Parents, advocates and community members told the Portland Public Schools Facilities Improvement and Oversight Committee on Dec. 9 that the district must be clearer about how it chose campuses for seismic retrofits under the 2025 bond.

John Dwyer, speaking on behalf of Safe Structures PPS, said the district’s risk-based scores did not produce an obvious prioritization. "Jackson Middle School received a risk score of 9.8 and has an enrollment of over 700 students, yet it was not prioritized for seismic work in the 2025 bond," Dwyer said, and he questioned why two lottery-only campuses with lower scores were selected instead of higher-risk neighborhood schools. He added that of nine schools chosen for retrofits, only one is a Title I school.

Dwyer cited a formal board resolution tied to the 2025 bond that, he said, promised funds to "fully fund 8 to 10 schools" for seismic scope and warned that escalating costs could prevent the district from meeting that commitment. "The district must honor that commitment it made to the community or it undermines the public trust that made this bond possible," he said.

Elijah Probst, a prospective Buckman Elementary parent, asked the board for a district plan to make every school safe in the event of a major ("9.0") earthquake and whether the district is pursuing state, federal or philanthropic funding if bonds are a decade apart. "Is there a plan to investigate additional funding sources, perhaps state level, federal level, or philanthropy?" he asked.

The committee did not take formal action on selections during the meeting. Director LaForte and staff noted the district will provide ongoing seismic check-ins and said FIO will include bi-monthly seismic updates; staff also encouraged community members to watch forthcoming reports and regular project updates on the district website. Director LaForte said the committee will hold a seismic check-in next month and the FIO schedule includes additional opportunities for oversight.

Why this matters: Seismic retrofits involve safety and large public expenditures. Parents and advocates framed the issue as both a technical prioritization question — how risk scores were applied — and an equity question about which communities receive upgrades first. The comments ask the district both to explain past choices and to demonstrate how it will honor promises made to voters.

What to watch for next: The committee scheduled regular seismic check-ins and staff said it will provide updates on project status, implementation and decision-making criteria in upcoming FIO meetings.