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.
Jamie Dunphy
Good morning.
Before we start our official council meeting, we have a pre-gavel celebration.
I'm turning it immediately over to Councilor Angelita Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you so much, Council President.
Good morning, everyone.
This is going to be my first pre-gavel, and I'm pretty honored to get to do it for DJ OG-1.
This morning, I have the honor of bringing forward a proclamation that was awarded by Mayor Wilson officially recognizing November 30th as DJ OG-1 Day in the City of Portland.
David, who's here before us, aka DJ OG-1 Jackson, is more than just a DJ in our community.
Loretta Smith
He's a legend.
Angelita Morillo
He is a cultural force in Portland and a true ambassador for our city.
For decades, he has helped shape the spirit, sound, and identity of the Rose City.
Many people know him as the official DJ for the Portland Trail Blazers, where his music has energized thousands of fans inside the arena.
Game nights wouldn't feel the same without his sound, his presence, and the energy he brings to every moment.
Over the years, he has become part of the soundtrack of Portland basketball and a beloved figure in the franchise's history.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
But DJ OG-1's impact extends far beyond the Portland Trail Blazers.
In the streets and neighborhoods of Portland, he has been a powerful voice for unity, peace, and community.
He has played a vital role in promoting gang peace and bringing people together across divides.
Through music, mentorship, and leadership, he has used his platform to advocate for understanding, healing, and opportunity for young people throughout our city.
DJ OG-1 has always believed that music can be more than entertainment.
It can be a bridge, a bridge between cultures, generations, and communities, and he has spent years building those bridges here in Portland.
In the music industry, he is widely respected as a pioneer.
He has worked with hundreds of artists, including internationally recognized talent, hosted major events, and represented Portland on a national stage.
Through his work, he has elevated Portland's presence in the music world and demonstrated what's possible when talent meets purpose.
But perhaps even more important than the stages he has performed on are the communities that he has stood beside.
From mentoring youth and supporting local schools to uplifting community programs and social causes, DJ OG-1 has consistently shown up for Portland with integrity, passion, and a love for this city.
This is why recognitions like this matter.
City proclamations are more than symbolic gestures.
They are a way for the city to publicly recognize the people who shape our culture, strengthen our communities, and contribute to the story of Portland.
They acknowledge the artists, leaders, mentors, and changemakers who help make this city vibrant, resilient, and connected.
By honoring individuals like DJ OG-1, we preserve an important part of Portland's cultural history while also inspiring future generations to use their talents and voices to make a difference.
Few people embody the spirit, resilience, and cultural influence of Portland the way that he does.
His work has uplifted countless people, amplified voices that might otherwise go unheard, and brought communities together through the universal language of music.
So today we celebrate not only an incredible career, but but decades of service, leadership, and dedication to the people of Portland.
It's truly a moment to give him his flowers.
So please join me in celebrating a legend, a community leader, and a proud ambassador for the city of Portland, David, quote, DJ OG-1 Jackson, as we officially recognize November 30th as DJ OG-1 Day.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Angelita Morillo
And if we could give him 5 minutes to speak.
And colleagues, if you are willing to take a quick photo right after this so that we can celebrate.
Dan Ryan
Wow.
Unidentified speaker
First of all, thank you, Council, and the mayor for this Councilor Herbold.
Very special historical moment for me.
I think about 1980, I brought my first award from the first Black mayor in Los Angeles when I was 13 for community service.
So my work started over 40 years ago, and I knew something was different about me.
I didn't know quite what it was at the time.
How I felt in serving others.
And so, uh, once landing in Portland and being embraced by the community of Portland, uh, I knew I had a purpose that was bigger than just music.
Uh, but I thank God that he gave me the tool of music to connect with, with people.
Um, and from that, being able to— a lot of the faces that I see even Thank you.
Andre being a student of mine in Gang Peace years ago and being able to see him in a position of leadership and influence within the city.
To me, I don't get this type of recognition without the testimony of those that I've served.
And so this moment, you know, DJ OG One Day is bigger than just recognizing me, but it really is about recognizing what I stand for.
Putting people over profit, encouraging people to live life with purpose and intention.
My mantra is move different, win different, be fluid.
And that stands for bold, engaging, having faith, having love at the foundation of what you're doing, having unwavering values that you stand by.
Living life with intention and be determined about where you want to— what your legacy will be once you leave here.
And I'm hoping that this recognition and DJ OG One Day will always represent that.
And I look around the room at a lot of the faces in here, and I'm thankful not only for The relationships I've been able to build.
But I thank the people of Portland who welcomed me and was patient with me while I was growing into this thing called manhood, learning how to be a father here, learning how to grow into being a businessman.
And I'm glad to say that I have some successful businesses because of the support that I have in this city, and I was able to grow a brand here.
And those are the things that I look forward to continue developing, you know, the next generation of leaders here, the next generation of entrepreneurs to be just as successful and not even more better than I have become at this point.
And lastly, I want to thank my family, my family who has shared me with this community over the years and allowed me to really live out the purpose that I feel I have been called For in this city, and hopefully I'll continue to do that as long as I have breath.
So thank you, and I appreciate— and I thank all of you who have poured into me and invited me into your city, into your spaces, and into your lives to become the person I am today.
So thank you.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
All right, colleagues, if you'll entertain this, we're going to go step outside and do a quick photo, and we have a packed agenda, so let's get to it.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Welcome back, everybody.
I'm now calling to order the Wednesday, March 3rd— March 11th AM meeting of the Portland City Council.
Keelan, can you please call the roll?
Keelan McClymont
Avalos.
Smith.
Dan Ryan
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Is that Councilor—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That was Avalos.
Candace Avalos
I'm here, sorry.
Okay, she's online.
Keelan McClymont
Great, okay, thank you.
Uh, Kanal.
Steve Novick
Good morning, here.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney.
Here.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, I'm here remotely.
I'm really sorry I'm not there.
It's really, uh, it's not fun.
I'm dealing with a, um, an eye infection, so I'm quarantined until this evening.
So anyway, thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Here.
Angelita Morillo
Here.
Sameer Kanal
Here.
Jamie Dunphy
Can we please call the— read the rules of decorum?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Welcome to 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 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.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
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 today should address the matter being considered.
When testifying, please state your name for the record.
Your address is not necessary.
If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
And virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls their name.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, our first action is to approve the agenda.
Are there any requests to amend the agenda or to reorder items?
Looking, seeing no one objecting, uh, with no objections, um, do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda?
Eric Zimmerman
I just have a point of order, Mr. President.
Jamie Dunphy
Go ahead.
Eric Zimmerman
Um, many of our items have been bumped today, but there were other items that did not automatically get bumped from last week's, and I was wondering, uh, that seemed to be our general practice in the previous year.
Can you address that, because certainly we had some pressing items that I was expecting to see today that you have not selected.
Dan Ryan
What—.
Eric Zimmerman
How are we going to approach those moving forward?
And I know that they're your discretion, but it's a change in practice.
I was hoping you can address that.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, um, in general, uh, anything that was— well, the majority of— we didn't get to about 6 items last week, um, and between the items that were already noticed about land use or some other items that had already been told ahead of time were going to be happening today, I ended up bumping a number of things off of this agenda as well.
So the rule generally of first in, first out continues to be the rule of the day, but trying to get to 17 items on a schedule is too much.
And we have a limited agenda for Wednesday of next week, the evening meeting, and then we do not have a meeting on the week following.
So it has been a bit of a challenge to try and schedule items and get them heard in timely manners.
So, um, was there something in particular?
Eric Zimmerman
So in specifics then, in terms of the business income license tax issue and the legal protections package or, uh, legal defense package, can you estimate when you will schedule those?
Yeah, since they were already scheduled.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, those will be coming the first week of April.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, thank you.
Loretta Smith
Council President, I also have a specific question.
We also post um, the ordinance for Slow the Flow, and I'd like some kind of direction on when we're going to get those put on the agenda because I had an ordinance and, um, Councilor Zimmerman had an ordinance and they were put together.
And so I want to know when they're going to be heard because we had 15 people in the queue who sat there and then we got interrupted by protesters and shut down and they never had a chance to, uh, tell their story about why they wanted to use those funds.
So it would be great to let those folks know when they should come back, when we're going to hear those 2 ordinances, and if they're going to be, you know, indefinitely postponed.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, those 2 ordinances and the resolution will all 3 be indefinitely postponed.
They will not be coming back to the council, and there will be a new ordinance tied based off of the work session that we had that will I think that's very—.
Loretta Smith
That's highly inappropriate to do that.
I've never seen that happen at this council ever since we've been here, to take 2 ordinances and indefinitely postpone them when there is so much need for housing in this community.
We are in a housing crisis.
Well, to have you take that off is unacceptable.
Jamie Dunphy
The majority of council voted for it, and we're talking about the agenda for today.
Loretta Smith
They did not.
They voted to postpone.
Jamie Dunphy
They did not vote to councilor, the motion was to indefinitely postpone.
If people don't read what the definition of what they're voting for is, that is not on me.
Loretta Smith
I didn't vote for it.
Dan Ryan
You did not.
Jamie Dunphy
That is correct.
Loretta Smith
And again, as I said before, vulnerable and underserved communities always get put to the back burner.
Jamie Dunphy
And as I said, there will be a new ordinance that will be coming forward with— that is based off of the conversation this body had.
Loretta Smith
Are you suggesting that we should put a new ordinance forward?
Jamie Dunphy
A new ordinance will be coming forward.
Coming, uh—.
Loretta Smith
No, I mean, are you suggesting that me and Eric Zimmerman put a new ordinance forward?
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues are always welcome to introduce whatever legislation you want.
Loretta Smith
Okay, thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, is there any other, uh, concern about approving the agenda today?
Okay, with no objection, the agenda is approved.
Can we please move to public communications?
Keelan McClymont
First up, we have Monica Corey.
Monica Corey
All right, good morning, Council.
Um, thanks for having me here.
My name is Monica.
I live in the Wilkes District, number 1, and I've lived there for over 50 years.
And I'm here on behalf of the silent majority.
We're the people who pay the Metro housing tax, the preschool for all tax, the arts tax, huge property taxes, and see that despite all the money that we've poured into our community, our city continues to stumble and fall it looks terrible.
Every time I step outside, I see increased litter, trash, graffiti, reckless driving, open drug use, boarded-up businesses, and bike paths that are not safe to ride.
I rarely see a patrol car, and this is daily proof that Portland has stopped taking care of itself.
And on behalf of the majority of us who are footing the bills, we're just tired.
Our city has a malaise, and we've allowed our city To be destroyed by very few unchecked and unaccountable people.
And now we're in a budget crisis again.
And yet last week I saw the OPB reported that the climate fund has more revenue than projected.
And if that's true, then I'm going to ask you sincerely to start fixing what's broken right in front of us.
It's time to expand the climate fund into an environmental cleanup fund.
Councilmember Koyama Lane, I'm sorry, I have to interrupt you.
Portland once led the way with environmental causes.
You'd never know it now.
We need to deep clean our green spaces, our waterways, our sidewalks, and our roadways, and we need to bring back regular street sweeping.
We need to power wash public sidewalks and clean up in the hazardous areas where people have been allowed to live unchecked.
We invest in bike paths and salmon habitats and then allow those areas to be trashed.
We built a beautiful bike bridge over the freeway.
Granted, that was federal dollars, but garbage pours down on the hillsides next to it.
No city that looks like that can attract investment and tourism.
And for those of us who've lived here for our entire lives, it's depressing.
It's just not the city we built.
It's not the city we funded.
When I think back to the summer of 2020, my heart breaks for what could have been.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Monica Corey
At that time, our society was facing— confronting systemic racism.
It was a wake-up call, and protesters took to the streets, but things went off the rail quickly.
Imagine the difference Portland would be in today if those leaders in 2020 had joined hands on the Justice Center steps and said, we hear you, we see you, and we're committed to working for a better future.
But stop damaging and destabilizing our city.
We're setting up boundaries and we're establishing a curfew.
That kind of leadership would have changed our trajectory.
I'm asking you to reshape the climate fund into an environmental fund.
I'm asking that you understand the silent majority is paying attention and that we're asking you to do better with our money.
We're praying for your strength.
And I'm sorry I ran over.
I tried real hard not to.
And I, I want to thank the District 1 councilors who did a great job last night.
And candidly, I'm sorry I'm overboard, but I'm going to tell you that I am hopeful, but we got a lot of work to do.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you for being here.
Keelan McClymont
Next up, we have Don Jones Jr.
Don Jones Jr
Good morning, councilors, especially the District 3 councilors.
My name is Don Jones Jr.
I'm a resident of and a housing provider in the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood.
I'm here to highlight safety concerns surrounding the proposed alternate access redemption center operated by the People's Depot at 1109 Southeast Brooklyn Street, corner of Powell Boulevard, Milwaukee Avenue.
This is one of the busiest, most dangerous intersections in the city, and the People's Depot has estimated approximately 300 canners will visit this increasing foot and bicycle activity in this location directly conflicts with the city's Vision Zero policies and commitments.
Portland has formally adopted Vision Zero, committing the city to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries and to prioritize safety for vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and people experiencing homelessness.
The Vision Zero action plan explicitly recognizes that people walking, cycling, and bicycling are the most vulnerable road users.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Don Jones Jr
And biking, especially those experiencing homelessness, face disproportionately higher risks and require extra, extra precautions, not increased exposure to danger.
The danger is documented and significant.
Multnomah County recently reported that homeless individuals are 23 times more likely to die in traffic accidents than the average county residents, 54 times more likely if they're pedestrians or bicyclists.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Don Jones Jr
Vision Zero demographic data indicates that people experiencing homelessness were 80 times, 80 times more likely to die in a traffic crash than the population overall.
Siting a high-volume facility that primarily serves vulnerable pedestrians and bicyclists at a high-speed intersection directly contradicts Vision Zero's core principle that the transportation system should be designed to anticipate human vulnerability and prevent fatal outcomes.
Vision Zero also directs the city to avoid creating new traffic hazards and to focus activity generators, especially those serving vulnerable populations, away from high-crash corridors whenever possible.
Southeast Powell Boulevard is a designated high-crash street, and this intersection is already complex.
Adding hundreds of daily foot and bike trips to this location is not a mitigation strategy.
It amplifies a known risk.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Mayor.
Don Jones Jr
It has been suggested this site would be significantly safer than the current location.
However, TriMet staff has raised safety concerns about the adjacent bus stop.
Vision Zero does not ask us to choose the least dangerous, unsafe option.
It requires us to eliminate preventable risks altogether.
I respectfully urge the mayor and the council to communicate with the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative, OBRC, that this location is unacceptable for safety reasons and they should find a building on a quieter street, of which there are many in our neighborhood.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Keelan McClymont
Next up, we have Peggy McDaniel.
Unidentified speaker
Good morning.
Peggy McDaniel
Good morning, councilors, especially District 3 councilors.
My name is Peggy McDaniel.
I live in the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, where I serve on the HAN board, and represent our neighborhood at Southeast Uplift.
I also live near the Clinton Triangle Shelter and helped develop the Good Neighbor Agreement for that site.
I still serve on the oversight committee at the Clinton Triangle and volunteer at the site.
Recent Bottle Bill updates allow a new kind of bottle drop called an Alternate Access Redemption Center, or AARC.
I'm here to raise grave safety concerns about the proposed location of the first AARC the proposed site is 1109 Southeast Brooklyn Street at the intersection of Southeast Powell and Southeast Milwaukee.
This is one of the largest and most complex intersections in Southeast Portland.
Milwaukee runs 5 lanes there, Powell runs 6, and both carry 2 fast 2-way traffic.
It is also 2 blocks south of a busy train crossing that complicates traffic and pedestrian flow.
The site also faces a slip lane channeling traffic from Milwaukee onto westbound Powell.
Councilmember Herbold.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Peggy McDaniel
Slip lanes allow cars to move much faster than a standard intersection, creating real danger for pedestrians crossing southbound where the traffic approaches from behind.
For comparison, the People's Depot current location on MLK is along a 4-lane corridor that is largely one-way and often reduced to 3 lanes by the streetcar.
It's a very different environment.
The data backs this up.
Vision Zero figures show that wide streets, 4 or more travel lanes, accounted for 53% of of all deadly crashes in Portland from 2019 to 2023, and 57% of pedestrian deaths and serious injury crashes.
The People's Depot does do meaningful work, and we are supportive of them.
They are operated by Ground Score, for canners, by ex-canners.
They support people who depend on container redemption, but location still matters.
The People's Depot expects around 300 visitors per day.
That's their estimate right now.
The Bottle Bill changes are designed to consolidate canners within a 3-mile radius to a single location.
And with the Delta Park bottle drop closing this summer, there's a real uncertainty about how this is going to affect neighborhoods really across the city.
I'm also mindful of the progress we've seen at the Clinton Triangle.
I want to do a shout out to Eric.
Thank you for working with us on that, particularly among guests in the wellness program.
Decisions like this have ripple effects on the people that we're all trying to serve.
So I'll close with this.
We respectfully ask for a 12-month pause, 6 to 12 months, time for the AARC advocates, neighbors, local businesses, the city, TriMet, and many others to identify a site in our neighborhood that is logical, safe, and sustainable for everyone.
A 12-month pause to get this right and prioritize safety for all.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much for being here today.
Keelan McClymont
Next up, we have Bridget Robinson.
Bridget Robinson.
Next, we have Mark Sherman.
Mark Sherman.
Okay, our alternate is Xiaoyang Wang.
Jamie Dunphy
Good morning.
Xiaoyang Wang
Good morning.
My name is Xiaoyang Wang.
I'm with the Oregon Falun Dafa Association.
We are the presenter of Shen Yun Performing Arts in Oregon.
I would like to bring your attention to the challenges Shen Yun has been facing and seek your understanding and support.
Oh, Shen Yun was founded in 2006 by Falun Gong practitioners, many of whom fled China for religious freedom.
Its mission is to revive traditional Chinese culture, which has been destroyed under the communist rule since 1949.
Over the past 20 years, Shen Yun has toured the world, including the Keller Auditorium and the Holt Center in Eugene.
The company has grown from 1 to 8 Troops and is performing for 1 million— over 1 million people annually.
However, something has been hidden from most of people, which is the frantic effort of the Chinese Communist Party to stop people from seeing the show.
The CCP started by pressuring theaters and the government officials to not contract with Shen Yun and cancel their shows.
In recent years, attacks have been dramatically escalated, including bomb and death threats, lawfare, inflammatory comments by CCP-paid social media influencers, weaponization of U.S. institutions, and manipulating American media.
All the tactics could be traced back to the Chinese regime.
For example, in 2004, a federal court convicted 2 Chinese agents for bribing an undercover FBI agent posing as a, as an IRS official.
Their goal was to strip Shen Yun of its nonprofit status.
Most recently, the Australian Prime Minister was evacuated from his residence after a threat claiming that if Shen Yun were allowed to perform, his residence would be bombed.
And even some Portland and Eugene local media have echoed the New York Times biased articles to slander Shen Yun right before the shows.
Why is the CCP so afraid of Shen Yun?
Shen Yun shows unveil China's authentic culture, a culture before communism.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you.
Xiaoyang Wang
It has made people realize that the Chinese regime is not the real China.
It does not represent Chinese culture and its people.
Therefore, the CCP sees Shen Yun as defiance.
Shen Yun also exposes the regime's religious persecution and persecution of Falun Gong and the forced organ harvesting.
This is what the CCP does not want the world to know the most.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Xiaoyang Wang
Shen Yun is a faith-based arts group.
Among a variety of programs, some displays the— display the determination and faith of Chinese people facing ordeals.
This traditional belief in the divine is in conflict with CCP's atheist ideology.
I hope you can come to see Shen Yun.
Keelan McClymont
Wrap this up here.
Xiaoyang Wang
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Keelan McClymont
That completes communications.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much, colleagues.
I'm holding time on our calendars, uh, to give the administration an opportunity to provide updates to the public about the ongoing federal response and any other emergency matters at the beginning of council, uh, meetings.
City Administrator Lee, is— do you have anything to share?
Sameer Kanal
No new updates, but I will just reiterate some things that we mentioned last week.
And as council may be aware, an appeal has been filed with the hearing officer for the notice of land use violation at the ICE facility.
We are still awaiting the hearing officer to schedule a hearing date for this appeal.
Keep in mind, staff across many bureaus continue to work towards a permanent administrative rule for the detention facility impact fee as well.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
And as of today, we are on week 2 of the Immigrant Affairs lead role being on board.
She's coordinating the city's efforts related to federal presence and sanctuary policy implementation.
The work includes directives called for in the protective Protect Portland initiative, meeting with immigrant immigration advocates as well.
And we— she is doing a tremendous amount of work being new on board.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Uh, also, the Portland Bureau of Emergency Management is also developing response protocols and scenario planning for citywide federal response as well.
And I just want to keep council abreast of those key items.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, City Administrator.
Um, item 4 on our agenda is the committee referral list.
A, a very small number of items were referred to committee this week.
Those are available online at Portland.gov/auditor/council-clerk/committee-referral-list.
Keelan, can we please call our first time-certain item number 5?
Keelan McClymont
Item 2026-063, adopt the public infrastructure environmental code project to streamline environmental zoning regulations to accommodate needed infrastructure projects and support ongoing natural this is the second reading of an emergency—.
Jamie Dunphy
Not a non-emergency ordinance.
Thank you.
Gosh, reading.
Um, colleagues, is there any further discussion on this item?
Councilor Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Yes, please.
Thank you, Council President.
I was unfortunately not at the meeting that this was passed in or the first reading, so allow me to say a couple things.
I appreciate that you're bringing this forward.
It's making things faster and quicker for our bureaus to do vital work.
In a timely fashion.
As my District 2 colleagues know, we have 2 rivers, and we hear from constituents about the hurdles and confusion that they experience as well trying to navigate these systems while trying to utilize their land.
This is both definitely individuals and residents on this issue more so.
And this evening, I will actually be visiting with residents in North Portland about the E-zones, and because the quarantine ends at 5.
I would like more engagement with our river-facing neighbors and how we can help them as customers alleviate some of the same headaches that they run into, like our bureaus are experiencing.
So I think, yes, I will be supporting this, and we need further conversations that when our own bureaus notice such challenges of red tape, that we have shared empathy for our customers, Portlanders, who are also experiencing these challenges.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
The long and short of it is, you think it's tough to manage public systems when you're in them.
Imagine what it's like for our customers who pay the fees.
Loretta Smith
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Colleagues, any further discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
Keelan McClymont
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Smith.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Monica Corey
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The ordinance passes with 11 yes votes and 1 absent.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Point of— I'm not sure which point this is, Maybe order, um, but the councilor said aye as he walked in before the roll was called.
Jamie Dunphy
Can we— are we allowed to count his, his vote?
Keelan McClymont
Yeah, I'll make that adjustment.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
The ordinance passes with 12 yes votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Keelan.
Can we please call item number 6?
Keelan McClymont
Item 2026-055, amend campaign finance code to thank you, colleagues.
Jamie Dunphy
This is a continuation of the first reading of an ordinance.
I'm going to turn it over to Auditor Reddy.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you, Council President.
Good morning, councilors.
My name is Simone Reddy, and I'm the elected City Auditor of Portland.
For anyone who is watching online, I'm going to be giving a brief introduction of my role.
Or listening, my office's mission is to ensure open and accountable city government, and having an elected auditor meets the highest independent standard for the city.
The Auditor's Office is home to the Elections Division, which oversees city elections and enforces the city's campaign finance and lobbying regulations.
As a candidate in the November 2026 election, I delegated my elections and campaign finance duties to Chief Deputy Brodersen last December.
However, I maintain my independent authority to establish rules for the office to carry out our charter.
I'm here today to reintroduce this agenda item that my staff has worked with you and our legal counsels to develop so that we can build a fairer system for everyone involved, one that will work in the election cycle that is already underway.
As an auditor and as a Portlander, my priority is to have a system that works.
In this case, an enforcement system that is fair, just, and constitutional.
One that Portlanders can trust and that they can rely on to hold candidates, campaigns, and donors accountable.
The proposal that my office is bringing to you today makes our city's campaign finance code legally viable and enforceable.
It is a technical fix to make a section of the city charter that voters approved in 2018 valid that the court, the circuit court, rendered invalid in 2025.
I know that February 26th council meeting raised some really important questions, and since then Chief Deputy Brodersen has taken steps to address those.
Last Monday, he shared more information with you all.
Over email about the interaction between small donor elections and our proposed code amendment and shared updates from the conversations that my team had with Susan Mottay, the Susan— or the small donor elections director.
Those conversations resulted in an amendment that limits the auditor's discretion to extend enforcement timelines, and I want to thank Councilor Murillo for sponsoring that today.
My deputy also explained the process that we've taken to get here, which started before the legal dispute was resolved last July.
This process has included engagement with Honest Elections and outreach to organizations like Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.
Finally, he confirmed that changing the enforcement timelines is necessary to be responsive to the court ruling.
I have full confidence in my team, their analysis, and the work they've done in concert with you and others to develop this proposal.
I ask that you advance it to a second reading today and ultimately adopt it so that we can prepare to enforce our city's campaign finance regulations in the November 2026 general elections.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Madam Auditor.
Councilmember Herbold.
As the auditor mentioned, there are an amendment from Councilor Murillo.
There's also an amendment from Councilor Kanal.
I'd like to let Councilor Murillo introduce the amendment at this time.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, thank you, colleagues.
I passed out some printed copies and the highlighted yellow portion is the language that would change.
Really appreciate you guys working with the Small General Elections Office to correct any miscommunications or misunderstandings that may have happened originally.
And the— to put it very simply, what this amendment does is it limits the auditor's discretion to extend all deadlines all the time.
So we want investigations to move quickly, especially if they're doing basic reviews of sufficiency, things like that.
But they will still be able to extend deadlines for more complicated investigations.
And the purpose of that is, you know, when we are getting investigated, obviously in the media, if something just keeps getting extended, it's not good extend for us.
Councilmember Smith, I think you're missing the point.
Long-term, that can be harmful in our democracy as far as what are the actual outcomes.
People need expedient answers for some of those lower-level things to be looked into, and then for higher-level offenses, then, or, you know, things to be investigated, then you would be given more time.
So that's the purpose of that amendment, if folks have any questions.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
And Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, mine is not printed, but it is pre-filed as well.
And I'll note that there's a, we'll need to update a 4 to a 5 if they should both pass.
But it restores the provisions that require the auditor to notice that a complaint has been filed to each person who's the object of a complaint within 2 calendar days of receipt by amending the section there.
It also requires that when there's an extension, that that's publicly posted, and, and that public posting is, is, um, uh, done every 14 days.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Keelan, is there anyone signed up for testimony?
Keelan McClymont
No, this was a second reading, so it was close to testimony.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Great.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, discussion to the, uh, I guess to the amendments?
Wait, are we formally moving the amendments at this time?
Councilor Murillo, Councilor Knoll?
Angelita Morillo
Yes, I would like to move my amendment.
Great.
Sameer Kanal
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Murillo.
Oh, sorry, go ahead, Keelan.
Keelan McClymont
I need to correct the record.
I'm sorry.
This is actually a first reading.
It was continued.
So we— it's a continued first reading, but no one signed up.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
There we go.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Councilor Murillo moves her amendment.
Councilor Knoll seconds it.
Colleagues, discussion?
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
I have a couple of nitpicky editorial suggestions that I realize there's no such thing as a friendly amendment, but I'd like to see if this sponsor would be willing to remove based on these.
At the top of Maria 1, we'll give no weight to conclusions unsupported by specific facts.
I'd suggest that be allegations of specific facts.
Otherwise, it might sort of imply the facts have already been proven.
Angelita Morillo
Pausing you.
That part is not my amendment.
The green is not my amendment, only the highlighted yellow.
Steve Novick
Oh, sorry.
I thought that— I thought that the yellow was like an update of amendments that you had already done.
Angelita Morillo
No, my apologies.
I think it looks a little confusing, but my amendment is only the yellow.
So I just realized that when you were trying to communicate with me, I misunderstood you.
Steve Novick
Okay.
Well, in that case, I might be offering my own amendment to say allegations of at the At the top of number 2.
And then the next one, sub 3, is may take notice of any facts that it deems reliable that are readily and publicly available.
Um, a fact I think is always reliable, so I was going to suggest that it say may take notice of any facts that are readily and publicly available from sources that it deems reliable, which I think is the meaning.
So I would move those nitpicky amendments.
Angelita Morillo
Can we see those written out?
I think that might help us.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah.
Jamie Dunphy
Um, Councilor— yeah, no, Councilor Novick, would you be able to write those out and we can move those as a sec— a, a separate amendment?
Steve Novick
Yes.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Um, and Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Okay, thank you, Council President.
So we're back to discussing the amendment that was moved and seconded.
Jamie Dunphy
Yes.
Dan Ryan
Okay, um, my question is this, and I can't— oh yeah, the auditor's still up there.
Hello, Madam Auditor.
We had a pretty long discussion in governance about this, and the Small Donor Office was there.
It passed 5 to 0.
So I'm still trying to get to the heart of the matter of what problem this is trying to solve in terms of ensuring that we have fair and just elections.
And of course, the public wants more immediacy in rulings during election season because it's truly that, a very urgent time period.
So could I have more— I need to be persuaded more why a 5-0 vote out of committee needed this amendment to make it more fair and just for our elections.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Murillo, or to the auditor?
Keelan McClymont
Yeah.
Dan Ryan
And Madam Auditor, sorry, one last thing.
I'd love to hear about the workload implications of these amendments, both this and Kanal's.
Thanks.
Angelita Morillo
I guess to quickly answer, uh, Councilor Ryan, I think some of your feedback is maybe unrelated to the amendment, um, and I'll let you speak, Auditor, but we made these in conjunction with the Auditor's Office and the Small Donor Elections Office to make sure that it wouldn't be too burdensome.
Unidentified speaker
And I will allow my deputy and our elections manager to speak to the general purpose of this legislation.
Yeah, thank you, Councilor Ryan.
So I think the biggest concerns that the Small Donor Elections Program raised were that we ideally, we try to enforce on a shared complaint close to the same time.
The biggest risk is that we enforce first and then they come after and enforce and might overrule.
Sameer Kanal
Ours.
Unidentified speaker
And so, but I think the program still had concerns that they might go first and ours might be later.
And in the public's eye, that might be confusing.
So the concession here really was that we could keep the strict sufficiency review timeline, which is 14 days.
We agreed that there'd be minimal kind of administrative and due process concerns if we held to that and limited our discretion, which I think helped this SDE program kind of helps ensure that we're not continuing to grow that gap between enforcement unnecessarily.
I don't know if that summarizes it for you, but this is kind of a newer issue that came out of conversations after committee, which is why we think it's necessary and support it.
Dan Ryan
Hey, no, I realize upon reflection, even when a governance committee spends a lot of time on something, there's new people that put eyes on it and they catch more things.
I commend Councilor Morillo's office for that.
I just had to hear a little bit more of a crisp— uh, what you just provided, Reed, was very helpful.
That was what I was looking for, is a little more straight talk on how exactly this, um, became an additive amendment.
And I, I can see it now, and I appreciate the dialogue.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Eric Zimmerman
Um, as I said last time, I was prepared to pass what came from the auditor's office and out of committee.
So I'm walking in today fairly, uh, skeptical of amendments, but, but this one seems just in this, this yellow language, it seems somewhat innocuous.
But now there's some stuff that was discussed.
I guess why wasn't it included before?
And you mentioned, uh, that somehow this language keeps you to a 14-day sufficiency clause.
Is that to say that without it— because actually in this language it doesn't say those words at all— is that to say that without this amendment you don't have that 14-day sufficiency clause?
I'm very confused on, again, kind of the reason behind it.
And, and this was both, I think, to the Auditor's since you guys consider it friendly and to the sponsor of it.
I'm missing something here.
Um, can anybody speak to that a little bit more?
Unidentified speaker
Well, I want to just express my thanks for your support, Councilor Zimmerman, and also, um, let my deputy respond to your question.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, yeah, I think it's a great question.
So, um, the Section F that's being amended is really what defines the discretion the auditor has to extend deadlines.
As we originally wrote it, it was kind of on par with many of our peers and how this process works across the country, which is we can extend what we need to in order to run a fair and just enforcement process.
Eric Zimmerman
Yeah.
Unidentified speaker
You know, I think, again, we decided that we can stick to that 14 days generally.
Again, that's a period where we are going to try to answer complex legal questions, consult with partners like SDE, and prepare for an investigation.
And we really couldn't quite think of too many extreme examples where we would need to extend that in the same way that we definitely might need to extend the 30-day window.
And I'm sorry, I think there might have been a second question that I'm not quite answering.
Would you remind me?
Eric Zimmerman
So I guess, all right, we're going from language that says the city auditor may extend one or more of the deadlines To the city auditor may extend the deadlines.
To me, that is no substantial change.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Apologies, Councilor.
Eric Zimmerman
And then the next part of it, it references, um, we go from the city auditor's opinion to the city auditor finds good cause to extend.
And that's the only language changes I'm seeing.
And so the, the, that language seems somewhat you know, okay, got it.
I'm not sure what the difference between good cause and opinion is, uh, but how does that work?
There's been some discussion about something has happened since last week to this week with respect to the small donor elections about alignment.
So what, what has happened in terms of making this amendment now makes the process better and more fair?
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, thank you, Councilor.
So I think a few things there.
If you'll look in that, in the Maria 1 amendment, there's a small numbering inclusion.
So now it says E4 instead of just E. So we're now referencing a very specific set of deadlines only as they relate to our investigation timeline.
So if you missed that, I can see why it might be confusing.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
I think the broader pivot here is that, you know, we're hearing from some councilors, but as well as the Small Donors Elections Program, there's some concern about the level of discretion that this code provides and that there could be a bad actor in the future as an elected auditor that might abuse that discretion.
And so, you know, I think we have faith in our institution that that won't happen, but I think this is in response to that.
There might need to be, you know, some kind of curtailing of that infinite discretion and also to Kanal's amendment, some more public accountability.
So that that discretion is used judiciously and—.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, so if I read that correctly, and so previously F referred to everything in Section E and now will only refer to paragraph 4 of Section E. I guess, you know, last time I spoke I was in favor of these changes because I am worried about the weaponization in the old system of everybody, every crazy under the sun can make a complaint and you have to quote open an investigation, which has a real weaponization aspect to it given the previous system.
Does this— and so your previous set of amendments made a lot of sense to me— does this make it easier or harder for you as the auditor to ensure the system is sticking to its origins, its core and not being used as a weaponization election tactic, which I feel it was quite susceptible to in the previous go-around.
And I can't tell if limiting, limiting your discretion on timelines to only subparagraph 4 does that, or if keeping it more broad to the entire section gives you more, I think, professional and elected scrutiny and I will recognize I'm also in election season.
It's weird to be asking to make changes to something.
I want— I, I thought the best practice for us was to pass this with very few amendments, if any, because of that.
And you and I are both in the same position, Madam Auditor, so I will call the awkwardness out and just be like, but we got to do it.
So I'm hoping we can talk.
Does it make it harder or less, uh, in terms of that discretion and protecting well, I can speak.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you, Councilor.
I think broadly this process of developing this legislation and the ruling that we received, you know, it made clear what the gaps were in terms of providing more checks and balances in the process.
And then, you know, my staff I think is probably more equipped to speak to the specifics of how we're going to address those.
Xiaoyang Wang
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Deborah Scroggin, Elections Division Manager.
I think the existence and the creation of the sufficiency review help with that concern that you mentioned, and it also addresses the court's concern about lack of time to engage folks in the process.
So we have a sufficiency review.
We can review a complaint on its face.
We can see whether it is necessary to open up a full investigation, and that still exists even with these amendments.
Dan Ryan
Councilor Herbold.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We just now don't have the discretion to continually extend that sufficiency review process.
So on the whole, I do think it's an improvement and addresses some of the concerns the court has and that we've had with weaponization.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, so to make sure I fully— so this is really about sufficiency review must be completed in a certain amount of time, but overall, you making a determination as an office, you have discretion based on the situation of that case.
Easy, moderate, really hard, difficult, et cetera.
And you're gonna make that call and that doesn't— you still have that protected here.
I think thanks for going through that.
I will turn to the— I wanna make sure to the sponsor of this, like that's your intent.
This makes— this is all copacetic in terms of what you were hoping to get out of it as the proposer of this, Councilor Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, that's correct.
I mean, I think, uh, it's just meant to address the problem of continuously extending the sufficiency review, um, while also making sure that there is a thorough investigation if there's a broader issue that needs to be looked into.
Eric Zimmerman
And it didn't come up previously.
You didn't, you didn't say, hey, we'd like to put a limit on our time to do sufficiency was that deliberate because you thought, well, sometimes it takes a long time to do that, or was this just not a discussed point?
I guess I'm trying to get a sense of, are you considering this a favorable amendment because we're trying to get through the moment and this is a compromise amendment, or is it truly was just not addressed and you kind of consider it like, yeah, we have never taken more than 14 days to do this?
I think it's a do a sufficiency review?
This is just not a thing?
I'm trying to get a sense of the, of the size of a change here.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, it's a great question, Councilor.
I think, you know, as we were preparing this proposal, I think we can imagine kind of a worst case in a lot, in a lot of ways.
And, and I think that's why we really felt initially that discretion was important.
But I think through further conversations with the very folks who sufficiency review is kind of meant to help engage with.
So the Small Donor Elections Program, I think we kind of realized that maybe we were over— building in too much caution into that particular element of discussion.
So I think it's mostly just through further conversations we refined what our particular need is here.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, so I want to just— I think my final thought here is, so if a complaint comes to your office 3 weeks before an election, you would by code have to end your sufficiency review at the latest 1 week before an election and then essentially make a headline that says a week out from an election, we are opening this thing.
So that, that gets to the Comey concern that I had last time.
Okay.
And I feel like this code now puts you in the electioneering position the way that I thought you were trying to get yourself out of, given the timelines from the previous system.
And I think that after what we watched in other places, that's a real concern for me.
But I want to make sure I understand that this would force you to get involved in an election days before, regardless of findings, but simply because it seems like a credible concern.
And that will be the last headline likely before the election actually concludes, because you wouldn't have time to then finish the investigation in many cases.
Am I understanding that time— like, this puts it in code that you shall, you must, in that short amount of time, you must get now get into the election yeah, thank you, councilor.
Unidentified speaker
I think the short answer is yes.
And I know that's an unfortunate outcome, but I think the reality is, you know, the decision to extend criteria would not include kind of public perception.
I think that's actually a concern that our decision, the otter decision, would be politicized.
So I think it actually benefits us to have, in this case, a very strict criteria that we timeline can follow.
Thank you.
So that those decisions aren't questioned as political.
So I hear you that there's a policy outcome that is unfavorable, but I think to build trust in the system, we would not lean towards making those decisions based on those types of outcomes.
Eric Zimmerman
I believe that too.
Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that.
But because we don't have a media escape and a public consuming of information that really differentiates the difference between substantiated and you, you did violate it, and so here's your fine, versus yeah, there's enough here, which is that burden of proof is yeah, I think there's enough here that we should probably look into it, versus this is just the crazy commenters on the back end of a newspaper who are now just like filing erroneous complaints.
But, but that gets the headline, and that is now part of the election discussion.
And I thought that your, your work previously that protected those, those what I would call the most influential weeks and the most apt for abuse, um, but now I think that protection is kind of waning now with this because we're putting code back in to say you must do a certain thing.
Because I think actually having a lot— an auditor who says, you know, uh, weighing in within the 30-day mark, doing the James Comey thing, is not a good idea.
There's a reason the federal government has generally tried not to do that, because the accountability never leaves.
It's just when you decide to hit the headlines with accountability.
Angelita Morillo
Um, may I direct respond, Councilor?
Eric Zimmerman
I, I don't know that this isn't really for you.
It's more about— it's this discretion piece.
I mean, I think it's a fine point for discussion, but, um, it is my amendment.
That's fine, but you, you're taking it out.
What I'm talking about is that was a big part of the discussion last time.
Angelita Morillo
It's not an attack.
I'm trying to explain my amendment.
Yeah.
Okay.
I think, um, I completely hear your concerns about that, and, uh, I think that having a set timeline removes the political decision aspect of it.
I think you're the reality is that we live in a media landscape where there are headlines that are used to attack political candidates when investigations aren't even finalized, where they may be innocent, all of those things, right?
But the alternative is that the auditor's office has discretion to choose when they extend the deadline, which to me is inherently— could become a political decision.
Whereas if we have those set timelines, then that removes that discretion.
Dan Ryan
Councilmember Herbold.
Angelita Morillo
The political decision out of their hands as far as that equation goes.
So choosing to extend a sufficiency review to avoid looking political in the public eye can be a political decision.
Candace Avalos
Yeah.
Angelita Morillo
I completely agree.
I think we have a really messed up political landscape where people do attack ads, people do all sorts of things just based on investigations that aren't even finalized yet.
And that being said, I think that's a broad discussion for politics under, uh, under this form of democracy, you know.
Eric Zimmerman
Yeah, I, I agree with you, and I don't think that, um, I'm actually too worried on the auditor and on the staff side.
What I'm really talking about are, are some of the— I'll call them the bad actors that exist out in the community, which I think having the auditor with discretion to understand who and what the motivations are on some of those has been positive, because in this case we'll remove that discretion by code, and the 2-week timeline becomes very weaponized to those who know how to work the system.
And I—.
Dan Ryan
That—.
Eric Zimmerman
So I actually have less of the concern about politicizing by the decision-making of auditors, like I, I hope it's very clear I'm not talking about y'all.
Uh, I'm talking about some of the others who I fully expect will be in this part of it being like, when do I time it so that the auditor has to come out so that then we can do the thing?
I think that's what I am hoping to— I thought the last one was going to.
So I'll be clear and I'll wrap up.
I'm very on the fence of this because I, I, um, one of the things I really appreciate about the first version that passed governance was that I thought that this, um, that it, it did more to combat that.
And this, it, this chips away.
It doesn't eliminate it, but it chips away a little bit at that.
So I'm going to think through the rest of the discussion.
Thank you.
Thank you for answering, everybody.
I appreciate it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Okay, Councilor Kanal did that thing where he put himself after me.
I wasn't prepared.
Uh, hold on one second, let me get my notes up.
Yeah, um, been interesting hearing the conversation.
I mean, I think, um, more broadly, the concept of, you know, it passes out of committee unanimously and therefore it is done is just very strange to me.
I don't know why we keep doing that.
So I think that the whole point of it coming out of committee into council is for other councilors To weigh in, talk to their communities, propose amendments that are going to be relevant based on what happens between committee and council.
So I think that is an expectation that continues to get brought up, and I think we need to have a serious discussion about what it looks like to legislate, especially for councilors who aren't on committees and should be able to put forward amendments, especially when they're in conjunction with community and with our partners.
I think that we all recognize that the We need to respond to the court's ruling so that the Portland campaign finance laws remain enforceable.
And the court found that our current process did not provide sufficient due process protections, particularly because there's not a meaningful hearing before penalties are imposed.
And so I think adding that hearing process is an important step to ensure our system is constitutional and fair.
At the same time, the broader case is not yet fully resolved, and an appeal may still move forward once the final order is entered.
And so given that uncertainty, I believe that we should take a careful and narrow approach and avoid making broader changes than what is We know that 87% of Portland voters approved these campaign finance reforms, and I think we have an obligation to respect that voter mandate and touch the law as little as possible while the legal process continues.
So I want to appreciate Councilor Murillo for bringing forward this amendment that helps address some of the concerns that were raised about discretion and timelines in the enforcement process.
And, um, my understanding is that both the Auditor's Office and the Small Donor Elections Program are comfortable with this change, and so I appreciate that collaboration between the offices to make sure that this process works smoothly.
Thank you.
In practice.
For me, this amendment represents a more careful step forward, and it allows us to address those due process concerns identified by the court and ensure that we have an enforceable system for the upcoming election while also putting additional guardrails in place.
So once the legal process is fully resolved, then council can revisit whether any additional changes are necessary.
At this point, I am comfortable with the amendment, and I plan to support it.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
I wanna first note that there's a few different things in here, and I seconded it because it's a good conversation to have, and I think there's a lot in here that's really positive.
I looked at the deadlines that are being affected here that would become, if this amendment passes, would become not able to be extended.
There's 3 of them.
2B, 2C, 2E.
And I think it makes sense to say C and E seem non-controversial at this moment.
So I just wanted to kind of clarify that.
And that's why I think this amendment is worth doing.
But I also want to say I have agreed with much of what Councilor Zimmerman said on the weaponization concern.
I think we came at it from different sides last time, but Said many of the same things, and I, I also see that concern.
In fact, I believe I also worked on the amendment we're going to get to in a minute with the Auditor's Office, and at that time in those conversations, I said I wouldn't mind if the— if there was, uh, less restriction than even the 14 calendar days in the underlying on a sufficiency review.
I'm trying to understand, um, that because I think one thing that we haven't figured out in any of the amendments or the underlying is what happens In those special time periods right before an election where things are heightened and where the time spent is, it matters more because every day matters more to both the candidates and to the auditor's office and to the complainants, I imagine, as well.
So I'm trying to understand the distinction there and just wanted to kind of daylight that piece for those who might be following along.
Thank you.
That I do think it makes sense to say that if the auditor dismisses the complaint, the complainant may within 30 days request administrative hearing.
I don't think that that necessarily needs an extension even in those heightened times.
And similarly, the auditor will within 14 days issue a notice of investigation.
I don't think those need to be able to be extended either for the sake of the integrity of the process.
So I just wanted to kind of focus on those 2 pieces and say those are I am interested in if there's any solutions that we can talk about that might alleviate concern around 2B, which is the portion related to the extension, potential of extending the sufficiency review.
Because I think that piece of it more than the flexibility in that piece to me is better than flexibility in the actual investigation because of the exact point that Councilor Zimmerman raised.
But I don't know if that's something that affects the majority of the council.
Councilor that's possible within the due process concerns that the court raised.
And so I wanted to understand that a little bit better.
And I feel like if that's not possible, it probably makes sense to do this.
And so I kind of need a little more information there, if you could provide that.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, okay.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah.
So I mean, I think when we look at alleged violators' due process rights, that is multi-pronged.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Right.
Unidentified speaker
But generally it means they need to be able to participate in a process and defend themselves.
And so that happens in a couple ways throughout our investigation.
That might be they participate in interviews to be able to talk with us and answer questions we have, provide documentation, emails, receipts, et cetera, and potentially, ideally, actually respond to a draft determination where they can defend themselves, correct inaccuracies, That all happens in that second window in the investigation period.
So none of that happens in sufficiency.
So really, actually, before your amendment, Councilor Kanal, an alleged violator may not even know during that first 14 days.
So again, I think that's why we're more comfortable limiting discretion there because there is really limited impact on due process.
Whereas I think we absolutely need discretion in the later half.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yeah.
Unidentified speaker
That is where, based on our capacity, based on the complexity of the case, it's really those due process rights that are at jeopardy.
We just don't have the time to engage folks in a way that they deserve and is constitutional.
Sameer Kanal
Can I— this is related to this amendment and the other amendment and the underlying, so I'm just gonna ask it now 'cause chronologically we're doing this first.
Was there an ad package requested?
We've talked about capacity quite a bit.
In the conversation here, we, as far as I'm aware, I haven't seen all the requests from the bureaus yet, but when we get to that point, we will.
That'll be attachments to the mayor's proposed.
Will we see an ad package request from the auditor to resolve these capacity concerns?
Because I think democracy requires investment, and I'm willing to look at that very strongly and depending on the trade-offs, vote for it.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
But I don't know if we even got that request.
So did you ask for the capacity you would need?
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, I'll answer that in 2 parts.
I mean, I think, thank you, Councilor.
First, I think the proposal we put forward, we believe we can staff adequately.
And so no, we do not have an additional add package.
I think what depends on what comes out of council here may change our approach there.
And the last thing I'll say too, again, is we were really called to this at all because of a court ruling.
That identified due process as the concern, not weaponization, but due process.
And we can throw many more staff members at this and it would help, but ultimately we still need that alleged violator to have the time to do their part.
And no matter how much resources we have, it doesn't change that, especially in complex cases, right?
Where they're doing multiple interviews, potentially hundreds of pages of documents, a 26-page legal brief.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
That just needs time for them and resources that they need to engage.
So I appreciate the concern, and I think the auditor can reinforce, so we appreciate your leadership in funding our office, but that's only part of the equation here.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, and I don't mean to imply that these are at odds with each other, but I also don't want to create a weaponization concern in how we resolve the due process concern or create a capacity concern that we don't have the information to be able to address.
So I'm just trying to make sure that the sort of wrapping the scaffolding around this conversation is also acknowledged, because I want to make sure you have what you need.
And if whatever outcome comes of these 2 amendments and the underlying requires more capacity to do it, I would hope that we would get that detail, because regardless of the mayor's guidance, which doesn't include ad packages, we need that information.
And I'm hoping that in the future we can get that.
Thank you.
We always ask for those things in every year's budget from every part of the city.
I don't have anything else on this right now, but I'm curious how the conversation goes.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Colleagues, I will note that we are— we have spent 25 minutes on the first amendment so far.
It is adding 9 words and removing 9 words, and we have a very full agenda today.
I will say nothing more than that.
Councilor Maria.
Angelita Morillo
I was going to say the exact same thing, Council President.
Yeah, just very quickly, I'll just say I think that the concerns that I've heard so far can happen under the status quo.
Someone can file a complaint 2 weeks out before the election, they can feed that to a journalist, and then the journalist can publish an article on it, and that can happen right now.
This is about depoliticizing the auditor and not having to put whoever is in that seat in the position of having to make a choice about whether or not a complaint is frivolous.
And the complaint wouldn't, you know, it wouldn't be entirely baseless.
It has to pass sufficiency review.
So I think it's fairly straightforward, and I would urge us to move forward.
And if it passes, it passes, and if it doesn't, so be it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
I only just got in the queue to hope that we can just take a vote.
Jamie Dunphy
Great, thank you.
Councilor Zimmerman, is that a legacy hand or do you—.
Dan Ryan
Yes.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you.
Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on the Murillo amendment?
Loretta Smith
Yes.
Keelan McClymont
Yep.
And just to clarify, that was moved by Councilor Murillo, seconded by Councilor Kanal.
Loretta Smith
Correct.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Smith?
No.
Keelan McClymont
Kanal?
Aye.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Dan Ryan
No.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green.
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
No.
Keelan McClymont
The amendment is approved with 9 yes votes.
And 3 no votes.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
I would like to formally move Kanal 1.
Um, I can speak to it if there's a second.
Jamie Dunphy
And Councilor Kanal moves.
Is there a second, or do you want to speak on it first?
Loretta Smith
Sure.
Dan Ryan
Move it.
Candace Avalos
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
There we go.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks.
Uh, so as I mentioned earlier, this does 2 different things.
It is, it is formatted, uh, similarly to Morillo 1 in the sense that the— there are 2 types of redline here.
There's the underlying as shown as redline.
This amendment is what is yellow highlighted as well.
So it adds a new Part 2, E2, and then it also adds an F2.
E2 says that within 2 calendar days of receiving a complaint, we'll issue notification including a copy of the complaint to each— to every person who is the object of the complaint.
And what that means is that instead of waiting until after the sufficiency review is complete to let the candidate who is alleged to have committed a violation know that there is a complaint, they would find out within 2 days of the complaint being filed, which I think is an important part not only for avoiding weaponization but for also the due process part of it.
And then the second piece is down at— in F— actually, there is a third part.
F1 adds a sentence: the city auditor will put the same information on the website, which is to say—.
Yes.
The reason why an extension is necessary needs to be publicly expressed.
And then the new F2 would effectively mean that the extensions are not limited in time to this section in terms— or sorry, there's no max cap on the number of extensions, but that they have to be informed every 14 days to the public.
The public has to be informed every 14 days.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Is the right way to say that.
And I'll also note this is something that I worked on with the Auditor's Office and appreciate the conversation there because I think that, again, this is about making sure that we're not just addressing the due process, but we're also putting some guardrails on the other parts.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Vice President Clark.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
I'd just like to hear the Auditor's response or opinion about this amendment.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you, Councilor Clark.
Vice president, I think that the notification requirements are enhancements on the fairness and transparency of the legislation that's been proposed.
It's not terribly onerous for our staff to provide that information, so we are supportive.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, any further discussion?
Eric Zimmerman
I want to make sure, and I, I think you said, but it's a notification of, hey, you've been complained against, here's who complained, here's the substance.
You get the whole thing, right?
That's what we're talking about here.
Unidentified speaker
And we are extending timelines.
When we do, we would make that publicly obvious.
Eric Zimmerman
Why is the reason that that isn't already a normal— or maybe it is already a practice, we're just putting it in code.
Is this already a practice?
Unidentified speaker
I'll let my staff speak to that.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The notice that you've received, councilor, the notice that you've received a complaint is already 2 business days.
So we already rushed to try to get those in as fast as we can.
This just says you've received a complaint, here's the copy of the complaint, we're proceeding on the rest of our process.
Got it.
The request to extend isn't currently in charter or code, so that would be new and we'd be daylighting that we'll be extending a deadline and for what reason.
Angelita Morillo
Got it.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I want to just ask a clarifying question here.
Councilor Zimmerman just said the notice will include that you have a complaint, who it's from, all of the details.
What I see written and what I think I heard you say is that you get a notice that there has been a complaint filed, but maybe not all of those details.
So can you clarify for us whether under this language somebody who has a complaint filed against them is going to get notice that just says, by the way, a complaint has been filed against you, here's the timeline, or are they going to actually get information about what that complaint is, who it's from, etc.?
Unidentified speaker
Um, yeah, thank you, Councilor.
So I think, um, including the copy of the complaint will include that information.
We have an online intake form that includes, um, name of the complainant, And, you know, so I think in receiving that copy, they would receive all of those details.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So we will get— that information will be included when somebody gets notice about a complaint under this amendment.
Angelita Morillo
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Canal 1?
Candace Avalos
Avalos?
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Keelan McClymont
Kanal?
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Leslie Goodlow
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The amendment is approved with 11 yes votes and 1 no vote.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
In the interest of time, I withdraw my nitpicky amendments, trusting that the current language will be interpreted the way I want it to be interpreted anyway.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Keelan McClymont
Just to clarify, I don't think there was a second, so there's no official withdrawal needed.
So I think we're set.
Dan Ryan
Perfect.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Colleagues, is there any further discussion on this item?
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
So just clarifying, this is the first reading, so we're voting on this next week.
There's not immediate urgency, I think, except in the context of complaints that are happening theoretically in the next, the week of any potential delay.
So I just wanted to ask if, to kind of follow up on my earlier question about the legal side of it around sufficiency review extension versus—.
Dan Ryan
Yes.
Sameer Kanal
Investigation extensions, because Reed, in your response, you mentioned that unless the amendment that I had proposed passed, the complainant would not know— or sorry, the, the object of the complaint would not know during the sufficiency review.
But now that we have passed that amendment and that object of the complaint does know, I would love it if you could circle back to us on whether or not the due process concerns could be resolved by giving more flexibility on the sufficiency review and less on the actual investigation.
Because I think that might help with some of the concerns that both Councilor Zimmerman and I raised around potential weaponization.
Did that make sense?
Unidentified speaker
I think so, yeah, Councilor, thank you.
So I do think it helps insofar as the alleged violator now does have time To prepare.
And that might mean they're going to go find a lawyer, right?
Because this is really complex stuff.
It might mean thinking about the documents they need to prepare, but they won't have any of the actual information that we'll need to provide them to do that.
So they won't have our list of questions, our document reviews.
They may not even have clarity exactly on what law they've been alleged to break.
So I do think it helps, but it doesn't really erase the need for them to be able to engage in the multiple steps of the investigation process.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
After sufficiency closes.
Sameer Kanal
So I understand your point around list of questions, document reviews.
You said they may not have clarity exactly on what law they've been alleged to break.
Isn't that not part of a completed— a complete complaint?
Unidentified speaker
Thank you, Councilor.
So it is, but I think as we're seeing, these cases are getting increasingly complex.
And so there might be multiple layers of state, local law that are at stake.
And so sometimes a complaint is just scratching the surface.
Our interviews and our document requests might need to get to multiple angles of one question.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, thank you.
Unidentified speaker
I appreciate the clarification.
I might have misspoke or overly simplified.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, and if anything comes up, I just— I'm just asking if between now and next week, if there's more information to share on this particular question, I'd love to have it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
I think that's an important, uh, thought that Councilor Kanal brings up.
In fact, I think in large part we could probably expect that people go oh my gosh, you're right.
I like clearing—.
I totally did.
I didn't even realize that there's, there's this many people that are involved in my campaign.
They printed something without it on it.
And yeah, full stop, I get it.
And it ends up being not a big deal, right?
We're really talking in like the biggest deal.
But if you've been around election world enough, most of it is not substantial oopsies all over the place, right?
That is the nature of it.
And I think that this is very helpful to that.
So I think your amendment is, is, is good.
Robert Taylor
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
And, and most people are trying to do the right thing.
And in a complicated system, just being able to say, ah, thank you for the course correction, got it, I'm going to be better on the, on the way out, here's my, you know, either my hand slap, my bad boy letter, or my $50 fine, whatever it is, you know, I think that that's really helpful.
I think you guys have set up a system.
So sometimes in this amendment process, we kind of lose the thread, which is this thread was basically taking a system for enforcement that was completely neutered some months ago.
And I think that this is an important action.
I just want to be very supportive of the Auditor's Office work on this.
The Governance Committee, thank you for taking it up and getting it to us.
And, uh, and, and thank you for SDE for putting the lens on it.
I think the work has been good.
Thanks, everybody.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue to discuss, this item now moves to second reading next week.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can we please call item number 7?
Keelan McClymont
Item 2026-087, appoint members to the Community Involvement Committee.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
Claire Adamsick with Council Ops is here for a committee summary report.
Angelita Morillo
Good morning, Council President and councilors.
For the record, Claire Adamsick, Council Policy Analyst and staff to the Climate Resilience and Land Use Committee.
The report before you, document number 2026-087, was heard in the Climate Committee on February 26th, where it was referred to council with a recommendation it be accepted.
The report requests the appointment of 7 new members and the reappointment of 3 members to the Community Involvement Committee, each for a 3-year term from March 11th, 2026 to March 10th, 2029.
The appointees are, by name, Thuy Doan Leitong, Sarah Weller Pegna, Lauren Elizabeth Summer, Bing Theobald, Jenna Ringelheim, Jacob Dugan, and Caitlin Burke.
And the reappointees are Susan Novak, Kelvin Hoff, and James Gorder.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The full impact statement on this item includes information on community impacts and community involvement.
Angelita Morillo
No written or verbal testimony was submitted on this item prior to committee action.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And that concludes the committee staff summary.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Claire.
Councilors Morillo and Novick, this came out of your committee.
I don't care who was taking— any further comments?
Angelita Morillo
Uh, no, I think that was— thank you, Claire, great summary.
Uh, all of these folks, we didn't flag any issues with them.
We were happy to move forward with them, so, uh, should be fairly straightforward.
Jamie Dunphy
Perfect.
Colleagues, is there any technical or clarifying questions?
Dan Ryan
No.
Jamie Dunphy
Keelan, is there any public testimony?
Keelan McClymont
No one signed up.
Jamie Dunphy
Oh, Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, thank you, Council President.
First of all, thank you to all the appointees and their willingness to serve.
It looks like a wonderful group of volunteers from the community.
I wasn't able to be at that meeting, the committee meeting, and I just wanted to ask, are there any of the new— of these new committee members, do any of them have experiences operating businesses in the public right-of-way?
Jamie Dunphy
We're inviting some staff up.
Unidentified speaker
Hi, Harmony.
Angelita Morillo
Hi, Harmony Daschiel, she/her pronouns, Equity and Engagement Manager for the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
I don't believe so, Councilor Ryan, but that wasn't a specific question that we asked as part of their application, so I can't definitively say no, none of them have ever done this.
Dan Ryan
That's fine.
I think that the reason I bring it up is because what I've experienced on council is when we don't have that lens when we're doing big planning projects, and many times whether it's a transportation planning issue or some other big issue that we're working on for code change, that we don't have that voice in, in the process.
And so often they're the ones that are most disgruntled when they find out later that we've Made a big code change.
So I'm hoping that someday we can figure out how to have that type of diversity of opinion at the table.
That's all.
But I will be supporting this.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
Uh, I will also be supporting this, and I was at the, uh, meeting, so I won't replay, uh, restate everything I said about, uh, the members and how I think they'll be great at it, um, and the, uh, sort of that's all the requests I had for them.
But I did want to mention 2 things for future.
One is that we have seen some— the documentation is super unclear about the amount of turnover, but I did want to understand— I'm looking like 4 or 5 years ago, but trying to understand our recruitment process and how we can get more applicants in the future.
In particular, as per usual, District 1.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Um, as a, as a focus area.
And I'd love to see not each and every staff for each and every commission do some special thing to create that equity, but overall citywide guidance from both the legislative side and, um, the Office of Community Engagement to assist in ensuring that we are getting, um, the information necessary out to District 1, um, residents.
And then also that this, this is one of the, um, most extreme examples of a commission that is defined as having a very broad range of members.
It says 5 to 12, which is kind of absurd, uh, even within the context of a few that are defined this way.
And I just wanted to mention for my colleagues that that's something I'm going to be looking into, um, with the Committee of the Whole later, is how we can create clarity around that.
Um, so, but thanks.
I do intend to vote for these folks, and I, I think they're going to be great.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, can we do it?
Does this require a motion?
Dan Ryan
Yeah.
Get it.
Jamie Dunphy
Uh, I would entertain a motion to accept this report.
Sameer Kanal
So moved.
Unidentified speaker
Moved.
Angelita Morillo
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Let's say Kanal, seconded by Clark, sounded like.
And could we please call the roll?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Smith?
Keelan McClymont
Absent.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Candace Avalos
Dunphy?
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The report is accepted with 11 yes votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Can you please call item number 8 next?
Keelan McClymont
Item 2026-073, amend Civil Rights Code related to sexual orientation and family status definitions and amend nondiscrimination clauses.
Amend Code Section 14A.50.110 and Code Chapter 23.015.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, this is the second reading of an ordinance.
Is there further council discussion?
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yes, thank you, Council President.
Uh, good morning, colleagues.
Again, I wish I was there in person.
I really need to get my voice out on this item since much of the discussion that I witnessed when I watched the, the council meeting from afar, I was in a lot of this thank you, Mayor Wilson, and thank you for this conversation in my absence at the February 25th council meeting.
I have been a long supporter of this legislation.
I was a co-sponsor— I am a co-sponsor with the other queer councilors and also Councilor Koyama Lane.
As a group, we worked since August 2025 together in good faith and with a lot of transparency.
Unfortunately, this was scheduled for council meeting when I was traveling for work.
In fact, I was on a flight going towards Taipei.
I was in the back of the plane, coach, and it was, you know, probably 2:00 AM International Date Time on Thursday.
And of course, there was no way I could call in.
So just know, those that didn't have that information, I have talked to a couple councilors who didn't understand understand that and said, you know, comments that made it seem like I was slacking.
And please know I wasn't.
Um, it was really hard for me not to be there for this conversation.
I'm really grateful for my colleagues, Councilors Pirtle-Guiney and Councilor Zimmerman, both of whom eloquently discussed the fidelity of this legislative process, transparency, the concerns about the amendments.
And I also want to thank them just thank them for representing my lived history as well.
It was very touching to listen to that part, and thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I am a proud member of the LGBTQI community, and I've stood up for their rights for decades, and I've put blood, sweat, and tears into it, and have many stories to explain that.
I would have preferred that we have maintained the broader inclusive language of the original legislation as it had been agreed.
To by all the queer councilors, the majority of them on that writing this.
But developing a list of who is protected means that, that we risk excluding groups.
And I will move past all that now.
I anticipate that we may have to deal with that decision in the future.
But for now, I will align with my colleagues whom I trust and I have a lot of admiration for.
Again, both Councilors Pirtle-Guiney and Zimmerman.
Thank you.
They got behind this legislation, and so I don't want to add to any changes or bring up any more political lightning rod issues at this time.
And so I will accept the ordinance and the resolution as they are, and I don't want to ever get in the way of justice for those who have been working on it for years.
And, you know, my spouse has been a member of the trans and non-binary community since high school at Las Vegas High in the '90s.
And, you know, I obviously have firsthand opportunity to understand the complexity of that discrimination, and I experienced, um, as an ally the pain of that for years.
So I think I was just so in solidarity with wanting to celebrate that, I got confused when throuples and, um, and poly was introduced at the last second without any Um, so I'm, um, I just had to get my voice out again since I was discussed quite, um, often on the 25th.
And I, I thank you for listening, um, to my, uh, experience and, and my point of view on this topic.
I really appreciate it.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
I try not to speak on second readings, but I had a few members of the LGBTQIA2+ community specifically reach out and ask when we were going to do this and when we were going to protect rights.
And I realized that through some of our important debate when this was up on first reading, we might have lost sight of some of what we're doing and why it's important.
So I'd like to ask you to indulge me in taking just a minute to remind us.
By passing the package today, we are eliminating outdated code that has been used to stigmatize and marginalize people for simply existing.
It's a win for dignity.
It's a win for Portland.
It helps us show our community members in the world what we stand for.
This package ensures that transgender Portlanders can use public restrooms without fear of criminalization or people second-guessing them.
It's a win that could completely transform Portlanders' daily lives.
It's a mental health win and a basic human dignity win.
It expands civil rights protections so that no family can be discriminated against in housing, employment, or healthcare.
We modernize our definitions of sexual orientation so our nondiscrimination code protects people as we understand ourselves and not as outdated language once described us.
Through the resolution, we make it clear that Portland will not ever use city resources to help other states punish people for accessing healthcare that is legal here in the state of Oregon.
It's a healthcare access win, a provider protection win, and a family security win.
At a moment when hundreds of anti-LGBTQIA2S+ bills are moving across the country, we are saying clearly that Portland is not neutral.
We stand with families seeking safety, with providers delivering evidence-based care, with members of our community.
With this package, we are reinforcing Oregon's broader commitment and Portland's very clear ongoing commitment to equality and to continuing to be a leader on basic rights and freedoms that frankly every city ought to be guaranteeing its residents.
I often say that I want Portland to be a place the best place to raise a family.
And when I say that, I mean every family.
With our votes today, colleagues, we are taking one more step.
It's only one step, but an important one, to make sure that Portland is the best place to live for all families, not just some.
And I want to make sure we ground ourselves in that.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you, Councilor Dunphy.
I'll be very brief.
I'm really grateful that we're here at this moment to pass this legislation.
And I know a few of our council offices were approached to carry on this policy, and it's actually been transformed over time by a lot of people on council who care about this issue regardless of identity.
Because at the end of the day, our wins are shared together.
If someone is harmed in the community, it is harming all of us.
And solidarity and true liberation means that we are all standing side by side in this moment.
I want to thank some of the early writers who had worked on this policy.
Actually, most people don't know Councilor Dunphy had worked on some of that language early on.
We were— a lot of us were approached to take that on, and then ultimately Councilor Koyama Lane and her fantastic staffer Aubrey.
I want to give Aubrey special flowers in this moment because they have been working on this policy for many years.
Thank you.
Really, you know, brought us to this moment today when some of us didn't have the fortitude to pick it up and to push it forward.
And so that's happening because of that labor, and it is acknowledged and it is respected and is cared for.
So thank you for that.
And I am grateful for the amendments that we passed.
Obviously, no community is a monolith, and there may be some disagreements, but I think that those amendments will add additional protections for folks who needed to be named, and especially within the queer community, different types of families that are not always— don't always fall under the nuclear family for our communities because we are sometimes ostracized from our families.
So I really appreciate all of us having those hard discussions, coming together to pass this, and thank you everyone for getting us to this moment.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
On the ordinance, yes.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Oh, absent.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The ordinance passes with 11 yes votes and 1 absent.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Can we please call item 9?
Keelan McClymont
Item 9, uh, 2026 Declare the City of Portland will defend the rights of transgender people and all of the LGBTQIA2S+ community.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, to discussion of the resolution, which we have also talked about previously, but Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you, Council President.
I won't take too much time.
My team has a North Star written up in our office on the whiteboard with these questions.
Who did we talk to about this?
What did they tell us?
How was that reflected in our work?
Thank you to everyone that talked with us.
Thank you to the co-sponsors of this package, to all the staff who work— the council staff who worked on this legislation, especially Luke and Devin.
Thank you to the city professional staff who worked on this package over the years.
Michelle Rodriguez, former head of staff for Commissioner Maps.
Ann Milligan, senior deputy attorney.
Chief Bob Day.
Lex Yakushowski, senior policy analyst with the Office of Equity and Human Rights.
Thank you to the many professionals and lawyers across the country who volunteered their time to weigh in and provide expertise to shape this work.
Special place, uh, special thank you to Stacy McClarty, lead attorney at Chosen Family Law Texas, Hannah Cohn, legislative counsel at the New York City— at New York City Council, and Andy Isenson, staff attorney at the Harvard Law School LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic.
Special thank you to all of my constituents, D3 families, and advocates who came here and took a risk by sharing your stories.
With us, thank you to Scott Moore, Community Affairs Officer for the Quest Center for Integrative Health, to Katie Cox from the Marie Equi Center, to the Nash-Killeys, and to everyone who, everyone who came and took time to come testify or write our offices.
Thank you for talking with us, telling us what we needed to change, help ensure that your stories are reflected in our work.
Thank you for helping us make sure our city policies continue to advance justice for all.
Thank you to my amazing staff.
Shout out to my head of staff, um, queer hero Mary Lee, who married her long-term partner Becky Kennedy in March of 2024 when Multnomah County briefly was issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples, and until a state judge put a halt on them.
Mary and Becky never cared about marriage.
They went into it for people who couldn't safely do it on their own, but couldn't otherwise do it.
And they're the Lee and Kennedy in the Lee and Kennedy versus the State of Oregon case, which petitioned the governor and registrar to record the marriages.
And then that November, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 36.
And it is real that they didn't care about marriage, because they currently live in sin today still, but are very much in love.
Thank you for your advocacy then and now.
Thank you to Aubrey Chen.
You deserve so much thanks.
Your continued leadership and advocacy for the LGBTQ+ community is incredible.
You've been working for years on mental health equity, leadership development, transgender equity.
Through your work on this package, our team has seen up close just how much you've invested in strong, meaningful relations throughout the community.
You're so important in the community, and you're an incredibly important part of our Aubrey's asked me to dedicate her work on this package to Cecilia Gentile, who passed away 2 years ago unexpectedly.
Thank you to all the advocates who've paved the way and are no longer here with us.
And Aubrey, thank you for grounding our team in the words of Marsha P. Johnson: there is no pride for some of us without liberation for all of us.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Councilor Kanal.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Sameer Kanal
I'll keep this brief, but I'm proud to be a very, very small part of this moment.
Of helping make a big step to protect protections and rights for the LGBTQIA2S+ community, both with the ordinance and with this resolution.
The only other group that I don't— maybe it was mentioned earlier that I wanted to make sure got shouted out in this, in addition to Lex and Aubrey and Anne Milga and Michelle Rodriguez, was the city's Queer Alliance Employee Resource Group.
I know they were very heavily involved in this as well.
Today we make clear that our city will remain a welcoming, affirming community where everyone can live authentically and thrive, and I'm happy to be a part of it.
Thanks to all of the sponsors.
Candace Avalos
Councilor—.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Um, thanks.
I appreciate this coming today.
Um, you know, there's the saying, nothing about us without us, comes to mind.
Um, I'm reminded, and I'm, I'm sad that Councilor Smith had to step out for a second, but I'm reminded just in terms of how these types of resolutions, they evolve over the years, right, with the topic or sometimes the threat of the day, of the era.
Because I'm reminded in 2011, I think it was, when Commissioner Smith asked a young employee of the tax department at Multnomah County to come and be an employee at the dais and talk about what National Coming Out Day meant.
Yes.
For him.
And he talked about, um, you know, working in the military and being genuine to yourself.
He talked about what it's like to work at home here in Multnomah County and just those differences.
And when Councilor Smith gave me that opportunity, um, to highlight, we were in a different conversation back then.
We were still in the fight only, it seemed like at times, for marriage or for employment, right?
I was a product of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policies at the Department of Defense.
And Councilor Smith highlighted that.
And so I think about that and how far, just in my own professional life, this topic of LGBTQ rights has come.
It is rewarding to now be a co-sponsor and author on this side of the dais.
And I didn't think that we would have to outline at any time for members of our public that if you are a resident of Portland, we won't help another state prosecute you.
But here we are, we're having to say that.
Dan Ryan
Um, the—.
Eric Zimmerman
It's incumbent upon you and the press who are covering these items to listen to the words that came out of Councilor Pearl Guinea in the last item and listen to the words and talk about the substance as the main effort, the, the main thread of what we're— of what these different resolutions and ordinances do, it's easy to pick up on one sentence, but talk about the whole.
Talk about the entire shift, the title shift, the, the, the movement overall when you cover this kind of language.
Because in the same month where other states are invalidating people's identifications as a form of government ID, Portland is saying, noted.
If you're here though, we're not going to help that— I was about to curse— we're not going to help that stuff come into our city.
So, um, you know, for, for all of us at a different time, if you've ever been a part of any minority community, it may seem like your time in the spotlight is now.
Uh, I think that the old idea of it gets better is not lost on me.
It's not as cool as it was 10 years ago, but it sure certainly still rings, is that it does get better and that, um, your time in the spotlight— spotlight of the— of society's spotlight, which is usually not a great thing— will move on.
And I think that these statements at places like the City of Portland are important.
And now that Councilor Smith has walked back in, I'll just nod to her and say thank you for our efforts in 2011 at National Coming Out Day.
I look at these as an extension.
These are a natural evolution, and I am thankful to all of you because I know you're all going to vote to pass this.
So thanks to that, and those in the staff who I've called out previously in this discussion, again, thank you for your work.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yes, first of all, Councilor— President Dunphy, thank you for holding off this vote so I could be present.
Um, to actually vote on it.
I do appreciate that this, um, movement— and Councilor Zimmerman reminded me of this— really took off when people did start coming out.
I don't think a lot of you maybe know this, but it was so unsafe to be out the '60s and '70s, even in the '80s.
And my friend, who rest in peace, Rob, I And his friend Gina Lurie started National Coming Out Day on October 11th, 1988.
The first one was— well, actually, the first one was 1987.
The first anniversary was something I attended in '88.
And it was a simple act of love, and it was encouraging people when they go home for Thanksgiving to start telling the truth about who you're dating.
Thank you.
And so it wasn't until that time where it really started to take off.
It was never really safe before.
It still isn't safe.
And we keep including in the queer movement, we keep adding.
And that's what I love about it.
I remember I was on the head of the Seattle Lesbian and Gay Commission in 1990, and a woman wanted— was— there always was a lesbian and a gay.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah.
Dan Ryan
I was the gay co-chair, and this woman wanted to be the co-chair, and she had made a transition as a woman a couple years prior.
And it was such a debate with, um, the other women.
And, uh, so I found myself in, at that moment in time, advocating that I don't get to tell anyone that Janice isn't a woman because she told me she was.
And she shows up that way to me.
And, um, and so I just think that it's so important to keep opening the heart up to who you need to protect and who you need to make safe.
And I actually look forward to having some conversations with those from the poly community so I can understand their pain better.
I thought the testimony that we listened to at Council After Dark, albeit what's happening right now moment, it was very, um, it was— the couple of them were really poignant.
I don't hang out in that world, so I, I needed to understand what their pain was and what their discrimination was.
I knew what it was for my trans friends for decades, but I, I didn't understand it from that community.
And I need to continue to be brought along so that I can just show up and be an ally.
But I think that it's all about telling your story, believing someone when they tell their story.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
And remember, we're on the shoulders of so many people that got us to this place.
So, um, in celebration, I look forward to the unanimous vote today.
Xiaoyang Wang
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Null?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Ryan?
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Novick?
Steve Novick
I can't resist adding to Councilor Zimmerman's point about how far we've come.
I remember Multnomah County in 2004.
I remember in 2004 we lost a public vote on same-sex marriage in the state.
Ashlyn Coughlin, currently the mayor's chief of staff, ran the NOBLE campaign on the right side.
So when I think about all the bad things that have happened in America over the past 20 years, one really good thing to hold on to is the progress we've made on this issue.
Oh, and by the way, Councilor Koyama Lane, as an old guy, I appreciate anyone ever using old-fashioned phrases like living in sin.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clerk?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Robert Taylor
Aye, aye, aye.
Leslie Goodlow
Dunphy?
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The resolution is adopted with 12 yes votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, I am going to give us a 10-minute recess so that we can stretch our legs.
We will be, uh, back at 11:35.
Please be prompt.
Thank you.
And we are back, colleagues.
Thank you for being back promptly on time.
Keelan, can we please call item number 10?
Keelan McClymont
Item 2026-022, amend the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefit Fund Climate Investment Plan.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
Is there any further discussion on this item?
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks, Council President.
Just wanted to ask if there's anyone here— I had a question that came up in written testimony that I wanted to ask, um, if anyone here could potentially answer.
Sorry to put you on the spot, Director Engstrom.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Good morning.
Sameer Kanal
For the record, Eric Engstrom, Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
And, um, also note that Sam Barrasso, PSF program manager, is online on Zoom, I believe.
So if the question is technical, he may be the best person.
Yeah, and sorry, I'm pulling up the exact text just to make sure that I have it correct.
But it's about page 24 under Strategic Program 25.
There are some changes that related to the mayor's executive order.
And I would love to— I don't think that's come up in committee or in our first reading here at and I just wanted to understand that.
Correct, yes.
There were a number of changes, and we've been working with the City Attorney over the last year, as many of you know, to implement Mayor's Executive Order.
The primary impact on PCEF is that the definition of priority populations that we work with in that program has been flagged as something to look at, and we have amended that definition within the CIP to comport with our current understanding of the law.
Okay, so I see that there's an amendment, um, that, that strikes a couple pieces here or there, but then there's also a removal of the entire section on program-specific workforce and contractor equity considerations, which includes the Equity in Contracting Program, Apprentice and Workforce Diversity Program as well.
And then there's the definition you talked about.
So, but I don't see any new text added.
So is that actually an amendment?
Yes, we have suspended use of the workforce agreements with our PCF program and are in the process of developing substitute for that.
Okay, so in the interim, there's nothing?
There is not a— correct, there is not a workforce agreement in place that we can use right now.
And Sam's online if there are additional questions.
Okay, and I, I want to apologize for not bringing this up earlier, but I also want to note that in the red line, and if you actually look at Exhibit A as amended, which is the one I was working off of, those lines are not red.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Uh, so I just wanted to flag that.
Sameer Kanal
Um, might have come up a little bit earlier had that been in the update.
I think it might have been in the original version correctly.
Um, but I would love any clarity if Sam has it.
Unidentified speaker
So as Director Engstrom just shared there, the— and Councilor Kanal, you're regarding clarity.
Jamie Dunphy
Sam, introduce yourself for the record, please.
Unidentified speaker
Apologies.
For the record, my name is Sam Brossa, program manager for the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund.
Council President, Councilor Kanal, we've— yes, in response to the mayor's executive order, we've been working with staff to adjust how we approach workforce and contractor equity.
And a lot of that has been focused on really shifting the direction and, and working with our grantees, our contractors, to state their approach and, and how they were approaching workforce and contractor equity, as opposed to coming and leading with, um, essentially specific, uh, numeric goals or metrics.
Uh, and so it's, it's something that we're continuing to work through, and we expect to work through with our High Roads Advisory Council as well I'm uncomfortable with that for 2 reasons.
Sameer Kanal
One is the temporal aspect of it, the time, where we've been told that a lot of the future changes are going to wait till next year.
So what is the timeline on this?
I think we're going to be able and to get this that done in the next couple of might weeks.
Address the first of my 2 concerns.
And I want to note, this is because of written testimony that came in that I'm asking this.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, Councilor Kanal, I— it's going to— the universe and the realm in which we've done regionally workforce and contractor equity agreements and plans have been designed based on leveraging and using the state's Certification Office for Business Inclusion, Diversity, Equity.
Using different numeric goals and targets.
And so we have to sort of step back with our partners and broadly take a new look and reevaluate our approaches for doing that.
So it isn't— I don't have a direct answer to that because it isn't a singular problem.
It isn't a singular thing related to just PSF.
It's a regional challenge.
It's a challenge more broadly at the city as a whole that we're going to be negotiating.
We're certainly tackling that right now as it stands, we just had a retreat with our High-Risk Advisory Council last week to tease out how we're going to be moving forward and negotiating that.
In the interim, our work is more tailored with each of our grantees and working with them to make sure they're thinking through their strategies, how they do their outreach.
But in terms of— and our reporting remains, we still capture our reporting and our data, but in terms of having those clear numeric targets that we used to have.
Um, we, we, we've got to come back to the drawing board on that, and that's going to take a little bit of time and working with our, our partners in this space.
Sameer Kanal
So just to be clear, that, that did not involve a hard timeline, uh, in that response, and I understand that you might not be able to give one, so I'm not, um, faulting you for it, but I, I would have loved to have one that is not the default of a year from now.
But also there's text in here that's not numerical.
I understand the bullet points under each of these sections are numerical.
And if you— I'm referring to page 24, the entirety of which is struck, by the way.
The intent of PHB's Equity in Contracting Program is to promote best practices and ensure that PHB housing projects provide business opportunities for DMWESB, SDVBE, all of which are defined down below, construction-focused firms to build economic growth, increase capacity, right.
Then you get into the goals.
And I understand that the program is on pause, but I'm not clear as to why the entire idea of even what the values are is being struck here.
And I made a pledge, and this is my other concern, that I wouldn't change a comma of this program.
And I understand that was primarily about code without taking this back to the voters.
And I think that this has the net effect of changing the values of the program.
Of limiting the impact of code.
So I have, I have concerns about that because it's not a change to code, but it still has that impact.
Councilor, I, I would just add that we have been working with the city attorney on this language, and this is where we landed.
Okay, well, I respect that we can land in different places, so thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Council President.
I wasn't here for the earlier discussion, but I— to vote on this out of the committee, but I really did enjoy the dialogue we were having in committee prior to that.
Um, I really appreciate all the in-depth conversations we had in general, and I, I just want to lift one project that did get in here, and I'm, I'm going to be supporting this.
But I thought that when Councilor Novick brought up some of the transportation items, I wanted to just acknowledge one that was the James Beard Market.
Angelita Morillo
Yes.
Dan Ryan
And as I understood it, Councilor, it was to test some innovation that I think we're ready for, which is having bike cargo, if you will, deliver the goods and services daily of the fresh products that would, you know, I envision them being at an industrial slip somewhere, maybe in Northwest Portland.
And I hope that as we move forward, we look at those type of items that really can help us really move forward with the green economy.
Thank you.
And really lower our footprint by allowing that type of bike cargo infrastructure to become a part of the daily life of downtown Portland.
So I also think the bigger conversation that we need to keep having, and I respect what voters pass, I always think that what we pass and how we implement always has some tension in terms of interpretation.
I think there's a struggle sometimes for the last council and this council to know when we're supposed to weigh in.
When do we have a chance to give feedback?
And I know that what I've experienced from the committee, Sam, is a lot of adaptability.
So I just want to acknowledge that, and also from you.
But I think there is a confusion sometimes on when is it our opportunity to just be curious and work with them.
And sometimes it always feels like it's too late.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah.
Dan Ryan
And I think my experience on the last council was different because there was a commissioner that was openly connecting with us in each office all the time.
So I felt like I was brought along, if you will, more consistently.
This isn't a criticism of you, Sam.
It's more of a growing pains moment.
And I hope that as we move forward, we can continue to be— Our role clarity becomes clear because sometimes it feels like the community already has made the decision, or the people that are getting the funds have already made the decision, and how dare you question anything.
And I think that that's not the democracy we want to live in.
And, um, and I'm just saying this because I respect you, and I know that you'll— you, you take feedback and you always elegantly figure out how to implement it.
So, um, thanks for listening.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
I, I actually want to go back to the piece that Councilor Knoll raised because I also saw the black lining and assumed that because everything else was in red, these were previous edits and not something that we were voting to change today.
And I am surprised to hear that this was the outcome of working with the attorneys because, colleagues, we put together a workgroup on the mayor Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Mayor.
I was asked by the mayor, after he passed his executive order, to meet with our attorneys and contracting staff who were reviewing changes to make sure that we are compliant with federal requirements.
I sit on that workgroup, as does Councilor Kanal, as do 2 of our other colleagues.
And every time in that workgroup that we have looked at removing language, we have looked at replacement language.
And we spent a lot of time, in fact, looking at direct contracting that the city does, including workforce standards.
And I believe, and I'd look to Councilors Smith and Kanal and Dunphy to see if they remember differently, but I believe that when the city developed changes to our contracting and workforce language elsewhere, we developed replacement language.
Donnie Oliveira
That's right.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'm very concerned that that is not here.
So I have a question, Sam, and that is, This is not the only place where we have workforce programs in PCEF.
PCEF has 3 goals and workforce is one of them.
Are we removing our workforce standards in every single PCEF program or just in housing development?
Unidentified speaker
We are investments— so we have our grant investments that stands on one side.
So that our grant investments in workforce development, pre-apprenticeship training programs and such, that remain unchanged.
When we make investments in infrastructure and those investments are going to have workforce or contractor equity standards, those are effectively being pulled back.
Now, our wage criteria still remains, our prevailing wage criteria still remains, but what is getting— and actually, we are still maintaining our apprenticeship criteria and everything, but what is getting pulled back across our programs is essentially having these numeric goals and targets.
And so that's the space where— that's the work that we're doing to figure out what comes after that.
We don't have that with certainty, with clarity right now.
That's the work we're doing with stakeholders to say, okay, now that this particular tool is off the table, how do we approach that without numeric goals?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And have you asked for recommendations from our city procurement staff and attorney's office who have been working through the project of making sure that our language broadly is in compliance with federal requirements, because they do have alternate language?
Unidentified speaker
We have, we have been working with the city attorney's office, including on this.
I think here, and in particular a specific place with the housing bureau that, that folks are honing in on they're, they're just, um, Housing Bureau will still have their programs they administer and their, their policies they hold in place.
A lot of what we had done was capture and mirror what their language was, and since they're working to adjust that, we don't have their replacement language.
And so we removed the, the older language until we figure out what they're doing there.
So I want to name sort of with the Housing Bureau, it was, it was a recognition that that no longer was relevant, but we don't have that replacement yet.
Elsewhere, we— and, and that was, and that, that, that was in collaboration and working with the city attorneys that, that flagged that particular piece.
Elsewhere, we have gone through our workforce and contractor upgraded criteria and, um, and have been in those conversations with the city attorneys around how do we maintain that, but we still haven't fully landed that on the other side.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, I'm struggling to understand how we have that in other parts of the city but they haven't been able to share it with you for peace Mr. City Administrator, when do we expect the disparity study that the City of Portland is a part of to be complete?
Sameer Kanal
I'll have to follow back up with you on that date.
I'll get something to you before the end of today when we're expecting to have that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And would that disparity study— this language is about programs within the Portland Housing Bureau— will that disparity study provide information that if the outcomes show that there are individuals within our community, populations within our community that have historically not had opportunities, and therefore we are legally allowed to prioritize opportunities, would that apply to the Portland Housing Bureau work that is being funded through PSEF?
Loretta Smith
I apologize.
Sameer Kanal
Typically, I haven't seen that in that study to that degree, but I can follow up and see.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
If we are in the process of a disparity study, which would mean that this deletion is not necessary depending on the outcomes of that disparity study, I am not able to support pulling the language out knowing that just a month or 2 from now we might want Council President, it looks like Councilor Smith might have some additional information though.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, Councilor Smith, please.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, we did not solve for the housing stuff.
We were solving for the small business contracting.
And I don't think that— I mean, if you wanted to bring it back up again, that it would be a problem.
It would be something that you could possibly do, but it was not in that disparity resolution that we identified.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, so what we are currently doing is not broad enough to capture this?
Loretta Smith
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I don't see our procurement director here, but that's not what I remember from our disparity study that I— the resolution that we passed.
I don't remember it dealing with the housing piece.
Unidentified speaker
At all.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you, Councilor.
Um, hoping some other people say some things so I can think about what I want to do here.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
I want to just go back and note 2 things about this.
Um, I was looking at the Exhibit A as amended, uh, with the strikethrough showing.
I verified that the original one also has It formatted the same way, but the black line just is a removal.
The red line was the formatting for the additional text.
And in just about every other case, it's either new text added or text being replaced.
So there's red on the page somewhere.
So I'm not trying to imply there's any bad faith or anything like that here.
And I just wanted to clarify that.
As it relates to this particular program, I haven't had a chance to go back through all of the particular text of the study, but I am interested in checking on that particular point as well.
But I think the broader point applies here, which is that we would be going to nothing with no timeline for when we might have something while we're a couple months away from at least a potentially related study.
And more broadly than that, this is all part of a broader conversation that we haven't had on this yes.
About the portions of the executive order that need council affirmation or approval.
I think my approach to the executive order has been, you know, you have administrative rules.
The administration has control over administrative rules.
We're going to give our advice, and I appreciate the conversation there, but that it's different when it comes to, in particular, code, but even this, which is something Council has to approve.
And this is where the broader concepts about complying in advance with the federal government become super relevant.
And I think that's a conversation that we need to have.
And I want to appreciate Dr. Thompson.
It's a 3rd written testimony on the page if you go to it that brought this up in written testimony, because I think it's fair to not just look at this as a purely nuts and bolts and dollars document.
Thank you.
But also as a statement of how we are engaging with this particular type of work in housing specifically.
And right now we are sending a pretty clear message, and I'm not very comfortable with the message we're sending.
And I understand the need to remove some of the numerical pieces, or at least the perceived need to do that.
But there are other parts of this that do not—.
Councilmember.
That do not necessarily— like, for example, PHB is dedicated to equity in contracting is removed.
The rest of the sentence, and workforce goals for minority, women-owned, uh, and emerging small businesses on its affordable housing projects, I'm not sure if that even needs to go either.
But PHB is dedicated to equity in contracting had to go.
I got, I got problems with that.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal, for raising this issue and catching that written testimony.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, for your line of questioning as well.
I'm deeply uncomfortable voting on something that just scratches all this out at this point.
I'm trying to think about what's the best procedural way to address this, and I think— I don't think we should try to amend this on the fly.
I think that we should hold this over or do something to sort of schedule it out so we can fix this language so that we can amend it and take it for a vote.
That's my proposal, just procedurally.
I'm not making any kind of a motion though.
Sameer Kanal
Can I do a point of information?
Because this actually relates to your line of questioning last week, Councilor Green, that I understand was because of a procedural reason that we were not allowed at that moment to divide out a portion of the underlying.
But I do believe we should that under Robert's Rules, the underlying is itself a proposal or motion, and that we are allowed to divide it out at some point in the process.
And I think it was just when that question came up.
But I think to avoid having the whole thing held up, it might be worth pursuing simply separating out this change for a few and continuing that and considering the rest of it altogether.
And I just wanted to ask the attorneys if they could confirm that there is a path to do that and how to do that now before we get too, um, too far into this process and to, to go backward.
Robert Taylor
Hi, uh, Robert Taylor, City Attorney.
Um, great conversation.
Uh, I, I, I do think Councilor Green's suggestion of postponing the item to a date certain to give folks time to address the issues that were raised and perhaps come up with some alternative language.
I think that is a— that makes sense to me based on the conversation I have heard.
On this question of can you divide the question on final passage of an ordinance, our rules allow you to divide the question on a motion.
Sameer Kanal
Okay.
Robert Taylor
So a motion to amend, for example, you can divide the question on that.
This is the final passage of an ordinance.
It's on for second reading.
Keelan McClymont
Mm-hmm.
Robert Taylor
So that you cannot divide.
We need to have the thing in front of us so we know what we're passing.
If there's parts of that that you do not want to pass today, You can amend it out.
So just sever it so it's not even part of the thing that you want to pass today.
That's a possibility.
There was, uh, it's been a few weeks ago now, I believe.
There was a report making some appointments, and you divided the question on that.
The difference there, of course, is for reports we have a motion to accept the report.
And on that motion, we said you can divide that because there is a motion pending.
For these final passage of ordinance, final passage of resolutions, there's, there's not a similar motion pending to be divided.
So if you want— I, I, I do think this is a, a good conversation, and I recognize this issue of just striking language without anything to replace it.
I think that is an important conversation.
Um, the idea of trying to draft something right here is— makes me anxious.
So I do like the idea of postponing to a date certain so that alternative language could be drafted.
Loretta Smith
Point of order.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Okay, thank you.
So if we do that, Is there a way that we can— that this body would want to vote on part of it and get those projects who are on timeline that need to go to permitting to be able to do that?
Or are you— I'm, I'm, I'm just concerned.
I'm concerned that we've, we've, uh, postponed this.
I didn't hear about this last week.
This is new information.
About people concerned about the language.
And it's— to me, I'm, I'm tired of being a recorder on this, but god dog, I mean, we're trying to get some resources into community, and this would be the 4th week, and I, I just don't understand it.
I've never seen anything like this before.
So I think that if we want to change language, we can do that, and we just need to vote on the other part of the just amend it out like, um, City Attorney, uh, Taylor said.
Jamie Dunphy
Alternatively, colleagues, there's an option to bring an amendment to this in the— or bring this back to council in the future.
But, um, at this moment, if we were to postpone it, the soonest date I would be able to get it is April 1st because of the council recess and the schedule that has already been posted for next week.
So Or not posted, but—.
Loretta Smith
Can— point of order, uh, Mr. President.
Can someone from one of the projects, if they're listening, can they speak to this?
Because Sam answered—.
Jamie Dunphy
That's not a point of order.
Loretta Smith
It can't—.
Jamie Dunphy
That's not— that's just not a point of order.
But I will get to you, uh, in the queue to ask that question.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
I just don't want us to make amendment before we make— had talked to the people who it impacts.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks.
And I'm just continuing the, the question that I had here.
On the procedural side of it, I want to get in later to talk about main motion and whether or not we can divide that and whether this constitutes a main motion, but I won't take up everyone's time with that.
I just wanted to flag that for later conversation with the attorneys.
The other thing is that if we amended it out, we would have to take a week anyway because that would make— we would need a 3rd reading on this ordinance in that scenario.
So no matter what we do, unless it is simply approving or denying this entire package.
We are going to be in another week unless we can come up with something that allows us to emergency ordinance it.
So I just wanted to flag that for the future.
I see Robert has a response, so.
Robert Taylor
Thank you for that.
I think what the council president was suggesting was you could pass this today on second reading with the language that's struck.
So we would have something in place to proceed with.
Council could take some time, develop the appropriate language you want to add back to it, and then bring the item back before council and add it at a later date.
So that would allow it to move forward as it is with the understanding that council is going to work on some language and amend it in the future.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, just one and you can give me, I don't wanna force you to give a yes or no, but I would accept a yes or no if you were only able to give that.
Are not ordinances and resolutions main motions themselves?
Robert Taylor
They are main motions.
They are main motions.
We do not make a motion.
We do not, that is the item.
I will tell you candidly that when we divided the main motion on that, Report making appointments.
That was very unusual.
I don't know that we have ever done that.
And I think to point to that as precedent to start doing it on final passage of ordinance and resolutions is very dangerous.
I think it's especially dangerous to start dividing the question on final passage of an ordinance because that may very well violate the charter.
Unidentified speaker
Yes.
Robert Taylor
Because it may constitute an amendment to the ordinance, because now you are changing it on the same day that you are passing it.
And under the charter, if you make an amendment to an ordinance, you have to wait at least 5 days before you pass it.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Robert Taylor
So I think the risk is quite a bit higher if you are going to start trying to divide the question on the main motion on an ordinance, and that is why I would recommend that you not do that.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, I'm not going to do it today.
I'd love to circle back as to the first reading implications of that later, but I, I'm still going to vote against this as a result because I think the gap here— this is what happens, right?
We, we say we'll get back to it later, and we, as Councilor Smith always reminds us, we, we know who is left for later.
So, but I do think it's likely to pass today, and I look forward to working with colleagues on it again in the future.
Robert Taylor
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
And I just want to briefly give an opportunity for DCA Oliveira to clarify.
Donnie Oliveira
Thank you, Council President.
Donnie Oliveira, for the record.
I apologize for my casual appearance right here.
More dressed than Saturday.
I just—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Donnie Oliveira
I just want to clarify the language that was struck from the CIP was verbatim taken from a PHB website that was unpublished in October.
So essentially that webpage, you can see that hyperlink, not taking anything away from the deliberations about replacing the language.
I just wanna clarify that it wasn't an arbitrary strike.
It was language that was taken down or out of the CAP because it was taken down from the city's webpage.
That's the one for one, the verbatim.
It was verbatim taken from a webpage that no longer exists on our city webpage.
That's why that language was cut.
And again, not taking anything away from the deliberations.
Thank you.
Just want to make sure that was on the record about why that language was, was taken away.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Um, DC Oliveira, is PHB operating under replacement language that has been developed by our attorneys and our procurement team around how we approach, um, Our contracting and workforce development in a way that provides opportunities and is also in compliance with federal law?
Is there some replacement the PHB is using right now?
Donnie Oliveira
We're currently working with procurement and the city attorney's office to reestablish that, that work.
As we all know, they've been focused on other more immediate priorities and responses, but yes, that work is ongoing as well.
When do you expect that I will have to get back to you on the specifics, but we'll get back to you ASAP on that deadline.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
It seems that this is tied to PHB work, that council coming up with a replacement will leave us in a bind later because PHB will come up with something that is different, presumably, than what we would come up with here.
But I'm hearing a number of colleagues, myself included, who are somewhat uncomfortable with that.
What I was hoping to propose was that we move this forward today with the deletions and with a commitment from the council president to make time for us to bring replacement language directly to council.
I understand that that bypasses the normal PCF process.
I don't love doing that, but I do think we need to get a replacement in soon.
But I'm now hearing that we probably need to wait until there's a broader PHB replacement.
Council President, I think so I'd like to understand the timing on that before we vote to move this forward.
Ideally, what I would like us to do is have that language within the next month, and then Council President, I don't know what your timing is looking like for that April 1st meeting, but I would love to know if you would be willing to have something come directly to full council at that April 1st meeting or the April 8th meeting to replace this so that we can move quickly in getting the changes that PCF needs moved through our council, but also having a very minimal delay before we get this language replaced.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, absolutely.
Donnie Oliveira
Councilor, if I may offer this maybe middle ground recommendation, because the original language was verbatim taken from a webpage, we could suggest that the next replacement will be the verbatim language from the replacement webpage, if that is an option to contemplate.
Mainly, the CIP was essentially just capturing PHB's work, and they didn't alter it.
It was word for word.
And so we're going to replace that language ultimately, and logically, the CIP would reflect that change from the PHB proposal.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
DCA Oliveira, do you think that that can be complete within the next month or 2, or is that 6 to 10 months out?
Donnie Oliveira
Not 6 to 10 months out.
I'd like to get back to you about 30 days.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
You'd like to get back to us in about 30 days?
Donnie Oliveira
No, no, about if we can do it in 30 days.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, so if we move this today, we can expect to see additional language In 30 to 45 days.
And Council President, you are telling us that you'll bring that straight to council to prioritize moving it quickly once we have it?
Candace Avalos
Happy to.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
I think that provides me the least uncomfortable space possible to move this forward today.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Smith.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
I have a question, Council President.
If we move this forward, will that include the amendments that we also have approved, like Avalos 1?
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, the amended package, the underlying package will move forward, yes.
Loretta Smith
Okay, that's what I needed to find out.
I really urge everyone to support this.
We can't have an indefinite timeline because many of these projects are waiting to go to the permitting process, and that is a long process.
And the more days that we delay, that's more cost added to this, to, to many of these projects.
So I would urge you all to support this today.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Fascinating discussion, colleagues.
I would propose something I'm willing to do.
I'm willing to bring forward an amendment to amend out the specific language that we're finding problematic today and also bring forward An amendment to add an emergency clause pending passage of that language, and then we vote this out today.
I don't know if there's the votes for it.
It is risky.
But Councilor Smith, to your question, I do think we need to move this forward.
This solution would be able to move this forward today.
And then we would— we will have not passed forward the equity in contracting language.
Donnie Oliveira
Thank you.
Mitch Green
So it's an idea I'm not formally making at this point, but I want my colleagues to think about that as we finish this discussion stack.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, thank you, Council President.
Almost took my hand down.
I really appreciate that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney got to a place where she could see how this could move forward.
This is our 5th time, just so you know, that this has either been at council or at Committee meeting, and, uh, we need to move some dirt, and people need to pull those permits like, uh, Councilor Smith said.
So anyway, I look forward to voting on it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Just 2 quick questions.
Uh, first, uh, to Robert, can the things that Councilor Green just mentioned be done in a single motion?
Could, could he move to both add the emergency clause and remove the alteration I was—.
Robert Taylor
Was he asking to remove the, the strikethroughs, or was he suggesting that we add some alternative language?
Mitch Green
It was just removing the strikethroughs.
I don't know what that alternative language would be today.
Robert Taylor
Got it.
Okay.
All right.
Um, I thought that was a good idea to, to have some alternative language to put in there and add an emergency clause so we could pass it today.
To your question, you could have a, you could have a combined motion to amend to remove the strikethroughs and add an emergency clause.
That would be a combined motion.
Any member, as a matter of right, could ask to divide the question on that motion, so they would So you could vote on the amendment separately than the emergency clause.
But that's a possibility.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
And then the other question I had was, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney raised this, I think, by talking about how a fix to the problem might have to bypass the normal PCF committee process.
But I'm realizing that in accounting for how we got this language, the only groups that have been mentioned so far are the attorney's office and piece of staff.
Was the committee involved in this conversation?
Okay, I'm seeing nods from Director Angstrom and— okay, thank you for clarifying that.
I think this is an appropriate thing.
If Councilor Green would indulge, that I would make the motion that he suggested as a single motion to add the emergency clause and remove the strikethroughs to page 2.
Eric Zimmerman
24.
Sameer Kanal
And I would hope that we pass this with either 9 votes or don't pass it so that we know that we'll have the emergency votes, uh, in that scenario.
Mitch Green
Point, point of information.
Are you— is it just limiting to page 24, or is it beginning at the end of page 23?
Sameer Kanal
Oh, thank you.
Yes, uh, the— I'm going to be very specific for the, um, for this now.
It is the portions that begin on page 23 of the exhibit with the header program-specific workforce and contractor equity considerations and go until the bottom of page 24.
So it would still have the other strikethroughs that exist on, on page 23.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Robert Taylor
Uh, one, I think, as, as Mr. Oliveira explained, the, uh, this language came, came from a website.
That language no longer exists.
Because that language no longer exists, all of that language was removed from the, the CIP.
So I think that's sort of the history of it.
Um, the language was removed from the website and, and the CIP because there were legal concerns related to compliance with federal law.
A suggestion might be to keep the parts of the language that are just more general and keep the strikes, the language where we strike the actual numerical goals.
That might be a path through this.
'Cause I think, Councilor Kanal, to your earlier point about, look, there's some— there is some general language in there that seems fine.
It's when we start to get into the more specific language where I think we're running a higher degree of risk.
So I just wanted to let council know, if you leave that, there was a reason that language was taken out.
If you vote to put that language back in there, I think that's a good idea.
Then we will have that risk that we were trying to avoid.
Sameer Kanal
And I, I think we could spend a lot of time figuring out the details in that, so I'm comfortable putting this up as it is knowing it's likely to fail because I'm, I'm getting pretty— this wasn't in the presentation presented to committee.
It wasn't in the summary that was brought up, uh, and this keeps happening.
Um, the administration keeps bringing us things, and then it's, it's always, it's too late to change it.
So I'm, I'm going to put this up.
I think it'll fail.
I think the underlying thing will pass.
I'll register my objection, but I won't— I don't want to take up more time getting into the commas on this because we have a lot of other things to get to.
But I will ask, why does this keep happening?
And please help us, a new city administrator, to not be in this position repeatedly of thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor, uh, are you able to put your amendment into writing?
Sameer Kanal
I'll withdraw it.
Oh, okay.
If I have to—.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah.
Jamie Dunphy
Uh, Vice President Clark.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Uh, thank you, Councilor President.
Colleagues, this is so frustrating to continue to amend on the fly when I thought we had a pathway through that addressed the concerns that have been raised about this.
I'm clearly a no vote on amending this here on the dais.
There could be unintended consequences, which we frequently experience.
So I would urge us to not amend at this point, to forge ahead.
I thought we had a pathway, and we'll come back in 30 to 45 days and fix this thing.
And let's please move on.
We are beating a dead horse.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Smith.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, I, I appreciate the, the need for urgency on this.
Um, I think also I do want to reaffirm what Councilor Kanal said, that this was not included in the presentation materials at committee.
So when we talk about sussing things out through committee and then bringing it to the full council, we can't do that if we're not being given full information.
So I think I will be a no vote on this, but that's where I land right now, unless we can correct it later.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, I know that the on-the-fly amendments are frustrating, and I'm actually looking forward to— I'm increasingly of support of a code change that bars that.
But we're not there right now, and we would not be in this position had this not been slipped in in a way that had to be caught through written testimony.
And I don't want to go out to my constituents and explain why I did not think preserving our commitments to equity in contracting, um, that I have deprioritized that.
So I did offer a path forward.
I don't think there's the votes for that path forward, so I'm, um, I'm gonna be a no on the underlying.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Uh, just trying to get a summary of the discussion and what we're doing.
So it sounds like the amendments that were proposed are being redacted or retracted.
Uh, am I— that's my first question.
Yes.
Okay.
Um, and those amendments were originally so that we could, um, I guess, was it your belief, Councilor Kunal, that the amendment you are retracting would have helped you get to yes on this, and you're not doing it because you don't think it has the votes?
Is that what's going on?
Yes.
And then to clarify, the amendment would have what?
Just restate it for me, please.
Sameer Kanal
The amendment was withdrawn, so there is no amendment right now, but what it would have done is the very end of page 23, there's some strikethroughs there, and all of page 24, there's some strikethroughs there, would've reverted that, and then it would've added an emergency clause so we could still pass it today.
I think Robert Taylor raised a fair point about the idea that there may need to be more than just a blunt instrument in either direction on this in order to do it.
And so, and to avoid getting into the weeds on that, I—.
Dan Ryan
Councilor Smith.
Sameer Kanal
I did not.
I withdrew it before the ask for a second was made.
Don Jones Jr
Okay.
Candace Avalos
And then, um, yeah, I'm just figuring on these based on the discussion.
I don't— is it also my understanding that we will be able, or there is an opportunity to propose amendments in the future?
Like, is that not— is that why also you're, uh, withdrawing, because you think that there is possibly a potential to do it later, or you're just withdrawing and voting no?
I just want to understand.
I'm trying to— I'm trying to figure out where I land, and it's unclear to me where everyone's landing.
That's what I'm trying to get understanding on.
Sameer Kanal
The latter.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Candace Avalos
Um, yeah, I, I, I'm struggling with this decision.
I obviously understand where everyone's coming from, and, um, I agree that our communities have been experiencing the brunt of the effects of this executive order.
I've been hearing about it from my communities in various ways, and so I'm glad that this has been risen.
It sounds like there's some frustration around what we thought we heard in committee versus what was raised to our attention in written testimony.
So I honestly don't know where I'm landing.
Unidentified speaker
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
Loretta Smith
So can you, um, state the question where we're at and what we're doing right now?
Jamie Dunphy
We are still in council discussion.
There are no amendments formally proposed at this time.
Um, my preferred path would be to have us move to a vote of this, uh, right now.
And then work with colleagues to find an amendment to the language and bring that amendment with urgency to the full council, bypassing the committees, because there's— this is directly relevant.
Loretta Smith
And would that, if you get your way, would that release the money and support Avalos 1?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes.
Loretta Smith
And the projects will be able to get their money?
Jamie Dunphy
That, that would be my understanding, that this project would get to move forward the normal timeline.
And we also have additional— our folks from procurement here if there are further clarifications or questions around the disparities study.
Unidentified speaker
Good afternoon, Council.
Sylvester Donaldson, Chief Procurement Officer for the city.
Jamie Dunphy
So anybody want to clarify specifically?
There we go.
Um, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Council President, I don't want to belabor this if we don't have a lot of time, but I'm happy to restate the 2 questions that I had if you'd like.
Unidentified speaker
Sure.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Um, thank you, Sylvester.
I had asked when we expect results of the disparity study to be complete.
Unidentified speaker
The staff has already engaged with the— with With the potential vendor, which is Keen, and they're estimating it should be early fall at the latest.
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That's later than I had hoped for, but I understand.
Unidentified speaker
There was some delays in regards to, of course, interestingly enough, executive order language.
So it's kind of a cyclical failure.
So we are working with the workforce in terms of fair contracting form to kind of speed the results up to a formal presentation to council.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And part of the language that we're looking at right now relates to workforce, which of course is not part of the disparity study, but part of it relates to equity in contracting language that was previously a Portland Housing Bureau standard.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Mm-hmm.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Will the results of the disparity study be applicable to Portland Housing Bureau yes.
Meaning, if the disparity study finds that there have in fact been disparities, which would allow for us to ensure that we work with populations who we have not previously provided opportunities to, would that apply to PHB, or is for some reason PHB not included in this disparity study?
Unidentified speaker
That's a maybe.
It depends upon the funding models and the coverage of engagement.
So I would rather say maybe than a definitive yes at this time.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Is there anybody here who can collectively provide us the answer to that question?
Unidentified speaker
Depends on the funding.
What the one— basically the funding model rule, whichever is more stringent, would be applicable to the rules of actual study.
So for example, if there's a federal requirement, the $1 rule will apply to a federal because it's more stringent in terms of requirements and engagement and the disparity study applicability.
So that could be the case if it's a public housing project and we're using funding and it's identified as part of the pool, then they would of course be able to provide that.
If you would drill down to a sector by program itself, you can probably ask that of Keene and get a definitive answer probably within the next couple of days.
At the latest and say, can we drill down to actual program applicability?
We can try to do that as well.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
DC Oliveira, are you able to tell us in one sentence or less what the funding streams are that this language applies to so that Sylvester can answer that question?
Mitch Green
It can be any—.
Donnie Oliveira
It could be PCF money, of course.
It could be resources from STR, short-term rental tax.
It can be resources from housing bond.
It's anything that the Housing Bureau puts towards contracting for housing projects.
Unidentified speaker
But that can be included.
I can find out from Keene if that can be drilled down to the programmatic level as well, instead of just a general pool in terms of workforce or contracting, to be drilled down by program as well.
I can ask for that as well.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you.
Colleagues, I think if the disparity study is not going to be available in Councilor Smith.
We unfortunately can't wait on it, which is a broader issue that I have a lot I could say about, and I'll spare you all from that today.
I do think that we need to move forward to release the other dollars and programs that are in here, and I have already sent a message to my staff asking them to make sure to follow up, DCA Oliveira, with you and the Attorney's Office and others to ensure that we do everything we can to help get language back to council within 30 to 45 days.
And thank you, Council President, for agreeing in advance to prioritize that when the administration makes it available to us.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Colleagues, we are an hour and 15 minutes over our schedule at this point.
Uh, let's please try to either move forward or not.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, I think we should move forward.
I plan to support this.
It sounds like we have a plan to get some amendments in the future.
We've got to deal with all of the structural problems later, but let's not delay getting these dollars out.
Um, so I'm going to support moving this forward today.
Angelita Morillo
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call a roll?
Unidentified speaker
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Smith?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Sameer Kanal
45 Days from today is April 25th.
Unidentified speaker
No.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
No.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Xiaoyang Wang
No.
Councilmember Herbold
Aye.
Jamie Dunphy
More to come on this.
Unidentified speaker
I vote aye.
Keelan McClymont
The ordinance passes with 9 yes votes and 3 no votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Keelan, can we please call items 11 and 12 together?
Keelan McClymont
Item 11, uh, 2026-082, approve the Cully Tax Increment Financing District 5-year action plan.
Item 12, 2026-083, appoint and reappoint members to the Cully Tax Increment Financing Community Leadership Council.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Unidentified speaker
Ashley Hernandez from Council Operations here for a committee staff Council President, councilors, for the record, my name is Ashley Hernandez and I serve as a staff for the Arts and Economy Committee.
The resolution document number 2026-084 and report document number 2026-083 were heard at the Arts and Economy Committee on February 26th, 2026.
The resolution was moved to full council with a recommendation to be adopted, and the report was moved to, to full council with a recommendation to be dissected.
The resolution, document number 2026-082, provides the, um, the Cully Tax Increment Financing District 5-year action plan included as Attachment A.
The resolution directs Yes.
Prosper Portland and Portland Housing Bureau staff to work on city staff, committee members, and other public and private sector partners to implement the project's initiatives and identify the action plan.
The report document number 2026-083 request the appointment of one new member to— and the reappointment of 5 members to the tax— to the Cully Tax Increment Finance Staff and District Community Leadership Committee, CLC.
Each member will serve a 4-year term from March 11th, 2026 to March 11th, 2030.
The full impact statements included, included our economy and real estate development impacts, community impacts, and economy involvement.
There was no verbal or written testimony in this, on this item, previous committee action.
And that concludes the staff summary.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Councilors Green and/or Ryan.
This came out of your committee.
Mitch Green
I think Councilor Ryan presided over that.
I'm happy to speak to it either way.
Sameer Kanal
Go, co-chair.
Mitch Green
Okay, thank you.
Um, this is an important, um, step in the establishment of the Cully TIF District.
Um, this is a 5-year action plan.
The action plans guide council's framework around Its role in approving Prosper's budget as a budget committee.
So it's an extremely important document.
We had a robust conversation.
This did not pass unanimously out of committee, but I want to note that some of the questions that dissenting committee members had raised, we did get follow-up from Prosper Portland.
I got a higher level of detail.
And so I think it was a rich conversation.
Thank you.
And I think I'll just leave it at that.
Dan Ryan
I'd like to add the conversation— here I am getting the elephant out of the room— around overhead.
And I think both the definition of that and the percentage was felt by the room.
And I think, like some of our discussions earlier, There is a big picture dialogue about that, because I think it's somewhere between— it's more of a hunch because we didn't really dive as deep into it as I thought.
Maybe, uh, Councilor Kocher-Green, you got some feedback on that that you could share, if in fact that's the hole I'm going— the rabbit hole I'm going down that you discussed.
But I do think that the confusion around that is necessary.
I think that the way we define overhead is different in different systems.
And but the market rate that we were listening to in that meeting was uncomfortable for, for me, and I think for most people.
So it was a moment in the meeting where we had a pause.
And I see that we have Leslie Goodlove from PHB.
I don't know if we have someone here from Prosper.
I don't know if Councilor Green— oh, your hand's up.
So maybe that was what you got some follow-up on.
Sameer Kanal
Did that help?
Dan Ryan
That's what I recall being the dialogue that made us pause for a minute.
Yeah?
Mitch Green
Yeah, and I'll just say, I think we all received an email from Cornell Wesley with the additional attachments that was responsive to each committee member.
If you didn't get that, then I can share that.
But it's precisely to the point you're making, Councilor Ryan.
We had questions about what was constituting and how do we measure the degree of overhead relative to the TIF districts?
And we received responses that disaggregated that into different buckets and with a specific emphasis that clarified that if you're going to have a community leadership council that's community-driven, you have to support them with resources to do that.
And so that gets lost in the overhead bucket category.
And what I found in the response was— I think that's a fair point.
Donnie Oliveira
Thank you.
Mitch Green
Thank you, councilors.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, we're moving to technical or clarifying questions.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Mr. President.
I was wondering if we, in terms of answering that question and what, what is the definition, could we have a definition that would be more specific?
Uh, either Leslie or Cornell, give us that— come up to the mic and give us that definition from a technical standpoint.
Jamie Dunphy
Welcome.
Good afternoon, Council.
I'm joined by our Chief Financial Officer, Tony Barnes.
Your question, Councilor Smith, was define the administrative costs, I presume?
Dan Ryan
The overhead, yeah.
Jamie Dunphy
Yes.
Councilmember Herbold
So, um, good, good afternoon.
I'm Tony Barnes, CFO of Prosper Portland.
Uh, so that we define in 3 different buckets.
Uh, number one, there's the, uh, district-wide financial, um, administrative financial administrative bucket that covers overall district administration.
But the 2 more significant buckets that we talked about several weeks ago included program delivery, which is more of a direct cost for direct program delivery and project delivery.
And then there's also the administrative cost, which is more like an indirect or overhead type cost.
And those costs are both Within the housing, the affordable housing set-aside component, as well as the economic development component.
That's illustrated in some of the follow-up materials.
And those percentages are approximately 14% for Prosper Portland and PHP combined for program delivery and 13% for administration.
Now, these are estimates and forecasts over the 6-year period.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Councilmember Herbold
And we anticipate over the life of the district there might be a different percentage as there's more capital, more proceeds recognized in the district in later years.
Those percentages could be adjusted downward relative to the overall proceeds.
This recognizes a more conservative forecast.
Loretta Smith
Okay, so you're saying there's a possibility that that 14% could go down?
Councilmember Herbold
That's correct.
Councilor, there are estimates.
Loretta Smith
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
So are we discussing both of these together?
Unidentified speaker
We're—.
Jamie Dunphy
We have both items up open at the same time, and we're in technical questions.
Actually, let me just verify, has anyone signed up for testimony?
Okay, we're— we are still in technical and clarifying questions at this point then.
Sameer Kanal
I'll wait.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Councilor Green.
Donnie Oliveira
Thank you.
Mitch Green
Just because we have Tony up here, um, So this is the first 5-year action plan.
So we're in the early stages of the ramp period.
So would you say it's fair to characterize that we should normally expect there to be a higher percentage of kind of indirect or indirect— direct or indirect overhead in that sort of ramp period relative to further into the 30-year period?
Councilmember Herbold
Yeah, thanks for that question, Councilor.
There's— we can define it in 3 different phases over a 30-year over the first 5 to 6 years, there's often a higher, more intensive amount of staff and administrative involvement and less resources in that time period.
Over the mid-period between year 6 and say 25, there might be a lower percentage, and then the closeout period again higher as we're closing out the district.
Historically, when we looked back at this question over a 20-year period approximately, averages have been about 25%, and that includes all direct program delivery and administrative type costs, indirect type costs for administering the entire district, both for all types of projects.
That ranges from both more capital intensive to more neighborhood type plans.
It ranges thank you, Tony.
Mitch Green
And I, and I asked that, colleagues, because I just, I wanted to level set that this is a, this is a normal practice when, when you are scaling and ramping something.
You have to sort of nurture the infant— infancy of the project.
We want to execute for the community that CLC is trying to, to serve.
Thank you, Mayor.
And so that is a technical question, and at that point I'll, I'll shut the heck up.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
I'm hoping this will continue to help, um, but, but I, I think that the dialogue that just took place between Councilor Green and the good folks from Prosper satisfied that.
I will just say that my experience in building, um, something big is that the overhead goes down as you move into implementation.
And some systems call it research and development phase.
So just know that the more I listen and the more I read the email, I'm satisfied with what we're talking about, but also glad that we're daylighting this so the community understands it going forward.
Jamie Dunphy
So thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Keelan, can we please call our public testifier?
Keelan McClymont
Clarence Larkins.
Clarence Larkins.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, moving into council discussion.
Councilor Kanal.
Oh, Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Oops, there we go.
Oh, that's bright.
Okay, yeah, thank you.
Um, first I'll just comment on what was just discussed by my colleagues.
I think that it is important that we remember, and as people are saying, but just to re-emphasize, that there's a lot of work that needs to happen when you're starting up these TIF districts and you know, we had lots of discussions actually with Prosper back in the day about the fact that we needed more resources because it takes a lot to organize community.
And just, there's so many little pieces to that, that, that is what those admin costs go towards.
And I just— sounds like everybody seems to understand that, but I just want to reemphasize that because it's really important that we continue to support funding for those activities.
It's not just some nebulous admin bucket.
It actually means engagement and it means all of these other factors that when you're standing up a new community-led TIF district, that is critical that we have dollars for that.
So, you know, I know that admin overhead kind of has a bit of a negative connotation and it has earned that connotation in some ways.
But for this one, I hope we keep a little bit of nuance and perspective on that.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Monica Corey
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
I also just want to acknowledge how significant this moment is for the Cully community and congratulate them for their work.
Before joining council, I was at Idyllia Verde and had the privilege of working alongside many of the community leaders who fought for years, literally years, I'm talking like 6, 7 years in the making to make this TIF district a reality.
And it didn't happen overnight.
The Cully community organized and advocated and worked really, really hard to ensure that if a TIF district was created in their neighborhood, it would truly reflect a community-led vision.
And through that process, the neighbors came together and rewrote the TIF charter entirely to ensure that community voices would be centered in how investments are guided and how decisions are made.
And so I want to also note that the work done in Cully doesn't just impact one neighborhood because that model came out— the model that came out of this effort helped inform how we're approaching the East Portland TIF districts as well.
And in many ways, the Cully community helped set the standard for what community-led economic development can look like in our city.
So I really just want to congratulate the many community leaders and organizations and residents who stayed committed through, uh, many years to this work, uh, to get to this point.
It was grueling.
Uh, I know those in the audience who remember those Thursday TIF meetings, uh, I dreaded them because they were a lot.
Um, but I think what was helpful was that we really worked through some community conflicts.
We kind of worked to build trust and relationships, and that's what I want to see out of the East Portland TIF District.
So that's why I'm keeping a very close eye on Cully to make sure that that progress and the implementation of that vision does come to fruition and can be replicated in East Portland because we deserve community-led economic development.
And so I just have a general question if you'll entertain it.
I'm not sure.
Let's see who's at the dais.
I don't see anyone at the testimony table, but I guess I just wanted to have an open-ended question of were there any lessons from this Cully experience that you think the city should carry forward as we implement other community-led TIF districts?
Just kind of want to get a quick summary of what you think is important that you learned from this that me and the other District 1 councilors can bring with us as we are engaging on the East Portland TIFs.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Well, thank you for that question, Councilor.
I'm joined by Amy Nagy as well as Chabri Vickers.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you so much, Councilor Avalos.
For the record, I'm Chabri Vickers, Director of Equity Policy and Communications at Prosper Portland.
And I just want to lift up our 2 co-chairs for Cully who are actually here with us in chambers, Jorge and Ginger, who continue to ask really great questions, including that of admin costs, to better determine what it actually means.
And when I think about the shift of TIF in our city and what that looks like, the co-creation model, to your point, Councilor Avalos, this support is exactly what folks are asking for.
And so hopefully the memo really did a good job of breaking down what that looks like so that folks understand that continued community engagement, especially in the early years, is so important so that we get to set actual values alongside what community has sometimes that means returning additional memos, getting more insight, research, and development that folks might ask for.
And so we have been excited about the work we've done next to Jorge and Ginger, who are here as well.
Amy, any other lessons?
Good afternoon, Council.
My name is Amy Nagy.
I'm the interim director for development investment at Prosper Portland.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this.
I would just add A few things in terms of the process and engaging particularly with the CLC.
A couple of things that have been highlighted today, in particular, taking our time, making sure that everybody is understanding of the proposed process and each step of those is really important.
I think taking the time to do relationship building within the CLC as well as the capacity building that was offered and so that we have fantastic co-chairs like Jorge and Ginger that can continue the work.
Thank you.
And actually have ownership over the work.
And then this will continue through implementation as well.
They will continue to play a really prominent role in supporting not only the engagement, making sure folks know about the resources that are available, as well as being the oversight.
And I don't know if Leslie— I know you're online as well— if there's anything you want to represent from the PHB side as well.
Leslie Goodlow
Good afternoon.
Leslie Goodlow.
Hope everyone is well.
I'm Zooming in from Philadelphia, just I think a couple things I'd like to add is just the responding to community feedback and community participation.
We included the a line item around the mobile home parks in our allocation for the first six-year plan.
It's actually six years, not five years, because this year is almost over, as well as.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Leslie Goodlow
And then the other one is redistributing funds into land banking based on feedback from our homeownership partners, Proud Ground and Habitat for Humanity and NEA and others.
So those are the 2 things that I think we'll include up front as opposed to at the end.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
Those are very important lessons, and I'm really actually elated to hear those 2 particular things being added because those are, um, uh, Cully problems.
I don't know how to explain it.
They are Cully-specific problems, if you will.
And so that to me sounds that this action plan is being responsive to what community has been talking about for many years, uh, on those 2 issues.
And to see that that's included is great.
I think my final note on that, you know, again, trying to prepare for what the East Portland TIF districts are going to look like.
You know, that colleagues, we need to consider what it looks like to fund these efforts, not just across Prosper, but all these bureaus, right?
East Portland desperately needs the resources to do the kind of community engagement so that we can build these plans in a way that feels informed by the community and for East Portlanders.
That admin money includes childcare.
It includes interpretation.
It includes food.
It includes conflict mediation.
And trust me, lots of that has to happen when you're working in community, um, and, you know, having consultants and experts to guide community through difficult problems.
And so I just want to re-emphasize how important it is, especially as I'm going to be coming down, um, coming to the dais and making sure that you all are supporting and funding those efforts for us in East Portland.
Thank you all for your time.
I'm looking forward to supporting this.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
I am so excited for Cully and for all of the communities that are going to be able to use this model moving forward, that we have a different way of doing TIF in Portland.
And frankly, what I see in the Cully plan is exactly what TIF should look like to make sure that we are doing work grounded in community to yes.
The creation of wealth in that community while also ensuring that that goes, that that wealth goes to the people who are already a part of the community.
I want to thank the co-chairs who are in the back of the room.
I'm not going to make you come up, but I want you to know how much I appreciate the many hours that you have put in guiding your committee through this process and standing up for your community.
I have a couple of questions.
There was a note in the plan about needed community outreach, but there wasn't any specificity about what that would look like, when that would happen.
And I am wondering if there is a plan or some sort of commitment made beyond just this is something we want to ensure that that continued community outreach is part of the Cully process moving forward?
Unidentified speaker
Thank you for the question.
Happy to answer some of that.
So we will continue to convene the CLC, as we talked about, every other month.
Within that, the CLC members as well as the co-chairs, they have their own networks, so they will be continuing to share their information.
We will do that through social media as well as our websites.
We also have community liaisons that are on the ground.
Within the district that are there every day meeting with businesses and property owners, doing that work and holding those conversations.
So they will also be giving— providing feedback to both Prosper PHB staff as well as the CLCs.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, so that community outreach is through the existing channels?
That wasn't a reference to additional community outreach?
Unidentified speaker
Well, I will say the community— excuse me, the community liaisons, as they hear about new things, if we understand that a new open house should occur or something that is related to any different efforts, then they have the opportunity to do that.
And so these liaisons who are kind of third-party neutral and who are, as Amy mentioned, in community, are folks that the community will see and work with on a regular basis.
And so if something new comes up, we want to be able to honor that request and be able to engage, especially if any new technical items are requested.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Great, thank you.
And then on those new things that may come up, I know that the CLC will continue to meet and will move into an oversight body role.
If decisions are needed about new requests, if decisions are needed about changes in funding levels that come in over this 5-year period as we move into the next 5-year period, how will that process work?
So the 5-year plan, what will the functional ability of the CLC to really determine where we head be?
Will they be able to drive any changes that come forward, or will those be staff-driven with CLC oversight?
Unidentified speaker
So our CLC members engage with us in multiple ways.
Especially as revenues shift or if they change.
First would be in our CBC, our Community Budget Committee, which Prosper maintains and keeps.
It's an extremely important body for us to ensure that any of the shifts and changes, all the budget conversations, questions you all ask us, we take back to our CBC.
Our TIF committee members and CLC members serve on that CBC as well, so they get to hear on an annual basis what Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Mayor.
I just wanted to echo what Councilor Smith said.
I think it's important to note that we have a lot of opportunities for public comment on what that looks like and if there are shifts and changes separate from the actual CLC leadership committee meetings that they would be holding while, while with the TIF groups as well.
So there are multiple ways that they can hear about changes and can voice their concern.
Our CBC, as you all know, will submit their own separate letter to council to indicate if they are in agreement with us or if there's something that they wish to shift.
The same thing with our CLC.
It's actually written into the TIF plan through our governance model.
A way it literally speaks about if you have a disagreement with staff, kind of what that process looks like and how you can walk through both in engaging with our board directly, obviously our executive director, and then you all as council in addition.
So it's written into the plan and a part of our governance model throughout the action plan and throughout CLCs as they continue to develop.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I hope that as we move forward, um, in, in this district in particular, decisions continue to be community-driven, um, and that it's not just an opportunity to react or to provide feedback, but that it is community-driven work.
I want to just note that it, it stood out to me that we're able in first plan to help about 25% of the small businesses within Cully.
But on the homeownership piece, and I agree with my colleague, I was thrilled to see housing funding going to support the mobile home parks in Cully, which are an important piece in our naturally occurring affordable housing portfolio.
Funding going to homeownership as well as land banking.
But I noticed that in this first iteration, we're only able to help 25 to, I think it was 50 residents become homeowners.
And because stability is an important part of what we do with our resources in a TIF district, ensuring that families who live in Cully can continue to afford to stay in Cully even as the neighborhood changes and to take advantage of and benefit truly benefit from the changes in their neighborhood and the increased investment in their neighborhood.
I hope that in future plans that number is able to increase.
I know that that's ultimately a CLC decision, and I think it's, it's an important piece of making sure that we have stability.
Eric Zimmerman
Well, we have Leslie Goodlow here online who can speak to that.
Leslie Goodlow
Thank you for the question, Councilor.
Leslie Goodlow, Portland Housing Bureau.
So the— we initially allocated about $7 million to homeownership as that was the top priority for the CLC.
But as we moved through the action plan process and we added in the land banking, we shifted dollars from land banking— I mean, from homeownership directly into the land banking for yes.
And so the, uh, that $4 million that we have in that line item for supporting new homeowners, uh, is 50% for down payment assistance.
The committee wanted to support current folks, uh, for people to be able to buy right now as opposed to having to wait for permanent affordability or permanently affordable units to be built.
And so that's how we get to that number of 13 folks getting down payment assistance— no, I'm sorry, 13 permanent affordability units and then 20 or so down payment assistance loans over the next 5 years.
And I just—.
I'll add that those loans include a home improvement portion up to 20%, which would be considered a grant, and the family would not have to pay that portion back.
So their— the loan that they would have, the lien that they would have on their property would be $80,000.
These are no-interest, no-payment loans, and they begin to be forgiven at year 15, and then 3% per year Up to year 30, where it would be totally forgiven.
So while I understand that we would really like to help more homeowners, given the limited amount of funds we have in this first 6 years, we wanted to ensure we were supporting the mobile home parks and providing opportunity for development in the future.
So hopefully that answers your question.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
I appreciate that added detail and those additional numbers that weren't in the written documents that we had.
I want to make sure that my constituents who live in Cully can continue to live in Cully and be a part of the benefits that these investments will bring to the neighborhood.
I hope that as we move forward through this plan and into the next plan, we're able to help more Cully residents buy homes in their neighborhood and and be able to continue to be a part of the community.
Thank you all so much.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Colleagues, it is 1 o'clock, or it is, we have, well, it's almost 1 o'clock.
We have a hard stop at 1:30 and we are only on item 11.
So I'm hoping to be able to get through as much as we can today, but let's try and keep it short.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Mr. President.
I'm going to support this.
I have been oftentimes one of the ones that are, I think, a little more critical, not just of TIF districts, but also just this concept of overhead cost.
I voted no out of committee.
I'm going to vote yes when we have an opportunity to vote yes because I did see that response from Prosper Portland.
That was good work that y'all sent us.
I can see the nexus of connection to the support that it's going to bring to the CLCs and deliver that kind of governance approach.
And so for that reason, I'm going to support this.
I think we vote next week.
No, we vote today.
Jamie Dunphy
No, we vote today.
Mitch Green
Great, I'm going to support it today.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
First, let me say I really appreciate the willingness of folks to continue serving.
So I'll start with the other, the appointments one, since we're in discussion Together and look forward to supporting all 5 of the reappointments as well as the appointment of a new member.
And thank everyone involved in getting them through this process.
They all seem quite impressive and I think will do a great job.
On the other item, I really appreciate the clarity around the overhead.
I had 2 concerns and I think you've answered one.
It was shared by Councilor Pirtle-Guiney about And I think if the CLC has felt that there's adequate protection against that, and based on what Leslie said as well, who I know is an expert in that field, I feel that that concern is satisfied.
The other one is what I want to ask about here, which is the $6.7 million which is being spent on commercial real estate.
And I think one of the things that's happened here is a couple examples were given to me in the briefing.
Unidentified speaker
Yes.
Sameer Kanal
Around what this entails, and some of it seems like a new tenant in a commercial space building out an otherwise unfinished space, which seems perfectly appropriate to me and supportive of small businesses.
And some of it appears to be money to the property owners to, I don't know, make their investment better.
And I wanted to ask about if that is first, if that is bundled together in the $6.7 million or if that's 2 different line items.
Kind of was a little unclear on that in our briefing.
Unidentified speaker
Amy?
Sure, I'll provide as much clarification as I can.
You're right, so there's $6.7 million allocated to both grants and loans for property owners in this first 5 years.
It will be up to the CLC to think through the allocations of how much of that they want it to be grants and how much they should do loans.
The opportunity, I would say, for property owners is with the grant.
I'll start with the grant, which is the Affordable Commercial Teneting Grant, that can be made available to bring in first-time renters in terms of leaseholders for small businesses.
And so what that is, is they can provide a tenant improvement allowance in exchange for a reduced lease rate over 3 years.
So it's a minimum rate.
So you're bringing folks in, you're actually leasing space.
And I think that's a great idea.
And you're improving the space so that it is basically what we call affectionately warm or hot shell.
So they are ready to move in right away and it lowers and unburdens them with additional costs that can happen when you're moving into retail space.
On the loan side, this is a very popular tool that we use.
In particular, it supports redevelopment.
It also supports tenant improvements and building improvements at large.
So as they're thinking about also leasing to tenants so that we're keeping buildings in good functional condition.
Peggy McDaniel
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Our loans also frequently go to folks that struggle with being bankable, right?
And so when they're going to traditional lending institutions and they get denied, Prosper Portland is a place where they come and can qualify for those loans.
Sameer Kanal
Thanks for clarifying that.
I guess, where— who does the money go to, though?
My understanding is that sometimes it's going to property owners and sometimes it's going to So in this particular goal area, it is going to the property owner.
Unidentified speaker
So the property owner is receiving the grant dollars to make the improvements in the space.
It could go to a business owner.
So, I mean, they can resolve whichever one is best positioned to do the actual work.
On the loans, it would go to the property owner.
Sameer Kanal
Okay.
So that's, I think, The other piece of this is that it's 8 businesses according to the presentation that are going to be helped by this.
So we're talking about $870,000 roughly, I think was the math I did back of envelope on average.
$6.7 Million divided by 8 is $837,500.
Is that accurate, or I mean, is there something I missed in that?
Unidentified speaker
No, I think right now it's an estimate.
So that will be— it will come down to how much they want to allocate towards a loan versus a grant.
You also— there's a range, right?
So the affordable commercial can be up to $300,000.
It doesn't mean though that all of those are going to be that amount.
And so grant ranges depending upon, particularly for the affordable commercial, depending on what that total lease discount is over the course of the 3 years.
So it could be, for instance, $50,000.
It could be just a little north of $100,000.
And so—.
Loretta Smith
$100,000.
Unidentified speaker
And then it will depend on the, the size of the loans determined by the project.
That's how much they would allocate.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, um, this is kind of, I think, part of my broader concern about the use of city dollars to subsidize commercial real estate as the— and, and then the use of commercial real estate as the primary indicator of the health of our economy at the city.
And so there's a context to this comment.
I'm still going to vote yes on this because I think the CLC has, has evaluated it, but I am pretty I'm very profoundly concerned by the idea that we're helping businesses make their investment more— or sorry, helping property owners make their investment more prudent instead of helping the tenants directly.
And so my ask for the 6 people we're about to appoint to the committee is to look at how to help the people that need it, which in my view more are the tenants.
And so that's a concern I have here.
Loretta Smith
Councilor Smith.
Sameer Kanal
$837,000 On average seems like a pretty— that, that lets you know who it's going to.
So, uh, that's, that's my concern, and I, I'll leave it there.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Uh, colleagues, I put myself in the queue here.
Um, I really appreciate the additional detail on the overhead cost that was sent to me.
It really did help me understand it.
Um, but I still have deep concerns for how we calculate it, and so I'm going to be voting no today on the, uh, on the 5-year action plan.
Just to break it down a little bit more fully, the lines that are specifically designated as strictly as admin and overhead come out to roughly 39 FTE equivalents if you assume $150,000 per FTE.
But when you include all of the overhead multipliers and additional rates that the Housing Bureau is charging, roughly 94.5% as an overhead rate and Prosper at 93%.
Almost a third of the dollars that are designated for this district are going towards administrative costs.
And I've heard how the Cully TIF is a different kind of TIF, but I have been historically very skeptical of TIF.
And I have 3 TIF districts that are going to be the only economic development opportunity that my part of town will see in my lifetime.
I want to make sure that this lands right.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
And if this is truly different, I think the city needs to have a conversation about these overhead dollars.
I don't know how— I mean, I appreciate that the CLC has signed off on this, and I appreciate understanding where these break down, but this is an enormous amount of money that is not actually directly going to the community, and a community that has been deeply neglected.
So I continue to have concerns about how the city does overhead and administrative costs broadly.
I don't believe anybody's done anything wrong here.
It's just this is how we do it.
So I am going to be a no today.
Dan Ryan
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
I just want to say I completely understand where you're coming from, Councilor Dunphy, particularly because, as Prosper knows, I have told them before, it has been a struggle for me to see that not enough of the admin costs, in my view, went to the staffing that we needed.
And, you know, again, this is not a surprise to them.
We've talked about this over the years.
So you're right that we do need to talk about admin and how it's distributed across the, you know, who receives it.
I think there is a worthy discussion there.
I am still going to vote for this.
I do still think that there's value in it.
And, you know, I, but I totally hear you.
And that is why I am so vigilant about this, because I want to make sure that we are protecting those dollars for East Portland community.
Not only because they're going to need it more because East Portlanders are harder to get to engage with the community, but just in general, we don't have the same kind of infrastructure that living Cully did and how we created Cully TIF.
And I'm really concerned about that.
That's something that I've talked with Division Midway Alliance about.
They were concerned, like, who is the holder of community in the East Portland TIFs?
And that is a very real question.
Councilmember Herbold.
Concern that I have and is why I'm so vigilant.
So just want to name that I completely agree, and just so that I can vocalize that back to Prosper again, it should not be a surprise to you.
We've discussed this, but it is good to daylight, um, and I do think we need to have a worthy, um, discussion about how we allocate those dollars more equitably so community feel they are better, best resourced, resourced and positioned to do the work that we expect them to do as the city.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the Thank you, Councilor McHugh.
Keelan, can we please call the roll on the resolution?
Item 026-8082.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Green?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Dan Ryan
Absent.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Candace Avalos
No.
Keelan McClymont
The resolution is adopted with 10 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1 absent.
Jamie Dunphy
Can we please call the roll on the report?
Does that require a motion?
Keelan McClymont
We will need a motion to accept the report.
Unidentified speaker
So moved.
Jamie Dunphy
A second?
I'll second it.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, really?
Keelan McClymont
Moved by Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, seconded by Councilor— or Council President Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, that sounds good.
Keelan McClymont
Okay, uh, Avalos?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Candace Avalos
Null?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Councilor Marquez?
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Councilor Samir Kanal?
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Mitchell?
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Mendez?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Johnson?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Councilor Morales?
Aye.
Councilor Herbold?
Aye.
Councilor Waring?
Aye.
Councilor Donnelly?
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Kemp?
Aye.
Councilor Robinson?
Aye.
Councilor Sawant?
Aye.
Councilor Demming?
Aye.
Councilor Colvin?
Aye.
Councilor Pedersen?
Aye.
Councilor Lewis?
Aye.
Councilor Carra?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Councilor Erickson?
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Pastor?
Councilmember Herbold
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Councilor Gallego?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Mitch Green
Councilor Garcia?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye Ashley Hernandez from Council Operations is here with the committee staff summary report.
Unidentified speaker
For the record, I'm Ashley Hernandez and I serve as staff for the Arts and Economy Committee.
The, the report before you, document number 2026-084, was heard at the Arts and Economy Committee on February 26th, 2023.
2026, Where it was moved to full council with the recommendation it be adopted.
The report requests the appointment of Eric Kress to the Portland Prosper Portland Board of Commissioners to serve for a 6-month term from March 11th, 2026 to September 5th, 2026.
The full impact statements included where, uh, was, uh, Committee impacts and committee involvement, and there was not verbal or written testimony prior committee meeting action.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much, Ashley.
And, uh, Councilors Ryan and O'Riordan.
Mitch Green
Yeah, I, I'll just say that, um, Eric Kress showed very well in this, uh, committee hearing.
Um, He was someone I was excited to support.
He's going to bring, I think, the style of experience to the moment we're in, particularly when it comes to housing finance.
He's got— I think he's got a deep community of practice.
And if this council wants to enable our development partner, Prosper Portland, to move with some nimbleness in alternative ways, I think you need Eric Kress on that board.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Ryan, anything else?
Dan Ryan
No, just 100% agree.
And he's also raising a family here, and so that's nice to see.
Thanks.
Perfect.
Jamie Dunphy
Excellent.
Colleagues, is there any technical or clarifying questions?
I don't know what technical questions you'd have on an appointment, but okay.
And has anybody signed up for testimony?
Keelan McClymont
No one signed up.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, any further discussion on this appointment?
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Um, thanks.
It's a pleasure to support Eric on this.
I worked with him when he was, uh, um, I think it was the president of the Central Eastside, uh, Industrial Districts Board, and we had big challenges back then in that, in that process.
And working with him as, um, as a partner for the city, for his neighboring businesses, for other members of that neighborhood was an ease.
Like, when you can work with somebody on tough topics through ease, that's a good perspective.
So I am really glad to— I told him this earlier— to see his name on the list and happy that he's stepping up.
So thank you, Eric.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
I saw that the staff contact is named Eric, the appointee is named Eric, so I'm not surprised to see that support, but I also support this appointee, and I was very happy to see the details here.
I did want to ask sort of a rhetorical question around this process because this was requested for 5 minutes on the agenda for today, and it's an agency that we've had many conversations about.
It's governed by a 5-member board, so each appointee is a very big deal.
Um, and we really last year only got into the conversation around democratic accountability and other questions of, is Prosper the city or is it not?
And the answer is kind of for a lot of these questions.
Um, we only really got into that during the budget.
And so I wanted to kind of— the rhetorical question is to see, um, not about this appointee who I'm going to be happy to support, um, but about the conversation around where do we have this conversation and how do we have this conversation?
Because we get held accountable as elected officials in the city for the decisions that are made at PROSPER and the activity of PROSPER, at least by our constituents.
At least I certainly receive feedback on that.
So I don't know if this is a question for anyone to take up or for the council president specifically in terms of the new committee structure and any of that.
I think it's a question for the council.
But I would love to know how and when the best way is to have this conversation about the long-term and big picture.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, that's— Councilor, uh, City Administrator.
Sameer Kanal
We can have staff come up and address that.
We can have DCA Avalaro come and address it.
Dan Ryan
Great.
Jamie Dunphy
Welcome, Donnie.
Donnie Oliveira
Thank you, City Administrator.
Uh, Donnie Oliveira, for the record, Deputy City Administrator for Community Economic development.
Councilor Connell, thank you for the question and teeing that up.
It's actually a conversation that we've been having with the mayor and with the councilor, if I'm allowed to say, yesterday, Councilor Green.
We're teeing up this.
We'd like to do a thorough breakdown for all of you with briefings to really do a few things.
First, discuss Prosper Portland, where it's at, with the new executive director on board now for about 8 months.
He's been doing He a great job.
Has his sea legs under him, has some ideas how the agency is going to go.
So that's a piece.
The second thing is to really share an update on Advance Portland 2.0, as we're calling it.
I think that will help show sort of the North Star for where the agency is going from an investment and strategic initiative perspective.
But lastly, it's just a chance for you all to see the governance of that program so we can include more board membership where appropriate.
The bottom line is the mayor has encouraged us to do that.
We're going to be setting those up with your offices so we can start to have those briefings.
So when that conversation comes up, and not to put them on the spot again, but chair and vice chair of the new City Life Committee have been open about having that conversation about the broader economic development of our city, including obviously the governance of Prosper.
So I think the answer to your question is absolutely we're doing that in 26, and look.
Forward to having those conversations with you in briefings and then in the public setting of committee.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, thank you for, for clarifying that.
Um, I think that's helpful, and I want to be clear, you brought the, uh, executive director into it.
No concern there, very happy, been very responsive from his office, and I appreciate you back there.
I can just kind of lean around to see around you there, uh, DC Oliveira.
Um, but I, I'm— my question is less about that side of it and more about the way in which we have— because what ends up happening in a lot of these circumstances is the first time you hear about it is in this room, and then it's, well, the board that you appointed made this decision or indirectly made a decision.
So I think there's this layer between us that we're spending not really enough time on, in my opinion, to assess.
Dan Ryan
I think that's a great point.
Sameer Kanal
Does that make sense?
Donnie Oliveira
Yeah, it does.
And I— and they— I think what we'd like to do is almost set that baseline for where Prosper is going so that we can actually have the feedback mechanism with you to say, I'd like more information on that.
And I'm using Advance Portland because it's on my mind right now, but why isn't Advance Portland contemplating X, Y, and Z?
We can, we can take that back to the board.
Like, those are the lines of communication that we need to open up and, and establish so those feedback mechanisms are in place.
On the broader question about contemplating the governance of PROSPER, Yeah.
Which I think you're also touching on, uh, just, I think we're working with our city attorneys to, to understand that, to better clarify, to communicate not just to you all but to the public where those inflection points are, where you have direct intervention, you know, authority as a council, and where the— where we can just— where we don't have procedurally more clarity on how we are communicating with the board to council.
So I think those are things that we want to daylight for you all soon, and the City Attorney's Office has been gracious to lean in and help us figure that out.
Sameer Kanal
And that'll be in public?
Donnie Oliveira
In public, yeah.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, because I think that that's the, the missing piece that I'm, I'm seeing.
And, and to be clear, it's not just this one appointee.
I have no concerned with the, the other 4 members that are continuing.
But as people cycle off, each one of those changes with a small board of 5 has a very large impact, I think.
Candace Avalos
Right.
Sameer Kanal
So that's the, the concern I'm raising about not the people themselves, but the, the idea of, um, ambiguity in the nature of the arm's-length relationship.
Xiaoyang Wang
Yeah.
Donnie Oliveira
And I— my hope— thank you— the last thing I'll offer is, is that we can in public establish what Prosper Portland is and isn't, and the the work it's doing in a very clear and transparent way, so we can do a little myth busting and for the public and ensure that you all understand what their what their work plans are and the and their the course they've set for their their agency.
I think that's fundamental to then having the conversation about potential changes because why would you?
You can't change what you don't know how it exists, right?
So I think that's a fair.
Place to start.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
I just wanted to say that I support Eric Kress.
I've known him for years.
He's been here working as a, um, as an executive and as a community person, and I think that he'll be a great addition to, um, to the work, to the work that they're doing on the board.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Colleagues, seeing no further discussion, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
Oh, this is a report.
Can I have a motion?
Sameer Kanal
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
I'm going to say that was Green, and I don't know who was second over here.
Councilor Smith.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Angelita Morillo
Smith.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Don Jones Jr
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
The report is accepted with 12 yes votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, we have 12 minutes left on our agenda and 2 items left.
Councilor Novick, would you prefer would you prefer to roll your item over or would you like— prefer to start introducing it and we will move it to a second or to a continuance of the first reading?
Steve Novick
Actually, I'm going to pose that question to my Chief of Staff, Spencer Knowles, because he asked his unborn child to postpone being born until today so that he could give this presentation.
Sameer Kanal
Okay.
Steve Novick
So Spencer, would you like to try to rush through this initial presentation today or do you rather aye.
Dan Ryan
Postpone it.
Eric Zimmerman
Come on, Spencer, let's do it.
Jamie Dunphy
Says postpone.
Steve Novick
Postpone.
Jamie Dunphy
All right.
Okay, colleagues, we will move the, uh, 2 remaining items to the following agenda happening on the 18th.
And with that, we are adjourned.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Point of order.
Jamie Dunphy
Point of order.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Why is it the 2 remaining?
Candace Avalos
We can't do the last item?
I thought it was just item 13, not item 14.
Jamie Dunphy
We would need to take it out of order.
We would need a vote to retake the order of this.
Sameer Kanal
So moved.
Loretta Smith
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, there was a motion to reorder the agenda and move item 15 to the front of the pending agenda item, and a second.
Can we please have a vote on reordering the agenda?
Candace Avalos
Uh, point of information, are you saying for so that we can do it right now, or are you saying for the next meeting that it will be before the next one.
I, I am asking that we just take this vote now.
Robert Taylor
Uh, we—.
Jamie Dunphy
There's no vote on item 14 or 15 today.
Sameer Kanal
Given that, I'm going to withdraw.
I, I thought this was a vote today item.
Jamie Dunphy
Sorry, they are both first reading.
Yep.
Candace Avalos
Um, but, but we can't do a first reading of the first one so that way it doesn't have to go through another week for the item 15?
Jamie Dunphy
If we want to rush through, we will require a vote of the— a roll call vote to reorder the agenda.
In order to hear the first reading of this.
Dan Ryan
I withdraw.
Candace Avalos
I see.
Jamie Dunphy
And Councilor Kanal has withdrawn.
Candace Avalos
Okay, that's fine.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, we will move these 2 items to the agenda on the 18th, and with that, we are adjourned.