see that there's change in this terminal.
103 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we please call the roll?
104 Calling the roll on 2026-263 Koyama Lane no. Morillo.
105 No. Novick I. Clark I.
106 Green no.
107 Zimmerman I. Avalos no.
108 Kanal. No pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Dunphy.
109 No.
110 The ordinance fails to pass with a vote of five I six nays and one absent.
111 Council president. Point of information.
112 Councilor.
113 This.
114 In a process like this. This was a transfer agreement process. Does this now go back to staff for additional information and consideration or does this go away?
115 I am unclear. We are having some folks confer.
116 Request for information. Council president, would it be possible for us to have that conversation return? Can can we check in on that question and the update to it later in this meeting?
117 I think for the purposes of this agenda, yes, we actually can do that.
118 Okay. Just from like a rules and process update. Okay. I don't want to.
119 So item 13 has not received sufficient votes to pass the item fails. We are going to call item 14.
120 Document 2026-277. Appropriate grant award of $207,411 for speed racing street takeover.
121 This is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Clare adamson from council operations is here with a committee staff summary report. Clare, take it away.
122 Thank you, council president and councilors for the record. Sorry, clare adamson, I'm reading on behalf of kevin alvarez, who staffs the community and public safety committee. And kevin prepared this committee staff summary but couldn't be here tonight. The ordinance before you document number 2026-277, was heard in the community and public safety committee on August 4th, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass the ordinance amending the fiscal year 2020 627 budget and allows the city to appropriate $207,411.35 in grant funds awarded by the state transportation safety office to address the prevalence of street racing and street takeover events. The grant will fund Portland police bureau overtime missions to combat planned and ad hoc speed racing and street takeover events. The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement. No verbal or written testimony was provided on this item prior to committee action, and that concludes the committee staff summary.
123 Thank you.
124 Thank you. Claire councilor Novick. This came out of your committee. Any committee chair remarks?
125 Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate that the committee members were interested in receiving more in-depth information about the plan for grant funds, including data, examples of past work related to these grants, and more granular planning and timeline for these funds. I think that this is an instance of where the administration is gradually getting used to the idea that we don't rubber stamp things, we want more information, and I think they got that message.
126 Thank you. Councilor. Colleagues, are there any first of all, is there anyone signed up for public testimony on this item?
127 We have one person signed up on this item. Grant, would you like me to call them?
128 Yeah, colleagues, I'm going to hold technical or clarifying questions for the council discussion and let's move to public testimony.
129 Okay. Edith gillis.
130 Welcome, edith. Come on up.
131 Hello. I'm edith gillis, district three. I want you to remember that the Portland voters voted overwhelmingly. That in any time that you spend any money on police, 5% is to go to the police accountability board. If you are going to pass this to give more money for police because they haven't planned properly, they're not doing their job right, you need to at least give 5% to the oversight and police accountability. There are many other ways to prevent street takeovers and dangerous driving. This is not the way to do that.
132 Thank you very much.
133 That completes testimony.
134 Thank you very much. Colleagues, we're now in council discussion as well as technical or clarifying questions. And we have some staff available in the room. If anybody would like to answer councilor Kanal.
135 Yeah, I mean, I'll ask the question based on that, I think. The way that it was characterized in committee was that effectively, this was allowing an expenditure. And I wanted to just understand that would imply that it's effectively the 5% already handled. So I just wanted to check with the lawyers on that and, and make sure that we were either told correctly or read between the lines correctly when that conversation happened. So I'll give I'm pausing for them to hear, but while they're figuring that out, I'll say that as we went through the. We should generally be considering grants. It's a. It's a fascinating thing that we do here because we vote on the grant. But it doesn't always affect a decision on the policy that we're that that or what it is that we're spending the money to do. Right. So sometimes we're it's characterized as, do you want free money or not? But yes, if you do. But sometimes it's about what are we spending the money on? And so while this one makes sense to me, I'm going to bring up in the other. The second grant that's coming up today, a concern about these sorts of things. And so I just wanted to flag that as a distinction between the two grants as well, because we are ultimately deciding not only if we want money, which obviously the city would like to have money appropriated to us, but also what it's being spent on. And while I generally support this particular grant and what it would be spent on, I am curious about the answer to the question raised in testimony.
136 I was in the hall working on another issue. Can you can you restate the question?
137 Absolutely. In committee it was characterized to us that effectively, this vote was about spending money in a specific way. And maybe I misread between the lines on that. But the in testimony, it was raised that in order to spend this $207,000, we'd have to add a little over $10,000, the 5% to the ocpa budget, the office of community based police accountability. And the question was, did did we already handle that or not? Through the the general budgeting process?
138 Well, that's a great question. I'm robert taylor, city attorney for the record. That might that might be a question better asked to the budget office.
139 Okay.
140 By any chance, I'm not trying to be funny. By any chance, is cfo biery or anyone from the cbo here? And we don't have to vote on this until next week. I don't understand, it's a first reading, but that that that would be a thing that would change my vote is if we didn't follow the 5% rule on something that I would otherwise be voting yes on. So I'm just trying to understand that and get that information. Council president, thank you.
141 We are do we have staff to be able to respond to this? Councilor. I think we will have to come back to your answer and ask for the administration to get some response. Thank you. Councilor Avalos.
142 Thank you. So I've got some questions. I think that I have in general, I have concerns. Any time we are asked to add funding for police enforcement, without clear evidence about what outcomes that additional spending will produce, obviously, street racing and takeovers can create serious safety risks. We've experienced it a lot in east Portland, and we have a responsibility to address them. But that doesn't mean that every enforcement strategy is automatically effective or justified. So before approving additional overtime and surveillance equipment, I want to understand how these funds will be used, how success is measured and what safeguards are in place. Council president, are there folks, I guess, are these kinds of questions to police leadership? Are they in the room or. I don't really know.
143 I have on my notes that sergeant petrov from PPB is supposed to be here, sheila craig from the grant manager's office, and ben moon with the grant analysts. I don't know if any of those three people are the right to speak. If sergeant petrov is here, potentially, if some folks welcome.
144 Thank you.
145 I am not sergeant petrov. I am lieutenant greg moore over this, so can you the.
146 Question I haven't asked the question quite yet. So let me let me ask that. Thank you for being here. So a couple of things. So first of the 207,000, can you talk to me about what how much will specifically go towards overtime versus things like equipment or other expenses? How are you breaking that down?
147 So initially when we proposed the grant, it was, I can't remember the exact numbers. That's a grant. That would be a grants question with the numbers was. But because of how long this has taken and the short until the end of this grant, we're not going to be able to procure that equipment. So at this point, all of the money will be spent on overtime.
148 At this point, all of it will be spent out over time. Yes. Okay. And, well, I guess that answers my next couple of questions. I mean, let me just daylight this because this is what I was going to ask. If any of the funding could be used for prevention, traffic engineering, community based strategies or other non enforcement approaches. So it sounds like the right now it is to use just on police overtime.
149 That's this grant is specifically for high visibility enforcement.
150 Say that one more time.
151 It's specifically for high visibility enforcement.
152 High visibility enforcement. What does that mean. Does that mean something specific.
153 So it's from ODOT. That's one of their requirements for this grant is that it is a high visibility. It's not for undercover work. It's not for prevention. It's not for investigation. It's for during the event disrupting the event and having an impact on the event.
154 Got it. Okay. Thank you. And then I guess, what kind of reporting is council going to receive showing the number of missions or arrests or citations, use of force, demographic information, like how are you going to communicate back to us the outcomes of using this grant?
155 Yeah. So part part of the requirements of the grant is that we have those measurables and that we provide them to ODOT. So that would be the same to you.
156 Okay. Thank you. So then do we have people from budget office to talk about the. Well, I guess maybe we don't need that because you already told me. So nevermind for that. That's all the questions I have, I think. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm definitely still a little bit concerned about this, but probably feel more concerned about the next one. So I think I'll leave it at that and I'll ponder where I land. Thank you.
157 Thank you. Councilor Avalos councilor Zimmerman.
158 Thank you. I'm all for it. Get out there. Get them right. This street racing crap is really destroying a lot of a lot of areas. And the wrecks that happen when it goes on is incredibly dangerous. People getting walloped by the back end of a car is incredibly dangerous. Right? So thank you for going after grants, finding other people's money. Let's get out there and do it. These missions have to start taking place as much as as possible because they're in, they're out, they're gone. It's really hard to stop. So I appreciate the work because it's not easy. So thank you.
159 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman.
160 Councilor Kanal yeah, thanks. Thanks for being here. I just wanted to get a clarification. So when you talk, because one of the things that came up in committee, and I just wanted to get this on the record here, since there's a larger audience for it in the in the slides, it talks through what exactly you're going to do with it. It is mission based. It is it is doing all that. And that's why I was comfortable voting yes on it and would pending the budget question on the other thing, support it again here. Could you clarify what deployable cameras means?
161 So we were talking about like like gopros or cameras that would make it so that we could record criminal activity.
162 Yeah. And so these are these are cameras that are not in a fixed location deployable. Right. And but you'd be putting them in a fixed location for that is likely to have an event occur that would help you monitor it. Right.
163 That was one of the thoughts when we applied the grant. But again, we have no intention of buying any cameras at this point because we don't have time for procurement of them.
164 Great. Thank you for clarifying that. Again, I know I asked you a very similar question in committee, but I think there were folks who weren't there that are here today. So I wanted to get that on the record and appreciate it.
165 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Ryan.
166 Thank you, council president, good to see all of you, and thank you for your service. I was proud to be a part of the council that passed the street racing action in 2023. I've learned how challenging it was to set up the system and the labor force. It takes the amount of officers on patrol to manage those street takeovers, which really impact the neighborhoods in north Portland quite a bit, since many of them take place on mlk columbia boulevard, the people on marine drive west have told me horror stories where their employees can't get to their shifts of employment, those that work the graveyard shifts. So it's impacted a lot of the workforce in our city as well. And one, I just want to hear how many patrol officers does it take to actually safely manage the street takeovers?
167 That's a hard number to to nail down just because it depends on the size of the event and the behavior and the location.
168 That's okay to start there, but I'd like you to go further because there are numbers involved. The reason I'm asking this question is because there are nights where there's maybe 13 to 25 officers in the entire city, and when there's a street takeover, when there's some other unrest, when there's a gun violence shooting, suddenly no one can show up for any of the property crime requests that we get, calls that you get from our storefronts around the city. So I think it's important for the public to have a better understanding. Sometimes staffing is better understood when you can tell a story. So please take some time to tell a stories on what it's like to actually respond to these situations. Thank you.
169 My name is sergeant michael currier. I'm the operational sergeant for this street to street takeover activity. Typically we like to get approximately 20 officers, but those numbers are also coming from Clackamas county, Multnomah county transit, the port. We also get assistance from the other side of the river. During these missions, we usually have our air support team working. So when when I say at least 20 officers, those are coming from multiple different agencies that come to help.
170 And that took some time to set up those agreements.
171 It, it, it has taken a long time, a lot of networking to do that. Yeah.
172 And so congratulations on getting this award. Clearly it's needed. And I want to thank our partners in law enforcement and public safety from Gresham and Vancouver and the surrounding municipalities. It's good to hear that. And I just think it's important that when we tell these stories, we allow the public to understand the impact of how many patrol officers it takes to manage that. And you do that because you want to ensure safety. And so what I've heard is it takes a higher number to ensure the safety of those surrounding the area.
173 It it absolutely does. We've had a number of fatal crashes out, especially on marine drive, but it is a citywide problem. Locations like broadway and Burnside, 102 and glisan airport way, marine drive, mlk. It 20 is almost a minimum that we need to deal with these problems.
174 Thank you for telling the story. It helps.
175 We've had a pretty significant impact in the last few years as well to.
176 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, actually. Councilor Kanal is that a legacy hand? Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue. This is a non the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance council president.
177 I saw that grant. Yeah. Hi. Sorry.
178 She just.
179 Wanted to answer the question about the 5%. It is not part of the budget for this grant. So it would have to be part of the adopted budget. But we are not allocating 5%. It was 5%. Was that the percentage you were asking about earlier?
180 Yeah, it was, but I so let me let me ask you right now, the police budget and the budget before this ordinance are in the correct ratio, there is exactly 5%.
181 Okay.
182 Here, I believe I'm going to verify if there's any extra wiggle room there. And so in order to increase the police budget by 207,000, my understanding is we have to increase the budget by 5% to meet the charter requirement.
183 So we are not doing that with this ordinance. I can't answer that question. We are only budgeting the grant funds.
184 Okay, so. I think then we need to hear from cbo and or cfo biery to understand if there is wiggle room, meaning if it's already if if doing so would remain within the the ratios or if that would mean we were out of compliance with the city charter. Okay. And so I appreciate that you're distinguishing what this ordinance does. And I think that's part of the answer we're looking for.
185 And we'll follow up on that and get you an answer.
186 And I know that when the budget gets amended, you know, when the mayor's proposal gets amended, they're not always in perfect ratio. We know that it's at least 5%, but we don't know if it's above it. So if hypothetically, it was already above it by about $10,300 or whatever, then we're fine from a legal perspective. So I'm just trying to understand that. Okay, I think that's the cfo cbo question. I'm seeing c Elana along if it's if it's not there, we'd have to amend this and I don't want to delay it next week. Is the is the is the question I is a concern I have if we can avoid delaying it, because I do think it's good to get the money to the thing that the grant was applied for. So I just I don't know how you want to handle that council president, but I wanted to indicate that's my goal is not to slow this down here. I just want to make sure in compliance with the charter.
187 Okay. Thank you very much. Councilor Kanal is this counselor Smith online with the hand?
188 Yes. Council president, I just wanted to let you know that I am here.
189 Thank you.
190 Thank you very much. Okay, colleagues, is there further discussion of this item? Okay. This is not the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. It now passes to second reading. Keelan. Please call item number 15.
191 Document 2026-278. Appropriate grant award of $103,069 for expanded traffic enforcement.
192 Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non emergency ordinance. Claire adams is here with council operations to give us a committee staff summary report. Claire.
193 Thank you again, council president and councilors for the record. Claire adams, again, reading on behalf of kevin alvarez, who staffs the community and public safety committee and prepared this committee staff summary. The ordinance before you document number 2026-278 was heard in the community and public safety committee on August 4th, where it was referred to full council with the recommendation to pass the ordinance amending the fiscal year 2026 to 27 budget to appropriate $103,069 in grant funds awarded by the Oregon department of transportation safety office to increase the efficiency of traffic crash investigations and to expand patrol traffic enforcement. The budget amendments increases the Portland police bureau program expenses and the grants fund for a grant period from July 14th, 2026 through September 30th, 2026. The award requires a local match of $25,768 that the police bureau will provide from its general fund resources, and is intended to supplement existing city revenues. Grant funds will support officer training, time and associated benefits, and mobile citation and drone use, mobile citation printers and related supplies, crash investigation drones and a dedicated crash investigation computer. The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement. No verbal or written testimony was submitted on this item prior to committee action, and that concludes the committee staff summary.
194 Thank you.
195 Thank you. Claire councilor Novick. This came out of your committee. Any committee chair remarks?
196 Yes. As with the previous grant, committee members would like to see more data and detailed information about the plans for this grant. I'll also note that the debate of the site have included a discussion of disparities and traffic enforcement, which is an important topic which I think we need to have a full discussion of in a future committee. In the context of this of this grant discussion, I didn't feel like we had the scope or the personnel there to have such a full discussion, but we will have one later.
197 Thank you, councilor Councilors. I'm sorry, is there anyone signed up for public testimony on this item?
198 Edith gillis signed up.
199 Okay.
200 I'd like to move to public testimony before we get to technical clarifying questions or council discussion. So, edith, welcome.
201 The city of Portland has this wonderful program or did for many years.
202 Introduce yourself.
203 For the record.
204 My name is edith gillis, district three. And that wonderful program was about improving traffic safety. So we do it through education, through engineering. As councilor Avalos mentioned, and through enforcement. And enforcement doesn't just have to be cops or guns or fines. There are far better ways to have safer streets for all users than what we're doing. And what you're proposing here. And any time that you take in more money, more staffing, more equipment, more services than in any way are used by the police, then you have to give at least 5% for the oversight and the accountability of those police and those programs. Please be very careful that you do not lose the trust and the respect, the cooperation of Portland voters. We're going to be facing really horrible times. And if you betray our trust on this, as you have on zenith and clean energy and so many other things, you're going to have a much harder time with future decisions. Please be aware there's better ways to have safer streets than this.
205 Thank you very much.
206 That completes testimony.
207 Thank you colleagues. We are now into technical clarifying questions and also council discussion. Councilor Morillo.
208 Yeah, thank you so much. We had a good discussion about this in committee, but I still left with a lot of a lot more questions about this, and I'm not sure who in the room should answer them, but the agreement funds two drones. But it doesn't say what make or model. And so I don't know who's the best person to answer this question, but I'd like to know what drones were buying. And does any flight or image data sync to a manufacturer's cloud?
209 Thank you.
210 Good evening. Councilors brian hughes, deputy chief of the Portland police bureau. For the record, councilor Morillo. I don't know the exact brand. I can get back to you on that. We already use drones pretty extensively in the work that we do, and it would just be an expansion of those. I think the ones we use right now are dji, and as far as I know, we don't upload anything to the cloud. I will confirm both of those questions for you, the brand. And if we upload anything to the cloud.
211 Gotcha. I think yeah, it's okay that you don't know. I think that to me that points to a broader issue I have, which is that we now have a data privacy office that we're currently hiring a director for. It's in motion. I was very proud to bring that forward with councilor Novick, and I think it's really critical to the work that we're doing here at the city. So is the data privacy office going to review this purchase before any equipment is bought and how long drone imagery is retained, who hosts the citation software and the citation database, and whether the clause giving ODOT and federal agencies access to project records could reach stop or citation records with people's personal information.
212 Councilor. I would have no issue with the data privacy office taking a look at this. I applaud your work there. I think it's important. As you know, these issues expand and you see them all over the country and certainly have no issues there with having a data privacy office. Take a look at the purchase of these things. As far as the the images they collect, these these drones are used to collect images on crash, fatal crash investigations so that we can get roads open quicker. And they're saved in our database, our evidence database, those are evidence evidentiary pictures. And they're saved according to whatever the timelines are for that kind of evidence to be kept. I think it's a pretty long time. I just I don't know how long.
213 Okay. And I know we're hiring for that top position, but is there anyone from the city data privacy office that could, you know, confirm that they're going to be reviewing these tools before they're implemented? Or maybe ca lee I'm not sure who it doesn't. It's not fully formed yet. So maybe you can commit for us or you can commit for us. Anyone on the record.
214 I know we can have our bts bureau of technology services take a look at it. Since the office is not set up, a lot of these services previously for the city was running through our bureau of technology services, so we would still use their services to really vet this out from a technology standpoint. But I'll let dca warren elaborate on that topic even more, but also address kind of where we are in the process of setting up this office officially.
215 Thank you, ca lee, and thank you, councilor Morillo, for the question. For the record, deputy city administrator tracy warren, we currently do privacy impact assessments when we are looking at adopting new technology on behalf of the city. So that is a current practice that will continue. I cannot verify whether or not when this when the drones that were originally purchased, whether or not they went through that process, that is a newer process that is taking place.
216 Yeah. And I really appreciate the work that folks at bts do, but this would be a pretty big expansion of scope for their work. And with all due respect to folks, as someone who's researched this pretty extensively, bts is not in any way equipped to do data governance analysis the way that's the reason we created the data privacy office, because we've never had a group that was capable of doing data governance work, which is very different. So can ca lee, can you commit that the data privacy office is going to be assessing this before we implement any new technology, because we keep purchasing new technology at the city and it does not go through the proper channels.
217 Can I clarify that the data privacy impact assessment currently takes place outside of bts? So it is currently taking place through smart cities, and then it is reviewed as part of an overall committee of the technology. So we can commit that it will be done outside of bts.
218 Okay. And those same staff were moved into our data privacy office anyway, so they're doing that same work. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. That was some of the core concerns I had about, and I hope that as the data privacy office is established, that we will just move new technology through that, especially with the age of so many cameras, storage of people's information, facial recognition technology, all of that. It's something I really care about. So I'll just keep looking for that again and again. But thank you. I think that answers my questions.
219 Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Pirtle-guiney.
220 Thank you, council president. We've heard twice now testimony with concerns about the 5% set aside for police accountability. And I think we heard on the first one that that would have to be appropriated in the future with no real plan. So I am wondering if there is a plan for that fund and if the 5% could be taken out of the matching funds that are already allocated, or if for whatever reason, these don't have to have the 5%, in which case we should be transparent about that with the public. Because what I don't want to do is end up in next year's budget needing to meet that piece of the requirement that we hadn't planned for.
221 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor.
222 Do we have an answer? That's a that's a question.
223 Yeah.
224 Councilor, I'll I'll defer that again to probably the cfcfo for that.
225 Yeah. We'll have to follow up with you, council, because I think it's going to be.
226 We're being asked to appropriate the funds today.
227 I understand that, councilor, but we would have to follow up on that specific question as it relates to does this impact the charter as it relates to the police accountability?
228 Let me ask a specific question. If this does impact that and we need the 5%, can the matching funds that are being used to obtain these grants be used for that 5%? Or do the grants require the matching funds to be used for the common program?
229 And as she's walking, I just want to councilor. We are not voting on this today.
230 Okay.
231 Can we get those answers by next week? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
232 Sheila craig grants management division. We would not be able to take funds from the matching funds, because that is requirement of the grant that amount. And it's in I think we're utilizing straight time for that matching requirement. So if we were to reduce the amount of match for what we put in our application and our budget, we would have to reduce spending the grant funds by that amount because it's we have grant funds and we have matching funds. So we would not be able we would have to cover those funds with something else if we were to take from those matching funds.
233 Thank you, council president. I'd appreciate it if we can get an answer on what the plan is from the administration before we vote on these.
234 Absolutely. Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. We will work with the administration on that. Councilor Avalos.
235 Thank you. So I understand the intent behind improving crash investigations and reducing the amount of time roadways are closed after serious collisions. We know that traffic safety is a real concern. We know that especially well in east Portland. But like I said in the last item, I don't believe that increased enforcement automatically means increased safety and traffic stops can have a very different impact across our communities, especially when we know that portlanders of color have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted for traffic stops. In the most recent stops, data, black people made up 20% of total stops, while accounting for only 5.7% of portland's population, and 46.3% of those stops happened in east precinct. So I again want to be careful anytime council is asked to approve additional resources that expand police traffic enforcement, especially through surveillance. And I want to better understand the use of the drones included in this grant and what safeguards are in place around the data collection and use. Thank you to councilor Morillo. She already asked some of my questions around that, so I'll skip those. But let's start here with what specifically does expanded patrol based traffic enforcement mean? In practice, our officers expected to conduct more traffic stops as a result of this grant.
236 Councilor Avalos no, this is this is specifically for equipment and training to, to use those equipments, like, for example, the old days, like when I first started, we wrote the thing out by hand and it was in triplicate and you handed the thing. Nowadays they have printers in the cars that I have no idea how to use, and would probably end up going through the training so that I could learn myself. But that's what this would be for is, is training officers on how to mobile print those, those citations, just streamlining the process, making it easier to get them over to the courts and limiting the stop duration time.
237 Okay. Thank you. We started to get a little bit into this, but let me just ask it again, just because my question is just a little different. But what policies govern the use of the crash investigation drones, including when they may be deployed, what data they're collecting, how long the data is retained and whether it can be used for purposes beyond crash investigations. That last one is kind of the extra part that I didn't hear.
238 Yeah, I will find the sop on our drones and share that with you offline. What I know of it right now is that we have very strict safeguards in place for how the drones are used. They're used in the patrol world under a very specific set of circumstances. They're used in the traffic world in a very, very limited set of circumstances. And that revolves around traffic reconstruction and taking like grid photos of what a deadly crash scene looks like. And as I said before, the retention of that of those photos is per criminal court guidelines and how long we keep evidence for, there's rules and laws that say how long we have to keep that evidence for. I can share those with you as well.
239 Thank you. I'd appreciate that. And then for the general fund contribution, I guess, why is it necessary? And also, was that funding already included in pbs's adopted budget, or is this an additional change?
240 It's my understanding that the 20 it's a 25,000 matching out of the general fund that we have to to contribute. I don't know the specifics on the thing, on the. If the money was already there, I don't know how that all works. And we'll have to defer that to cfo biery.
241 Thank you. Yes. Sorry. You keep getting asked all these budget questions. I know you don't have all the answers to, but thanks for entertaining those. So as I spoke about in my opening statement, you know, I am concerned about stop data and the clear disparate racial impacts. And so in that same vein is how is PPB or are you tracking demographic and geographic data associated with the expanded traffic enforcement so that council can evaluate whether this expanded enforcement is being conducted equitably? How will we be able to measure that?
242 Yes. So this expanded is just on on like I said, the equipment, the drones and the traffic printers in the car. As far as your question and where you were kind of going, I think with the stops and disparate data, that concerns me as well. And we had a pretty robust discussion in caps about that on this topic. I think councilor Kanal had several questions regarding that. And since that time, and based on his line of questioning, I've directed the bureau to apply for yet another grant to look into this stop data collection. And it's through ODOT. It's it's a grant that's been around for a while. It's my understanding that no one has applied for it. And it's just for this purpose is to look into this. And I heard the the one of the testifiers earlier asking about like the community aspects and involvement. And I've asked that the grant look at that aspect of things as well. We haven't received it yet. Obviously, eventually it will come through here and maybe we can sit back down and discuss this issue then. But it would be nice to have, have have a look at that and figure out why the data is what it is and why the stops are what they are. And so we've passed the first step in applying for that grant. They've accepted the application and I'll keep you informed on how that goes.
243 Is that a federal grant?
244 That's an ODOT grant.
245 It's an ODOT grant. Okay. Yeah. You know, thanks for clarifying. I guess I have been getting kind of mixed up. I'm trying to understand when we say that we're expanding enforcement, but that the money is for the equipment. I guess I'm just trying to square those two things. So do you see how that is a bit confusing? I don't know how to ask a question, but that's what I'm confused about.
246 No, you're right, it says it right in the in the grant, it says expand patrol base traffic enforcement. But then when when you look down through the details there, it's through streamlining the process and issuing citations and being able to print them more efficiently and how they do their work and streamlining that aspect of things. So there isn't anything in the grant that is increasing. The amount of officers going out and doing the traffic stops. It's the training that they'll use on how to write the tickets, basically.
247 Okay, that's helpful to know. I
248 I think that's all for now.
249 Thank you.
250 Thank you. Councilor Avalos. Councilor Kanal.
251 Thank you. So first, I want to say that, you know, I did a ride along last year, and I appreciate you being here to answer this, these questions. When I did a ride along last year, I saw the front end of the data collection system. And it's incredibly confusing, I think, for the officers who have to put it in. It's confusing for me. I'll just say for myself, I don't want to speak for the officers because when are you supposed to? It's supposed to capture what an officer knows at the time that they chose to make a stop, but it's not necessarily that's that's not necessarily the time when it's filled out. And it's not necessarily possible to go back and know what you used to or unknow what you now know after you've done the stop, if that makes sense. Gone and done it. There's, there's issues on the front end. So I appreciate that. There's a desire to look into how that front end gets done as well. And we focus so much on the back end of this because that's after ssd puts together these reports. That's very helpful. And it's very easy to do that. But I want to acknowledge that that front end is, is not necessarily ideal for creating this. Having said that, from what we've seen and what's been discussed, and I want to note that before council ever discussed this, the Portland committee on community engaged policing has discussed this for many, many years. And and its predecessors before that. And so we've seen that the the sort of data analysis shows that it's effectively that makes it complicated for looking at individual stops, but not necessarily the aggregate stats. And so I just want to get that out of the way. Getting into this, I voted no on this in committee. And the simple reason why is that we've had disparity racially in traffic stops, and that there's no information in the grant evaluation plan that mentions equity or looking at equity impacts. So I will note that that it does say I hear what you're saying, chief hughes, about what it's actually trying to do. And in terms of mobile printers, I have no problem with mobile printers. But it does ask in the evaluation plan, to what extent did citation issuance volume or timeliness change following printer deployment. So the idea is to make things more efficient. And I think that will that's fair to say that that would increase the amount of it happening. There's the drone issue as well. And I know councilor Ryan, in the previous item mentioned the vote on traffic safety and all that I actually was presenting at that time in my old job that same day, I was sitting in the back of the room when the conversation happened around drones and how they'd be used. And it was this overhead view. We also know that they've been used to, to find heat maps that showed someone was doing donuts in, in an area following a crash. And originally it was kind of portrayed as this is only well after the fact. So I had some questions about that. Then this was 2023. It came up and and the case was a little after that. So I've had some questions about the drone usage for a while, and I appreciate councilor Morillo bringing that up too. So as it relates to this particular grant, going back to what I said before, this isn't just about do we want money? Obviously we want money. It's we when you accept this money, you're using it to do a specific thing. And so we also have to have the conversation about how do we do the thing? Do we want to do the thing that the money would be used for? So I my concern was about the equity impacts of that because just to, to do it, and I'll be more specific, traffic stops not overall stops have gone from about 8% of the people stopped were black in 2012. And that's increased with a little bit of variation all the way up to 15.4%. Last year of people stopped who in Portland, traffic stops of black drivers and the percentage of portlanders that are black has remained around just below 6% throughout that, based on census data. And part of the concern around that and how it's measured is that PPB in the data report uses a benchmark that is not population based, it's injury collision benchmark. And there's a lot of information that's been on this. But this doesn't explain the size of the disparity nor the trend. And I wanted to to just mention that again. So my concern is about the first concern is about the drones. The second concern is about continuing to ramp up this work, as it is not yet resolved. From the inequities perspective. And then there's the third question, which was raised in testimony about whether or not we're following the 5% rule. By the way, the 5% rule, we have to follow it. I don't think it's going to be hard to follow it. I think it's just something we have to get done if we want to do these grants. And again, I want to vote yes on the first one. I don't want to vote yes on this one. I opposed it in committee and I'll probably oppose it again here. And I also want to note that this information may seem separate from the conversation we're having. But I'm going to quote chief day in a letter on January 23rd, 2025 to the Portland committee on community engaged policing, said that the PPB encourages collaborators to use the annual stops report and state reports to inform discussion to develop actionable strategies for improving equitable policing practices beyond the scope of data collection and analysis techniques. I think he meant the current ones in effect then, so I appreciate that those are evolving now, and I just want to make sure that that is a process that is resolved before we're increasing this. And I appreciate the things that were brought up by other colleagues as well. But those are sort of my my three things that I've been focused on in this particular grant application and consideration. Thanks.
252 Thank you.
253 Council. Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Ryan.
254 Thank you, council president, it's been mentioned, and I'm not disputing the data about the disparity when it comes to the general population of our area and the amount of arrest. I will need to say this because I've done numerous ride alongs. I do most of them at night, and I have found myself eating crow because I say all those that same data, and I can't tell what the person looks like when I'm in my ride along from behind until after they're pulled over. So I hope that we could maybe. Do we have data that says it was daytime or nighttime? Do we have that granular data in in the reports?
255 Yes. I believe the data can show that. I don't know if that stops. Data actually shows that or not.
256 I think it's important to crosswalk that because I think that with all data, you got to go underneath the, you got to go deeper to really get the knowledge that's necessary. And so anyway, that's my lived experience. I've done four of these at night. And every time I do them, I'm humbled by the fact that I cannot tell. And so but I realize they're pulling someone over just because they, they broke the law. So they're weaving in the road and it looks like they need to be have a conversation. So, so, so no one is hurt. Anyway. I always think it's important to tell those real lived experiences.
257 Thank you. I'm surprised to hear that. I thought everybody knew at like at night that you can't see really who's driving the car. I mean I've worked nights for many years and and that's just I thought that was common sense.
258 Yeah. I think everyone knows that when they take a pause and they actually are in the conversation. Right. But yeah, the times that I do these at night when it's raining, it's a I can't tell. Thanks.
259 Thank you. Councilor Ryan councilor Kanal back in.
260 The queue.
261 Yeah. So there's a concept called the veil of.
262 Darkness that I think is worth bringing up here. And it has to do with with the if there's a disparity in the rates of stops by racial category of drivers during the day versus at night. And in fact, the quote that I gave earlier from chief day was in his response to a recommendation from pccep recommending veil of darkness analysis. And he noted in his response that that that that PPB doesn't do it directly, but the state does it for PPB data. So that's important to note. I've also done ride alongs at night. I want to step back for a second and say racial disparity in the aggregate stops. Data does not necessarily mean anything about individual police officers. Right. There are systemic reasons in terms of where people are deployed that affects who's going to get stopped, right? That doesn't necessarily mean that an individual officer is making a choice based on what they see, but that does also mean that systemic problems, and I would argue that it is a systemic problem, that there is a massive disparity that is, you know, about double the rate here. That those systemic problems require systemic solutions as opposed to looking at, you know, this individual stop, what are the the big picture things here? And veil of darkness is one option for that. But as the chief, I think, accurately pointed out, the state does it already. And so I think I'm using this less to talk about that, that concept and more about the idea that this isn't necessarily about individual people making making prejudice decisions. I want to just make sure that that's not an accusation that people are taking away from this or inferring for what I'm from what I'm saying, but that there is this statistical thing that this is this is measured. And I think that when we have the conversation about why and what are we comparing it to, that PPB has for many years now said, don't compare it to the population data, meaning the census metrics of what percentage of the population is of the same racial category, but compared instead to the injury collision data. And that basically has a circular impact because we collect more data at places where police are after collisions. That's just how that goes. And there's a lot of other analysis that's been done and reasons why that that may not be the best metric to use. I appreciate, by the way, I don't want to just pile on here. The non traffic stops. The pit stops had a different metric that was used. And in 2025 and 2026, PPB changed the benchmark. And I think it was in response to a lot of the critique and feedback that was given for that. And I just wanted to to note that, commend that and say effectively the ask is the same for this category. And, and, and we need to, to pursue that as we go forward. I did want to just circle back briefly to the question about the 5%. I appreciate councilor Pirtle-guiney question. I think it's a very good question. I think that we may need to follow up about sources of what is ultimately a fairly negligible amount of money. We're talking up to $15,000 here. My back of envelope math from the budget book says that we're about $4,500 over the bare minimum in ocpa right now. And in order to accept the first grant, we need to accept, we need to increase by about $10,000, meaning the gap is about $5,800. In the event we take the second grant. Should that pass, that's another 5000 something dollars. Ii5 thousand, I don't remember. I have too many tabs open trying to do the math here, but so it's a small amount of money, but that that we would need to do something. So I just wanted to get that on the record. That's if the budget book is is correct. I do have a concern about the idea. I want to not go down a path of figuring out how we don't need to comply with it, and instead figure out how to find $5,000, because it doesn't seem like that'll be that hard to do. And not that anyone suggested that, but just because there was kind of between some of the questions, I wanted to get that on the record as well. Thank you, council president.

Procedural episode · turns 263–271

Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.

263 Thank you, councilor Kanal seeing no one else in the queue, this is the first reading of a non emergency ordinance and now passes to second reading. Colleagues. The time is now 727. We're about halfway done with our agenda and we only have one item left. So we're going to go ahead and take a ten minute break. So everybody please be back here at I'm going to give you 12 minutes. I'd like everybody back here at 740, please. Seven.
264 This is counselor Smith. I can't hear the council chambers.
265 Thank you all for that. I'm calling us back to order. Before we move to item 16. Counselor Smith.
266 Yes, I'd like to see council president because I had an approved absence. If we can reconsider the franchise transfer.
267 Point of order. In robert's rules, you can only motion to reconsider. After all, the other business has been heard.
268 After the full agenda has been heard. I didn't know that that's true. But okay.
269 I think that's true.
270 Do we have a.
271 Can we hear from legal counsel?
272 Yeah.
273 I believe it can be made at any time just before the close of today's session. But I also see city attorney robert taylor here to correct me if I'm wrong.
274 Yeah, thanks. Hey, robert taylor, city attorney. I think I'd have to look. But I think the motion to reconsider is in order. When other when there's not other pending business before the body. So typically you would make it you often it is made right after the item fails.
275 So pending business is just before it's in that sort of interstitial period.
276 Yeah. Well you're not in consideration of another pending item.
277 Okay. Thanks for clarifying.
278 Thank you. So counselor Smith has motioned to reconsider councilor Kanal.
279 My understanding is that reconsideration can only be proposed by a member who voted with the prevailing side.
280 My understanding is an absence counts as a no as a prevailing side under our code, though.
281 That's only for purposes of tiebreaking. If there's six votes in favor.
282 This is fun.
283 I'll pull up the code.
284 It is fun and it's a new one. That is a new one for sure. I think this would be issue that the chair could rule on, and whether councilor Smith's motion to reconsider would be in order, and whether the presiding officer believes that the.
285 I really quickly just read the.
286 The piece here.
287 So this is this is code 3.0, 2.030, section j tiebreaking vote by mayor. And it specifically says in determining if a vote is a tie, absence is. Abstentions and vacancies will be counted as no votes.
288 This would have nothing to do with the mayor. I wanted to vote.
289 I hate to wade into this, but it seems to me and I don't have it up in front of me that if that's specifically in the section about the mayor breaking a tie and it calls it out, that doesn't necessarily, without reading the context of the rest of the section, mean that it would not be considered a tie in another instance or considered a no vote. I guess I would say in another instance. Have you read the totality of the section to understand how that fits in context? Because I don't think we can take that one unrelated piece.
290 I was reading that you're right, that it doesn't necessarily preclude that an absence would be considered a no vote in another or broader context. That's correct. I was responding to council president's point about. About the in the context of the tie break was what we were talking about here in terms of absence, it doesn't really come up except in the code, except as it relates to the absence of the president and the sort of vice president presiding in that case. That's the only place that the word absence appears other than the tie breaking there. But my understanding from reconsideration is that the prevailing side.
291 Okay, in the interest.
292 On the prevailing side, because I was with the six.
293 You weren't here.
294 Counselor Smith. I am going to rule against your motion. However, I will motion to reconsider the vote myself.
295 Any member, any member can second that.
296 Seconded.
297 Thank you.
298 Colleagues, I feel there's still a lot of room on this item to move forward. If there is a reasonable effort made to find an enforcement and a disclosure provision as a condition of approval that the parties and the city attorney finds acceptable, it. I therefore would move to reconsider this item and postpone it to a future meeting next week, or the following, so that the appropriate work can be done to amend this transfer agreement, a condition be adopted and we can move the item swiftly to a vote. So I have moved. I believe councilor Smith has seconded. Is this is this a debatable motion?
299 The motion to reconsider is debatable.
300 Okay, colleagues, the motion to reconsider has been first and seconded.
301 Point of information.
302 Councilor Avalos.
303 So this you can in the motion to reconsider, attach the condition which you're adding, which is like that. We will do it at a time certain. And so can you help me understand that?
304 Yeah, it's my I the motion to reconsider is itself a soul action. I'm saying in context right now, for the purposes of the public and my colleagues, that I believe that there is a path forward on this, if there is additional work on it. And so, as council president, if we open this and reconsider this, I my next immediate motion will be to postpone the vote on this for a future.
305 Council meeting.
306 So technically, it's two separate actions.
307 I would ask for a vote before you do all that.
308 So it has to be two separate actions.
309 Two separate actions.
310 So right now the first vote is just to reconsider. And then when it's reconsidered, then what? It just gets placed on back on the agenda kind of thing.
311 And then I will. Yes.
312 And then after that, you're hoping to make another motion to move it to a time certain.
313 Correct.
314 Okay. Did you say what the time certain was already.
315 I am I am simply saying to postpone this item to a future meeting date.
316 Okay, so not.
317 Reconsideration first.
318 Councilor councilor. The motion to reconsider is a debatable motion and councilor. Thank you. Okay, okay. Thank you counselor. All right, colleagues to the q councilor Kanal to the motion.
319 Yeah. Council president, I would ask you to consider that should the motion to reconsider pass at that point, the vote could immediately be retaken. Go six six and the mayor would break the tie because there is no requirement that you can't combine the two things. As councilor Avalos just asked. There is no guarantee that should this motion pass it pass, that it will not immediately be voted on and go to the mayor's tie break, which we know how that will go?
320 Well, I'm the only one who can call a vote.
321 Okay. I would suggest that it might be better to wait until the condition that you are seeking is proposed before taking the vote to reconsider at all. And that's all I'll say on that.
322 I actually, if I yes, heard thank you counselor.
323 The the motion to reconsider needs to be made before the adjournment of the meeting.
324 Point of.
325 Request for information. You could still rescind it though, right? Even if like reconsiders in the same meeting. But you could make a motion to rescind instead in a in a later meeting, right.
326 You could make a motion to rescind an action. You could do that. Okay. But under under our rules, the motion to reconsider must be made before the adjournment of the meeting. So I think that's what kind of drives that the urgency of this pending motion to reconsider.
327 But hypothetically, you could reopen. We could reopen the item in a future meeting with a motion, a different motion. Is that correct?
328 No, I don't think you could re you could reopen it. So if if the meeting adjourns without adopting the motion to reconsider, then the item is beyond the reach of the motion to reconsider. And it would it would fail. And and also just just so everybody knows, if the motion to reconsider fails to pass, then the item is procedurally deceased, because you can only make the motion to reconsider once. So.
329 So just to.
330 He said that if the motion to reconsider were to fail, then the item is procedurally dead. Is there any other motion that a counselor could use in a future meeting after this one has been adjourned to reopen? This particular topic? Is there any way to reopen the topic in a in a in a week? Hypothetically.
331 If if this item fails today and there's no motion to reconsider to to keep it going, then there would not be a motion that you could make. No.
332 And what if the motion to reconsider was withdrawn without being voted on? Could then a counselor reopen it in a week if the motion to reconsider had never kept?
333 No.
334 Okay.
335 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Yeah. I'm good, thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor Morillo.
336 I think everybody knows what we want today, and we could just get it done today. If the amendment goes through, I'd happily vote for this and get us to a seven five vote if you wanted. If we could get the amendment through today, we can be done. And then the public can have more recourse. And the franchise transfer can pass. So that is on the table as we continue this discussion.
337 Thank you, counselor. Morillo. Councilor.
338 Ryan yeah.
339 Thank you, council president, I appreciate all the dialog here and. Councilor Kanal. And your rules, robert's rules of orders in that book, does it say that the mayor can break a tie on the vote of reconsideration?
340 No.
341 You cannot.
342 No.
343 Just need seven for motion to reconsider. But it is not a final motion. And so the mayor can only vote on final motions.
344 Before the fifth arm of the government.
345 Thank you. Breaking the tie.
346 Thank you, counselor Ryan. Counselor Green.
347 I'm glad you're still sitting up there. Mr. Taylor, my reading of robert's rules of order says that the motion to reconsider must be made before the meeting is adjourned. So if the meeting was just not adjourned, like if we did our last scheduled piece of business and then continued it, continued the meeting to next week, then a motion to reconsider could be made at that time, and then that would give everyone some time to figure out what we need to do to get this to pass. Is that is that consistent with your interpretation? Robert?
348 No.

Procedural episode · turns 349–372

Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.

349 I didn't ask. I didn't ask counselor Smith asked. I asked robert.
350 Well, I think you could recess the meeting right to a different day, and then we'd still be in the same meeting. And then as long as the motion to reconsider was heard and voted on before you adjourned the meeting, you could do that. Yeah.
351 Okay. That's basically the same idea. I think maybe you had in spirit because you were like, I'll do the thing and then I'll immediately schedule it to a time, certain as it were. But this would then make it so some shenanigans couldn't be pulled real quick and preclude the opportunity to actually have that amendment be considered. So that's what I would, I would consider we're we're obviously in consideration of a different proposal, but I'm just laying that on the floor.
352 Okay, colleagues, I'm gonna go ahead and withdraw the motion.
353 Mr. President, point of order. I would like to I would like to put it I would like to reconsider it.
354 Yeah.
355 You didn't vote. Yes, sir.
356 We have we have ruled the ruling of the chair was that you are unable to make that motion. Okay.
357 Could you explain to me why?
358 I am unclear under robert's rules, whether I believe the interpretation that an absent is not necessarily a no vote. And with.
359 That, robert said it was.
360 I have made a motion. I have made a ruling. Okay. Can we please call item number 16?
361 Order. I need to talk to robert. Robert needs to make councilor.
362 You've not been recognized, I apologize, thank you.
363 I'm sorry.
364 I not recognizing. Sorry. Thank you. Can we please call item number 16?
365 Point of order again?
366 No. No, ma'am.
367 Robert's legal counsel. You need to.
368 Counselor Smith, you're out of order.
369 I'm sorry. Sorry, sorry. Mr. President. I'm trying to get some understanding of what.
370 I understand, and I made a ruling, and you are. We are moving forward. My ruling is that you are unable to make that motion. Thank you.
371 I can't make a reconsideration. Because of what? And that's why I'm asking. Can legal counsel tell me that.
372 I. I'd be I'd be happy to to explain.
373 Robert.
374 So under under our rules, the rules of counsel, it requires for you to make a motion to reconsider. You have to have voted on the prevailing side also also under our rules, it says if you're absent, it will count as a no vote. And that is under the section talking about the mayor breaking a tie. So there's a question under those rules, you could read those one of two ways to either allow an absent member to be treated as a no vote for the purposes of making a motion to reconsider, or you could read it to say you were absent. You didn't vote at all, so you weren't on the prevailing side. So that's the that's that's the.
375 The prevailing side, robert.
376 In that instance, I don't know that it, it did because there were six.
377 Six.
378 Five, there were six no votes. So if you had been here to vote yes, it would have been six six. So, so the, the, the point I am trying to make is under our rules, there's two different ways to read those sections. And and when that happens and there's an issue of interpretation, the president makes a ruling about how the president interprets it. He has made his ruling to say that he does not believe an absent member can make a motion to reconsider, since they were not present to vote. That's the ruling of the chair. That ruling can be appealed if.
379 I appeal it.
380 If three members, if you and two others wish to appeal, then that ruling can be appealed to a vote of the body.
381 I would like to appeal it.
382 Are there two other members that would join that appeal?
383 Yes.
384 All right. Looks like I have three members who have appealed the ruling of the chair. This this is not debatable, right. This goes directly to a vote of whether the.
385 It it is you can explain the rationale for your decision and answer any questions. Otherwise it's not debatable.
386 Thank you. My rationale for the motion is, as the city attorney has explained, I am interpreting our rules to read that a a absent vote is not a no vote, and therefore councilor Smith is ineligible.
387 So the. And then the question on the appeal is, should the presiding officer's ruling stand as the ruling of the chair. A yes vote upholds the presiding officer. A no vote goes against the ruling of the presiding officer, and in the case of a tie, the ruling of the presiding officer stands.
388 Thank you very much. Can we please call the roll?
389 Koyama Lane I aye, Morillo. I Novick.
390 No,
391 Clark.
392 No.
393 Green.
394 Hi.
395 Zimmerman.
396 No. Avalos I Smith.
397 No.
398 Kanal I. Pirtle-guiney. No.

Procedural episode · turns 399–407

Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.

399 Ryan.
400 No.
401 Dunphy. I the ruling of the chair stands.
402 Thank you.
403 Mr. President. I have a point of order.
404 Counselor Zimmerman.
405 Thank you for that. You did make a motion just on the basis of reconsideration. It was seconded. Generally in this body, we have looked to the second before anything gets moved on or changed when it's being withdrawn, that hasn't happened. So I would consider that that's still open. I think that your discussion at the beginning of that, about another week for the amendment discussion seemed calm and present and was the right action. And since it hasn't actually, I don't think, been closed, I would encourage you to take action on that original piece because it was actually never closed.
406 I it is I will preview for my colleagues. I would like to get to item 16, and it is my intention to make a motion to this after the conclusion of item 16, before the conclusion of our meeting today, I'd like to make sure we get to people who are testifying here on item 16, and I will not adjourn us until we have made further conversation on this.
407 So you're saying you're going to make a motion on.
408 I'd like. Yeah, I want to at the end of before we adjourn tonight, there will be an additional motion.
409 And what is your response to the like? I don't remember who the seconder was.
410 And you're right, it was.
411 The second counselor Smith second.
412 Okay. And so counselor Smith does not agree to withdraw. Where do we go from there?
413 I mean, as a as a courtesy, we the the mover asked the second if if it's okay, but it's not required. And the maker of the motion can withdraw it at any time before the vote.
414 The chair.
415 Rules that the motion has been withdrawn. And can we please call item 16.
416 Document 2026-299. Urge the city administrator to refrain from signing data center nondisclosure agreements. Notify city council of inquiries for data center deals, and engage in transparent public processes related to data centers.
417 Colleagues, this is a resolution claire adams with committee staff is here with a committee staff summary report. Thank you claire.
418 Thank you. Council president and councilors, again for the record. Last time tonight, claire adams at council policy analyst and staff to the housing and permitting committee. The resolution before you document number 2026-299 was heard in the housing and permitting committee on September 1st, where it was referred to full council, as amended, with a recommendation to be adopted. The resolution urges the city administrator and city leadership to refrain from signing any non-disclosure agreements related to the siting, permitting or development of data centers within the city. City of Portland officials are encouraged to engage in transparent public processes for all decisions related to data centers. The resolution requests that the city administrator notify the council of any permit, application or request for early assistance for a data center with a current or projected power draw of 20mw or greater. The committee. Sorry. The committee approved an amendment to the resolution at its meeting on September 1st. The amendment added a directive clarifying the council's intent to pursue a moratorium or zoning restrictions on hyperscale data centers, and consider additional approaches for large load data centers. The full impact statement on this item includes information on community impacts and community involvement. 12 people provided verbal testimony at the committee meeting on September 1st, and 43 people submitted written testimony prior to committee action. The general themes of this testimony included emphasis on transparency and public notification of city decision making by limiting or prohibiting non-disclosure agreements. Recommended disclosure requirements for data center applications, including financing and tax abatements, and anticipated natural resource use and environmental impacts, and local jobs involved in the development or operation of a data center. Impacts of hyperscale or large load facilities on water and electricity consumption, and concern that increased utility costs may be passed on to ratepayers. Long term health impacts of data centers on the communities where they are located, including respiratory diseases and potential adverse impacts of poor water quality or noise pollution, and finally, support for a moratorium or stricter regulation of new large load or hyperscale data centers. Specifically those supporting ai expansion. And that concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
419 Thank you very much, councilor Avalos. This came out of your committee. Before we turn to sponsor remarks, any committee chair? Remarks?
420 Yes. The housing and permitting committee heard this resolution at September, September 1st meeting, the committee discussed the resolution and asked a number of technical and implementation questions, including how the proposed notification process would work, the role of non-disclosure agreements in early conversations with potential data center developers, and what this resolution would and would not change about the city's existing authority. During the discussion, I also asked to be added as a co-sponsor of the resolution. So thank you to councilor Koyama Lane for accepting that invite. And following that conversation, the committee voted to refer the resolution, as amended, to full council with a recommendation to be adopted. It passed four zero with one councilor Being absent, and I appreciate the sponsors bringing this forward and the committee's thoughtful discussion. That's all.
421 Thank you. And sponsors, I'm going to go in the order that they're listed on here, but I want to turn to each of you. So starting with councilor Koyama Lane.
422 Thank you.
423 Council president, for the time on this agenda. And also thank you for all the work you do leading our council. It's not easy. I see how hard you're working and I know you never wanted that job. Okay. So I'm very proud to bring forward this data center nda resolution. I'm thankful that we have the space to talk about how this affects us here in Portland, Oregon has one of the nation's largest data center industries, partly due to the beneficial tax structure my housing and permitting colleague councilor Green joined as a co-sponsor before this came to committee. Really appreciate that when this item was discussed at committee. Thank you chair, I. I did invite any and all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this resolution, and I got overwhelming excitement, so much excitement that our city attorney needed to remind me that before a public hearing, there should not be more than six members signed on. But at a public hearing, which we're doing right now, it is okay to ask if others want to sign on and support this. So, Clark, I'm wondering if I'd like to repeat my invitation right now to my colleagues that would like to co-sponsor this item. Keelan has confirmed that if you just give her a thumbs up right now or unmute yourself, councilor Smith, you may be added as a co-sponsor. Okay, councilor Clark, all right. It's going to be all of us here. Just put this on the consent agenda. I think everyone councilor Morillo. Yeah, your thumbs up. Okay. Councilor Smith, would you like to be added officially as a co-sponsor?
424 Yes. Is this a first reading or something?
425 It's a resolution.
426 So it's a resolution. Okay.
427 Yes.
428 Okay.
429 Okay. So. Yes. Everyone. All right. I want to start somewhere concrete. I've heard people wonder, are data centers an issue that you need to talk about in Portland? The answer is yes. Through a lot of research and information from our staff at the bureau of planning and sustainability, we've clarified that there are at least ten locations in Portland city limits that could accommodate a hyperscale data center. I'll pass around this map. It's one side is zoomed in. It's also online as an exhibit, and you'll see that it includes locations in all of our districts hayden island near OHSU, south water, the south waterfront, both sides of the Willamette river. Look for the black and yellow outlined areas. And since we passed this through the housing and permitting committee only two weeks ago, the Oregonian broke a story on an early assistance application that's been filed with the city for a silicon valley tech company to convert five floors of a downtown office building in into a data center space. So, yes, it's a very relevant, very real issue. And we know that there are many national, regional and local conversations about the harm that data centers can cause. They draw heavily on the resources that our kids and grandkids will still need, decades after any company's lease is up. Air, water, land, they come with real environmental and health consequences. We could spend the whole meeting on that alone, but this resolution is very clear, and that it urges the city administrator to refrain from signing any nondisclosure agreements. Ndas related to supporting, permitting, or allowing data centers. And it also requests that the city administrator notify council if the city city receives a request for early assistance or another preliminary meeting or permit application from an outside party related to data centers, specifically, with the power draw of 20mw or more. We can talk more about that if you'd like, later. So this resolution, at its core, is about responsible good governance, protecting how decisions get made in our city. It's about transparency, and it's also about building and keeping public trust. Secrecy erodes public trust, and it's especially dangerous, dangerous to have secrecy around an industry that touches our drinking water, our electric grid and the air that we are breathing right now. So this step costs the city nothing $0. But what it gets us is the ability to look portlanders, look folks in the eye, people who are here and tell them that nothing is happening behind closed doors. While we're figuring out what the right next steps are, this resolution is a first step, and it's an immediate step that we can take today, and I want to believe that it pairs well with possible next important steps of a moratorium on hyperscale data centers or an outright ban, which is something that I am looking to pursue. So the Koyama Lane Green one amendment passed unanimously in committee, which adds a be it further resolved clause that states city council intends to pursue moratorium or zoning restrictions on all hyperscale data centers at the earliest time to consider additional approaches for large load, large load data centers. I hope our council will pass this swiftly. I'm almost done. I want to thank all the numerous co-sponsors of this resolution, all my colleagues. I also want to make sure credit lands where it's earned. Thank you to ai now institute, 1000 friends of Oregon and Oregon data center defiance coalition for providing resources and technical support. Thank you to the bureau of planning and sustainability, Portland permitting and development. Dca oliveira and christina gann, thank you for your months of research, code review, and groundwork that made responsible policy on this issue possible. Thank you. Claire adams and council operations. You're awesome. I appreciate how you supported my team and worked with the city and with local and state partners, and to my own team in particular, alan and aubrey and sabatino. He's my office's wonderful summer intern who came to us through the summer works program, and he has since headed back to school. But sab, I think you're watching. Thank you for the work you put into this. And that's it for now. Council president. Thank you.
430 Thank you council.
431 Thank you, counselor Koyama Lane colleagues, I'm going to make sure we each get a chance to give some introductions. But I will also note there are 22 people signed up to testify and it is 815 councilor We're going to go Green. Kanal. Pirtle-guiney Zimmerman.
432 I'm going to keep it relatively brief. I'm just going to say thank you for your leadership. Councilor. Koyama Lane, thank you for extending this invite. To the extent that the law allows at every step of the way, I was grateful to be an early partner in this with you. I think for me, like, does this do everything? No, it's a first step. It's a resolution. It's it's a declaration of council's will. I think we should go broader on nda's and think about banning them more broadly. But we also have a we have a sort of obligation to act swiftly as the public is raising matters of of great interest and urgency. And this is one of those. And so this is a nimble way to do that and to sort of declare that, hey, you know, all these anxieties that we have about the ai industry and data centers, like just like our inflation is being driven by two things speculative bubble in ai and a war overseas. And those are the two things. That's why we can't get normal interest rates. You can't get a graphics card if you're a gamer. You can't be a gamer anymore because of ai. And so at a minimum, we just want to know that our government's not colluding behind the scenes, making all that possible. Right? So, so this is a great step forward and I'm really proud to be part of it. And I'm really glad we amended it to add the the intention that we do want to pursue a moratorium and take up some zoning restrictions on this because we need to be proactive. So thanks so much. Thank thank you for all of you who just who keep this up day after day. You're in the people's house.
433 Thank you, councilor Green councilor Kanal.
434 I'll reserve my comments for after the testimony, but just say thank you to councilor Koyama Lane for your leadership on this and to all the other co-sponsors.
435 Thank you.
436 Councilor. Kanal. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
437 I will also save my comments until after public testimony.
438 Thank you. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Councilor. Zimmerman.
439 Hold up this map that councilor Lane made, because a few of us represent the reddest of the red area here. And when I talk about revitalizing a downtown, it's not a bunch of currently vacant office buildings filled with nothing but data centers in the future. So thank you, councilor, for your leadership.
440 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Keelan, can we please get to. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilor.
441 The third co-sponsor.
442 You better.
443 I'm so sorry, I deeply apologize.
444 Just kidding.
445 Well, I'll keep it short. I don't want to take up too much more time. I think my colleagues have already shared why this is important. And grateful to councilor, Koyama Lane and Green for spearheading this, particularly Koyama Lane and sabatino got to throw a shout out to him. What a great human. And ultimately, I just want to say that east portlanders really feel the effects of the way that data centers can negatively impact utility costs and neighborhoods noise levels. I was knocking on doors in sumner, and they were telling me about a weird smell that they have, and this is something we dealt with in at verde in cali, where there are just these different industries that are emitting lots of smells that are chemicals. And east Portland is already facing the brunt of that. And so it's super important that we add transparency and accountability and ensure that we are not doing making decisions about data centers behind closed doors. And so let's get this done. And also let's keep going for a moratorium and greater data center protections and oversight. This is just the first step. Thanks.
446 Thank you, councilor Avalos. Did I miss anybody else because screw that up. No. Keelan can we jump into testimony, please?
447 We have 22 people signed up tonight. I will call testifiers up in groups of five. Each individual will have two minutes. For those testifying in person, you will see the timer countdown displayed on the monitor in front of the testimony table. For those testifying virtually, the timer is displayed in zoom. You will hear the timer sound twice. Once when there are 30s left, then a second time when your time is up. Before you begin your testimony, please state your name for the record. Our first panel includes anne, casper, morgan, glenn, Jamie, bradley kissel, jimmy campbell, simon dudley.
448 Come on down, folks. And whoever gets down here first gets to go first.
449 My name is morgan glenn and I am a resident of district two.
450 I'm coming here tonight to urge you to ban the practice of signing ndas with data center developers. In Salem, I witnessed the result after the city attorney signed an nda with ferris. Without the knowledge of the city council. And by the time that the public and the rest of the council found out, it was already becoming too late to stop this construction. This is happening all over the country in states like virginia, arizona, louisiana and mississippi. These developers are using closed door tactics to get their centers built because they know just how unpopular data centers are when they are proposed to communities in a transparent way. Our city council should not bypass the will of the people by using these underhanded tactics to get massive data center complexes built. We have a right to know what is happening in our communities, especially when it comes to building projects that will create air and water pollution, increase energy costs for normal households during a massive cost of living crisis, and increase water usage in an area where water supply is already constrained. This body and our government at large, should be serving the interest of the working people of this country, not a small minority of billionaires. We do not need tax subsidized data centers when there are so many parts of our government that are completely underfunded. We need TriMet to be funded. We need actual affordable housing to be built, not a building that creates ugly art and mass surveillance. I urge the city council to propose a total ban on data centers in Portland. That is why I'm also urging you to act in the interests of the public by, at the very least, requiring that all data center proposals be presented to the public so that we have a say in what goes on in our communities.
451 20s if you want to. Cool. Thank you very much.
452 Good afternoon. Council. Jimmy campbell, district two. I'm here today to ask the city to do something that apparently qualifies as a radical act of government. Don't sign secret agreements with data center developers behind closed doors. Apparently, a corporation can just walk into city hall and say, we'd like to build a gigantic, electricity guzzling warehouse full of data collection computers, please. And their response can be absolutely. But let's just keep it between us, though. This is becoming a disturbing example of local government being turned into nothing more than a concierge service for tech oligarchs. And here's the irony. We're building the machines designed to collect and process incredible amounts of information about human beings, while the public is being told almost nothing about the deals that built them. I'm not opposed to technology, and I'm not opposed to economic development. But public infrastructure should come with public accountability. So I'm asking for two things. Don't sign ndas that prevent public oversight and establish a transparent public process so portlanders can weigh in before major commitments are made, not after the deal is already done, because otherwise you're not really governing. You're just running a concierge service where corporations get the room and the public gets the bill. Don't turn city hall into silicon valley's customer service desk, and don't make Portland a place where machines know everything about us. While the public knows nothing about how they got here.
453 Thank you.
454 Thank you very much.
455 Hi, council. My name is simon. I'm a Portland resident testifying today in support of this resolution. As the proliferation of data centers has become a growing concern in communities across the country, non-disclosure agreements surrounding data centers represent a high risk liability to the public, from the immense resource consumption required to run these facilities, and their inability to solve the most immense solve the issues most prominently impacting portlanders. Today, working people are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of living increases year over year at a rate far outpacing salary growth and the creation of sustainable, high paying jobs. Portlanders, your neighbors and friends cannot afford higher energy bills. We can't afford to lose our jobs to artificial intelligence, and we can't afford the environmental cost of these data centers. At my own workplace, nearly 10% of our employees were laid off this summer. At the same time that our leaders pushed ai tools into our hands to improve efficiency. My colleagues and I weren't invited to the meeting where it was decided ai would replace our jobs. These decisions were made for us to seek greater, greater profits at our expense. Oregonians from eugene to the dalles and 20 minutes from here in hillsboro are calling out corruption and demanding to be included in included in the conversation. This is a fight that activates so many Americans because we have become acutely aware that there are no positive effects of these investments rising energy costs, mass layoffs, destruction of our natural lands, and increased surveillance are all critical costs associated with with data centers that far outweigh the benefits they bring to our city. We need maximum transparency regarding data center deals to ensure our elected officials are not being taken advantage of by the corrupt business interests that seek only to line their pockets with profit, and with little regard for the impact on our communities.
456 Thank you very much.
457 My name is Jamie bradley kissel. I live in district three and I'm an organizer with the party for socialism and liberation. Every year my energy bill goes up and in my neighborhood, I see every day what happens when housing and utility costs outrun people's incomes. I'm here today because this resolution is really about whether city leadership should be allowed to make secret deals that keep those costs rising. Oregon already has nearly 150 data centers operating or approved statewide. Those data centers consume now an estimated 5.6% of oregon's energy. At the same time, pge has raised rates 50% since 2020. And the same industry driving this build out just produced the world's first trillionaire. These companies. Profit and working people are expected to foot the bill. Roughly two thirds of Oregonians support a moratorium on new data centers, and these companies want our city officials to make secret backroom deals that go against what the people want so they can get richer. They spend millions combating moratoriums and pushing ndas like the ones that we're here speaking against tonight, because they know that if the people learn about these projects early, we will organize, the people will take action and will fight each and every data center. And we have over 100 examples of moratoriums and bans across this country that prove it. That's why they want these deals done in secret. I urge you to pass this resolution tonight and make it clear that the next step is a moratorium. As energy, gas and housing prices rise and people get priced out of this city. We need a government that prioritizes people's needs, not tech billionaires profits. Thank you.
458 Thank you very much.
459 Anne. Casper. Okay, next up we have benjamin gilbert, maya scott kroll, leslie kogan, jack m lewis. Leon.
460 My name is ben gilbert, and I'm a volunteer lobbyist for the Portland democratic socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the united states with over 3700 members in the Portland metro area. Dsa and our members are worried about data center development in Portland and across the state. We need accountability from this administration. There's been a pattern of backroom deals under code names and portlanders. Portlanders deserve transparency, not ndas. Oregon currently gives out over $450 million in property tax breaks to data centers, more than any other state in the country. This is money stolen from our schools, from cities and counties, from parks, from first responders and fire departments. This theft has meant school districts across the state are closing schools, laying off staff in a state that already struggles with their graduation and literacy rates. So while our tax breaks are lining the pockets of the oligarchs and the billionaire class, we must also confront that these new data centers are used for a.I. And yes, a.I. Has some limited utility, but it is also how companies are eliminating jobs, driving down wages for hundreds of thousands of workers. But it is the use of ai in surveillance that is truly terrifying. These new data centers are how texas officials tracked a person crossing state lines for reproductive health care. These new data centers are how ice thugs have been targeting our neighbors for kidnaping. These new data centers are for a dystopian future that we must better regulate before we let them continue to run rampant across our state. So right now, we are very rightly arguing over transparency, land use, zoning, water resources, noise and electricity and bills. And yes, all of that is so very important. And it obscures the argument that we should also be having about ai and surveillance and job loss. This whole fight, this whole demand for a moratorium, we keep being told it's radical, that it's too far and that we're asking too much. But let me tell you, I think it's one of the most reasonable things happening right now. It is reasonable to demand transparency from our elected officials, especially a mayor that cannot be trusted to do business in the open. It is reasonable to demand a moratorium. We are grateful for this legislation as a first step towards that end to make sure we aren't let down. Thank you.
461 Thank you very much.
462 Good evening council. My name is luis leon. As a member of the community and someone who believes in the transparency when it comes to our elected and appointed officials, it is imperative that the city and administrator not sign any ndas or consider any new applications regarding the construction or speculation of data centers in Portland without first consulting in a transparent manner with the people of Portland. Data centers are sprouting like weeds all across the country, and the promises of economic booms are the opposite of what a data center means for a city. Data centers are well known for stripping communities of clean water, spiking energy bills, and leaving a trail of waste that is poorly managed. The developers say they'll create economic prosperity, but we know it will only be reflected in the pockets of the rich and not in our community. Working class people will face the brunt of this and we deserve to have a say in it. I was at the recent data center hearing in Salem. The people were out in droves and made their demands heard. I am sure you will have the same on your hands if the city council refuses to consider the input of everyone. Lastly, I'd like to end with a quote from the city administrator's city administrator's own biography on the city of portland's city of Portland website. The city administrators, raymond c lee bio reads quote. Lee's leadership is grounded in a people first approach that emphasizes organizational health, transparency and responsiveness. He focuses on building clear roles, healthy systems, and sustainable workloads so teams can perform at their best over time, end quote. If these are the values of mr. Lee, the city administrator, then this resolution should be a no brainer. In a time when trust for elected and appointed officials is at an all time low, we insist that you act in accordance with your stated beliefs. Thank you.
463 Thank you very much. Whoever wants to jump in.
464 Go next. Sure. Okay. Go ahead.
465 Good evening councilors. My name is maya. I'm a Portland resident in district three and a member of the party for socialism and liberation. I'm here tonight to urge you to ban secretive ndas with data center companies. But I want to be clear. This ban is not enough. We need to ask a more fundamental question. Who is this city being built for? Because data centers are not simply buildings full of computers. They are massive industrial facilities built to serve the interests of some of the most powerful corporations in the world. And those corporations are coming to our communities because they want something from us. They want our land, electricity, water and infrastructure, and they want public governments to help make those resources available to them. Often, while the public is expected to absorb the costs. That is the fundamental problem we need to confront. We are told that data centers represent progress, investment and economic development. But we have to ask progress for whom? If a corporation makes billions from artificial intelligence while working people face rising utility bills, housing costs and increasingly strained public infrastructure, that is not economic development for the working class. That is the privatization of public resources for private profit. And this is not simply an abstract concern. Portland's own resolution recognizes that hyperscale data centers can create enormous demands for energy and water, and can affect household costs and livability. The resolution notes that some facilities can consume water at levels comparable to thousands of households. It also recognizes concerns about noise and emissions. There should be no corporate right to secrecy when the public is being asked to bear the consequences. That is why this ban matters. We should not allow the profit motive of a handful of enormous corporations to determine how we use resources that should belong to the public. Public resources should be controlled democratically and be used to meet human needs, not organized around maximizing corporate profits. No secret ndas. We need full public disclosure and meaningful public participation. But ultimately, we need a moratorium on hyperscale data centers in Portland. Are we going to organize Portland around what corporations can profit from or around what people, working people actually need?
466 Thank you.
467 Thank you very much.
468 Hi, I'm leslie koch and I'm a member and activist with Oregon data center defiance and xr, pdx, extinction rebellion. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. The rapid build out of data centers has grabbed my attention for a number of reasons. First, I'm concerned about the myriad of harms that occur within the on site footprint of a data center. Harms that you're hearing a lot about tonight. I'm also concerned about the indirect effects of data centers. Data centers have an insatiable appetite for resources throughout their life cycle. The off site harms are extensive and include impacts from raw minerals, mining, emissions from materials production for roadways and buildings, water use at off site power stations, and the impacts of data center e-waste that is often discarded in ways that harm the most vulnerable communities. Lastly, I'm concerned about the outputs or products of data centers, which raises questions that should be asked first, what will the data center produce? Do we need it? Do we want it? Will it completely disrupt the ecosystems that we desire and depend upon? Will it damage a child's ability to think? Is it true, as the heads of ai companies are saying, that it will replace most jobs, that it could facilitate the development and release of new biological pathogens, that humans will not be able to control? Because of these concerns and the critical need for both transparency and data center pause, I support both the ndaa resolution and a moratorium. I urge the city to pursue a code change so that city officials and staff are prohibited from signing ndas, rather than just urge not to sign. I urge Portland to step up and follow the lead of other cities in Oregon that have passed moratoriums. Lastly, I urge the city to ban outright or through zoning conditions any hyperscale data centers. Thank you.
469 Thank you very much. Thank you all.
470 Next. Oh, sorry. Next up, we have steph, ralph, michaela mccormick, lynn hanlon, melanie cameron, edith gillis.
471 Come on down, folks. Welcome. Introduce yourselves for the record, you're welcome to share your pronouns. And you have two minutes.
472 Would you like to go first?
473 It's up to you. I don't care.
474 I'll go first.
475 Okay. We're just figuring.
476 Out order.
477 Council president Dunphy, members of city council, thank you very much for having us here. My name is steph rouse. I am here as an east Portland resident. And first of all, while we've been sitting here, the new yorker has just dropped its most recent episode of its political scene podcast. And the title is how exactly could ai destroy humanity? So this feels timely. I'm here to urge, please, a yes vote to urge the city administrator to refrain from signing data center ndas. Transparency is critical for a thriving democracy, and it has to be intentionally built into our civic discourse. It has to be a positive, intentional choice. An nda is the antithesis of this. The development of data centers has been fast and furious over the past several years, and people have feelings about it, and they should. Oregon is currently second in the world for data centers, according to it load. Beijing is fifth. So that has happened very quickly. Let's have a conversation. I really appreciate nda as a first step. I've heard a lot about moratoriums. I understand that moratoriums also because it's a city, are limited to 120 days. I would love us to start the process of considering a ban. So let's do that. And I'm grateful to councilor, Koyama Lane and all of the champions who are who have signed on to this leadership resolution. Thank you.
478 Thank you very much.
479 Good job.
480 Good evening, council members. My name is melanie cameron. I'm an advocate for peace and I advocate around corruption and crimes against humanity. Today I came with an answer to the question of what is the big push and objective of the data center boom across the country. The answer is the ai data centers are being used to merge big tech, us government and elements of the military industrial complex to create a national security state. You may have noticed during trump's inauguration, standing behind him was all the big tech ceos because they they were the major donors to his campaign and how he was elected. The former ceo of google. Google served on the board of department of war. Jeff bezos father was part of the foundations of darpa. That includes bioterror exercises such as the crimson contagion, atlantic storm and operations, dark winter, darpa darpa uses ai for mass surveillance, which has been blurring the lines of national security and domestic monitoring by implementing predictive policing and military systems where drones and robotic systems can be controlled by individual thoughts alone via brain machine interfaces. Data centers and their ai. Partnering companies must be screened for human rights abuses, and within days we would not be able to do this. Palantir technologies is a major partner of ai data centers across the country, and are currently committing violations of humanitarian law. The co-founder of palantir is peter thiel. He is currently funding the Portland based company panthalassa for ai data centers to float in the ocean off the Oregon coast. The project is called ocean three, and there are commercial deployments planned for 2027. Peter thiel and jeffrey epstein had a business relationship where epstein arranged meetings with the former prime minister of Israel to share intelligence with idf and vice versa. It is no wonder why the draft of the ndaa bill, section 219, is trying to authorize the merge of the us and Israeli military intelligence.
481 Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
482 Edith gillis, district three. Good job everyone. Prohibit the city administrator, mayor and any city employee or legal agent representing the city from signing data center. Non-disclosure agreements with data center developers, contractors, investors and require the city to engage in transparent public processes, giving the public full information in a timely way, supporting all full public engagement accessible to all. Make all the information about applications, meetings, content, participants, proposals, etc. Freely and easily and promptly available in writing video, braille, American sign language, audio recordings, english, spanish, cantonese, etc. Include environmental and economic and social justice impact statements available in all forms for the public, with several weeks to review, including listening sessions in each district. Make sure all in the public can testify in person and virtually, with at least three minutes per oral testimony. It's a cruel shame to make someone permanently disabled by the poisons of data centers, limit their years of suffering to only three minutes to say their truth, while industry common take up most of the time and money. Even the central banks of all the global nations, central banks have warned last spring that data centers will cause a global economic crash worse than a combination of the.com bubble and the great depression and that of the 1850s. Because these data centers violate state requirements of cities, public health and public safety, infrastructure and resources, budget and services. And because when they lose their money, they're going to leave town. And we taxpayers are stuck with paying for the lifelong disability services, the poison cleanup, the food and loss, the fires, all the harm that these companies are causing will end up paying for for those who have survived. Thank you for starting this first step. Continue all the way.
483 Thank you.
484 Thank you very much.
485 Michaela.
486 Good.
487 Go ahead michaela.
488 Thank you. I'm michaela mccormick in district two. I urge the city of Portland to approve the resolution to not sign any nondisclosure agreements with data center companies, any and all plans to build data centers in Portland need to be revealed to the public in ample time for citizens to offer input into considerations to approve such plans. Data center companies have a consistent record of making deals with government entities out of the public site. The harmful environmental, natural resource and public finance effects of data centers are now being widely publicized for good reason. Their voracious use of water and power, I.e. Electricity and other forms of energy, is by itself sufficient reason to raise rain in their development. On top of that, their appropriation of huge swaths of land prevent devoting that land to affordable housing, sorely needed urban agriculture and tree planting, and community health care facilities that are affordable and accessible to the growing number of residents priced out of our current health care system. All of these and more are prevented by profit addicted corporations seeking more wealth and economic growth than data centers are just the latest means of feeding that addiction. Overwhelming scientific evidence has revealed the existential threat of the toxic, extractive, and exploitative effects of that unbridled growth. In particular, the hyperscale data centers needed to serve artificial intelligence are now aiding in our own cognitive disability and mental atrophy. This technology is eating away at our capacity to stay in charge of our own well-being and evolution. We not only need to demand complete transparency of proposals for data centers, but also a moratorium on more such proposals and a ban on data center development. Until we know the extent of their effect on our health, our economy and our habitat and all its inhabitants. Thank you.
489 Thank you very much.
490 Go ahead. Lynn.
491 My name is lynn hanlon, and I support this first baby step. No data center. Nondisclosure agreement, resolution. The language in this resolution is sadly weak, using words like urge and encourage rather than require urges the city administrator and city leadership to refrain from signing ndas regarding data centers. I mean, I don't think that that's going to really work with our current city leadership. They don't care what they're being urged to do. Why not say no signing ndas regarding data centers or really anything else that impacts portlanders? I assume that you all need to make some other changes so that you can use stronger language. So I'm hoping you find a way to do that. We need real transparency, not ask nicely and hope everyone will behave well. The city administrator and directors, and certainly the mayor have all proven numerous times that we cannot trust them to be transparent about other issues. So I know we can't trust them about data centers. We should not have to trust them. They need to be required to behave in good faith, with full transparency, with consequences if they do not. I'm glad you're including language about a moratorium. Please include the large low data centers as well as the hyperscale. We need a moratorium now, so please go beyond intending to pursue and get it done. Data centers suck water, land power, and they drive climate change. So, you know, if the ai doesn't get us, the climate change will. So let's just not do that. We don't need more of them. We have enough. Please pass this resolution. It is a step and then go further, pass a moratorium as soon as possible and stronger enforceable language on the no ndas with data centers. The city council notification rule and and the rest of that part. In fact, how about no early assistance in data center permitting period, not just notification. And last, how about applying all these wonderful transparency rules proposed here for all other issues regarding the city and and our community? Thanks.
492 Thank you.
493 Thank you very much.
494 Next up, we have cassandra blum, m b, michael mintz, emily waldron, jeremy beausoleil Smith.
495 Come on down, folks. Have you heard your name called hope folks stuck around. I see some folks online jump right in.
496 Yeah. Hello. Good evening. Thank thank you for.
497 Oh, hold on a second. Cassandra. Cassandra, we're here in the room. First, we'll come to you right back to you. Thank you. Go ahead.
498 Yeah. Thank you. Thank you all for supporting this resolution. It's it's really crucial. It's really important. Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane, for for pulling this off and getting everybody here to sign on. And thank you, everybody who testified here today. It's hard. These are hard acts to follow up. These people are very articulate and informed. I would like to emphasize, though, that, you know, language like the city urges the city administrator to refrain. I mean, this it is a good step, but this is pretty weak. I mean, the whole idea of nda agreements, you know, I understand like you need in in a capitalist society, you might want to have nda agreements, you know, here and there with businesses and people, you know, businesses are renting this and that. And, you know, but nda agreements with city officials and government officials that excuse my language, that just batshit crazy. I mean, that is it's, it's anathema to democracy itself. There's no way that that should even be a thing. I don't even know why we're talking about it. And lynn, who just spoke a moment ago, is absolutely right that this whole idea of nda agreements, this should apply to everything, not just data centers. You know, what I would like to say is that I think the next step is a code change to prohibit and ban signing an ndas, you know, past the current resolution. But we really want to have a code change because we've seen. How disingenuous our city officials can be. Thank you.
499 Thank you very much. Cassandra. Online you you started I cut you off rudely, I apologize. Go ahead.
500 And that's okay. My apologies. This is my first council meeting. Hello. My name is cassandra. I'm from district three. I'm currently asking the city council to support resolution 2026-299. As I oppose the expansion of data centers in Portland, and I strongly oppose the use of non-disclosure agreements to keep data center negotiations negotiations out of public view, decisions involving our water, electricity and land, infrastructure and public resources should not be made behind closed doors. Please prohibit data under any ndas, as well as any ndas that come about further. And require full public transparency, along with putting Portland residents before private data center interests, as well as putting the moratorium in place. And I agree with those who spoke before me about the wording on this item, as it's rather. Loose about things. Or at the very least, it's, as other people have articulated better than me. Not the best wording. That is all. Thank you.
501 Thank you very much.
502 Emily. Emily. Emily. You're muted.
503 Sorry. I wasn't sure if it was me or something.
504 Hi, my name is emily waldron. I am not a Portland resident. I am actually calling from unincorporated Washington county about a mile and a half, as the crow flies from the nearest data center. And I also am speaking on behalf of Oregon data center defiance. First of all, we would like to say thank you for beginning to have conversations around ndas for data centers and enacting a moratorium. We've seen two cities here in Oregon do moratoriums. Woodburn did one, enacted one yesterday in hillsboro, has had one for over a month now, as both are working to be able to put regulations in place to protect their communities. As other commenters have said, I would urge you very, very strongly to use this as the beginning, as the tip of the iceberg, urging your city staff to not enter into ndas is very different than banning from them. From entering into ndas. You all need to go through the work to to enact a ban. So they cannot go behind your back and do this. And I say this as someone who lives in a community where city staff was at odds with the city council and very much signed agreements against council wishes with different businesses and groups on purpose for tech and for that industry. And so an urge is not a strong enough thing to push through. The other thing I would encourage you all to carry forward is this 120 day moratorium, as we learned in committee for the city of Portland, your current codes defined data centers as office buildings. A data center is very different from an office building. A data center runs 365 days a year. No evenings off, no holidays. Constant droning of noise, water pollution, light pollution, heat pollution and more. So your communities deserve the time for you all to take to protect them from these things and making sure that they're, if not flat out banned, that there's things in place to ensure that they're not going up next to your schools, to the hospitals, and to the residences where people live. And with that, I would also remind the council that while some people think there's protection because of the size of the city, there's none. And a data center will just go vertical. It will just go underground. It will come for you if it wants to come for you. So don't think you're safe just because Portland is very packed full of people. Thank you.
505 Thank you very much.
506 And mb. You're muted.
507 Oh my god. Okay. Mb district three so let's get into it. So while I support this resolution, it is also paramount that Portland passes stronger regulations that prohibit the city or city employees from signing ndas at all, especially for data centers. Portlanders want transparency, not backroom deal baloney that, you know, inevitably leaves the public in the dark and putting the physical, psychological and financial bill at these facilities. And I support a moratorium in the meantime, you know, while the city implements new standards and regulations. But I'm encouraging city council to kick it up a notch, you know, enact an outright ban on data centers. Like we do not need to be complicit in expanding a technology that's currently being used to surveil and kill people here and abroad that is actively destroying the planet and poisoning every living thing that's pillaging and plundering the natural resources we all need to live like, hello, water, water, anyone? Like it's causing causes like cognitive decline, a myriad of myriad of other like health issues. We know the list. The list is so long. So yeah, no, no, no, no data centers, no, especially these hyperscale ones. They're just bad for everyone, bad for everything. Literally no positive thing about them. And we don't want or need. Like we've actually never needed these mass surveillance death machine facilities because that's really what they are. And I sure as heck don't want to be footing the ecological and financial bill for them. I'm sure everyone else, if not most folks in the chambers tonight, don't want to be putting it either. So I want a livable future, actually. So let's protect portlanders and the environment data center band now. Hopefully sooner. Get them out of here. Let's go. Let's do it. Council. Let us know how we can help with that because. Yeah. No, they don't belong here. Get them out of here. Okay. Thank you.
508 Thank you very much.
509 Jeremy Smith.
510 Yeah, I agree totally with that. That last testimony. Good evening councilors. My name is jeremy beausoleil Smith. I live in district four and I'm a candidate for Portland city council. I data centers use enormous amounts of electricity in. Portlanders should not be stuck paying the price and just five years. Regional data center growth out of the demand equivalent of 400 000 new people on pge system. In that same time, our electric. Our electricity rates climbed by 50%. It's clear that expansion is happening too quickly, and Portland can absorb this massive new demand. We must also consider the additional effects of data centers, increased water usage, air and noise pollution, and a less reliable power grid that will become increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather events. This resolution is a good step in the right direction. However, we have to go so much farther. Ai data centers are the harbinger of a dystopian future, a future where we are constantly surveilled and technology is used by the most evil people for the most vile of purposes. This is not the future we were promised, and we must take it back from the corporations destroying our earth. We are at the precipice of environmental and societal collapse, and we must act now. This is why I'm fighting for a four year ai data center ban in Portland, selling our land and resources to out-of-state tech companies is a bad deal for our city's future. We survived many years without data centers. We will be fine without them, at least until we can ensure portland's resources serve portlanders first. Thank you.
511 Thank you very much.
512 Next up, we have amy stone.
513 Portland city council. My name is amy stone and I'm a resident in district two. I support the proposed resolution as a first step, but we need an ordinance amending city code to prohibit city officials from entering ndas with data center developers. The expansion of data centers makes a small number of big tech billionaires extremely wealthy. Through circular investments and billion dollar tax breaks, leaving everyone else to bear the cost in the form of environmental pollution, higher utility bills, job cuts, and other negative social impacts of unregulated ai. Here in Oregon, even after the passage of the power act in the state legislature last year, pg and e announced its eighth consecutive regular rate hike for residential customers, whose rates are up 50% from five years ago. Pg and e also reports that data center demand is up six fold from 2020. While consumer demand remains flat, we cannot continue to subsidize this industry, and city officials cannot be allowed to make backroom deals with the developers who prioritize their profits over our well-being. Across our state, we have seen woodburn and hillsboro enact moratoriums. Eugene just banned city employees from signing ndas with data center developers. What we're talking about here, and we've seen communities in lapine and Salem successfully rally and win against data data center development proposals. And even governor kotek came out in support of a moratorium at a rally last week in Salem. We need a city ordinance that explicitly prohibits the usage of ndas between city officials and data center developers, because it's us who will continue to continue to be faced with the rising cost of utility bills and bear the brunt of the health impacts related to data centers polluting our air and water. I appreciate councilor Koyama Lane for your amendment as a first step, and I urge the council to pass this resolution so we can get a moratorium on data center proposals as we work towards our goal of a ban passed here in Portland. Thank you.
514 Thank you very much.
515 That completes testimony.
516 Okay, colleagues, we are now into discussion. And technical and clarifying questions to the. Q councilor Koyama Lane.
517 Thank you, and thank you so much for everyone that's come out to testify tonight. I know that this has gotten bumped from agenda. So especially we want to say thank you to those who have been who have come out multiple times. Thanks for your patience. Thank you for your advocacy. I want to quickly talk a little bit about the reason that the language and the resolution has words like urges and refrain, and that's because as a council, we don't have the authority through our city charter to require, to use, to require or force the city administrator or mayor to make certain choices via resolution. And I want to say it's still is really powerful because this resolution sets a clear policy expectation, and we're also doing it really publicly. So when this passes, I think I can guess that it's going to pass. We have these expectations really clear and on record. So both the city administration and the public are very clear about what our expectations are. And yes, a moratorium is one lever to pull pull. I believe personally that we need a statewide three year moratorium. And as I have learned a lot more about this topic, I know that local jurisdictions really are limited to a max of 120 day moratoriums at a time, and there's a really long, complex land use process that you get back in the queue for. And many of the advocates that I've spoken to in different states from across the country have all recommended if you can start with a ban. So I've also honestly really appreciated the conversations with folks from the bureau of planning and sustainability and our city attorneys about the possible next steps of zoning restrictions or ban. And that would be binding, changing binding city code, not a resolution. So I hear you and I'm grateful that you're here. And let's stay in touch about next steps.
518 Thank you. Councilor. Koyama Lane. Councilor. Novick.
519 Thank you, mr. President. As one of the testifiers said, data centers are tied in with two existential threats. By sucking up vast amounts of energy, they accelerate climate change, and they're also inextricably tied in with ai. And we've been hearing for the last week in the national news about what a threat the people who know ai best know that it is. On a personal note, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I am very glad that I am old. So old that I can even remember being progressive in the 80s, because my advanced age makes it at least possible that I will be comfortably dead before ai destroys all human life.
520 What about us?
521 Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor pirtle-guiney. Follow that up.
522 As someone not quite that old with kids, I'm hoping we can do better than that. Councilor. I need to start as I did in committee by saying that in abundance of caution, I want to declare a potential conflict of interest. My wife works for a tech company that in part does own some data centers that contributes to our family income. While I don't believe there is an actual conflict of interest, it has been advised that I declare the potential. That said, I wholeheartedly support this resolution. The documented environmental impacts of data centers are the start. But Portland also needs to be deliberate about how we use one of our scarcest economic resources. Our job available land, including our industrial land. And while we learned in committee that these data centers are zoned commercial, we also learned that in the central east side, they can be sited on industrial land. This resolution is fundamentally about transparency and accountability. It asks us for greater public transparency and council awareness if and when the city is approached about very large data centers. And that matters because Portland has a limited supply of good job land, and the choices that we make about these data centers will shape our economy and the space we have to grow other parts of our economy for decades to come. When land is scarce, we need to think not just about the capital a project brings, but how effectively that land use creates lasting employment opportunities. So we should ask a straightforward question how many good permanent jobs do we get for the amount of land we commit to? Any type of project, a very large data center, yes, represents a substantial capital improvement, and it requires a relatively small workforce. Construction jobs in the indirect economic activity are, of course important, but they can't be the end of the story. Our permanent employment located on a site matters. This is about job density. It's about economic opportunity for our future. And it's about opportunity cost as well as the important environmental and transparency values that have been stated many times by folks in the room today and my colleagues, the question becomes even more important when a project has those unusually large demands for electricity, water and other infrastructure that we know data centers do, the resource demands of a data center have economic and environmental consequences that we all deserve to understand before the city enters into any more of these commitments or makes decisions about sites, we should know how much electricity, how much water a proposed facility of any type will require, what infrastructure it would need, and what permanent employment will be, what environmental mitigation would be provided. The point is that the city needs information to evaluate projects that are considering located here, and to evaluate those projects impacts. Transparency is not at odds with economic development. It makes sure that our economic development is working for us, for the people of our community. This resolution gives counsel and gives the public an opportunity to understand trade offs before any decisions are made. It's critical that we move this forward, and it's critical that this be just the first step of the conversation. I was proud to be one of the early co-sponsors. Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane, and I'm looking forward to the vote today.
523 Thank you. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Councilor Kanal.
524 Thanks, council president. Thanks to my co-sponsors. I'm happy to join in bringing this forward. Broadly speaking, ndas are bad. We seem to be used in other cities to prevent public awareness of and input into development that impacts their neighborhoods, and to shield decision makers from community opposition and accountability. This resolution would declare that transparency should be standard practice in Portland, and I hope a step towards saying that transparency must be standard practice in Portland. We have a right to know if the city administration is considering allowing data centers in our communities, and we, as portlanders, representatives on the city councilors have an opportunity today to take a proactive step to build public trust by saying no decisions about you without you at least being aware of it and ideally involved in it. By further signaling our intent in the resolution to institute a moratorium on data centers, we make it clear that decisions about these facilities should be evidence based and rely on robust, objective analyzes of data centers, environmental and economic impacts. What we already know is that ravenous energy demands from data centers constrain water systems and energy grids, raise residents utility bills, create 247 noise pollution, and pollute our air with emissions emissions from diesel generators. They extract resources with no evidence of meaningful direct economic benefit for the community. Post-construction. These buildings can be over 1,000,000ft■!s and have fewer than 100 people working in them. As my colleague just noted, when we think about our goals under the comp plan, under the eoa, that's a terrible ratio. Data centers that enable ai don't create jobs. In fact, they were designed to help eliminate them. I'd also like to see us ultimately move towards an outright ban in Portland. I do not believe the data centers are inevitable, and I also don't believe that ai is inevitable. No matter what tech bros say, move fast and break things might be their ethos. It's not how you run a city. And when some of the very folks who've been creating and pushing this technology are warning that there's a 10% chance that ai could kill all humans within the next decade. And I do hope that councilor Novick you're here for at least another decade, it's time to not only pump the brakes, but to shut off the entire damn engine. And so we, as a city, get to decide how to use our land. And we have a responsibility to make sure it's for the greater good and well-being of all portlanders and the environment that we're all stewards of. So I'm looking forward to this vote. I do want to take the opportunity to ask a question for the future and ask, you know, do we offer what the next steps beyond this? Do we offer early assistance and preliminary meetings with data center applicants? And is that something that we should be looking at as a step that could be taken faster towards a ban? Because we do know that when things get through early assistance, they are often effectively greenlit.
525 I'd have to ask staff to come up to speak to if. What offers do we have as it relates to early incentives for any kind of development like this there in the room.
526 Okay, so this is before you file the official permit, you start talking to the permitting staff and ideally help shape the thing to get to to a yes, eventually. Sorry. Please come up. Yeah.
527 Hi there, natalie didion.
528 I'm the building official for the city. So early assistance is a normal application for any applicant to fill out. They provide very simple information about their project, and it's about the siting of it and looking at the zoning requirements of that site, and then also the public infrastructure about what is going to be required. Okay. So go ahead.
529 It answers the first part of it. You know, there's a Oregonian article about a five story data center coming forward. My understanding is that they have early assistance in progress. And also that or soon to happen. I'll let you answer that because you know more than I do. Yeah.
530 I know that they are scheduled for an early assistance meeting on October 7th. I don't think that means that meeting is scheduled.
531 Okay.
532 So yeah, so it's not really getting assistance to get their project through. It's just a meeting to talk about the, the project that's available to, to any permit.
533 I think this conversation would indicate, and I hope the eventual vote on it would indicate that that council would actually like to not do those either, and stop providing early assistance to data center applications altogether, as another way of getting towards the eventual ban that we need to do. So I just wanted to to get that on the record while I had the chance. This is something that I learned about after becoming a co-sponsor and the news article and all of that. So I don't know if there would be a need to have a council action, but if you do determine that, that would be something that would be helpful and or necessary. I'd love to know for future and I appreciate natalie, thanks for being here. Also, I read your name and a lot of stuff. And so. Sure. Yeah. Thank you, council president.
534 Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor Zimmerman.
535 Thank you, mr. President. I appreciate everybody's comments and also eager to support this today. I think, you know, as I mentioned in my opening comments, the prospect and frankly, I think the the availability in downtown is very concerning for me. I've also, you know, throughout my career, I've been a part of, of big projects and projects that have things like plas and community benefits agreements and things of that nature. And none of that would have ever been achievable behind a closed door, right? None of that ever would. Our labor standards, our workforce initiatives, you know, the mitigation for any project going in near a big near a neighborhood or how you work never would have been achievable with an n, d, a and behind closed doors. And so I think this is just right on the mark and very similar to the to the points in the values that councilor Pirtle-guiney was highlighting. I think that we can also highlight those those types of things that while we don't have perfect language of stopping, we do also can. As a resolution, one of our roles is to urge right to, to urge the, the city administrator to consider certain things as we go forward. And I want to just highlight that as I do move Zimmerman one, because I think that Zimmerman. One allows us to kind of call some of those things out that can't be achievable if we do it behind nda doors. And so I would appreciate any consideration for that amendment to, I think, even strengthen this because I think it's been a great a great showing. And I think we can make sure that if anything ever does find its way here, we set the standard for like what we would expect and how to mitigate all the things we can so that we, we aren't in a place of what we've seen going on in other communities. Thank you. So move Zimmerman one.
536 Second.
537 Councilor Zimmerman moves Zimmerman one and councilor Clerk seconds. And this Zimmerman was pre filed is available online colleagues to the amendment discussion of the amendment councilor Green.
538 Thank you. Thanks. Excuse me. Long day. Thanks council president thanks for pre filing the amendment. Councilor Zimmerman and motivating it. I think it's nice to pre file amendments and have an opportunity to read them. So just another plug for 3.02. Okay. I like all the labor stuff you're doing in this. I think that we should be shouting you know registered state registered apprenticeship programs and plas from the rooftop. Every time we contemplate the city moving in relation to investments in our city. What I, what I don't like though, is it it feels like it, it runs counter to the idea of doing a moratorium on these things. And I'm not sure that's necessarily your intent, but that's, that's what I'm reading in it because it sort of talks about how it's, we can do these data centers, but we can do them responsibly. And that's, that's hard for me to get past. And, you know, I know there's been items before amendments before we're like, I like, I like what you're selling, but I don't like how how I'm buying it. And I think that's your terminology sometimes. But and so if there was a way to pull that piece out, I could be open to it. But, but I think as it stands, I can't get over the kind of the last. Whereas clause in particular.
539 Okay. I appreciate that responding. It was just a as we've seen it come into other places, these communities where things happen before they know it is what I guess I was trying to address, which is we have a kind of a way of doing business. And, and so I, I hear that that wasn't the intent there. I read it differently. And I also recognize that I was not recognized. Council president. So I'll shut up.
540 You're welcome to respond. It was a it was a direct comment. Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
541 Thank you, council president, councilor Green, that's I appreciate you saying that. I had read it really differently. And I had read especially looking at that resolved at the end. This is a really important interim step because the underlying after the amendment that you and councilor Koyama Lane proposed in committee. Thank you for bringing that forward. We're directed to look at a ban or some sort of limiting conditions in the future, but we're not doing that yet. And so I saw this as filling in the interim space where until we get a ban or limiting conditions in place, we're saying, hey, in the meantime, if anything does move forward, it darn well better be with some conditions attached to it. And let's start that part of the discussion here. And now. Let's make sure that if some of these things are moving, we've seen in the press that there is a group that's interested before we can have that conversation about a ban or a moratorium or limiting conditions that we have, that we have some of those conditions in place. So I saw this as kind of an important piece for this interim period and. Have plan to support it for that reason and, and hope that we can do something. I don't know what conversation the two of you are going to have, but that we can do something for the now while we wait to have the broader conversation.
542 Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney, I put myself in the queue. Councilor Zimmerman, I appreciate where you are going with this, but it does feel unrelated to me. It feels a a different answer to a different question. I feel like the resolution before us is saying the city council and the city of Portland have concerns about data centers, and that in the absence of us, our ability to take decisive action about them, we are defaulting to a process of transparency, accountability and public disclosure. I feel like your amendment then says, but if we are going to build them, they should be done this way. And I do think that we should, as a body, have an opportunity to say if data centers are going to exist in our in our city, they should exist in this way. I feel like the core of what we're trying to accomplish this is specifically saying that we care about the transparency on the front side, and this feels like a back side argument. So for that reason, I would I would vote no, but on the amendment, but I would be interested in potentially bringing forward another legislative action similar to that. So. Colleagues, is there any further comment on Zimmerman one? Seeing none. No one else in the queue. Keelan. Cully. Please call the roll on Zimmerman.
543 One move by Zimmerman seconded by clerk. Koyama Lane.
544 No.
545 Morillo. No.
546 Novick. Regretfully no.
547 Clerk.
548 Yes.
549 Green.
550 No.
551 Zimmerman.
552 Yes.
553 Avalos.
554 No.
555 Smith. Absent. Kanal. No. Pirtle-guiney.
556 You really want those interim conditions, guys? Yes.
557 Ryan.
558 Yes.
559 Dunphy.
560 No.
561 The amendment fails with a vote of four I seven a's and one absent.
562 Okay. Cully, is there any further discussion of the underlying resolution? Seeing no one in the queue. Keelan, please call the roll.
563 Koyama Lane. Aye, Morillo. Morillo.
564 Aye, Morillo.
565 Novick.
566 Aye, Morillo.
567 Clark I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. Absent Kanal. I pirtle-guiney I Ryan. I Dunphy. I the resolution is adopted with 11 eyes and one absent.
568 Colleagues, before we adjourn today, I motion to reconsider the vote on document 2026-263. As I said earlier, I feel that there is still room for this item to move forward. If there is reasonable effort to be made to find and enforcement and disclosure provision as a condition of approval that the parties and city attorney find acceptable. I would therefore move that we reconsider this item and that the appropriate work be done to amend this transfer agreement, a condition be adopted and we move it then swiftly to a vote. May I have a second vote? Second for reconsideration?
569 Second.
570 Thank you, councilor Clark. Vice president, colleagues, this is a debatable motion to the cu. Councilor Kanal.
571 Just a question, council president, should this be adopted? And I might have other questions later. Should this be adopted? We would go immediately into the document. Correct. We have approved an ordinance. Ordinance 192094 on September 3rd, 2025 that says that we cannot enter new items after 9 p.m. In a council meeting. It says council will complete consideration of the current items and then will continue to consider to consideration of any remaining emergency ordinances. 9/12 items or adjournment. It does, I should note council may also suspend the rules to continue the meeting for other items, so we could do that, but I believe it would require nine votes.
572 City attorney available. I, I just like somebody smarter than me to say that. That's right.
573 Hi.
574 Robert taylor, city attorney. That is correct. There is that ordinance that says if we start at six or later, we're going to end at nine. And if we go past nine, then we can't take up any new items except emergency ordinances and and others that are listed. So here again, I think this is an issue for the a ruling that the council president can make. And you could decide that the motion to reconsider is in order, even though it's after 9:00. Once the motion to. If the motion to reconsider carries. Then under this ordinance that. Councilor Kanal cited, we could not enter. We could not go into the discussion on that new item. That new item would have to get carried over to to a following week. So that's a decision you could make as the chair.
575 Thank you, mr. Taylor. We're still in debate.
576 So.
577 Just to clarify, that means.
578 That that we could still do the motion to reconsider if the chair rules that that's okay, but that we would not be able to debate it. We would have to leave the item and go to we'd have to end for the day.
579 I, I think that type of ruling by the chair would be a way to accommodate both the, the motion and the rule and the rule.
580 Okay. Well, that is what the chair is going to do.
581 I.
582 I know, I'm sorry. I am ruling that the the motion to reconsider is in order and.
583 Ask one clarifying question.
584 Yes. Councilor. Morillo. Yes.
585 Okay. Robert, city attorney, tried and true valiant warrior of the people up there with your legal knowledge, if we were to pass an amendment tonight, would we need seven votes or would we? Is it the majority of the people sitting up here?
586 It's you. Under the rules to amend an ordinance, you need seven affirmative votes.
587 Okay.
588 The to the issue we just talked about, if you if because we're after 9:00, we can't go into new items. So you can you can reconsider the ordinance that failed, bring it back to life, but then you're prohibited from actually taking action on it tonight. You would need to carry it over that.
589 Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That is what I am to I am the chair is ruling that the motion to reconsider an item we've already heard is not considered new business, and I'd like to move that forward. And councilor Clark has already seconded. So more thoughts. Councilor. Aye, Morillo. Okay.
590 I mean, so you're closing the item tonight. Is that.
591 I am going to I would like to vote on the motion to reconsider, and then I will be I mean, I will be blatant with all of my colleagues right now. My intention is to vote on the motion to reconsider. I will then immediately say that. I say that this item is continued to a future meeting, and I'm going to bang that gavel. So further discussion of the councilor Kanal.
592 Okay, I just because I think this is a good opportunity to clarify intent, and I appreciate you clarifying your intent for this immediate moment. What's the intent beyond that? So this hypothetically gets reconsidered. Should it should this motion pass, we end the meeting and then we move to a future meeting, ostensibly one of the next few. And then what? We just do the vote again, or is there a plan to do anything differently on the content of this thing?
593 It is my hope, and I will be personally trying to work with the administration, who put me in a position that there is an opportunity for some further work on this.
594 And I recognize and I know that it may seem a little hollow because I you're still living it, but I do recognize this is a tough spot for you as the president at this moment. So I want to acknowledge that because I can only imagine what you've been hearing. But I also would like to know. How I, I would like to hear before I take a vote on this, an inclination from anybody who voted no on councilor Morillo and greens amendment that there is anything that you'd be willing to do to change this ordinance that would make me more willing to vote yes on reconsideration, and I would like to know what that specifically would be. And I think this is the best time to have that conversation. Thanks.
595 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. And we are again debating the motion to reconsider. Councilor Avalos. Councilor.
596 It does allow the merits of the thing being reconsidered to be discussed.
597 Absolutely. No, I'm just I'm just restating it for the purposes of the thank you body. Yes. You didn't do anything wrong, councilor Avalos.
598 All right, so I'm hearing the intent. And when you say that, you'll bang the gavel after it's continued on, so does it just go automatically to the next meeting? That would be next Wednesday or you have to reschedule.
599 I will have to reschedule it. I will have to find the next available one, and there is no time currently available unless we move things around on the next immediately. Next one. That's possible on the Thursday, but I have to. I have to work with my team and the clerk to figure that out.
600 Okay, I think that's all. Thanks.
601 Thank you. Councilor. Morillo.
602 Thank you. On the motion to reconsider, I agree with councilor Kanal that I would like to hear some of my colleagues feedback on. Basically, we can keep doing a groundhog day where we have the same discussion over and over again, and it ends up in the same result, because we know that the mayor is waiting for it to be the tiebreaker vote, and we know what his position is. But I would love to hear what my colleagues are willing to do or to change about the franchise transfer, so that we can actually have a different result this time around. And I, I guess I'm sort of pleading with my colleagues because while it is very funny that councilor Novick said he was progressive in the 80s and made jokes about his own age and stuff, the joke of the fact that some of the older people up here are not going to deal with the impacts of climate change. The way that my generation is, is also actually very real, and there are people my age who are choosing not to have families and not have children, because we don't know what type of world we're going to leave them with. And I say that because I feel like the same existential threat that many of us feel about ai and data centers, and the poisoning of our water is the same existential threat that a lot of portlanders feel about the zenith oil train, or I squared's oil train, or whoever's oil train it is in the future, what it could potentially do without an ability for the public to actually do enforcement on it. So I don't say that to put people in a difficult position. I'm sort of earnestly pleading, as the youngest person on this council, for you to consider the impacts on my generation and what's going to happen to us if we don't take some of these steps today, when we have the opportunity to make things different? So I think the vote to reconsider for me is one of. Are my colleagues willing to move on any of this so that we can have stronger enforcement for the public? That's sort of what I'm asking for. And I'd love to hear folks, and I'm saying this in earnest this is not a trap. I'm just really trying to figure out what we can do together to make this a little bit stronger so that the public and, and we can feel comfortable moving this forward. Thank you.
603 Thank you. Councilor Morillo colleagues, I would like just noting that I it is 930 currently, and I did tell our staff we would be out of here hopefully by 930. So let's. This is a good conversation to be had, but I just would like to note that. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
604 Thank you, council president. It's a little bit difficult to be asked what specifically we could support when we don't have proposals before us. We've had our attorneys tell us that there are some limitations, significant limitations to what you can do on a franchise transfer, and I think we need to operate within those limitations. It's hard to avoid a groundhog day when there are folks who don't want to operate within those limitations. But I think that we should all always be willing to have conversations about what policy can look like, to make sure that we can get a majority vote on things that are the business of the council. So I hope that everybody is willing to have that conversation over the next week.
605 Thank you very much. Councilor pirtle-guiney vice president, clerk.
606 Thank you, council president, just really briefly, I appreciate your comments. As the oldest member of the council, I think I'm already experiencing climate change. I'm already experiencing those things. We don't have to wait any longer. And I would just say that, sure, I'm open to looking at things, but as councilor Pirtle-guiney just mentioned, there are certain sideboards to this and I think we have to respect that. But I'm always open to learning more and I'll just leave it at that.
607 Thank you. Vice president Clark councilor Novick.
608 I just have to say that I find councilor. Morillo assertion that anyone who disagrees with her on an issue relating to which company has a franchise agreement means that they don't care about climate change.
609 Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor Kanal.
610 So.
611 Okay, I'm going to I'm going to just say it's hard because we're trying to be responsible here. And, and when I say we, I do mean all of us who are here. And also we have a resolved issue, maybe not to everyone's liking how it was resolved. There was a vote and talking about reopening it. And it's if it's going to be reopened just to change the outcome of the vote, that's not a good reason. And in fact, if you go into robert's rules, it actually says that's not a good reason unless someone's actually changing their mind. It's it's. But if there's a reason to change it in terms of amending the document, that that makes sense. And I appreciate that. The problem is we have no way of knowing that for obvious reasons. So I think in order to give my colleagues time to determine what it is that we could change, I would move to postpone the vote on reconsidering until next week.
612 How does that work?
613 Point of information, council president, I think we're in the middle of debate to a motion that you made.
614 It's great. Great question. So there is a pending motion to reconsider that pending motion to reconsider itself is subject to a subsidiary motion to postpone to a date certain. So you could vote to postpone the pending motion to reconsider until next week.
615 So I would move to to. Do that.
616 To to postpone, I would move the subsidiary motion to postpone the vote on the main motion to reconsider until next week. And if you need more specific than next week, I'm happy to provide that at a time of your choice.
617 Councilor by saying next week we will go ahead and accommodate that if that is the will of the council.
618 Okay. Second, okay.
619 Councilor Kanal has made a motion to postpone. It's 930. I'm sorry. Postpone the vote on the motion to reconsider to next week. And councilor Avalos has seconded. Is that right? Did I get that mostly correct.
620 Thank you. Yes.
621 Okay. Is this a debatable motion?
622 The the it is debatable as to the the time to which you are postponing.
623 There we go. Okay, okay. Councilor Zimmerman to the. No. Okay. Colleagues, is there further discussion of councilor Canales amendment or motion to postpone the vote on the motion to reconsider? Councilor Avalos.
624 Yeah, I think that it's clear there are some concerns that people have about moving this forward right now due to everything we've already discussed. And so I think it's the most responsible thing to postpone it so that we can give all the councilors whatever comforts they need to make that decision. And so I think it is I would urge my colleagues to support this motion, because I also agree that I'm not, at this point, interested in voting to reconsider something that I have not seen any material change in people's opinions. And so I would love to be able to make that judgment call with more information. It's impossible for me to do that now, so I would not vote to reconsider it today. I'd be open to it in the future. And so if that's what people want, then I would recommend we vote for this to postpone it so that we can make that possible next time. Otherwise, I'm just going to be a no on reconsidering. Thanks.
625 Thank you. Councilor Avalos. Councilor. Morillo. Oh, and yeah, go ahead. Just do it. Yeah.
626 Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that approach so that we have some time to reconsider things. I'm also just going to lay a boundary here right now. Earlier, I think I spoke very calmly, nicely and sort of made a plea for my generation about my experiences. And then another colleague reinterpreted my comments in a different way that was very negative. And again, having questions about my intentions and behavior. And I'm sort of done with that happening repeatedly to me and being chastised on council. So you can take my words at face value. There's really no subtext when I speak. Thank you.
627 Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Novick.
628 There is no other way to interpret councilor Morillo words the way I interpreted them.
629 Okay, I'm going to go ahead and call a vote. Keelan can we please call the vote on councilor Canales motion to delay the vote on the motion for reconsideration to next week or something.
630 No. If I Kanal seconded by Avalos Koyama Lane I aye, Morillo. I Novick. I Clark.
631 No.
632 Green I.
633 Zimmerman. No Avalos. I Smith. No.
634 Kanal I.
635 Pirtle-guiney.
636 It's pretty clear to me this is the only way that we're going to be able to have this conversation. So I.
637 Ryan.
638 No.
639 Dunphy I.
640 Motion carries with eight eyes and four nays.
641 The vote on the reconsideration will be moved to next week. We are adjourned. Am I right? My am I good? Am I good? Everybody okay? We're adjourned. Look it out.