City Council · morning

4:05Morning, councilors.

4:06It is June 4th at 9:31.

4:09I am convening our Portland City Council meeting.

4:14Um, colleagues, you'll notice that Councilor Koyama Lane is online, um, this morning, and Councilor Ryan has said that he is running a little bit late.

4:24We have a very packed agenda and we cannot run significantly late on this meeting today because I would like everybody to have a break before the short work session this afternoon.

4:37I'll also note that at the end of the meeting, um, we are recessing to reconvene tomorrow.

4:44We have a few settlements that we're going to take more time, and so we are hearing those tomorrow afternoon in that Thursday afternoon overflow slot so that we could have time to get through the things that are on our agenda today.

4:59What?

5:00I can't raise my hand.

5:04Rebecca, could you please call the roll?

5:07Kanal?

5:08Here.

5:09Ryan?

5:09Here.

5:10Koyama Lane?

5:11Here.

5:12Murillo?

5:13Here.

5:14Novick?

5:14Here.

5:15Clark?

5:15Here.

5:16Green?

5:17Present.

5:17Zimmerman?

5:18Here.

5:19Avalos?

5:19Present.

5:20Dunphy?

5:20Here.

5:21Smith?

5:22Here.

5:22Pirtle-Guiney?

5:23Here.

5:24Thank you.

5:25And I can't see who we have as our attorney today behind the computer, but could you read the rules of order and decorum for us?

5:32Welcome to the Portland City Council.

5:34To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.

5:44Information on engaging with the council can be found on the Council Clerk's webpage.

5:49Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.

5:53Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.

5:56The presiding officer preserves order.

5:58Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony on council or council deliberations will not be allowed.

6:08If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.

6:11Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.

6:14Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.

6:18Additionally, council Council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.

6:22Your testimony should address the matter being considered.

6:25When testifying, state your name for the record.

6:27Your address is not necessary.

6:29If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.

6:32Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.

6:36Thank you.

6:39Thank you so much.

6:41Councilors, the first item on our agenda is agenda approval.

6:44Are there any requests to amend or reorder the agenda?

6:49Councilor Ryan.

6:51Oh, thanks.

6:52Yeah, I just was curious about something, Madam President.

6:56On May 5th, the Governance Committee, after 2 really long discussions on it, passed legislation— excuse me— that made it really clear how we would handle the mayor tiebreaker vote.

7:12And we, you know, we narrowed it down to the fact that Ordinances and land use hearings.

7:17It was very necessary for a 6-6 tie to have the mayor weigh in, and not on amendments.

7:24That's a little bit summary of what we accomplished.

7:27You're aware of that.

7:28And then we passed that, and I know that people blocked the emergency first reading 2 days later.

7:34I could— I'm okay with that, but we didn't have that on the last agenda.

7:39And then again, it's not on— I'm okay with that.

7:41This agenda.

7:42So I think it's fair for the public to understand why we're slow walking this, I think, very important conversation.

7:49And I think those that worked on the charter to campaign for that, there was a lot of rhetoric about how important it was to have the mayor tiebreaker vote when there was no veto established.

8:01So I'm just curious, especially as we're in the heat of very challenging conversations about our budget, why this is not being discussed at council.

8:09Councilor, I assume this is relevant to this agenda item because you may decide to move to amend the agenda.

8:15Is that correct?

8:17I, I don't know if I have the votes to move to amend the agenda, but I think it's fair to hear by those who were clear that they didn't want this to be read and by you, the council president, to explain why the public isn't hearing us discuss what we passed in governance.

8:33Absolutely, Councilor.

8:34There is a backlog of agenda items that have come out of committee that were brought forward by councilors that I am more councilor Dan Ryan.

8:40Thank you, Mayor.

8:40I wanna thank council members for working hard to get on our agendas.

8:43Because of our budget work and frankly a number of items from the administrative side that hadn't been brought forward earlier in the year or late last year as the government transition occurred, we have had a number of items, a disproportionate number of items coming from the administration that were in crunch time.

9:02I then tried to work through the agenda items that councilors brought forward that had direct budgetary implications and then moved to things that frankly have been so actually, rather than a slow walk, what you're seeing is 2 items on our agenda today that also came out of the Governance Committee that have been sitting waiting to be heard at full council for much longer.

9:25I think that our Vice President, Councilor Koyama Lane, was very clear with our colleagues when they didn't sign the 9/12 paper to try to get that on that first agenda where we had left room for it, that that meant we probably wouldn't be able to vote on that measure before we were done with the budget.

9:45And after that, I sent out how the attorneys are currently interpreting the guidance around a tie-breaking vote to all of our colleagues so that there was full transparency amongst everybody at the dais around how I would be applying the tie-breaking authority or looking to the mayor to apply that tie-breaking role.

10:09And so we have been essentially makeshifting as best we can without that since folks chose, our colleagues chose not to bring it forward.

10:14Thank you.

10:16And again, rather than slow walking, what you actually see is 2 other governance agenda items that have been sitting for much longer on our agenda today that I hope we will have time to get to.

10:26Well, then I hope right now you could explain to the public how, in fact, if there was a 6-6 vote on an ordinance, how we would proceed forward.

10:35The guidance that I have gotten from our attorneys, specifically from Robert Taylor, who leads the City Attorney's Office and provides the closest the closest thing we have— excuse me— the closest thing we have to that role of interpreting how all of our various levels of rules fit together is that the language that we currently have tells us that the mayor on a deciding vote can break a tie, which means a couple of things.

11:10It means, first of all, that he has to be here to break that tie.

11:13There's not provisions for if he's not present.

11:15I'm not here.

11:16Yes.

11:16It means that if we are talking about an emergency vote, which requires 9 votes, that he does not weigh in because that's not a tie.

11:25Understood.

11:26It means that on votes that get us to a final decision, like amendments, he does not break the tie.

11:35But on any final vote, vote of passage, he would break the tie.

11:41And that's exactly basically what we're trying to bring to the entire council.

11:46So it sounds like you're moving forward with the practice that we discussed in what we landed in the passage of that legislation.

11:54And I'm happy to resend that language to everybody that I had sent before around the attorney's guidance if that's helpful.

12:01Sure.

12:01Thank you, Deputy Manager.

12:02I thought we needed that transparency.

12:04It's been lacking.

12:04I appreciate it.

12:05Thank you.

12:06Councilor Green, do you have a request to amend or reorder the agenda?

12:11I wanted to speak to Councilor Ryan's question.

12:15Okay.

12:15And discuss, I mean, 'cause I think if you wanna make the motion, Councilor, to see where the votes land, you can do that today.

12:21But I guess my question would be the overflow, the overflow session tomorrow, would we have space to accommodate either what would be bumped from this or that motion to amend?

12:35Colleagues, we are hearing a lawsuit settlement tomorrow that because of the extent of public testimony that we expect, and the extent of discussion that I am anticipating, we've scheduled for 2.5 of those 3 hours.

12:48And I don't foresee that agenda item being something that we can easily cut down.

12:53Okay, that's helpful.

12:55Councilor Knoll, did you have a request to amend or reorder the agenda?

13:00No, Madam President, I have a 15-second comment on this if that's okay.

13:04Go ahead.

13:05I can't speak to the votes on any specific measure.

13:08I can't speculate.

13:09But what I will say is that if there was to be a motion to only hear items from councilors and put everything from the administration on the back burner till July or August, I would, I would vote for it at this point.

13:23Um, we have way too many items, and I'll talk about a couple later in this meeting that have been waiting otherwise.

13:28Thanks.

13:29Thank you, councilor.

13:31Councilors, do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda?

13:35Great.

13:38Thank you.

13:40Our next agenda item is public communication.

13:43Rebecca, could you please call forward, uh, the Portlanders who have signed up to speak with us today?

13:52First up, we have David Raycroft.

13:59Good morning.

14:00Wow, this is quite the swanky setup from the last time I was here.

14:04Very nice.

14:05Thank you for being with us here this morning, David.

14:10Greetings, Mayor Wilson and members of the City Council.

14:14My name is David Raycroft, and I'm the Chief Goblin Wrangler of Geek Week PDX.

14:21I'm actually here today to tell you a story.

14:24This story is about a few old-school nerds that have a deep love for the quirky and creative culture that is Portland.

14:35Back in the olden days of 2024, this gaggle of geeks thought, you know what we need?

14:41We need a Pizza Week for nerds.

14:43It was a modest notion to inspire visitors and residents to explore our neighborhoods and maybe discover a new place to eat, drink, and play.

14:55So we went out to the community and asked, Do you want to do a thing?

15:00And the community said yes.

15:04Last year, we cataloged over 400 nerdy experiences across 150 small businesses in every corner of the city.

15:14Every district showed up and let their geek flag fly.

15:19This week, Geek Week PDX is back, bigger, and more epic than ever.

15:25We're transforming downtown, turning Director's Park into an imagination station with 5 days of nerding— nerdy programming, including a grand finale fantasy fair that's going to be taking place during Sunday Parkways.

15:39The Central East Side is geeking out, kicking off festivities with an intergalactic prom at the Jupiter Hotel.

15:47Dust off your taffeta and bust out your baby blue tux.

15:50You're all invited.

15:51I'm going to be there.

15:53And the Central East Side is becoming an adventure hub with over 20 nights of programming over the 10-day period of time.

16:00From Wonderwood Springs in St. Johns to Disc Heroes, a comic shop and disc golf store on Southeast 102nd Street, more than 300 small businesses will be celebrating during Geek Week PDX.

16:16And yes, I mentioned disc golf.

16:18Because nerd culture is so much more than comic shops and game stores.

16:23Let me take a moment and tell you a little bit about what geek culture is and why, as a city, we should celebrate it.

16:30The term nerd or geek has become a badge of honor.

16:34The definition is an intellectual enthusiast with a deep passion for an area of interest, and there are all kinds of nerds.

16:44Food nerds, whiskey nerds, history nerds.

16:48You get the idea.

16:49According to a 2023 survey, 72% of Americans declare themselves as a nerd or geek.

16:59That's 240 million people in the US that consider themselves as a geek.

17:05To give you context, that's 6 million more than identify as a sports fan.

17:12With iconic destinations and over 300 geek-related businesses, I am here to ask you and the members of the City Council to invite those 200 million nerds in America to discover the quirky and creative city by proclaiming September 5th through the 14th Geek Week PDX.

17:31Thank you.

17:32Thank you so much for bringing that ask forward to us.

17:43Robert Jennings.

17:45Robert Jennings.

17:47We'll move to number 3, injured and pissed off.

17:51You can approach the table.

18:20Welcome.

18:21Good morning.

18:21Thank you for being here.

18:23Good morning.

18:24My name's Injured and Pissed Off.

18:26I had it legally changed in the old Multnomah County Courthouse.

18:30You can read it on Google if you type or say injured and pissed off.

18:37It comes up as the first 4 links.

18:39It did Thursday, but this morning, well, I guess I got demoted.

18:44It still had the 4 links at the upper part of the list.

18:50I came here because of injustices 7 dog attacks on a blind person that had a legal service animal.

19:05I guess it's a joke about equal justice for all.

19:10I had to get Oregon Legal Aid to even allow me into the housing.

19:16It was called Housing Authority of Portland then.

19:20That was on December 3rd.

19:22Councilor Dan Ryan.

19:252004.

19:26I'm talking some 25 years or 20 years plus.

19:31And the reason why they said that my dog wouldn't be allowed in the building was because it weighed more than 25 pounds.

19:42Well, he must have weighed some 60 then.

19:46And then with 7 dog attacks on the service animal, I couldn't get no equal justice.

19:52Councilor Loretta Smith.

19:55Even with a valid restraining order against the person, I went to the court down the street there, and the district attorney said, well, we're dismissing the case because she really didn't mean it.

20:10And so I didn't fill out a 7th.

20:12And even medical mistreatment at OHSU, they were standing me up for 3 days, ignoring my spinal cord injuries, and all I could do was throw up.

20:23Thank you.

20:24And I even protested to the Oregon State Bar and even to the United States Attorney General.

20:30He apparently got fired.

20:32You can look up the date and see the video that I was talking.

20:36I'd sent 4 registered and certified letters to the United States Department of Justice, as well as one to Eric Holder himself, or 2 of them, and never no reply or anything.

20:51And he was the chief cop that was supposed He was fired.

20:55He was fired.

20:56He was fired for trying to enforce the service animal laws.

20:57He got fired, like I said.

21:01And if that sounds like fair and equal justice, I guess I get the humor there.

21:11Even my medical reports of my spinal cord injuries are just vanished.

21:17The hospital didn't want them, and the care facility that I'm at Currently doesn't want them either.

21:24So bones and x-rays do lie in the trash or in the incinerator.

21:30Thank you.

21:30Thank you for being here and for raising your concerns about how things are moving there.

21:41Next is Joe Perez.

21:45Joe Perez.

21:50Susan Bladhelm.

21:55Morning, Susan.

21:56Thanks for being here.

21:57Good morning.

21:59Thank you, Council President.

22:09Good morning, councilors.

22:11My name is Susan Bladhelm, founder of Frog Ferry.

22:15The Willamette River, originally named the Multnomah after the Chinook village was a life-giving resource and natural travel route for Indigenous peoples.

22:25When settlers arrived, they also relied on river transit.

22:29But by the 20th century, federal investments heavily favored cars and highways and sidelined our rivers.

22:36Once vital water corridors, they became obstacles, polluted and neglected.

22:42In 2005, Portland city agencies revisited river transit through a study that found ferries could work in the event of more congestion, population growth, and with committed champions.

22:54We've got about 40 of us here today.

22:5720 Years later, our roads are gridlocked, our air quality has worsened, and we have fragile and expensive road and bridge infrastructure.

23:04Frog Ferry was founded by citizens seeking solutions for climate, community resilience, and equitable access to jobs.

23:12We wondered, ferries work for other river cities, why not Portland?

23:17In 2018, Frog Ferry was included in Metro's regional transportation plan, and Mayor Wheeler awarded $40,000 for a case study of similar cities with ferries.

23:28That same year, PBOT's proposed funding for a ferry feasibility study was cut.

23:33In 2019, with ODOT funds and PBOT matching funds, We completed that needed feasibility study and demand model in partnership with PBOT, TriMet, and Metro.

23:45Here's a stack of the studies we've completed for all of you.

23:49The studies confirm ferry service is viable and needed, and in 2021, we completed the pilot project planned with a second ODOT grant.

23:57Now in 2025, we're ready to launch a pilot project between St. Johns and downtown.

24:03We've delivered $40 million in value from a $90,000 city investment.

24:09Thank you.

24:09Aye.

24:10De-risking the project.

24:11A robust transit system is essential for the 40% of Portlanders who can't drive.

24:17Ferries bypass traffic and cut commute times in half from the North Peninsula.

24:22Frog Ferry can launch and operate without federal funds.

24:26$10 Million is currently under consideration in Salem.

24:30We are asking PSF for $3 million over 10 years with a $3 million annual subsidy.

24:37We need clear city support, a true partnership, to strengthen our case for PSF and state dollars.

24:45We understand you're making difficult budget decisions, so let's act with the resources we have to build a new transit mode that has very little operational and maintenance costs.

24:57This is an idea your predecessors have considered for decades, and you have the chance to lead something transformative.

25:03Thank you.

25:03For Portland.

25:05In 2028, let's launch an electric ferry.

25:10Let's get back to basics.

25:12Your leadership can make it happen.

25:14Thank you.

25:16Thank you so much for being here this morning.

25:24And I'll let folks know who are not used to our council meetings and potentially are planning on staying that we try to keep support or dissension to silent support or dissension.

25:37Thank you.

25:42Councilors, the next item on our agenda is the committee referral report.

25:46Since our last meeting, I have sent appointments to the Mt.

25:52Hood Cable Regulatory Commission to Transportation and Infrastructure, reaffirming council commitment to Vision Zero to Transportation and Infrastructure, requiring the City Administrator to develop a citywide asset management strategy to Transportation and Infrastructure.

26:08Grant a cable franchise agreement to Comcast of Oregon to Finance Committee.

26:13Appointments to the Development Review Advisory Committee to the Homelessness and Housing Committee.

26:20Approving the Mt.

26:21Hood Cable Regulatory Commission budget to the Finance Committee with a note to Transportation and Infrastructure.

26:27Second.

26:28Adopting solid waste and recycling rates to the Finance Committee, again with a note so that folks know that it is out there to Transportation and Infrastructure.

26:37Appointing members to the Parks Board to Climate, Resilience, and Land Use.

26:41And appointing members to the Planning Commission also to Climate, Resilience, and Land Use.

26:50The next item on our agenda is the city councilor Kanal, did you have a question about that agenda item?

26:58Yes.

26:58Go right ahead.

26:59So, uh, I first, as a comment, a suggestion, it would be great to have that in writing, but also to see the, um, and I appreciate the, the transparency on that, but also the items that have been referred out from committee.

27:14For example, we have 2025-148, amend code to consolidate noise enforcement.

27:19And improve fairness and consistency in noise regulation, which was referred by the committee to the full council on April 8th.

27:27And because this one does have to be heard by law this month, putting this here publicly would help people understand what's coming up in June.

27:35And then my clarification is, my understanding is that the ordinance I filed, which doesn't have a number yet, but is adopt council regular meeting schedule pursuant to code subsection 3.02.010.c.1, better known as the weekly council meeting ordinance, was referred to the full council, but it hasn't been mentioned.

27:52I understand that that's not a committee.

27:54You, as you started speaking, I realized that we have a flaw in our system, which is that we list items.

27:59It is on the website.

28:00There is a publicly available list of items that have been referred to committee.

28:04So you can see that in writing.

28:06It should be on the homepage for our committees at the bottom of that page.

28:11But because that is tied to committees, we don't have on there the items that have been referred directly to council.

28:18And I appreciate you flagging that.

28:20I will work with our clerk Clerk's office to make sure that those items are also included and that anything that's referred directly to council is on that list showing its referral to council.

28:31I don't know if our website as it currently stands can accommodate a public listing of what has been referred out of committee, but I think that's a great idea, and I'm happy to talk to our clerk's office about how we might be able to incorporate that into our publicly available information.

28:47Thank you.

28:47Thank you.

28:48And just to confirm, that document that I just mentioned has been referred to the full council?

28:53It has been referred.

28:54So the— can you read the name of it again since I don't have it in front of me?

28:58Yeah, adopt council regular meeting schedule pursuant to code subsection 3.02.010.C.1.

29:05And that has been referred to the full council.

29:08Thank you, Madam President.

29:09Thank you, Councilor.

29:12Mr. Jordan, would you like to give us just any top-level details that you want to highlight from your City Administrator report this month?

29:23Thank you, Madam President, members of the Council.

29:25You have the report.

29:29I will highlight maybe one big difference in this month's report, and that is that we have added all of the claims that have been settled with the city that are below $50,000 that don't come to Council, and it's a rather extensive list.

29:48So I hope that's helpful.

29:53I know that we are still continuing to tinker with the approach on citywide grants.

30:00You have a couple of pages at the very end of the report about grant activity at the city.

30:07Continue to entertain certainly any of your comments on how this can be made better.

30:14Still a work in progress.

30:15Thank you.

30:17As most of you are maybe painfully aware, May was all budget all the time and kept us all very busy.

30:26I would note that we did get a tentative agreement with CPPW.

30:30So that was, I think, a big highlight of the month.

30:34Looking forward, I'd like everybody to make sure it's on their calendar, June the 14th, Saturday from 10 to 12 at the Washington Park Reservoir.

30:43Gonna have a big celebration about the reopening of that.

30:46Thank you.

30:49I certainly am here to take any questions, and I think there might have been a question about the under $50,000 claims.

30:58So—.

30:59Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

31:01Councilor Kanal, that might be your question.

31:04It is.

31:05Before I ask the question, I just wanted to say I appreciate you putting in all the things that happened on May 21st for the Public Safety Service Area while we were in a 15-hour budget meeting, and congratulations.

31:14Congratulations to the new BOEC staff as well as everyone who got an award at the Fire and Rescue Awards ceremony.

31:20My question, Administrator Jordan, is about page 12 of the document in which there are nearly 20 claims against the Water Bureau for discrimination on basis of age, religion, race, and sex, and veteran preference as well.

31:40I understand that these were resolved by the Bureau before being claimed, and all of them appear to have been addressed, Bureau resolved on May 1st.

31:49But I guess the question is, what is going on here that we have such a high number of this type of claim?

31:56I appreciate, appreciate the question.

31:58Um, I think Rose Radich is here from Risk to give you the detailed answer, but I believe it has to do with people of a similar classification in different bargaining units being paid at different levels.

32:10And I think there one filing from an attorney's office for 18 different employees in an attempt to create a class, if I read it correctly.

32:22But Rose is here to maybe answer any questions detailed you may have.

32:27Thank you.

32:27Please introduce yourself and go right ahead.

32:29Yes, of course.

32:30My name is Rose Radich, and I'm with the city's risk management.

32:34Thank you for your question, Officer— or Councilor Kanal.

32:38Yes, so as our city administrator said, there were— it was a handful of tort claim notice letters from the same attorney's office, kind of characterizes the potential class action related to pay for the same classification but under different CBAs because they were in different bureaus.

33:00And so using those protected classes as kind of characterizing the claim of they're doing the same job, but here's some differences that they identified for the individuals.

33:12So there were 18 individuals named, which is why we set up 18 different claims.

33:17And Heidi Brown with the City Attorney's Office took the lead on the kind of communication with the attorney to resolve these.

33:26And so there was sort of a group resolution.

33:29Thank you.

33:30In group settlement that was reached, and I believe payments were made in April 2025.

33:35But, um, I don't have my computer with me today, but we can— I can follow up with Heidi and we can get more specifics if you needed anything.

33:42Yeah, the follow-up I'd have on that is, uh, 17 of the 18 listed are filed on the same day and closed on the same day.

33:48The 18th is filed on a different day but also closed on the same day, which is May 1st.

33:53And so I just— and that's the one that alleges gender and religion discrimination.

33:57So I'd love to have just a clarification if that is included.

34:02I know the number you said, 18, would include it, but just because it was filed on a different date, I wanted to clarify there.

34:08Yeah, and I couldn't look specifically to see which individual claim that was.

34:14I can say that because we got a couple different letters, they were set up sort of as risk claims when we get the letters, and then I closed all of them on the same day once I had confirmation of the payments going out.

34:26But I can double-check why that one had a different date.

34:29Great.

34:29And then my second of 2 questions is if you could give some clarity as to the definition that you're using for claim tendered in this entire list.

34:40Okay.

34:44Or—.

34:44And where is that in the list, just so I know where to look?

34:46It's all over.

34:47There's many that are noted as claim denied or withdrawn or claim settled, PD settled, BI settled.

34:54But there's— Or no claim filed in a couple cases.

34:58But yeah.

34:59So the closure, not for those Water Bureau claims, but for others?

35:02Just in general.

35:04And that, if you could clarify that now, but if not, I understand.

35:08I just—.

35:09Yeah, that's one of our closure codes.

35:12And so I can, I don't know if it's defined anywhere else, but we have some claims where, you know, the Bureau resolves it and there's no risk payment for claim tendered, often if there's like a contractor Um, or something where we would, um, kind of submit the claim to them under our contract or something to, to handle.

35:31Um, that might be used if, if it's something where it's actually like an ODOT, like a state, um, um, asset that they would handle and not was mistakenly filed with us, something like that.

35:44Okay, I do, I do, do see a lot on transportation, so that would make sense.

35:47Thank you.

35:47Thank you, Madam President.

35:50Councilor Smith.

35:52Thank you, Madam President.

35:55Um, thank you, City Administrator Jordan.

35:59I want to go to the grants, uh, department.

36:02It looks like we were reimbursed for a lot of funding on the federal grant side, and we were granted as of 4/30/25 $85,098,734.

36:24Was any of that money that was reimbursed— did we front general fund money for?

36:33I'm not aware of that.

36:33I can look it up though and make sure I can find out.

36:35I don't know if there was any general fund money on the front end.

36:39Sometimes we, we know, we, we, we get a note that says, um, we're approved for XYZ and we want to start the project, and so we'll give general fund money to grant it, and then we'll pay the general fund back.

36:50And I want to make sure that any part of that $85 million that is owed back to the general fund, that I know what that amount is and, um, when we fronted that money, whether it be this fiscal year or the previous fiscal years.

37:06And we also have PBOT, which, which has a substantial reimbursement of $46,482,753.

37:14Okay.

37:14Same thing.

37:14I need to find Yes.

37:18How much of that did we front and we're paying ourselves back, and to make sure that, um, that goes back to the general fund.

37:26The other piece is, um, the 9/12ths that we passed in February, it, it allowed for us to see within 15 days, not 30 days.

37:38So I would like to see a separate 15-day allocation of new monies that are coming in that are, that are unassigned.

37:46And I can't tell from this report, so I think I think that we're trying to do 2 things with one, but I think we need to separate that so that we're clear of how much unassigned dollars, like the opioid settlement monies and others that have come through, so that I can have a clear picture of how much money we have in the queue.

38:07Thank you very much.

38:08Thank you, Councilor.

38:12Councilor Green.

38:14Thank you, Madam President.

38:16Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

38:18In the update, there's some mention of the economic opportunities analysis being started.

38:25So I think that's great.

38:26We haven't done that since 2016.

38:29My question is, is there— we're pretty early in that process.

38:34Is there an anticipated desire to have a work session to talk a little bit about the scope and methodology for that?

38:42It could also be appropriate for the Arts and Economy Committee, but I do have questions about the methodology.

38:48Sure.

38:49It just so happens, Councilor, that Eric Engstrom is here and Planning and Sustainability are running that work.

38:57It's mandated by the state periodically for us to do that update, but I'll let Eric.

39:03Good morning.

39:04For the record, Eric Engstrom, Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.

39:07Councilor, we've kicked off some initial communication with Council by scheduling some meetings briefings.

39:16I think they're later this month or early July.

39:19So we'll start there, and then if there's interest in deeper engagement after that, then we would do that.

39:26The project is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission later in the calendar year, so we're pretty far out from reaching Council right now, but I'm happy to continue engagement.

39:37I appreciate that, Director Ingsom.

39:39Just one specific note.

39:41Folks who've been engaged with this work for a long time have raised a concern that the needs analysis that goes into the EOA exempts parcels under 3 acres.

39:50And we're early enough in the process that I just, I just wanted to raise that concern and just let, let you know that that's something I'll be thinking about.

39:57All right.

39:58Thank you.

39:58Thanks.

40:03Seeing no other questions in the queue.

40:08Mr. Jordan, thank you for bringing that report to us.

40:12Councilors, the next item on our agenda is the consent agenda.

40:15We had 2 items on the consent agenda, items 5 and 6, and both have been pulled from the consent agenda.

40:22Those are reappointments to the Development Review Advisory Committee and appointments to the Mount Hood Regulatory Commission.

40:30Things that are pulled from the consent agenda, if they are not reordered, go to the end of the regular agenda.

40:35So we will be hearing those those later today.

40:40That moves us to agenda item 7, and Rebecca, could you please read that agenda item for us?

40:50Item 7, pay settlement of EF Daniela Araujo and Ava Levin's bodily injury lawsuits in the sum of $942,600 involving Portland Parks and Recreation.

41:03Thank you.

41:03And councilors, as we generally do on settlements, we have a team here from our administration to go over some of the details here with us.

41:13We'll then move to public testimony and then a discussion and a vote.

41:17If you two could introduce yourselves and please go right ahead.

41:20Good morning.

41:22Thank you, council.

41:22I'm Dan Simon.

41:23I'm from the City Attorney's Office.

41:25And I'm Rose Radich with the city's risk management.

41:29And also with us here today is the director of the Parks Bureau, Adina Long.

41:34Councilors, this ordinance will resolve 2 lawsuits, one filed by Ava Levin and the other filed by 2 plaintiffs, Daniela Araujo and her minor child EF.

41:46On June 23rd, 2022, Ms. Levin was providing childcare services to EF, who was 9 years old at the time.

41:54The 2 of them went to Irving Park where Levin hung a hammock between a tree and a light pole in the park.

42:00Ms. Levin testified during the lawsuit that she had done this many While the two of them were in the hammock, the light pole the hammock was tied to fell over and landed on both of them.

42:11Bystanders responded and lifted the pole off of them and assisted them while medical help arrived.

42:17Both suffered injuries as a result of the pole.

42:20EF in particular suffered extensive injuries with medical bills of about $400,000.

42:26Fortunately, EF has largely recovered from the incident Yes.

42:32After that incident, the Parks Bureau contacted engineering firm KPFF Incorporated to conduct a structural analysis of the light pole's failure.

42:40KPFF found that the pole appeared to have failed based on one or more of the following reasons: 1, inadequate tie wire diameter connecting the pole to its concrete base; 2, offset between the pole's base and its hairpins; and 3, tie wire corrosion.

42:54Okay.

42:55KPFF recommended that the poles represented a life safety hazard and should be removed as soon as possible.

43:02In response to KPFF's report, Parks began removing and replacing light poles in Irving Park and ultimately throughout all of Portland's parks.

43:11And I just noticed that Chris Silke of the Parks Bureau, who was the head of that project, has joined as well.

43:17Parks conducted inspections of over 1,000 light poles and ultimately removed Removed 300 poles with the same anchoring design and replaced them with an updated design.

43:28Ms. Levin and EF, along with Ms. Araujo, filed lawsuits against the city and the company that manufactured the hammock.

43:34The parties all went to mediation on the claims and reached settlement.

43:38This ordinance will approve settlements of $782,600 to resolve the case filed by EF and Ms. Araujo, as well as $160,000 to resolve the case filed by Ms. Levin.

43:50Second.

43:51City Attorney, Risk Management, and Parks recommend that the council pass this ordinance.

43:59Thank you.

43:59Do any of the rest of you have anything to add to this?

44:03Okay.

44:03Rebecca, do we have any public testimony signed up?

44:06No one has signed up.

44:07Okay.

44:08Councilor Smith, are you in the queue for discussion on this settlement?

44:12Councilor Kanal.

44:15Thank you, Madam President.

44:16Mr. President, and thank you everyone for presenting here.

44:21And I appreciate as well the addition of the 1-year and 5-year data to this ordinance and the description of the allegations.

44:28I also wanna commend Parks for just proactively, well, reactively to the incident, but proactively before a lawsuit going out and doing this work.

44:37Mm-hmm.

44:38It was brought up in testimony that although it's in the code that you can't hang a hammock, That we have not been enforcing that code at the time in 2022, that it's posted perhaps, but not necessarily enforced on a regular basis.

44:59Is that an accurate description of the way in which communication on that restriction is conveyed or not?

45:07You're correct.

45:09The regulation is known it's a part of our Title 20.

45:14It, it does exist on some signs in some, in some parks.

45:19Park rangers have the ability to enforce that rule if they encounter it.

45:25Oftentimes rangers will correct the behavior, and that is just gating compliance.

45:31It's hard to say whether or not any particular ranger at that park noticed that behavior and whether or not they had actually requested compliance or gained compliance for somebody who may have done that.

45:45But, but that is my general understanding, correct.

45:48Thank you, Director.

45:50And I think in a previous meeting you had said that there are 29 park rangers and that your ideal number would be 75.

45:59I'll also note that if the current budget is not amended, we'll be laying off 3, the only 3 park ranger service dispatchers who could theoretically help get our limited park rangers over there.

46:11And this is a rough estimate, but $942,600, how many park rangers would that pay for roughly?

46:22A fully loaded sort of top of the tier park ranger is about $133,000.

46:29That includes benefits and such.

46:32Okay, so we could get—.

46:33I can't do the math.

46:346 Or so, I think.

46:36Yeah, in that ballpark.

46:39That's really helpful to know, and I think a good reason to be proactive about the park ranger program in the future.

46:46But thank you.

46:46Thank you.

46:47Madam President.

46:47Thank you, Councilor.

46:49Any other questions or discussion before we move to a vote?

46:56Okay, thank you all for being here today.

47:01Could you please call the roll?

47:05Kanal?

47:06Yes.

47:08Aye.

47:09Koyama Lane?

47:10I vote aye.

47:12Morillo?

47:12Aye.

47:13Novick?

47:14Aye.

47:15Clark?

47:15Aye.

47:16Green?

47:17Aye.

47:17Zimmerman?

47:18Aye.

47:19Avalos?

47:19Aye.

47:20Aye.

47:21Aye.

47:21Aye.

47:22Aye.

47:2312 Ayes.

47:28Ordinances passed.

47:30Thank you.

47:30Rebecca, could you please read agenda item 8?

47:34Pay settlement of the estate of M.A., a minor, wrongful death and related claims resulting from a drowning at Montavilla Community Center for $1,660,400.

47:48Thank you.

47:52I don't have all of you up here, I'm sorry.

47:58Uh, please go ahead.

48:00Good morning.

48:01Uh, my name is Ryan Bailey, for the record.

48:03I am a Deputy City Attorney, and I am the city's legal counsel for this matter.

48:07With me are Karen Bond with City Risk Management, uh, Adina Long, and Andy Amato from the Portland Bureau of Transportation.

48:15Bureau of Parks and Recreation.

48:18The ordinance before you authorizes the settlement of a wrongful death claim and related tort claims asserted against the city by the estate of Emma, who drowned at a city pool in August of 2023, for the sum total payable by the city of $1,660,400.

48:37The settlement is conditioned on the approval of City Council the City Attorney's Office, Risk Management, and the Parks Bureau have evaluated the facts of the claim, assessed the legal and financial exposures presented, and based on our professional judgment, it is our recommendation that Council approve the ordinance.

48:55And we're happy to answer, answer any questions if you have any.

48:58Thank you.

49:02Rebecca, do we have any public testimony?

49:05No one has signed up.

49:06Okay, Councilor Smith, are you in the queue for comments on this?

49:11Councilors, are there any comments on this ordinance?

49:23Um, I'll just briefly say I sat on the Parks Board when this happened, and I appreciate all of the work you put in with the family.

49:33Um, one of the things that I usually ask when we hear a settlement that Councilor Kanal asked on this one— or on this last one, rather, so I didn't have to— was what had changed.

49:45And I know that processes changed after this within the Parks Bureau, and I appreciate that.

49:51I appreciate knowing that, um, and I hope we never have to see something like this again.

49:58Thank you all for being here.

50:00Thank you.

50:07Yes.

50:10Ryan.

50:11I heard you.

50:12Thanks.

50:12Um, I just want to say quickly that, um, I have this family deeply in my heart and have since the day I got this news.

50:21And, um, I vote aye.

50:25I vote aye.

50:26Morillo?

50:27Aye.

50:28Novick?

50:29Aye.

50:30Clark?

50:31Aye.

50:32Green?

50:32Aye.

50:33Zimmerman?

50:34Yes.

50:35Avalos?

50:36Aye.

50:36Dunphy?

50:37Aye.

50:37Smith?

50:38Aye.

50:39Pirtle-Guiney?

50:40Aye.

50:4112 Ayes.

50:41The ordinance is passed.

50:44Thank you.

50:44Rebecca, could you please read agenda item 9?

50:49Approve funding recommendations of Children's Levy Allocation Committee for July 1st, 2025 through thank you, councilors.

51:00This is a second reading, so we go straight into a vote.

51:11Councilor Knoll, is there a reason you're in the queue?

51:14Um, I think it's a point of information.

51:17Okay, could you clarify?

51:19My understanding is we discussed this first.

51:22We don't take public testimony?

51:24Generally on second readings, we move straight into a vote.

51:28Um, okay.

51:31Can we— what would be the, the mechanism by which we would request a discussion?

51:37Uh, I would turn to our attorney for the exact item in Robert's Rules that we would use, but I believe that you would, um, I believe you would get in the queue just like you've done before we begin a vote.

51:55I'm looking to our attorney.

51:57Is that correct?

52:00Checking.

52:03Okay.

52:05Robert Taylor is coming up to the table as well.

52:10Thank you, Council President.

52:13Robert Taylor, City Attorney.

52:15On second reading, I would like to make a couple of comments.

52:18Typically you move to a vote.

52:19Any member can ask to have discussion and you can proceed that way.

52:23And that ask would need to happen before we began the vote, is that correct?

52:29Typically it would.

52:30I don't believe the roll has been called yet.

52:32So if somebody wants to enter into discussion, now would be an appropriate time.

52:37Councilor Knoll, are you asking for a discussion or should we move to the vote?

52:39Yes, Madam President, I'm asking for a discussion.

52:42Okay.

52:42Point of information though.

52:43So it doesn't require any vote other than a councilor saying we wanna discuss I was just going to ask Mr.

52:49Taylor that question.

52:51Typically, the procedure on second reading is the chair would say, this matter is here for second reading.

52:56Is there any further discussion?

52:58Seeing none, let's proceed with the vote.

53:01If there is a desire to discuss, then you can discuss.

53:04Okay, so no vote needed for discussion.

53:06Councilor Knoll, would you like to begin discussion?

53:12I, I will have something to say on this.

53:15I'm curious if we have representatives from PCL here because there may be a question later.

53:21I believe that Lisa is here.

53:23I— okay, I'll start by just saying, and I'll let other people join the queue while I get my notes here, pull them up.

53:30But I wanted to say thank you first for the information that was sent over.

53:35And I did have a chance to go through the particular categories where I had concerns, and many of I won't say all.

53:45There was information about that in some cases that addressed that concern.

53:49I just wanted to bring that up because I think it was very helpful to have responsiveness in that regard.

53:57I am curious, and I think this is more of a rhetorical question to staff or a real question to my colleagues, about the degree to which when we say we are going to be The, um, creating a process that benefits or, um, uh, takes into account at least the disparate level of prior funding, meaning rewarding people who have been, um, who have not been funded before, the degree to which that takes into account the fact that people who've been funded before know how to write applications for funding significantly better.

54:37Thank you.

54:38For the city than those who have not been?

54:41Because as I went through some of the data, that was the concern that I saw, was that there was a great deal of commentary on specific applications, how they were being written, or the degree to which they were written professionally or spell-checked or things like that, that were the reasons for scoring as opposed to— I think that's a fair point.

55:05Which, which makes sense except for the context that this entire process was described as designed to reward folks and, and privilege folks who have not previously received funding.

55:14I don't know if that made sense.

55:15I'm trying to convey it clearly here, but, um, I was concerned that the comments seemed to be in opposition to that stated intent.

55:23Thank you, Councilor.

55:24Was that a question to Lisa or someone else, or just a comment to your colleagues about how you're thinking thank you.

55:32Councilors, I don't see anybody else in the queue for discussion.

55:40Councilor Green.

55:43Thank you, Madam President.

55:44Um, I have received a volume of emails asking this council to remand this package, and I am curious if my colleagues would like to have a discussion about this, because this is the time to do that.

55:55If we're not going to remand it, tell me why, I guess, is what I'm asking.

56:03I'm going to take that as a general question that folks can get in the queue to answer if they'd like.

56:08Councilor Smith.

56:12Madam President, thank you.

56:14Um, Councilor Green, there's— there are several issues that have been brought to my attention We have major questions about why some applicants were denied funds even though their applications were significantly higher than organizations who were successfully awarded funds.

56:33There are also major questions about failing to factor into the effects of the COVID pandemic.

56:40Some organizations were penalized for experiencing a drop-off in the number of people they served, but but it was not put into the system to show that this was during COVID none of that seems right to me, yet apparently it is too late to fix those problems.

56:59I understand that what's at stake, but we have to get this thing right.

57:06I depend on stakeholders who are intimately involved to connect with me, and, and they have.

57:14Um, they have told me that it would be better to vote against the children's levy, even at the risk of delaying funding for several months, because these are systemic problems that we need to fix.

57:28And this would be in place for the next 3, 3 years, which would ultimately have an unintended consequence of, um, having some programs be funded less or not even at all.

57:43Councilor Loretta Smith.

57:44And so I am looking to have this conversation and discussion, uh, Councilor Green, to see how others feel about this.

57:51But this is where I'm at today because I'm very, um, concerned and I'm troubled by what I've seen, particularly for organizations like REAP who are in East Portland.

58:04And those dollars, uh, really help a lot of the most vulnerable kids in thank you, Councilor.

58:17Councilor Murillo.

58:20Thank you, Madam President.

58:22Um, I agree with Councilor Smith.

58:24I think that my office has also received an influx of emails with a lot of varied accounts about what happened through the children's levy, uh, process of getting these funds out.

58:34And, um, I feel like I haven't received We also got information that there was potentially an error that was made on an application and how that was accounted for in the decision-making process.

58:52There was also no follow-up from PCL or allocation to confirm the written testimony was read or an explanation of the denial after they corrected the error on some of the applications.

59:03So I would like to know if the council could request a follow-up on that.

59:04Thank you.

59:04I just have a lot of outstanding questions about this process and if it was done as ethically and correctly as possible.

59:14And I want to make sure that, you know, when we hear concerns from organizations that do efficient work in schools and community, that— and that they're not going to be getting these funds to help the people in our city who need it the most.

59:30I, I guess I just, I agree with Councilor Smith, and I definitely think that that's— I, I worked at a nonprofit.

59:37I have concerns about grant dollars going out on time and the impacts of that, but the way that this was done, I just don't have the clarity I need to necessarily move forward with this.

59:45Thanks.

59:50Thank you, Madam President.

59:52Um, I just want to speak once on this today.

59:54Uh, as you know, this is a hard conversation this year.

59:58The Children's Levy does the vital work of serving kids in our community that need a hand up with additional resources.

1:00:08This was especially true coming out of COVID I think we can all agree on that one.

1:00:12Their competitive grant process was thorough and data-driven.

1:00:16This is exactly what taxpayers want from us.

1:00:19It truly is the best practice in all of the giving that we do.

1:00:23And as the only person up here who raised money to pass the last levy, I'm very proud of our work.

1:00:26Thank you.

1:00:27When it was on the ballot, and trust me, it wasn't easy.

1:00:30I heard a mouthful.

1:00:31No one was very happy at that time.

1:00:33And one thing that sold them to write checks to support the levy was that they appreciate the low overhead of the Children's Levy staff and how thorough the process and decision-making is.

1:00:45They can track the decisions.

1:00:48The funding decisions this year were challenged by shrinking tax revenue.

1:00:53Thank you.

1:00:5321% Shrink, if you will, from when the RFP went out to the— to when the decisions were made.

1:01:00Simply put, it meant less money to fund the community organizations serving children and families.

1:01:06And of course, the need has gone up much more than 21%.

1:01:10Having accountability as part of the application process should be required.

1:01:13And again, this is what people have been asking for.

1:01:18I must say, I find it interesting that the lobbying from the equitable giving circle in particular who scored last among 23 applications in the hunger category is behind some of this pushback.

1:01:30No applications that scored last were selected for funding.

1:01:33And the non-BIPOC identity orgs that have been causing a stir among many also have a real commitment demonstrated to service to the BIPOC residents.

1:01:47Here's the facts.

1:01:47Sunshine Division, 75%.

1:01:4975%.

1:01:51And they are the only provider who serve homeless youth.

1:01:54Oregon Food Bank, 72%, and 60% of those homes where English is not a primary language.

1:02:01Meals on Wheels, Meals for Kids, 83% of their services go to the BIPOC community.

1:02:08I get the same calls from friends that you get.

1:02:11It's part of our job.

1:02:12We all know this.

1:02:13We're elected to make tough decisions, and I would hope that we do our best to respect the tough decisions thank you.

1:02:17I want to thank the City of Portland, the City of Portland's staff, and the many, many volunteers and their hours that went into this community effort.

1:02:23They provided the information to make these tough decisions.

1:02:26Also, the PSU evaluation made it clear that parachuting and rescuing practice is a pattern that they called out since it prevents new organizations from receiving funding.

1:02:38The Children's Levy leadership anticipated there would be questions and reached out to each office's yes.

1:02:44All of our offices over the past weeks to offer briefings.

1:02:47Unfortunately, only one council office took up that offer for a briefing.

1:02:52Under a remand, the applications to each program, as we heard, will not receive funding until the process of reevaluation distribution is conducted again, meaning there will be a gap in funding to children and families they serve.

1:03:04I want to really give a lot of thanks to Director Pellegrino and their team for their diligent work.

1:03:09Their patience, their flexibility to provide us with this set of funding, thoughtful recommendations to approve.

1:03:16I would urge our council to respect the 2 years of hard work from these professionals and the more than 90 volunteers.

1:03:22Clearly, I'm against a remand.

1:03:24Thank you.

1:03:25Thank you, Councilor.

1:03:27Councilor Smith.

1:03:29Thank you, Madam President.

1:03:30And I have a question of Lisa, if she could come up, because it is my understanding that the Oregon Food Bank award was, um, was awarded and appointed, not scored?

1:03:45And how did you come up with the decision to give them such a high, uh, number of the children's levy resources without scoring them?

1:03:55Um, every single application was scored.

1:03:57Lisa, could you please introduce yourself?

1:03:59I'm sorry, Lisa Pellegrino.

1:04:00I'm director of the children's levy, use she and her pronouns.

1:04:03Oh, I'm sorry.

1:04:04I'll try to speak a little louder.

1:04:07Sorry, a little frog in my throat.

1:04:08Every single application in this process was scored, and we provided all the councilors here access to a folder that shows the scores for every organization and a summary of each scoring— each score by the 4 reviewers that scored that application.

1:04:23So there was no application in this process that was not scored.

1:04:27Okay.

1:04:28Previously funded to provide school pantries.

1:04:30That's the program that's funded through Oregon Food Bank with the Portland Children's Levy dollars, and they are providing school food pantries at about 20 schools.

1:04:39The amount of funding that was recommended by the allocation committee for that grant is substantially reduced from what they are currently being funded at this year.

1:04:48As I think someone said at the beginning, our revenues are down considerably, and so every grant that has been.

1:04:53Refunded to continue offering service is being refunded at a lower level.

1:04:58I don't, I don't know if I've got the percentage right at my hand, but I would say between 20 and 30% less for the Oregon Food Bank than what they have this year to provide services.

1:05:07Were there any, any awards that were discretionary that you were allowed to pick to help, you know, further the mission of the children's levy that was not scored.

1:05:22You're saying every single—.

1:05:24Every single application.

1:05:25Every single grant.

1:05:26And I would be happy to produce those documents for anyone who has any questions about it.

1:05:29The, the 2 things that I point out— longstanding organizations that are in District 2, like Self-Enhancement Inc., their book of business is mentorship, and they were not identified as an organization to receive that.

1:05:48They were not given any discretion within the system to show that they served a lower number of families and children because of COVID And then we had applicants who came and started programs after COVID who didn't have to meet those same criteria.

1:06:07And it is no secret that they serve—.

1:06:12Councilwoman Smith.

1:06:13A great majority of the Black families and underserved kids in our community, and to have them not be looked at or given any consideration— I hear what PSU is saying, but, you know, some of their recommendations are ill-advised, and I'm not clear that they have a true picture of community.

1:06:40Councilor Smith.

1:06:41And that their history does not go back to where it needs to go.

1:06:45So for me, that's, that's very clear.

1:06:50And I think with organizations who do multiple things like a Self-Enhancement Inc., they should have been given the benefit of the doubt about the numbers during COVID everybody's numbers went down.

1:07:06Yes.

1:07:07So for me, that's, that's a problem.

1:07:09And what's more problematic, when REAP has previously been a, uh, a grantee and they were not awarded any funding, and they are one of the premier African-American programs that serve kids east of 82nd, and to bring in new people to to help supplement what's already done.

1:07:36I, I appreciate that, but you can't take away the people who are doing the work and who are recognized for doing that work.

1:07:44Well, if I could respond, I don't think that, um, Self Enhancement Inc. was not funded in mentoring, um, for the reasons that you stated.

1:07:53I believe that they were not funded in mentoring, so there was— they don't currently have a mentoring grant.

1:07:57That was This is a new program proposed for PCL to fund.

1:08:00They were recommended for funding, selected by the committee, in after-school for a very sizable, more than $1 million-plus grant.

1:08:07And they lost $1.2 million in this process.

1:08:10And I— and if you're going to talk about that with great clarity, I would like to see if Rasaan could come up here and respond.

1:08:20Is Rasaan McKenzie over here?

1:08:21Councilor, Councilor, let's allow— Lisa to speak, and then we can see if there are questions for others.

1:08:28Okay, thank you.

1:08:30But I, I still— I mean, you say that, and you said it before, and I told you before, they lost $1.2 million as a result of this new process.

1:08:39Even though they were awarded monies, they lost monies.

1:08:43And what I think really what I want you to understand, just because an organization says they serve yes.

1:08:52—Who are white organizations does not mean that wholesale Black families and children are going to move to that organization to get support.

1:09:02People who need culturally specific services, they go to organizations that they trust.

1:09:10They may not know that all this money has been moved to a different organization to serve them.

1:09:14They're not going to move over there.

1:09:16And so some of the— some of that direction needs to be provided to the folks who are interviewing and scoring.

1:09:24They need to understand that.

1:09:27If I could respond, I would just say that in mentoring— in the mentoring funding category, the committee selected 4 organizations that scored higher than SEI that are culturally specific Black-led organizations.

1:09:42And they selected 3 others that scored slightly less than SEI to provide a range of services for the Black community and the African-led communities.

1:09:52So it was not the case that they did not select Black-owned cultural centers.

1:09:56There were 3 that were below them that received monies.

1:10:03And what I'm saying to you is because they scored low because of COVID There was no mechanism within the system for them to— for you all to consider.

1:10:13Everyone scored lower during COVID Some of these newer programs didn't even— they weren't even serving folks at all.

1:10:21We did not consider any data during the COVID years.

1:10:23We only looked at data for the last 2 and a half years.

1:10:26So the current year, half year, and then the 2 years previous.

1:10:28We did not look at any of the data that was given before because all organizations, as you say correctly, suffered in being able to do their services during a pandemic.

1:10:37So we didn't even consider that data.

1:10:39All the data that I provided to all the committee was from '23 and '24, and then the half year this year.

1:10:48Lisa?

1:10:49Councilor Smith, did you have an additional question for somebody else, or do you have the information that you need?

1:10:54If Rassam could respond, because he's not— I mean, we're talking about an organization that he represents.

1:11:00And he can say for sure what he thinks.

1:11:04Rasaan, could you come up, please?

1:11:07Please come forward.

1:11:08I would ask that we not turn this into a broader discussion or debate between our guests at the table and that we just have folks answer the question before you.

1:11:19Thank you, Madam President.

1:11:20I appreciate that to keep order, but it's just unfortunate.

1:11:23It's— you have unintended consequences.

1:11:25Consequence when you allow the Children's Lobby to say their words and don't allow the community to say theirs.

1:11:29But I do appreciate it.

1:11:30I won't do that again.

1:11:33What's the question that I'm— I don't want to, I don't want to go out of context.

1:11:37So I need you to explain how you felt like this process did not recognize or account for what happened over COVID and that there, there were, there were areas that you were— you scored higher than people who actually received the, the resources through the children's levy.

1:11:58So 2 areas that SCI applied for where we did not receive funding were mentoring and child abuse prevention.

1:12:06Mentoring, Director Pellegrino correctly stated, is not a contract that we had.

1:12:10So our, our disagreement with the process in the mentoring category was not because our performance was it was misrepresented because of COVID it was because we were a new provider and we weren't given the benefit of the doubt that new providers who didn't provide any services, but because we provided services in another category, we weren't given an opportunity to get the, the priority treatment that a new provider would get in the mentoring category.

1:12:40The other issue that we had with mentoring was that there were 13 African American agencies that applied for mentoring dollars.

1:12:48Yes.

1:12:48And 6 of those were awarded.

1:12:50And there were multiple mainstream agencies that were awarded in mentoring specifically to serve Black kids.

1:12:57And any of us who have been involved in mentoring services in the African American community in Portland know that that has been a struggle for decades to find Black mentors for Black children.

1:13:09And seeing a situation where white agencies are being awarded to provide mentorship for Black kids when Black agencies are not being awarded to do that.

1:13:19That was our issue in mentoring.

1:13:20That part.

1:13:26I could keep going.

1:13:28No, I just want to— I don't need a volume of words.

1:13:32I just need you to say what you're saying and what your concern is, because that is the concerns that many in the community have said to me.

1:13:43I think that we need to take into account again what I was saying, just because a person checks the box that says they serve BIPOC children don't mean all the BIPOC children are going to move to where the new money has gone.

1:13:56So we need to take that into account.

1:13:58Thank you.

1:13:59Thank you.

1:14:03Um, also, I'm sorry, Council President, I did not say my name and want to make sure I do say.

1:14:07Sahon McKelvey, Director of Advocacy and Engagement for Self-Enhancement Inc.

1:14:11Thank you for catching that.

1:14:13Councilor, did you have additional questions?

1:14:15No.

1:14:15Okay, thank you all.

1:14:19Councilors, I put myself in the queue.

1:14:21I just want to say for the record, I, I hear all of the concerns that are being raised, and I share a lot of the concerns with the process that was developed.

1:14:31Um, I also was disappointed to see that organizations whose work I value weren't funded, and organizations who are critical to supporting families in my district district weren't funded.

1:14:45But from what I saw with the additional information that we received, it looked like the process was followed.

1:14:52And while I disagree with some of how the process was laid out, I believe that the question of remand is about whether or not the process was followed.

1:15:03And I am concerned that if we remand to have the process followed differently, but the process was followed appropriately, that we could get back very similar results without the changes that folks are asking for and a delay in funding getting out for all of the organizations, including those who we do think were appropriately funded.

1:15:29So I just want to share that what's weighing on me right now is that I think the concerns being raised are with the process, not councilor Morillo.

1:15:43Thank you, Madam President.

1:15:45Yeah, I would just say on that note that I do have specific concerns about the process.

1:15:49I think if we've heard from organizations that they sent in corrected information, they were working with employees to correct that on their application, and then that didn't go through, and so they got a different score than maybe they should have, then that means that there's an issue with the process itself, which means that a remand would be valid in my opinion.

1:16:11Overall, I'm just hearing so much discrepancy between what these orgs experience through this application process and what the Children's Levy is saying.

1:16:21And so, you know, with organizations like REAP that are longstanding and critical in the Black community in Portland, I don't feel satisfied that the process was followed to a T. So I, you know, if Councilor Smith wants to move forward with potentially remanding this, I would be supportive of that.

1:16:52Yeah, so I think, When I asked about specific organizations, I got the scoresheets back, and I'll note that, you know, there are a lot of scoresheets that have no comments to explain it.

1:17:06That's normal.

1:17:07That's not a sign of a good process, a bad process, or the degree to which it's followed.

1:17:12But it does leave some questions that I still have.

1:17:17Specifically in hunger relief is the category that has been of the most concern to me.

1:17:23For me, what was concerning is that I got information saying, you know, I'll give you a specific example here.

1:17:33When it said that Sunshine Division was the only application that was to exclusively serve K-8 houseless children, and then you go to the hunger relief, there's a table here that doesn't note that, and in fact checks boxes saying that there's, that they would serve all age ranges.

1:17:54So the 2 different docu— whereas a Latino network, it does specifically state, it's a few lines above it, that there's a narrowing in terms of which age ranges are served.

1:18:04So I was a little confused by some of that, and it created concern for me because, you know, this is coming up, and I acknowledge what Councilor Ryan's saying about an offer of a briefing.

1:18:15This is coming up yes.

1:18:15It's coming up very late in the process.

1:18:17It's high stakes because we only do this every couple years.

1:18:20It's not an annual thing— every few years, I should say.

1:18:23And it's coming up, you know, at a time where we're going to be blamed, I'm sure, if we do remand it for the delay.

1:18:32That wouldn't be our fault if we remanded it.

1:18:33It would be the fault of not filing it earlier.

1:18:36And I just want to bring that up, right?

1:18:38Because I think that the administration has not yet built timelines that build in anything other than a council rubber stamp for a lot of different issues.

1:18:48And so what we're being asked to do is neglect our responsibility to evaluate things fully.

1:18:55And this is not about the children's levy.

1:18:57This is so much broader than that.

1:19:00With relation to this issue, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea, and I'm not sure if this is what's happening here, but it is what's being alleged, That city staff is trying to tell communities of color who serve them better, who would serve them better than organizations that they've built a trusting relationship with over years or decades.

1:19:25That that is a concerning possibility to me, and so I'm trying to understand where people are at on that interpretation.

1:19:34At the same time, I recognize a lot of work has gone into this, both from the staff and from the reviewers and the committee.

1:19:42And so I'm trying to weigh that here and avoid substituting my judgment.

1:19:47But I do think that it would be a process concern for me if city— if indeed city staff was trying to tell communities of color, I know you like this group and I know you've worked with them.

1:20:01Thank you.

1:20:01But this other group would be better.

1:20:03And I'm also deeply concerned about the idea that the leadership of these organizations is not a part of the conversation and the degree to which that leadership comes from the communities, at least in part comes from the communities that those organizations would serve.

1:20:18Thank you.

1:20:20Thank you, Councilor.

1:20:21Councilor Smith, are you back in the queue?

1:20:26No.

1:20:26Councilors, I don't see anybody else.

1:20:28I don't see anyone else in the queue, which would lead us to a vote on whether or not to pass on second reading the funding recommendations for the children's levy allocation.

1:20:43Councilor Murillo.

1:20:45Just a process question.

1:20:46So if we were to vote to remand it, would it— would we vote this down and then move to remand it?

1:20:55Or how would that process work?

1:20:57Either we would vote on approval, and if it failed, somebody could offer up an alternative motion to vote to remand, or somebody could offer that up now or at any other time.

1:21:10But right now, the motion that is before us would be a vote to approve.

1:21:19Are you still in the queue?

1:21:20Okay, thank you.

1:21:23I would like to move to remand the children's levy.

1:21:28Are you moving to remand the entire set of recommendations?

1:21:33Yes.

1:21:33Is there a second?

1:21:35Second.

1:21:36I believe that was Councilor Smith by a hair.

1:21:39Councilor Green, is there any discussion on the motion?

1:21:44Councilor Murillo, are you in the queue for discussion?

1:21:47Councilor Zimmerman?

1:21:48I was hoping that Director Pellegrino could come back up.

1:21:51I'd just like to better understand what a remand back— what the implications are, kind of how you might manage that, as well as if that has occurred before.

1:22:03I'm trying to understand for content on second and third order effects here.

1:22:09It has never occurred in the past, and what I'm hearing is it sounds like people want the entire process redone.

1:22:15So I would assume we would start all over again.

1:22:19It would probably take us about a year.

1:22:22And so if it takes about a year, does that— is the indication there then that the programs who, if this was to pass today, would receive funding and start moving forward on July 1st, that we're looking at Up to a 12-month delay in those?

1:22:45Well, all current grant contracts end on June 30th, 2025.

1:22:49So they're coming to an end shortly.

1:22:52There are options we could explore.

1:22:54We could renew every— try to renew every grant that we have right now for a year and meanwhile run another process to redo the whole thing.

1:23:04That's one option.

1:23:05I mean, I would need— I'm just speaking from, you know, like I would need to check with many people and get a lot of input before we made any decisions about what we would do here.

1:23:12But that's an option I could see.

1:23:14I appreciate that because I am actually asking for your best experience and best advice that you can give if this was to actually go forward.

1:23:22Because I have been listening for real purpose in this discussion because I don't know where I'll be on this question.

1:23:32But I want to be very informed if my vote is going to have longer-lasting effects here.

1:23:42Can you remind us a little bit in terms of who the other community PCL-type committees are before it got to us, where decision or acceptance of these recommendations have come before they got to our level?

1:24:00Sure.

1:24:00Director?

1:24:02Well, I mean, the process starts with community engagement at its base.

1:24:05So we did— I think we talked about in the work session, we do a very broad-based community engagement process to try to understand what kinds of services does community want and how do they want those services delivered.

1:24:15So that's the piece that's done first.

1:24:17We work with our community council.

1:24:18We have a 13-member community advisory board that was begun as part of this funding process, and they help design what that community engagement process would look like.

1:24:27So who would we talk to?

1:24:28What questions would we ask?

1:24:30And then hear the report of the community engagement folks come together to give their report and decide, okay, we've listened to what you've said.

1:24:37Now here's how we're going to shape that into what we're asking the community to give us applications for.

1:24:41So that— they work with us all along the way to design the application, the questions, the scoring criteria.

1:24:49Those folks, those 13 folks, worked in tandem with us to do that.

1:24:53And the allocation committee approves all of the work that gets done.

1:24:55So they hear it again, the recommendations are brought forward from the community council, the allocation committee considers and they give their input, and then it gets further modified.

1:25:04In addition, you know, we do a lot of work with organizations and reach out to them for input on— here's the draft application, here's the draft scoring criteria, here are the draft funding priorities, what do you think, give your feedback.

1:25:14So we're trying to reach out to multiple different parties during this process to try to get communication back from them about what they want to see.

1:25:21So that's the process kind of before the application is published.

1:25:25And then after the application is published, we do information and kind of answer questions.

1:25:32We have an ongoing question and answer so people can ask us questions about the application and how do they respond or if they have any specific issues.

1:25:40And then we recruit community reviewers and train them.

1:25:43So that's a whole other set of people.

1:25:44That's about just under 100 people that come in for that.

1:25:47And so they're giving their input in the sense that they're scoring their application.

1:25:51Then all the scores and what we did with the community council was give them 2 unidentified portfolio options they could choose from with different emphases at the kind of top-level variables.

1:26:04So we're not giving portfolios to the community council with specific applications in them.

1:26:10We're saying this portfolio looks more like this, this portfolio looks more like that, and they chose between the two.

1:26:16And then we took that recommended portfolio and we sent all of our recommendations out to the applicants.

1:26:21So they got the list that we shared with you of all the applicants and the data on the applications and all of the score sheets.

1:26:28That's then shared with the applicants, so they get to see all of that and then they can respond.

1:26:33They're allowed to give testimony We do the— as we described, the testimony that is written or videoed to the committee so that they have time to hear it all.

1:26:40With 168 applications, it's very difficult for people to take in information from 168 organizations in one sitting.

1:26:46So we have people submit that so the committee members have time, a couple of weeks.

1:26:50We give them a couple weeks' time to do that.

1:26:52And so they're taking all that into consideration before they come and make their decisions.

1:26:56So that's the basic process.

1:26:57There are a number of groups and people that consult with the you know, obviously if we're gonna redo it, we can take the community and your all's input about how we should do it.

1:27:05But Lisa, the last group that approved this before it came to City Council is the Allocation Committee.

1:27:12I wanna make sure I know that.

1:27:13And that's Charity Kreider, Dan Floyd, Dan Ryan, Felicia Tripp-Folsom, and Megan Moyer.

1:27:19Correct.

1:27:19That's that group?

1:27:20Okay.

1:27:24Just in terms of the spirit of discussion on this question about whether to remand or not, I— that seems like a very heavy vote to me.

1:27:32Um, and I'm looking at this list, right?

1:27:36It's, it's a, it's a, a list of people who are on it to receive money, and that seems frankly like quite the list of, of, of do-gooders in our community.

1:27:48Um, I'm feeling cautious about stopping that flow for another year.

1:27:58I am open to ideas about either maybe we say this is a 1 year instead of being a full stop for a year to catch up, or we continue current for another year to do this.

1:28:11But, you know, I look at NEA, Morrison Child Family Services, Latino Network, Impact Northwest, ERCO, POIC, Black Parent Initiative, APANO.

1:28:21I mean, we're going down and there's a lot of folks who did make it the list.

1:28:24And I, I'm pretty concerned about stopping that come— for those who are already in our book of business, stopping that on June 30th without a return date.

1:28:34So I, I want to be respectful to the councilors who are calling into question whether this process served well, but also respectful to the fact that when we pull something like this, it has cascading effects.

1:28:49And I would be open perhaps to a less councilor, I just want to clarify, you gave a specific example, which was to approve the current recommendations for 1 year instead of 3.

1:29:09Was that an amendment or an additional motion, or was that a suggestion to your colleagues but not a motion?

1:29:16Thanks.

1:29:17I'm not making it as a formal amendment now because I'm, I'm really kind of looking to those who seem to be more in-depthly involved, which are on both sides of this topic.

1:29:29I am indicating that it would be hard for me to take a vote that is a firm stop on June 30th for all these funds, but I, I'm socializing it to see where my colleagues are at, if there are less abrupt options.

1:29:42Councilor thank you.

1:29:44I'm sorry, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss a process piece there.

1:29:47Right.

1:29:47Councilor Ryan.

1:29:49Yeah, thank you, Madam President.

1:29:52And yeah, I will say a couple more things.

1:29:55I just want it to be known that the Portland Children's Levy staff did try to get on our calendar earlier.

1:30:00We heard earlier how difficult it's been to get on council agendas.

1:30:04And you also did a work session that was sadly not attended by everyone, but that was our opportunity to also dive in and ask questions.

1:30:13And that did take place.

1:30:15And just know when you make comments about staff that I would argue are not totally accurate in my opinion, you're also commenting on what Councilor Zimmerman made clear, which is there's a community council, there's the volunteer readers, and then there's allocation committee.

1:30:31So I wish our city had such a thorough process for all of our giving, and we simply don't.

1:30:36So again, it's our best practice that we have in the city.

1:30:39Councilor Smith.

1:30:40And I just wanted to make it clear that it's more than just the Portland Children's Levy staff that you're making comments about.

1:30:48So I wanted to make those comments for the record because I do think they're all accurate.

1:30:52Thank you.

1:31:01Thank you.

1:31:01Yeah, this is— I think— I guess I have a question about why it would take a full year to redo the process.

1:31:09Possible to instead take a look at some of the discrepancies that came up and address those rather than redo the entire thing?

1:31:21Well, I hear a lot of different comments from you all about how the process went wrong, and I think I would need to get a good understanding of what it is you're looking for in the process and what we didn't do that we would need to do, and that would possibly mean you have to reopen it and let people apply again.

1:31:40If you don't think it should be competitive, and it should not be scored, or it should be scored differently, or it should be scored by different kinds of reviewers, I've heard many comments here that suggest you want it done very differently.

1:31:51And if that's the case, I don't know how we could use this process as it stands because I hear objections to the process.

1:32:01That's what I'm understanding.

1:32:03So I'm open to hear what you want us to do differently, but I think it would require us to do it differently.

1:32:09Yeah, I mean, I definitely do think the process needs to be addressed long-term, and I'm concerned about the impacts that would happen if these organizations didn't get their funding for an entire year.

1:32:20But I also think that from what I've heard, it sounds like there are going to be negative impacts to the other organizations regardless.

1:32:31If I could offer, we could extend—.

1:32:38This is another option.

1:32:39I'm not saying that anybody approves of this idea, but if you could extend the existing contracts for a year so that money would not stop, if you would like us to do that and redo this whole process, we could do that.

1:32:52I think that's a great idea.

1:32:52So people would not lose money then on June 30th.

1:32:55We would extend the existing agreements with additional funds.

1:32:59We'd have to come to you with a set of— it's another ordinance and it's another whole thing that we would have to do to get that done.

1:33:07But we could do that.

1:33:09Okay, thank you.

1:33:12Councilor Green.

1:33:14Thank you, Madam President.

1:33:16And I appreciate the discussion.

1:33:18You know, Councilor Zimmerman raises some really important points.

1:33:21I think I have a question to the city attorney on what is in scope for council to do here.

1:33:27So we can remand, but how much direction on how that happens are we allowed to do here?

1:33:35Under the, uh, the, the act that adopted the children's levy, you're a— the council has the authority to remand by category.

1:33:45So if the decision is to remand all of the categories, that would be consistent with the and then the— you cannot direct funding to a particular recipient.

1:33:58It would be a— it would essentially be a direction to the children's levy.

1:34:03We don't think you followed the process, and we don't think that it met the standard laid out in the act to foster a balanced and integrated citywide system of services.

1:34:15Thank you.

1:34:16So if, if that's the decision of council, that you've received this information, you don't feel the process was adhered to, and you don't think it met the standard laid out in the act, then you would remand, remand it for the children's levy to go through the process again.

1:34:35Madam President, point of order.

1:34:38Point of order.

1:34:38Yes, in trying to to identify how we can do this.

1:34:44Is it possible to say, like Ms. Pellegrino said, keep the current level of funding where it's at and have them go over the new— a new process over the years so that, uh, not necessarily the new folks get money, but whoever's in the system right now, they get funded for another year so they can do the process over so it can that be done with this?

1:35:10Councilor, I want to make sure Councilor Green doesn't have follow-up also on what was said.

1:35:15Councilor Smith, you, you actually point of ordered the follow-on question I was going to ask, so that we're all good there.

1:35:21But that's the, that's the question to you, City Attorney, is do we have the authority in this process to do what Director Pellegrino—.

1:35:29Good question, new question.

1:35:31Uh, I believe that you do, and I believe I believe Ms. Pellegrino is correct that if you wanted to extend the existing contracts for one more year, that would take some additional council action to do it.

1:35:45You couldn't do it through this vehicle before you today, but that would be an option that council could take.

1:35:51And I do need to clarify, as we explained, we have 21% fewer resources next year, so we cannot fund people at the same amount that they are currently being funded at, but we could give everybody the exact same cut across the board.

1:36:05That's helpful.

1:36:06So would then the action be motion to table?

1:36:11Is that what would be appropriate?

1:36:15You can lay this on the table.

1:36:17You could refer it back to a committee.

1:36:21Thank you.

1:36:24Robert, don't run away because I have a question when I get to myself in the queue that's related.

1:36:29Councilor Kanal.

1:36:34So I'm very, uh, conflicted on this, as I think I might be indicating here.

1:36:42I, I'm, um, I'm curious if anyone has heard any specific concerns related to categories other than hunger relief and mentoring.

1:36:52Um, And/or should there not be a specific concern about one of those other 4 categories, which are after-school, child abuse prevention response, early childhood, or foster care, if there are broad enough concerns that would require those to potentially be remanded as well?

1:37:15Because I think it is possible, and the reason for my inquiry here is because I think it is possible that we at least can get some of these categories through as is today.

1:37:29I'm not sure if that is the case, but I wanted to at least float that idea because as Robert mentioned, there are the category-by-category options exist as well.

1:37:40So just wanted to float that for now.

1:37:43Councilor Smith.

1:37:46I hear what you're saying, Councilor Kanal, but when you're talking about institutional disproportionality, it doesn't stop with one category.

1:37:55I think it would cover all categories.

1:37:58And if we're saying that the process was broken for one, and if Ms. Pellegrino's saying that we did the same process across the board, then we need to see if that's so.

1:38:15And I would, if we have to go forward, you know, even with the 20% cut, I would like to extend the existing grants, remand, extend the existing grants, and do a process all over again.

1:38:31And that would, we would have done our due diligence.

1:38:36Councilor Herbold.

1:38:39Thank you, Councilor.

1:38:42Robert, when you read the remand language, it said, was the process adhered to?

1:38:49And then there was another piece.

1:38:52And I'm trying to, I'm trying to think about what our options are here.

1:38:57And I want to make sure we all understand what remand is as opposed to laying this on the table and extending for a year and asking the children's levy to start over completely.

1:39:11I am also wondering if the children's levy starts over completely, if they set up a brand new process, um, what control council does or does not have there, because the children's levy is specifically set up with a lot of community control over it as opposed to council control.

1:39:30And I want to make sure that everybody very aware of what we can and can't influence before we take any of these votes?

1:39:382-Part question, I apologize.

1:39:40Yeah, good question, thank you.

1:39:44The children's levy was passed by the voters, levies a tax.

1:39:48It also provides a process to allocate the funding.

1:39:55And so Council should follow that process in the act.

1:39:59Or we can do the analysis to determine how much flexibility council would have to amend the funding portions of that.

1:40:09Um, the— reflecting on Councilor Green's question about should we lay it on the table or send it back to committee, I mean, I think if, if the decision of the council is we we, we want this all to go back to the Children's Levy to go through a new process with this or, or run the process again.

1:40:35I do think a remand would be the appropriate thing because then that does formally send it back to them.

1:40:41If you table it or refer it to a committee, then you're just hanging on to it.

1:40:45So I do think a remand is probably the appropriate way to, to send this back.

1:40:50Thank you.

1:40:50But that's if we want to run the current process again.

1:40:54If you want to run the current process, I think you— I suppose you could lay it on the table or send it to a committee where council will just hold the decision and then perhaps bring a separate set of items to council to extend existing grants for a year, take that year, and council can perhaps try to amend some of the provisions in the allocation to provide a different process for the Children's Library to go through.

1:41:32I do think that there— I do think that process further extends the time because council needs to take the time to revise the process.

1:41:43Once council has decided on the process they want the Children's Levy to use, then the Children's Levy has to execute that process.

1:41:51So I do think it's possible, but I do think that extends the timeline.

1:41:59Thank you.

1:42:00Councilor— you know what, Councilor Clark, you have not spoken at all today.

1:42:06Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:42:09I guess I'm wrestling with what's the middle path here.

1:42:15And I'm— a middle path that respects both the concerns of my colleagues and the incredible amount of community engagement that the Children's Levy folks have gone through.

1:42:28I want to respect that as well.

1:42:30It's— a lot of people have been involved in this process.

1:42:33Councilor Loretta Smith.

1:42:34A lot of community engagement.

1:42:36So I'm looking for that middle path.

1:42:38And I also want to just make an observation that the children's levy is in the same position that we're in, in diminishing resources.

1:42:49And we're struggling with that.

1:42:50And those are very difficult decisions to deal with.

1:42:54And I'm also concerned that I don't want us to micromanage all of these processes.

1:43:00That come forward, because this is not the first or the last.

1:43:05I really respect all the people that have been involved here, as well as the concerns expressed by my colleagues.

1:43:11So just wanted to make those observations and very interested in finding a middle path.

1:43:17If there is a way to respect the process that's happened now, fund the people that have been funded in the past, Do some sort of redo, but not, uh, not completely stop the process now.

1:43:33Thank you.

1:43:36Councilor Green.

1:43:40Yeah, I— it's going to be hard for me to vote to accept a package that says that Black-led organizations cannot be the mentors for Black it's going to be hard for me to do that.

1:43:55At the same time, I don't want to delay funding for a year.

1:43:59I think the middle path that Councilor Clark is speaking about does look like bringing a new council— bring a new action before this body to extend the existing contracts for a year.

1:44:10So there is an opportunity to revise this process, which has been— which some questions have been raised about it.

1:44:17Thank you.

1:44:18I, I would support that, that approach.

1:44:28The curse of following Councilor Green, uh, is often that, um, it's laid out in, in detail the way that I, I might suggest it.

1:44:36Um, I just wanted to clarify, because of funding constraints, if we were to extend contracts by a year, it would need to be at a 21% reduction.

1:44:45Is that correct?

1:44:46Of course.

1:44:47Okay.

1:44:48Um, and I think one of the things that is worth saying— I think we all know it up here— but is hypothetically there could be a situation where maybe we like or have a familiarity with or trust in a specific organization that didn't get funding, and we remand it back and they still don't get funding even with a better process.

1:45:10That's a possibility too.

1:45:12Right.

1:45:12And I think that's the question that we're being asked is about process.

1:45:17It's not about the outcomes.

1:45:18And I want to acknowledge that.

1:45:21I don't want this to be about, oh, this group didn't get it or did get it.

1:45:26Because also, you know, I'll point out that I don't think that groups, individual groups are— I hate this word, but I can't come up with a better one— entitled to funding through a process.

1:45:39They earn it.

1:45:41And I think what we're talking about is groups that, that may have earned it through a fair process in our minds and not necessarily in the process that we had.

1:45:51Um, and I think that's a fair conversation to have.

1:45:54Would it be an emergency ordinance in pairing with— we could do a remand now and then an emergency ordinance to continue that funding because it— the, the funding, we don't have 30 days.

1:46:04Yeah.

1:46:05So does that— is that the process we'd have to do for that second half of it if in that scenario?

1:46:15I think you could do it an emergency ordinance or a non-emergency ordinance.

1:46:18The emergency ordinance is effective immediately upon passage and you would not have to wait 30 days.

1:46:25Sorry, you could do it either way through an emergency ordinance or a non-emergency ordinance.

1:46:30The benefit of an emergency ordinance is that it's effective immediately upon passage.

1:46:32It is effective immediately upon passage.

1:46:35A non-emergency ordinance takes 2 readings, so 2 council meetings, and then it is effective 30 days after passage.

1:46:44So in order to prevent a gap on July 1st, it would need to be an emergency because of that 30-day delay.

1:46:50An emergency ordinance requires 9 votes.

1:46:54So I would love to know where the colleagues, 'cause I think we haven't had 9 of us speak up on this yet.

1:47:00I'd love to know from the colleagues that haven't spoken up where you're at on that, because what I don't want to do is remand it and then not have 9 votes to extend the funding.

1:47:08And that's my reason for asking.

1:47:11Councilor, I, I just want to clarify, you're talking about remand, and remand, I believe, Robert, doesn't start a new process.

1:47:18It requires a new review of current applications under the currently laid out process.

1:47:23Is that correct?

1:47:26I think that is correct.

1:47:28What I've heard Ms. Pellegrino say is she's heard concerns and feedback from council about perhaps areas of the process that should be reviewed and fine-tuned.

1:47:41And I've heard a willingness to do that.

1:47:43And perhaps it might take some time to get a process that's satisfactory.

1:47:48So I think there's some flexibility.

1:47:49I don't know that it's just run it all through the same process, rinse and repeat.

1:47:54But you, in terms of, you'd still have to be bound by the standards in the act.

1:48:02Yeah, to clarify, regardless of whether or not this is a remand for just that last step in the process, a remand for the full process or something else, in parallel to that, we would have to have an ordinance of Either an emergency or non-emergency kind, to continue current funding at a 21% reduction.

1:48:22And my question was about whether or not there is support at the, you know, 9/12 level necessary for the emergency version of that, which would be required to ensure there is no gap of funding for whatever period of time there is until the remand process or whatever other process is going on completes.

1:48:39Thank you, Councilor.

1:48:41Can I just make one clarifying question?

1:48:43I understood the next council meeting not to be till July 16th after this.

1:48:47Um, I— that might be the earliest I could get on.

1:48:49There is a June 18th council meeting.

1:48:52Okay.

1:48:54It'll be a tight agenda because it's an evening meeting, but we do have— um, we haven't— I haven't finalized that agenda, so if we need to do something quicker than this conversation, colleagues, there, that is possible.

1:49:10Councilor Novick.

1:49:12Yeah, I just wanted to throw out another possibility.

1:49:16I'm concerned about the idea of, with no real process at all, simply saying we're going to extend all the existing contracts minus 21%.

1:49:25And it seems to me another possibility might be if people think the process should be revised— what, and actually this question is for Ms. Pellegrino— would it be at all Is it at all feasible to say we're going to approve the funding for the— as the committee has approved it, but for— to the people it's approved it for, but for 2 years instead of 5?

1:49:53So the— we could proceed with funding for 2 years for those chosen through the existing process, but then have the council come up with recommendations to change the process So that maybe we, you know, have a— we do a new process for the last 3 years.

1:50:14Go ahead, Lisa.

1:50:15Does that make any sense?

1:50:17No.

1:50:18I think I understand what you're saying.

1:50:19Just to be clear, what the ordinance that is on the table is for 3-year grants, not 5 years.

1:50:26Just to clarify.

1:50:27Sorry.

1:50:30Well, what if you, um, what if you cut it down to a year and a half?

1:50:33Would that be logistically impossible?

1:50:39Half years are difficult in general at the city.

1:50:41Like, we try to keep things on a fiscal year for a number of reasons, but I, I can't say off the cuff it's impossible.

1:50:50No.

1:50:53Councilor Zimmerman.

1:50:56Thanks.

1:50:57Um, first, just to the colleagues who are considering sending this back, I guess it would help me to have clarity if you think that the current process is flawed and needs to be rewritten, or if you think it was applied incorrectly.

1:51:11That's a little unclear for me right now.

1:51:14And then secondly, for, uh, City Attorney, I'm hoping you can help describe your opinion a little bit more clear why you think We couldn't in this action just make an amendment to the extension of the current funding?

1:51:32And then whatever the second half of that sentence will be, will be about my first part here about whether it's a new process or a remand of the current process.

1:51:38But you mentioned that you think it has to be a separate ordinance for us to continue the current funding, even if we added the 20% reduction to it.

1:51:48I'm pretty used to amending things in the moment.

1:51:50Why would that require a new new meeting, please.

1:51:55Yeah, that's a great question.

1:51:57Um, the— a couple of reasons.

1:51:59One is, um, uh, every ordinance that comes before council has to be confined to one subject.

1:52:08That subject is defined by the title.

1:52:11This title is concerning approving this set of grants for 3 years.

1:52:17Um, we would I would recommend against just wholesale striking the whole title and doing something totally different.

1:52:24Instead, if you're going to make amendments, you should try to amend it consistent with the existing title of the item.

1:52:30I think that's one reason.

1:52:32I think the second reason is what Ms. Pellegrino is talking about.

1:52:35Just practically speaking, we're going to have to go back, do the calculation on the 21%, and just bring it back as a a new item and make sure everything is in place as soon as possible.

1:52:48So for kind of the legal issue about the, the title and just the practical reason of if we're going to do this, let's take a little bit of time and make sure it's all in order.

1:53:00Okay, I, I appreciate that.

1:53:04I'm not sure that I, uh, am too worried about missing the intent here of If this council were to say extend the current funding with the authority at the director's level to adjust allocations to a certain percentage point, that we would need to delay that any further.

1:53:29But to my first, I think intent matters with ordinances, and I think our intent could be clear here if that's I think that's the direction this council's going.

1:53:38But to my first piece of whether or not this council is concerned about the actual process that needs to be rewritten or if it was applied incorrectly would help me understand where I would be on this vote for remand or not.

1:53:54And I'm trying to hope— I'm trying to understand if we are in the situation where we're trying to pick winners and losers or if we are saying something was applied inappropriately.

1:54:03Appropriately, and that's not quite clear to me in the discussion here.

1:54:07Thanks.

1:54:11Hi, colleagues.

1:54:15It's great to see you all.

1:54:16I was just a few blocks away at the courthouse fulfilling my civic duty of jury duty.

1:54:21It's much more fun to see you all in person.

1:54:23I share many of the same concerns raised by community members and my colleagues about Councilor Zimmerman.

1:54:31I think I appreciate your question, Councilor Zimmerman, because I do think it is process that is being brought up.

1:54:39I will be clear, I think it's important that we get this right, and we are— the expectation is that we are looking very closely.

1:54:49I also, at the same time, do not want to delay support for many organizations that are counting on it.

1:54:56And I am looking to my colleagues, especially Councilor Smith, who I've had some conversations with.

1:55:03I think we have various options here, and I— if we do choose a path, I am absolutely willing, Councilor Knoll, to sign on to an emergency ordinance to make this as expedited as possible.

1:55:17But I will be honest that I am looking to some of my colleagues for where they're Thank you, Councilor.

1:55:25Councilor Smith, I saw you trying to jump in there, and I thought your hand here was a legacy hand.

1:55:29Is that a current hand?

1:55:30It's a current hand.

1:55:32Go right ahead.

1:55:32Thank you.

1:55:33I think it is both, Ms. Pellegrino.

1:55:35I think it is process and how it's applied, and I think it's about, you know, the devil is in the details and who actually are the reviewers and the scorers and where they come from, what side of town they come from.

1:55:50So I believe if you believe that you have a good process, good process, that folks that you bring to the table to score these, that's where it's not necessarily at the top always where the longstanding institutional kind of things happen.

1:56:07It's right here in the middle.

1:56:09They are the folks who are scoring, referring to the, the allocation committee.

1:56:17The allocation committee okay.

1:56:19Is a rubber stamp to what the middle did, so that I'm really clear on what I see as a 30,000-foot look into who were actually making these decisions.

1:56:34So we have taken it one step further down below, you know, below skin deep.

1:56:41We're saying, look at those who reviewed.

1:56:47Where did they come from?

1:56:50Did we have a good cross-section of folks who could adequately and historically look at programs and the longevity of programs that have been, um, in communities of color, uh, producing good work for a very long time?

1:57:11And that's where I'm sitting.

1:57:13I could see a space in a place where we could remand, go back, do your process, but you need to figure out how to take some of that middle and, and, and make sure that you have the right people at the table scoring and making sure that they understand every side of the community.

1:57:36Councilor not just the side that they're familiar with, because I think we have an unbalanced group of folks.

1:57:44And that's where you can change the trajectory of things, is when you identify a particular group to review.

1:57:52And if they don't have a historical knowledge of what and who organizations are, then they're not going to be able to reflect that in We offered that we could instead hire contractors as reviewers instead of use community volunteers because the ability to ask community volunteers to spend more time than it takes to score the applications is difficult.

1:58:28I think that's a good point.

1:58:29Because they're doing it as a volunteer.

1:58:31So that's one option that we can— if we redid our process, we could find a way to try to make it more equitable.

1:58:36But I think it's important to have the community voice.

1:58:38I think it's important to have the community voice, but you need to make sure that there is a comprehensive community voice, not just young people, not just people of color, but a cross-section of people who have a history of understanding communities who have long standing, um, reputations of doing work and serving, uh, BIPOC communities.

1:59:01And so we just have to be a little bit better about who we choose if you believe that this process works.

1:59:09But we have a problem with how it's being applied, and we have a problem with the process.

1:59:17So for me, I— that's, that's where I'm sitting.

1:59:19I, I don't want to take anyone's money away I don't want to take their wholesale money away for 100%.

1:59:25I think that I have talked to a few organizations and they said that when the last time that we talked, you said it would only take a few months to redo this and to rescore.

1:59:37If you're— if you are sending back all the decisions that the allocation committee made and you're asking the allocation committee to go back and relook and decide whether their original allocations were merited or not, given the considerations you've raised here.

1:59:54That's different than if we need to change the process by which this was done.

1:59:59And I heard many comments today that suggested the process was not done correctly and you want it redesigned.

2:00:05Yes, and I'm not trying to pick winners or losers because cream always rises to the top when you're doing the work and you can do it, no matter who's who's evaluating you?

2:00:13If you've done the work in the community, it should rise to the top.

2:00:18But what I'm saying is, let's give ourselves some breathing room.

2:00:25And they said— those organizations that I talked to, they said they would be willing to wait a few months if it was only going to take a few months.

2:00:34But now we're talking about a whole year.

2:00:37I would be supportive of a whole year extension of existing services so that July 1st people could serve their communities.

2:00:48And I think we could do that as the—.

2:00:50And, and, and saying that too, and talking to community organ— organizations, I'm saying this to them: if we remand this and we do a different process, if it turns out the same, then you have to accept it.

2:01:17That's what I'm saying.

2:01:20Thank you, Councilor.

2:01:22Councilor Ryan— no, I'm sorry, Councilor Dunphy, that's who I'm looking at who hasn't spoken to this yet.

2:01:28Thank you.

2:01:29Um, couple of things.

2:01:30First of all, colleagues, I just want to acknowledge that my wife sits on the PCL Community Council Council.

2:01:36Council.

2:01:36As just— I want to declare that it's not a conflict, I don't think, because— but as I understand it, the Community Council evaluated all the applications blind.

2:01:45But I did want to just note that my wife is one of the Community Council folks.

2:01:49It's clear that— I mean, to me, a lot of work has been done here, and whether or not the process was followed right or whether or not the process is the right process, the outcome seems to be not hitting where we want to.

2:02:07And I don't hear any council colleagues excited to approve this as written right now.

2:02:11And now we're all sort of scrambling to try and find out what else.

2:02:15I do want to acknowledge that under city code, in the— I'm sorry, Section 6 of the act that actually enacted the children's levy, it says specifically, the allocation committee shall make funding decisions in a public meeting based on application scores and other community conditions to foster a balanced and integrated citywide system of services.

2:02:41So based off of that, would it actually require a full reconsideration of the whole— all of the applications, or could we say would it actually require a full redo of the process, or is there an opportunity where we could reevaluate faster than a year?

2:03:06I'm very concerned about the idea of delaying funding of this, and I also am really concerned about us trying to find an answer to how to fund these organizations today.

2:03:18So is there more that we could be doing in that specific area?

2:03:21I think that's a great question.

2:03:22Like, you understanding that specific framing and what part of the scoring process would have to be redone if we do remand?

2:03:31I'm struggling to ask the right questions here.

2:03:34I'm sorry.

2:03:34I mean, I'm not sure what you're— I mean, my understanding of remand is it's usually done with instructions of some kind to— so if you are asking the committee to go back and look at all of the existing applications and review their decisions and make decisions that are consistent with your instructions here today, they could do that.

2:03:54But that would— I just want to be clear, that would not be a different process in terms of people's concerns around reviewers or around who was selected or how the review was done or how the application was written or how the outreach was done or how any of these other things that I've heard raised.

2:04:12It would not solve that.

2:04:13So I just want to be clear that you can do that.

2:04:16I just— I'm not sure that's what you want.

2:04:19I don't— I'm not sure I know.

2:04:20I guess, could you clarify, you know, based on that, the section that I read specifically, do you think that— were community conditions, as it's put in the act, were community conditions adequately considered by the allocation committee?

2:04:36Or is that part of the process?

2:04:37Is community conditions explicit?

2:04:42They're looking at balancing to make sure— I mean, the allocation committee's job when they're looking at the final decisions, I think they're trying to balance all of the competing goals that a process has.

2:04:55So for instance, they're interested in making sure they continue to provide stable funding for organizations that are performing well and delivering services to community that community seems happy about.

2:05:04So they're not looking at the revenue bonds as a way to they're also concerned about making sure that new organizations or organizations that have not had access to PCL funding also have an opportunity to get funded.

2:05:14And in a year, I mean, I would just say that was perhaps the most difficult competing thing that I saw the allocation committee wrestle with, was trying to make sure they were supporting existing organizations doing good work and also making room for new organizations that the community council specifically highlighted they wanted us to do.

2:05:33They wanted the PCL to let in new organizations.

2:05:36When you have fewer resources than you have this year, that means that any existing grant that is continued would necessarily get less money if you are also trying to free up resources to be able to fund new programs that are not currently funded.

2:05:50And it also meant that the committee wrestled with performance issues of trying to figure out which yes.

2:05:56Programs, keeping in mind that an organization may not deliver all programs equally.

2:06:02They may be doing one program excellent, they may have been really struggling with another program.

2:06:07So I saw the committee consider performance in that context to understand some organizations are doing a great job with this program, but maybe not with this other program that they're also requesting continuing funding.

2:06:17So they made very hard decisions to balance competing and so balanced, yes, they did their best, I think, to try to balance things that they wanted when they wanted things that don't go together.

2:06:41Councilor, are you complete?

2:06:44Councilors, I just want to point out that, um, Mayor Wilson, Mayor Keith Wilson, Everybody left in the queue has spoken, I believe, multiple times, and we do have a motion on the table.

2:06:57Green, the floor is yours.

2:06:58Very briefly, I just wanted to answer Councilor Zimmerman's question and also Councilor Kanal's question.

2:07:03So to your question, Councilor Zimmerman, from the feedback I've heard, I think I'm mostly worried about application process.

2:07:10You know, Councilor Smith has raised questions where that it might be difficult to disentangle those, But my motivation today was really worried about application of the process to include the things that Councilor Dunphy said that, you know, comma, also considering community conditions.

2:07:25So that to me would be application of the process.

2:07:28Councilor Knoll, if this was an emergency ordinance in June, I would, I would be one of the 9 that would be necessary to extend it.

2:07:34Thank you.

2:07:43Councilor Kanal.

2:07:48So let me ask a question first.

2:07:53Um, where, if any particular place, do you think, Director Pellegrino, that the, um, the leadership and whether or not an organization is led in part or in whole by members of the community that it seeks to serve.

2:08:12Where does that figure into the evaluation process, if at all, at this moment?

2:08:16It is currently one of the criteria that is literally written into the scoring criteria, and organizations did provide that information mostly.

2:08:24In some cases it was unclear.

2:08:25Sure.

2:08:26But about 75% of the organizations that are on this, or 75% of the— hang on, let me just check.

2:08:33I wanted to speak.

2:08:35Okay, yes.

2:08:36So, um, of the 94 applications that are currently on the list that you have for approval, um, 74% of those are from organizations that have more than half of their clients, board, and staff people of color.

2:08:55Can I ask— Indigenous people of color.

2:08:56So that's, that's the— that's how it falls out.

2:08:59So it was considered, it was It was evaluated.

2:09:02In some cases, people don't apply, don't respond specifically, so we don't always have complete information on every applicant.

2:09:09Can I, can I follow up on that?

2:09:13You know, I'm Asian American.

2:09:15I think that it's great that I'm represented on boards or that people from my community are represented on boards.

2:09:22I don't think that me being on a board necessarily makes that organization better suited so can I ask if you disaggregated that further with relation to the parts of these applications that are designed to serve specifically Black people?

2:09:41I understand what you're asking.

2:09:43We did used to ask in the application in the 1920 process, we did ask for very specific data about that question where people filled out a chart and said, chart and gave, you know, literally disaggregated data on all of their clients, their board, and their staff, broken down by direct and management.

2:10:00We heard feedback in the last process that that was too much of a lift for particularly smaller organizations and newer organizations to provide that level of data on an application, and it's too much information.

2:10:12So we took that piece out in terms of that level of detail, and we asked for people to Just in a narrative, tell us what the composition of your clients, staff, and board are.

2:10:23And we wrote into the scoring criteria specifically, give percentages of the different communities that you serve and that what you're on your staff and on your board.

2:10:34So some people did that, and others did not give us specific information.

2:10:38But we don't have that level of disaggregated data that we did used to have.

2:10:42But that was in specific.

2:10:42Specific response to critique we had about too much of a lift on our application.

2:10:48Yeah, so I appreciate that you've clearly been responsive to the feedback you got from the previous process, and I imagine it could be frustrating, and I'm not going to ask you to confirm or deny it, to be sort of responded to for the changes you made in response to previous community feedback.

2:11:05I will say that it's a little different because it is hard to gather data on your clients.

2:11:12And I could see that being a lift.

2:11:13Being able to say who the members of your board are is something any nonprofit organization should be able to do fairly easily though, and be able to say, you know, my board is X percent women, X percent LGBTQ, X percent Black, X percent whatever.

2:11:29And so I think maybe the separation there might be relevant.

2:11:33And we do have that data.

2:11:34Many people did provide it.

2:11:37It's not disaggregated at the same, by the same variables.

2:11:42And can you, the second, I only have 2 questions on this.

2:11:47Can you speak, so in reading, not just, I mean, there's one of the applications we talked about this organization a lot, but I saw it in a couple where it was observed that the application itself, the writing in the application, was perhaps not as— I think words like professional were used, or there were spellcheck issues, things like that.

2:12:09And that seems, because not everybody gave comments on every box in the score sheets, that seems to have negatively affected some of the scoring.

2:12:20How does that square with the idea of having newer organizations be favored in this process?

2:12:27Well, I think that's a great question.

2:12:29Given— and this is the point I brought up earlier, but I didn't give you the chance to answer— how does it square with the idea that new organizations should be favored if new organizations are less familiar with how to write a grant for the city?

2:12:42I understand what you're asking, and I think, I think the Community Council was very concerned about that.

2:12:46And so one of the, you know, we try to— there are, first of all, there are 4 scorers for each application, and we take the median.

2:12:53So we're dropping off people who are the extremes, you know, from that calculation.

2:12:57So that's one way that we helped kind of correct for that.

2:13:00The other issue is score is not everything.

2:13:03So that was kind of to people's point.

2:13:05The committee really looked at score is very important.

2:13:08We want to lean toward high-scoring applications for sure because our application did heavily weight equity and the kinds of questions you're talking about, commissioner— Councilor Connell.

2:13:17But we don't want to only go by score because of those for those reasons that you just stated.

2:13:21And so we did succeed.

2:13:23About half the organizations on that list of 94 are new to PCL, have not been funded in the past.

2:13:29And so that was, you know, they reached down the list and did choose lower-scoring applications for those reasons.

2:13:36And so there are cases where they have done that.

2:13:39I would say they did not reach down to the last application in any category.

2:13:44So if you scored last, Nobody who scored last was pulled up.

2:13:49So then I'll close by saying I think this is a little bit of both to Councilor Zimmerman's question.

2:13:58I would argue a little more the latter application versus the process itself from my perspective.

2:14:06And also that I don't— the part of the process that relates to the community council does not appear to be concerning to me.

2:14:15I— that, that is not the, the part that is more concerning to me.

2:14:18I think it's the development of it prior to that, of the, the questions, um, which does relate a little bit, but it's also how that was taken, the feedback.

2:14:28And then the, uh, the allocation side appears to be where I'm hearing, uh, colleagues talk about it.

2:14:33So that's, that's, uh, and I, I say that not only just to clarify, but also to say thank you to the people on the Community Council because he did do a lot of work and, and over many, um, you know, uh, months and years.

2:14:46So thank you.

2:14:47Um, I'll close there.

2:14:50Councilors, I will again remind us that we have a motion on the table.

2:14:55Councilor Novick?

2:14:58Yeah, I just wanted to quickly say that looking through the process, it starts with volunteers reviewing and And then after the volunteers do the scoring, then there's the PCL Community Council, and then there's the allocation committee.

2:15:20And I really have not heard an explanation of what part of the process people don't like.

2:15:24Do we think we're picking the wrong volunteers?

2:15:27Do we think that there's a problem with the Community Council or the fact that they Do we think it's the problem with the allocation committee?

2:15:35And in light of that, I actually would be prepared to vote to approve the allocation that has been made because I don't really understand the objections to the process.

2:15:46Thank you, Councilor.

2:15:48Councilor Smith.

2:15:49Thank you.

2:15:52I think there's a structural problem because you wholesale changed the process from 2020 to 2021. to 2025.

2:16:02And if folks can't identify percentages of the, of, of the folks who are their clients, then why are we giving them money?

2:16:15Um, people did do that.

2:16:17But you said that you didn't— you stopped digging deeper because they could not desegregate data.

2:16:26Councilor Kanal asked me if we could disaggregate that data, and we did used to ask for it in a format that would allow us to disaggregate the data.

2:16:33We stopped asking for it in that— in order to disaggregate data, you have to have the variables defined the same by every organization, so that you need them to fill out a chart that puts people in the same categories.

2:16:45If people choose to give that information in different categories, you can't disaggregate it.

2:16:50And also, some organizations did not provide percentages.

2:16:55Most did, but some did not.

2:16:57So you can't say that for every single applicant.

2:17:00And sometimes it is the smaller and newer organizations that struggle to give the exact data, or they don't ask their board, or they don't ask their staff.

2:17:09That's right.

2:17:10And again, I said it's a structural problem.

2:17:15Yes.

2:17:16You can't reward people who don't answer the question, and you rewarded folks who couldn't answer the question, who you thought were new, that should be in the queue, and gave them more opportunities to be one of the grantees as opposed to doing what you did in 2020.

2:17:39Now let's go back to 2020.

2:17:41We were in a different time.

2:17:43That was the George Floyd era.

2:17:46And so you all recognize where we were in that moment in time, and you had folks identify if they were Black leading organizations that served over 50% or more of Black clients.

2:18:02You understood that we were in COVID and that BIPOC communities were disproportionately being disadvantaged in that economic timeframe.

2:18:16And so you adjusted your application to that moment.

2:18:21So since the application has been adjusted in a way that it has pushed away existing grantees to favoring— and I'm saying this to you, Councilor Novick, Newer applications, I would say that's a structural issue.

2:18:44That was in response to feedback, Councilor Smith.

2:18:48So I think there is a motion on the table and we should address it because I believe that we should go back in, we should remand fund the folks who are in the system, figure out how we can go back to a place in a time where there's nothing has changed since 2020, only who's in the White House.

2:19:15And it is making it very difficult for the people that we serve who are in the BIPOC community to even get funded.

2:19:21So folks are taking cuts all over the place.

2:19:25And so for me I see several places on how we applied it, what we did with the application, if these organizations had 50% or more BIPOC communities and specifically Black-leaning Black boards.

2:19:44And some we kind of favored because they couldn't— they were small and they probably not able to answer the question.

2:19:52We gave them a response.

2:19:53Thank you.

2:19:53Yes.

2:19:54And why they didn't do it.

2:19:56They didn't put a note there and say, this is why we didn't do it.

2:19:58They just didn't do it.

2:20:01So I can't hold, uh, the entire process accountable because we felt that we needed to get new people into the system.

2:20:15We need to make sure that we have the most effective people in the system.

2:20:20And I don't see that practiced, that we have the most effective people who have a history of doing the work and a history of being a grantee of the Portland Children's Levy.

2:20:34They were kind of awarded and reduced so that you could bring new folks on.

2:20:45But That's the way I see it.

2:20:47If that's not the way others see it, I think we, we really need to discuss a little bit more.

2:20:54But that is the way I am viewing it and how you responded to the questions.

2:20:59So I would like to see us take a vote on this to remand it, extend, uh, the current grantees, and see if we can, um, figure out what's happening in the middle and redo this and come back a year from now.

2:21:17Okay, I know that Councilor Avalos wants to speak as well.

2:21:22Thank you, Councilor.

2:21:23Councilor Avalos.

2:21:25Thanks.

2:21:26Um, I have been listening and trying to understand, um, the direction that we're trying to head in.

2:21:33I think that what my colleagues have raised around, um, concerns about process are things that I share I also am concerned about what I've heard is, I guess, your interpretation of what would happen if we were remanded, that it would take a year or so.

2:21:51I think there's an in-between here.

2:21:53I'm trying to process what I'm hearing from our city attorney as far as what kind of direction we can give to make, you know, whatever it is that you all do more clear and also expedited, because definitely I don't think any of my colleagues want to see I certainly don't.

2:22:13Let me start by just asking you, are you— how are you now that you've heard it from everybody?

2:22:18What is your interpretation?

2:22:19Do you feel you have enough guidance right now to reevaluate this process effectively?

2:22:25I guess I would— I would be helpful for me to understand, do you want us to redo it from the application forward, like ask people to submit new applications?

2:22:34Have them rescored using different review process with different criteria, or do you want us to use the results of the last process, which is the applications that we received that were scored in the way that they were scored, and have the allocation committee go back and look among the applications that are currently in the system and make different decisions, or make the same decisions if they choose?

2:22:58I guess.

2:22:59It's my personal preference that it would be the latter.

2:23:02I think that a lot of the things we're hearing from community and why so many of us came into this feeling concerned is that there seemed to be some discrepancies in the process.

2:23:11There was miscommunication going on between how applicants were talking with staff, whether information was getting relayed effectively.

2:23:17And it, the feeling is that because there was those miscommunications, the outcomes didn't reflect updated information that needed to be taken into account.

2:23:26So I would like to see us, you know, definitely not start from the beginning.

2:23:30I don't think that's what we're asking, but it's not what I'm asking.

2:23:34I think it would be more so, can we look at these claims and see how they fit into the current system that we have?

2:23:40I think that a new system is going to require some time, and I want us to have a thorough discussion about that.

2:23:46But I think in the interim, we can look at what's currently— what are some of these concerns that we're all hearing?

2:23:52And assess that via your process.

2:23:55Maybe there's new information that needs to be taken into account and go from there.

2:24:00That's where I'm landing on it.

2:24:02But I think you're— I can see how this is very confusing for you.

2:24:08And so I'm also trying to figure out a solution for how can we make a decision to at least pause this, not indefinitely, to give you some more clarity.

2:24:17I don't know if that requires some kind of ordinance, if that's a discussion that's offline.

2:24:20I think it's a resolution.

2:24:21And then be able to, within a reasonable timeframe, come back with updated information on, you know, what is, how are you applying this new information?

2:24:28How is that applied to your process?

2:24:30While we then have a broader discussion over the next year on maybe adjusting the process based on some of the other overarching concerns that I hear from my colleagues.

2:24:38So that's what I'm currently taking away.

2:24:40I obviously don't speak for everybody.

2:24:41I'm not sure where we're landing here.

2:24:43I know the motion that we have on the table is for a remand.

2:24:47And so I guess my last question would just be, Yes.

2:24:50Just to clarify from you, City Attorney Taylor, if we do a remand, do we need to put some kind of language in how we want to see that be done within this motion?

2:25:01Or is that something that can happen offline?

2:25:03Or is it something that needs to come in a formal way via some other kind of ordinance or council action?

2:25:08Like, how do we relay the information of what we're asking for in the remand in a formal way?

2:25:17Good question.

2:25:18I think council has options.

2:25:20I think you could remand it with specific instructions.

2:25:24You could remand it pending further instruction from council.

2:25:30You could remand it to start at a specific point, tell them to start from the beginning, or tell them to start after the scoring but do the allocation process again.

2:25:41So you have some options.

2:25:43If you can reach a decision on that today.

2:25:48Okay, then I guess my— do you have a response?

2:25:50Go ahead.

2:25:51I was just gonna say that I do, that we have an allocation committee meeting set for June 18th.

2:25:58If the entire decision-making process is remanded, and depending on your instructions, if you want people to be able to come and speak to the allocation committee about the entire process, And, you know, for in every funding area, every program area, I don't know that we can accomplish that in one meeting.

2:26:14So I did put information in the information that people asked for about what would be the timeframe if the entire set of decisions is remanded.

2:26:23I'm not positive that if you want a process that includes people coming in to give verbal testimony to the allocation committee, that has to be planned.

2:26:37Okay, well then, I— based on everything I'm hearing, I think my recommendation to my colleagues would be that we do remand it because that seems like it's the formal way that we can halt this process in the way— and in order for us to have these larger discussions, I think that we need to have an expedited timeline.

2:26:53So I'm looking to my colleagues to assure that we are going to find a way to have those discussions soon.

2:26:58Thank you, Mayor.

2:27:00And I think we can provide some further instruction in some formal way, it sounds like.

2:27:07So yeah, that's where I'm landing.

2:27:09Thank you.

2:27:14Councilors, again, we are almost an hour over time now, and everyone in the queue has said a lot, and many of your colleagues are holding on to comments.

2:27:27That we have, myself included, to try to move us along.

2:27:31Councilor Smith, do you have more that needs to be added that's new?

2:27:34I, I agree with Councilor Avalos.

2:27:37We need to remand pending instruction.

2:27:45Councilor Knoll, do you have something new?

2:27:49Move to limit debate to the existing stack, the existing Ryan, do you have something new?

2:27:58It's a point of order question, actually.

2:28:00We never voted on if we were going to approve these or not, so we just assumed we weren't, I guess, and we're going to an amendment to re— remand?

2:28:08Is that what's on the table?

2:28:10I'm not used to this process.

2:28:12There was a motion put on the table to vote to remand.

2:28:18Okay, so it's like an amendment.

2:28:22Um, it's like, um, go ahead, Robert.

2:28:24Blowing up the one that's here and adding a new one.

2:28:27It's in the— think of it in the nature of a motion to refer back to committee.

2:28:32So it would be a procedural motion to remand it back to the Portland Children's Levy.

2:28:42Seeing as there's no one in the stack, I will withdraw the motion.

2:28:47Councilors, with nobody else in the queue and a motion before us, Rebecca, can you please call the roll on the motion to remand, which sends this back to address concerns with how the process was applied?

2:29:03Point of order though, before you do that.

2:29:05Based on what I was asking, um, City Attorney, do we need to change the amendment Or the motion to be remanded pending further instruction, is that necessary in order to ensure that we have the capability to follow up?

2:29:18Because if we— as I'm reading it right now, if it's just a remand, then—.

2:29:22I think if there's a remand, Lisa could ask us for more details after the fact if she chose.

2:29:31And I'm happy to do that.

2:29:35I, I think that— I think effectively that would be the same thing as remanding it pending further instruction from council.

2:29:44Rebecca, please call the roll.

2:29:48I'll keep this brief.

2:29:50I'm conflicted.

2:29:51I'm concerned.

2:29:53I appreciate all the work that's been done on this.

2:29:55I want to keep talking about this.

2:29:56I will vote yes on the motion to remand.

2:30:00Yeah, I think what I got out of this conversation— I'm disappointed it didn't come up earlier.

2:30:06We've had a couple other other opportunities, but it did happen today and I think we got to some of the heart of the matter.

2:30:12So the weight of the new organizations that was recommended by PSU and what was discussed with the Community Council and the Allocation Committee, that weight is now going against the not having weighted legacy organizations that we're hearing about today.

2:30:29So that's where the rub is, I think.

2:30:32And that'll be fascinating to figure out how to manage that.

2:30:36I thought that this entire process has been so much improved from the past, but that was the one issue that seems to put this out of proportion.

2:30:47And so I stand with, I was gonna vote yes, of course, on what was brought forward.

2:30:53So on the remand, I will vote no.

2:30:56Koyama Lane?

2:30:57Yes.

2:30:58Murillo?

2:30:59Aye.

2:31:00Novick?

2:31:01No.

2:31:05Clark.

2:31:05I just want to say I think this is really micromanagement.

2:31:08I said that earlier.

2:31:09I think it's very much like the former form of government, um, and I'm voting no.

2:31:17Yes.

2:31:18Zimmerman.

2:31:22I am clarifying that there was no adjustment to this, so by this voting and passing, it will stop funding on June 30th.

2:31:32So I, um, I think I made myself clear in, in my willingness to entertain an idea that didn't, but because of that, uh, the current amendment stands.

2:31:44I'll vote no.

2:31:46Avalos.

2:31:51I'll just go back real quick to a comment that Councilor Kanal made earlier that is a larger concern, which because this is not a rubber stamp body.

2:31:59You know, we, we have a duty to ask questions.

2:32:02We have a duty to respond to constituents who are concerned about process.

2:32:07And I think that's what we're doing here.

2:32:08I get that it's complicated.

2:32:09I know that we're trying to respect the process that a bunch of people were a part of.

2:32:17And I think it's our responsibility to be responsive to constituents that have concerns.

2:32:21And I think that's why I'm voting aye.

2:32:23Councilor Aye.

2:32:27Aye.

2:32:31I would like to remand and to make sure that existing, uh, contracts go forward as well.

2:32:40Can we do that?

2:32:44Um, right now we're in the middle of the roll call vote, so you can't—.

2:32:48You can't amend it in the middle of the roll call Aye.

2:32:59Uh, Pirtle-Guiney.

2:33:04Out of fear for— out of fear for ensuring that we have funding for these important services moving forward, and also with respect to the many organizations in my district, in District 1, who asked us to support these.

2:33:19I vote no.

2:33:22With 7 ayes, the ordinances were amended.

2:33:28Council President?

2:33:30Yes.

2:33:31I'd like to make a motion from the floor.

2:33:36Okay.

2:33:36That we adopt an ordinance to extend the current levels of funding in the Portland Children's Levy, with authority granted up to the 25% mark to the director for reductions given the reduction in revenue for the upcoming 12 months, not to exceed 1 year.

2:34:01Mr. Taylor, I assume that that's a motion that could be in order right now.

2:34:05That is a motion to add a new item to the agenda from the floor.

2:34:13Uh, it, it would be in order to suspend the rules, uh, with 9 votes to add an item to the agenda that's not previously posted.

2:34:26Um, if in that instance it would be helpful if that item was— if we had it in writing so we knew what it was.

2:34:34Well, Mr. Attorney, I encourage you to start typing.

2:34:36'Cause I just had to come up with it on the fly here.

2:34:39I think that the motion that has been made from the floor is to suspend the rules to add an item to the agenda to be heard immediately at this point on the agenda.

2:34:51I'm paraphrasing, so if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly, cut me off here.

2:34:55Sure.

2:34:56Which would state that the children's levy is directed to, for the next year, fund the current, uh, the organizations who are currently funded at a level of up to 25% below their current funding level in order to give them time to work on the remand.

2:35:18Is that accurate?

2:35:18Yes, Madam President, thank you.

2:35:20My intent here is to make sure that there is no significant change on July 1st and to acknowledge the fact that the revenues that are coming in from the levy are diminished to their— from their current levels, and to put some trust and authority in the director's level to apply those as best they see fit, but to ensure that the last action that just took place does not have a cascading effect on a number of, of community providers.

2:35:52Thank you.

2:35:53And Mr. Attorney, I recognize that this is in the moment.

2:35:58And I still think it needs to happen to avoid an action that I think we're unclear about.

2:36:08So where your team or my team or anybody's team from this council can help put verbiage around that, happy to help.

2:36:17But I think the intent is enough to be able to vote on.

2:36:22I appreciate that.

2:36:24It is helpful to, To staff, including attorneys, to have a little bit of time to do that.

2:36:30If I might suggest that— I believe there's a council meeting tomorrow.

2:36:34It would be in order tomorrow to vote to suspend the rules with 9 votes to add that to the agenda and have that heard in that order.

2:36:47No, no, no, no.

2:36:48Mr.

2:36:48Taylor, may I ask a question?

2:36:50No.

2:36:51We have a motion made and seconded.

2:36:53Could we, could we offer a friendly amendment to the motion that it be added to the end of the agenda tomorrow and a vote taken to do that, which would give you time to see this in writing before we voted?

2:37:11But I have a point of order because I guess I'm not understanding why it has to be a separate agenda item at all.

2:37:16I think that it's within this item and it It's, you know, we did a remand, but this—.

2:37:21Councilor—.

2:37:22Is that not like— why does it have to be a separate item?

2:37:24I don't have an item to vote on to do this.

2:37:27There is nothing on the agenda.

2:37:29An agenda item isn't just a broad discussion about a topic generally.

2:37:34An agenda item is a concrete thing that we vote on, and we don't have an agenda item right now to do what Councilor Zimmerman has suggested.

2:37:42So we would need to add an item to the agenda to do I'm reading the room that folks would like to consider adding an agenda item to do that immediately.

2:37:52And I think we have 2 options, to add it to the agenda to discuss and vote on right now, or to add it to the agenda to discuss and vote on later in the agenda.

2:38:08Point of order.

2:38:10We have a motion on the floor.

2:38:12Yeah.

2:38:12We are prepared to do this vote, um, to, um, to, you know, relaxing the rules to do this.

2:38:25We can do it, and we don't have to wait to do it.

2:38:29Let's, let's, let's do the vote and quit always extending stuff when we know what the vote is.

2:38:35And I think we can vote on it right now.

2:38:40Councilor Zimmerman, we have probably an hour's worth of other things on the agenda.

2:38:45Would you be willing to place this at the end of today's agenda and spend 10 minutes while we debate the next item working with our legal counsel to get this in writing for everybody?

2:38:55Thanks.

2:38:55I, um, I am reading the body language and I am unsure of why It seems like there may be some opposition to this.

2:39:08It seems like the intent is quite clear, but I'd be willing to take this up as the last agenda item of this meeting.

2:39:15But I think that an ordinance— I would just say, I think direction of a thing that currently exists to continue does not require many pages of an ordinance written.

2:39:28I think single-sentence ordinances would be a joy if we got more to those.

2:39:30I think that's a good point.

2:39:31Because an ordinance is about an action and an intent.