Pendleton City Council rejects settlement in front of Convention Center audience
By Griffin Beach on Tuesday, June 30th, 2026 in Columbia Basin News More Top Stories
PENDLETON – A nearly packed house of 1,000 seats at the Pendleton Convention Center Monday night brought residents out to voice their thoughts on a potential settlement in a lawsuit regarding the city’s resting policy.
The Pendleton City Council ultimately voted 5-3 to reject the proposed agreement, aligning with the majority of attendees who spoke out against it.
“I spoke to all of [the councilmembers] almost a year ago and I asked you to take considered decisions to improve safety and livability in our community,” said Patrick Gregg, who represented the group Neighbors for a Better Pendleton. “The settlement that you are being asked to approve does the complete opposite.”
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of five homeless plaintiffs by the Oregon Law Center, challenges the city’s current “resting” ordinance. That ordinance limits public sleeping or sheltering to an eight-hour window between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The suit alleges the policy violates state laws governing how municipalities manage unhoused individuals resting on public property.
Had it been approved, the settlement would have required Pendleton to repeal its challenged ordinances and enact new ones allowing individuals to shelter for up to 24 hours on designated public property. It also would have mandated the city maintain a year-round public restroom at a sheltering location and keep at least two ADA-accessible multi-day sheltering sites within 1.5 miles of City Hall.
Additionally, the city would have been required to provide $125,000 in funding for a warming shelter or day center in lieu of paying the plaintiffs’ legal fees.
City staff, along with Chad Jacobs of the law firm Beery, Elsner & Hammond, recommended the council approve the deal. Jacobs noted that the financial losses from settling would be much less severe than losing the case in court, which legal staff felt was the likely outcome.
“Part of what we did through the settlement negotiation process, was try to find a way the city could get out from underneath this threat of litigation and be able to focus on other solutions,” Jacobs said.
He also noted that if the lawsuit went to trial, a court-ordered preliminary injunction could limit the city’s ability to enforce its current resting ordinance.
While the majority of public comments and applause favored rejecting the agreement, a few residents spoke in support of the deal, drawing smaller bursts of applause.
“People are upset about people defecating on the sidewalks, that camps are strewn about the sidewalks,” said Cloud Hayes, a local attorney. “This settlement addresses those issues, it gives them a bathroom, it gives them more time to gather their things.”
Councilmembers debated the choice before casting their votes. Those opposed to the settlement cited long-term financial ramifications, a desire to respect their constituents’ wishes, and a willingness to push back against state lawmakers who codified the statutes enabling the lawsuit. Councilmember John Thomas said he would support a class-action lawsuit against state legislators and Gov. Tina Kotek for “failing to do the job they were elected to do.”
Councilmember Addison Schulberg expressed frustration with the city’s predicament, but felt not taking the settlement posed too great a risk.
“To have what was stated as a changeable decision as opposed to an unchangeable precedent that would be the result of litigation—if we are faced with a yes or no, I would definitely support the settlement tonight,” Schulberg said.
Schulberg, Linda Neuman and Carole Innes cast the three dissenting votes in favor of accepting the settlement.
