Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record.
[0:00] Speaker A (unidentified): When you come, I shall, because we are live and all of a sudden we're now good.
[0:08] Mark Dion: Evening everybody, good evening to our colleagues and also city staff and then everybody from the public who's attending. Thank you for your patience. Our zoom decided to update itself at 5 29 this evening, and so that's what we're all working our way through. I see my colleagues have made it. Wonderful, you have found your way to the June meeting of the Health and Human Services and Public Safety Committee of the Portland City Council. And actually, the first thing we're going to do tonight on our agenda. Oh, you know what, let's do introductions. So we, I am Anna Bullett, I am the district for city councilor and I am the chair of this committee. Councilor Pelletier, why don't you go?
[0:52] Wesley Pelletier: I'm West Pelletier, District 2 in transit as you can hear, but I'll be home shortly.
[0:58] Mark Dion: Wonderful. Councillor Michniewicz. Oh, there she is.
[1:02] Sarah Michniewicz: Sarah Michniewicz, District 1.
[1:04] Mark Dion: And Councillor Fournier, are you able to say hi? I am. Hey, Councillor Fournier, at-large councillor in transit, because on election day, nothing goes as planned. There's a lot of registered voters in your house, so we're glad that you make the time to make sure everybody gets their opportunity to cast their vote. So tonight we have Assistant City Manager Libner here and a variety of people from the city staff. Do you guys want to do a round and introduce yourselves, starting with you, Chief, since you already have your video up?
[1:35] Chad Johnston: Yeah, Chad Johnston, Fire Chief, and I will pass it to Bridget.
[1:43] Bridget Rauch: Good evening. Bridget Rauch, Director of Public Health, and I'll pass it to Maggie.
[1:48] Mark Dion: Good evening. Maggie McLaughlin, Director of Health and Human Services. I'll pass it to Dina. know.
[1:53] Bridget Rauch: I'm Dina Libner, Assistant City Manager, and I will pass it to Mary.
[1:59] Mary Christie: Hi, I'm Mary Christie, Associate Corporation Counsel. I'll pass it to Sergeant Noyes. All
[2:08] Chad Johnston: right, technical difficulties my first time. I'm Sergeant Ben Noyes. I'm the Traffic Sergeant for Portland PD, and I'm not sure who to pass it to.
[2:22] Mark Dion: I think we might have got everybody, and if somebody else joins us later, we can honor them by just giving a smile, and we'd be remiss not to mention that we have our executive assistant, Adam, here running the technology show, like always. The first thing we need to do tonight is actually an announcement. So why don't you take this one, Director McLaughlin?
[2:43] Mary Christie: Sure. Just wanted to let folks know that there will be a city council workshop in August related
[2:51] Mark Dion: to the family shelter. And we will post that at that time when we have more details. Thanks for that. There's a lot of moving parts going on right now with the family shelter, and we felt it was prudent to have the entire council in the conversation and not just this committee. So many thanks to the staff for making sure that process is moving along. The next thing we need to do is to approve the minutes from last month, so if I could get a motion, that would be fantastic. Moved by Councilor Pelletier, seconded by Councilor Michniewicz. Councilor Pelletier, how do you vote? Yes. Councilor Michniewicz? Yes. Councilor Fournier? Yes. And I am a yes, so we passed the minutes. The third thing on our agenda this evening is an update from Associate Corporation Council around the ask that we had in our last meeting to find out the legal landscape as it pertains to overdose prevention centers, which is a more comprehensive way to refer to a center that incorporates safe injection of drug use. So I will pass it to Mary, and thank you so much for
[4:01] Mary Christie: being here this evening. Thanks for having me. Yeah, so at the last meeting, I was asked to look at the legal landscape around these sites. At the federal level, the main barrier is the Controlled Substance Act, specifically 21 U.S.C. Section 856, which criminalizes knowingly opening or maintaining a space for the purpose of using a controlled substance and also managing or controlling any place or making a place available for the purpose of using controlled substances. It was originally passed in the 80s in the midst of the crack epidemic, as it was called. And this was the so-called Crap House Act, which we don't like that term anymore, but that's what it's been referred to for the past several decades. It was originally designed to go after these kinds of homes where people gathered and you often abandoned or landlord and go after landlords who are maintaining these sites and not really intervening in the community. But it's drafted such that it's broad enough that it could potentially pull in these overdose prevention sites, which the Third Circuit did in the case of United States v. Safehouse, which was a case in 2021 brought by the DOJ against a Philadelphia nonprofit that tried to open one of these sites. So it wasn't a criminal prosecution. It was done even before to prevent them from opening the site at all. And in that case, the court did hold that because the site's explicit purpose was to provide a space where users could consume drugs, it satisfied the criminal intent of the statute and thus it explicitly violated federal law despite the public health motivations behind the project. So it was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which denied cert. It's still kind of pending because there's some other causes of action they're trying, arguments they're trying to make, but right now it's what stands at the federal level. There haven't been cases in other circuits. And for reference, Maine is in the First Circuit. Generally, the circuits look to each other, but they often will, depending on which part of the country you're in, they may have a different take on things. So you never know. In terms of state-level work that's been done in Rhode Island, which, Counselor Bullitt, you had mentioned the Providence Pilot Project, Rhode Island passed a law at the state level in 2021 for this program, allowing organizations to open and operate OVCs with municipal authorization and as regulated by the Rhode Island Department of Health. So in January 2025, the first state station site run by Project Weber slash Renew, which is a nonprofit in Rhode Island, opened in Providence. So there it's the legality of it is it's safe from local interference but it's still vulnerable to federal prosecution and part of the law also provides for immunity for anyone working in it from prosecution and Minnesota and Vermont have also passed similar legislation but they neither state has opened a site though I think Burlington has been kind of toying with that but hasn't done anything with it. And another approach that was taken that's slightly different was in New York City, New York State, there's been some proposed legislation, but it's been stalled at the state level to allow these sites. And the governor has signaled she in the past that she doesn't support authorizing current like the proposed legislation at the time. So New York City had conducted a feasibility study and after which the then mayor, Bill de Blasio, announced support for these sites. And so the state, the local officials there decided to take the approach of meeting and engaging key local stakeholders like the NYPD, district attorneys, and other elected officials to come up with an agreement for a policy of non-enforcement. So meaning like there would be no interference from the police or the prosecutor's office if an organization were to set up one of these sites. So then in 2021, On Point NYC, which is a nonprofit that operates a lot of harm reduction programs in the city, opened two OPCs at two existing syringe service programs that were already in operation. But because in that case, there's no state level or federal legal shelter from doing this, the sites operate under just continuous legal risk. So if there's a change in local leadership and a change in appetite, the sites could face closure or prosecution. So in Maine, since 2017, there's been three different bills that have been proposed. In 2017, the first bill attempted to authorize up to two DHHS-certified sites, but that failed to pass. Then in 2023, there were two proposed bills. One proposed a two-year state pilot, but it never made it to a floor vote. And the other started as a Rhode Island-style bill to grant municipal authority, establish site requirements, and provide immunity for participants and staff members if they were acting in accordance with the bill. But it ultimately became a completely different bill, which established a working group to study methods of preventing opioid overdoses through these sites. And they presented their report to the legislation in 2025. And since then, there hasn't really been any activity. I don't, there wasn't any activity in this previous, this year's legislative session. So ultimately, it's a very dynamic, unsettled legal landscape around these, there hasn't, it's really up to the appetite of the DOJ whether or not they're going to go after these sites and at the state level. And so in the absence of any federal or state authorization, there's a pretty high legal risk for the city or an operator if they decided to go forward with something like that. And I'm happy to take any questions or comments.
[10:26] Mark Dion: Thank you. That was a really great walkthrough of what's happening in this world. Do my colleagues have any questions? [Mary Christie: Questions. Don't] See any right now. And unfortunately, Councilor Fournier lost the she got kicked off the call. She's going to try to get back on. I guess if there I guess my question is, if there are any provisions in the Controlled Substance Act that provide immunity to duly authorized people like officers that are carrying out local laws.
[11:09] Mary Christie: I don't know that. I can look at that for sure.
[11:14] Mark Dion: Yeah, find out. Just trying to think about how to that, you know, those immunity provisions seem like what's Rhode Island probably went pretty hard on. All right. I don't know that I have any other questions on this juncture. The memo is great. Thank you so much for putting this together. I think we have a lot to meet with our partners about and by partners, I mean our state delegation mostly. Honestly, and then see what happens in November. But I definitely want to keep this conversation open. And, if we get to a point where we can move forward, now you've done the research.
[11:52] Mary Christie: So I'd also recommend like the working group report is actually really helpful and comprehensive. And I'm happy to share that with you all after the meeting. Yeah, that would be fantastic.
[12:08] Mark Dion: I definitely should bring that back up and pay attention to what's happening at the state level and see if there's any appetite from our delegation or from other municipalities to work together on something at the at the state yeah I have no other questions because you did such a great thorough job so I will move us along because there was no vote and Mary of course you are welcome to stay but I it's a beautiful night and I assume you have other plans so we also will not judge you if you do not stay the next thing on the agenda tonight is going to be an update from Bridget on the syringe redemption program you're still muted of
Referrals
[13:00] Bridget Rauch: course I am thank you so much for having me good evening everyone is it okay for me to share my screen counselor okay great okay so we are gonna just yeah I'm gonna go through this I'm happy to answer any questions when we're done but this is an update to the syringe redemption program which was approved and funded with opioid settlement funds back in october of 2024 for a one-year period we began january 13th of 2025 so we've now been in operation for about a year and a half just shy of a year and a half and of course last year funding was continued through opioid settlement funds to maintain this program. So in 2024, which was prior to our implementation of the syringe redemption program, as is commonly understood due to an increase in syringe litter, we were looking for creative ways to respond to that through the syringe redemption program. That was an idea, obviously. So prior to that, our return rate. And again, I just want to set the stage with, we distribute a lot of syringes in the community to people who are actively using drugs. We are not the only syringe exchange in Portland. So sometimes difficult for us to know what is ours and what is, you know, potentially from another exchange program. But if we're looking just strictly at numbers out versus numbers in, our return rate was around 61%. In 2025, with the biggest change being the implementation of the redemption program, our return rate increased to about 80%, 79%. And this year, as of the end of May, we've dropped a bit down to 71%. So still higher than pre-implementation, but certainly a little bit lower than last year overall. We are going to be exploring the reasons for this, of course, as we move along. Whoops. Sorry about that. And then we did also below here, there is a graph here just with the distribution versus collection of needles and then comparing a collection to our exchange or to other sort of safe places for syringe disposal versus improperly discarded syringes. So while at times it can feel like there are so many syringes, and I know that people often feel that way, this really does represent, what that number actually is, improperly disposed of, over time. So quite low comparatively. And so again, our, the program has been in operation for just under a year and a half. We are, have created a dashboard. It's still, it hasn't been fully sort of finalized for external viewing, but we have created a dashboard for the website that people will be able to access and see sort of where we're at on a monthly basis. That's about as close to real time as we can get in terms of updating it accurately, just because we have to kind of cull through data, of course. But here is just a snapshot of what the dashboard would look like. And since the beginning of the program, and again this is all updated as of May 31st, since the beginning of the program, the redemption program only, not taking into account the entire exchange, but just through the redemption program, we have collected 531,546 syringes. That also means that people have received just over 53,000 of opioid settlement funds. And, you know, folks can register to become a member of the redemption program. We require people to be active clients of our exchange, in large part so that people who were harmed by the opioid epidemic are really receiving funds that were intended to go back to the community that was harmed. So that is a bit of a requirement to engage in the program. We do pay 10 cents per syringe with a weekly maximum of 200 syringes or 20 dollars to participants, and we collect a fair amount of data on where the syringes have come from. Oftentimes people will tell us that they've collected their syringes from the ground. It's maybe not even personal syringes that they have that they're redeeming. And in fact, we've, we've had nearly 3000 encounters. And for about a third of those, the syringes were reported as primarily collected from the ground. So previously improperly disposed syringes were being collected and being brought safely to us. At the same time, we have distributed, you know, 554 doses of Narcan just through the interactions of redemption, which just due to time constraints have been a little bit kind of quicker interactions. So that's actually, you know, not a terribly low number. And then we have also, you know, engaged with people about wound care, distributing wound care kits to them and other resources and referrals, at the time of that exchange. Just a note, we also always offer HIV and hepatitis C testing at these, encounters. Oftentimes people are not wanting to do that at the time of their redemption, but come back to see us quite quickly after. You can also see on this screenshot here the sort of monthly total of syringes that are collected just through the redemption program. And then moving on, in March we held four focus groups with 27 clients of the SSP who were also engaged in the redemption program. And that was really eye-opening and really helpful. We collected data regarding their experiences with the syringe redemption program, which included the broader effects of the program on their lives and community. And we asked for feedback around improvements that could be made and current implementation processes. And so through those conversations, we identified several themes. And one that's really important to us is the program's really highly valued among our participants. They appreciate the opportunity. They take it seriously. We do run a bit of a tight ship when it comes to the redemption program, and people really value the opportunity to do this. The financial incentive, of course, is a main driver of participation. It's income in some way that people don't have other options to obtain. So it's very helpful. And we did get feedback that a lot of people utilize the funds for food and shelter. So even if it's like a one night in a motel, so often people will kind of pull their resources. Other themes, there are clear and consistent community safety benefits, right? So there is a noticeable reduction of improperly discarded syringes, particularly in some of these higher traffic areas. The program capacity limits the engagement. We definitely have a reduced capacity for the redemption program just because previously funding constraints, it was a pilot phase, things of that nature. And so we have very specific hours during which people can access the program. So that could potentially be limiting. We also heard that the eligibility rules have been perceived as stigmatizing, which was interesting because we really, because the goal was for the funds to go to people who are harmed by the opioid epidemic. That was a main reason for requiring participation in the exchange, but some people see that as stigmatizing. So we will be working to kind of resolve that at some point here. Participation improves health and safety practices for people. There's lots of conversation about safely handling syringes, even though the people that we serve are often very familiar with handling syringes. There's an increased effort for safety, particularly around, you know, an accidental needle stick, for example. And then these encounters serve as a gateway to health services, just like any other exchange, you know, there is, there is evidence that it is, it is a pathway to healthcare services to have a syringe service program. We have faced some supply issues in the past where we can't purchase enough grabbers or puncture proof gloves for folks. And we'd like to provide everybody with, safety equipment so that could potentially limit, the full, capacity of the program. And then pretty consistently ending the program could rapidly reverse the progress that has been made. And I, you know, I think that clients feel that it would be detrimental to end the program. Moving, whoops, moving on. Sorry about that. Okay. So I wanted to talk a little bit about just improper disposal reports, because that is a main way in which we, sort of monitor success of the redemption program. And so since the initiation of the redemption program in January of 2025, C-Click fix requests for needle pickups have remained consistently lower than the peak in the summer of 2024, which again was a driver behind some of these mitigation programs. And so during that summer, we reached 194 to 231 requests per month. And now we are down to, while it is still a wide variety, we are much lower in terms of monthly requests ranging from 43 or sorry 44 to 133 requests per month and then in 2024 the monthly reports averaged about 116 per month compared to 81 per month in 2025 and 67 per month in 2026 from January through May which is far lower that's a huge reduction which is great we also you know so that's also shown here we look at improper disposal so there are program parks rec and facilities maintains the City's survey 123 platform which is where they enter and Portland Public Health enters data on improperly disposed syringes as well as syringes that are collected from community sharps containers those are the only two departments to my knowledge that utilize this platform. So we do have other departments that will pick up improperly disposed syringes, but there is not a great way of, monitoring those numbers. So just to be clear that this does not, is not completely inclusive, but gives us a really good look. A lot of the C-Click fix reports are for very small quantities, a couple of needles. and so what we have seen is a reduction from you know january through may of 2024 over 21 000 syringes january through may of 2025 down to 8200 syringes and then 2026 just under 5 000 syringes so we do know that they are certainly not on the ground in the in ways that they were before and in quantities that they were previously and then I think this finally this is just a month-by-month review of the CCLIC fix reports really kind of shows you the decrease in the sustained sort of downward trend One last piece, we did have, as part of our overdose data to action program or grant, we had harm reduction ambassadors, and those ambassadors were largely tasked with collecting improperly disposed syringes, again, part of our improvement plan. And so we did see a bit of a spike in one of the categories in 2025 around syringe, you know, syringes that were improperly disposed. But much of that was due to the work that the ambassadors were doing. Unfortunately, due to changes in federal regulations, our ambassadors are no longer allowed to engage in syringe service program activities currently. So we don't have investors doing that right now. And I am getting close, I promise. And so at this time, we are confident that the syringe redemption program is contributing to the overall reduction of improper disposal of syringes, and also providing a really valuable opportunity for clients to directly receive opioid settlement funds as intended in the spirit of the settlement, in addition to the environmental and financial benefits of the program. It's also really important to thoughtfully interpret the trends before and after the program launch. A simple pre and post comparison doesn't address what litter would have looked like had the program never started. We really saw a huge increase in our client base and the number of exchanges we were doing on a monthly basis, as well as the number of syringes that were going out. Our exchange population kind of peaked in late 2024, where we were seeing over 800 unique clients a month, which was triple the volume we've seen in 2022 and 2023. So it, you know, it is important to think about what isn't, you know, the negative, the, lack of syringes on the ground is amazing. And it's also so much potentially so much better than it could have been had this, you know, program not been in existence. And we were seeing that huge jump in clients. So important to kind of think about that when we're sort of dissecting the data here. And then just finally, Portland's Range Redemption Program is pretty historic. It's the third such program in the country, following Boston, New York City. You know, Boston's Community Syringe Redemption Program ran mostly during COVID era, had a funding lapse, and then has recently reopened, but is the subject of the only published peer review evaluation of the model. And so I think with that I will end and happy to answer any questions that you have. Sorry, that was a lot of a lot of words from me. No
[28:25] Mark Dion: apologies allowed and if I was published in a peer-reviewed journal I would be making everybody listen to me talk about it every single day thank you so much that was a really great overview I will ask if my colleagues have any questions go ahead head, Councillor Michniewicz.
[28:43] Sarah Michniewicz: Oh, great. Thanks, Chair. Thank you, Bridget. That was, that was wonderful. I really appreciate the data, the, term you just threw out, the ambassadors. So, you've got, I know those are not the same as the Downtown Ambassadors, just for folks who are paying attention, playing along at home. So when did that, when did that program start on your end, your, the ambassadors who were picking up syringes?
[29:10] Bridget Rauch: Yeah, it was in 2024 and into 2025. But just with, you know, changes to the federal guidance. Yeah, we had to put a pause on that.
[29:21] Sarah Michniewicz: Yeah, okay. That's unfortunate. Now, are you in contact with the Downtown District and do you have a sense of what they are retrieving for needles in public spaces? Just trying to get a better picture of, you know, where the, who's actually picking them up and I know that's something that they can do on private property.
[29:40] Bridget Rauch: I am in contact with them. I do not have a full understanding of the volume that they are collecting on private property. Okay. Yeah. That'd be really helpful to know if you can
[29:51] Sarah Michniewicz: find a way to weave that into your data. Yeah, certainly. Let's see. Yeah. So the spike you were talking about, there was September 2025. Is that what you were referring to when there was looks like there were close to like over 3,000 that were improperly disposed, looking at the little green and blue chart there? Yeah, I don't know if that could be instructive as to what was going on at that time. Like, sorry, I'm actually not sure
[30:31] Bridget Rauch: for exactly where you're at, the like the wave, the wave graph. Yeah, September 2025.
[30:40] Sarah Michniewicz: If you go down to the improperly discarded, it was, oh I see, yeah.
[30:48] Bridget Rauch: Just wondering if there are any clues we can glean from you know I have to go back and look because on a monthly basis our data analysts or our data intern will give sort of like either confounders or outliers, I could go back through and look for that counselor and get that information to you. I just can't remember. Okay. Yeah. It's especially interesting because
[31:09] Sarah Michniewicz: It seems to align with a trough and distribution. Yeah. Programmatically, maybe there's something, maybe there's some clues there. And you mentioned the high traffic areas. And I know in the past, those have traditionally been you know obviously the downtown and specifically bayside was the one where the most syringes were found now I know I know that you had mentioned you were changing the way you were reporting the actual locations where they were found so is there a way to understand where they are mostly being discarded
[31:51] Bridget Rauch: Improperly not in the moment I can certainly have our data intern look at that and pull a similar chart to the last time we had this conversation because I believe they were
[32:04] Sarah Michniewicz: Starting to do it by district yeah that's that's which I mean I have to say I don't think that the district-wide number is terribly meaningful because the neighborhoods that are very impacted are impacted and you know that's where you know we should be maybe thinking about beyond the program and all of the factors that are playing into how those needles are either getting into the community or getting out of the community. And, you know, because there, obviously, you're going to have individual citizens and people who are not reporting them who are dealing with a significant quantity of needles, often on private property. Have you thought of doing a community survey of, I mean, community meaning, you know,, that like people who live here, but not the community of folks who are picking up the needles through the program to get more information on, you know, whether people are finding them on private property and picking them up and they just sort of never touch the system or enter the data on your end.
[33:12] Bridget Rauch: Yeah, that's a great question. We have not explicitly explored that. That I'd be, I'm certainly open to it, hesitant to ask folks to engage in a survey process and then sort of say, like, unfortunately, there's nothing, you know, we do have some limitations, obviously, when it comes to private property. So I'd want to be thoughtful about having a solution or at least be working towards a solution at the same time as we are, you know, soliciting that information.
[33:41] Sarah Michniewicz: Yeah. I mean, maybe there isn't a solution needed. That would be what the data it would be for, right. Okay. All right. Thanks. And I think that is it for now.
[33:52] Mark Dion: Thank you. Thanks. Counselor Pelletier.
[33:59] Wesley Pelletier: Thank you so much for that presentation. Weirdly, I highlight a lot of these meetings. I would, could I get your thoughts on the qualification part of it, you know, do you think those should be eased or eased? Yeah, I would just like, would like your opinion of where that's at. Sorry, can you say that again? The part where like to register for the program you have to, I can't remember, heard what the word was. Qualifications is probably not it, but sure. Okay. You know,
[34:47] Bridget Rauch: I think it's really important for, again, in the spirit of the funds and this is, this was kind of a, me decision. I mean, of course I could, it could be changed, but I feel really strongly about the, funding being used for what it's intended for, which is to go directly to the people who were harmed by the opioid epidemic. And I have, I had concerns around, you know, people just kind of coming in and, you know, getting $20 and, you know, because we had such a, not small, but we had a very finite amount of resources for the pilot year. I wanted to ensure that went directly to people who were, sort of victimized by the opioid epidemic. And so that was one way to do it. We also know that our clients are very well versed in handling and experienced in handling needles. And not everybody is, you know, and, so I would not want to be in a position where there was, you know, an accidental needle stick because somebody was like furiously picking up needles to bring in for $20. Again, it's something we could explore, but it just felt safer. And we had some real control over the safety training, the consent to engage in the program. It allows us to have time for people who need the work that the exchange does. You know, we want it to be focused on our clients, our exchange staff are running the program. We want our clients to have access to that staff so their resources and referrals and treatment options can all be discussed.
[36:34] Wesley Pelletier: Yeah, that totally makes sense. I'm trying to, like, you can't really put it in the report, and you probably shouldn't even say it here, but I'm just trying to, like, ration out, like, you know, who is saying that it's stigmatizing, and is that, like, do you, I guess, for the stigmatization portion, do you think that is a good faith criticism, and that there is something,. And, you know, maybe we don't do anything about it and maybe we shouldn't do anything about it, but what is your read of that criticism?
[37:16] Bridget Rauch: I mean, I was not in the focus groups. We had, you know, we had a, we had an external source taking care of the focus groups. What I will say is that I think we are already working with a population that is highly stigmatized and probably feels additional eyes, judgment, not from us, of course, but like in, you know, waiting to come in, we, have very specific times during which we offer the redemption program. I think there's, there are a few things that we could address. And when you said good faith, yes, I think that they, I think that it's potentially internalized stigma, you know, stigma, but certainly I want to be thoughtful about responding to that if we have participants
[38:03] Wesley Pelletier: who do feel that way. Okay, I just wanted to make sure, like, it's not, like, right, like, people that are not, people that are well-to-do, so to speak, and, you know, just people abusing the program that shouldn't, so that is, that's very helpful. Yeah, like, truly appreciate your insight on us.
[38:32] Mark Dion: Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Brinkley-Mitchell, do you have another question?
[38:35] Sarah Michniewicz: Yeah, sorry, this is one I just forgot to ask this before. So you had mentioned this is a gateway to health care services, which I think that's one of the main things that can come out of this program. You said there's evidence that it's a gateway to health care services. Can you just say a little bit more about what that means and what data exists, and if that's data
[39:00] Bridget Rauch: That you can share, like, is it referrals, is it how are you? Yeah, sure. And I don't have, I mean, I don't have all of the numbers in front of me at the moment, and certainly the memo was already quite long, but we certainly know that people who are engaging in the program are feeling safe coming into our, into our space, and they feel they, you know, have relationships built with our staff. We certainly have people who are also interested in, you know, other ways in which they can engage in things, you know. That are constantly asking for ways to be helpful. They report that they feel good about being able to contribute to, like, the overall environmental safety and, like, public safety. And so we know that through these conversations, more people are asking for information about the services. You know, during the time, we may notice that people have a wound that needs to be addressed, and so we do have data on all of this, but we also, this is direct feedback from the participants. The participants told us in the focus groups that they are more, they're thinking more about sort of other things that they can do to take care of
[40:08] Sarah Michniewicz: themselves. Yeah, that's, and that's a great outcome. It is sort of two different things, you know, how people are feeling about the program and what the actual data shows about the health outcomes. And so that's the, that's data that you can get us, so that would be really helpful. So I guess that interest in knowing what that little spike and trough was on the chart, what the, how the ambassadors are coordinating with you and, more specifically where people are leaving syringes improperly, that'd be great if I could get more information on those areas.
[40:45] Mark Dion: Is certainly, thanks, Counselor. I don't want to keep you here too long, but I do have to say thank you. This is such a comprehensive report. It is really exciting that we are doing something that feels very cutting edge, especially something that, as you've mentioned a couple times, is directly impacting the lives of people who were the most harmed by a, you know, a nationwide crime that was committed. And so the other thing I just want to remind you is that, like, your team is keeping people alive, right? So like, let's not lose that until they're hopefully ready for whatever the next step might be in their journey. And so just pat yourself on the back and like, remember that. I was recently at the Learning Collaborative, and they've had a real big uptick in wounds. So I was really glad to see that there's wound care kits that are being offered through this program. I think that's going to continue to be something that's needed in the community. And whenever I put on my little registered dietitian hat, I always think about malnutrition. And so if there's anything we can do to support, like offering food, if you're not already, that's always the thing that I think is good to offer as well. In terms of the supply, that makes me a little nervous that you don't have enough supplies, so let's brainstorm that if we can be helpful at all. Partners for World Health, maybe, is an option. And then I just want to highlight that the needle pickups, I mean, if you're talking, it was 194 to 231, and then it went down to 44 to 133. That's a pretty significant, that's a significant change. And I did want to point out, I'm glad you sort of mentioned it briefly, but the fact that it went up when there was harm reduction ambassadors also reporting. I liken it to when Main Care changes or Medicaid changes the rules for hospitals and says, we won't reimburse you unless you actually screen for this thing. And then you see like a huge uptick nationwide of, oh my God, all the kids have this thing. Well, it's because Main Care threatened to not, or Medicaid threatened to not reimburse if we didn't test. So sometimes it's, you can't, like sometimes it's not correlation, right? It's, it's because we were screening more or it's because we were reporting more. It's because you had more people doing it, so just always want to point that out. And I, yeah, that's great. I think that you're, let's continue to stay the course. Let us know what you need. It's hard to like, you know, totally judge something on only a year's worth of operations and data. Really glad to hear that focus groups are happening. I'm, I continue to want to make sure that we are centering the people who are most impacted, right, and not talking about things in rooms without the people we're talking about in them. So thanks for making sure that is happening. If there's no other questions for my colleagues or any other staff, we will move on and Sergeant, and so thank you Bridget, thank you so much, thank you Sergeant Noise, you are up to talk about a safety check-in. Okay, well pardon me, this is my first time being
[43:56] Chad Johnston: Here, as most of you know, so in at the end of 2024, we had two back-to-back fatal car accidents. And in response to that, we sought a grant through the Bureau of Highway Safety to fund additional traffic enforcement patrols, with the hope that increased traffic enforcement would start to reduce the number of traffic accidents we were seeing. Post-COVID in 2024 was the peak of accidents, and fortunately since then we've seen a decline in the number of accidents, unfortunately not fatal accidents. So in 2025, comparing the January 1st through May 31st, which will be the next slide, we had 1,330 traffic crashes. When you compare that to what we had this year, for the same time period, we've had a reduction of 14.5%. I think you can't really, I think, specifically pinpoint what's caused that reduction, but I think the Vision Zero efforts, as well as the increased traffic enforcement patrols, have certainly played a part in that. Since we started these extra traffic enforcement patrols in December of 2024, we've had 15 consecutive months where we've seen a decrease in the number of traffic crashes. We did have a spike in February of 2025 where we had two snowstorms back to back and we had 100 accidents that month, which was pretty unheard of. But it kind of threw us a little bit. But at any rate, we are seeing it trending in the right direction. The graph isn't showing up for some reason on the last slide, but there was a bar graph that was attached to that. Sorry. So when you compare 2024 traffic statistics to the 2025 statistics overall, we saw 6.7% decrease in the number of accidents overall. But we did see a jump in the fatal crashes in 2025 from three to five. The accidents all happened right around the same time. We had two fatals in November of 2024. And then we had four fatal accidents in the first quarter of the first couple of months of 2025. Unfortunately, that's kind of up until this last one. We had a nice lull in those types of accidents. So, as you can see, since 2025, or since 2021, we've recorded the lowest number of crashes. You know, you kind of throw COVID, 2020 with COVID that it kind of skews statistics. So we have to kind of skip that year just because the number of cars that were on or off the road. We haven't had any fatal crashes this year, and let's knock on wood on that one, that trend continues. I'm hoping that our traffic enforcement efforts and the vision zero efforts continue to see a decrease in accidents as well as the fatal crashes. But you can see that since the number of traffic stops and citations that were issued in the next slide will show how much they've increased. So we had a jump from, excuse me, we've had 1,595 traffic stops in 2025 in the same time frame that's going January 1st to March 31st. And for the same period of this year, we've increased that to 2,238, largely in part to additional efforts from patrol. But the number of 28 additional traffic enforcement details whose sole focus is to stop cars that are committing violations that directly impact pedestrian and other vulnerable user safety. Those 28 details are reimbursed through the Bureau of Highway Safety through the grant that we got again this year. So this is the second year that we've received the same grant. The number of tickets issued on those stops has also increased from 605 of 2025 up to 882 for this year. So officers are ready for more tickets. We've also encouraged officers, when they respond to a traffic accident, that they are summonsing the at-fault party for the accident, so we're hoping that we can correct some driving behaviors through, unfortunately, negative reinforcement, but we're hoping that we get the behavior changed that we want and make the road safer for everybody. And on my last slide here, you'll see a comparison of traffic stops to and citations year to year. So it's from 2015 to 2025. And, you know, we saw a sharp decline after COVID and 2021 with all the protests and stuff. But we started to see an increase since 2024. 24. And I think the grants, the traffic details that we're doing are definitely bumping those numbers up in the right direction. Hope any questions, hopefully I have an answer for you.
[50:27] Mark Dion: Yeah, great. This is really good to see this data. I'm sure my colleagues have questions and you did a fantastic job for your first meeting. We're always pleased to hear from the people who are doing the work in the field thank you i appreciate that counselor Michniewicz
[50:48] Sarah Michniewicz: Great thank you yes make such a noise that was that was great so yeah i have a couple of questions so the is there been any effect on staffing other details since you have
[51:03] Speaker A (unidentified): Have more officers dedicated to traffic stops so the traffic enforcement details are
[51:09] Chad Johnston: voluntary and overtime details because they're they have to be over time to be reimbursed
[51:15] Speaker A (unidentified): Through the Bureau of Highway Safety. Okay, yeah, that makes sense. And are there any other,
[51:24] Sarah Michniewicz: I don't know, are they, are officers finding other citable offenses happening when they're doing stops, or is this just strictly increases in the number of citations for the violation
[51:41] Speaker A (unidentified): to do with traffic infractions? I think the officers are specifically looking for things
[51:48] Chad Johnston: like distracted driving, failing to stop for stop signs, failing to use pedestrians in crosswalks. And part of this grid is also to summons the vulnerable users that are violating the traffic laws as well, because, you know, let's, let's, we got, I think we can all agree that they have a responsibility to, for their own safety as, you know, following the traffic laws as much as, you know, vehicle operators do. I think, I can't put a number to it, but I think a large majority of the tickets have gone to vehicle operators. And, I think because, you know, the vehicle operator is the one that's not going to suffer the, biggest, for lack of a better phrase, loss when there's an accident.
[52:34] Sarah Michniewicz: And is that data broken down somewhere?
[52:37] Chad Johnston: I may have access to the data. I can pull numbers. I don't have that up at the end.
[52:45] Sarah Michniewicz: Okay. That'd be helpful. And I have to ask, how are the officers feeling about this? You know, traffic stops are commonly cited as being a somewhat high stakes engagement because you don't know what you're approaching, but are they, how are they feeling about it, about this detail?
[53:03] Chad Johnston: I mean, I think the officers that are signing up for this detail are enthusiastic. I mean, they want to go out there and they want to engage. They want to make the streets safer. I think now that we're getting, we're starting to get a trickling of officers, increase our numbers in the department, I think it makes people more inclined to take these types of details because they're not feeling the obligation to staff a patrol shift because they're shorthanded. Now it frees them a little bit to take one of these assignments. And I think they enjoy because you stop these cards and you write these tickets, but it also gives you the opportunity to encounter people that may have a violent felony warrant or some other thing. So I think we all accept the risks are there when you do this type. And I don't think that's a discouraging factor, but. Okay, great. I appreciate that. You're very welcome.
[53:59] Wesley Pelletier: Councilor Pelletier. Sorry. Thanks for that presentation. A lot of good data there. I don't think I have a question. I just know that like this is talking about traffic citations has been a common refrain from people who, you know, are concerned about how fast people are going. So I think it's great that we're starting to step that up. and yeah i mean i don't know if you have any comments on like figuring out trends and figuring and you know how we can like sort of interpolate even like speeding data into like tpw and urban designing but i do think that 's that's something that we should start to look at so that we can figure out how to you know solve these problems on like a systemic level rather than, you know, just like you're saying, do negative reinforcement, which if it works, it works, but a longer term solution and less expensive would be great.
[55:08] Chad Johnston: Certainly. I think the ultimate goal anytime we do these things is voluntary compliance. We want people to follow the traffic laws because, you know, maybe a little bit out of fear that they're going to get stopped and get a ticket, but because it's the rules of the road and that's what we're supposed to do, we're supposed to keep the people around us safe, and it's not only just our safety but there are people, the vulnerable users, that are certainly going to suffer a far bigger loss, and I apologize if you hear my dog chewing your bone in the background, but they're going to suffer a far bigger loss in an accident than the motorist is. The motorist has insurance, they're going to fix their car, and I apologize, I just lost part of your question. That's
[55:54] Wesley Pelletier: I don't think my question made a lot of sense. So you can take that response. It was fantastic.
[56:00] Mark Dion: Thank you, sir. I think to reiterate Counselor Pelletier's point, Sergeant, is just that this is something we've noticed is that DPW traffic engineers are all wonderful and lovely. And they design roads based on all kinds of studies and all kinds of use. But sometimes they don't necessarily remember to ask the cops and the firefighters who are driving our city streets more than some of any of our other employees, and so we do like to take into account the anecdotal, you know, stories from the folks that are doing the work, because they do know a lot. It's, I mean, a ride-along, one-time ride-along is enough to teach any of us that there's a lot of value in the brains of the people that are that are doing this work. So did I get that right, Counselor Pals? Here is that kind of
[56:47] Wesley Pelletier: Know what you were getting at? Yeah, you salvaged something out of that. So I appreciate you saying
[56:53] Chad Johnston: that. And what I will say is that I think in talking with a number of my peers and, you know, officers that I haven't been on the road in five years, I've been in the traffic division doing, you know, the traffic work, but talking with the officers that are working on the road, I think one of the things that officers are concerned about is that we're designing our infrastructure to be pedestrian and vulnerable user friendly, but we're creating an environment where some motorists are becoming aggressive. They're becoming, and I think we all see it around the road. We see the driver that isn't being courteous and letting the car next to them pull in front of them, or the car that wants to beat the light and they're running the, it was yellow when they saw the light, but before they even got in the intersection, it was red. And I think they're seeing an uptick. And I know when I'm not in uniform and I'm driving my own truck through the city, I see it. And I say, why couldn't I be working now? Because, you know, this person clearly, they feel wherever they're headed is more important than where I'm going. And, you know, we're reducing roads from two lanes to one. And, you know, and there may be, you know, brains bigger than mine that are that are coming up with these solutions. And I'm not I don't intend to second guess what they're saying. I'm just saying this is the feeling that I think some of my peers have is that we're creating an environment where drivers are being more aggressive because they want to get where they're going. And, you know, we're reducing the ability for traffic to flow smoothly in certain parts.
[58:34] Mark Dion: No, I certainly hear that. And I don't want to lose sight of that. One thing I always remind everybody is that the majority of our own officers and our nurses at the hospital and some really important critical heroes don't live in Portland and need to commute into Portland by vehicle to get to their very important job and might have had a kid who held them up on their way to work and left late. And so I do give a lot of grace on both sides. Absolutely. And so I do, you know, that is heard. And I think it's important for us to remember that we are also a city where 10,000 people commute into every day to work. And we need to think about how we're making sure that they can get to their jobs as well. And in a timely manner, in a way that's not going to have them show up in a rage, right?
[59:19] Chad Johnston: Right. Yes. And if I can just add one more point to that is we do a lot of education around people driving. You know, kids are required to go to driver's ed before they can get their license and drive a car. We do very little education around what crossing the street. I mean, parents, but I know I'm going to age myself, but in my generation, look both ways, look left, right, left. And, you know, before you cross the street, and I think we're seeing that there's not an education around the biking community, you know, to the biking community and to the pedestrian community that, you know, that if I have a response, if I'm crossing the street, it's my responsibility as the person crossing the street to make sure that car that's coming is actually going to stop. And not step into the street looking at my phone or,, you know, you know, looking the other at the birds in the trees, you know, that it's a, it's a big move. And I think that, you know, that people take it for granted that they have the right of way as a pedestrian and crosswalks, but cars aren't always paying attention. We all see the people that are texting or on their phone. And I think we just all want everybody to get where they're going safely. And I think, you know, if we could add an education component, whether it's in schools or wherever, you know, to kind of reinforce the, you know, the responsibility that each vulnerable user has for their own safety, as well as, you know, what we do with the kids that are driving cars and adults that get their
[1:00:55] Mark Dion: license as an adult. Yes, there will be an extensive communication component for everybody that's on our sidewalks and roads as part of Vision Zero. Councilor McNamara, do you have
[1:01:06] Sarah Michniewicz: of another question? Yes. Sorry. I just made me think of something. So as you, as I think we all remember in 2023, Northeastern did a study on the patterns of traffic stops, arrests and traffic stops in Portland and South Portland. And there was, you know, there was some evidence that there was a bit of a racial disparity, like 17% of the stops were people of color and 5% of the population. So oh, I'm sorry, among Main residents in Portland, yes, only five percent of the population estimate. So and I know there had been some concerns raised with this funding that there could be some disparities in the stops. Is how are how are you tracking that data and is that something that you're would be able to report out on at the end so we don't track
[1:02:03] Chad Johnston: specifically, we as an agency don't track the demographic data. However, and I won't be able to quote the statute, but they passed a law a couple of years ago that requires us to report demographic information to the Attorney General's Office for the state of Maine every quarter. order. What we've done as an agency is we've signed up with a pro we use a program called e-citation, which allows us to add. And so let me quantify that a little bit. So the demographic data we have is we have, and I think there's six of them, but it's when you pull over a car and you go up to the window and you speak to the operator of the car, you go back to your car, you do whatever enforcement action you're going to take, whether it's a warning or a citation, you're doing it in this e-citation program. If I issue a warning, obviously there's no repercussions for the driver. At the conclusion of the stop, when I'm closing the stop out in this e-citation program, I have to answer six questions. And I know I'm going to miss some, but the questions are, what is, if I'm the officer that stopped the car, what is my perception of the person's gender, their ethnicity, their race, their age? I think it's, I'm going to forget the other ones, but at any rate, all of that data, once the officer ends the stop in the program, it automatically sends it to the attorney general's office and they compile that data. Now this is required statewide so some departments have to do this manually but we do we decided to go with the citation no more paper tickets so that this information it automatically goes there we don't have to think twice about it so they're collecting that data and then they generate their
[1:04:05] Speaker A (unidentified): report annually great thank you for that i really appreciate it certainly thank you counselor and
[1:04:12] Mark Dion: We can probably get that from the AG's office if we want it. And thank you, Sergeant, so much for this really great presentation. That is the last item on our agenda. I know it's election day and the polls are still open, so if you haven't voted, everybody go vote. And the last thing on our agenda tonight, wait, let me just check. Yes, this is the last thing on our agenda is just a motion to adjourn. So if I could have a motion, that would be great. So moved. Second. Moved by Councillor McNovich, seconded by Councillor Pelletier. Councillor McNovich, how do you vote? Yes. Councillor Pelletier? Yes. And I am a yes. And it looks like Councillor Fournier did not make it back in. So that concludes the June meeting of the Health and Human Services and Public Safety Committee. We will have a meeting in July. We won't in August. So just keep an eye on the calendar for that. And everybody have a great night. You too.