4:57 Good morning, friends. 4:59 I am calling to meet— to order this meeting of the Portland City Council. 5:04 It is Wednesday, June 3rd. 5:06 Welcome to June, everybody. 5:08 Keelan, could we please call the roll?
5:09 Good morning. 5:10 Kanal. 5:12 Pirtle-Guiney?
5:31 And can we please read the rules of decorum?
5:34 Thank you, Council President. 5:36 Welcome to Portland City Council. 5:37 To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portlandoregistration.org. 5:47 Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. 5:50 Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. 5:55 Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. 5:57 The presiding officer preserves order. 5:59 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. 6:09 If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. 6:11 Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. 6:14 Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. 6:18 Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. 6:22 Your testimony should address the matter being considered. 6:25 When testifying, state your name for the record. 6:27 Your address is not necessary. 6:29 If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. 6:33 Virtual testimonies Testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls their name. 6:38 Thank you.
6:38 Thank you very much. 6:40 Colleagues, our first item is agenda approval. 6:43 Has there— are there any requests to amend the agenda, to reorder items, or reschedule an item to a future meeting date? 6:51 Looking at my colleagues, pausing for dramatic effect, seeing no one, are, uh, do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? 7:00 Seeing happy nods, the agenda is approved. 7:02 Keelan, can we please move to public communications?
7:06 First up, we have David Guither.
7:10 Welcome and good morning. 7:11 Introduce yourself for the record, and you have 3 minutes, all your time.
7:18 My name is David Guither. 7:20 I, uh, I'm a constituent of District 2, a radio cab lease driver, and a retired Teamster. 7:28 Um, my The topic of conversation is the Waymo taxis. 7:33 They're starting doing the mapping now, from my understanding, with drivers. 7:38 Unfortunately, some of the drivers are not teaching the taxis or the cars how to drive properly, but that's just my observation. 7:45 Yeah. 7:45 And I wanted to make sure that the council realizes that should they be allowed to actually operate their driverless taxi company, they'll be taking incredible amounts of money out of Portland. 8:00 They will not be spending very little money. 8:04 Technicians plug in for the electrics, but then they will be taking money with them out to Mount View, California. 8:15 And their owners are, of course, Google and other people, including the hailing service Uber. 8:29 Thank you. 8:31 There's over 12,000 small businesses being affected. 8:35 That's— those are the people who are current lease drivers, or excuse me, private-for-hire permit holders. 8:44 So that if anybody accuses somebody of upsetting a business or being anti-business, we're actually pro-small business. 8:54 And if you decide not to allow Waymo in Portland, yes. 8:59 You'll be anti-giant, huge business. 9:03 They've raised over $30 billion. 9:06 They could lose money indefinitely until I'm a very, very old and dead man and still be operating. 9:13 Now, New York City went through this process. 9:17 They did the mapping and the testing, but then the administration changes and they decided not to allow Waymo in New York City. 9:25 Chicago will probably end up being the same. 9:27 Thank you. 9:28 Thing from what I understand. 9:30 Now, one of the things that if they are successful, you'll see a drop in TriMet ridership and hence a drop in TriMet workers. 9:41 And I'm going to be in this next month trying to include the Agglomerated Transit Workers Union in our coalition to please postpone any consideration of a permit to allow Waymo until there's at least a state law. 10:04 And you folks could write a state law and we could get it accepted by the state so that you have some enforcement powers. 10:11 Right now you don't have— there's no law, there's no enforcement powers. 10:15 Thank you.
10:16 Thank you very much for being here this morning.
10:21 Okay, we've had a request to switch 2 and 3. 10:26 So Don Jones Jr. 10:29 If you don't mind going next.
10:34 Good morning. 10:34 Good morning, Mayor and councilors. 10:36 My name is Don Jones Jr. 10:38 I'm a resident and housing provider in Housford-Abernathy and a member of the Inter Powell Alliance. 10:44 I want to start with a special shout out to our District 3 councilors, particularly, uh, Councilor Novick, for finding the resources to repair the Tremont elevator directly across from the Clinton Triangle. 10:54 It's been a repeat target for drug use and vandalism in recent years. 10:58 Placing a bottle drop 2 blocks away will make that matter worse, not better. 11:03 Context matters from what I'm about to say. 11:06 Willamette Week recently named the intersection at Southeast 11th and Milwaukee the worst intersection in Portland due to frequent rail blockages. 11:14 2 people died in nearby rail crossings in 2025, and this is where hundreds of canners on foot, bike, and scooter are going to be directed daily with no committed safety improvements from PBOT, ODOT, or TriMet. 11:28 I want to bring your attention to a letter Mayor Wilson sent to the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative on May 20th outlining city expectations for the People's Depot at 1109 Southeast Brooklyn. 11:39 I encourage every council member to read it. 11:42 The mayor is direct. 11:44 OBRC, as the primary funder, holds responsibility for safe and well-run facilities. 11:49 The city will not be a party to a Good Neighbor Agreement, but the mayor strongly recommends that OBRC sign one and states that persistent or unresolved issues will be referred to Ground Score Association and OBRC for mediation. 12:02 The letter addresses fencing, security cameras, lighting, behavioral health funding, litter cleanup, and live complaint hotline. 12:10 The mayor also expresses concern that GSA's cashless payment timeline falls short of what this location will require. 12:18 These are not issues associated with low-impact use, and the funding picture makes it worse. 12:23 We have learned that the Northwest Grocers Association, which was required under SB 992 to co-fund this facility, has withdrawn approximately $300,000 in committed funding. 12:34 That money is gone before the doors open. 12:37 A well-written good neighbor agreement signed by responsible parties is the minimum the neighborhood deserves, but OBRC is refusing to sign. 12:45 It concerns us. 12:46 It should concern every council member. 12:49 If this facility is a good addition to the neighborhood, why not sign? 12:52 If operations will not create problems, why not sign? 12:56 If OBRC is confident in its ability to manage impacts, why not sign? 13:01 Refusal answers its own question. 13:03 Until that question is resolved, the Interpalo Alliance is calling upon City Council to take one clear step. 13:10 Do not issue an occupancy permit for 1109 Southeast Brooklyn.
13:14 Good morning. 13:17 Welcome.
13:20 The mayor has set expectations. 13:22 Council has the authority to make them binding. 13:24 We're asking you to use this authority.
13:28 Thank you very much.
13:30 Uh, next up we have Karanja Cruz.
13:42 Well, the mayor's not here, and council. 13:45 My name is Karanja Cruz. 13:47 I'm a Portland educator, community member, entrepreneur. 13:52 I'm here and a co-founder of Green Muse, formerly Green Hop, the first hip-hop dispensary, first Black-owned dispensary in Portland, Oregon. 13:59 I'm here today to ask council to consider an amendment and to put on the floor to dedicate a portion of the Portland cannabis revenue To fund our new community health-based program, we became the first community health certified program in the state, in the in the country, and we're asking for you all to use the cannabis tax to help fund this program, to invest back into the cannabis industry. 14:30 You guys been using a lot of cannabis revenue funds and tax funds as we're on the ground taking the risks and collecting all of the tax funds for you guys all to use. 14:40 We're just asking you guys to reinvest back into the cannabis industry. 14:42 Industry in particular to invest into this particular program. 14:47 It aligns also to the new federal new classification of cannabis, us being a certified health program. 14:55 And we're just asking you guys to consider that and possibly put it on the floor and use some of those cannabis tax funds to support our program. 15:06 So that's pretty much it in a nutshell. 15:08 And I'm just asking you guys to consider that, especially the people that's in my district, which I represent District So, uh, that's it. 15:17 Thank you.
15:21 Next up we have Addie Smith. 15:32 Addie, you're muted. 15:36 Addie, can you hear us?
15:38 I can hear you. 15:39 Can you come back to me, Keelan? 15:41 Can you go to the next person and then come back to me? 15:43 I'm trying to Get my, um, printer to stop with this update so we can print.
15:49 Yeah, sure, we'll come back to you, Addie.
15:52 Next up, we have Marshall McFarland.
15:59 Good morning, councilors. 16:01 My name is Marshall McFarland. 16:03 I am Ghalib bin Motep El, and let me begin by saying the finger of blame is not a solution-oriented tool. 16:12 When I first spoke to this hall, I expressed the necessity for refining and replacing our tools. 16:17 To that end, I genuinely congratulate this council for successfully restructuring the— for successfully executing the structural and organizational overhaul of the city governance. 16:29 That was a massive, necessary step in the right direction. 16:33 However, a critical, egregious error remains unaddressed. 16:38 You renovated the gubernatorial body, but you left the financial body frozen in the fiatocracy. 16:45 Numbers tell the best truths. 16:47 Portland currently has a population of just 635,000. 16:52 That's 28th in the country, yet currently runs under an $8.6 billion budget. 17:00 That's 7th highest in the country. 17:03 28 To 7. 17:04 It's not a very competitive football game. 17:07 Boston has a larger population and runs on just $4.8 billion. 17:12 This is the result of fiatocracy. 17:15 Portland's accounting labyrinth intentionally shuffles the same dollars in circles, inflating our top-line ledger while people starve. 17:25 The budget falls short, and our $120 million just plays hide and seek. 17:29 As Councilor Zimmerman rightly warned the administration about non-performing bureaus, when we find out that millions of dollars are not being told to the council, we will use that blunt instrument. 17:41 I am here today to implore this council to use that blunt instrument. 17:45 Look directly at the iniquity embedded in the— within the current codification and statutes designed by city leaders in direct contradiction of the rules governing their positions in office. 17:59 Councilor Human Resources Administrative Rules 11.01 explicitly demands a higher standard, that every city employee treat their office as a public trust. 18:11 I will never present issues without offering a solution. 18:15 The document that I submitted to the City Council Clerk today is a start, just a beginning to tearing away all of the confusion intentionally implemented by politicians who were in fact criminals parading as leaders. 18:30 City Council, Portland can no longer survive this fiatocracy. 18:36 It doesn't matter who broke it. 18:38 It is up to us to fix it as a community. 18:43 Thank you, and I love you all unconditionally.
19:00 Keelan, can you go to the next person and come back to me? 19:03 I'm so sorry. 19:04 Thank you.
19:04 Hey, Addie, you're the last one.
19:08 Okay, it just printed. 19:10 Just give me one second. 19:11 I'm so sorry, and thank you for your time. 19:13 One second.
19:39 Hey, Addie, how much more time do you need?
19:47 I'm getting it off the printer now. 19:51 I apologize.
20:16 Hello, my name is Addie Smith. 20:19 Today is Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026. 20:22 I'm speaking before the Portland City Council. 20:25 By a show of hands, I'd like to know if these City Council members know that this is an elected office or if they think that these are just jobs that they can retire from. 20:34 Last month, I emailed these City Council members regarding rental assistance. 20:37 Councilmember Smith, I believe you have 2 minutes. 20:39 I asked them 11 questions regarding rental assistance. 20:43 When I didn't hear back from any of them, I emailed every week of the month of May. 20:48 In that final week of May, I received an email from someone at the Portland Housing Bureau informing me that the organization had received $5 million from the city's Spring TAL. 20:59 I emailed Portland City— Portland Housing Bureau's interim director and president of Good in the Hood, Queesha White. 21:06 Her organization just collaborated with Albina Vision Trust. 21:10 I asked Director Light and the Deputy Director Landon Gonzalez several additional questions regarding the $5 million Portland Housing Bureau received. 21:19 When I didn't hear back from either of them, I called Director Light. 21:22 She didn't return my call. 21:24 I also emailed City Administrator Lee regarding the $106 million in quote-unquote unspent and unbudgeted housing funds. 21:32 I did not receive a response from City Administrator Lee. 21:36 The Portland Housing Bureau and Oregon Housing and Community Services both require that tenants have an eviction/court case with a court number and hearing date in order to receive rental assistance. 21:47 As Black women, Queesha White and Andrea Bell both know that this requirement is detrimental to the Black community. 21:54 It also creates a record that will show on background checks. 21:57 It also creates a public record that is available on the internet. 22:00 Councilwoman White, I apologize. 22:01 For people experiencing unemployment for any reason, but in this time due to the Trump administration's DEI initiative, it creates another difficult barrier that Black people must hurdle in order to obtain career opportunities. 22:14 Additionally, in these evictions, attorneys and landlords are circumventing House Bill 2001 in order to get them, and these Democrat-appointed judges are more than happy to oblige. 22:25 The attorneys and landlords are legally returning rental assistance payments from these organizations when the termination notice exceeds the amount provided. 22:33 It appears to me that there are a lot of people involved in making it appear that they are helping when in reality they are burning the candle from both ends or making it appear that they support ending homelessness while still ensuring that evictions occur. 22:47 My grandmother used to call it talking out of both sides of your mouth. 22:50 Rental assistance must cover arrears and current rent at an amount up to $10,000 for single-family homes. 22:55 Councilmember Loretta Smith. 22:57 By only covering up to 3 months of rent, it creates the problem for both the landlord and the tenant. 23:03 Oregon's Black unemployment is 9%, and Black homelessness is over 17%. 23:10 211 needs an upgrade, and I don't believe the current director and deputy director are capable of it. 23:16 211 Representatives also can't answer any of the 11 questions I've asked these elected city council members. 23:23 Thank you.
23:24 Thank you very much for being here today.
23:27 That completes communications.
23:28 Okay, thank you, colleagues. 23:31 Our next item is our June City Administrator Report. 23:35 Surprise, uh, CFO Beery. 23:37 Oh, okay.
23:39 Oh, hi, Councilor Avalos.
23:41 Apologies, I just wanted to say I am here. 23:44 I didn't hear the roll call because my sound wasn't working apparently, and I didn't realize the meeting had started, so I am present.
23:50 Thank you, Councilor Avalos. 23:51 Apologies for that. 23:52 Um, item 3, colleagues. 23:55 Uh, CFO Beery is sitting in for City Administrator Lee today. 23:59 Hi, Jonas, welcome and good luck. 24:01 Um, CFO Beery will be able to give us a high-level summary of the monthly CFO or CA update. 24:08 Uh, we'll then move to discussion and questions. 24:10 Uh, CFO Beery will answer what he can, but please anticipate that most of our questions this week will be taken back to the shop for a later written response. 24:17 I also do understand that we have an update on the federal, uh, response situation and that City Attorney Robert Taylor is going to be giving us a higher degree of detail on that issue. 24:26 CFO Beery, take it away.
24:28 Great, thank you, Council President. 24:29 Good morning, councilors. 24:31 Yeah, for the record, Jonas Beery, Chief Financial Officer here this morning on behalf of City Administrator Raymond Lee to share information on the monthly CA report. 24:40 I'll go through a few key items and then obviously can attempt to answer questions along with the leadership team here in the room. 24:47 The theme of this month's report is the foundational work of the city, and I'd like to highlight a few key items on this theme. 24:54 First, Portland Permitting and Development celebrated May as Building Safety Month by highlighting many of the professionals who work every day to ensure that Portland's buildings are safe. 25:04 Thanks to everyone citywide for the continued important efforts to ensure safe buildings across Portland. 25:10 Second, the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund, or PCEF, has entered the 5th and final year of the Cooling Portland program. 25:17 That program is on track to meet its community goal of 25,000 units and doing so ahead of schedule. 25:24 That effort is now shifting focus from standalone units towards more comprehensive home improvement programs. 25:30 Next highlight, Parks and Recreation staff joined partners and volunteers for the Greening Wilkes Stewardship event at Wilkes Creek Headwaters in East Portland. 25:40 Natural area restoration and maintenance in support of watershed health and neighborhood resilience is a core bureau function, and working in partnership with volunteers helps us do even more. 25:49 And shout out to Council President Dunphy for joining that event.
25:54 The Portland Bureau of Emergency Management graduated 104 new Neighborhood Emergency Team, or NET, volunteers, bringing us to 1,543 active and trained NETs available to provide immediate disaster assistance in their neighborhoods until professional responders can arrive on scene. 26:13 Thanks to everyone involved in this critical safety program, which now exists across 81 neighborhoods Citywide. 26:20 And then the last couple of highlights and reminders from the front section of the report. 26:24 The Office of Government Relations, OGR, is soliciting issue proposals to inform developments of the city's 2027 state legislative agenda, with proposals due to OGR by Friday, July 17th. 26:36 And thank you in advance for any and all input to that effort. 26:40 And then lastly, wanted to highlight that recruitment for the director of the Office of Community-Based Police Accountability, OCPA. 26:47 That recruitment is live and open, and please consider sharing that with your network. 26:52 I'd like to, before we get to an update from Robert Taylor, just shift momentarily and put my CFO hat back on for a quick second. 27:00 There's one item that I was not able to get into the CA report but wanted to make sure and use this opportunity to provide a brief update, and that's a quick update on the ongoing work for the Financial Stabilization and Recovery Plan. 27:11 Thank you, Mayor. 27:12 Of which you've heard reference, I think, a few times during budget conversations and in other forums. 27:18 When originally visioned and discussed with Council in January, I think I'd referred to it sort of an impossible dream of being able to get that work to you in May in advance of budget deliberations. 27:31 And that did not happen for a variety of reasons, but happy to share that we now have a really diverse and committed group including 4 representatives from the city administration side, 2 city councilors. 27:44 Thank you to Councilors Green and Zimmerman, and 9 citizen members of different backgrounds and experience. 27:50 We've met 3 times so far, a 4th meeting coming up here this week. 27:55 We'll have 3 or 4 meetings throughout the summer to get that work done. 27:59 I am amazed at the commitment of the community members in particular and have been deeply inspired by sort of the shared passion of everybody in that room to drive collectively towards a financially stable and prosperous Portland, and the diversity of inputs that are coming into that, I think, will really lead to a positive outcome in that document. 28:22 It was important to commit through those first few meetings adequate time to share perspectives, to align to financial and economic realities, and review current city systems, policies, and best practices. 28:34 We are now shifting this week towards moving, towards developing a framework around how potential recommendations might be identified, evaluated, and ultimately moved forward for Council. 28:46 I also wanna acknowledge that that workgroup specifically is gonna be putting in 25 to 30 hours or more by the time this work is done. 28:54 And that's not the only input to the conversation. 28:57 We're working with a team of interagency partners, including sort of expanded representatives around the city and around interagency partners in the region.
29:07 Sort of an advisory body. 29:09 We're scheduling opportunities in July to work with citywide equity practitioners, and we're looking for opportunities over the summer to receive prioritized feedback from labor partners and other community representatives who aren't in that room. 29:22 Pushing to be ready for a formal output to council in the next few months. 29:26 Likely that'll be September, I think, is the most reasonable timeframe, which I think still is manageable and that that can support both the mid-year budget adjustments in the fall TAO, technical adjustment ordinance, and kind of preliminary discussions thinking about fiscal '27-'28 budget development. 29:43 So we'll look forward to working with Council President to get on an agenda there. 29:48 We can take questions on that maybe when we're done here, but I wanted to make that note since we weren't able to get that update into the written document. 29:54 And Robert, if it's okay, I'll hand to City Attorney for an update. 29:57 Thank you, Mayor.
29:59 Thank you, Jonas. 30:00 Robert Taylor, City Attorney. 30:02 As you will recall, the hearings office held a 2-day hearing on the notice of violation at the ICE facility. 30:10 We were anticipating a decision by the hearings officer by June 5th. 30:17 We understand the hearings officer was prepared to issue the decision by that date without notice to the city. 30:31 The hearings officer's decision will not be issued until that stay is lifted. 30:37 We believe strongly that that stay was improperly obtained, and we have objected. 30:44 We are working to get an expedited hearing set with the Multnomah County Circuit Court as soon as possible to challenge that stay.
30:51 And in short, we want that stay lifted so the hearings officer can issue its decision. 30:57 We'll keep you posted as this continues to evolve, and we are again trying to get in front of the Multnomah County Circuit Court as soon as possible to explain our position on the stay.
31:12 And before we get to questions, just a couple more final logistical notes. 31:15 Council President, on the, on the report, thank you, Robert, for that. 31:19 I'm sure there's some questions, but I just wanted to finally note that new this month in the report, Appendix A, which is the budget note tracker, adds brief notes about the plans for reporting on each of those budget notes from the current fiscal year, '25-'26, as we approach fiscal year end. 31:35 The closed claims Excel sheet in Appendix B reflects the most up-to-date information, including 2 unusually large recent settlements, which is why that number has gone up relative to last month. 31:46 And in Appendix F, which lists the active contracts, you'll notice a slight decrease due to being near the end of the fiscal year when many contracts expire. 31:55 Lastly, just on behalf of City Administrator, proud of the work that the city does, the people, workers of the city do this month and every month. 32:02 Pleased to share the report. 32:04 And again, happy to answer questions if we can or collect for follow-up when CA Lee is back.
32:09 Thank you, CFO Beery. 32:11 Vice President Clark.
32:13 Thank you, Councilor President. 32:13 Robert, can you shed a little more light or give us some insight on the nature of that stay? 32:18 On what grounds did the property owner make that request?
32:24 Yeah, thank you. 32:25 Good question. 32:26 They, um, um, they have asserted previously that they do not believe they would get a fair hearing in front of the hearings officer. 32:40 They, I believe, wanted to file a writ in Multnomah County Circuit Court to preserve that issue on appeal. 32:49 They went into Multnomah County Circuit Court ex parte, meaning alone without us present, seeking to file that writ. 33:01 As part of that process, they also sought a stay Uh, to stay the hearings officer from even issuing an opinion. 33:11 That was done without our knowledge or consent, and that is the issue that we are going to contest in front of the Multnomah County Circuit Court.
33:22 Can you give us some sense of timeline?
33:25 We're currently, as, as we speak, working to get an expedited hearing scheduled in front of the court. 33:31 We're hoping to get that scheduled as soon as next week.
33:35 And that's the question of withholding, holding up the stay?
33:38 That's the question of holding up the stay. 33:40 And we were happy to litigate whatever issues the building owner wants to raise, and they have every right to preserve their arguments for appeal. 33:53 But we do not believe it's appropriate to stay the hearing officer from doing their job and issuing a decision.
34:03 Thank you, Vice President Clark. 34:06 Colleagues, any further questions for our team here? 34:09 Councilor Kanal.
34:11 Thank you, Council President. 34:12 Thank you everyone for being here, and thank you to CA Lee for, uh, preparing the report. 34:16 Um, just a couple notes for, uh, things that we might want more info on later. 34:22 Um, would love to learn more about the lean system migration that's mentioned in there. 34:26 One of the things that I get in Thank you. 34:28 I've been hearing from constituents and constituents' emails is how difficult the process is to pay bills from the Revenue Division. 34:34 And so wanted to understand what those improvements might be so we can communicate that out to the public about what they may be experiencing. 34:43 You mentioned a couple of these things, but I did want to just highlight and shout out Judith Mowry for winning the Betsy Ames Leadership Award this year. 34:51 Appreciate the shout out to Queesha Light and the Housing Bureau in general. 34:56 As well as Director Light on her help for the amendment to the ordinance we're going to be voting on later today on Williams and Russell and SEI. 35:06 One of the new neighborhoods in for the NET is Hayden Island and wanted to make sure that folks who are— we'll be putting this in our newsletter too, but people in Hayden Island are able to join that. 35:16 That's been a conversation as well. 35:19 And then one other thing just to say for later is Uh, because I imagine they're not necessarily here but wanted to get more information to sort of, um, there's, there's a good shout out in here about the work of the Human Trafficking Unit at PPB. 35:33 I wanted to understand, um, a little bit more, maybe in a, um, a Public Safety Committee meeting, as to what the, the, the factors were that led to the increased activity, um, on behalf of PPB and what we can do to be supportive of that continuing. 35:47 But I had one question that I would like Thank you. 35:49 I have a quick question. 35:51 Yes. 35:51 One is there's been reporting about the removal of a Portland Loo in Old Town. 35:57 And one of the things that we've started to have a conversation, I think, around the accessibility of public bathrooms in the city and in a general sense, as well as specific to the Portland Loo. 36:08 But I wanted to understand kind of where that decision was made, if that was an administrative decision, mayoral decision, what Yeah, Councilor, thank you for those questions and highlights.
36:26 We'll certainly get back to you. 36:28 Thank you for highlighting the lean migration system. 36:30 As a finance person, that's something that I care about. 36:32 So happy to get more information about that as well as maybe some additional background on the human trafficking. 36:37 I am not aware of any background on the loo situation. 36:42 I'm not sure what exactly happened there. 36:44 If a DCA in the room has any intel, I don't see anyone moving, so we'll just make sure we get back to you as soon as possible.
36:50 Great, thanks. 36:51 And then the last thing, I really appreciate the addition of the notes on the budget notes, the new column on Appendix A, and it was helpful for most of the notes that I've been tracking. 37:05 I will note I still do not have anything on the package delivery fee. 37:09 Which is Canal 13, and it's just the, the additional note mirrors the second to last column. 37:14 They both just say the word complete. 37:16 Um, what happened there is it got rolled into a conversation at PBOT that ultimately ended up being a recommendation for the SDRF and the TUF. 37:26 And, um, rolling it in and then saying this was the outcome of it doesn't give me any information on the actual thing that I was asking about, which is the package delivery fee. 37:36 So I, I think, um, might be worth a second glance. 37:38 I don't know if there are any other notes that other folks are experiencing the same way or the same thing on where it's marked as complete, but it's, it's not. 37:45 Um, but just wanted to flag that. 37:47 Um, and I am also really interested in hearing more on Green 12 next time, which is the Anti-Displacement Task Force. 37:55 Um, I think there's some, uh, I appreciate the, the way in which there's been conversation with I also know that from the budget process, there were other councilors involved in a lot of these notes, um, or just other councilors who maybe didn't work on it but are very interested in the outcome of it because they saw, well, one of my colleagues is putting it up, I'm going to vote for it, and it passed. 38:18 That doesn't mean I need my name on it, but I still want to know what's going on with it. 38:21 So thank you.
38:23 Thank you, Councilor Kanal. 38:24 Councilor Ryan.
38:26 Thank you, President Dunphy. 38:27 Um, good to see you, Jonas. 38:30 A couple things. 38:30 One is a little micro, so I apologize for that, but I see that there's a— July 17th is scheduled to go to Grand Ronde, a visit between government to government. 38:41 And I don't know how anyone from the council could attend that since it's on a Wednesday. 38:47 So that made me disappointed. 38:50 And I did that a couple times, or 2 years ago, I think, or 3 years ago. 38:54 It was very helpful. 38:56 So it's so much about building relationships, and I do see why the mayor's prioritized. 39:00 I'm not making a comment against that. 39:03 I just hope that we could consider a different date so more of us could attend, or we reschedule the 17th so some of us could attend. 39:11 But it's very important that we lift the government-to-government relations that goes beyond the mayor when it comes to working with our Native American community. 39:20 The second one, I appreciate what Councilor Kanal said. 39:24 I got there halfway while you were presenting. 39:25 It was the first thing you mentioned. 39:27 But if— was it about the Interstate Bridge? 39:30 No. 39:30 Oh, it wasn't? 39:31 Okay. 39:31 I'm just going to say how important it is that we include Hayden Island and the neighbors in the north reach of our city anytime we have dialogue about the Interstate Bridge. 39:43 I feel like that's— they've been shortchanged for a long time in that part of town. 39:50 And so it's really important in this process that we make sure that we advocate stronger for them. 39:55 I want to give a shout out and a thanks to the granting reports. 39:58 I think the federal grant information is so much easier to digest now, and I appreciate that. 40:05 I think that— I hope that the outgoing grants program can get that same level of information so that we can have a better understanding of that. 40:15 I have always been on broken record about having more of our granting being results-based, and we need to know what, in fact, what data they're choosing to move, what they're measuring. 40:25 And I just want to stop the practice of having less accountability for the money that goes out from taxpayers than at our local philanthropic institutions that do giving. 40:37 So I've always said, you know, Meyer Memorial Trust has a better accountability system than much of the granting that we do at the city. 40:43 I, of course, want to acknowledge the Portland Children's Levy and now PCF who have systems in place that have that type of accountability, and I appreciate that.
40:53 Thank you, Councilor Ryan. 40:59 Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, you are also always welcome to send additional questions either to the City Administrator Lee or directly to CFO Beery right now. 41:08 Councilor Knoll, last word.
41:09 Just, just had a question. 41:11 The, the info that you were saying we were going to get more from earlier on, is that going to be in a public setting?
41:17 So you mentioned there's some more information coming, or is that going to be something that we're going to get in a council briefing?
41:25 Uh, the information that I was saying was going to come later was what, uh, City Attorney—.
41:28 Oh, you meant immediately later?
41:30 Great, awesome. 41:30 Thank you so much.
41:33 All right, Keelan, can we please move to the consent agenda?
41:37 Uh, no items have been pulled from consent today. 41:42 Um, and I'll call the roll call to approve the consent agenda. 41:48 Aye. 41:50 Aye. 41:51 Aye. 41:53 Aye. 41:54 Aye.
42:06 The consent agenda is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
42:10 All right, colleagues, we have fun, uh, for the next couple of minutes here. 42:13 We have 3 second readings in a row. 42:15 Can we please move to item number 8?
42:24 Document 2026-180, appropriate grant award for Homeownership Assistance Program Veterans Restore Health and Safety and Down Payment Assistance.
42:41 Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. 42:44 We had a presentation on this last— I guess it was last week. 42:50 Um, is there any discussion? 42:56 Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on item number 8?
43:15 Zimmerman. 43:15 Aye. 43:16 Avalos.
43:27 Aye. 43:29 Can you hear me?
43:32 Thank you, Councilor.
43:34 The ordinance passes with a vote of 12 ayes.
43:37 Can we please read the next item?
43:41 Item 9, document 2026-181, appropriate grant for pilot mass timber feasibility study for $100,000.
43:53 Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. 43:56 Is there any discussion? 44:01 Thank you. 44:01 And to my colleagues online, uh, ask that as we do the roll call vote, please turn your cameras on so our clerk knows you're here. 44:07 Uh, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
44:24 Zimmerman. 44:25 Aye. 44:26 Avalos.
44:32 The ordinance passes with a vote of 12 ayes.
44:35 Thank you. 44:35 And can we please read item number 10?
44:43 Document 2026, —182, appropriate $2,500,000 from the Construction Excise Tax Subfund 225020 for homeownership development in District 2.
44:59 This is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. 45:01 Colleagues, is there further discussion? 45:03 Councilor Avalos.
45:07 Thank you, um, for this opportunity. 45:10 Uh, I didn't say, uh, anything last time, so I wanted to take a I know that there has been some confusion about where I stand on this ordinance, and so I want to take a minute to explain where I'm coming from. 45:24 From the beginning, my concern was never whether communities of color deserve investments or not. 45:30 They do. 45:31 My concern was always about how we make these decisions. 45:34 As Housing Chair, I've spent the last year trying to build systems that are transparent, scalable, and equitable. 45:39 Councilmember Smith. 45:40 Systems where organizations know how to access resources and where council is not put in the position of selecting individual projects for funding outside of established processes. 45:48 That concern has not changed. 45:50 I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that versions of these project allocations appeared in broader housing conversations earlier this year, including in Keep Portland Housed. 45:58 And the reality is that those discussions reflected compromises among competing viewpoints as we work to build a larger housing package. 46:05 But my preference has always been the same, creating fair pathways to investments rather than making project-by-project funding decisions at council. 46:15 Over the course of this debate, I've heard from many community members who deeply care about these projects, and I've also heard from many others, organizations and community leaders asking why their project wasn't included, people doing important work who never knew these dollars were even available, people wondering why some projects were selected while others never even had the opportunity to be considered. 46:35 And that is exactly why process matters to me. 46:38 Not because these projects lack merit, not because the organizations involved aren't doing important work, but because I don't have a fair way to evaluate them against the many other worthy projects that never had the same opportunity. 46:49 I also want to acknowledge something that has been very difficult about this conversation. 46:54 At times, this debate moved beyond the merits of the proposal itself, and people's commitment to communities of color was questioned. 47:01 Identity became part of the debate. 47:03 Relationships were damaged, and I really think that's unfortunate. 47:07 I am proud to be Black. 47:08 I am proud to be Latina. 47:09 I have spent my career fighting for communities that have historically been excluded from power, investment, and opportunity, and nothing about this debate changes that. 47:17 And what has been hardest for me is not disagreement. 47:20 Disagreement is part of this job. 47:21 What has been hardest is watching communities getting pitted against one another, watching questions about governance become questions about identity, and watching people conclude that if someone disagrees with a process, they must be opposed to the community that benefits from it, and I reject that. 47:36 My disagreement was never with the community members who showed up to advocate. 47:39 It was with the process. 47:41 I also want to acknowledge something that has made this conversation particularly difficult for me. 47:45 At this point, I know there are people who already have decided what my vote means even before I've cast it. 47:51 If I vote no, some people are going to conclude that I don't support investment in Black communities and communities of color. 47:56 If I vote yes, some people will conclude that I'm endorsing the process that got us here. 48:01 The reality is that neither of those things is true. 48:04 I have spent my entire career fighting for communities that have been excluded from power, investment, and opportunity, and that work didn't start when I was elected to council, and it will not end here. 48:13 At the same time, I have been spending the last year working to build systems that are more transparent, more equitable, and more accountable than the ones that we inherited, because I don't believe our community should have to choose between investment and good governance. 48:25 I don't believe communities should have to choose between equity and transparency. 48:28 Councilmember Loretta Smith. 48:29 And I do not believe that raising concerns about process should be treated as opposition to the people who would benefit. 48:34 Our communities deserve better than that. 48:36 We fought hard to create a government where more voices could be represented. 48:40 We fought hard to move beyond a system where a handful of people made decisions behind closed doors. 48:45 And we fought hard so that people like me and many others who have historically been left out of these conversations could have a seat at the table. 48:51 And so with that representation comes responsibility. 48:54 And my responsibility is not just to advocate for communities that have been overlooked, it's also to help build systems that will continue serving those communities long after any individual councilor is gone. 49:05 One of my major concerns throughout this discussion was the funding source, and last week council adopted an amendment that addressed that concern and moved these dollars away from a funding source of social housing that I did not believe should be used for this purpose. 49:15 And so I appreciate that change, but the broader concerns I've raised about the process remain. 49:21 And that's what makes this decision difficult for me, because I can recognize that the value that the supporters see in these investments while also believing that the way we arrived here is not a model I want council to repeat. 49:33 And so what I hope that we take away from this debate is that Portland needs better systems because the work in front of us is much bigger than these individual allocations. 49:42 Just yesterday in Housing Committee, we were talking about building our unified housing strategy. 49:46 We're discussing renter protections and homeownership. 49:49 We're discussing preservation, housing production, social housing, anti-displacement strategies. 49:53 And we're talking about millions and millions of dollars in future housing investments and thousands of Portlanders who need housing stability and opportunity. 50:00 And so that is the work that I'm focused on. 50:03 Lastly, I want the organizations that supported this ordinance to know something. 50:08 I hear you. 50:08 I hear your frustration with the existing systems. 50:11 I hear the lack of trust. 50:12 And I hear the desire for investment, and I'm committed to continuing the work of building systems that create more opportunities, not fewer. 50:19 Systems that are bringing more opportunities— more organizations, apologies— to the table, not fewer. 50:23 And systems that don't require communities to fight each other for exceptions because the pathway to investment is clear, transparent, and accessible. 50:30 That is the housing system I came here to build, and that's the work I intend to continue regardless of what happens with the vote today. 50:36 Thanks for your time.
50:37 Thank you. 50:37 Thank you, Councilor Avalos. 50:39 Councilor Maria.
50:41 Thank you, President Dunphy. 50:44 I had a lot to say on this, but honestly, I think that Councilor Avalos covered all of it. 50:49 And I want to thank you, Councilor Avalos, for speaking on this because I know that you have taken the brunt of the pain of this discussion in extremely unfair ways and had your integrity questioned in ways that it shouldn't have been. 51:06 Because we know that you have been here fighting for Portlanders and to make sure that there is equity across the board. 51:12 So I just wanted to say that up front. 51:14 Last year, our City Council showed that we were ready to make a historic vote with an $8.6 million settlement for descendants of Albina. 51:23 And we have commitments here to do restorative justice work and to repair the harms that past city councils have done, that past governments have done.
51:33 And that we are going to currently continue to do until we change and repair these systems. 51:40 And there are no easy answers for how we go about doing this work. 51:45 That's the reality of it. 51:46 So when there were projects that came to us to fund developments with little to no information, with no pro forma, I voted no across the board, whether it was for the Broadway Corridor or Hacienda or any other organization. 52:00 Councilmember Loretta Smith. 52:01 Because I think that we need to do our due diligence to look into how and when we are granting these dollars. 52:08 If council is going to act as a grant-making body, we need to have all the same information that a grant-giving body would have. 52:15 And the housing bureau getting to see the pro forma after we vote doesn't change that, because at the end of the day, it's going to be our names and our votes attached to things. 52:24 So if it turns out that the pro forma, there's something wrong with it, we have already voted publicly to support something, and that puts us in a very strange and politicized position. 52:35 Without an established process for how these grant dollars go out to community organizations, we are leaving out other organizations that wanted these dollars as well. 52:44 A question I've honestly been wrestling with is, if a different Black-led organization came to me with concerns and said, why were we passed over while this organization wasn't? 52:54 I would not be able to tell them why one organization got funding over the other because we had no transparent or competitive process. 53:03 And without an established process, there is no guarantee that these dollars are going to be getting into hands of community members in the future. 53:10 It is going to be based on the whims of whoever is sitting in these seats. 53:14 That is not a process. 53:16 We need to have one that actually centers both equity and equality. 53:19 Councilmember Smith. 53:20 And if there are issues with how grant dollars are given out at the City of Portland, because historically those have not gone to these communities, then we need to make sure that we address that through a policy process that includes these community members. 53:33 I am also— this was very difficult because things like social housing were pitted against these housing development projects, and they did not have to be. 53:44 Councilmember Herbold. 53:45 We had numerous councilors bring not one but two different options to change the funding source of this, and I'm very grateful that this City Council chose not to pit social housing against Black development because it was completely unnecessary. 53:59 And now the city is going to get to keep both, and both are going to help Black, Latino, and Indigenous community members who can't afford to live in the city of Portland. 54:08 So I am grateful to my colleagues for making that change. 54:11 Thank you. 54:12 I have been clear and consistent in all of my votes about what I need in order to give out grant dollars, and I am committed to working with community members who are impacted by this to change our grant-making process, to update it if there are issues with equity and equality in how we are giving out those dollars. 54:33 So this is a very difficult vote, and I am grateful to Councilor Avalos for the work that she has done with community.
54:40 And we have discussed this at length, and we're dedicated to working with people to make sure that these processes are actually settled in the future so that communities aren't pitted against one another, organizations aren't pitted against one another, and that the important work of getting housing to Portlanders gets done. 54:58 So thank you.
54:59 Thank you, Councilor Morillo. 55:00 Councilor Smith.
55:03 Thank you. 55:05 Thank you, Council President. 55:07 Um, I would just like to urge all of, of my colleagues to support this underlying, um, ordinance. 55:19 I've tried to get this through ever since January, and I was cut off in February, and it was permanently tabled indefinitely. 55:28 And that's why I fought so hard. 55:30 I joined the Slow the Flow as a co-sponsor because I thought it really meant that it was going to give folks housing who were being evicted, people who would be able to develop housing, those dollars would go to them. 55:48 And that effort was cut short because the same councilors who say they want to process, they said they would refuse to support Broadway Corridor. 56:00 Okay. 56:01 They have not spoken about Broadway Corridor to the length that they have spoken about these Black developers, and that's the problem I have. 56:10 I have a problem when these Black developers were put in the underlying and Councilor Novick dropped an amendment to take them out. 56:23 That was wrong, and he apologized for that, and I accepted his apology.
56:29 So if you look at the charter, we're not grantors. 56:33 I wouldn't minimize my work. 56:35 We are appropriators and policymakers. 56:38 I am very proud of this ordinance. 56:41 I will support it and stand on this hill about what we did to not support our community-based development organizations. 56:52 I don't have to give you a long speech about who I am. 56:55 I'm a Black woman. 56:58 I'm a single parent. 56:59 I'm a grandparent. 57:00 But most of all, I'm looking at a 30,000-foot level look at these issues. 57:08 And it is a shame because we don't have one project I can fight for in District 1. 57:15 We are the most vulnerable district as it relates to housing than any other district. 57:19 Councilwoman Smith, I'm sorry, you have to stop. 57:21 So I thank you. 57:22 I thank Councilor Kanal for coming up with a funding source that would be helpful to get this passed, and I'm thankful. 57:33 I am proud of this project. 57:35 I will stand 10 toes down supporting this project, and I urge all of my councilors to do the same. 57:42 Thank you.
57:43 Thank you, Councilor Smith. 57:44 Councilor Kanal.
57:45 Thank you, Council President. 57:48 I appreciate everyone's comments today. 57:50 I'll be supporting this ordinance today. 57:52 I've come to realize in other issue areas that although sometimes we don't partner on proposals that are in the same issue areas where they pass with different coalitions, the way Portlanders experience the outcomes of these decisions is as a package, is that here's all of what the city is doing, here's all what the council is doing. 58:12 And although people disagree about parts of it, The way in which we've handled this round of housing decisions are going to be experienced by the public and the staff as one package of activity. 58:22 And so I want to start by obviously thanking those who are involved in this ordinance, but also everyone who's really helped shape the conversations we've been having on this since, I guess, the— just after the discovery of these dollars back in November. 58:36 And so for this ordinance, that's Councilor Smith, that's co-sponsors Clark, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, and Zimmerman. 58:40 On the amendment, that's Councilors Murillo and Councilor President Dunphy, and obviously, uh, Councilor Avalos as chair of the Housing Committee and the, the lead sponsor of, um, the Slow the Inflow resolution and, and all of that conversation that has kind of contextualized a lot of this. 58:55 And that's really important to remember that there's going to be different parts of this, and often, um, we experience each part of that differently. 59:02 So for this ordinance, as we've heard many times from many of my colleagues, Black homeownership is a critical part of narrowing the racial wealth gap. 59:11 The data we saw and have heard already from 2020, the gap in homeownership between Black and white Americans was 29%, which is higher, the highest that the census ever recorded, higher than in 1960, higher than in 1900. 59:23 We know that this reflects a system and set of decisions made in many cities, in many states, and nationally, exclusionary policies that are working exactly as they're designed to do. 59:33 And as a result, we have to take intentional action To combat those and make a more equitable system here. 59:41 And so I believe that this policy choice will join with other policy choices we've made in the past at the city, like the North and Northeast Preference Policy, to remedy past harms as well as expand homeownership opportunities. 59:54 And so I'll be proud to support it today. 59:56 And I think that we can continue to prevent further displacement and expand more equitable access to homeownership by not only producing more affordable housing, but producing more permanently affordable housing, which is why this amended ordinance preserves the city's planned investments in social housing. 1:00:11 And so for those, especially, uh, the editorial boards out there who think we can't compromise, this legislation represents how council can listen to community and to each other and to work towards compromises instead of getting mired in false binaries like social housing or investment in Black communities. 1:00:28 Portlanders deserve both. 1:00:30 We can have both. 1:00:31 Thank you. 1:00:31 And the primary limitation to us doing so has always been the scarcity mindset that it can only be one or the other. 1:00:38 The financial limitations are real, but they are hurdles, not walls. 1:00:41 And so we're going to need to both create the 87,000 additional units we're expected to need by 2045 while simultaneously growing a more equitable housing ecosystem. 1:00:51 And I think that this is a good step towards that. 1:00:54 And I'm looking forward to continued collaboration with my colleagues to restore— sorry, to pursue restorative policy approaches, remove barriers that have shut Portlanders, in particular Black Portlanders, out from opportunities, and make affordable, high-quality housing a reality for every Portlander. 1:01:09 Thank you.
1:01:10 Thank you, Councilor Kanal. 1:01:12 Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
1:01:13 Thank you, Council President. 1:01:14 And Councilor Kanal, thank you for saying so clearly that this was not a binary, that these 2 issues should not be pit against each other. 1:01:22 Against each other. 1:01:24 The projects we are hopefully going to approve today were in a draft of some of our earlier housing work. 1:01:31 They came out to create a broader fund, and that fund was not a social housing fund that anybody tried to dig these into out of nowhere. 1:01:42 There was a fund created so that we've had a revolving loan opportunity for future projects. 1:01:51 And the language actually specifically talks about social housing and other critical projects. 1:02:01 It is not just social housing. 1:02:03 It is for projects in the future where we need a revolving loan fund. 1:02:10 But when we did that, we were taking the money away from a number of projects that the committee had previously considered funding. 1:02:18 So this idea that these 2 things were artificially pit against each other— no, we're not, we're not buying that, folks. 1:02:28 And we need to be honest about the conversation here. 1:02:32 I appreciate that, Councilor Smith, you stayed at the table to get these proposals back. 1:02:40 They were taken out and we got them back because they are critical for community. 1:02:45 I appreciate, Councilor Kanal, that you stepped up to find a compromise. 1:02:50 That's the type of work that we need to do more of around this dais. 1:02:53 So thank you to the two of you, and I am proud to have been a partner on this work from the start. 1:03:00 We should be doing everything we can to make sure that homeownership is a choice for every Black Portlander in District 2. 1:03:09 But Councilor Smith, your point about your district is well taken across the city, and today is a step getting there. 1:03:15 I look forward to voting yes. 1:03:17 Thank you, Council President.
1:03:18 Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. 1:03:19 Councilor Green.
1:03:21 Thank you, Council President. 1:03:23 I'll just start by saying I, I plan to support this today, and I look forward to taking that vote. 1:03:28 I appreciate the the amendment that brought the compromise, that was a good step forward, I think, for this body. 1:03:38 I just want to clarify something for the record on Broadway Corridor in particular, because we did hear a lot of testimony, and I think it's right for the community to wonder, okay, why did we fund Broadway Corridor with this package and not this other thing? 1:03:52 I just want to make it very clear. 1:03:55 I had opposed Broadway Corridor. 1:03:56 It's in my own district. 1:03:57 Okay. 1:03:57 And I had opposed it when it was part of the broad fungible set of money. 1:04:02 And I said, I don't think I can support a project whose pro forma I have not seen, which I cannot confirm what the volume of developer profits are as part of that stack. 1:04:17 It seemed to be almost entirely public money to a private firm. 1:04:23 That's a problem for me. 1:04:24 And so when we got to the place of like, how do we get this thing moving along this body as a whole to get towards something that could be passed and appropriated, I had identified the Westside TIF District Fund as being an appropriate fund that is restricted to that geographic location to be the source of funding for this project and not the money that would go towards rent assistance, not the money that would go towards these other things. 1:04:51 That led to the revolving loan fund and so on and so forth. 1:04:54 And so I just want to be clear that I was only supportive of the Broadway Corridor Project because there was existing TIF district resources that could be devoted towards that project. 1:05:05 It's still— I still have open questions about how much the public sector is going to foot the bill for private profits on that project. 1:05:15 And I think that's something that this body must always look at. 1:05:18 Um, but I'll leave it there. 1:05:21 I, I'm, I'm ready to close the chapter on this, this saga and, and move to a vote on this. 1:05:28 Thank you.
1:05:29 Thank you, Councilor Green. 1:05:30 Councilor Smith, last word.
1:05:33 Thank you, Council President, for giving me the last word. 1:05:35 And I would be remiss in, um, not mentioning this, but I want to say thank you to Councilor Eric Zimmerman because you actually put this in first in December, and you thought enough about communities across the city, particularly Black communities who have a very low homeownership rate, and thought that that would be important. 1:05:58 Because you actually put it in first, and we added it to slow the flow, to, um, to bring some continuity. 1:06:06 But I want to thank you. 1:06:07 It is not It's lost on me that you were not able to have your ordinance heard, but I thank you for supporting the ordinance. 1:06:18 And thank you for Black Portland and those future homeowners like myself. 1:06:24 I know the biggest thing that got me out of poverty raising a young son was my first purchase of a home. 1:06:32 And that's, that's where it starts. 1:06:34 And if I can give others who look like me, who are in underserved communities, the same opportunity that I had— so thank you for, um, for doing that.
1:06:46 Thank you, Councilor Smith. 1:06:48 Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
1:06:53 Pirtle-Guiney? 1:06:54 Aye. 1:06:55 Ryan? 1:06:55 Aye. 1:06:56 Koyama Lane? 1:06:56 Aye. 1:06:57 Morillo?
1:06:59 Novick? 1:07:00 Aye.
1:07:04 Aye. 1:07:10 Aye. 1:07:11 The ordinance passes as amended with a vote of 10 ayes and 2 nos.
1:07:15 Thank you very much. 1:07:16 Keelan, can we please call item number 11?
1:07:24 Document 2026-01. 1:07:26 Ordinance-165, authorize sewer revenue bonds to finance sewer system capital improvements for an amount sufficient to produce net proceeds of up to $235 million and to refund outstanding sewer revenue bonds.
1:07:42 Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. 1:07:45 We have Claire Adamsick here from Council Operations to give us a committee staff summary report.
1:07:51 Thank you, Council President and councilors. 1:07:53 For the record, Claire Adamsick, Council Policy Analyst and staff to the Public Works Committee. 1:07:58 The ordinance before you, document number 2026-165, was heard in the Public Works Committee on May 26th, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass. 1:08:08 The ordinance authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds pursuant to ORS 287A.150 in an amount sufficient to provide net proceeds of up to $235 million Thank you. 1:08:19 The ordinance authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds in the amount of $238.5 million to pay for system improvements to the city's sewer system, plus additional amounts required to fund bond reserves to pay capitalized interest and costs related to the financings. 1:08:28 The total principal amount of revenue bonds required for these services is not estimated to exceed— is estimated to not exceed $238.5 million. 1:08:36 Bonds authorized by the ordinance are special obligations of the city payable solely from the city sewer system revenues. 1:08:42 The ordinance also authorizes the issuance of refunding bonds pursuant to applicable Thank you. 1:08:46 Thank you, Mayor. 1:08:47 The ordinance provides the city with the authority, pursuant to applicable Oregon statutes, to refinance any revenue bonds issued in accordance with the ordinance provisions to provide interim financing, and if conditions warrant, to refinance any of the city's outstanding sewer revenue bonds to obtain debt service savings or achieve a favorable reorganization of outstanding bonds. 1:09:03 Finally, the ordinance describes the actions that may be taken upon passage and the effective date of the ordinance by the authorized officer on behalf of the city and without further council action. 1:09:13 The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement. 1:09:19 No verbal or written testimony was submitted on this item prior to committee action on the 26th. 1:09:24 And that concludes the committee staff summary. 1:09:25 Thank you.
1:09:26 Thank you very much, Claire. 1:09:27 Vice President Clark, this came outta your committee. 1:09:29 Any comments?
1:09:30 Thank you, Council President. 1:09:32 I would just like to take this opportunity to remind people that we've got a city budget $6.7 billion backlog in maintenance in our sewer and stormwater system, and about $2.7 billion of that in the sewer system are facilities in poor or very poor condition. 1:09:58 Just want to put that out there. 1:10:00 So this is a relatively small amount when you look at what our backlog is.
1:10:06 This is a relatively small sale. 1:10:08 It's a normal process that we do this on a regular basis, and including refinancing old bonds. 1:10:16 So I just want to put that out there because, you know, I care about asset management, and this is just a drop in the stormwater sewer bucket.
1:10:25 Thank you, Vice President Clark. 1:10:27 Keelan, has anyone signed up for this item?
1:10:30 Okay, colleagues, we are in technical or clarifying questions, and we have staff here from, uh, our Public Works service area, um, and we're also here for council discussion. 1:10:40 So, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
1:10:43 Thank you, Council President. 1:10:44 I actually have some questions on the, uh, fiscal side, and I'm not sure if those should go to our CFO perhaps. 1:10:52 Um, I want to understand if this is a sale on a regular cadence, if we have other bonds that are expiring at the same time and get a picture of whether this is adding to our total debt, replacing other debt that is coming off the books, just kind of how this fits with our larger debt service picture, the amount of money we spend every year on debt service, and how this fits within our broader debt capacity picture. 1:11:26 How much room we have for bonding. 1:11:28 And I know we're, um, not at full capacity, but definitely have to be aware of the limitations to our bonding capacity. 1:11:37 Can you help me understand both of those sides?
1:11:40 Yeah, thank you, Councilor, for the question. 1:11:42 Um, uh, for the record, CFO Jonas Beery. 1:11:45 Also in the room is debt manager Matt Gierach, who can help me out if I, uh, if I need to phone a friend. 1:11:50 But So I'll attempt to answer all your questions. 1:11:55 Let me know if I miss any. 1:11:56 But yes, this is a regular kind of cadence of borrowing for the utility systems. 1:12:02 Typically, in the absence of sort of extremely large projects, as we experienced in the water system, those utility systems are on sort of a cadence of every couple of years doing a borrowing to meet the capital needs, capital expectations for that next couple of years. 1:12:17 And so this is consistent with that. 1:12:19 With that typical cadence. 1:12:22 We do, of course, pay bonds off every year. 1:12:30 We have annual payments that— so we have outstanding bonds. 1:12:33 And as those new bonds come on, sometimes they create a little spike, but over time, you know, we're paying off other series of bonds that are outstanding. 1:12:42 I'm looking at the presentation that's attached to the item, and you can see a little bit of that on page 10 of the presentation where you can see—.
1:12:49 The tailing off of that debt service, as that bar chart goes down, is the ongoing payments. 1:12:54 We will over time, of course, issue new bonds that'll start to fill some of that up, and the goal is to keep it somewhat level. 1:13:02 And then the last question on debt capacity, just a reminder that the sewer system and the water system are sort of closed systems from a borrowing perspective. 1:13:14 And so the borrowings that we incur related to the utilities are not completely isolated from sort of general fund credit, right? 1:13:23 The general fund, for example, Moody's credit assessment looks at all citywide debt. 1:13:29 And so it does have some impact into that calculus. 1:13:31 But generally from a security perspective, those are closed systems. 1:13:35 And so the capacity we have is based upon sort of the revenue that's generated. 1:13:41 And because we—.
1:13:42 Are paying things off as we're issuing new things, we essentially keep that manageable.
1:13:47 So this stays within that keep us even essentially place. 1:13:51 And can you remind me, I was trying to find it within the text of the ordinance itself and I'm just missing it right now. 1:14:01 What is the bond period for these bonds?
1:14:05 For the record, Matt Girocchi, debt manager, it's a 30-year term, which is Okay, thank you very much.
1:14:15 Thank you, Council President.
1:14:16 Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. 1:14:17 Councilor Ryan.
1:14:18 Yes, thank you, President Dunphy. 1:14:20 I think I know the answer to these questions, but I think they're good ones to daylight. 1:14:23 And you've given us a lot of caution lately for the right reason on a lot of our reserves being going below the floor of 15%, I recall the number correct. 1:14:33 But since water and sewer is restricted account, which I do think to earlier testimony, that is one reason our city looks odd in terms of our budget, 'cause some cities have separate utilities such as water and sewer and don't count them in their city budget. 1:14:47 But my point is, will this have an impact on our bond rating?
1:14:54 I can answer that.
1:14:54 Is there an equation that connects these restricted accounts to the bond rating you spoke to last week?
1:14:59 So there's no direct linkage to the bond rating. 1:15:03 The sewer system has its own bond ratings, and I believe I believe it was in the impact statement that we're still penciling out to be within the credit rating range that we are currently in with these bonds issued.
1:15:16 And sorry, Councilor, I might just also add, 'cause it's a good observation that there are, you know, reserve systems that are within those utility systems as well, right? 1:15:26 And so the same type of calculus we do, the 15% that we've talked about before relative to the general fund, there's sort of a similar calculus, the math, And benchmarks are a little bit different because they're different systems. 1:15:37 But within the utility systems, they also have expectations around reserves and fund balance that are important to keep an eye on as we issue these bonds as well.
1:15:46 And we're not borrowing to go below 15% anywhere within that system?
1:15:52 I don't recall. 1:15:54 It's a different calculus. 1:15:55 The 15% general fund limit is a different risk matrix than it is for the utilities. 1:16:02 And so I believe the utility system is actually a little bit higher expectations.
1:16:06 It's measured on a matter of days cash on hand. 1:16:09 So if you look at the daily operating expenses, you divide the reserves by that number, and that gives you a ratio. 1:16:17 And that's what the rating agencies look at, is like a financial ratio of days cash on hand. 1:16:22 So we're within the normal range for the high AA, middle AA credit rating of the sewer system.
1:16:30 Glad I hung in there the close. 1:16:32 Yeah, thank you. 1:16:32 That was very comforting. 1:16:34 Appreciate it.
1:16:35 Thank you, Councilor Ryan. 1:16:36 Councilor Avalos.
1:16:39 Yes, thank you. 1:16:41 Um, just first wanted to say, you know, reliable sewer and stormwater infrastructure, as we know, is really essential to our public infrastructure, and delaying maintenance only increases costs in the future. 1:16:51 So I am aware of that. 1:16:53 That's weighing on me. 1:16:54 I understand the need to invest in critical sewer At the same time, whenever we take on additional debt that will ultimately be paid through utility rates, I just want us to understand the affordability impacts on Portland households, especially considering the bond council recently passed for the water filtration plant. 1:17:15 So as we continue discussing utility rates across these multiple bureaus, I just want to make sure we're balancing infrastructure needs with the financial pressures that residents are facing. 1:17:22 Thank you. 1:17:22 Councilmember Herbold. 1:17:23 So I have a couple of questions, starting with how much of this borrowing is addressing deferred maintenance versus new infrastructure?
1:17:43 Thank you so much for the question. 1:17:44 For the record, I'm Ting Lu, Public Utilities Director. 1:17:48 I want to say that most of these are really addressing our aging infrastructure. 1:17:53 This borrowing, including Carolina Trunk Sewer, that's happening right away. 1:17:58 And then we also have a blower project in the treatment plant that is really addressing the aging treatment plant capacity there. 1:18:06 So most of them are really about the aging infrastructure. 1:18:09 We don't have any new investment like a big regulatory drivers like a water utility have. 1:18:15 Thank you.
1:18:18 Thank you for that answer. 1:18:20 Also, could you tell me, the ordinance mentions potential refinancing savings, so if those savings are realized, how will that benefit ratepayers?
1:18:32 I don't have the exact details of the rate impact on the sewer stormwater rates, but the total savings over— I can check my notes, but the total savings is around $16 million, interest savings total over the bond term of what the series of bonds that we're targeting. 1:18:54 So I think it's around a bit over $1 million per year of savings during that bond term.
1:19:02 So is there a plan to return those savings back, or is that just if we get savings, we just put it in some pot? 1:19:08 Pot and keep using it kind of thing? 1:19:10 Like, is there any opportunity that savings will result in lowering rates for ratepayers?
1:19:16 Yeah, Councilor, this is CFO Beery. 1:19:18 It's a great question. 1:19:20 So typically what happens is that, you know, as the bureau— and this would be true for the Water Bureau as well— as they formulate their rate forecast, that after a refunding occurs, and we know that in this example $1 million less of debt service is required to be paid, that flows into that forecast. 1:19:38 So if nothing else changed in the forecast and we only reduced our future payments by $1 million, then those rate requirements would be reduced by $1 million as well for the subsequent year rate increases.
1:19:55 And then lastly, what impact would you all believe there would be if Um, well, like, will this borrowing have on future sewer rate increases beyond those already anticipated? 1:20:07 Like, is— do you have a sense of what that impact, um, would look like?
1:20:12 We— I can take this on first. 1:20:14 It's a way already building to this, the borrowings as part of the future rate for the next 10 years. 1:20:20 So there is this and the incorporations into the projections, and then we also model this. 1:20:25 So we are also looking to the future rates So I want to say for the next few years we already projected, but we are committed to continue looking to how to reduce rates for the future.
1:20:38 Thank you. 1:20:39 And Director, you know, we had this conversation a few months ago that it's just been really— I've heard from my constituents it's just been really challenging for folks to get the savings, to navigate the systems. 1:20:51 I know that the bureau has been working on making those those things accessible. 1:20:55 I would like to see us put more emphasis too on increasing language access. 1:21:01 Many of my constituents who do not speak English as a first language have reached out for their concern of accessing resources at the city, and especially as costs are rising, and especially for immigrant communities who are being squeezed even further due to federal, you know, cutting off of resources to them. 1:21:19 Thank you. 1:21:20 I just think it's more important that we emphasize and put some more effort into our efforts to reach those communities. 1:21:29 So I just wanted to put that on the record that we really need to do more on that. 1:21:33 And, you know, I think we're obviously discussing as a council over the last couple of weeks just all of these different rates and how they're impacting taxpayers. 1:21:43 And it's very concerning. 1:21:44 I know that we're put in this bind, but I think also as as we're ending this budget, we're getting close to ending this budget process, I want to see, um, us as a council think immediately once the ink dries on this budget what it looks like to start piecing it apart and really, um, truly finding savings so that we can reduce costs to Portlanders. 1:22:04 So just wanted to put that on the record, but I appreciate this effort. 1:22:07 I understand the responsibility before us, um, to make these changes, and I just want to voice Thank you.
1:22:16 Thank you, Councilor Avalos. 1:22:17 Councilor Green.
1:22:19 Thank you, Mr. President. 1:22:20 Um, I'm going to be supportive of the bond issuance today, and I just thought I'd take a second to explain why I'm supportive of these and maybe not why I was like initially— actually, I don't think I voted yes on the, um, Bull Run $525 million series, but I just wanted to make it clear to my colleagues. 1:22:36 Um, if you look at page 10 of the presentation that's included as part of the item that we talked through in the committee. 1:22:45 Um, it's got the projected sewer system revenue bonds. 1:22:49 Maybe I'll just share my screen and make it easier. 1:22:52 Um, yeah, here we go. 1:23:00 Yeah, so that's, that just shows— so the blue bars are the, um, It's a little small. 1:23:06 Let me try to help that out. 1:23:08 The blue bars are the impact of the bonds under consideration, and the black bars are the existing bonds. 1:23:14 And so the big takeaway here is that this bond issuance will allow us to make the necessary investments that we need to in the Carolina Trunk System as well as the broader wastewater system. 1:23:27 And what you'll see is, yes, there's a slight uptick over the next few years, but generally speaking, we're retiring these bonds. 1:23:34 Over the next few decades with a projected sewer stormwater rate increase as a result of this at 4.3%, I think, annualized. 1:23:44 That is just slightly higher than the sort of generally accepted long-run rate of inflation. 1:23:52 But for infrastructure, that's, I would argue, pretty low as a cost pressure rate of return. 1:23:59 And so I think, Councilor Ryan, you've raised a couple times is like, my North Star is, are we raising our costs greater or less or even with the rate of inflation? 1:24:07 I think that's a good metric. 1:24:09 This is in line with the rate of inflation for infrastructure projects. 1:24:13 But generally speaking, this will help us build out the densification that we need in the city of Portland to support a growing population, which is the thing that will allow us to lower our combined water and sewer rates over time. 1:24:27 If we can build more densely, we can support the infrastructure of that density, that's the only way we're going to be able to lower the general cost of our infrastructure without directly subsidizing it from other sort of less restricted funds. 1:24:42 And so I felt an obligation to articulate that because I have been very splashy in opposing certain bonds on one part of the system and others here. 1:24:52 I just want to be fair and consistent there. 1:24:55 And so this is going to be a good issuance. 1:24:57 We're going to be able to take advantage of favorable interest terms relative to the existing series. 1:25:02 This will save ratepayers money. 1:25:04 I echo the broader concerns about, you know, making sure that we are always asking the question, how are we doing cost control? 1:25:11 I have a lot of confidence in Director Lew. 1:25:12 I have a lot of confidence in DCA Donopaul that they're taking that cost control frame very seriously. 1:25:18 And for that reason, I'm going to support these bonds here today. 1:25:21 Thank you. 1:25:21 Thank you.
1:25:22 Thank you, Councilor Green. 1:25:25 Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. 1:25:29 This item now moves to second reading. 1:25:31 Keelan, can we please call item number 12?
1:25:35 Document 2026-152, amend Portland permitting and development fee schedules to improve cost recovery to ensure an adequate level of service.
1:25:46 Joining us again is Claire Adamsick with Council Operations with a committee staff summary report. 1:25:52 Take it away, Claire.
1:25:53 Thank you, Council President and councilors. 1:25:55 Again, for the record, Claire Adamczyk, Council Policy Analyst and staff to the Housing Permitting Committee. 1:26:00 The ordinance before you, document number 2026-152, was heard in the Housing and Permitting Committee on May 5th, where it was referred to full council with recommendation to pass. 1:26:10 It amends the Portland Permitting and Development, or PP&D, fee schedules as shown in Exhibit A through Q. 1:26:16 The fee schedules reflect increases to fiscal year 2026-27 fees as follows: 9% to building mechanical, environmental review, urban forestry review, and water review fees; 5% to electrical, field issuance remodel, land use services, neighborhood inspections, plumbing, sign site development, and zoning enforcement fees; 26% to accessory short-term rental fees; 41% to noise variance fees; The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts, economic and real estate development impacts and analysis, and community impacts and community involvement. 1:26:53 No verbal or written testimony was submitted on this item prior to committee action on May 5th. 1:26:57 And that concludes the committee staff summary. 1:26:59 Thank you.
1:27:00 Thank you very much, Claire. 1:27:01 Councilor Avalos, this came out of your committee.
1:27:04 Yeah, thank you. 1:27:05 So the proposed fee adjustments are intended to support the bureau's cost recovery efforts. 1:27:09 Recovery model and ensure that PP&D can continue providing permitting, inspection, and development review services. 1:27:16 Fee increases— increases, sorry— vary by program area, with most fees increasing between 5% and 9%, while some specialized services such as accessory short-term rental permits, noise variances, and transportation reviews would see larger adjustments. 1:27:32 At committee, members had a robust discussion about how permit costs and processing times affect Portland's competitiveness as a place to build housing and invest in development. 1:27:40 We also discussed the bureau's fee waiver programs, staffing impacts in the proposed budget, restrictions on how fee revenues can be used, and the ongoing transition of the tree permitting program into PPMD. 1:27:51 Committee members asked questions about impacts on projects of different sizes, affordability for applicants, and how these changes fit within broader efforts to improve permitting performance and customer service. 1:28:02 After discussion, the committee voted unanimously to recommend this ordinance to the full council.
1:28:08 Thank you, Councilor Avalos. 1:28:09 Vice President Clark.
1:28:11 Thank you, Councilor President. 1:28:12 I just have a question about the accessory short-term rental fees. 1:28:16 I assume that's Airbnb, and I don't know who all the others are. 1:28:20 But I don't know if this is a question to staff or to who this goes to, but I know in the past I seem to recall that there were issues around compliance in Airbnb. 1:28:34 And I'm wondering if these fees are going to allow us to provide more oversight in this program. 1:28:43 Could you address that possibly? 1:28:46 Thank you.
1:28:47 Good morning, Council. 1:28:48 For the record, my name is Eric Kooch. 1:28:49 I'm the director of PP&D. 1:28:51 And I'm sorry, Councilor, can you repeat the question please?
1:28:54 Sure. 1:28:54 I was just asking about the, um, 26% to accessory short-term rental fees. 1:29:00 I assume that's Airbnb and other short-term rentals, and I was just I was wondering, because I just seem to recall in the past that there's been some controversy over our lack of oversight on those permits or those businesses. 1:29:15 And I just wondered if this fee increase is going to allow us to have more oversight on these programs, these short-term rentals.
1:29:25 So these fee increases are about maintaining our current level of service. 1:29:30 However, specifically with accessory short-term rentals, we are looking at improving that program to provide more oversight, and that's something that we are actively working on now.
1:29:40 So does that— that means that you would attribute some of this increase to providing that additional oversight?
1:29:45 Okay, that's really all I wanted to know. 1:29:47 Thank you.
1:29:48 Thank you, Vice President Clerk. 1:29:50 Um, hold— sorry, colleagues, before I get to full discussion, has anyone signed up to testify on this item?
1:29:56 No one's signed up.
1:29:57 Okay, great. 1:29:57 We are in full discussion then, colleagues. 1:29:59 Uh, Councilor Zimmerman.
1:30:04 Um, so it, it was noted that some demand has gone down, right? 1:30:12 And it's a fee-based structure, right? 1:30:15 That's how you make your revenue. 1:30:16 So with that, what things I guess from a supply and demand perspective, what— where have we reduced the level of service in order to meet the level of demand? 1:30:31 Because given that you are a fee-based service, the risk here is that you have a number you always have to meet in order to keep the bureau alive and operating. 1:30:41 Mm-hmm. 1:30:42 But without the, we're not going to do this anymore because it's not a thing that's, that's required or in demand by the public. 1:30:49 So how— where have you reduced staff or reduced programs? 1:30:53 So this is not about keeping a certain number of folks on the payroll, but it is about those who are necessary to do the work that we're keeping up with what it takes to just do that. 1:31:04 So I'm just wondering about where we've given.
1:31:07 Right. 1:31:08 So what's interesting about the market conditions right now is we're seeing less larger, high-value commercial projects. 1:31:15 But we're seeing relatively the same amount of permit volume. 1:31:18 And actually, we're seeing an increase in smaller residential projects like alterations, additions, remodels, things like that. 1:31:27 And what's really interesting is a lot of folks think that the time it takes to review those smaller projects is a lot less than the larger commercial projects. 1:31:38 And that's actually not always the case. 1:31:40 Those smaller residential projects, typically those are customers that don't have design professionals assisting them. 1:31:46 So it requires more staff time to assist those customers. 1:31:50 So where I'm going with this is that we're actually seeing roughly the same volume of work coming in. 1:31:55 So work's staying the same. 1:31:57 It's just our revenue, the revenue that's coming in is much less.
1:32:01 Because me as a guy who knows just about jack what it takes to put together a bathroom remodel, if I were to come into you, you're going to have to handhold me all the way through, basically is what you're saying. 1:32:12 Whereas if I hire XYZ construction company who's been in your office 1,000 times over the last 10 years. 1:32:19 They, they know a lot about a bathroom remodel. 1:32:22 And so—. 1:32:22 Exactly. 1:32:23 Basically, you can look at their thing and be like, this is professionally written, whereas Zimmerman's came in in crayon and glue sticks, right? 1:32:29 Is that kind of what we're getting at here?
1:32:30 Okay, so it takes longer. 1:32:32 So, and the cost for my permit is small, but the cost for a major development, a big thing, that's where a lot of permit fees come in. 1:32:42 I want to make sure we're understanding that we're— that's what we're getting at here.
1:32:47 Because this is a challenge, right? 1:32:49 These are, these are significant increases in some spots for—. 1:32:54 Correct. 1:32:55 Basic stuff. 1:32:56 And to do basic stuff at home, I mean, I think the larger question is about the permitting review and/or reform packages about what actually has to come through you guys versus Uh, others, but 26%, 41%, 34%. 1:33:12 I mean, these are, these are big numbers. 1:33:14 So, um, in terms of did or is Portland Permitting and Development looking at any reductions in the upcoming budget relative to this body of work, or is this a fully maintained staff moving forward?
1:33:34 Yeah, this will allow us to maintain our current service levels and the staffing that we have.
1:33:42 Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. 1:33:43 Councilor Ryan.
1:33:44 Yeah, thank you, President Duffy. 1:33:45 Good to see you, Eric. 1:33:46 Um, Councilor Clark, you answered one of my questions. 1:33:51 Thank you. 1:33:52 Um, could you please validate if the new fee structure is reflected in the mayor's proposed budget?
1:33:58 Okay. 1:34:02 I'm so glad I asked. 1:34:03 It's, I think it's something that we should consider sequencing-wise to make sure that's, maybe that was repeated soon and often at the committee level, I don't know. 1:34:13 But when you're not on the committee and then you need to ask that question, it's a little startling. 1:34:18 So we were basing it on assumptions that we haven't approved yet. 1:34:22 That's all.
1:34:25 I think we should relook at that sequencing next year and consider doing this dialogue earlier than we— than we're doing it. 1:34:31 Is there a reason why? 1:34:32 There must be some reason that I can't explain. 1:34:36 You want to explain?
1:34:37 For the record, Kyle O'Brien, the finance manager at Portland Permitting and Development. 1:34:42 Um, one of the big constraints that we have at PP&D is that we have state notification timelines, meaning that we have to notify the state of our So while I think it would have made a lot of sense for us to present our fee changes along with other bureaus at the proposed budget hearings 2 weeks ago, the timing of when decisions were made on fee changes didn't line up with that timeline. 1:35:11 So that's why we're here today on June 3rd rather than aligned with the budget hearings.
1:35:17 Kyle, that makes sense. 1:35:19 And you had a proposal though into the state. 1:35:22 So the proposal could be made in a very transparent way to all of us. 1:35:26 So in the mayor's budget that we just see that. 1:35:28 So 2 things can still be true.
1:35:31 All right, thanks. 1:35:34 Can you provide some specific examples of when a noise ordinance variance would be needed for a construction event? 1:35:41 Like, for example, what percentage of new builds need a permit?
1:35:45 That is an excellent question, to be honest with you, and I'd have to talk with my team and get back with you. 1:35:50 I'm not sure what kind of event would constitute a variance. 1:35:54 So typically in Houston, we would have variances whenever construction companies were doing work outside of normal hours. 1:36:04 However, again, let me just go and check with my team.
1:36:06 Tell everybody what normal hours are.
1:36:08 What are normal hours? 1:36:10 Normal hours, what are they?
1:36:12 Yeah, for construction in Portland.
1:36:13 Let me— I'll get back with you and I'll get back with you and provide an answer to that question.
1:36:20 Okay. 1:36:22 Is there an example of a high noise impact event? 1:36:27 Like temporary permits for like a concert or?
1:36:31 To be honest with you, I'd have to talk to my team and get back with you on that.
1:36:35 Clearly I went into a rabbit hole on I can tell you that some of those are the concerts at Providence Park and some of it is pile driving.
1:36:44 Good old pile driving. 1:36:45 Okay. 1:36:45 That is rather noisy. 1:36:47 It sounds like a little earthquake. 1:36:50 Also, I think because there's some very wild variations of these, I noticed that we're doing a bundle here for the vote. 1:36:59 Some of— and again, some of the increases are extreme. 1:37:01 What was the justification in the committee why this was all bundled together and not Perhaps the chair can answer that. 1:37:10 Chair Avalos?
1:37:17 Can you repeat the question? 1:37:18 Apologies.
1:37:19 Yeah, we're, um, those of us on the committee are experiencing quite a, you know, a few votes with some extreme rates. 1:37:25 And so I question why it was— why there was a decision made to bundle all of these and not separate them out.
1:37:36 I guess it didn't come up. 1:37:37 Um, the— I think partly because we were presented this as, you know, it all kind of fits in with the budget too. 1:37:45 And that was part of the discussion that we had, that these rates were assumed in the budget that the mayor built. 1:37:52 Um, and so I think that made it probably more complicated for us to feel like we could consider them individually. 1:37:58 And, you know, At least from my perspective, we got a presentation that I felt made sense why they were bundled. 1:38:05 So if any other committee members can speak to that, but that was my take, and that's how I interpreted what I heard in committee.
1:38:13 Okay, maybe someone else from the committee will— is in the queue and they'll address it as well. 1:38:17 In general, colleagues, I just have some concerns. 1:38:20 I remain concerned that our bureaus have still not fully committed to unifying the permitting functions. 1:38:25 Including both staffing, process, and cost recovery. 1:38:29 I want us to go simply beyond moving deck chairs and really complete the needed work from 2 years ago of integration. 1:38:36 Just passing the cost directly to the permitting customers without doing the hard internal work. 1:38:41 And I know it's hard. 1:38:43 I'm well aware of that. 1:38:44 I have a lot of knowledge about how difficult it is, but it is going rather slow, I think, to some who are watching. 1:38:51 And it's not fair, I think, to just take all that slow internal work and pass that on to the customer service. 1:38:58 That's not customer service. 1:38:59 So I just hope that we can remember this is about customer service and passing on such large increases just isn't a good optics test at this time. 1:39:09 That's all. 1:39:10 So I'll be contemplating this. 1:39:12 I may think about separating some of them, but as we get closer to the vote next week. 1:39:16 Thank you.
1:39:17 Thanks. 1:39:18 Thank you. 1:39:19 Thank you, Councilor Ryan. 1:39:20 Councilor Koyama Lane.
1:39:22 Thank you, Council President. 1:39:23 So in this ordinance, I understand that there's a 26% increase to accessory short-term rental fees. 1:39:30 And while I know that we need to amend our fee schedules, I also know that in March there was a report from the city ombudsman on, um, accessory short-term rentals. 1:39:40 And so I just wanted to share with my colleagues that my office is interested in addressing some of those concerns raised and possibly reevaluating, um, enforcement rules regarding short-term rentals. 1:39:51 So if any of you are interested in collaborating on this, let me know.
1:39:55 Thank you. 1:39:56 Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. 1:39:57 Councilor Kanal.
1:39:59 I am. 1:40:00 Uh, thank you, Council President. 1:40:02 Um, yeah, I, I had a, a couple questions here. 1:40:06 First, I want to say I agree with everything that Councilor Ryan said about timing, uh, with no notes there. 1:40:10 I, I really We do think that the idea of getting a proposal that is based on, in terms of the budget, a proposal that is based on increased revenue that we haven't even thought about, or at least 7 of us haven't even thought about yet, puts us in a position of not having sufficient information to fully evaluate it. 1:40:30 And also the idea that if we want to adjust anything, it's us effectively making a decision to lay off PP&D staff, which is not actually what would happen.
1:40:38 I think that's a fair point.
1:40:40 That's not an accurate read of what would be occurring in that scenario. 1:40:45 I had a question just kind of in terms of— because I imagine that this is something you have— the places where you choose to measure can dictate what the measurement will look like, especially in the context of slides 7 and 8 of the presentation you gave. 1:41:03 This is— you compare various costs in various cities.
1:41:07 Using a $275,000 new single-family residence. 1:41:11 So first off, is that the proposed—.
1:41:15 What is the $275K in that?
1:41:17 Yeah, so to compare fees between permitting bureaus, the easiest way to do it is use like an example project. 1:41:24 So for the example we used was just a standard new single-family residential build that had a valuation of $275,000. 1:41:32 And then we compared based on that scope.
1:41:36 So my question is, is in any of the cities listed, is that a real project that even exists anymore?
1:41:42 As far as that valuation amount?
1:41:45 Yeah, we probably need to look at raising that fee next time. 1:41:48 That's something that definitely came up.
1:41:51 Sorry, cost to build or value?
1:41:52 Yeah, that's what I'm— that's what the first question was. 1:41:55 So we're talking about cost, not cost to build. 1:41:57 Talking about valuation after the— of the project.
1:42:00 That's not like what the house is going to sell for afterwards. 1:42:02 It's the valuation of the project itself.
1:42:05 Okay, even then, probably— so probably don't need to double that one, but probably do need to increase it.
1:42:10 Uh, that's a fair assessment.
1:42:11 So just— and I, I also, I bring this up not to be pedantic, but to ask, like, that I imagine that there are different fee structures in other cities, and so potentially a different dollar amount for the valuation. 1:42:23 If it was significantly different from $275K, might lead to a different outcome in one of those other cities that might change how we compare. 1:42:32 So not really worth getting super down the rabbit hole on it. 1:42:36 I just wanted to flag that. 1:42:41 I also would ask that we start having this conversation broken up a little bit more, and that's really not a question so much for you as, uh, a decision for next year, um, because of not only the timing impacts but the idea of trying to spend, you know, an hour going through, uh, I think 18 exhibits, um, and in the context of how we're going to, um, make adjustments. 1:43:10 I will end there, but I, I may follow up via email with a couple other things that are maybe a little bit more— Great, thank you. 1:43:15 We got clear. 1:43:16 Thanks.
1:43:17 Council President, just if I can follow up on a couple of items, 'cause it's come up a couple times and I don't wanna let it just hang out there. 1:43:24 I do think that there's certainly value in having more dialogue and so happy to support that. 1:43:29 We'll be, as we complete this year's budget, we'll be looking to do some after-action conversations. 1:43:33 And so just encourage this to come back up. 1:43:36 Also want to acknowledge that that also takes work. 1:43:40 So separating, often these are packaged and just as the utility rates are packaged, That's because it's difficult to get multiple items sometimes through the process. 1:43:49 So I'm happy to entertain other ideas. 1:43:51 I just wanna acknowledge that fact that there's value to that and there's also some trade-offs and that it takes some additional time and effort here in this room, but certainly happy to support it. 1:44:03 And then the last kind of just for clarity, I absolutely appreciate upstreaming the conversation and the value in that. 1:44:11 There will always be a little bit of tension between when are rates proposed and what expenses do they support. 1:44:18 And those will never align perfectly, right? 1:44:21 I can envision a scenario where we upstream this conversation, approve rates earlier in the process, and then come back in the budget and say, we want to actually add some things. 1:44:32 And now we've limited our ability. 1:44:33 We haven't experienced that in the last couple years of budget austerity. 1:44:37 So I just wanna acknowledge that tension will always exist between the sort of timing. 1:44:41 And so that's just a consideration that we have to kind of think about as we develop sort of better ways of having these conversations going forward. 1:44:48 Thanks.
1:44:49 Thank you very much. 1:44:50 Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
1:44:52 Thank you, Council President. 1:44:54 I sit on the committee that this came out of and had some of the same questions that some of our colleagues have raised. 1:45:00 So I thought I just might provide a little bit of information about why I was comfortable moving this forward as a package, in case that's helpful to some of my colleagues. 1:45:09 I was concerned with the scale of some of the increases and asked a lot of questions about why the increases were at the levels they are. 1:45:18 The most— I want to call it egregious, but the, the largest increases, what I was told, are generally based on the need to get to cost recovery. 1:45:30 So those larger increases, um, I don't know which one in particular you're looking at, but the ones that I had asked about that were particularly large were generally based on needing to get to cost recovery and what was the actual cost of doing the reviews. 1:45:47 So that was part of the answer that I got that helped me feel a little bit more comfortable. 1:45:51 34% Increase. 1:45:54 Okay, I mean, I, I'm not going to speak to the reason for any specific one, but I had gone through many of the exhibits and had some specific examples that I was most concerned about. 1:46:06 Um, I also asked a lot of questions about the impact on the individual with a small project, and as we look at the need to keep up with costs, I was really appreciative that we're doing the percent increases so that the amount more that an individual is paying on a small project is far less than the amount more somebody will pay on a much larger project to try to limit the impact on those small projects. 1:46:44 That, as we heard to Councilor Zimmerman's question, are unfortunately right now a bulk— a large portion of the work that there is to do and don't bring in as much revenue. 1:46:55 But we also don't want to increase those drastically because we have individuals trying to do bathroom additions and remodels and things like that that we need to keep this affordable for. 1:47:04 The other thing that was helpful for me was looking at the average increase in is 5 to 9%. 1:47:12 And with the— where do we fall with comparable cities? 1:47:18 If you do a 9% increase, we are still right about equivalent with fees at the City of Gresham, far less than the City of Beaverton, slightly more than the City of Wilsonville. 1:47:31 So if you look at our neighboring communities—. 1:47:35 Thank you. 1:47:36 Those costs still keep us in line there, which was another piece that was important for me to hear in feeling comfortable moving these all forward as a package and not pulling out specific individual increases. 1:47:49 Like I said, I'll let the bureau speak to any specifics that you're concerned with, but as I asked about specifics, those were some of the things that we talked through in committee that moved me from wanting to pull items out or possibly even vote against the increases to being comfortable moving it forward as is.
1:48:07 Can I just ask a quick clarification? 1:48:10 So I think it was smart that— thank you that you're giving us information on local market comparisons since there's a lot more development going on in the surrounding counties than in Multnomah. 1:48:20 And so you're saying 9% was the mean?
1:48:22 So what we were told in the committee is that most fees. 1:48:29 And you're right, you pointed out a couple that are much higher, but that most fees were going up between 5 and 9%. 1:48:36 And so I did the math with our comparable cities, and at a 5% increase, we would still be less for that build that our director talked about than the city of Wilsonville. 1:48:48 At a 9% increase, we would be about equivalent with Gresham. 1:48:52 So we'll Wilsonville, Gresham, Beaverton, in terms of cost, all cost more than us now. 1:48:58 And that's where we would fall with those increases compared to our neighbors.
1:49:02 The apples and apples with Clark County is more challenging because it's a different state. 1:49:06 Was that also included in that study?
1:49:08 Vancouver was much higher than both of— the city of Vancouver. 1:49:12 I don't think other cities were on the list, but the city of Vancouver was much higher still than we would be. 1:49:20 Thank you, Council President.
1:49:22 Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. 1:49:23 Councilor Green.
1:49:25 Thank you. 1:49:25 I wanted to, as the vice chair of this committee, and I was in this discussion, I wanted to kind of weigh in as well. 1:49:30 Ditto, echo everything Councilor Pirtle-Guiney has just said. 1:49:33 I just wanted to quote specifically page 7 of the presentation that's attached to this item. 1:49:40 We did have a really robust conversation around comps, as you were just noted. 1:49:45 I remember flagging specifically the Vancouver, Washington comp is listed as the current building permit and plan review fees for the City of Vancouver on average for a $275,000 new single-family residence is $3,978. 1:50:02 And our current City of Portland cost for the same type of project is $3,211. 1:50:09 So it's about $700. 1:50:11 Yeah. 1:50:12 To the less expensive. 1:50:14 To Vancouver. 1:50:14 And that's a really important one because we hear a lot about development sort of fleeing to Vancouver and Clark County in particular. 1:50:24 We also had a pretty robust conversation around a shared recognition that we need a different fee model, one that sort of cross-subsidizes a little bit and decouples a little bit from the business cycle. 1:50:36 We understand that it provides reserves during years of flush times, but we've basically drawn down our permitting reserves. 1:50:44 And so it's really necessary to do this adjustment. 1:50:49 I think DC Oliveira has acknowledged that several times, that that's work that the Bureau will be taking up. 1:50:56 You've acknowledged this as well. 1:50:58 So we did have that discussion. 1:50:59 I want to also just reaffirm support for this idea of along with utility rates, establishing our rates and fees on a sort of almost maybe independent cycle as the annual budget process. 1:51:15 I've kind of talked about a biennial process. 1:51:18 CFO Buri has, you know, recognized that that does tie our hands a little bit if we need to make mid-year adjustments. 1:51:25 But I think if you want to provide certainty, cost certainty, And provide maybe some level of discipline to the budgeting process, that might be something that this body would contemplate. 1:51:37 But I think it needs to be done after we've already talked about what our revenue model looks like for permitting. 1:51:45 So for all those reasons, I was comfortable with this package as a whole, recognizing that you start to peel off different pieces of it and disentangle it, then you're going to shift costs. 1:51:55 Thank you. 1:51:56 To other parts of the permitting activity that then gets you into non-cost recovery territory. 1:52:03 And so those are trade-offs that we would need to make, and I would be very reluctant to do so at this time because that creates a ripple effect of consequences that we need to think through in a more holistic way. 1:52:20 Also, when we think about percentage increase, I'll just note that base effects matter. 1:52:26 And so looking at the dollars of the cost increase is probably more important than the percent, the relative percentile. 1:52:32 The largest fee increase in this schedule is the noise. 1:52:35 It's the— specifically, it's a construction noise event that lasts from 1 to 2 days. 1:52:40 That's a $144 increase. 1:52:43 That's going to be a very small cost assessment relative to the overall project that would produce that noise event. 1:52:50 So I just note that. 1:52:54 But the, but the materials we've been provided provide both the rate change and also the, the dollar change. 1:52:59 So that, that's a good thing. 1:53:00 So I would urge my colleagues to look at both of those pieces of information. 1:53:03 Um, I do think though my ideal state is we move away from specific cost recovery of individual permit activities. 1:53:11 Um, and I think just finally, maybe Director Kooch, you can give us a little bit of indication on what would trigger a transportation review for single-family residents. 1:53:21 Is that a large change of use of a lot? 1:53:23 That's not a small remodel on a bathroom, but sort of a pretty significant project on a single-family residence. 1:53:32 Is that correct?
1:53:34 So to my understanding, the transportation review would be triggered by, like, for example, if you're going to be building a neighborhood to do a traffic study to make sure the flow of traffic going to be, um, um, you know, per code. 1:53:47 Um, so that's, that's typically what would trigger the transportation review.
1:53:51 But this is not like— suppose I, suppose I wanted to add a, um, a bathroom in my basement.
1:53:59 Yeah, you would not need to do a transportation review for that.
1:54:01 So this is going to be a developer that's doing sort of a multi-dwelling, uh, project, maybe residential infill projects.
1:54:08 Typically a ground-up build.
1:54:10 Yeah, so $144 of an increase, well, is worse than a zero increase, um, is pretty de minimis relative to the overall project cost.
1:54:20 I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
1:54:21 It's $144 increase on that permit for a transportation review is pretty de minimis relative to the scale of the overall project cost. 1:54:29 Is that fair?
1:54:30 Yeah, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the overall project cost.
1:54:35 Thank you, Councilor Green. 1:54:36 Councilor Ryan.
1:54:38 Yeah, one more question on this topic. 1:54:41 When you look at the comparison of PP&D fees to other jurisdictions, does that include all the fees? 1:54:47 Like the system development charges are a part of this comparison?
1:54:51 I don't believe that we use SDC fees.
1:54:54 No, Councilor, that comparison that we provided is only the building permit and plan review fee. 1:54:59 And the reason for that is very It's that other jurisdictions commonly subsidize work, other parts of the work in the development review process with general fund or other revenue sources. 1:55:11 So if you want to compare the actual cost of a permit, looking at the cost that's actually fee-based is an apt comparison. 1:55:19 Whereas if you start to include things like land use work or planning work or zoning work, the other jurisdictions—. 1:55:25 Councilmember Herbold. 1:55:26 May be able to keep the fee lower, but only because they're subsidizing that with other revenue.
1:55:32 Okay. 1:55:33 Thank you, Kyle.
1:55:36 Thank you, Councilor Ryan. 1:55:38 Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance, and this now moves to second reading. 1:55:45 Councilor Ryan.
1:55:46 Yeah. 1:55:47 Thank you, Council President. 1:55:48 I just wanna apologize. 1:55:49 Earlier, I scolded basically the mayor of organizing this trip with Ground Ron on the 17th. 1:55:54 Of July, and I looked on my calendar and I looked on June 17th. 1:55:58 So I apologize for being in the wrong J month, which are both 4 letters, trying to make an excuse for my mistake. 1:56:04 But anyway, I just apologize, and hopefully I will though ask that if council's included in that visit on July 17th, we'll follow up on that. 1:56:12 Thanks.
1:56:13 Thank you, Councilor Ryan. 1:56:14 Colleagues, we have reached the end of our morning agenda. 1:56:16 We are going to recess until tomorrow at 2 o'clock. 1:56:19 A reminder to my colleagues, we have a 2 o'clock work session this afternoon. 1:56:22 Until then, we are in recess.
Windowbox