Windowbox
Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Unidentified speaker 6:29 - 7:02
Good evening.
I'm calling to order the Wednesday, February 18th evening meeting of the City Council.
Can we please call attendance?
Call the roll.
Good evening.
Avalos?
Present.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Novick.
Clark.
Here.
Oh, sorry.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Clark.
Robert Taylor 7:02 - 7:02
Here.
Unidentified speaker 7:04 - 7:14
Green.
Here.
Zimmerman.
Dunphy.
Here.
And would our city attorney please read the rules of decorum?
Robert Taylor 7:16 - 8:17
Thank you, Council President.
Welcome to the Portland City Council.
To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.
Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.
Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.
Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
The presiding officer preserves order.
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.
If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony should address the matter being considered.
When testifying, state your name for the record.
Your address is not necessary.
If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
Thank you.
Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the councilor calls your name.
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker 8:18 - 8:26
Thank you.
Colleagues, our first item is approval of the agenda.
Are there any requests to amend the agenda for tonight?
Eric Zimmerman 8:28 - 8:28
Seeing—.
Unidentified speaker 8:29 - 10:02
Looking at Zoom— seeing nobody— oh, Councilor Smith.
I would like to move The Smith 1 amendment second under the resolution.
Are you asking to move the resolution to the front of the agenda?
No, I'm asking to move the ordinance under the resolution and put, um, put the Zimmerman ordinance behind it.
My, uh, yeah, okay.
My intention is to call items 5, 6, and 7 together as one item, and they are posted online as one item at this time.
And we will move to the Smith Amendment at the top.
Oh, I thought they were noted as 3 separate items.
They're, they're, they're listed as 3 separate items but are being called as one item forward so we can take testimony all at once.
Sorry, any other, uh, concerns about the agenda this evening?
Okay, then, uh, without objection, the agenda is approved.
Keelan, can we please move to public communications?
First up, we have Isabella Shepherd.
Great.
Dan Ryan 10:02 - 10:02
Welcome.
Unidentified speaker 10:02 - 13:23
Please—.
Half of the public is still caught outside.
Please say your name for the record and your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes or 5 minutes.
Yeah, this is Isabella Shepherd, she/her.
Elijah is second on public comment.
He was stuck out there.
Okay, I guess we're starting.
Whenever we come to City Council asking you to shut down the Portland Ice facility, you respond saying it's out of your hands.
You already issued a land use violation and it's with Portland Permitting and Development.
We went to Permitting and Development and they said they have no power over the situation either, that they just do inspections and that City Council are the ones with the power.
Each of you are passing the buck on to anyone else, trying to get the heat off yourselves and make excuses for inaction.
You're both right though, they could start the reconsideration for ICE's conditional permit, but you could shut down the ICE facility yourselves.
Councilor Smith.
Per city charter, city has the— city council has the abilities to prevent the erection or cause the removal of buildings found to be unsafe to passersby or to other property, to restrain and exclude from the city businesses which may create a nuisance, and regulate the uses of land and structures within the city, to prevent and remove nuisances, to declare what shall constitute one, to punish persons committing nuisances, to provide the manner of removal of nuisances, and to make the cost of such removal a lien upon the property.
A land use violation aside, you have the power to shut down the ICE facility, make its landlord Stuart Lindequist pay for it, and ban ever leasing to ICE again.
You can investigate any department of the city.
You say it's in Permitting and Development's hands, so why don't you investigate them for allowing ICE to delay the violation for 5 months?
Obviously, you know what your own powers are, but I want the public to know that you are deliberately refusing to protect them from ICE.
Councilmember At the end of January, DHS released a massive attack on thousands of protesters, including children, burying the neighborhood in chemicals and poisoning the air so the effects were felt for miles.
The next day, they did the same attack on our protests of thousands.
One of the tear gas canisters fell at my feet, spewing flames so hot it melted my pants.
I set me on fire.
They set me on fire.
Order.
Nothing.
It was only after a federal judge's ruling, not your empty threats of a minuscule fine, that DHS has temporarily stopped using chemical weapons.
You're not treating this like the emergency that it is.
That's why we disrupt your meetings and started protesting at Mayor Wilson's house.
It's why we're here now.
You have to fucking do something.
Thank you.
No, I have 30 seconds.
Elijah, Elijah was waiting out there for me because I stopped in the disabled parking spot for 2 minutes because no other spots were open and people were pepper sprayed by Tommy out there who's still out there.
He wasn't pulled over.
He wasn't harassed by the cops like I was.
Okay, he's here.
Trespass people from the building just for standing up against ICE.
Shame on you.
Next up, next up we have Elijah Tahir.
Elijah Tahir 13:24 - 13:25
Uh, Tahir.
Unidentified speaker 13:26 - 13:30
Uh, please go ahead and introduce yourself for the record, your pronouns, and go ahead.
Elijah Tahir 13:30 - 16:39
My name is Elijah Tahir.
I'm here to speak about revoking the ICE permit.
Uh, to clarify how much that you, the members of City Council, have clearly deprioritized the ongoing threat of ICE, it's important to highlight what actions hold greater precedence according to Portland City Council.
In spite of the fact that now literally thousands of people have been exposed to and attacked with chemical weapons, Council President Jamie Dunphy and Councilman Mitch Green have made foie gras their key issue, choosing to spend more time on duck liver than the flagrant disregard and abuse of human rights, with fines up to $5,000 for serving it, that are somehow 6 times the $934 monthly bill that ICE landlord Stuart Lindquist could potentially pay for failing to supply detainment data by March 15th and showing whether ICE has rectified their continued failure to adhere to the continual use— conditional use permit.
Speaking of ICE landlord Stuart Lindquist, when ICE carpet bombed the elementary school next to the facility with chemical weapons, thus making it completely unusable for this current school year, Councilman Mitch Green took it upon himself to have the school relocated to a Lindquist property, directly enabling the person responsible for housing ICE in Portland to further profit from their continued atrocities.
Mind you, ICE's conditional use permit was granted in these very chambers, conditions which were violated from illegally holding people not just beyond the 12-hour limit, but as long as 47 days, and posing an undeniable threat to the surrounding community that was only mitigated with the intervention of a federal judge forcing a temporary hold on the use of chemical weapons.
Recently, Councilman Murillo has stated that somehow, regardless of the violation, somehow Portland City Council lacks the power to hold not just the federal government, but the private landlord that they have been enabling liable to the very permit that they issued under the parameters of Councilwoman Rio's own ordinance to curb the use of tear gas by designating it a nuisance.
The grounds for the outright removal as defined by this city's charter clearly state that this council has the ability and the authority to hold ICE and their benefactor Stuart Lindquist.
Responsible and to have the nuisance that they clearly present to the public removed.
The fact that some of you have the temerity to ride the wave of abolish ICE while you unironically have argued and defended keeping the McAdam ICE facility open for the sake of immigrants might be the worst of your offenses.
I met with Councilwoman Tiffany Koyama Lane's head staffer standing and speaking on her behalf in August, 5 months ago, to discuss revoking the permit, and all I was met with was facile excuses.
Councilwoman Tiffany Koyama Lane.
For how it is somehow in the best interest of immigrants to keep the facility open, even though ICE has violated even federal law with regards to how it treats those detained, ranging from illegally moving people across state borders to denying them any and all access to their legal representation.
I was told that any action taken against the ICE facility could be seen as trying to pick a fight with the federal government.
Well, they're already here.
How many more people are we going to tolerate to be gassed on the street or shot outside hospitals?
Thank you.
Are kidnapped from kindergartens and high schools while you feign impotence.
Revoke the ICE permit.
Introduce emergency legislation to shut down the ICE facility now.
Unidentified speaker 16:47 - 18:37
Next up, we have Beatriz Ibarra.
Good evening.
Please go ahead and introduce yourself for the record and pronouns, and go ahead, 3 minutes is yours.
Hello, my name is Beatriz Ibarra.
She/her are my pronouns.
My name is Beatriz, and I'm here today representing Portland Contra Deportaciones and Revoke the ICE Permit campaign.
City Council, many of you claim to stand with immigrants, and yet you do nothing to protect them.
You have the ability to shut down the ICE facility and you do nothing about it.
Not only that, but councilors such as Angelita Morillo perpetuated the right-wing narrative that closing down the facility harms immigrants.
This narrative, not only is it false, it's also evil to repeat.
Removing the facility's permit not only revokes— only revokes the right to legally retain people inside the facility.
Councilwoman, you have 2 minutes.
If DHS wanted, they could still have the facility open to do their check-ins.
We also know that there are other options.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, people were doing their check-ins online.
That facility is not necessary.
Revoking the ICE permit would end DHS, ICE, and PBB's ability to use the McAdam Building as the central base for their operations.
The only people who would get harmed by the facility closing are Trump and the regime of terror.
The permit allows ICE to operate a center, a detention center, in that facility.
That same permit also requires for detainees to be placed in shackles during transportation.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 18:37 - 18:38
Shame.
Unidentified speaker 18:39 - 19:07
In 2011, when the permit for the ICE facility was under review, there were these racist arguments that having the facility would put the community at risk.
The city agreed with these racist individuals, and they rejected the initial application.
Due to that, ICE had to create a safety plan that requires detainees to be placed in shackles when they're being transported to and from the facility.
Keelan McClymont 19:07 - 19:08
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker 19:09 - 20:13
To my fellow organizers, if you have been detained near the facility by DHS, all for peaceful protesting, and you get booked and transported, this is why you got placed in shackles.
This permit allows for this to happen.
And this is what happens to every immigrant that gets processed through that facility.
They get placed in shackles as if they were criminals, and they have to wear them the whole time while they get transported to the detention center in Tacoma.
So to be clear, when you all speak out against revoking the permit, or when you advocate for the mayor to enforce the terms of the permit, you speak in favor of immigrants being placed in shackles.
This is why we say the permit must be revoked and permanently removed.
There is no other just solution.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next up, we have Kuda Baird online.
Kuda Baird 20:16 - 20:20
Hi, is my audio working?
Unidentified speaker 20:21 - 20:23
Yeah, go ahead.
There you go.
Go ahead and introduce yourself for the record.
Kuda Baird 20:24 - 23:07
Yeah, I'm Kuda Baird.
Um, I am a renter in, uh, Portland.
And I'd like to thank councilors for holding this session.
Um, the ICE issue is a, is a large issue to me, but today I'm to talk— I'm coming to talk about the, uh, Slow the Inflow, uh, resolution.
Um, so I'm a renter in Portland.
I'm a research chemist.
My partner's going to medical school.
And, uh, currently, I think for everybody in our area, it's incredibly hard to be able to afford rent.
I'm I'm in, I think, one of the higher-paying jobs in the area, and it's, it's just impossible for a lot of people, especially if you're making minimum wage or anything near that.
And I've seen that you guys have looked quite a bit into it, and some of the things that you wanted to put money towards from the found money was in rental assistance and that sort of thing.
But then there was also a section of it that went towards helping build lower-cost housing, which is great depending on how you do it.
But a lot of the solutions seem to be to give money to corporations that are going to be really inefficient in how they spend the money.
And I understand that just helping out with rental assistance in the long run is not a A viable option.
You have to work towards— I mean, social housing at some point is kind of the only feasible way to do that.
I know that there's a lot of legislation that bars you from being able to do that, but obviously that's kind of the long-term goal and something that could actually help with these issues that a lot of people are having.
It's relatively unsustainable right now for everybody paying $2,000 a month.
Most people can't afford that.
I, I can't afford that.
Thank you.
And I just think that the priority should be towards helping the actual poor and those who are even middle class now who can't afford to rent and especially not buy a house because they can't save any up any money for it.
I'm not sure why that much money went missing or was unaccounted for.
I would hope that there would be a much deeper dive into it to make sure that there's not more that needs to be done.
Councilor Smith.
To be found.
Um, but I want to thank you all for your time, and I, I want to thank everybody who— all the councilors who showed up to the ICE protest, uh, the other week.
Um, I think it means a lot to the community when you do that and people notice it.
But thank you.
Unidentified speaker 23:08 - 23:19
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Tristan Marquis online.
Welcome, Tristan.
Go ahead and introduce yourself for the record, please.
Tristan Marquise 23:20 - 24:37
Hello, my name is Tristan Marquise.
I'm a renter here in District 2, um, and I'm speaking about the Slow the Inflow resolution today.
According to Evicted in Oregon data, in the year 2025, Multnomah County saw 12,094 eviction cases filed, nearly doubling that of what we saw in 2022.
Of those more than 12,000 evictions filed in 2025, 93% were due to non-payment.
Dwarfing for-cause evictions, which made up only 6% of the filings.
Also in 2025, according to the Joint Office of Homeless Services, people experiencing homelessness in Multnomah County has increased from 14,361 to 17,490, an increase of over 20% in one year.
Additionally, data from the Eviction Lab shows that, quote, simply being threatened with an eviction Even when that case did not result in eviction judgment, was associated with a 19% increase in mortality.
This data clearly shows that homelessness and evictions are increasingly overwhelmingly because people cannot afford to stay in their own homes.
People cannot afford to stay in their own homes because of continued austerity, greedflation, and the affordability crisis, and the consequences are literally lethal.
Unidentified speaker 24:37 - 24:38
Thank you.
Tristan Marquise 24:38 - 25:44
This is social murder, plain and simple.
I do hope we see some accountability for this $20 million turned $106 million that was found in the couch cushions of the Portland Housing Bureau.
But more importantly, however, I ask that this council moves as a unified body and directs these funds toward rental assistance and eviction defense.
Preventing evictions saves lives, and it is the easiest and most cost-effective way to slow the inflow, and this council should use those funds to aid the people most harmed by these missing funds, which are rent-burdened— excuse me— which are rent-burdened Portlanders.
I appreciate the progressive members of this council for continuing to fight for tenants' rights and protections in Portland, among other issues, and I urge the other members of this council to help save the lives of their constituents and reject the interests That completes communications.
Unidentified speaker 25:45 - 26:17
Okay, colleagues, our 3rd item is a committee referral report.
Uh, for my colleagues and for folks watching at home, my office has referred several items to committees last week, some of which have already been heard.
Those items are available in the committee referral report, which is available online, portland.gov/auditor/council-clerk/committee-referral-list.
We will now hear an update from our City Administrator Lee on the ongoing— the status of the ongoing response to federal interventions in the city.
City Administrator Lee.
Raymond C. Lee 26:19 - 26:37
Thank you, Council President and Vice President and City Council.
Just an update.
On February 13th, this past Friday, Portland Permitting and Development issued an administrative review decision upholding the land use violation at the ICE facility in South Portland.
Unidentified speaker 26:37 - 26:37
As they should.
Raymond C. Lee 26:37 - 28:03
The property owner now has until March 16th, 2026, to correct the violations and has 10 business days to appeal this decision to the city code hearing officer.
It's important to remember that this is just one step, uh, in the notice of violation case.
We remain committed to following the process to ensure that the outcome is meaningful and defensible.
City staff also continues the administrative rulemaking process for the detention facility impact fee code ordinance, moving with the urgency and the moment demands while also ensuring our actions are well executed and legally defensible.
Currently, a multi-bureau working group is pulling together the information needed to ensure this critical ordinance is implemented.
There are a lot of elements of the ordinance that require new process development, and staff are taking this task very seriously.
Our team is working with the ordinance sponsors, Councilors Morillo and Green, to align the ordinance intent with the city's implementation process, city staff continues to focus on establishing a temporary administrative rule first as we still work on implementing a permanent rule also.
So those 2 things are working in conjunction.
Unidentified speaker 28:05 - 28:33
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a disruption.
This is a disruption of the meeting.
This is a warning that if there is continued or other disruption of the meeting, the persons engaging in the disruptive behavior will face ejection from the meeting.
Anyone refusing to leave the meeting— if security could please remove these individuals.
Security, please remove the individuals who are here.
Jamie Dunphy 28:33 - 28:33
Absolutely not.
Unidentified speaker 28:39 - 39:30
I'm directing security to please remove the individual from the space.
We are taking a 10-minute recess.
10-Minute recess.
Overflow audio testing.
1, 2, 3.
Tristan Marquise 39:30 - 39:33
Christina, could you please let me know if you can hear me okay?
Unidentified speaker 39:34 - 39:35
Hey Adam, you sound great.
Raymond C. Lee 39:36 - 39:37
Okay, perfect.
Tristan Marquise 39:37 - 39:38
Thank you so much.
Unidentified speaker 39:40 - 50:13
Sorry, I thought somebody was I'm a little worried about you.
Kuda Baird 50:13 - 50:15
That was like a beautiful mind moment.
Unidentified speaker 1:04:36 - 1:06:00
Are we on?
We are beginning to reconvene.
Wait until we have a critical mass of colleagues back on.
Yep, they're still in full effect into the— in the, um, chambers.
Councilor Smith, you're off mute right now.
Oh, I know, I know.
I was talking to Jamie, just letting him know they haven't gone anywhere.
Now I am seeing, uh, a quorum of city council, and so I am ready to reconvene the meeting of the City Council, Keelan, whenever you're ready.
Okay, colleagues, I am reconvening our evening session of the Portland City Council.
Keelan, can we please call item number 4?
Item number 4, authorize submission of a minor boundary change request to the State of Oregon to amend the Portland Enterprise Zone boundary.
Thank you.
And do we have, uh, Christopher Hare for a committee staff report on this?
Jamie Dunphy 1:06:02 - 1:06:03
We have Ashley.
Unidentified speaker 1:06:03 - 1:09:00
Oh, hey, Ashley.
Ashley Hernandez is here from Council Ops with a committee, uh, Council Ops presentation on the committee report.
Yeah, um, Council President, councilors, for the record, my name is Ashley Hernandez.
I serve as the staff for the Arts and Economy Committee.
The resolution before you—.
Actually, you're a little quiet.
If you're able to get microphone a little louder.
Um, all right.
The resolution before you, document number 2026-016, was heard at the Arts and Economy Committee on January 13th, 2026, where it was moved to full council with the recommendation it be adopted.
The resolution approves the approves the amendment of boundaries for the area illustrated in the map attached as Exhibit A.
This area will be designated by the director of the Oregon Business Development Department as part of the Portland Enterprise Zone, E-Zone, in accordance with the ORS 285C.115.
Additionally, the resolution authorizes Prosper Portland to submit an application to the full impact statement of this item includes financial and budgetary impacts, economic and real estate development impacts, community impact and community involvement.
There was no verbal testimony at the committee meeting on January 13th.
4 People submitted written testimony after the committee committee meeting and prior to the full council agenda posting.
General themes included an overview of maintaining facilities ecosystem and job creation, concerns regarding tax breaks and living wages, outlines of economic benefits through partnerships and employment.
That concludes the staff summary.
Thank you, Ashley.
Colleagues, are there any technical or clarifying questions before we move to public testimony on this item?
Seeing no one in the queue— oh, Councilor Kanal.
Sorry, got a little fast there.
Councilor Kanal, go ahead.
Thank you, Council President.
Um, I wanted to ask if we have any information or if it was presented in committee as to whether or not this improvement project would be slated to be completed by Alaska Airlines regardless of the tax abatement.
Um, this came up in written testimony and it seemed like a good question to ask.
Oh, and I apologize also.
I did not give the sponsors of the— or the chairs of the committee an opportunity to also give comment on that.
But, Councilor, to your question, I don't know if we have anybody available to provide that answer.
Scott, are you in queue to answer the question?
Scott Kennedy 1:09:01 - 1:09:37
I am.
Hi, everyone.
Councilor, thank you for your question.
Just for the record, my name is Scott Kennedy.
I'm the Senior Manager of State and Local Government Affairs for Alaska Airlines.
And, you know, just to start off, want to thank you all for taking the time to consider the resolution before you tonight.
Councilor Kanal, in response to your question, we're very early still in the planning process for this proposed project, which is why today's vote and ultimately our ability to apply to the Enterprise Zone program is such an important step in evaluating our path forward.
You know, I'll try to keep this brief, but like any major capital project, right, cost is going to be a critical factor in determining the overall feasibility for the project.
Unidentified speaker 1:09:38 - 1:09:38
We operate in a very highly competitive industry.
Scott Kennedy 1:09:38 - 1:10:46
Thank you.
And though we look very large in a place like Portland and where I'm at in Seattle, we're quite small compared to our other airline competitors.
And so maintaining low costs is really critical to our ability to make significant investments in our people, our business, and our communities.
And, you know, in addition to the many other investments we're making at PDX today, this proposed hangar project really is— it's a substantial and unique investment for Alaska.
And the Enterprise Zone program offers an attractive and meaningful incentive that will enable us to move forward.
And the benefits that will come from this project we're really proud of, right?
There's, you know, many high-quality construction jobs that'll be associated with the construction phase, more than 100 permanent positions, largely union represented, that will be an outcome of this project and ongoing.
So, and, you know, if we're afforded the opportunity to apply to the Enterprise Zone program, we would be looking forward to working with Prosper to develop a community benefits agreement as well as a part of that process.
So appreciate the question.
We're really very supportive of this and appreciate the opportunity to have Thank you.
Unidentified speaker 1:10:50 - 1:10:57
Um, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, I'll come to you in just a second, but I wanted to give Councilor Green an opportunity since he was, uh, chair.
I believe he was overseeing this.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green 1:10:59 - 1:12:54
Honestly, I can't remember who did chair that.
It could have been Councilor Ryan, and he, he can jump in if he, if he wants.
But I just, I wanted to note a couple things about, um, that discussion for the rest of the body because we didn't really get a chance to talk about it last week because we you know, we voted to delay it a week, but we had a robust, I think, conversation around what the meaning of prevailing wage jobs were in the context of this.
To Councilor Kanal's question, we didn't actually dig into whether or not the project would happen without the E-Zone expansion.
I think that's a really important counterfactual to always pose in these things.
I think that for me, the thing that I was kind of focused on there was whether or not the project happens on its own without the tax abatement.
What the E-Zone does is it provides a framework to extend some pretty strong community benefits that are on the operations and ongoing side for those jobs in District 2.
So that's something you always have to weigh there, but I appreciate the question.
I don't know if— and I, you know, when it's appropriate, we can I can also add a little more flavor about why we did delay this a week.
I think there's, there's important conversation there as well.
But, um, yeah, it was a 5-0 vote.
Uh, we had a robust conversation.
I think, uh, Council President, you raised a lot of really technical questions around, um, what does it mean to say something's a prevailing wage?
What are— what is Prosper standards?
What's the— what's our standards?
Um, I did note that I think my math for the jobs, uh, was a weighted average of $92,000, maybe $94,000 per year across all of the all of the jobs up there at the airport.
And so I was doing a little economics work at the DIA too.
But I'll kind of cede the table, the gavel at this point, the mic at this point.
We can come back to the broader conversation.
Unidentified speaker 1:12:56 - 1:14:28
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Thank you, Council President.
I just wanted to note before we go into testimony, my gratitude for you scheduling this again quickly this I had asked for a delay last week, and everybody was gracious enough to allow that.
Some conversations were able to finish up.
I think we'll hear good testimony today because of that delay, and just wanted to express my appreciation and note at the top of the conversation that we were able to, I think, get folks all in a little bit closer to the same page here and in a good place for us to be able to move forward today because of that.
Thank you, Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane.
Excellent.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Ryan, I know you were having some audio issues.
I didn't know if there was anything else you want—.
Oh, there we go.
Oh yeah, hi.
It's great I can finally hear this meeting.
Um, I'm just grateful we're moving this forward.
I assume everyone said that that's what's happening right now, and I appreciate that Councilor Green called me earlier in the week, um, to explain further on what the delay was about.
I just have to say that after receiving the latest economic data from On Portland last week.
I was just so— I am excited for this opportunity to help boost investments and jobs at Portland, in Portland at this time, specifically at Portland International Airport.
And it's exciting that we'll be adding 100 quality jobs, and we really need that right now.
So this is exactly the type of simple change and update that we can make at the council level to allow, you know, investment in Portland is vital, and I hope we can find more ways to be economically nimble.
Dan Ryan 1:14:28 - 1:14:29
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker 1:14:29 - 1:16:15
And let's hope we're not slowing down in adding new steps or barriers, because that's the type of behavior that stifles growth and pushes away investment.
So I'm just excited that future revenue is coming with this project.
Thank you so much with the partnerships with Prosper, with Alaska Airlines, and with the port.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor.
Keelan, do we have public testimony for this item?
Yes, Council President, we have 3 people signed up.
First up, we have Callity Avery.
Welcome, and folks, please introduce yourselves for the record.
Please, uh, state your preferred pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
Let's see, do we have Callity online?
All right, why don't we go to Molly Armentrout?
No, I'm not seeing Molly online.
Why don't we try Randall Friesen.
Go ahead, Randall, you're unmuted.
Can you hear us?
Good evening.
Can we hear me?
Jamie Dunphy 1:16:16 - 1:16:17
Yes, sir.
Unidentified speaker 1:16:17 - 1:16:40
Hi, everybody.
Good evening.
This is Randall Friesen with the Columbia Pacific Building Trades.
Thank you, President Dunphy, and the rest of the city councilors for giving me a few minutes to speak.
I'm Randall Friesen with the Columbia Pacific Building and Construction Trades Council, representing approximately 16,000 construction professionals who live and work in the Portland metropolitan Southwest Washington regions.
I'm here this evening to speak about the importance of good labor standards on all projects.
Kuda Baird 1:16:40 - 1:16:40
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker 1:16:40 - 1:20:05
Projects covered by Enterprise Zones.
We recognize there is a sequencing issue from the time a project begins as a private project, when then transitions through approval as an Enterprise Zone project.
When this happens, typically only the largest scopes in the project are contracted out at prevailing rates and have the potential to employ apprentices.
Public projects that receive public funding are required at minimum to use prevailing wage rates.
Thank you.
And should have apprenticeship utilization standards and ideally healthcare for the workers performing the construction of these projects and their families.
This is left out when considering approval for special tax abatements or credits in Enterprise Zone projects.
We appreciate the advocacy for working people by Councilors Green and Pirtle-Guiney over the past several weeks of connecting us with Alaska Airlines leadership to discuss the possibility of adding labor standards to the proposed Enterprise Zone project through the use of a community benefit agreement on the construction work.
Although time was not permitting and we were not able to reach an agreement, we recognize that at a time when the overall economy of Portland is struggling, we appreciate the many family wage jobs with full family benefits that will go to many of our members.
We are committed to continuing to find ways that projects like the Alaska Airlines project find value and success utilizing our membership, that we can help ensure there are good labor standards on these projects In closing, last week many members of the community attended this state of the economy presentation hosted by the Portland Metro Chamber with economist Dr. Mike Wilkerson.
Dr. Wilkerson stated that we cannot make housing affordable through dropping interest rates alone, however, through better earning potential and opportunities.
To quote the chamber, when wages and job opportunities do not keep pace with housing costs, inflation is inevitable.
Thank you, Mayor.
It becomes harder for people to move to or remain in the region.
At a time when housing affordability is a major community concern, and while we are supportive of finding ways to improve Portland's competitive market, we feel it is important to ensure that it is done in a way that benefits all workers and communities, not just the majority.
We are confident through partnership all these values can and will be achieved.
We are committed to, committed to helping Find holistic solutions and ask the city councilors remain committed to working with us to benefit all workers on enterprise-owned projects through these challenging times.
Thank you very much for your time.
Appreciate you all.
Okay, Lady Avery has joined us online.
Okay, lady, go ahead and unmute.
Okay, looks like they might be having some technical issues.
Let's see, uh, Molly Armentrout.
Last call.
Okay, that completes testimony.
Okay, thank you.
Colleagues, we're now moving into, uh, council discussion.
Is there any further discussion among councilors?
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green 1:20:08 - 1:21:25
Yeah, thank you, uh, Mr. President.
Um, I just want to thank, uh, you know, Randall with the Columbia Pacific Building Trades, as well as the folks from Alaska, the port, and Prosper.
They— it's hard to get a lot of people together on short notice from the scheduling perspective, even in the best of times.
And I just think, you know, when it came out of committee, it wasn't apparent to me that we were— we had missed potential opportunity to expand the scope of this, to improve the quality of all those jobs, is the way, as Randall had argued.
And so all these folks, you know, really came to the table, and we had some, you know, some conversations that were pretty crucial.
And, and I think that I feel good that we're going to be moving in a direction where we can continue that work on a forward-looking policy basis.
And I think this, you know, this exercise here, I'm very excited to support this resolution tonight.
I think we need these, these jobs and the standards attached to them because of the E-Zone expansion.
But I think we— it just sort of raises the importance and urgency for us to just you know, re-up our conversations about our regional workforce equity agreements, our commitment to PLAs and CBAs more broadly.
And so I think the hunger is there for that conversation, and I'm committed to it.
Unidentified speaker 1:21:27 - 1:21:55
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Colleagues, any further discussion of this item?
Keelan, this is the first reading of a resolution.
Can we please Let's call the roll.
Avalos.
Aye.
Aye.
Thanks, everyone.
Aye.
Aye.
Scott Kennedy 1:21:56 - 1:21:56
Aye.
Kuda Baird 1:21:59 - 1:21:59
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:22:01 - 1:22:05
Thank you so much, Councilors, uh, Green and Pirtle-Guiney.
Aye.
Aye.
Novick?
Steve Novick 1:22:06 - 1:22:06
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:22:08 - 1:22:21
Clark?
Aye.
Green?
Councilor Green?
Aye.
Zimmerman?
Robert Taylor 1:22:21 - 1:22:21
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:22:23 - 1:22:23
Dunphy?
Olivia Clark 1:22:25 - 1:22:25
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:22:26 - 1:23:59
The resolution is adopted with 12 aye votes.
Congratulations all.
Thank you very much.
Keelan, can we please read items 5, 6, and 7 together?
Item 5, establish City Council's priorities for the allocation of approximately $20,700,000 in unspent rental services office funds and urge the mayor to reflect these priorities in the proposed budget.
Item 6, adopt a supplemental budget for the Portland Housing Bureau for FY 2025-26.
Next, item 7, adopt a supplemental budget for the Portland Housing Bureau.
Thank you, Keelan.
So colleagues, this is our 3rd council meeting to discuss the millions of dollars, uh, of the unspent dollars that have been discovered in the Portland Housing Bureau.
Every time we have met so far, the number of dollars being identified has grown.
Um, this has been a relatively exhausting exercise, and while finding money is a better problem than the alternative, this is certainly still a problem.
And the discovery of these dollars and the public process around disclosing these dollars is actually a sign that the system is working.
And that the old ways are being corrected for and that we are moving in the right direction.
However, I do not feel like this body is ready to make a decision of this magnitude.
And I worry that this 3rd meeting, having a 3rd brand new proposal, is moving us backwards away from good public policy.
Jamie Dunphy 1:23:59 - 1:23:59
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker 1:24:00 - 1:24:52
In fact, I'm not even receiving my own briefing from the Portland Housing Bureau on what these funds are until tomorrow.
I'm personally not ready to use— to vote on the use of these funds.
I have held time on Thursday, March 5th, for a work session to discuss the ways that these funds can be used.
We've identified a number of perfectly valid uses for these dollars, from rental assistance, rent buydowns, legal assistance, gap funding for affordable housing, and returning funds to the general fund to patch the large budget gap that we are facing next year.
But I don't believe that the documents before us today are ready to be implemented as drafted, and I worry that taking further action today, we risk making a mistake that will not utilize these dollars well.
So as such, I am moving to indefinitely postpone items 5, 6, and 7, and I would ask for a second.
Second.
Scott Kennedy 1:24:52 - 1:24:53
Second.
Unidentified speaker 1:24:55 - 1:25:57
This is a debatable motion, colleagues, and requires a majority of members present to postpone the the, the vote on this.
Uh, would anyone like to speak to the motion?
Councilor Smith.
Thank you.
I, I do believe that we have enough information.
We were briefed last week by our CFO and our CBO director, and we were given a memo, and it told us exactly the uses of the, of the dollars.
And so I don't know what more they can actually brief me on.
Um, we're, we're standing at a critical juncture.
We have in front of us, uh, $40 million to be earmarked for rent assistance and affordable housing.
When we first talked about this, and, and you guys were so excited about this resolution back in December and excited about the fact that we would be able to help people right now in '25-'26.
Candace Avalos 1:25:57 - 1:25:57
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker 1:25:58 - 1:31:40
And I feel, um, I feel like this is being kicked down the road so that we can actually put this in the towel.
We need to get some money on the streets right now.
And just delaying this and delaying this, I mean, justice delayed is justice denied.
And that's what exactly what we're doing.
We're denying justice and democracy.
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
And I don't know where we kind of like split in the excitement with the Welcome Home community and their group, and everybody was excited about getting money on the street, but it sounds like you don't want to get money on the streets.
It sounds like you want to just pontificate about what this is.
We are policymakers.
We need to be able to grasp information, take it in, and act on it.
You're not going to be briefed 100 million times on the same thing.
And so, for out of respect, Council President, I don't know what more you need to be briefed on.
I believe that we know that if we hesitate, every day that we hesitate is every day that people who are still on the street, they're homeless, they don't have affordable housing, and we're still saying the same thing.
So I'm ready to go.
I'm excited about it.
I know that we can do good with this $40 million.
I'm not saying that there's not any more money, but I'll tell you, it is not going to pay for me to find out that we got another $50 million that we can add to this because it's wrong.
And I don't think that they're doing their job when they keep finding money.
So we disagree on that, Council President.
I think we need to, to do our jobs.
We need to take a vote.
Council President, I think we need to take a vote.
We need to get this $40 million or the $20 million out of the way now and then discuss the additional dollars.
Because if we do, like you said, if we do have additional dollars, there's a problem.
There's a huge problem at the City of Portland.
And saying that this is a relic of the past is not going to be— it's not going to be sufficient for me.
So I would ask and encourage and urge I urge my colleagues, peacocks, and the other folks who are non-peacocks to let's go with this because now is the time to help people on the street.
Do you really want to help the people on the street like you say you do, or do you just want to go meeting after meeting after meeting saying we need more discussion?
This is ridiculous.
We are professionals.
We know how to take in information.
You know what you want to do.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Thank you, Council President.
You know, I do, I do agree with you that there are some questions to be answered about the money that has been identified.
And I agree that this is a clearing up of budgeting processes that were not working for our city.
And that this is part of the work that we need to do across bureaus.
But I am struggling with postponing this item.
I'm struggling with postponing this item because I was hoping today to have the opportunity to ask those questions at an evening meeting with Portlanders watching about the funds available so that we can move forward with the work.
I am struggling because many of my colleagues railed that we did not move this in December.
I was told there is a crisis.
There is a crisis now.
We have to do this immediately.
And now we are looking at moving into March without even a date scheduled to move this forward, just a date for discussion.
But most of all, I am struggling because we have over a dozen, maybe close to 2 dozen people signed up to testify tonight.
And I am not comfortable moving these items off the agenda when we have people who came to City Hall.
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
Were then told they needed to go in a testimony room because we had to move to virtual, and now might be told that we're not hearing the items at all and they won't have a chance to testify.
So if colleagues, some of you feel like we don't have enough information to move forward today, I disagree.
I think we need to move forward today so we can have the conversations about that information, but I hope that we at least move forward To provide the opportunity for those Portlanders who came to City Hall today to be able to testify and share with us their thoughts about the various options that we have before us.
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor— oh, Councilor Green.
Wait, Councilor Kanal.
Thanks.
Got a little early on lowering the hand there.
I have 2 questions.
Um, one is, if Council President, should this, um, should this motion pass, what would be the next steps?
Can you speak to that a little bit more just for clarity?
Yeah, absolutely.
I, I have held time on our calendar on Thursday, March 5th, to have a work session with the administration to, uh, more to react to the, uh, discussion that we have had broadly to help us better identify what those dollars might be best used for, and to help also identify some of the questions that I have about general fund offsets specifically.
I'm not still clear about what dollars could be returned to the general fund of the larger pot.
I'm not clear about specifically about where some of these project-specific dollars can or cannot be used.
I'm also not clear that the amendments on the table right now actually pass code.
Candace Avalos 1:31:40 - 1:31:40
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker 1:31:41 - 1:32:22
As written, because we've heard some conflicting information.
And so my plan would be to have the March 5th work session with the administration and all of council, and then get this on to the next available council after that with an ordinance that tracks the conversation that we have there.
Thank you for clarifying that.
I think you actually answered a good part of my second question as well, which was whether or not the amendments are— have been checked to I am interested in, in this conversation.
I have an interest in getting briefed as well.
My briefing is also scheduled for tomorrow.
I'm also interested in hearing testimony, but I'm looking forward to continuing this conversation.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green 1:32:25 - 1:34:58
Yeah, thank you.
I support your motion because I know that there's a work session followed by this, and I think what I'm most uncomfortable with Is the way in which every single time we meet to talk about this, there's just a new version of this, this proposal.
I mean, I was in support of the slow inflow resolution that was passed out of committee in December, but since then it's taken a lot of different machinations.
And I think that just reflects that individual councilors— I don't think you're doing anything wrong.
They're having, they're having conversations with folks who have it, who have an interest in these funds, but those conversations are happening.
Where we're not all in the same space.
And I think a work session might be an opportunity for us to kind of lay our cards on the table and have a clear-eyed discussion about how best to prioritize these things.
I don't think that's going to delay the practical impact of the money distribution aspect, because that's, that's already a delayed thing.
I mean, you know, there's still money trying to get out the door from the big budget from last spring.
There, we always, we're always going to have that.
And so I think.
Um.
Because there are large dollars at play here that are one-time dollars, we really do need to do this right.
And, and like, I'll just, just by way of an example, I, I had an amendment in play for the thing that we last talked about that was going to zero out the Broadway corridor money and then redirect it towards rent buydowns.
In light of the new money, I'm not necessarily interested in zeroing out the Broadway corridor money anymore.
Thank you.
I want to have a conversation with my colleagues at the dais about the pros and cons of that, because I have some, I have some questions, but I'm not immovable on that because I know that there's probably a better nexus of funds for that than there was with the RSO.
Um, there's ways to fund that that I could, I could be comfortable with, but we can't get to that tonight, um, with, with the level of satisfaction that I have.
And so, um, you know, if we can get— I, I know folks are frustrated and I know I know folks want to just get this part done, but we have an obligation to do— to return to, I think, good form on policymaking.
And, you know, I don't know where this extra $20 million of appropriations came from.
That's in Councilor Smith's package.
Like, I don't know how that came about.
We could talk about that at that work session, and then maybe I could get comfortable with that.
And so that's just kind of where I'm at.
I appreciate that.
I know it's disappointing for folks who showed up to testify, but I do think that we need to pump the brakes a little bit.
Unidentified speaker 1:34:59 - 1:38:43
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Avalos.
Yeah, thank you.
Definitely share those sentiments and that frustration that things have just changed, right?
In the weeks since we first learned about those first funds in November, I mean, there has been so much change in the conversation, including the amount of the dollars, that has grown significantly.
We began this discussion with close to $21 million in unspent rental services funds, and that expanded to include a total of $100 million of newly identified dollars across the different pots in the Housing Bureau.
And to me, that scale really changes the conversation, and it raises important questions about priorities and process and public trust.
I think that given the magnitude of these resources, I support the council president's motion to pull the pending resolutions and ordinances from the agenda and move into a more structured public engagement process.
Because at the end of the day, these are public dollars, and the way that we allocate them must be transparent and equitable and grounded in community input.
I think the talking point that, you know, there was urgency in December— there absolutely was urgency.
But again, things have changed.
It has changed with the fact that we have more money than we thought.
It's in different pots.
And there's all this new information about what the budget shortfalls are, how we can use different pots for different uses.
And I do not have all that information.
I am also waiting to get more details because I have the basics, but I don't have the details.
And the details are what matters right now.
And getting it right matters more to me.
I think as chair of the Homelessness and Housing Committee, I take really seriously our responsibility to make sure that we can make this process open and thoughtful and inclusive.
And that means, you know, hosting the work session that I am grateful for Council President for putting together.
I think we can have more structured opportunities for conversations with stakeholders and providers and renters and homeowners and housing experts, all these folks that I think will have a lot to say about how we can allocate a now much bigger pot of money that can make a big difference.
This is much bigger than any single proposal because when we're talking about $100 million in housing-related resources, we really owe Portlanders more than rushed amendments or piecemeal decisions.
We owe them some clear frameworks, some transparency, and an equitable process.
And to me, that doesn't mean delay for the sake of delay.
It means that we're making sure that when we're acting, we're doing so deliberately, with shared understanding, and with public confidence.
Housing policy is complex, as we all know, and the impacts of these decisions are going to be felt for years.
So to me, it's worth it to get it right because we have a lot of work to do.
To win back the trust of Portlanders in lieu of all of this media attention about these dollars.
And I just want to say to all the community members who have shown up and showed up out at committee and at council meetings, you've been waiting patiently for a vote at council meeting.
And for those of you that have, you know, taken the time to advocate for their neighbors even as they're also facing housing insecurity themselves, I thank you very much.
And I'm really grateful for Thank you.
Thank you for your voices, and I want you to know that I, uh, I want you to keep pushing us to be accountable to our communities, and I, I want you to know that I share your disappointment we weren't able to allocate these dollars quicker, but I remain really committed to slowing the inflow into homelessness and ensuring that renter stabilization remains central to our strategy.
And that urgency doesn't disappear just because we're broadening this conversation.
I think it just means that we need to build a process that can and so I, I'm prepared to help lead that work, and I support pulling these items so that we can move into a structured engagement that really reflects the scale of the dollars and the importance of getting it right.
So thank you.
I plan to support this.
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Smith, I will come back to you in just a moment.
Councilor Novick.
Robert Taylor 1:38:44 - 1:38:49
I have nothing to add to what the council president and Councilors Green and Avalos have said other than that I agree.
Unidentified speaker 1:38:50 - 1:39:09
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Murillo.
Thank you.
Um, I think, you know, this is a— it's a very hard discussion because obviously we all want these dollars to go out the door as quickly as possible and to help people.
And I will also be supporting, uh, you know, the—.
Sameer Kanal 1:39:09 - 1:39:09
The—.
Unidentified speaker 1:39:09 - 1:40:33
I'm not sure what to call it, whatever you brought forward that's going to have a work session, the motion, because, um, the reality is that the calculation inherently changes when We are attending meetings and we keep finding out that there's more dollars because how we choose to invest it, if we have $20 million versus $40 million versus $100 million, changes the possibilities of what we can do with those dollars, whether we're going to make big investments for long-term housing, social housing, or if we're going to do more piecemeal things for different groups to help with immediate needs, that sort of thing.
So I— it's not an easy decision to say that we need to step back.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
But we cannot keep being in a situation where we get new information and we haven't had time to discuss it as a body.
And I think that we learned from, frankly, the last budget cycle what it looks like when people bring last-minute amendments to things and how we are not moving deliberately as a body.
So it's a tough decision.
I really respect you for bringing this forward, and because of that, I will be supporting the motion.
And I am very much looking forward to the community process as well.
And hearing from folks about what their priorities are so that we can actually be informed, not just as individuals having one-on-one meetings with people, but as a whole body hearing from the community in a transparent way.
So thank you very much for bringing it forward.
Thank you, Councilor Murillo.
Councilor Smith, last word.
Sameer Kanal 1:40:35 - 1:40:35
You're muted still.
Unidentified speaker 1:40:41 - 1:40:49
Sorry, Councilor, still— you're still on mute.
Can you hear me now?
Tiffany Koyama Lane 1:40:50 - 1:40:50
Yes.
Unidentified speaker 1:40:53 - 1:42:04
We, we actually approved an amendment last week that we all supported, and there were, there were amendments on it.
Everybody understood it, and now people are getting amnesia.
Um, City Administrator Lee put out a memo on February 6th.
He lays it out.
I'm not sure what all you What all you need.
We have people, we have 20 people who are in the queue to speak tonight.
They've been following this for 3 weeks.
We had just been, you know, kicking the can down the road, kicking the can down the road.
And I guarantee you, when you have something just like that data, that data ordinance that you brought for 2 weeks, Councilor Murillo, And you had all your people here.
And if somebody would have put something forward to stop that, you would have been screaming bloody murder.
I can tell you what this feels like to me.
This feels like institutional racism.
And because components of this, it has systemic policies, it's embedded in the rules, and we're creating some new rules and regulations and administrative practices.
Loretta Smith 1:42:04 - 1:42:04
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker 1:42:05 - 1:50:31
For this organization.
And it's subtle.
It's unlike that— it's not like it's personal racism where you can identify those things.
It's harder to identify because it often hides behind seemingly neutral policies and rules and regulations.
So for me, the cumulative effect, it is a structural issue, meaning it compounds over time.
And this has compounded over time.
Councilmember Week after week after week, we have been using the rules not to have this conversation and have a vote on it.
And its primary function is to perpetuate racial inequality because the people that we're going to be helping with these dollars are Black and brown vulnerable folks who can't afford housing, who are on the streets, who are in our shelters, people who are trying to build homeownership projects.
For Black and brown folks.
If this would have been for a developer or somebody else that you all would have wanted, you would have just been like crazy if we were going to do this 3 times.
3, 3 Times.
I mean, you have to think about how you're treating the people who have signed up and they have done this 3 times, and now you want them to go back and listen to a work session we don't need a work session.
We need another council meeting.
I don't need them to tell me what I already know that's in a memo.
You guys read your memos.
You're professionals.
And it's so frustrating for me.
I got onto this sponsorship last, and we did this as a District 1 project.
And now it feels like to me, my District 1— yeah, roll your eyes.
The District 1 people are abandoning the people that they actually say they want to help.
And so I'm not convinced that you want to help these people.
I'm not convinced that you want to make sure that people don't get evicted from their homes.
While we're sitting here week after week after week, there are going to be so many people evicted as a result of this and our inaction.
And so I'm really upset about this.
I'm really upset about it because we We think that we're taking this for granted and we need more information.
Well, you know what?
Get over it.
Look how much information we had for 25-26.
And we had to learn a lot.
You guys are not going to be able to keep saying let's have a work session, work session if you don't understand something.
And our leadership needs to understand that when people sign up, they're serious about this.
And for you to put this forward, Mr. President, And say to those people that their voices don't matter and they just need to wait because a couple of us don't understand.
I understand exactly what it is.
That's why I put amendment forward.
So it's not lost on me what's going to happen to those people.
Some of those people are going to drop off because they've been here for 3 meetings and then you're going to ask them to come back to a work session and then to another council meeting.
No, we just need a council meeting to vote on this.
If we could— if we voted last week on an amendment, I don't see why this week we can't vote on the $20 million or the $40 million.
You know where the $40 million came from.
Everybody knows where the $40 million came from.
It was from the $106 million, the $20 million, the $8.6 million, the $11.1 million, and then the $62 million that these bureaus, they found, and then another bureau found another $9 million.
So for me, it's, it's hogwash that you need some more time.
I'm sorry, this is, this is not, this is not acceptable.
And the people that are on the line right now, they deserve a right to speak, and you're sitting up there acting like you need some more information.
You don't need this job.
You need something else, because this job is about helping people.
Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Murillo.
Thank you.
Um, I think, uh, Councilor Smith, I really appreciate your passion for getting these dollars out the door, and, uh, I think that you're speaking from a place of wanting to help folks across the city and especially in your district.
And so I appreciate where that comes from.
Um, I will say the original proposal that was brought to you, uh, brought from you and the other District 1 councilors, I watched watched change multiple times in real time because you changed your mind on how you wanted to allocate those dollars.
So that became a very confusing process for those of us who were watching those changes happen in real time behind the scenes when there were commitments made and we thought we understood things.
There are also changes that are regularly happening because, again, we keep finding out about additional dollars.
So the information is changing.
We are reading those memos.
That does not mean that we have had an opportunity to have a discussion Together and with community input.
I do genuinely feel for the people that have come to multiple city council meetings to try to testify.
So I would propose that if that is the issue, that we have— that we hear the folks who have signed up to testify, we take into consideration all of the testimony, and then we bring that information about what the community signed up for in our discussion to the work session.
Because that resolves, I think, the issues of the folks who signed up to testify who should not be kept waiting.
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
And it will inform us a little bit about what community needs, and then we can have that discussion.
So that's an option that I'm just throwing out there if we're able to do that.
And if not, if we think that the work session will be better for us to have some of those open discussions, I think it's really important.
But the reality is that so many of the, the ways that these dollars are being allocated right now, it's just people having individual discussions with individual nonprofits that they have connections to.
And we need to have a holistic understanding about what the best use of these dollars are when we keep finding out that there's more.
Because my calculation for $106 million and what we could do with those dollars is very different than $21 million, very different than $40 million.
So I will leave it at that.
But at this time, I'm prepared to support the motion.
Thank you, Councilor Murillo.
Councilor Kanal.
Yeah, thank you, Council President.
I'd say I appreciate everything that Councilor Perugini said about The need to hear from testifiers who've been waiting.
I agree with Councilor Murillo.
I think— I don't have my book with me, it's in the chambers, but I think it would be a motion to limit debate to testimony.
But I'll let others figure that out.
I had 2 other points.
One is just a reminder that we have council rules, and one of those rules is that, you know, it's 3.02.040.
Thank you.
6 That councilors should confine themselves to the question.
It's not a quote.
Confine themselves to the question under debate and refrain from personal criticism.
And I'm— I've seen that we've done a very good job of that on the whole, and it's gotten a little worse lately.
So I just wanted to bring that up.
With relation to this, I think the conversation around the original $20 million versus the additional $20 million versus the remaining $60 million has complicated it for me as well.
I think the— I have very— a lot of comfort with the original proposal as well as some of the new proposals for the original $20 million.
But I think I'd still want to hear testimony before voting on that anyway.
But the addition of at least $20 more million to that with one of the amendments, as well as the conversation around the remaining money, makes me supportive of this as well.
So if we're able to hear the testimony, I would really appreciate that.
Because I do think people have been waiting and I would like to honor that and then take a vote on whether or not to postpone indefinitely and/or vote now on limiting debate to just the testimony.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
My understanding is that we are in the middle of debating a motion at this moment and we're— the motion would take effect upon vote.
And that means that we would not be able to hear testimony.
And so colleagues can take that into consideration that If you choose to not support the motion to postpone, we can move to a full council hearing and hearing these items.
But we will need to take a roll call vote first on the motion before us.
And Councilor Smith, you have already spoken twice to this item or to this motion.
And so I will now ask—.
Loretta Smith 1:50:31 - 1:50:32
Point of order.
Jamie Dunphy 1:50:33 - 1:50:34
Go ahead, Councilor Smith.
Unidentified speaker 1:50:34 - 1:50:50
If we vote for this, Can we then come back and, and hear and put another motion on the table to hear the testimony?
The motion— I will look to our city attorney, I suppose, for that question.
Robert Taylor.
Oh, there he is.
Mitch Green 1:50:52 - 1:50:53
Uh, thank you.
Robert Taylor 1:50:53 - 1:51:28
Uh, Robert Taylor, city attorney.
The, um, if right now you have a pending motion to postpone indefinitely that has been seconded If that motion passes, these items would be procedurally, uh, dead.
Uh, if there is a desire to hear testimony before voting on this motion, uh, the maker of the motion could withdraw it.
Unidentified speaker 1:51:29 - 1:51:29
I would like to hear testimony.
Robert Taylor 1:51:30 - 1:51:39
And that would allow you to hear the testimony.
Once the testimony is closed, the motion could be made again and voted on.
Unidentified speaker 1:51:43 - 1:51:54
Um, Robert Taylor, can we separate the questions on each of the— because they, they were put together.
Can we have a separate motion for each, um, item 5, 6, and 7?
Robert Taylor 1:51:55 - 1:52:11
The, the motion to postpone indefinitely has been made with with respect to the 3 items, any member as a matter of right can separate— can ask to divide that question into 3 separate votes on each item, whether to approve.
Unidentified speaker 1:52:11 - 1:52:12
Okay, that's what I would like to do.
Jamie Dunphy 1:52:14 - 1:52:14
Okay.
Unidentified speaker 1:52:15 - 1:52:51
And I'd like the maker of the motion to, to, to remove it so that we can listen to testimony.
I am not going to withdraw my motion at this time.
Uh, I I intend to move it towards a roll— a roll call vote, and I hear that you would like to have 3 separate roll call votes on that item.
Um, and I see Councilor Clark in the queue as well to, to talk to the motion.
Uh, Mr. President, I was just going to call a question.
Okay, well, I would like to call a roll call vote on all 3 items separately, starting with item 5, please, Keelan.
Robert Taylor 1:52:52 - 1:52:52
Wait.
Unidentified speaker 1:52:53 - 1:52:54
Oh, Robert Taylor.
Robert Taylor 1:52:54 - 1:52:57
Councilor Smith asked to divide the question.
Unidentified speaker 1:52:58 - 1:53:02
Yeah, so I'd call the roll on a motion to postpone item 5.
Robert Taylor 1:53:02 - 1:53:03
Got it, thank you.
Unidentified speaker 1:53:03 - 1:53:13
Then we'll move to item 6, and we'll have a vote to item 7 as well.
Point of information, can you just name the— what the vote is?
Like, vote yes means and vote no means?
Jamie Dunphy 1:53:13 - 1:53:15
Item 5 is the resolution.
Unidentified speaker 1:53:16 - 1:53:53
No, no, no, a yes means postpone and a no means—.
A yes means we will postpone this item.
A no vote means we will not postpone the item, and we will start with the question of shall we postpone item 5, the resolution?
Aye.
No.
I'm going to come back around to this after we do this and hear testimony.
No.
A no vote means do not postpone, correct?
Tiffany Koyama Lane 1:53:54 - 1:53:54
Yes.
Unidentified speaker 1:53:55 - 1:53:55
No.
Raymond C. Lee 1:53:57 - 1:53:57
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:53:59 - 1:54:00
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane 1:54:00 - 1:54:01
I'm—.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:04 - 1:54:07
Is that aye?
I'm sorry, Councilor.
Yep.
Okay.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 1:54:07 - 1:54:07
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:08 - 1:54:10
Thank you.
Mariam?
Sameer Kanal 1:54:12 - 1:54:12
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:13 - 1:54:14
Novick?
Steve Novick 1:54:15 - 1:54:15
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:16 - 1:54:16
Clark?
Olivia Clark 1:54:17 - 1:54:17
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:19 - 1:54:19
Green?
Mitch Green 1:54:20 - 1:54:20
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:22 - 1:54:22
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman 1:54:23 - 1:54:23
No.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:24 - 1:54:25
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy 1:54:27 - 1:54:27
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:28 - 1:54:47
The motion to postpone this item, item 5, passes with 8 yes votes and 4 no.
Please call the roll on Items— postponing item 6, which is the ordinance, uh, introduced by Councilor Zimmerman.
Avalos?
Candace Avalos 1:54:48 - 1:54:48
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:49 - 1:54:54
Smith?
No.
Aye.
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney 1:54:55 - 1:54:55
No.
Unidentified speaker 1:54:56 - 1:55:08
Ryan?
Councilor Ryan?
Yeah, sorry.
Aye.
Aye.
Keelan McClymont 1:55:08 - 1:55:08
Aye.
Dan Ryan 1:55:09 - 1:55:10
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:55:11 - 1:55:11
No.
Robert Taylor 1:55:12 - 1:55:12
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:55:14 - 1:55:14
No.
Mitch Green 1:55:18 - 1:55:18
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:55:22 - 1:55:50
And can you please call the roll on item 7, the Smith ordinance?
Oh, sorry, Councilor.
Was that it?
That was an aye for you?
That was an aye for me, yes.
Okay, thank you.
So yeah, the, uh, motion to postpone item 6, uh, passes with 8 yes votes and 4 no.
This is for item 7.
Avalos?
Candace Avalos 1:55:51 - 1:55:51
Aye.
Keelan McClymont 1:55:52 - 1:55:53
Smith?
Unidentified speaker 1:55:54 - 1:56:20
I really urge my colleagues who voted yes to vote no so that we can hear testimony tonight And don't— and we don't have to have those folks come back.
Uh, no.
Aye.
No.
No.
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane 1:56:21 - 1:56:21
Aye.
Sameer Kanal 1:56:23 - 1:56:23
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:56:29 - 1:56:29
Aye.
Raymond C. Lee 1:56:30 - 1:56:30
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:56:34 - 1:57:05
Aye.
The motion to postpone item 7 passes with 8 yes votes and 4 no.
Thank you, colleagues.
Colleagues, seeing nothing else on our agenda I would entertain a motion to recess until tomorrow at 2 PM.
So moved.
Oh, okay.
I thought we're going to let the people—.
And is there a second on that motion?
Candace Avalos 1:57:07 - 1:57:08
Yeah, I seconded it.
Unidentified speaker 1:57:08 - 1:58:13
Oh, there you go.
Sorry, Councilor Avalos.
Thank you.
This motion is not debatable but does require a vote.
Keelan, can you please take the roll on the motion to recess until tomorrow at 2 PM.
Aye.
Smith.
Councilor Smith.
Absent.
Kanal.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Absent.
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy 1:58:16 - 1:58:16
Aye.
Unidentified speaker 1:58:16 - 1:58:28
The motion to recess passes with 10 yes votes and 2 absent.
Thank you, colleagues.
We are in recess until 2 o'clock tomorrow, Thursday, February 19th.
That is it for the night.
Good night, everybody.