9:16 Good morning. 9:17 I am going to call to order today's Portland City Council meeting. 9:20 It is Wednesday, October 29th at 9:34 AM. 9:25 Keelan, could you please call the roll?
9:28 Yes, sorry, sorry, just a moment.
9:49 Smith. 9:50 Kanal. 9:51 Ryan.
9:52 Koyama Lane. 9:54 Murillo.
9:57 Sorry. 9:58 Councilor Koyama Lane is online.
10:00 Okay, thank you. 10:01 Thank you, Councilor. 10:02 Novick.
10:07 And could we please get the rules of order into quorum?
10:14 Welcome to the Portland City Council. 10:16 To testify before council in person or virtually, you may— must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda. 10:26 Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. 10:30 Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. 10:34 Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. 10:37 The presiding officer preserves order. 10:39 Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. 10:49 If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. 10:52 Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. 10:55 Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. 10:59 Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. 11:04 Your testimony should address the matters being considered. 11:07 When testifying, state your name for the record. 11:09 Your address is not necessary. 11:11 If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
11:15 Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls for your name. 11:19 Thank you.
11:21 Thank you very much. 11:23 Colleagues, the first item on our agenda is approval of the agenda. 11:28 Um, usually this moves very quickly, but I'm going to mix us up a little bit today. 11:32 I will I want to start by flagging that one item has been removed from the consent agenda. 11:37 That's item number 5. 11:39 Item number 4 remains on the consent agenda. 11:42 I am going to put forward a motion to suspend the rules and add a resolution, which I am passing out right now, which I know many of you saw yesterday, authorizing council to continue operating under the current City Code Chapter 3.02. 12:01 We passed an ordinance at the beginning of the year making some changes to 3.02 and stating that the council president would bring back any further changes or an affirmation that we would continue operating under 3.02 by the end of October. 12:17 Given the extensive work that the Governance Committee has done and a proposal that I have in the works right now that you all will see soon, I thought we had met that requirement. 12:28 I recently learned that that requirement was far more technical and specific than I had remembered, and we actually need to affirmatively vote at this meeting by the end of the year to— or by the end of the month, I apologize— to continue to do our work under 3.02 as it currently stands. 12:47 What you have before you is a resolution which would state that we would do so.
12:53 I would entertain a second.
12:59 I think Councilor Dunphy was first out of the gate there. 13:03 The attorneys have shared that this is not a debatable motion. 13:09 So we move directly to a vote. 13:11 This vote, because it is a rules suspension, requires 9 votes to pass.
13:24 What this is changing, can you yes, this is not changing anything. 13:47 This is stating that we are fulfilling the requirement that we passed earlier this year by affirmatively stating that we will continue operating under 3.2 as it's currently written. 13:58 I believe that this also refers to the fact that I do have changes that will be coming to the Governance Committee to debate about 3.02 in the works, which we may or may not see at this council depending on the actions taken by the Governance Committee.
14:18 I don't understand it, but, um, aye.
14:23 Hey, I look forward to these conversations in governance. 14:26 Aye.
14:27 Councilor Janae Malane.
14:32 Although I kind of like the idea of an enforced vacation because it's illegal for us to operate. 14:36 Aye.
14:36 Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
14:39 The motion carries with 10 aye votes.
14:43 Thank you, colleagues. 14:44 Are there any other additions or changes? 14:49 Oh, and I should note, we will place that at the end of today's agenda, and that will be open for public comment. 14:56 So if the public would like to make comments, please talk to Keelan to sign up. 15:01 Are there any other motions to reorder the agenda or add items to the agenda? 15:10 Okay, seeing none, do we have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? 15:18 Okay, thank you, colleagues. 15:20 The next item on our agenda is public communication. 15:23 Keelan, can you please call up our first guest?
15:25 First up, we have Blake Schell.
15:50 I'm Blake Schell, director of Oregon Contemporary, here on behalf of the Coalition Portland Arts and Culture for Equity. 15:57 Portland's arts funding challenges are rooted in scarcity. 16:01 According to SMU DataArts, we rank 17th in the nation for artistic vibrancy, but 172nd for government support. 16:10 Our arts thrive despite, not because of, government funding. 16:15 In New York, SMU reports that 48% of artists make a living on gigs or freelance work, and only 8 are full-time workers. 16:24 In our smaller arts economy, that gap is likely even wider. 16:28 The Big 5 are important employers, but they are not the primary source of income for artists here.
16:35 Most artists earn through gigs, teaching, and creative side work that keeps this ecosystem alive. 16:41 Last year, the Office of Arts and Culture removed equity metrics from the art tax grants and distributed funds solely based on budget size. 16:49 As a result, 45 of 80 groups lost funding while only the big 5 saw increases. 16:55 Smaller orgs regularly employ Portland artists and afford— offer affordable, often free arts access across our neighborhoods. 17:04 Prioritizing large institutions with endowments, greater funding, and fewer local artists is funneling money to money and power to power. 17:13 The art tax supports K-12 arts education and making arts and culture available to underserved communities. 17:21 In 2024, that mandate was changed without warning or oversight. 17:27 We met with the office and multiple committees. 17:29 No correction— corrective action was taken. 17:32 We are now entering a second year of harm to our community. 17:36 Portland voters expected the art tax to expand access, not diminish it. 17:41 We asked the city to restore funding for the 45 and to realign arts funding with its original intent. 17:48 Prioritize groups that provide low or no-cost access, employ local artists, and do deep community work with underserved Portlanders, all without other significant funding. 18:00 Our vision is clear: support smaller orgs offering greater access citywide and the artists who make Portland what it is. 18:07 We need explicit equity and access measures provided, protected from politics. 18:13 And as costs rise while the art tax stays flat, we need change to provide more funding overall. 18:20 There are over 500 arts nonprofits here, and most don't receive city funding. 18:26 The arts give us agency, community, and the power to imagine change, and that's why they're under federal attack. 18:34 And why we must protect them locally. 18:36 We're asking for a bold vision in support of the arts. 18:39 Help us to keep Portland as vibrant as the artists who live here. 18:43 Thank you.
18:45 Thank you very much for being here, and we see supporters, uh, behind you as well.
18:55 Next up, we have Harper Hoverkamp.
19:00 Welcome. 19:00 Thank you for being here today.
19:09 Uh, good morning. 19:10 For the record, my name is Harper Haverkamp. 19:12 I'm speaking today as an individual. 19:15 This summer, I heard that some councilors were brainstorming ordinances to support the LGBTQ community. 19:21 In my opinion, the decriminalization of sex work should be at the forefront of any such policy discussion. 19:28 Let's reflect on the legacy of Black trans elder Miss Major, who passed earlier this month. 19:35 Miss Major was not only at Stonewall, but she spent decades as a sex worker while also supporting the trans community materially and spiritually. 19:46 The basis of her politics and activism was how she made ends meet and how police and institutions impeded her survival. 19:56 This isn't history of a different era. 19:58 Today, trans people, women like me, still perform this work and are suffering harm and abuse regularly under the yoke of criminalization, which make us less safe, more marginalized, and legally disenfranchised. 20:13 Yet the many forms of sex work in Portland, which has more strip clubs per capita than anywhere else in the country, are valuable, vital, and remain highly in demand as a form of work. 20:26 If council wishes to support the trans community through policy or the broader LGBTQ community, there are three things you can do: one, direct the city to lobby the Oregon Legislature and Governor to revive and pass the 2023 decriminalization public health studies that were within Senate Bill 5506 from 2023; two, pass our own city's specific bill to fund studies around public health and a path forward which incorporate global best practices to repeal or amend Portland city ordinances that do exist and pertain to prostitution. 20:59 3, Direct PPB to stop enforcing, harassing, and arresting sex workers, especially along 82nd. 21:07 The Oregon Safer Workers Coalition has a comprehensive legal report on best practices regarding criminal decriminalization in Oregon, which I will email to you all. 21:17 And I hope that at least one of you have the courage, conviction, and moral clarity to engage with this. 21:23 As a former sex worker myself, I ask that you listen, learn, and act, and bring trans and queer sex workers to the table. 21:30 Stonewall was 56 years ago. 21:33 Don't let the buzz over restrooms and pronouns distract you from this real enduring demand from over 50 years ago that's still alive today.
21:42 Thank you so much. 21:43 Thank you for being here.
21:47 Next up, we have Eve Ashkar. 22:02 Eve Ashkar. 22:09 Uh, Donna Cohen.
22:14 Would you put up the first slide, please?
22:18 Um, welcome. 22:18 Thank you for being here. 22:19 And, um, colleagues, I'll draw your attention to the fact that we do have written testimony posted as well. 22:25 Yes, thank you.
22:26 Um, councilors, my name is Donna Cohen. 22:28 I live in St. Johns. 22:30 Uh, this, uh, picture shows you what separates the North Peninsula from the rest of Portland. 22:36 Um, next slide, please. 22:38 And this shows you the location of these bridges and the tunnel. 22:43 60,000 people who live and work on the North Peninsula are at risk when the earthquake hits. 22:49 People from every district in Portland will be trapped to die a quick death if a toxic cloud from the CEI hub comes from across the river, or perhaps a slow one as water food and medical help is unavailable due to this area having no lifeline to the rest of Portland after the railroad bridges and the tunnel collapse. 23:11 Portsmouth and University Park, along with UP students, will be included if liquefaction along Columbia Boulevard occurs. 23:17 That's the orange area. 23:20 These people are constituents of all of you. 23:23 This is fixable. 23:24 We tried getting money towards a new bridge at Columbia Boulevard last legislative session, and 130 community members testified.
23:31 We held a rally and had coverage on 2 TV stations, but the bill failed. 23:36 Can you imagine what it's like for the community to hear our mayor twice testify to the state for money for potholes and other transportation concerns while never mentioning the need for an emergency route to save the lives of tens of thousands of people? 23:53 Other efforts, neighborhood leaders meeting with council staff, making requests for council to advocate to PBIM, making requests to staff of councilors on the public safety and Transportation committees to get agenda items on this issue have failed. 24:08 City councilors have not spent one minute of council business focused on the lives of the tens of thousands that are in danger, yet council has had time to discuss hot dog stands and trees. 24:20 It is way past time for council to be talking about this threat. 24:24 We ask, one, for a task force. 24:26 Several community members have come together along with a PBOT staff member and agree that a task force needs to be set up by council, one with neighbors, reps from the port, University of Portland, experts from PBOT and PBEM, and councilors to have an ongoing discussion on options for making the North Peninsula seismically resilient with an emergency route. 24:47 2, Policy committees agenda items. 24:49 We ask that this issue be placed on the agendas of all relevant policy committees so that representatives from PBOT, PBEM, and community leaders can discuss this issue. 24:59 Council shouldn't wait any longer to treat this very serious issue with the consideration it deserves. 25:06 Thank you.
25:08 Thank you very much for being here today.
25:18 Next up, we have Brian Owendoff.
25:25 Morning, councilors. 25:25 Brian Ohendoff, District 4. 25:27 Today marks the 301st day since this Portland City Council has been in office. 25:33 In that time frame, we've seen passionate speeches, symbolic resolutions, and even an international junket to Vienna. 25:41 What we haven't seen is meaningful progress on the 3 most urgent issues facing Portland: safety, mental health, and substance use disorder. 25:50 And economic development. 25:51 The City Council, particularly the DSA members, have shown a troubling pattern of focusing on national and international issues that fall far outside the scope of city governance. 26:02 It's time to get back to the basics. 26:05 Let's be clear, Portland City Council is not Congress, it's not the State Department, and it's not the United Nations. 26:11 It has no authority over the Israeli conflict. 26:14 It has no authority over federal immigration policy. 26:17 And has no authority over the Pentagon. 26:19 The council's time and energy are finite. 26:21 Portland residents deserve leaders who focus on pressing challenges in their own backyard. 26:28 The 3 biggest issues confronting Portland today sit right at the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: safety, stability, and economic opportunity. 26:36 A recent report based on FBI data listed Portland as the 2nd worst city for total crime in America, with a total crime exceeding 195% higher than the national average. 26:46 So many Portland residents and business owners don't bother reporting crimes unless they need a police report for insurance, and our courts are focused on restorative justice. 26:56 Our crime rate is much higher than reported. 26:59 Portland is also in the middle of a humanitarian crisis. 27:02 Overdoses are at record highs. 27:03 Mental health is untreated. 27:05 Homeless encampments continue to strain public spaces and services and cause damage to our environment. 27:10 Oregon is now ranked 4th highest per capita for homelessness in America. 27:13 Worst for mental health and second in addiction. 27:16 You combine these 3 and that is what we have, a perfect deadly storm. 27:21 Portland has lost over 10,000 jobs. 27:24 City Council needs to focus on ways to retain existing companies. 27:28 On October 17th, 6 Portland City Council members pledged to investigate the city's connections to Israeli military. 27:34 The investigation singles out only one group of Portlanders, those that are Jewish or have ties to Israel. 27:41 The investigation will focus on several things that have no purview whatsoever to City Council. 27:46 City Councilor Morillo reposted DSA's message on her personal social media and added, also just wanted to add that members of the Jewish Federation were allowed on the call and their org is very pro-Israel. 28:00 It's not too late, but time is running out. 28:03 The next 4 months will determine whether Portland is on a path for recovery in 4 years or stagnation for 40. 28:10 We don't need symbolic gestures or ideological distractions. 28:14 We need competent governance focused on the needs of the city residents and the core responsibilities: public safety, infrastructure, economic growth, and public health. 28:22 We don't need ideological purity tests. 28:24 We need competence. 28:25 We need leaders groomed in real-world experience who understand to manage the complex city, not activists chasing utopian fantasies. 28:34 At taxpayer expense.
28:36 Thank you for being here.
28:39 Completes communications.
28:41 Thank you, Keelan. 28:43 Colleagues, the next item on the agenda is the committee referral list. 28:47 Uh, we don't actually have anything on the committee referral list this week. 28:50 We had a whole lot the last few weeks. 28:52 That brings us to the consent agenda, which has one item on it, agenda item number 4. 28:58 Keelan, could you please call roll on the consent agenda?
29:13 Sorry, just looking. 29:15 Okay, um, these are for the appointments to the— okay, I know that we're not having debate. 29:21 I just want to say this, um, I found, uh, most of the appointments to be just fine. 29:27 I am concerned that we don't have enough people with knowledge about housing development and economic development. 29:34 So I'm hoping those that lack that experience lean into those on their committees that have that experience. 29:42 That's what I need to say, 'cause we are in an economic development challenge crisis right now. 29:45 Thanks.
29:48 Koyama Lane. 30:04 Morillo.
30:09 Uh, I am seeing Councilor Kanal online.
30:11 Yeah, I'm seeing Councilor Kanal has joined the meeting. 30:14 I was going to flag that after you finished the roll call.
30:22 The consent agenda is approved with 9 yes votes.
30:26 Thank you, Keelan. 30:27 And Councilor Kanal, welcome. 30:32 Are you with us for the rest of the meeting?
30:34 I'm actually only here for the consent agenda, and I wanted to express my support in public for a consent agenda voting yes on something that includes appointments because of the work session. 30:45 So that's why I joined. 30:47 Thank you so much.
30:48 Thanks, Councilor. 30:57 Okay, Keelan, that moves us to our regular agenda. 31:00 Can you please read item 6 for us?
31:03 Authorize City Attorney to settle lawsuit related to construction of the streetcar approach ramp located near Southeast thank you and welcome.
31:19 We have Beth from our City Attorney's Office, Beth Woodard, and Millicent from PBOT here. 31:25 Beth, would you like to go right ahead?
31:27 Yes, good morning, Council. 31:29 For the record, I'm Senior Deputy City Attorney Beth Woodard. 31:33 Today's proposed settlement resolves claims brought by the city against Trimet and Stacy and Witbeck, Inc., related to phased construction of a portion of the streetcar system, specifically the streetcar on-grade approach ramp located at Southeast 2nd Avenue. 31:49 The approach structure is an on-grade ramp that connects the OMSI streetcar platform to the viaduct which spans the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. 31:59 The 2nd phase of construction was completed in 2015.
32:04 The necessary transit alignments in this area required locating the approach ramp on a geotechnically challenged site. 32:11 At the completion of construction, the city noticed atypical settlement at the location. 32:17 The city self-monitored the location from 2015 to 2018 and completed accelerated maintenance and repairs to maintain service. 32:28 The city hired a geotechnical consultant to more, more fully monitor the approach structure from 2018 to 2023.
32:36 The consultant's findings issued in 2021 indicated the structure required significant near-term repair. 32:44 The city then hired an engineering consultant to provide mitigation analysis and provide preliminary estimates for repairs necessary to bring the structure into compliance with its anticipated design life of 75 years. 32:59 In March 2022, the city filed a lawsuit against TriMet and Stacy and Whitback for work related to the second phase of design and construction of the structure. 33:10 To resolve these claims, the parties have agreed to a proposed settlement agreement including the following terms: a $7.5 million lump sum payment to the city earmarked for repairs to this structure. 33:23 TriMet will additionally provide in-kind services to the city in the form of securing alternate funding sources for the repairs.
33:32 TriMet will also provide technical assistance for the repairs and will provide bus bridging and other service interruption assistance at no cost, provided that the repairs are performed concurrent with TriMet's planned improvements in the area. 33:48 The city, the bureau, and the city administrator— the city attorney's office, the bureau, and the city administrator recommend approval of the settlement. 33:58 And this concludes my prepared remarks, but we are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
34:04 Thank you very much. 34:05 And Keelan, just so we know how to do questions, do we have anybody who's signed up for public testimony?
34:13 Okay, so colleagues, if you have any technical questions, other questions, or comments, we can take that all together now. 34:22 Councilor Ryan.
34:24 Thank you. 34:25 Thank you, Council President, and thank you. 34:27 It's good to see you, Director Williams, and I appreciate the presentation by our city debt manager. 34:32 Are you the debt manager?
34:34 I'm just in the City Attorney's Office.
34:37 Oh, okay. 34:38 I think I got information from the city's debt manager on this. 34:41 Okay, great. 34:41 Yeah. 34:42 Anyway, I know we're talking about debt financing and legal stuff at the moment, but I want to just acknowledge this milestone because we talk a lot about and when I was— yeah.
34:55 We are on the settlement issue.
34:57 Oh, I'm on the wrong issue.
34:59 We'll have Director Williams here for both of those.
35:02 Okay, pretend it never happened. 35:04 I just want to crawl in a hole right now. 35:06 And sorry, I got off on a few points this morning because the numbers changed. 35:12 So I apologize. 35:14 Sorry, now I know why you're not the debt manager and I'm on the wrong topic.
35:18 I'm sorry, Councilor.
35:20 It's all right. 35:21 Thanks for saving me.
35:22 Call me earlier next time.
35:26 It took me a minute.
35:27 If I was you, I would've been like, stop.
35:29 I'll just say while we wait to see if others have comments that I appreciate your work and the Attorney's Office— Attorney Office's work on this broadly. 35:39 I know that these issues where we have many local governments working on overlapping projects are always difficult ones. 35:48 It sounds like we'll probably need to do future work at this site, and knowing that we have a large portion of that covered already is very helpful. 35:56 So thank you. 35:59 Councilor Smith.
36:02 Thank you, Madam President. 36:03 Director Williams, um, this is the, the $7.5 million?
36:09 And where will those funds lie in the, um, in our system because I have a concern that I want to make sure that we separate this money from the general tax, gas tax money, and that this, this project is actually going to happen 3 years from now. 36:25 So I want to make sure that we still have it and it's— and it is appropriately, um, set aside.
36:31 Thank you, uh, so much, Councilors. 36:33 Millicent Williams, Director of the Portland Bureau of Transportation. 36:35 Thank you for the question. 36:37 Um, I can assure you that the money will be appropriately earmarked and set aside specifically for this project. 36:42 The guidance that we received when we were working through the settlement agreement was that these funds could be used for nothing other than the structure. 36:51 So with that in mind, I can assure you that that's going to be the case based on the legal expectation, but also the bureau does have a history of segregating out funds and dedicating those funds to specific projects based on the funding source and the requirements within those funding sources.
37:08 Guidelines. 37:09 So you should not worry about whether or not this funding will go directly to this project. 37:14 I can assure you that that will be the case.
37:16 Excellent. 37:17 Thank you.
37:17 Thank you. 37:19 Colleagues, any other comments or questions? 37:24 Okay. 37:24 Keelan, could you please call the roll?
37:36 And another thing— no, aye.
37:42 I believe she had to drop off the call— off the meeting for a few minutes.
37:49 Great to approve a settlement. 37:50 We're getting money.
37:56 Thank you both for being—.
37:57 Oh, sorry, the ordinance is passed with 9 yes votes.
38:00 Thank you both for being here today. 38:01 Thank you. 38:03 Keelan, could you please call agenda item 7 for us?
38:10 Authorize revenue bonds in an amount sufficient to provide not more than $41 million to finance city fleet maintenance, facility improvements, and related costs.
38:22 Thank you. 38:22 And colleagues, I believe we have a committee staff summary from Christopher Herr. 38:27 I think this came through the Finance Committee. 38:30 Apologies. 38:34 Welcome.
38:35 Good morning, Madam President, councilors. 38:39 So for the record, Christopher Hare, Council Policy Analyst, and I serve as staff to the Finance Committee. 38:45 The ordinance before you, document number 2025-404, was considered in the Finance Committee on October 20th, where it was referred to council with a recommendation to pass. 38:54 This ordinance authorizes the city to issue revenue bonds pursuant to ORS 287A.150 and related statutes in an amount up to $41 million to finance improvements to the city's fleet maintenance facility. 39:08 The improvements include construction and upgrades to a maintenance garage, office, and parts area, installation of electric vehicle charging stations, and other related project costs. 39:19 The total principal amount of bonds to be sold is estimated not to exceed $43.9 million, Accounting for, at a conservative estimate, $1.9 to $2.9 million for financing and issuance costs. 39:31 The ordinance further authorizes the issuance of refunding bonds under ORS 287A.360 to 287A.375 if any of the authorized bonds are used for interim financing. 39:45 These refunding bonds may be issued in amounts sufficient to repay interim financing and cover the costs all bonds authorized under this ordinance will be secured by the city's full faith credit and available general funds, and bond proceeds may only be used to pay project costs and expenses related to issuing, paying, or refunding the bonds. 40:04 The ordinance does not authorize any new taxes, and no bond may be sold or purchase agreements executed until the ordinance takes effect 30 days after passage. 40:13 The ordinance additionally designates the city administrator, chief financial officer, city treasurer, debt manager, or a designee of the City Administrator to act as an authorized officer to carry out the necessary actions to issue and manage the bonds. 40:26 Authorized officers may issue bonds in one or more series at different times or in combination with other council-authorized revenue bonds, use bond proceeds for interim or long-term financing, including establishing lines of credit or refunding prior bonds, prepare, authorize, and distribute official statements and disclosure documents, set final terms for each bond series, including principal amounts, maturity schedules, interest rates, prices and payment terms and manage the sale or negotiation process. 40:53 Ensure continuing disclosure compliance with SEC Rules 15 through . 40:58 Finalize and execute bond declarations and related legal documents, including covenants benefiting beholders or credit providers. 41:05 Appoint and enter into agreements with service providers as needed. 41:09 Issue bonds as tax-exempt, taxable, or federally subsidized tax credit bonds and take all actions necessary to maintain eligibility. 41:16 Obtain bond insurance or credit enhancements as appropriate, execute any documents, and take other actions deemed advantageous to the city in connection with the bonds. 41:26 The full impact statement of this item includes a financial and budget impacts and analysis and 100% renewable goal impacts. 41:32 There was no verbal or written testimony on this ordinance prior to committee action. 41:36 This concludes the committee staff summary.
41:39 Thank you, Christopher. 41:40 Councilor Zimmerman, do you have anything to add? 41:43 You were presiding over this meeting.
41:44 Thanks. 41:45 It's a good recap by the council ops staff. 41:48 Thank you for that. 41:50 I think that councilors should dig into this. 41:52 The questions will be welcomed. 41:53 It's kind of an unusual setup, and I think that we should have that discussion and we should be asking questions about owner's rep, about ownership of the property, et cetera. 42:02 So with that, I would say let's open it up, Madam President.
42:07 I see a number of folks in the queue. 42:08 Keelan, do we have public testimony?
42:11 No one signed up for this.
42:13 Okay, Councilor Clark, go right ahead.
42:16 Uh, thank you, Madam President. 42:17 I don't have any questions. 42:19 I think it's a very thorough report. 42:20 I think you did a great job in the Finance Committee. 42:23 What I wanted to say is, you know, a lot of us had heard about the Kirby Garage for years, and finally, um, some of us were given tours of the garage and finally figured out just what a disaster this has been for years. 42:36 And I wanted to thank uh, Maddie Sauter for the tours and all of her staff. 42:42 But also, I really want to applaud, um, all of the city employees who have worked there for years under duress and, and made it function. 42:54 Um, it's amazing. 42:55 It's cramped, it's wet, uh, it's got a leaking roof, it's dangerous. 42:59 And I just applaud, um, all the people who work there and, and made it function. 43:05 And now we're moving to a safer workplace, the Cutter facility, eventually. 43:11 And I think that the arrangements, the long-term lease and potential purchases, is a good deal. 43:17 I do have one question though about the retirement of the bonds. 43:22 And I don't know if this is a— who can answer this question, but—.
43:26 We happen to have our city debt manager here today.
43:28 Okay. 43:28 Oh, super. 43:29 Hello, city debt manager. 43:31 I think we had— that was foreshadowed by one Councilor Ryan. 43:37 Yes, it was foretold. 43:40 The way that we're retiring these is an assessment across all of the bureaus. 43:45 Is that correct?
43:46 Yes, that's correct.
43:47 And can you talk a little bit about that? 43:49 I'm concerned about these, the way we do this and the assessments and what alternatives there might be in the future for this kind of financing and whether or not this is way of doing it across other governments. 44:03 I think I remember state government doing this kind of thing for certain functions, but can you expand a little bit on that for us?
44:11 Could you introduce yourself for the record?
44:14 Matt Giurach, debt manager, for the record.
44:18 So the debt service is essentially embedded within interagency charges that are passed through to all of the users of the facility.
44:27 So annually, they'll pay a charge to, you know, run the operations and also pay debt service.
44:35 And so it's embedded essentially in that interagency charge conventionally.
44:41 Can you give us a sense of the size of that assessment?
44:46 Yeah, I believe the debt service estimate It was around $3.3 million for 20 years.
44:58 And so that's spread across the bureaus that use the Future Cutter?
45:04 And it's proportionate to their use? 45:06 Is that how it works?
45:11 Yes, my name is Aaron Beck. 45:12 I'm with Business Operations, and I can elaborate a little bit more on the rate rates that we're charging the bureaus that will include the Cutter debt service, lease, and operations and maintenance. 45:23 Basically, that will be flowing through what we refer to as the fixed vehicle rates. 45:28 So every vehicle that the bureaus own will include a component in it for the Cutter Garage. 45:37 So basically, anybody— any bureau with a vehicle will be paying for the Cutter Garage.
45:42 Leveraged on their use, their number of vehicles?
45:46 And is this, I don't know who can answer this question, but is this sort of a normal way of retiring the debt in other local governments?
45:57 Thank you. 45:57 Thank you.
46:00 Thank you, Councilor. 46:01 Thank you both. 46:01 I suspect we may have other questions, so don't go far, please. 46:05 Councilor Ryan.
46:07 Yeah, thank you, Madam President. 46:08 Well, as I was saying, it's, thank you for the report, Christopher. 46:12 And I really appreciate the work that went into this from the debt manager. 46:17 And I think we are talking about debt financing, and I actually did my homework there, and I think that you're doing everything right there. 46:24 But I just wanted to add on to what Councilor Clark was saying, what a big deal this is. 46:29 We did that tour in 2021, and it was really depressing. 46:33 We did a tour of all the infrastructure, but that one in particular really stood out because the urgency.
46:39 And that was, again, it's a century-old building, too small, was never meant to be the city's fleet maintenance function. 46:47 And for years flags were raised about this and there were no viable solutions on the table. 46:52 It was not worth the investment to renovate or replace it, basically because where it's located as well. 46:58 And it was cost prohibitive to purchase another location to build. 47:01 So this has been lingering for some time. 47:03 The solution is a leased space. 47:05 Partnering with the property owner that will allow for the build-out and modern city fleet facility. 47:10 The bond financing allows for that work to be done. 47:14 I want to give credit where it's due. 47:16 Maddie Sauter, you have been on this, and every conversation I seem to have with you the last 5 years would often circle to this. 47:26 So take a bow. 47:28 I assume this will pass. 47:30 So thank you for being a champion and being persistent.
47:34 You moved a once-in-a-generation shift for most of our city bureau operations. 47:38 In local government, we often put a lot of energy into important improvements efforts without seeing the results of those efforts. 47:46 That was the case with the Kirby Garage. 47:47 It can take decades of incremental progress on large projects, particularly those that don't have dedicated funding sources. 47:54 So because of these accomplishments and the professionalism of our public servants, I'm really delighted that we're moving forward on this, and we just have to make sure we keep our fiscal house in order so that our bond rating remains high, which will save us a lot of money throughout the duration of this project. 48:09 Thanks.
48:12 Thank you, Councilor. 48:13 Councilor Green.
48:16 Yeah, thank you. 48:16 I just— this was a really rich discussion in the Finance Committee, and a couple of things that we flagged and I just wanted to raise for the full body was the quality, I think I appreciated the quality of the clarity and transparency in the presentation on the estimated cost allocations and debt service. 48:33 So if you're following along at home, it's slide 7 in the presentation attached to this item. 48:39 But, you know, they give you the repayment schedule over the lifetime of the bond, which is the $3.4 million annual— on an annual basis, but it also shows you which bureaus pay it. 48:50 And that it's roughly 34% of general fund bureaus will shoulder the cost of the internal service charge. 48:59 You know, I think in the absence of other types of revenue streams that pay back these sorts of costs, I struggle to think of a different compensation model and cost allocation model that makes sense. 49:12 But I do appreciate my colleague here asking the question. 49:16 I think for me, this is a slam dunk because we currently are dealing with a situation where we face essentially a growing liability of operations and maintenance cost because we have a capacity or an asset that has very limited capacity value. 49:36 And so you have the situation, I think, Mattie, you had talked about how there's, given the constraints on the current Cutter Garage, that there are folks— or I'm sorry, the Kirby Garage— that there are folks in bureaus who think, okay, well, I have to have maybe an extra couple trucks, 2, 3 couple trucks, because I don't know when I'm going to get my asset back. 49:57 And so making this investment, while we do incur the $3.4 million per year, I'm pretty confident that that's going to result in some savings across our enterprise as we were able to make more efficient use of our resources and staff time. 50:10 And so, and echo the praise to the staff who've been able to managing these conditions for so long. 50:15 I was there and I was kind of like, you know, there's a sloped floor. 50:18 You shouldn't have sloped floors in a maintenance shop. 50:20 I felt like I was a crooked little man in a crooked little house in a enchanted forest. 50:25 So I will be voting yes when this finally does come before. 50:29 Finally, if you're interested in bond finance, the last slide here, second to last slide, does give you a sense of what our recent issuances for our limited tax revenue bonds have been priced, and it's pretty favorable. 50:44 And so I think I appreciate that the package before us assumes a 5% cost of capital. 50:53 There's the potential that we can probably do a little bit better than that when we do finally place these bonds. 50:57 And so I think that's a credit to our commitment to our financial reserves policies at the city. 51:06 And I'm looking forward to more opportunity there. 51:09 So thank you.
51:12 Thank you, Councilor. 51:13 Councilor Dunphy.
51:13 Thank you. 51:14 Mostly want to reflect the comments my colleagues have already said and give my thanks to Maddie for giving a tour of the Kirby Garage and the terrible conditions that our workers have been enduring. 51:28 It's been over 3 and a half years since the Willamette Week first called out how terrible the conditions were. 51:33 I'm glad the City Council is jumping on this in our first year to try and finish the work. 51:40 More than anything, I have been stuck with the image of the sloped floors and the requirement that at least one mechanic has to lay on their back in a puddle at the bottom of the slope. 51:50 That's unreasonable beyond the lack of heating and cooling options in the seasonal, you know, seasonal fluctuations. 52:00 So, uh, enthusiastic about getting this done, and let's, uh, get rid of the Kirby Garage and move over to Cutter. 52:05 Thank you all.
52:07 Thank you, Councilor. 52:08 Councilor Smith.
52:09 Thank you, Madam President. 52:10 Is, is Maddie here? 52:12 Oh, I'm sorry. 52:14 I just wanted to personally thank you, and I think all the commissioners, councilors up here, they've said the same thing. 52:21 It was so important for us to see this. 52:23 It's one thing to read about it, and we have never been there before, But to actually go see it, um, you and your, um, staff were great in making sure that all of us had an opportunity to go see it. 52:36 So thank you. 52:36 I know you're probably like, okay, I don't need all this praise, but, but you do, because oftentimes people put things on the agenda and they never even offer to let us see what we're talking about. 52:48 But, but you did that. 52:50 Uh, the question that I have, as I'm I'm looking at the financial and budgetary impacts. 52:54 This is not necessarily for you, Mattie, but, um, for our staff. 52:59 It said that with the issuance of the bonds, the Cutter Garage will have approximately $7 million of ongoing costs. 53:06 So this is new costs that I'm thinking that this is, including debt service, which we already talked about for the $3.3 million, operating and maintenance. 53:18 So can you explain to me what the additional $4 million— I mean, I see that. 53:24 Can you kind of break that out for me above and beyond what we're doing right now? 53:28 Because we're doing maintenance right now, so why would we need additional maintenance dollars on top of the $3.3 million in debt costs?
53:39 Yes, the difference between the 2 numbers is the annual lease cost, which is new for the city out there at the Cutter Garage. 53:48 And then there are additional maintenance or just ongoing costs with a newer facility because we want to really keep it up in good shape. 53:58 And then there's another component which is what we would call major maintenance. 54:02 And this is something that when we go into the Cutter Garage, we want to make sure that we're annually, annually setting aside 3 of the replacement value of all the improvements that we did to that facility so that we can keep it in good shape throughout the term of the lease. 54:18 So the combination of all of those makes up the— or comes to the $7 million.
54:24 Are we leasing it to ourselves?
54:26 We're leasing it from a third party.
54:28 Okay. 54:30 And they didn't identify who that was?
54:33 Yeah, so we are leasing it from the Melitus Company.
54:40 And just to provide a little bit of context, so best practices in facility management is that every year you set aside 3% of the replacement value of a facility to help support the building systems that fail while you're in that facility. 54:54 You can think of in your house, it's the roof or the sewer line, et cetera.
55:00 This is a triple net lease, which we rarely get into. 55:02 We try to do full-service leases as much as we can. 55:06 But when you are in this long of a lease, often the only option available is a triple net lease. 55:10 And so that puts you on the hook for some of the major maintenance funding. 55:13 So the landlord is responsible for a portion of it, but you also have to set aside money for certain contributions you may need to make to building systems. 55:25 And then of course within the shell, you have your systems as well. 55:28 So we'll have our own HVAC, for example, within that area. 55:31 So one of the concerns that we have and something that's happened citywide is that the city does not set aside 3% of the replacement value for facilities when we maintain them. 55:41 Even this facility doesn't have— we're not hitting that target. 55:45 That is a budget note that's been in existence for probably almost a decade now, is to bring that major maintenance funding up in our rates, but we've never had the institutional support and financial capacity to do that. 55:57 At the Kirby Garage, the major maintenance was almost zero. 56:03 So the net increase that you see—.
56:05 But you had to increase that.
56:06 In prices, it's going from basically 0% or very, very little to the appropriate amount. 56:13 So we decided since we're doing a new facility, let's do it the right way. 56:17 And so that structure reflects a bunch of new costs that don't exist. 56:22 One of those costs, the debt service, will go away in 20 years, but ideally, The buildup of funding for major maintenance will help avoid some of the challenges that we're currently having at Kirby Garage because we'll have money as we go to invest in systems as they start to fail.
56:36 And Director Sautter, this is very important because we passed a resolution in the transportation infrastructure to do an evaluation of all of our assets. 56:46 And so understanding that too, that I didn't know that information. 56:50 So as we're looking at that and we get the report back, from the city administrator. 56:55 And you all, I think you're probably working on the, on the committee that is going to bring it all back. 57:01 Those are the kind of things that we also need to keep in mind as we're talking about how do we deal with maintaining our assets that we do have, what is going to be the cost point. 57:10 And so I didn't think about that, and I was looking at this and I was like, well, where did this extra $4 million come from? 57:16 But the other piece that, that you all did not talk about I know we're voting on the debt service and doing the bonds. 57:24 Mm-hmm. 57:25 But the thing that we're talking about is that we're also creating an apprenticeship program with PCC. 57:34 And currently there are no apprenticeship programs that deal with maintenance of this kind. 57:40 And so in addition to this, this is also gonna help us to create jobs. 57:45 Authored a, uh, a resolution around apprenticeships that we passed in the Labor and Workforce Committee. 57:51 And so this— these are the kinds of things that I think that we all need to know about, and that's happening in addition to this. 57:58 And so, um, I just want to say thank you, thank you, thank you for this, because it is also, uh, expanding our base of knowledge of, of, you know, and creating jobs. 58:09 So thank you so much. 58:12 Welcome.
58:13 Thank you, Councilor. 58:15 Um, I said a lot about this in committee, so I'm not going to say much right now, but this is absolutely necessary. 58:23 It is being done responsibly. 58:25 Our city needs this for efficient operations, and our employees who work in the garage need this as well. 58:31 I did want to note that a piece of the conversation in the Finance Committee was about why this i often look to figure out how we can save costs in the long run, even if that means a little more cost upfront, and sometimes purchasing is a good way to do that. 58:50 I was very convinced by your answers, Maddie, about the flexibility that we might need in the future and the fact that doing a lease now so that we can reevaluate where we need these offices is a good way to do that. 59:01 Thank you. 59:02 Operations in the future is a conversation that we can have without the sunk costs of having purchased a building now. 59:10 I just wanted to note that because I really appreciated the deal— the detail you went into in explaining that calculation, both from a fiscal perspective and also from just a practicability for city operations. 59:22 So thank you. 59:24 Councilor Zimmerman.
59:26 Thanks. 59:27 I have a few questions, but since one is related to the point you just brought up, I'd actually I would like it if the bureau director can go into that a little bit. 59:35 For—. 59:35 To ask the city to invest $41 million into a piece of property we don't own, for me, is a big lift. 59:42 And I want to be confident that not including the property costs was not a tactic to keep the bond low in order to get the bond through. 59:56 Right. 59:57 The case has been deeply made, and I agree that especially for those Launa workers who are in the shop, I mean, they have been doing a great job with what they have, and we need a new shop. 1:00:08 This is a lift though, and in my career, highly unusual to invest this much money in someone else's property. 1:00:15 Can you talk about a little bit what Council President alluded to there?
1:00:19 Yeah, for sure. 1:00:21 So we actually already made 2 attempts to do what I think common knowledge suggests, which is that you should procure a property and own it or build a purpose-built facility for this type of technical operation. 1:00:36 So we made a run at that. 1:00:38 I can't exactly remember the years, but it was probably '20, '21.
1:00:43 That didn't make it out of committee at the OMF level. 1:00:47 And then we made an effort the second time to get funding to buy land. 1:00:52 So that we could then do programming and go out for a bond of some kind, either this type of bond or maybe even a general obligation bond. 1:01:01 So both of those efforts were attempted and didn't pass muster because they were too expensive. 1:01:07 So that is part of the reason that we switched tactics to this approach. 1:01:11 But there is, as Councilor Pirtle-Guiney explained, a bigger picture challenge, which is within the facility and land management, which has come up, I think, a couple of times when we've come to the table here. 1:01:25 It came up with a small parcel on Southeast Powell where we prompted a discussion about land management and what that looks like. 1:01:31 It's coming up, I think, in the asset management strategy. 1:01:34 It's been decided where it will be addressed. 1:01:37 There's a challenge, which is that facilities are a particularly decayed asset base for the city. 1:01:43 We would like to see— Councilor Loretta Smith. 1:01:46 More enhanced and comprehensive long-range facility planning by portfolio, whether it's public safety, public works, et cetera. 1:01:53 We just completed a public safety master plan actually. 1:01:56 And one of the findings of that, and I think you'll find the same in a public works plan should it launch, is that the city needs large acreages of land in order to do what it needs to do. 1:02:07 And that is really hard to find within an urban growth boundary like we have.
1:02:12 That's even a particularly added challenge when you think about seismic requirements and what we are really expecting from resilient public works organizations or resilient public safety organizations, et cetera. 1:02:24 So until we solve the land problem and understand how we're gonna find these parcels and obtain these parcels to build the facilities that we need, we can't exactly solve for a long-term facilities problem. 1:02:36 And so we are waiting for the city to effectively take shape in that. 1:02:42 I think the asset management strategy is gonna suggest some approaches to that. 1:02:47 But we are in a situation with Kirby where we can't really wait any longer. 1:02:51 And so thus, this approach worked not just financially, but also from a space and time standpoint, which is we have a 23-year lease that is long enough with 2 10-year extensions for us to feel like that would be the normal lifecycle of a building anyway. 1:03:07 And so this is probably a warranted investment, but it's not such a sunk cost that if we end up being able to find a parcel of land and build a Public Works campus, that we wouldn't be able to then also program in a City Fleet operation in that campus to support that. 1:03:24 So we were, you know, sometimes you're not in the most optimal situation, you're in what is the least suboptimal situation. 1:03:30 And I would say that was the situation here. 1:03:33 So over time, our sort of next I think the next step is to, you know, we're trying to steward internally discussions about land management for facility needs, not just for public needs like housing, but also for city needs, how we would approach that. 1:03:48 And then what does that mean for consolidated long-range facility planning and investment to benefit city operations? 1:03:56 Because they're vital facilities. 1:03:58 You know, you think of the 911 center or police precincts or fire stations, they're not nonessential. 1:04:02 Thank you.
1:04:03 I mean, I certainly think 43 years falls in the long-term planning category. 1:04:07 So what is the valuation of the lot that we are taking over?
1:04:11 I do not know the answer to that offhand.
1:04:14 The value of the parcel that we're on?
1:04:16 The other guy's property.
1:04:18 The other guy's property. 1:04:18 I do not know.
1:04:19 And we're about to add $41 million worth of work to it. 1:04:22 I think we're really talking about $100 million worth of value add to that piece of property that if we were to buy it in 23 or 43 years, we've deeply increased the odds. 1:04:33 So I'm curious on 2 fronts. 1:04:35 What is in the lease agreement to guarantee our position that if— I think you said Maltese sells this to Smith— that Smith doesn't then want to renegotiate? 1:04:46 And then also, what parameters exist in the lease for our rent-to-own situation so that we can recognize the value that we put into it?
1:04:55 Yeah, so we have an option to buy. 1:04:56 So we have right of first refusal on the buy. 1:04:59 So if it goes to market, we're the first group to look at that. 1:05:03 And then there is just of note a second unused warehouse adjacent to what we're building out. 1:05:11 We have right of first refusal on that property as well. 1:05:15 So that would be if other city functions wanted to go and co-locate with us. 1:05:20 So for example, Fire has its own fleet operation. 1:05:24 It's the only operation that's separate from City Fleets for vehicles. 1:05:28 So they're on a property that is suboptimal for those operations. 1:05:32 If they wanted to and were able to move to that facility, that might be a good co-location to save on operations like parts management, et cetera. 1:05:41 BTS has a slightly adjacent function. 1:05:44 They do all of the radio upfitting for police vehicles.
1:05:47 That's currently done at the PCC building. 1:05:50 And so that's another potential adjacency that we could create.
1:05:53 So, but I'm not hearing that there's any protection for our investment to be recognized because I see today if we were in a purchase agreement, that lot has a number to it without all of our improvements on it. 1:06:06 Tomorrow they list it for an exorbitant amount and now we have first right of refusal, but it's a huge number because we improved that lot. 1:06:16 Lot, uh, or have we just given a situation for 2 entities to increase valuation on a lot and have us either over the barrel or having to read— or having to not be able to execute because we've now increased this lot price by so much?
1:06:36 Question. 1:06:36 I, you know, we're doing pretty customized— well, let's see. 1:06:41 We're doing pretty customized investments in that facility, so I don't think there's any other fleet operator that they're— the values that we're putting in there are only for us. 1:06:48 But I do agree that would put us over a barrel in the sense that everybody knows how much we've spent on this. 1:06:55 And so you wanna stay here, I'm gonna double your rent, for example. 1:06:59 So I suppose that is a possibility.
1:07:01 I'm less concerned about the doubling of the rent. 1:07:03 I'm more concerned with this idea that we are the entity increasing someone else's liability. 1:07:10 And because we have first right of refusal, that sounds like it might be a good option for us to acquire that property in the future. 1:07:16 But now instead of a blank piece of land or a lean-to piece of land, we've got a piece of land with, I think, probably a future $50 million to $100 million piece of improvement on top of it that we might not even be able to fathom purchasing the land for. 1:07:34 I think that's a great point. 1:07:34 From out because somebody else can give them a bigger number. 1:07:37 That's what I'm curious how we protect our value.
1:07:40 Yeah, I guess I would have to think about that a bit. 1:07:42 The tenant improvements that we're making are so specialized to a fleet operation that I don't know that there's another fleet operation that would come in and say, well, I'm going to buy that instead.
1:07:52 But except that Swan Island has a lot of fleets, right?
1:07:55 A lot of big trucks that operate on that. 1:07:56 In fact, I think it's almost the only thing that operates there. 1:07:58 So it's not beyond me that It's not beyond me that Daimler could expand into this place in that sense because we have big trucks, we have small trucks, other people have big trucks, other people have small trucks. 1:08:12 Maybe the— but in 43 years, if there's not a fleet who is challenging the City of Portland's fleet at that site, I'd be surprised by that because of the business that happens in this location. 1:08:24 So for that, I do have some concerns in that area. 1:08:27 Thank you. 1:08:27 Thank you. 1:08:28 I think that that hasn't really been, to me, fleshed out in enough of a way by the Bureau to— for such a significant investment and what is different than most of the bonding that we do on improvements that we do in government. 1:08:48 The other piece, and I really appreciated the 3% maintenance reserve, I would like to see, of course, our facilities in each building having that reserve to it. 1:09:00 And I hear those notes that we're missing. 1:09:03 I'm also— I am wondering how the bureau, how you are going to tackle this with the customers, right? 1:09:17 The customers in the presentation are all those who are paying for this building and out of their off the top of their budget each year. 1:09:24 PBOT, water, parks, other, police, fire, BES. 1:09:29 And when one of the common themes I hear from all other bureaus is that they feel like they're screaming into the void when it comes to internal service funds, internal service rates, how to feel like the customer in their relationship with facilities. 1:09:45 And this is much less about I think that that's not what I'm talking about. 1:09:50 What I'm talking about is the occupant of a building feeling like they are— I am wondering, and I want to make sure that these bond rates— excuse me, these debt service payments are not contributing to increased internal service rates when that remains a very big question mark in our organization about the validity of what customers are feeling. 1:10:16 And I want to make sure that these are separated out, that fleet isn't going to cause any sort of other wrinkle with a part of our organization I think that is going through a let's figure it out and make sure that our rates are all true to one another. 1:10:30 Because this is an area that I haven't been able to get a coherent answer on yet for the direction that we're going and how to improve that customer relationship. 1:10:37 Because I, I think of the bureaus as customers of facilities, but they don't often portray that to me.
1:10:50 So I'm not exactly sure what the question is, but—.
1:10:55 So do you think that— to make it easier, do you think that the Bureau is positioned to take on this project and work with with all of the bureaus, all of the departments to ensure that our internal service rates are more transparent and that the customer service relationship is improved?
1:11:21 Yeah, so there was an evaluation done by a third-party consultant related to internal service rates earlier this year. 1:11:28 In fact, the first Internal Service Fund governance meeting is actually this afternoon. 1:11:33 And the first order of business for that committee is to help ensure that the bureaus as customers have a better comprehension of the actual escalation in costs that are creating internal service fund charges as compared to what has historically been communicated to the bureaus, which was just the rate of inflation. 1:11:57 So there's a big delta there. 1:11:58 You know, internal service funds don't, Fundamentally generate their own costs. 1:12:02 They're just accounting vessels through which the costs of the city flow to provide those types of services. 1:12:09 So to control Internal Service Fund costs, we are really talking about controlling city costs, and that's making sure we have a strategic plan, that we have efficient bureau operations, that people participate in, you know, standards where possible because those reduce long-term costs. 1:12:26 So I think there's a more holistic— Yeah.
1:12:28 Discussion about, you know, really what is it that drives a cost within the city. 1:12:33 Within that, I do think that we aspire to have a customer service orientation. 1:12:43 I do think it's been really hard to communicate why we have rules about some of the things that we do. 1:12:51 You know, like for example, why would we buy standardized furniture? 1:12:54 Right? 1:12:55 Why is that an issue here? 1:12:57 And that's because it's warrantied, it's commercial grade. 1:13:00 It's a little more expensive upfront, but over time, the lifecycle cost of that is lower. 1:13:05 In fact, when we built out City Hall, we saved over $600,000 because we have a furniture standard. 1:13:11 So we were able to reuse furniture from PBOT and deploy it here. 1:13:16 So I don't know that that has to be a tense conversation in terms of being able to create some mobility for people when they want things that are different than what is standard. 1:13:27 But I do feel like holistically it is important for the city to at least understand that when we have a lot of variation in things, we end up with a lot of costs because we end up kind of with a boutique service as opposed to a standardized array of public services that we're trying to offer everybody. 1:13:43 So in fleet, for example, we do have standardized equipment. 1:13:47 You know, not— one of the biggest wins we've had recently is getting people to not have to have their Dodge pickup. 1:13:53 We don't have Dodge pickups, we have Ford pickups. 1:13:57 And that helps with parts, it helps with training, it helps with efficient maintenance. 1:14:02 So one of the challenges I think in charter reform is just changing the culture of the city. 1:14:07 We are a culture of a lot, we have a lot of autonomy here. 1:14:10 We have a lot of expectations of autonomy. 1:14:12 And autonomy is very expensive. 1:14:14 And so trying to help people understand that as one city, that means sometimes we don't get all that we want. 1:14:20 We get what we want within an array of things. 1:14:23 That's just a much more efficient and cost-effective way to run the city. 1:14:27 But I do agree that balancing that has to happen in relation to understanding that, communicating that, and then creating options and being flexible where possible. 1:14:37 And so I think we're all on that learning path together, trying to make sure that people have a balance between cost-effective, warranted standard options and— You know, a desire to personalize a little bit. 1:14:48 And so we're learning that balance as well right now. 1:14:52 It's— we're going from a culture of—.
1:14:54 I think a lot of this—. 1:14:54 It would be crazy to—. 1:14:55 I think a lot of what I've heard actually existed far before this change in government. 1:15:00 These are bureaus that have existed for decades, if not longer. 1:15:03 But moving on, with respect to the project, will you plan to bring on an owner's rep for this, or is this going to be managed internally?
1:15:12 For design and construction?
1:15:17 We're bringing on an owner's rep right now. 1:15:19 So in fact, this week we're bringing on an owner's rep.
1:15:22 And will that be coming back to council for action or approval of that contract, or how's that work?
1:15:26 No, that— there's already an existing contract with the city. 1:15:29 It's a contract with Cumming Group. 1:15:32 It's owned by BES. 1:15:33 So all we do is put a purchase order together, and they'll be overseeing construction administration.
1:15:39 Okay, thank you, Madam President.
1:15:42 Thank you, Councilor. 1:15:44 Uh, colleagues, I believe most folks in the queue have spoken once already, so I'm going to, uh, jump to Councilor Novick.
1:15:54 I just wanted to note that— I mean, first of all, I want to reiterate everything that everybody has said about, um, the thanks due to the employees who've been working in this facility under dire circumstances for years, and thank Maddie for her very clear, crisp, direct, and blunt explanation of the issues having to do with the garage. 1:16:15 On the issue of the internal service charges, I mean, one thing I wanted to note is that from the perspective of the taxpayer or ratepayer, I think it generally doesn't matter what bureau is paying for something. 1:16:25 They want to be sure that they're getting good value for what they're paying for. 1:16:28 I mean, there are some variations on like Property taxpayers versus water ratepayers. 1:16:33 But I think in general, people don't care. 1:16:35 In terms of how the bureaus feel, obviously we should be able to articulate why the charging mechanisms and the distribution is fair. 1:16:48 We also need to be aware of that there are some bureaus for which it is kind of easier to absorb costs than others. 1:16:56 Yeah. 1:16:56 I mean, obviously they don't like doing it, and we don't either, but the water bureau can— or the sewer bureau can simply raise rates to cover costs. 1:17:07 PBOT, which is always in dire financial straits, has no similar way to do anything. 1:17:13 So it's our job as the council to be sure that when we are loading costs onto bureaus with no money, we take that into account in figuring out how we get them more money. 1:17:24 I also just— I mean, having these charges go out to bureaus should have the effect of getting the bureaus more invested in keeping down the overall cost for this kind of service. 1:17:38 And as has been noted before, I think Councilor Clark was pointing out that the current situation in the Kirby Garage— you've— or maybe it wasn't Councilor Fateh who was— that has had the distorting effect of bureaus thinking they need to buy more trucks because they don't think they would always have access to ones they have. 1:17:57 Was that with Councilor Green? 1:17:58 Anyway, that's my rambling contribution to the discussion.
1:18:03 Thank you, Councilor. 1:18:04 Councilor Green, back to you.
1:18:06 Thank you. 1:18:07 I had originally put my hand up because I was anticipating we would go down the discussion of the ownership versus the lease, and I'm glad we had that discussion. 1:18:14 It's really important. 1:18:16 I'd just like to offer that this is timely because of the asset management work that we're planning to do. 1:18:23 But note that in any large enterprise that has to face an intergenerational investment problem, it's pretty typical to engage in flexible contracts that provide what's called option value. 1:18:39 Okay. 1:18:39 And so I'll just I can provide an example from the standpoint of my prior career, which is in the energy business. 1:18:48 You know, Bonneville Power Administration can work with one of its customers to build a new power plant, and they would own that. 1:18:54 But it may not be the most viable or long-term cost-efficient solution when you have an uncertain future. 1:19:03 And to your point, Maddie, the ideal state is—. 1:19:06 I'm sorry. 1:19:08 Is a campus, like sort of a public works campus, if you will. 1:19:12 But there's a lot of unknowns before we can really chart that course and put that to voters to say, is this something that you want to pay for? 1:19:20 Because we're still getting a handle on our asset management problem. 1:19:23 And so I think I'm sympathetic to the argument of like, well, what is our exposure going to be at the lease option? 1:19:30 You know, at the end of the lease, do we want to buy it? 1:19:33 Do we not want to? 1:19:34 Or do we have to kind of roll forward on the lease? 1:19:35 Right. 1:19:36 Those are reasonable questions to ask, but I think that we might find ourselves in a situation where the Cutter location is no longer the appropriate location for the future state of our Public Works campus, if you will. 1:19:51 We might be able to imagine a situation where there is a zoning change that allows for a different contemplation of different parts of of land acquisition around the city or a partnership with the port or whatever. 1:20:04 The point being is this provides some certainty on cost right now so that way we can get out of the business of the uncertain operations and maintenance cost that comes from the bottlenecks that we experience with the Kirby Garage. 1:20:20 It allows us to move forward right now rather than continuing to wonder if we're going to make the right sunk cost investment. 1:20:26 Thank you. 1:20:27 For the bigger contemplation. 1:20:28 And so I see this as part of the option value exercise. 1:20:32 It's—. 1:20:32 I didn't see it presented formally in those terms, but this is what I see when I see, you know, this fits into my experience. 1:20:38 So when we do the asset management work, I hope that we're also talking about option value in our investment decisions as well. 1:20:45 So I just wanted to share that with my colleagues here.
1:20:49 If I could reply to that, I just want to say that that is a A very keen understanding of the challenge that we need to solve in the asset management strategy related to land and facilities, which is facilities are one of the only types of asset bases that also fail, fail in quotes, not just of condition or age or obsolescence, but because of their location. 1:21:14 And so we already see that right now, for example, with public safety assets, is that they're in the wrong space. 1:21:19 They're in the wrong place because we've had all these demographic changes. 1:21:22 So exactly as we— one of the most interesting and complicated parts of managing this type of asset is that you're interfacing with these demographic changes and you're interfacing with the market. 1:21:33 And so creating optionality, being able to take advantage of opportunities and shifting for something that is fundamentally very expensive is very— it's unique and it's challenging. 1:21:43 It's different than roads. 1:21:44 Et cetera. 1:21:45 So that is why I think it's so complicated. 1:21:48 And maybe that's why it's simmering down here is 'cause it's so complex. 1:21:51 But I appreciate that because that is exactly what we're trying to figure out is how do we future-proof this a little bit so that we're in the right place now, but we're not in the wrong place 20 years from now or 40 years from now. 1:22:02 So.
1:22:03 Appreciate that. 1:22:04 And just to finish the analogy, 'cause I realize I didn't. 1:22:07 So instead of buying, building the plant, Bonneville purchases Engages in long-term power purchase agreements. 1:22:12 So that's the analogy here. 1:22:13 Thanks.
1:22:16 Thank you, Councilor. 1:22:17 Councilor Clark.
1:22:18 Thank you, Madam Chair. 1:22:20 Um, I originally, like you, uh, had put my hand up because I wanted to ask about ownership, but I think we've kind of beat that to death. 1:22:27 However, I would just say that maybe at the first term, the first 20 years, we asked the Melita family to just donate it. 1:22:33 You know, they— there could be certain advantages for that big family to donate it to us. 1:22:40 I'm glad you were talking about asset management and a maintenance reserve because I want to put a point on that, that we should talk about that when we have our asset management discussion. 1:22:51 And we're going to get a quarterly report in our committee where— how it's going on asset management. 1:22:56 And I would like to at least have that conversation. 1:22:59 How we fund it, I don't know, but I think we should be talking and for your comment, Councilor Green, about future-proofing and what we know and don't know, at least the— we're going to have a discussion about the water treatment plant here in just a moment. 1:23:15 And they actually purchased property, I think in 1971, something like that, out in knowing that they were going to need something at some point. 1:23:24 And then other issues come up as a result of that because of the location.
1:23:28 So these issues are really complex, but I appreciate the conversation about thinking forward about what we need. 1:23:35 I really appreciate that. 1:23:36 And also your comment about autonomy, or maybe it was actually Councilor Zimmerman's.
1:23:42 If it was a good question, it was me.
1:23:44 Okay, undoubtedly. 1:23:46 But I constantly talk about the culture change that we're going through with the bureaus and kind of the new world order how we think about things. 1:23:55 And that question about autonomy, I think, is really the crux of it. 1:23:58 And, um, you're doing a great job. 1:24:00 I just— I really appreciate what you're doing. 1:24:03 Um, but great— this has been a great discussion for, uh, future discussions as well, not just on, uh, Kirby and Cutter. 1:24:10 So thank you.
1:24:12 Thank you, Councilor. 1:24:12 Councilor Smith.
1:24:15 Thank you, Madam President. 1:24:17 Um, Finance Chair Zimmerman, I, I think I know where you were kind of going with this, because I think we have to have a bigger conversation about, you know, what has our internal service fees been over the past 20 years and how have we increased our internal services over the years. 1:24:38 And if it gets to the point that we are taxing each other or billing each other to death and not bringing in new revenue, we're going to get to the point where we're spending 50% of our actual budgets on internal services when we need to be figuring out how to bring in new revenue. 1:24:57 Like, we have the Bull Run coming up next. 1:24:59 We've lost 4 customers, uh, water customers— Rockwood, Gresham— that we don't have when we build this new Bull Run. 1:25:08 So we need to figure out how to bring in new revenue and not charge ourselves to death. 1:25:14 Thank you. 1:25:15 With our current budget, particularly since we are losing money. 1:25:20 We're having big gaps in our budgets. 1:25:23 And as someone talked about earlier, and Dan Ryan said, we need to be about the business of economic development. 1:25:31 And so I hear you. 1:25:32 I heard what you were saying, and maybe that might be something that you want to bring up in the Finance Committee as we're looking. 1:25:38 I didn't know. 1:25:38 It was good to know that, um, we're looking at internal services, but I have a huge problem with how we're being, um, uh, and I won't say taxed, but how we're being charged through the Internal Services, uh, Division, because it takes up a lot of our budgets, and we have a very small budget compared to others in the city of Portland. 1:25:57 But I thank you for what you're doing, but I think we need to— we do need to follow back up on that conversation. 1:26:03 Thank you.
1:26:04 Thank you, Councilor. 1:26:05 Councilor Ryan.
1:26:07 Yes, thank you. 1:26:08 Thank you, Council President. 1:26:09 I'm enjoying this conversation. 1:26:10 It feels like we're in a work session suddenly, but so it's hard not to drift into that type of thinking. 1:26:16 I just, I have to hear from you, Christopher. 1:26:18 What was the vote again from the Finance Committee?
1:26:21 Yes, the vote was a 4 ayes and 1 absent.
1:26:28 1 Absent, okay. 1:26:30 And we're all up, maybe I just look to you, Chair, Were these issues discussed in the committee as well? 1:26:37 Some of them were. 1:26:38 Some of them were.
1:26:39 I think that the ownership discussion happened. 1:26:43 There was a question that has gone still unanswered regarding, I think, the overall costs of maintenance at the new facility. 1:26:53 There was not a conversation at that time about the internal service rates. 1:26:59 For me, since I asked some of those questions, That's come from the position of diving further into how we're building it back and understanding those. 1:27:12 So I'd say it was partial. 1:27:13 So it should still be supported. 1:27:15 I don't think that that's the line of questioning. 1:27:18 I think that what's important is that— what's important to me as a finance chair is that you all understood we were about to invest, I think, Quite largely in a piece of property we don't own. 1:27:30 And for me, in my almost 20 years of government, that seemed out of the norm for me. 1:27:37 And then with respect to the internal service rates, this is the only government that I've worked at where even in my own, I cannot make heads or tails for how internal service rates are charged back. 1:27:48 So I actually don't think we're in a normal situation there.
1:27:51 I think that's a fair point. 1:27:53 The more I dug into that between finance and this hearing, Councilor, I grew concerned that we have this one study going on and I didn't want to see it supplanted by a debt service that wasn't accurate to just that debt service. 1:28:11 So that's where my questions came from. 1:28:14 I still think it should be supportive. 1:28:15 I think any of us who've seen this Cutter Garage, would know it needs to be replaced. 1:28:20 Excuse me, Kirby Garage knows it needs to be replaced. 1:28:23 But I didn't want 6 months from now you to come and say, Chair of Finance, you didn't tell us we were investing in a non-Portland-owned piece of property. 1:28:31 I wanted that to be very clear to everybody.
1:28:34 Okay, that's fair. 1:28:36 And I actually need to hear that based on not being on the committee and trying to follow what's happening in this dialogue. 1:28:43 That's really what I wanted to say. 1:28:45 I will say that I'm more accustomed to knowing that this practice of doing long-term leases is pretty standard in the marketplace. 1:28:52 So I'm not as bothered by that as much as I'm liking the elevated conversation we were having that does start to get to, I think, a workshop, a work session that we could have on this topic in general because we're starting to get a much bigger picture than that, which I think is healthy.
1:29:08 Thank you, Councilor. 1:29:11 Colleagues, seeing no other debate or discussion? 1:29:15 Councilor Smith, final words?
1:29:17 Just final words. 1:29:18 So as you talked about that, uh, Councilor, uh, Ryan, I have a question. 1:29:24 Did we put out an RFP for this, or is this a sole source agreement?
1:29:28 Uh, an RFP for the property?
1:29:31 Yeah, to do the lease.
1:29:32 Uh, no. 1:29:33 So leasing doesn't go through the procurement process. 1:29:36 Um, leasing is an independent function. 1:29:40 We have a 3-mile radius that we have to maintain, or ideal, would be ideal to maintain right now in adjacency to PBOT. 1:29:49 And so that greatly, between the acreage and square footage and the radius with PBOT, it greatly delimits what properties were even considerable. 1:29:59 And so it basically led us to Swan Island. 1:30:02 And then within that, we're just waiting for the market.
1:30:04 No, I do understand, but there's a bigger issue here. 1:30:06 Here. 1:30:07 And when we're spending this kind of money and we have a lease— and what I was trying to explain during the budget cycle when I put forward a budget note, that we need to be seeing all contracts, particularly these multimillion-dollar contracts, before they come up and we get surprised by them. 1:30:26 Like I said, I support this. 1:30:27 There's— I'm not saying that. 1:30:29 But what I'm saying is we need to see contracts like the previous council saw them. 1:30:34 Before you sign off on them, because I just can't imagine having this, this huge contract without having council's eyes on them. 1:30:45 And it's going to cost— it's going to cost our council, our city, a considerable amount of money. 1:30:51 And that part, you don't have to answer, Mattie. 1:30:54 Just— I, I'm just, I'm just saying, I am saying this for the benefit of the chair of the Finance Committee because there's some things that we need to course correct. 1:31:02 Thank you.
1:31:06 Thank you, Councilor. 1:31:07 And I think there are a lot of different ways that the city enters into agreements to spend money, some of which are captured in the language to come to us and some of which are not.
1:31:18 May I briefly— Would you like to? 1:31:20 Yeah, it actually did go to Council. 1:31:21 It was just the last Council. 1:31:23 So that's why we— so we signed the lease. 1:31:26 So we were already under the lease. 1:31:29 Contract at this site for the lease by July 1st of last year. 1:31:32 So otherwise, future process—.
1:31:37 I knew they wanted to be under the previous council.
1:31:43 Councilor Ryan, did you have something additional?
1:31:45 Oh no, that was a, a mistake.
1:31:48 Okay. 1:31:50 Seeing no other questions, thank you all for being here and for the robust discussion. 1:31:55 We know this is a really important decision for all of your teams, for our city employees, and for the future efficient operations of our city. 1:32:04 We will move this item to second reading at a future council meeting. 1:32:10 Um, thank you very much. 1:32:15 Can you please read agenda item 8 for us?
1:32:20 Authorize the city to acquire certain permanent and temporary rights necessary for construction of the 3260 Southwest Upper Drive North to 3139 Southwest Upper Drive project through negotiation or exercise of the city's eminent domain authority.
1:32:43 Good morning once again, Madam President, councilors, For the record, Christopher Hare, Council Policy Analyst, and I serve as staff to the Finance Committee. 1:32:50 The ordinance before you, document number 2025-405, was considered in the Finance Committee on October 20th, where it was referred to Council with a recommendation to pass. 1:32:59 The ordinance authorizes the acquisition of certain permanent and temporary property rights necessary for the 3260 Southwest Upper Drive North to 3139 Southwest Upper Drive project. 1:33:11 To replace an 80-year-old water main. 1:33:13 The acquisitions will affect 10 property owners, and the specific property rights will include 14 permanent easements and 5 temporary easements on or adjacent to the existing private drive, as shown in the Exhibit A attached. 1:33:27 The ordinance grants the Water Bureau the authority to use eminent domain pursuant to Section 9-108 of the City Charter and in accordance with eminent domain procedures provided for in Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 5, Eminent Domain, Public Acquisition of Property, to acquire the interests if voluntary agreements cannot be reached with property owners. 1:33:47 The ordinance authorizes Water Bureau staff and the City Attorney's Office to negotiate with affected property owners regarding compensation. 1:33:53 If negotiations are unsuccessful, the city may initiate and pursue condemnation proceedings to determine just compensation or resolve other matters appropriate for judicial review without expanding the jurisdiction of the court beyond those determinations. 1:34:08 The ordinance also, in accordance with ORS 35.265, authorizes the Water Bureau to evaluate the continuing necessity of each acquisition and, as appropriate, reduce or abandon any acquisition identified in Exhibit A. Additionally, it authorizes the creation of a subfund in an amount estimated to cover just compensation for each property interest. 1:34:29 If necessary, funds may be deposited with the court where legal proceedings are initiated. 1:34:34 And finally, the ordinance authorizes the Water Bureau, City Auditor, or their designees to pay obligations, agreements, or relocation benefits related to the project from the Water Fund once approved by the appropriate authorities. 1:34:47 All costs associated with the acquisitions authorized will be charged to the Water Fund for the FY 2025-26 budget. 1:34:55 The full impact statements on this item includes a financial and budgets impact and analysis and community impact. 1:35:00 And community involvement. 1:35:02 There was no verbal or written testimony on this ordinance prior to committee action. 1:35:05 And that concludes the committee staff summary. 1:35:07 Thank you.
1:35:08 Thank you, Christopher. 1:35:09 Councilor Zimmerman, do you have anything you'd like to add?
1:35:13 No, this is good. 1:35:14 Thank you, Christopher. 1:35:16 Just note that Councilor Green and I both sit on this committee. 1:35:19 This piece of property that we're discussing is in our district and it's in the old parts where I'm sure pipe was being installed before we even had words like easement in the government. 1:35:33 So I think this is probably welcomed by the folks who live nearby and certainly needed by city infrastructure. 1:35:41 Thank you for the time on that.
1:35:43 Thank you, Councilor. 1:35:44 Keelan, do we have any public testimony?
1:35:49 Okay. 1:35:49 Councilor Smith, is your hand in the queue for this item?
1:35:53 Yeah, thank you. 1:35:54 Um, I don't know who to ask this to, but I— similar to the Pleasant Valley neighborhood lack of response, I'm a little worried that there isn't testimony from any of the property owners. 1:36:05 Do we know, have we heard from the property owners who are affected by this in a positive or negative way?
1:36:13 Um, interim director of the Water Bureau. 1:36:15 I do have staff online. 1:36:16 Keith Keith Walker and Ben Garcia, and we have had some contact with the owners. 1:36:24 I don't know if Keith or Ben want to talk about that.
1:36:33 I can talk about that.
1:36:34 Ben Garcia, for the record, um, Water Bureau Right-of-Way Section.
1:36:38 We have had some extensive outreach to the property owners affected by the project. 1:36:43 We personally have talked to almost all the property owners, and many of them are aware of the need to replace this infrastructure due to some recent leaks in the area.
1:36:54 And they've been aware of the project for—.
1:36:57 The project need for quite some time.
1:37:00 So there have been a lot of conversations with property owners.
1:37:06 This is Keith Walker, Portland Water Bureau.
1:37:09 I would also mention that the, the easement areas, both permanent and temporary for construction-only areas, are primarily in the existing access roadway, which is private. 1:37:22 So that is the goal of the easement, is to gain access to that and to abandon an old easement which is only 10 feet wide.
1:37:34 And in very steep terrain.
1:37:36 And the goal is replace the 70-year-old pipe, which is a galvanized pipe, it's prone to failure.
1:37:46 And also remove that risk of the old existing easement, which is their water supply, which due to the steepness, if we had to work on that on an emergency basis, it It could incur additional risk to our neighbors there.
1:38:05 Yeah. 1:38:05 So thank you.
1:38:08 Thank you. 1:38:10 I am certain that this is a vital infrastructure upgrade. 1:38:14 I'm positive that this is what is necessary, and I'm certain that the neighbors are probably going to be supportive. 1:38:21 I will just note, maybe for any city employees who are listening, We gotta make sure we are positively hearing from folks in a way on these items. 1:38:35 Silence is not consent. 1:38:37 And just as with, you know, I don't know if there was outreach done to the neighborhood association in the neighborhood or any additional work around there, but, and I'm not, it's not gonna impact my feelings on supporting this. 1:38:52 I just wanna note that I think it is, If we're taking property and nobody has said anything, that feels concerning to me. 1:38:59 I trust that the staff are doing a good job of maintaining those relationships, but I just wanted to flag that again. 1:39:04 So thank you.
1:39:07 Thank you, Councilor, for bringing up that important point. 1:39:10 Colleagues, any other discussion on this agenda item?
1:39:15 Seeing none, we will move this to a second reading at our next meeting. 1:39:23 Keelan gets— oh, okay. 1:39:26 You look like you had something with that item before we moved on. 1:39:30 Sorry. 1:39:30 Um, thank you both for being here. 1:39:33 Uh, Keelan, could you please read agenda item 9 for us?
1:39:36 Accept the Bull Run Treatment Project's 2025 annual report.
1:39:41 Thank you. 1:39:42 And we have a committee staff summary. 1:39:46 Go right ahead.
1:39:48 Good morning, Madam President and councilors. 1:39:49 For the record, Claire Adamsick, Council Policy Analyst and staff to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 1:39:55 The report before you, document number 2025-383, requests acceptance of the Bull Run Treatment Project's 2025 annual report. 1:40:03 The report provides an update on the Bull Run filtration projects and the improved corrosion control treatment project and related milestones to maintain compliance with federal safe drinking water regulations. 1:40:13 The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and analysis, economic and real estate development impacts, community impacts and community involvement, and on the city's 100% renewable goal. 1:40:27 And excuse me, I failed to say that the committee met and recommended that the passage of this, or that the report be accepted on October 6th, 2025. 1:40:38 At that meeting, Thank you. 1:40:39 Thank you, Mayor. 1:40:39 So, as noted in the agenda, this is a public comment item. 1:40:39 We have 2 public comments. 1:40:39 The first is in response to the public comment item that was posted to the council agenda prior to the committee meeting. 1:40:39 11 People submitted written testimony on these items prior to committee action. 1:40:44 There's also a Water Bureau memo that's posted to the council agenda item, which is in response to that written testimony that's available for your reference. 1:40:52 And one person submitted written testimony prior to full council agenda posting. 1:40:57 The general themes of that written testimony included concerns about increased project costs due to construction delays and conditional use approval. 1:41:05 Requests for improved forecasting of impacts to ratepayers in light of project costs and fewer customers to absorb overall costs. 1:41:13 Suggestions regarding the use of ultraviolet or other alternative treatment options. 1:41:17 And finally, community impact— community and economic impacts of the filtration plant's construction due to potential road closures or detours that impact small businesses along haul routes. 1:41:28 And that concludes the committee staff summary.
1:41:29 Thank you, Deputy City Administrator Tracy Warren.
1:41:31 Thank you. 1:41:31 Councilor Clark, you were presiding over this meeting. 1:41:34 Anything you'd like to add?
1:41:36 Thank you. 1:41:36 Just thank you, and thank you, Claire, for that summary. 1:41:40 Colleagues, this is a report that was required by a previous council in, I think it was 2017 or 2018, required that the bureau bring a report, an annual report. 1:41:55 So that's the The origin of this, um, you know, the previous council dealt with different options on the treatment plant. 1:42:05 Um, I think now, um, in hindsight, they made absolutely the right decision to, um, have the plant that we're building now. 1:42:13 It went from Cryptosporidium to something much larger, uh, around impacts of climate change, which are very, very serious. 1:42:22 Interesting that we just had a conversation about facilities when the Water Bureau had purchased this land sometime in the early '70s, I believe. 1:42:30 And, you know, we've had conversations about how it was held up at LUBA, but construction has restarted, I think, maybe this July. 1:42:42 So we did have a very robust conversation in committee. 1:42:47 We talked about all kinds of things, including impact to minority contractors due to the shutdown. 1:42:55 And we also talked about the hope and desire that the largesse of this project does not end up cannibalizing the operating funds of the Water Bureau and how we finance this. 1:43:10 In any event, I welcome questions. 1:43:13 I know there's lots and lots of interest in this, as evidenced both by citizen input and our own conversations. 1:43:19 Thank you. 1:43:19 So I really appreciate the work of the Water Bureau in bringing this forward.
1:43:27 Thank you, Councilor. 1:43:28 Thank you, Claire. 1:43:29 Keelan, do we have anybody signed up for public testimony?
1:43:33 Okay then, colleagues, let's take any technical questions, other questions, or discussion altogether on this report. 1:43:40 Is there anybody who'd like to ask a question? 1:43:46 Okay. 1:43:47 Oh, Councilor Novick.
1:43:48 Um, let's see, is this our one chance to ask a question, or can we wait until we've heard the report to ask questions?
1:43:54 Uh, generally, because this was well vetted in committee, what we have done in council, like with previous items today, is just move into questions, assuming that folks have had the opportunity to do background research or check with their colleagues okay, thank you, Madam President.
1:44:16 So I just think that it's good to take any opportunity to have a discussion about an issue that we periodically hear about from constituents, which is, um, why did you choose to do the filtration plant as opposed to ultraviolet treatment? 1:44:30 Isn't it incredibly expensive, uh, given that the costs keep on rising? 1:44:35 And I, I think that it's fair to say that the cost of the treatment plant plays a pretty significant role in the projected increase in the combined water sewer bill for a single-family home by about $30 over the next 5 years. 1:44:46 Is that right?
1:44:48 That's correct. 1:44:49 I'm Queesha Light, interim director of the Water Bureau. 1:44:51 That's correct. 1:44:52 It's going to be probably around $40 additional.
1:44:56 So I think that it's useful just to sort of spell out in public whenever we can what the consequences would be if we either had originally decided that we're not going to do this, we're just going to do ultraviolet treatment, or what the consequences would be if we suddenly decided now we wanted to switch. 1:45:16 One of the benefits of, as I understand it, of the treatment plant is that it makes the system more resilient to wildfires and earthquakes.
1:45:29 So could you take a little time to sort of spell out what might happen in an earthquake or huge wildfire to the water system without the treatment plant and what we think will happen with the treatment plant?
1:45:39 I'll let you take the technical pieces of that.
1:45:44 I'm David Peters. 1:45:45 I'm an engineering manager with the Water Bureau overseeing the Bull Run filtration facilities. 1:45:52 And the question about what, what would happen if We didn't have filtration and we had an emergency event. 1:46:02 And I'll use the case of a forest fire. 1:46:04 If we had a forest fire in the Bull Run Watershed and a significant portion of the watershed was burned, what happens is during the winter when the rains come back, all of that burned material gets washed into the reservoirs. 1:46:21 And if you don't have a treatment system like filtration, it could be years for that sediment to filter out of the water to where the water could be usable, drinkable again. 1:46:36 In the meantime, we're going to a secondary source, which is our groundwater system, to provide water during those times. 1:46:43 Our groundwater system, however, is only sized for what I call a 3-day event.
1:46:48 3 Seasons. 1:46:49 So it's not enough capacity to be used during the summer to provide all of our demands during our peaks during a hot summer. 1:46:58 But it can be used in the shoulder seasons. 1:47:00 It can be used during the winter to meet those demands. 1:47:03 So we'd have a deficit of clean drinking water that we could provide to our customers. 1:47:11 And in—.
1:47:13 You mentioned UV. 1:47:15 UV would not have solved that problem. 1:47:18 It does not remove sediments. 1:47:20 It specifically is focused on inactivation of Cryptosporidium. 1:47:26 And so it wouldn't solve problems like landslides or wildfires or storm events that would happen in the Bow Run Watershed. 1:47:33 In those cases, we would still be shutting that system down.
1:47:37 And it's the same kind of rationale applied to the effects of an earthquake.
1:47:40 An earthquake also It could, if it creates landslides in the watershed. 1:47:55 What I'd like to say is the 2 supplies that we have, our groundwater and our surface water, are structured to benefit us during different emergencies. 1:48:08 So our groundwater system is down by the Columbia River in areas that are liquefiable. 1:48:14 So it's likely that that system might be impacted more than our Bull Run system. 1:48:20 Our Bull Run system is up in the hills on the basalt, and it would be less likely affected by an earthquake. 1:48:30 But an earthquake could create a landslide up there.
1:48:34 That if we have filtration, we'd be able to continue to provide. 1:48:38 So I think that's the benefit of having the multi-source system that we have, is to protect us against the different types of risks that we have.
1:48:50 Another question is, if we just, in addition to what we just discussed, if we just refuse to do anything, what could the Oregon Health Authority or EPA actually do to us?
1:49:04 We have one, a compliance agreement that we're under. 1:49:08 So the option to do nothing, we long signed away that because we're on an agreement that says we will deliver filtration by the end of September of 2027. 1:49:20 But if we do not, we one, run the risk of the EPA coming in and taking over our system, right, and saying that our water is not of the quality where it can be delivered, which means that impacts our hospitals, that impacts our businesses. 1:49:34 That is not just us. 1:49:37 It means a shutdown of our city, essentially. 1:49:40 And I think the other piece that we look at is if they say that, that impacts our bond rating. 1:49:45 We can no longer get the bonds at— we can't get the low-cost interest that we need for capital projects.
1:49:52 I think I might be making this up, but I think I heard somewhere that one thing OHA could do if we're not in compliance is like order us to tell people to boil their water every day.
1:50:05 We could tell people to boil their water every single day. 1:50:08 And so to have us in a continuous state of boil water is rough, but no hospital can do that, right?
1:50:17 Thank you very much. 1:50:18 I mean, I know you've gone over this before, but I just think it's important to daylight it whenever we get a chance.
1:50:24 I thank you. 1:50:24 I appreciate it. 1:50:25 I think it's important that the public hears and understands this over and over because this is an expensive endeavor.
1:50:33 Thank you, Councilor. 1:50:34 Councilor Dunphy.
1:50:35 Thank you. 1:50:36 Yeah, I do just want to take an opportunity to reflect the real fear and concern that I hear from constituents every day about this project. 1:50:46 Both neighbors who have been neighbors of the project itself who are lobbying. 1:50:51 They're not in the city of Portland. 1:50:52 They're not my constituents, but they are very organized and passionate. 1:50:57 And this is absolutely impacting their community. 1:50:59 But also, I really want to just acknowledge the genuine strain that this will put on families, especially low-income families who are a lot of times living paycheck to paycheck and seeing a huge increase on their water bill like this is going to hurt. 1:51:16 It's going to require sacrifice. 1:51:20 And I do agree that the need to respond to climate change is very important, that a fire would absolutely be devastating. 1:51:29 And we had similar situations, you know, this last couple years where the fire has gotten pretty close. 1:51:36 So that's a real concern, but it is a secondary concern to what the previous city councils talked about. 1:51:43 When this plan first moved forward, I was working in Nick Fish's office and climate change was not the reason we were responding. 1:51:49 The reason we were responding was Cryptosporidium. 1:51:51 And the conversations at that time, the cost of this facility was a quarter of what it is now. 1:51:58 I just need the daylight. 1:52:00 That is a real concern. 1:52:01 And if we are going to not only put this cost on top of the bills of ratepayers going forward, We need to keep a really careful eye on all the additional costs that we're going to be having. 1:52:13 In Nick Fish's office at the time, the mandate coming from Nick was that we didn't increase the water bill by more than 5% every year. 1:52:23 We have had to move away from that as a standard, as a combined rate increase, understanding there's differences between water and BES. 1:52:33 And there's a lot of good reasons for that, but I really, really implore the future one Water Bureau to keep an eye on anything we can do to keep costs down year over year because this is genuinely going to impact people for generations. 1:52:49 Hopefully the benefits will outweigh the costs, but I just needed to voice those concerns that I'm hearing a lot.
1:52:58 Thank you, Councilor. 1:52:59 Councilor Ryan.
1:53:01 Yes, thank you, Council President. 1:53:03 I feel like there's gremlins in my computer right now. 1:53:07 Okay, one second. 1:53:09 There we go.
1:53:09 We're on agenda item 9.
1:53:11 Oh, I know that, but the thing just went wild and went away from the screen. 1:53:15 I'm here, I'm present. 1:53:16 It's almost Halloween. 1:53:17 It's beautiful outside. 1:53:19 Hi. 1:53:20 Thank you, Deputy City Administrator Priya Dhanapal, for being here today. 1:53:24 And I want to acknowledge your steady leadership at the Water Bureau, particularly you, Director Keisha Light. 1:53:30 You've really navigated an extremely complex project and you've been moving through it with a lot of recent hurdles. 1:53:36 I think we've all been reading about them, but I'm not in your shoes. 1:53:40 So I just want to thank you for all that you've been going through to get this project back online. 1:53:45 And it is back online. 1:53:46 So thank you. 1:53:47 It's great to hear that update. 1:53:49 I benefit from the 4-year term as a commissioner prior to this to understand the complex evolution of this project. 1:53:55 And I really appreciate the questions that were raised by 2 of my colleagues just prior to me speaking. 1:54:01 And yes, it's really complex. 1:54:03 And I highly suggest that we have all the councilors eventually do field trips up to Bull Run. 1:54:09 It's something that I waited about a year to do, and it was so beneficial to finally spend time up there. 1:54:15 I spent almost the entire day up there asking questions, just seeing the complexity. 1:54:21 And you can't leave but noticing that we have, right, Under our nose or not far from us, just the most precious resource that every city wishes they had, which is pure water, drinkable water that is close to our city. 1:54:35 It's— I can't think of a more important asset for our city on so many levels in terms of the decades that are moving forward. 1:54:42 So it's been frustrating, of course, to all of us to see the cost escalate. 1:54:48 I think that you've handled all of the questions well, but I'm going to pivot to something that I want to daylight for my colleagues because it's been my main reason to support this from the beginning. 1:55:00 And it goes even beyond the fact that this will be such an important, precious asset for Portland that others will really want to hook up to it. 1:55:07 I have faith, Councilor Smith, that other municipalities will want to play once this is all done because it'll be a very sacred resource, I think, as we move forward. 1:55:17 Unfortunately, Unfortunately. 1:55:18 And I'm really glad we're protecting it. 1:55:20 This project also has such an opportunity to really go deep into workforce development. 1:55:26 You can— I picture the student graduating from a high school locally, especially out in East Portland, and getting into a pre-apprentice program. 1:55:34 And in the duration of this project, they have the opportunity to get the skills to move up to apprentice, to move up to journey person. 1:55:41 And that means there's steadily improving their opportunity to have a living wage for the rest of their life. 1:55:47 And so we talk a lot about equity opportunities and workforce, and I think we have such a golden opportunity here. 1:55:54 And so I want to keep tracking those numbers as we move along on who the workforce is, who we're hiring, and what the demographic makeup is at the pre-apprenticeship level. 1:56:04 So we really get to the heart of the matter of having impact on something that we talk a lot about.
1:56:09 But seldom do we have such a crisp, clear, concrete opportunity to do that. 1:56:13 So I just wanted to daylight that since it's a new council and I hadn't had a chance to say that in front of all of them. 1:56:19 I have full faith in you, Keisha, and your team at the Water Bureau. 1:56:23 I did read through this because this report annually has been of interest, and I thought this one was the most improved of all of the reports that I've seen in the 4 years that I've studied it. 1:56:32 So thank you.
1:56:35 Thank you, Councilor. 1:56:36 Councilor Green.
1:56:38 Yeah, thank you. 1:56:39 I mean, these are really important things that we need to engage on, and I understand, Councilor Novick, I appreciate the ways you posed some of those questions 'cause it places into public a lot of what we're receiving in our inboxes. 1:56:51 I think the things for me that reinforce my commitment to this project is that the cost of not doing anything Is a significant burden that future generations will bear because wildfire risk is only increasing. 1:57:08 And correct me if I'm wrong, but the efficacy of a UV filtration approach is a function of turbidity in the water. 1:57:16 So if you've got too much sedimentation in the water, it's not going to be as effective anyway. 1:57:20 And so I know that the original conversations was about Cryptosporidium, but I think it was good that we contemplated other coincidental benefits that would result from the investment in an infrastructure plant that will increase our regional resiliency. 1:57:39 We can't ignore the cost control problems, but I'll just note that the cost control issues related to, or the cost escalation issues related to this project are the same issues that plague every other construction project, particularly in the post-pandemic period, which is rising inflation. 1:57:54 And I'm the city's representative to the Regional Water Providers Consortium for the City of Portland. 1:57:59 In our last meeting, we did introduce the topic of maybe reconsidering joint purchase arrangements to pool our resources and purchase ahead of demand the infrastructure inputs. 1:58:15 So that way we can have a kind of buffer stock of those commodity inputs to control our costs. 1:58:21 Now, the City of Portland would be the biggest mover in that. 1:58:24 So in the spirit of making sure that we're approaching this regional problem with some sort of solidarity, mutual aid, that I think those benefits need to be extended to our partners in the consortium. 1:58:36 And maybe they'll come on back, as the councilor noted, is a risk of them leaving. 1:58:40 But, you know, Director Light, you hit on a really important consideration, which is if we get into a situation where we fail to live up to the terms of our What is it? 1:58:54 Compliance obligation, then we're leaving our economic actors who rely upon steady water out in the lurch. 1:59:02 And that is a serious risk to our economic development prospects, not only in a time where we're sort of trying to understand how we can accelerate our economic development, but forestall a bigger decline. 1:59:16 So if we have big major institutions who maybe think twice on locating in our city because they're not sure we're willing to back our major infrastructure requirements, that is just going to accelerate the doom loop, and we can't afford that. 1:59:32 And so I think, you know, when we think about rate schedules and rate trajectories over time, I mean, we don't have to be passive. 1:59:40 You know, we can always make choices in our budget on what to subsidize and what not to subsidize. 1:59:44 So that's always up to us.
1:59:45 We have the low-income discount program, which we must continue to emphasize is there. 1:59:51 But also the way that you deal with fixed-cost disease, which is what this is, is to grow. 1:59:56 You grow your way out of a fixed-cost problem because you spread the fixed costs over a larger and larger base. 2:00:02 And so, you know, as you're getting those sort of roadshows from Prosper Portland's TIF districts, what you'll note is that there's a dedication and emphasis on infrastructure spend in the new TIF districts, particularly in Westside, something like 20% of the new TIF resources are going to be about upscaling our infrastructure capacity so we can enable more dense development, which will allow us to spread our costs over a larger base. 2:00:26 That's where we have to go, colleagues. 2:00:29 It's really imperative for us to clear the bottlenecks and red tape to housing production and commercial production in this city.
2:00:39 I, again, I'm gonna keep hammering this, but we absolutely must upzone large swaths of this city and we can't wait 3 years of process to get that done or else we're gonna be 3 years later on getting our fixed costs spread out over a larger base and lowering the rate trajectory on average for every ratepayer. 2:00:52 So that's my spiel. 2:00:54 And I'm excited to see us moving forward on this and, you know, appreciate your frank willingness to kind of share some of the tough truths out there. 2:01:06 Thank you. 2:01:07 As we hear from community members who are pretty upset about the cost problem. 2:01:11 Thanks.
2:01:12 Council President, may I say one thing too?
2:01:16 Because you're right, we do need to be able to spread those costs across more people. 2:01:21 And what we're seeing, and I know we talked about this in the T&I committee, is what we're seeing is multifamily being built, and we need that multifamily to be built with separate meters. 2:01:31 Without that, That's not more people to spread those costs across. 2:01:35 And then we have to start having a different type of cost causation, cost allocation conversation, and which we know we need to do anyway. 2:01:43 But that is where we are right now. 2:01:47 We— getting more people living in multifamily doesn't spread those costs across more people. 2:01:53 It just doesn't do that in our system.
2:01:57 Thank you. 2:01:58 Thank you for noting that. 2:02:01 I'm looking to the vice chair of our Housing Committee as I say that. 2:02:06 Councilor Smith, go right ahead. 2:02:08 Thank you.
2:02:09 Thank you for the report. 2:02:10 I want to go back to something. 2:02:12 Who are the 4 wholesale customers that have decided to back out of the Bull Run after it's completed?
2:02:19 TVWD, Lusted Hill, Rockwood, and Gresham. 2:02:24 Okay.
2:02:25 Do we have a strategic plan to increase the customer base?
2:02:30 So we have, we're, you know, we have conversations. 2:02:34 We're definitely having conversations with folks around. 2:02:36 No master plan on that one yet. 2:02:39 That is definitely something that we have, as our leadership team within Water Bureau, been looking at. 2:02:44 Not only, you know, what are the other revenue streams, but how do we We create a system and that those utilities— those utilities won't want— those cities will want to come back. 2:02:57 The challenge we have is, you know, they— you have to build out the system too for people to connect to you, all the things that come with that. 2:03:07 Or you take TVWD, they're investing in their own facility. 2:03:12 Their facility is costing them at this point about $1.6 or something like that billion.
2:03:18 Um, so, but what we do have with them is emergency agreements, right, um, that we're working through. 2:03:27 I think there's the potential that we, you know, Rockwood and Gresham could come back. 2:03:32 They're, they're relying solely on groundwater going forward, and there's the potential because of filtration that we may see some of that exactly.
2:03:41 So did they give us any indication why they left?
2:03:48 I will— I can only tell you what I have learned over this time. 2:03:53 Some of it is cost.
2:03:55 Some of it is wanting to have more control, and some of it is just politics that has existed for years between the cities. 2:04:04 And some of it I've been told. 2:04:06 It's just, you know, how we are able to share ownership when it comes to the Bull Run.
2:04:12 So yeah, very complex relationships. 2:04:15 Um, I'd like to see if DCA Dhanapal could come up here because I, I, I have an idea that I want to throw out at you guys because you just said something very important. 2:04:27 I had these in my talking points. 2:04:29 When you say you have to build out the system, you know, the warm Warm Springs Reservation, they're always out of water. 2:04:35 They're always having to boil it, having to have restricted use of their water source. 2:04:41 Have we tried to reach out to them to see if they could actually be one of our customers?
2:04:50 I'm going to check with the water— sorry, for the record.
2:04:52 Or maybe it's too far. 2:04:53 Just, I'm just trying to think. 2:04:55 I was reading some articles last night about them and their water, and was like, well, maybe, um, there could be a relationship.
2:05:05 Thank you, Councilor Smith. 2:05:06 Uh, this is Priya Dhanapal, DCA for Public Works. 2:05:08 Um, and we have not reached out to the, uh, to that particular customer, potential customer. 2:05:14 We can, uh, look into, look into that, and we're always open for ideas on, um, connecting with future potential customers.
2:05:22 Yeah, thank you. 2:05:23 I just want to say ditto, ditto, ditto to my, um, District 1 colleague in regards to the cost. 2:05:31 It is costing, and I know every DCA is hearing this across the board because we're infrastructure government, but the cost of the water is incredible. 2:05:41 I looked at my bill last night and paid it. 2:05:43 I was like, wow, this is huge. 2:05:47 And I'm just one person that uses water. 2:05:49 So, I can imagine what it looks like for the use of a family, and on top of the water and everything else is going up, the food, and it's just a nightmare across the board. 2:06:03 And we have the federal government who's not working right now and they're closed down. 2:06:08 So that is just adding to all the stress of what we have to pay for and how things are going to rise rapidly. 2:06:16 But I do want to say that— Councilor Loretta Smith. 2:06:17 Our district, I say District 1 is probably one of the most dynamic districts in the city, and I believe it is the new front door to the city of Portland. 2:06:26 But we have some challenges. 2:06:30 The average, uh, salary of a family in District 1 is $60,000 a year compared to the average salary in the other 3 districts of $90,000, average $92,000. 2:06:41 So I just wanted to keep that in mind. 2:06:43 I know we have to build something, and I know we have to pay for it. 2:06:46 And we, we, we, we cannot actually pay for this on the backs of an internal service fee, uh, because it takes a lot of money to, to build one of these. 2:06:56 And I appreciate, um, the partnership that we have with the federal government in terms of helping us to, um, have the resources to actually build this. 2:07:07 And, um, it's, it's needed. 2:07:09 Thank you. 2:07:10 But I just want to just say ditto to what my partner is saying as well, and thank you.
2:07:16 Thank you, Councilor. 2:07:17 If I may add one thing.
2:07:19 Yes, uh, the, um, bills across, across everywhere is going up. 2:07:24 The one thing that I do want to mention is, um, for those who are not able to afford the bill or have difficulties, we have a robust affordability program and financial assistance program. 2:07:35 So um, just an opportunity for people to reach out to the Water Bureau to learn how, how we can best support them.
2:07:42 Would I qualify for that? 2:07:45 I didn't get a COLA this year, so, um, I won't be able to pay any of those high bills. 2:07:50 Maybe when I get a COLA, I, I'll be able to do that. 2:07:52 But, um, just, just checking.
2:07:54 Well, look, we are trying to, but this is why we are doing our smart discount.
2:08:00 That high that's why this pilot is so important, because it is trying to help us think about how can we get just even a small discount. 2:08:08 Because when we did the randomized trial, what we heard from people who got 10% or 20% that they weren't expecting is that that made the difference between them being able to pay that full bill that month, because they, they got an unexpected discount, which tells us that there is a need.
2:08:26 It might not be the 60% or the 80% that some of our other customers are getting, but just a 10% or 5% can make a difference and let people know that we get it and we understand. 2:08:37 So we are looking at all those things, and I do hear you all. 2:08:41 It is the thing that we spend a lot of time thinking about.
2:08:44 And just for those folks who are watching this, I was just kidding. 2:08:47 I'm not asking for something from my local government. 2:08:51 Thank you.
2:08:52 Thank you, Councilor. 2:08:57 Thank you for the discussion. 2:08:58 Councilor Clark.
2:09:00 Thank you, Madam President. 2:09:02 Um, just a couple of things. 2:09:04 I, uh, want to echo what my, um, colleague here said about the cost escalation, um, inflation, tariffs, but also the delay. 2:09:15 And the delay was brought about by neighbors using the land use system to object to the facility. 2:09:22 So I just want to make sure everybody knows that, that, that's— it's not our fault, um, that some of these costs went up. 2:09:30 Um, I also, uh, wanted to add that when I first, uh, we first started meeting as the T&I committee and we had water in, I was just flabbergasted by this, uh, program that you have to assist low-income people. 2:09:44 And in fact, we talked about it being transferable across potentially other programs, other bureaus. 2:09:50 And the innovation that you're employing on the system is just admirable and really, really appreciated. 2:09:57 Just one last point. 2:09:59 I think that Portland is one of the last cities, maybe of our size, to have unfiltered water. 2:10:08 We're kind of behind the rest of the country in doing that.
2:10:12 Councilor Ryan, we've had a— we have fabulous water. 2:10:16 We have a great system, and it tastes really great. 2:10:20 But we are one of the last in the country to actually filter it all. 2:10:24 So we're kind of behind in that way. 2:10:29 But thank you very much for presenting that report, and I hope everybody votes positively on this.
2:10:36 Thank you, Councilor. 2:10:36 And I just want, before we move on, to express I just want to express my gratitude to the committee for your work on this because this is exactly the type of work that needs a deep dive, exactly the type of project that needs the oversight that council can provide. 2:10:52 But we know that we don't have the time to provide the deep level of oversight over every important project in the city in this body. 2:11:00 There's just too much and there are too many, too many of us to weigh in on every single project with this level of detail. 2:11:08 So I appreciate our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for doing a deep dive on this and for what I know will be continued oversight work as the project moves forward. 2:11:20 I'm glad that it's back up and running, and I'm glad that we have such a thorough report before us today. 2:11:25 So thank you to all of you for that report as well. 2:11:29 Colleagues, I don't see any other hands in the queue, so I would entertain a motion to adopt the report.
2:11:41 Okay, I think we're going to take Councilor Clark on the motion and Councilor Novick on the second. 2:11:46 Keelan, could you please call the roll?
2:12:05 No, she's not returned yet.
2:12:13 The report is accepted with 10 yes votes.
2:12:16 Thank you. 2:12:16 And I'll note for folks watching, um, Councilor Koyama Lane did have to jump to some other business. 2:12:22 Councilor Kanal, who was We've got a little bit of movement online, but folks are keeping in touch with Keelan so that she can keep the roll counts appropriately. 2:12:35 Keelan, we are back to agenda item number 5. 2:12:38 Could you please read the agenda item for us?
2:12:43 Appoint and reappoint members to the Development Review Advisory Committee.
2:12:48 Thank you. 2:12:51 We don't— there is a committee staff summary prepared online because this was on the consent agenda. 2:12:56 We don't have a verbal report for it. 2:12:59 Councilor Avalos was the committee chair and she is absent today. 2:13:02 Councilor Dunphy, is there anything you would like to share with us about these appointments coming out of the Homelessness and Housing Committee?
2:13:08 Yeah, I actually chaired this meeting and there were some fantastic folks who were willing to volunteer their time. 2:13:16 We were impressed. 2:13:17 They stood up to our scrutiny and our pointed questions. 2:13:22 This is an interesting board, just broadly. 2:13:26 DRAC is an interesting one that deals with some tricky issues, and I appreciate the sort of prescriptive way that they have built out different membership categories for members, and it has seemed to be going well. 2:13:39 So I'm excited for the folks who thank you so much.
2:13:50 And Councilor Knoll, you pulled this off of consent. 2:13:53 Is there anything you'd like to share with us?
2:13:57 Nothing specific to the people who are being appointed. 2:14:01 I had a couple, you know, general questions about the structure of it that I've asked. 2:14:08 Separately and we'll continue to follow up there. 2:14:11 I just wanted to note that I did leave the other item on consent agenda because the full council did discuss it already. 2:14:20 So thank you for that opportunity.
2:14:24 Thank you, Councilor. 2:14:25 Keelan, has anybody signed up for public testimony since this was removed from the consent agenda?
2:14:32 Okay, colleagues. 2:14:34 We do have Mr. Caron here from PP&D if there are any questions. 2:14:39 Does anybody have any questions or comments? 2:14:42 Councilor Smith, are you in the queue?
2:14:43 Yes, I'm in the queue.
2:14:44 Thank you so much, Madam President. 2:14:45 I have a question. 2:14:46 I'm not familiar with this particular committee and not quite sure what the mission and vision of this Go right ahead.
2:15:10 Thank you. 2:15:11 Hello, I'm Ross Caron. 2:15:13 I'm with Portland Permitting Development, and I am the liaison to the Development Review Advisory Committee. 2:15:19 The committee is, is a, is a citizen volunteer or community volunteer advisory committee, and as was mentioned, it has representatives from both the community as well as our industry partners that are involved in the development review and permitting process, and really acts as an advisory committee for changes to codes, rules, and processes within PP&D as well as with our partner bureaus that also are involved in the development review process. 2:15:48 So the committee members both advise, make recommendations, and also anytime we make changes or improvements, we engage that group to get community and industry partner feedback that we then take into consideration or act on as we move those changes through our legislative processes or just process improvement processes. 2:16:13 The members are appointed to the 3-year terms there are 17 members in total, and they have the option to serve one second term. 2:16:24 And their immediate responsibilities are joining the committee and then, you know, representing the different perspectives or the different seats on the committee in advising the city on changes, codes, and rules related to permitting.
2:16:42 So will they actually look at— we did the system development charges waivers. 2:16:48 Are they going to be looking at that to see if that program is actually working and how it's working and where it's working at?
2:16:56 They— so they were involved in— they were engaged in that, the SDC waivers, providing feedback and perspectives from the community. 2:17:08 And as we monitor the performance of that, we will be reporting that back out to the Development Review Advisory Committee.
2:17:16 I know this is off topic, but have we experienced an overwhelming response to our waiver? 2:17:26 Have we gotten more people? 2:17:28 I see Administrator Jordan, he's cringing over here, but I'm just curious to know, this was months ago and we were told that people are in the queue and all they need to do is get this waiver. 2:17:41 And so I'm wondering, has it worked yet?
2:17:44 I did— I could— we could— I could, um, follow up with our deputy director and director and, and, and follow up with you on that. 2:17:54 But I, I don't know. 2:17:55 Great.
2:17:55 If you can talk to me offline and kind of give me a a lay of the land. 2:18:01 Thank you.
2:18:03 Thank you, Councilor. 2:18:04 Councilor Green?
2:18:06 Yeah, just very briefly, I just wanted to note that I appreciated seeing the bio summaries kind of clearly laid out. 2:18:15 Every single one of those people made it very clear that their purpose is making sure that we are overcoming the hurdles to housing production and broad development in this city. 2:18:26 Respecting other nuances of the broad array of things we should care about in our built environment. 2:18:30 That's going to continue to be very important to me for all the reasons I've already said. 2:18:34 So happy to support these appointees.
2:18:37 Thank you, Councilor. 2:18:38 Councilor Ryan.
2:18:39 Yeah, 2 things. 2:18:40 One is, thanks, good to see you. 2:18:41 I thought that the DRAC appointments were just outstanding, and we had such good dialogue at the meeting about their values and why they're serving and also their IQ. 2:18:52 About what it takes to do development. 2:18:54 Councilor Smith, I really appreciate your question. 2:18:56 Our office has really been trying to track that. 2:18:59 We're seeing some good trends on pulling permits for housing developments that are, say, under 19 units, 19 and below, and we kind of know why that is. 2:19:07 But other than that, I really haven't seen a lot, but that's better than what was happening for months prior to that. 2:19:14 So I'm hoping that even though it's a really disappointing year in terms of pulling permits and doing any economic development in Portland, we are seeing some upticks in the smaller units. 2:19:25 Yeah, at least in North— at least in District 2. 2:19:27 Thanks.
2:19:29 Thank you, Councilor. 2:19:29 Councilor Dunphy.
2:19:31 Yeah, I just wanted to, uh, very quickly point out to my colleagues, because I screwed this up in committee, DRAC is not design review, by the way. 2:19:38 This is development review. 2:19:39 That is a separate conversation. 2:19:40 I screwed that up in committee, I think, maybe twice. 2:19:42 So So just wanted to make sure that's very obvious for everybody.
2:19:47 Thank you, Councilor, for that clarification, both for us and for others listening. 2:19:50 Councilor Kanal.
2:19:52 Thank you, Madam President. 2:19:54 I wanted to first echo and appreciate Councilor Smith's questions and ask for the same data as well, and I guess also from Councilor Ryan also, but, and also echo everything that Councilor Green said. 2:20:08 My question was, As to whether or not— or it's maybe not, uh, yes or no, actually— the, the level of detail that goes into these individual slots. 2:20:19 Um, are there any of the particular, um, positions and, uh, specific backgrounds that an individual needs to be on DRAC which are more challenging to fill or to find applicants for?
2:20:37 I've, I've been the liaison to DRAC for the last almost 2 years, and we've filled a number of seats. 2:20:45 Um, so I don't know, Councilor Kanal, if I have the, the information to, to respond to that question. 2:20:53 Um, but I, I— we, we generally have pretty good turnout. 2:20:58 Sorry.
2:20:59 I'd be happy to follow up sure, I will do that.
2:21:07 Thanks. 2:21:08 Thank you, Madam President.
2:21:09 Thank you, councilors, colleagues. 2:21:12 Seeing no one else in the queue, and with my gratitude to everybody who has stepped forward to serve in these roles on behalf of all residents of the city, I think we should move to a vote. 2:21:25 Keelan, can you please call the roll?
2:21:28 Madam President, this is a—.
2:21:30 Oh, this is a report, isn't it? 2:21:32 This is listed as a report. 2:21:33 I apologize. 2:21:34 I would entertain a motion to adopt the report.
2:21:39 Okay, Councilor Dunphy and then Councilor Ryan, I believe.
2:22:04 The report is accepted with 10 yes votes.
2:22:06 Thank you, Keelan. 2:22:08 And we do have one additional agenda item. 2:22:11 Keelan, could you please call agenda item 10?
2:22:16 Authorize council to continue operating under the current thank you, Keelan.
2:22:24 And colleagues, you do all have a paper copy of this in front of you. 2:22:28 And for folks watching online or in the room or who do better on screen, this is now posted as item 10 on today's agenda as well. 2:22:40 Keelan, do we have anybody signed up for public testimony?
2:22:44 No one signed up. 2:22:45 Thank you, Councilor McClymont.
2:22:46 Okay, so I would draw your attention, colleagues, to the first whereas and the first therefore as the real meat of this. 2:22:54 We passed an emergency ordinance previously that required me as council president to ensure that we had a proposal to replace or extend Chapter 3.02 of City Code no later than October 31st. 2:23:06 Given the enormous work that has been done in the Governance Committee, including some updates via resolution to our rules and a package that I have in the works right now that I have been working with the council vice president to make sure we have time to hear before the end of this year. 2:23:27 I had thought that perhaps we had met the requirements there. 2:23:31 I recently learned that the language that we passed was far more prescriptive than I had recalled and that we did need to do something. 2:23:38 So today, Thank you. 2:23:39 I have something brought forward for us which says, therefore be it resolved, the council will continue operating under the current language in Chapter 3.02 of City Code, which allows us without making any changes today to meet that requirement. 2:23:55 This resolution also notes that I do have a package in the works, which we will be posting as soon as it is through legal review where it is sitting right now.
2:24:07 I'm very interested in what my colleague is cooking. 2:24:11 And we will have that posted and before the Governance Committee, likely on the Governance Committee agenda next month. 2:24:19 I would encourage anybody not on that committee who has an interest in the topic to come testify there and share your thoughts with us. 2:24:27 One of the things that we hadn't discussed when we first passed the emergency ordinance Earlier this year was that if something didn't make it to full council because we couldn't get agreement in committee, we wouldn't be able to fulfill this requirement. 2:24:42 That's why we didn't just extend the date of the requirement, but are instead specifying until something else comes forward, we will continue to operate under our city code as it currently stands. 2:24:53 We've developed norms. 2:24:55 We have been doing this. 2:24:57 And That gives us the flexibility to have the conversations that we need to moving forward. 2:25:06 Councilor Kanal.
2:25:09 Thank you, Madam President. 2:25:10 Um, I have a question for you about the second, therefore the second be it further resolved. 2:25:18 Um, currently under city code, uh, 3.02.020, It says that ordinances amending council rules generally will be assigned to the full council without committee consideration. 2:25:35 But in the there be it further resolved, it says that will go to the Governance Committee. 2:25:40 And I just wanted to understand the legislative intent there. 2:25:44 Can you speak to that, please?
2:25:45 The Governance Committee has been having a number of conversations about how council operates generally, many of which were not in ordinance form. 2:25:55 They were in resolution form or in the form of conversations about a potential handbook. 2:26:00 Because those conversations are very related to some of the items contained in the ordinance, I felt that there was a compelling reason to make sure that there was some cohesiveness in those conversations by placing it in governance where the rest of that work is taking place. 2:26:18 Thank you.
2:26:19 And is, is just to clarify further, is the document that you're intending to bring an ordinance or a resolution?
2:26:26 That document will be an ordinance.
2:26:32 Um, is this just a question time or is this also open debate?
2:26:36 Uh, we do not have public testimony signed up, so we can take questions or debate.
2:26:42 Okay, then I will continue and say that I, I'm a strong supporter of the, the way the code is now. 2:26:47 I'm concerned about creating a, uh, either a precedent of resolutions that defy code, or, uh, and obviously this is not a direct defiance because it does say generally, um, but one that, that is sort of in a different space, uh, than the spirit of the code. 2:27:03 So that is my primary concern. 2:27:05 I am grateful for you, and I think the Council Vice President as well, bringing forward to, uh, a document to do this, um, in the first place. 2:27:13 But that is my concern, is that this would go back to governance when, as opposed to a work session or a full council discussion. 2:27:20 So, um, and I'll also mention that the, the requirement under the old, the ordinance in January is to bring something to the council agenda. 2:27:29 Uh, this would check that box, but it's sort of about the idea that the full, full council will get to talk about this first. 2:27:38 Um, and I'll also, um, I think I already made that point, so I will stop there. 2:27:43 Thank you.
2:27:45 Thank you, Councilor. 2:27:46 Is there any other discussion to the resolution? 2:27:51 Councilor Zimmerman.
2:27:53 I share some concerns with Councilor Kanal. 2:27:56 I, I think that, uh, what I've seen so far as a preview for some sort of handbook or guidance and things of that nature is Not going to meet my expectation. 2:28:08 And so I'm not— I guess by extending this, I want to make sure that we're not also signaling to you all that you should expect that what comes out of, you know, a small group is going to be broadly accepted without having a much bigger discussion on this. 2:28:31 I think that's a fair point. 2:28:32 And I think Councilor Kanal's points make some sense to me on that. 2:28:38 And I've said multiple times where I think when a council attempts to do things like a, you know, a workbook or whatever that has been, that kind of reeks to me of some of the transition team stuff where we really saw them get sideways with the role of the city council in this new form of government. 2:29:01 I think that's a fair point. 2:29:01 And I think that they were speaking and they made plans, and it took us months to overcome those issues, uh, when they subjugated us to the far side of this government. 2:29:12 And, uh, I don't want anything that resembles that. 2:29:15 So I'm taking this in. 2:29:17 I see— I understand the administrative piece that you're seeking here, and also signaling to those of you who sit governance of, um, this is due a big So that's all. 2:29:30 Thank you.
2:29:31 Thank you, Councilor. 2:29:34 And I'll just note that I don't think support for this administrative vote today says anything about whether somebody would support a package brought forward, a handbook which is separate from that package, or any other potential rule or code change in the future.
2:29:55 Thank you, Madam President. 2:29:57 I'm just trying to figure out what will this— what powers will this give you that you don't have right now?
2:30:03 Absolutely none. 2:30:04 This just fulfills an administrative requirement.
2:30:08 Okay, okay. 2:30:11 And we had to do it today because of what? 2:30:15 Or by the end of November because of why?
2:30:17 Uh, we passed an ordinance where we changed some of the rules that we operate under in code and 3.02 at the beginning of the year, which set a deadline of October 31st to essentially either reaffirm the code or bring a package of changes to the code.
2:30:36 Okay, okay, I got it.
2:30:39 Councilor Kanal, something additional?
2:30:45 Yes, so my understanding, and I'm finding the exact words here, is that the, the, the— and I don't want to be too, too cute about it, but it does say that, you know, it has to be placed on the council agenda by today. 2:31:00 I think my understanding, and, and that's an ordinance that, that I put forward back in January, obviously a lot of other people, in particular Councilor Zimmerman, were involved in developing it as well. 2:31:11 But my, my, my thought process at the time was that I wanted to make sure that we were time was that anything that would extend it would also need to be an ordinance, um, so that there would be— that not that we would have to vote on something today, but that there would be a first discussion on it today. 2:31:28 Um, so I think that's a, um, consideration for this conversation is whether or not acting on it today is the necessity. 2:31:39 Um, having said that, I I think that this is on the whole a very good approach to how to address the need from Ordinance 192021. 2:31:52 I think the concern I have is the exact words in the governance committee at the end of the final be it further resolved. 2:32:02 I think that addresses the concern that Councilor Zimmerman stated and that I alluded to about broader conversation being necessary. 2:32:11 So my proposal at this time would be, I think, to amend out the final 4 words of the— therefore, of the be it further resolved. 2:32:23 This is the 2nd resolved, so removing the words in the Governance Committee.
2:32:30 Colleagues, is there a second to that proposed amendment?
2:32:34 Okay, is there discussion to the proposed amendment which would remove the words in the Governance Committee from the second resolved? 2:32:49 Okay, seeing no discussion— oh, Councilor Ryan.
2:32:53 Councilor Knoll, are, are you saying that you don't want the Governance Committee to dive into the details of this before it comes to the full council?
2:33:02 I think the— may I respond, Madam President?
2:33:07 So it's hard to tell on Zoom whether to jump in or not. 2:33:11 Uh, the, the effect of this amendment would be to no longer prescribe that it goes to the Governance Committee, which I think is more in line with the original intent of the ordinance, that the proposal to replace or extend the code would come to the full council. 2:33:29 That's what Ordinance 192021 does say. 2:33:33 I think there are a lot of conversations that have already had— have occurred at governance, as the council president mentioned, which will feed into the development of whatever the next proposal is, but that it should come to a broader discussion first. 2:33:47 This amendment would not mandate that, but simply not mandate that it goes to governance first.
2:33:55 So I think you answered my question that it should just come directly to council, but not be further vetted in governance, which hasn't really had this direct conversation yet. 2:34:06 I sit on governance, so I do understand what we've been doing. 2:34:10 And I was happy this was on the docket so we could actually get into the details of it. 2:34:15 So what am I missing? 2:34:16 I'm trying to figure out what your problem you're trying to solve with your amendment.
2:34:21 If it relates to council rules, it should go to 12 of us after governance works on it. 2:34:28 The current city council code, which I read, is that things that amend council rules generally go to the full council without committee consideration. 2:34:37 We all voted to approve that. 2:34:39 That was a, um, a decision we made intentionally to ensure that the full council was weighing in on it. 2:34:45 Not having it be shaped exclusively by a subset.
2:34:50 I believe in the Governance Committee, and so I won't be supporting this amendment. 2:34:55 I think that you can do both. 2:34:57 You can have it be vetted out in the details in a Governance Committee, and then we can bring it to the full council. 2:35:03 So thanks. 2:35:04 I won't be supporting the amendment based on this conversation.
2:35:07 Thank you, Councilor. 2:35:08 Councilor Clark.
2:35:10 Okay, I don't understand this amendment. 2:35:13 It doesn't preclude us from discussing it. 2:35:15 In Governance Committee, right?
2:35:18 It sounds like he doesn't want us to.
2:35:19 He doesn't? 2:35:20 Okay. 2:35:21 Councilor Kanal, you don't want us to discuss this in Governance Committee, but you're not precluding us from doing that?
2:35:27 Go ahead, Councilor.
2:35:29 This is, I think, being shaped in both questions as what do I want or not. 2:35:34 This is what the code says. 2:35:36 The code says that ordinances, emergency ordinances and ordinances amending council rules Generally will be referred to the full council without committee consideration. 2:35:46 So this simply keeps this resolution in line with that code.
2:35:55 Did you have follow-up, Councilor?
2:35:58 Well, as the sponsor of this resolution, I'd be curious to know how you feel about it, Madam President.
2:36:08 Let me take Councilor Green's question and then I'm happy to weigh in. 2:36:10 Councilor Green, go right ahead.
2:36:13 Thank you. 2:36:14 I understand the intent of this amendment to be about precedent setting, and I think what I'm hearing from Councilor Kanal is that we change— we all agreed upon an ordinance that changed our code and rules of procedure that says changes to our own rules go straight to City Council, the full body, and not be passed through committees by other policies. 2:36:41 And that was our intent when we passed this. 2:36:42 And so I think what I'm hearing from Councilor Kanal is concern that using a resolution to— however expedient this is, and it's— I agree that it's a good solution to our current problem— could establish some very confusing precedent that we actually can send matters before council in terms of our rules to another committee, even though we've said in our and so that's how I'm reading this. 2:37:10 I don't see any desire to prevent discussion on a committee. 2:37:14 I mean, committees can always discuss anything they want by the chair's prerogative. 2:37:18 And so I think I would encourage the Governance Committee to continue to have these robust conversations and maybe present a comment by the committee to the full council when we consider these rules. 2:37:29 That would continue, I think, in the same spirit.
2:37:30 Spirit, but, um, I, I share that concern about establishing precedent that deviates from our code by a resolution. 2:37:39 So I'll be, I'll be supporting the amendment.
2:37:41 Thank you, Councilor. 2:37:42 Councilor Smith.
2:37:45 Thank you, uh, Madam President. 2:37:47 I have, um, legal counsel, please advise. 2:37:52 Can a resolution change an ordinance?
2:38:00 Um, no, a resolution cannot change an ordinance.
2:38:05 So what we're doing here is not going to be able to change it unless we do it in an ordinance, right?
2:38:17 Let's see what it says. 2:38:38 Councilor, I don't believe what we're doing is attempting to change an ordinance in this resolution. 2:38:45 We're just affirming in this resolution that we will continue operating under the current language that is in code.
2:38:53 That seems like that's changing an ordinance to me. 2:38:58 I'm just trying to be clear because I didn't think you could have a resolution to change the, the kind of direction that an ordinance is already given.
2:39:13 I just want legal counsel to tell me if this is legal to Madam President, while legal researches this, if we don't pass this today, what happens? 2:39:32 Do you go to jail or what happens?
2:39:36 In my experience, there are plenty of times where bodies don't actually comply with their own requirements, and unless somebody calls them on it, nothing happens. 2:39:45 What happens? 2:39:46 I think what happens is you all give me a firm finger wagging. 2:39:53 I would say having brought multiple things both to Council and Governance Committee and having discussed many things brought by my colleagues and having passed at this body items that came out of the Governance Committee but that were not ordinances amending 3.02, that we have done significant work that this speaks to, even if we haven't met the specific requirements. 2:40:21 So I would hope that even if this doesn't pass, we are comfortable with where we sit. 2:40:28 But I wanted to make sure we were dotting every i and crossing every t, which is why I brought it forward.
2:40:32 And so for me, I'm comfortable with it, but I just want to know what the— I just need to know what is legal and what is not. 2:40:40 And so for us to be spending a lot of time on something that's not even— it's not, it's, it's not in statute that we can do this. 2:40:49 So why are we talking about it here until we can actually talk about it in a work session or in a bigger conversation that we need to have?
2:40:57 I, I'm just kind of thrown off because I didn't know anything about it. 2:41:00 Go, go ahead, legal counsel.
2:41:02 Through Uh, this is Alan Yoder, uh, Deputy City Attorney. 2:41:05 Through resolution, the City Council, um, can agree to extend, um, the current rules that it's working under.
2:41:19 Thank you, Councilor.
2:41:27 Hold on— Councilor Novick, have you spoken to this yet?
2:41:33 I, I just have a question from Councilor Kanal. 2:41:35 Sorry, I just pulled up the, um, proposal. 2:41:39 Were you saying that what you would do is in the second, in, in the be it further resolved, uh, just cross out the words in the Governance Committee?
2:41:59 I apologize, Councilor Zimmerman. 2:42:00 You spoke to the underlying but not the amendment. 2:42:02 I should not have skipped over you. 2:42:03 Go right ahead.
2:42:04 Thanks. 2:42:04 For the— for this, I would just like to limit debate and get to the question of this amendment, and then so we can move on back to the whole.
2:42:12 Thank you. 2:42:13 I'm going to try to move us without taking a vote on that because I think we just have Councilor Kanal and my answer to Councilor Clark. 2:42:23 Councilor Kanal.
2:42:25 Yeah, I actually wanted to speak in, in your defense here, Madam President. 2:42:29 The, the ordinance actually just requires that you put something on the agenda, uh, not that the council actually passes it. 2:42:35 Um, I don't think it would be fair to require the council president to ensure passage or failure of an item. 2:42:42 Um, and this— the original January ordinance does not do that, so we're actually already in compliance. 2:42:47 And that's not to say that we shouldn't try to pass something good, but I just wanted to flag that. 2:42:54 And I do think that the other piece of this, to Councilor Smith's point, is that having legislative intent through a resolution to be an exception to the generally is where I draw a line here. 2:43:09 I don't want to say that this item is an exception to the code. 2:43:13 Where it says generally things will go to the full council. 2:43:17 And that's where I think the amendment is particularly relevant here. 2:43:21 So that's keeping it to the amendment at hand. 2:43:24 Thanks.
2:43:26 Thank you, Councilor. 2:43:27 And Councilor Clark, I said I would get back to your question to me. 2:43:31 I wanted to make sure all of our colleagues had time to speak as well. 2:43:35 Frankly, I'm very comfortable with the language that I Thank you. 2:43:40 Thank you, Mayor. 2:43:40 So the ordinance that was brought forward, the code, as Councilor Knoll pointed out, says generally. 2:43:47 After passing that code, because that is something that was added this year, this body then created committees, including creating a governance committee whose direction includes periodically reviewing council rules and procedures. 2:44:07 Things that, depending on your reading, may contradict some. 2:44:11 I would also note that committees give recommendations to inform full council. 2:44:15 They don't create any law or provide any direction on their own. 2:44:21 So something coming out of committee to full council would still be fully debated here. 2:44:27 I'm very comfortable with the language I brought forward. 2:44:29 I also am not— Councilor Loretta Smith. 2:44:34 I don't feel held back from my ability to do the work that I need to if we vote for the amendment. 2:44:39 I would note that our Vice President who chairs Governance is not here today, unfortunately, and she has done incredible work leading a discussion about our operations, both within code and within resolution that guide us under our rules and procedures that are outside of code.
2:45:02 Frankly, I wanted to give her the respect of making sure this could be part of those broader conversations, which is why my intent has been to send it to the Governance Committee. 2:45:14 Seeing no one else in the queue, Councilor Zimmerman, is that a new hand or is that a previous hand? 2:45:19 Keelan, could you please call the roll on the amendment brought forward by Councilor Kanal and seconded, I believe, by Councilor Murillo? 2:45:27 To remove the words in the Governance Committee from the second, be it further resolved.
2:45:55 The amendment fails with 5 yes votes and 5 no votes.
2:46:00 Okay, colleagues, is there any other discussion to the underlying resolution? 2:46:05 Seeing none, Keelan, can you please call the roll?
2:46:26 I can't approve this without the amendment.
2:46:32 The resolution is adopted with 8 yes votes and 2 no votes.
2:46:37 Thank you, colleagues. 2:46:39 That brings us to the end of our agenda. 2:46:43 Uh, Councilor Kanal, is your hand up for a purpose of this meeting?
2:46:47 Yes, I just wanted to ask for unanimous consent to allow my vote on the consent agenda to be counted even though it came in after the vote was called.
2:46:57 Colleagues, is there unanimous consent to grant that courtesy to Councilor Kanal?
2:47:05 Okay, is there a motion for a vote? 2:47:09 Okay, Councilor Kanal is shaking his head no, he doesn't want to make that motion. 2:47:14 Thank you.
2:47:20 Any other business before we close the meeting? 2:47:23 Okay. 2:47:24 A reminder that we are meeting in a recess meeting tomorrow afternoon to take back up the item that was brought forward by Councilor Smith on disparity studies. 2:47:38 With that, I will close today's meeting. 2:47:40 Thank you so much. 2:47:41 We are adjourned.
Windowbox