Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Jamie Dunphy
Good afternoon, everyone.
Before we gavel in today, we will receive and celebrate the annual Portland Sister Cities Coalition presentation.
I want to take a moment to welcome a very special group of guests who are with us here in Council Chambers today, and many of whom joined us just a short while ago downstairs at the 12th Annual Sister Cities Reception.
Colleagues, today we have the honor of receiving the Portland Sister Cities Association a celebration of the people-to-people diplomacy that defines Portland on the world stage.
These are relationships built on the voluntary forging of ties across borders to encourage cultural understanding, friendship, and exchange that come back to benefit our communities here at home.
I'd like to extend a warm welcome to the visiting delegation from our sister city in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Deputy Director General Chang An-chung and Deputy Director General Wu Wen-jeng from Kaohsiung's City Government, International Affairs, and Education Bureaus.
I'd also like to note that today is a particularly historic moment for our program.
On May 27th, this council held the first reading of the ordinance formally elevating Portland's relationship with Lviv, Ukraine from friendship city to sister city.
Today, that relationship becomes official, and in about 15 minutes following our vote, our vote, Portland and Lviv will become sister cities.
This is a profound and meaningful milestone, and I'm proud that this council is marking it together.
I'd like now to turn it over to Chido Dilawayo, our International Relations Manager in the Office of Government Relations, who will share some insights and highlights from our association's work this past year and introduce the leaders who are present with us today.
Chido, take it away.
Chido Dilawayo
Thank you.
For the record, my name is Chido Dilawayo, and I manage the International Relations Program in the Office of Government Relations.
It is a privilege to support Portland's Sister Cities Program and the extraordinary volunteer leaders who sustain it.
Thank you, Council President, and thank you to the full council for taking the time today to recognize this important work.
The goal of the International Relations Program is to strengthen Portland's engagements with the world through diplomacy, cultural exchange, economic relationship building, and people-to-people connections that benefit Portland residents.
Portland's Sister Cities Program is one of the oldest and most active in the nation.
At its core, it's, it's citizen diplomacy, the idea that lasting international understanding is built not only between governments but between students, artists, business leaders, families, and neighbors.
Importantly, all Sister City Association programming is funded through volunteers, donors, and grants rather than city resources, making the scope of the work especially remarkable.
I'd like to especially recognize James Autry, Chair of the Portland Sister Cities Coalition and president of the Portland Ashkelon Sister City Association.
Through his leadership, collaboration, and behind-the-scenes coordination, he has helped keep this network connected and ensured the success of shared initiatives, including today's Sister Cities reception and the coalition's participation in the Rose Festival Grand Floral Parade this Saturday.
Today, as Portland officially celebrates 10 sister cities spanning 4 continents, I would like to share a few highlights from the past year.
The Portland-Sapporo Sister City Association continues to steward Portland's oldest sister city relationship through student exchanges and cultural engagement, including an upcoming delegation visit from Sapporo.
The Portland-Suzhou Sister City Association remains committed to fostering people-to-people connections and exploring opportunities in education, culture, and business.
As the Portland-Ulsan Sister City Association approaches its 40th anniversary next year, it continues strengthening ties through educational, cultural, and trade relationships.
The Portland-Bologna Sister City Association hosted another successful Sagra fundraiser supporting youth exchanges and scholarship opportunities for Portland students.
And the Portland-Guadalajara Sister City Association recently hosted Oregon's largest multicultural Cinco de Mayo celebration and continued strengthening ties through delegation exchanges.
The Portland Kaohsiung Sister City Association continues to host the Portland Rose Festival Dragon Boat Races, one of Portland's most beloved cultural traditions, and we are honored to welcome a delegation, as Council President mentioned, from Kaohsiung visiting Portland this week.
And of course, today is especially historic as Portland formalizes the relationship between Lviv as our 10th sister city.
This relationship has been championed by the Portland-Lviv Sister City Association President Tatiana Tredal, whose leadership and dedication helped guide the association through every requirement necessary to achieve official status during an extraordinary difficult period in Ukraine's history.
With the council's action today, Portland and Lviv are now officially sister cities, a partnership rooted in solidarity, shared values, and enduring people-to-people connection.
We're honored to welcome the Portland-Lviv Sister City Association into the Sister Cities family.
At this time, I would like to ask the Sister City Association presidents to stand as I call their names so council and the public may recognize them.
James Autry, the Portland-Ashkelon Sister City Association.
Gabriella Tamay, Portland-Bologna Sister City Association.
Cindy Avila, Portland-Guadalajara Sister City Association.
Chi-Chao Chen, Portland-Gaoshan Sister City Association.
Thomas Banki with the Portland-Habarovsk Sister City Association.
Karen Hansen with the Portland-Mutare Sister City Association.
Mami Kikuchi with the Portland-Sapporo Sister City Association.
Vivian Rin with the Portland-Suzhou Sister City Association.
Catherine Morrow with the Portland-Ulsan Sister City Association.
And Tatiana Turdel I'd like to recognize the incredible volunteer leaders for their service and dedication to the City of Portland.
Thank you, and this completes the report.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you.
I want to thank each of our association leaders for everything that you are doing on behalf of our, our, our city and for the cities and people that you represent.
Uh, what you do, you know, organizing exchanges, hosting delegations, raising scholarship funds, welcoming students, building friendship across thousands of miles—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
It's the living embodiment of what the Sister Cities program is all about.
Jamie Dunphy
I also would like to just take a moment to give some special recognition to Chito here.
Chito has worked hard to ensure that our city stays meaningfully connected and engaged with our sister city relationships amidst no shortage of other important work.
So, Chito, thank you for all your work on this.
Robert Pyle
You bet.
Steve Novick
Today—.
Jamie Dunphy
So today is a day to celebrate.
With Lviv shortly becoming officially part of the Portland family, we will be 10 sister cities strong.
Thank you all so much for everything you're doing here.
Colleagues, uh, let's give another round of applause.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Um, before we gavel in, I wanted to turn it over to, uh, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Chido Dilawayo
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Colleagues, I wanted to welcome a group of 6th, 7th, and 8th graders who are here from Sunnyside Environmental School.
I actually taught some of these students when they were in 3rd grade.
They've been doing their learning, their classroom work today in City Hall.
They even got to have some time with the mayor earlier to present some of their policy ideas to myself and Mayor Wilson.
Very proud of them, and it's always great to see young Portlanders in this space.
I hope they're seeing a possible future where they're maybe working in city government or are maybe sitting on this this dais one day.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Carmelaine.
All right, thank you.
I am now calling to order this meeting of the Portland City Council.
Rebecca, can we please call the roll?
Rebecca Dobert
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Kurtelgini?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Novick?
Steve Novick
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Green?
Mitch Green
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Avalos?
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Here.
Rebecca Dobert
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Here.
And can we please read the rules of decorum?
Robert Taylor
Good afternoon.
Welcome to the Portland City Council.
To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.
Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.
Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless presiding officer states otherwise.
Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
The presiding officer preserves order.
Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed.
If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
Thank you.
Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
Additionally, Council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony today should address the matter being considered.
When testifying, state your name for the record.
Your address is not necessary.
If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much, colleagues.
As a reminder, this is a recessed meeting of our yesterday full city council meeting.
We've already had communications and approved our agenda, and we are on to item 13.
Could we please call item number 13?
Candace Avalos
Madam Council President, I am here.
Apologies for missing the roll call again.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Dan Ryan
Welcome.
Rebecca Dobert
Item 13, create a sister city relationship between the City of Portland and the City of Lviv, Ukraine, document number 2026-177.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, this is the second reading, uh, Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Thank you, Mayor Wilson.
Today we are here to discuss an ordinance formalizing the relationship between the City of Portland and the City of Lviv, Ukraine.
We all spoke to this historic moment last week.
However, joining us today is a special guest whom we are honored to welcome despite the significant time difference.
So I'd like to set him up with a little bit of fanfare.
Lviv has long been one of Ukraine's leading cultural educational centers, known for its historic architecture, vibrant art community, civic engagement, and strong tradition of local democracy.
In recent years, this city has also played a critical humanitarian role.
Welcome.
Welcoming internally displaced Ukrainians and helping coordinate relief and recovery efforts during an extraordinarily challenging time for the country.
This ordinance recognizes that even during periods of global uncertainty, cities continue to have both the opportunity and the responsibility to build bridges, strengthen relationships, and advance shared values through local diplomacy.
I just got note that our special guest has not logged on quite yet, but I will note, and when he gets here, we'll acknowledge him.
Our first— our guest is First Deputy Mayor of Lviv, Andriy Moskalenko.
He has helped lead the city through a period of profound challenge and resilience while advancing its vision for recovery, innovation, and international partnership.
His presence reflects the strong commitment of both our cities to build a meaningful and lasting relationship.
Still doesn't seem like he's logged on yet, but but when we are here, we will welcome Deputy Mayor Moskalenko to speak.
But until then, delaying for a few moments, seeing if any—.
Olivia Clark
Are they about 8 hours ahead of us?
Jamie Dunphy
I think they're more than that.
Loretta Smith
More than that?
Olivia Clark
10 Hours?
So it's late night over there.
Jamie Dunphy
Quite late, yes.
But this was an important opportunity that he was hoping for us.
Olivia Clark
That's terrific.
Well, we did have a chance to hear from the real mayor during the great.
Steve Novick
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, why don't we— why don't we move to, uh, councilor comments for now on this?
Uh, go ahead and jump in the queue, colleagues, and if our Deputy Mayor friend is able to join us, we will get him on screen.
But, uh, whoever wants to talk— Councilor Kanal can kick us off.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
I said most of what I wanted to say last week, so I will keep this relatively brief.
But thank you to Mayor Andres Sadovski as Sadavi, as well as, uh, First Deputy Mayor, when he gets here, uh, Moskalenko, as well as his full City Council.
The City Council of Lviv has 64 members, so if I really wanted to take up and stall, I would read them all, but I won't.
Um, but, uh, take that, those who think 12 is a lot.
Uh, but thank you to the whole government over there.
Um, second, thank you to Tatiana, the whole Sister City Association, as well as our performers from earlier today who I see up there, for sharing the culture of Lviv with us.
And finally, uh, thank you to Cheeto, Thank you.
Councilor DiLucaio, for your work.
We under-resource the international work at the city.
We ask staff to do a lot.
We only have one staffer who's solely focused on this type of work, and I wanted to appreciate the work that you've been able to do despite these challenges.
Sister cities are important.
They're statements of where we stand.
They're statements of who we stand with in terms of local government to local government, but also population to population.
I really appreciate how much we've gotten to learn not only about Ukraine, which is excellent throughout this process, That ability to learn it, but specifically about Lviv.
Obviously learning about America doesn't teach you necessarily a lot about Portland and its uniqueness.
So it's been really nice to be able to do that in reverse.
And I hope that we have a chance to visit and to see and maybe even take a couple Portland roses over there and bring some of theirs back with us.
But I intend to obviously vote yes on this.
And thank you for bringing this forward to the mayor and grateful to be able to co-sponsor this with Councilor Ryan as well.
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
Sure.
Thank you, Council President.
And we're still waiting, right?
All right.
I just want to first of all look out there where she— Tatiana, thank you for your perseverance.
I recall you coming to this body years ago, especially during the beginning of the conflict and the war.
And I just really appreciate your perseverance to see this through.
So thank you so much.
And your comments downstairs, I think, The were very insightful.
Thank you.
Performances downstairs earlier were very touching, as was the beautiful music.
There's the musicians.
There you are.
Your name, Darka?
Yeah.
And Miri?
Yeah.
Yay.
They look like they should be musicians, those of you that can't see them.
And they just really centered us with music.
There's something about music and food, no irony to what I'm seeing in front of me with some of the signs at the moment, That really do are a big part of international relations work.
I've had the pleasure of being on this council 5 and a half years, and I dove into one of the sister cities relationships, and that's in Kaohsiung.
And I've been able to see firsthand the professionalism of Chito that she provides for the city.
And I also really noticed how important it is that we continue to dive into these, especially when there's conflict.
Thank you.
When I was in Kaohsiung, unfortunately, the conflict in Ireland started and you could feel tension from international guests.
And but we were able to look at each other in the eye and talk and realize that the government's actions at some very top level are not what the people are like.
And so we always have to remember to really lean into those friendships.
And I'm delighted that this weekend we'll be having a lot of fun down at the waterfront.
Thank you.
When we have the Challenge Cup between the City Council, the mayor, and the Kaohsiung City Council.
And you know how that was created?
It was created after being up for like 2 days, it felt like, at the end of a dinner.
And I was trying to convince them to come to Portland as a body to be in the dragon boat race.
And so they agreed.
But here's how they agreed.
They said, well, we won't have time to practice.
And I said, well, last year we only practiced 3 times.
And then she said, okay, we're in.
So I have a feeling we're going to have some major competition on Saturday.
And I'm really happy that the mayor also is participating.
He kind of had to because we did a video, all of us in Kaohsiung that night to challenge the mayor.
So he really didn't have a choice.
Anyway, I'm giving you that story to say that those are the stories that build friendships, that build relationships.
Thank you.
That go beyond whatever the government is saying at the top.
And so Portland has to continue to build these relationships, and I'm so happy that we now have 10.
So I'll stop because I'm really sure that this Deputy Mayor is about ready to get on.
Jamie Dunphy
Well, unfortunately, it looks like technology, time zones, and transportation have failed us.
And unfortunately, our Deputy Mayor will not be able to join us today.
Um, deeply disappointed.
We will find some new ways to include them in this body.
Dan Ryan
As Councilor Clark said, there was a really delightful, um, video that we saw with the mayor of— um, Nieta Rose at the end, and everyone will remember that part the most.
We saw a rose from, um, um, Lev today.
So let's do this.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, uh, Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, just briefly, I wanted to add my voice to the chorus of folks who are giving Cheeto flowers for, um, Your steadfast work on advancing this relationship.
I'm really proud of the contribution that you deliver for our city and also our sister city.
Zachary Lindahl
So thank you.
Dan Ryan
Before I forget, can I just say I want to acknowledge Laura Porter, who's a new Rosarian, who's a part of this sister city.
And if it wasn't for her email to me about 6 weeks ago, I was trying to move this from July to the date today.
And I'm really grateful that we moved it to today because it's wonderful to do it on the Absolutely.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Thank you.
I feel especially moved by a lot of the testimony and emails that I've gotten about this.
There's someone from District 2 who wrote in and said how much this sister city is going to mean to the local Ukrainian community who've been displaced in this horrible war and said even if someone's not from Lviv, they know that Lviv has played a crucial role as a humanitarian hub.
And has helped many displaced people.
Now we can help them.
I also want to pile on and thank Chito for all the work she does with our international relations, strengthening relationships and engagement, that people-to-people connections.
And, um, and also as a councilor, she's supported me in getting to meet different electeds from Japan and work with our consul general from Japan who's in the area and taught me how to use both hands when you give business card culturally to people from Japan.
So thank you for all your work, Chito.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue— oh, Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
I just wanted to say that I've had the experience of visiting a sister city 10 years ago, visited Bologna, and I was going to Italy anyway, and I thought, well, it's a sister city, I guess I gotta go.
And it's one of my favorite cities, and you really did get red carpet treatment.
So I was actually just looking for flights to Lviv, but I should have realized that there's not commercial flights operating now.
But you can fly to Poland and take a land route over.
And I hope that some of us are able to do that in the next couple of years.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Okay.
Okay, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, to our colleagues participating virtually, please put cameras on and we will move to a roll call vote.
Rebecca Dobert
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Yes.
Rebecca Dobert
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
And the ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Congratulations.
Keelan McClymont
Welcome all.
Mitch Green
Welcome, welcome to the family.
Jamie Dunphy
Can we please call item number 14?
Rebecca Dobert
Item 14, add code to prohibit the sale or provision of certain force-fed poultry products.
Add Code Chapter 17.110.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
This is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
Colleagues, to discussion?
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Uh, thank you, colleagues.
You may see in the posted documents with this, I've posted an amendment, Zimmerman 1.
I appreciated the delay that you adopted last time, and, um, Um, you know, from a perspective of, uh, well, I'm going to read it in and then I can discuss it.
So, uh, applicability: this chapter does not apply to retail establishments or food service establishment that regularly, in the course of its normal operations as of June 1st, 2026, provided, sold, or offered for sale, or provided free of charge, or served in any other manner by any force-fed product or food product in which a force-fed product is an ingredient.
This section may be asserted as an affirmative defense to any enforcement under— and then it lists the Portland City Code.
In other words, this is a grandfather clause or a legacy exemption clause, uh, which I would move, and I would ask for a second so that we can then discuss.
Dan Ryan
Second.
Eric Engstrom
Second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Zimmerman moves Zimmerman 1, and Ryan seconds.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
Uh, I appreciate that.
I, I think that I think that in the world of compromise, that this offers us an option here that— you know, I was trying to think about what does it mean to be not of a political party but of a liberal mindset, right?
I consider myself a liberal mindset, and the liberal mindset is that there are many ways of life underneath the tent in which you consider your society.
Thank you.
And then there's the illiberal, which says only our way.
And I think that I don't give a damn about foie gras.
I don't.
I really don't.
But I do, without cursing, give a darn about the role in which government plays.
And while there may be— and I don't know the true number— there may be only 7, as reported by some media establishments, of restaurants in our community who sell this product, I think that this will pass easily because not enough people care— or not, not enough, that gives it a value statement.
It's just such a small thing in our community for such a small group, and that's okay, but it doesn't rise up to be a fervor.
But what we should care about is that to be a liberal society, to be a liberal community, we have to accept that some folks do a thing that we may not personally enjoy, that we may not personally abide by, that we may not personally find to be something that we want to participate in.
And that is the great goal of, I think, a liberal society.
A couple of years ago, Multnomah County banned hookah locations, right?
And they did that from a public health perspective because Multnomah County has a long, drawn-out history, which was good in terms of reducing tobacco use by young people.
Great, great mission.
But what they inadvertently did is they removed a significant cultural gathering place for a very small portion of our community.
They eliminated it like that.
And as a person who has been stationed in multiple countries where that was a cultural gathering space.
In fact, my going away by the locals in Bangladesh was to bring in— actually, like you bring in hookah providers, if you will.
That's part of a party.
I say that not because it's related to foie gras.
I say that because in Portland, in a community that I think strives to have many people under our sun and for them to do well, and that we won't always understand everybody.
I think that Multnomah County failed because they put their desire to protect children from tobacco, and somehow they used that lens to say people over 21 couldn't go into a place and make a choice for themselves.
And I think they got that backwards.
This feels very similar to me.
If we don't grandfather in the current providers of foie gras—.
Zachary Lindahl
I, I only know, I think, the one who came to testify.
Eric Zimmerman
I really don't know where— I think there's 2.
This product is sold.
But I find it more responsible if the goal is to reduce the product in the future, that this would allow that to happen.
And if any of these establishments cease to exist, then the grandfather clause goes away.
And so I would ask for reasonable consideration of this amendment.
I recognize it may not be palatable to everybody, but again, it may not be palatable to everybody, but that is the liberal mindset in a liberal society.
So I would really appreciate at least some basic consideration of this, uh, as we offer it up.
Thank you, colleagues.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Colleagues to the amendment?
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
I want to talk to under— to the underlying, so I'll stand in queue for that.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you.
Councilor Green, to the amendment?
Mitch Green
Yes, to the amendment.
Um, thank you for articulating your position, Councilor Zimmerman.
I always enjoy when you do.
Um, I I want to challenge a couple things there in the sake of, you know, the discourse here.
I think what you're describing is more of a classic liberal society or a libertarian society, which is sort of a laissez-faire approach to things.
And, you know, I would embrace much more of a modern liberal society that says it's okay to regulate certain things in the public good.
Mm-hmm.
For instance, we used to allow the sale of shark fin as a delicacy in the United States, and we banned that practice.
And I don't think that that is a generally controversial thing.
I also earlier in the year, maybe it was last year now, sought to bring forward an ordinance to make it much easier to run sidewalk vending carts by removing some of the proximity requirements near adjacent businesses.
While you haven't had a chance to weigh in on that, I had some colleagues say that, you know, we actually want to regulate that and prevent that sort of competition.
So I think there's appetite on this body to pick and choose what it is we regulate and how to do it.
And I think that's okay.
I wouldn't want someone in my neighborhood to fire up a coal-fired power plant because they have the ultimate freedom to do so under that sort of frame.
And because of that, we've got land use, we've got zoning considerations to restrict that.
I think that's a good point.
So I think of this in the same vein.
I'll note that my opposition is not on the sort of rhetorical basis of what a liberal or libertarian or authoritarian society is, but rather what it does functionally to the ordinance that underlies it.
I think that this largely guts it.
It allows the under— it allows the ongoing sale of marijuana to happen.
Councilor and consumption of foie gras in the City of Portland and largely changes nothing about the current conditions.
And what the ordinance is trying to do is say we want to cease this practice in the City of Portland.
And I've already compromised by voting in favor of an amendment that delays the implementation day quite far into the future.
So while I appreciate the intent, I thank you for laying out your argumentation.
I'm not going to support the amendment today for that reason.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Clark, Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman, for offering this up, this compromise.
I think it's very interesting, and I really appreciate the story about the hookah lounges and the mistake that Multnomah County made.
But I, I really believe in choice, and in choice to control my body, control what I eat, and I'd like to know from maybe Councilor Green, what shade of liberalism is it that dictates how I can control my body?
Mitch Green
I would say that you're trying to draw a false equivalency to bodily autonomy in a very inappropriate way, Councilor.
I think that we have got a tradition in the United States of saying we think that certain activities have an unacceptable harm to the broader society or the broader economy or the broader environmental that go beyond individual choice.
And so I am comfortable with a certain level of regulation in society.
That's something that I'm saying is okay.
And I just, I don't accept this comparison to sort of abortion rights, for instance, is kind of, I think, what you're doing here.
Steve Novick
Thanks.
Olivia Clark
Can I ask another question?
Not necessarily about choice or liberalism, but I understand that the underlying ordinance here was also on the books in Chicago and that it was repealed.
Do you have any idea why it was repealed in Chicago?
Mitch Green
I do not have any idea why it was repealed in Chicago.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Yeah, first of all, I wanted to say I I appreciate the impulse behind Councilor Zimmerman's amendment.
I don't want to see a dramatic negative impact in a couple of restaurants in Portland.
I actually made a reservation to go to Le Pigeon to eat the vegetarian menu a couple of weeks from now, but I've been warned that, well, if I do that, they might spit at my food.
So I might have to think about that.
Imagine if you go to Le Pigeon.
But I mean, I think that If there was seen to be some prospect of a dramatic new expansion of foie gras restaurants, then actually this amendment would appeal to me more.
But since I don't think there is such an expand— such a proposed expansion, it seemed, it seemed a little disingenuous to say it could keep on going in the places that it currently is, which is always going to happen anyway.
Um, this— I also wanted to respond to Councilor Clark's comment about being able to control what you put in your body.
And to say that I've heard people say government shouldn't control what people eat, and I just have a hard time believing that people— most people, or that a large number of people would actually want to take that to its logical conclusion.
It's only been illegal on a federal level to kill and eat dogs since 2018.
It was part of the 2018 Farm Bill passed by Republican Congress and signed by Donald Trump.
And I somehow don't think that if Maxine Dexter came forward with a proposal to repeal that and allow the killing and eating of dogs, people would applaud her and say that, you know, thank God that Maxine Dexter is standing up for our right to eat dogs.
So I think that I think that each of these decisions has to stand on its own merits.
I don't think that there are sweeping generalizations.
And this is a tough one for me, but ultimately I find myself in the same position as the city councilors in New York City in 2019 who voted 42 to 6 for this ban.
And I think that It probably wasn't like the thing that they started the year thinking they were going to vote on, but presented with the question, do you think it's okay to force-feed an animal to produce an expensive delicacy for a few people?
They voted 42 to 6 that no, they don't think it's okay.
In Pittsburgh in 1923— and Pittsburgh, by the way, I don't think is known as like a wacky liberal community— the city council vote was 7 to 2.
So I do think that this is a tough vote.
Thank you.
But I reject the idea that there's sort of a general rule that anybody can eat anything they want, because I just— I don't think that most of us would ultimately agree with that.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, thank you.
I hope for the media that's watching this, they see how seriously this is being debated to the point where we are engaging in long philosophical diatribes about liberalism and what that actually means and bodily autonomy over a foie gras ban to just stop monkeys from getting tortured.
And I'm sorry, but as someone with a uterus that is actually living through a time where our bodily autonomy is being stripped away from us, the idea that our feminism or our discussion about bodily autonomy means that we have a right to cause unnecessary pain to living creatures for our own gratification is an absurd comparison.
Councilmember Smith, I'm sorry, but I think you're making an absurd comparison.
Um, foie gras is actually just a gross practice that does not need to exist.
We will all be okay without this additional delicacy.
There are many delicious and wonderful things to eat in the world that do not include having to force-feed an animal.
Um, and I, I'm sorry, but I just cannot believe that we are— while women are actually dying across the country because their abortion rights are being stripped away, and Black women are dying in hospitals at disproportionate rates because they are not getting the care that they need, that we are seriously entertaining that argument yet again at this dais over a foie gras ban.
So, um, personally, to the media, I would have liked to spend a lot less time on this.
This is a very simple vote to me.
Uh, this should have moved through simply or died if people wanted to vote no.
Councilmember Smith, I'm sorry, I have to interrupt you.
But hopefully we can get this done today and move on.
And I am going to be proudly voting yes.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
I, I too regret that we've spent so much time on this.
In fact, I think I brought that up when this issue first surfaced in the Arts and Culture Committee.
It's why are we spending so much time when we have other more important issues to be dealing with?
But here we are.
We're still at it.
And I would just say, bottom line, colleagues, I think this is a real slap in the face at the handful of restaurants, the very small handful of restaurants in Portland that serve foie gras and that have helped us through very difficult times, that have helped put us on the map as a culinary destination.
I think it's very unfortunate, and that's why I'm supporting Councilor Zimmerman's amendment.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Mr. President.
Um, I just wanted to say for the record I support, uh, Councilor Zimmerman's amendment.
And I, I sat on the Arts, um, Committee, and this, this actual amendment failed.
It did not pass our committee, so it had to go through a roundabout to get here today.
And I'm from a district in District 1 And we don't even have no foie gras restaurants.
I don't even know what it is really.
But the idea that, um, that we are now getting into, to things that I don't think that we regulate here at the city, and there is expected to be, uh, a ballot measure where people will be able to, um, say what they want, if they want these kinds of things, um, regulated or banned.
So that's coming up in November.
Um, I'd like to see what the public has to say, and I think we should actually table this until after that vote is taken.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I want to start by saying that I do see this amendment being brought by my colleague as genuinely looking to try to support some of these small businesses who are worried about the impact on their business.
So I acknowledge that.
I was glad and happy to support the amendment last week that extended a longer runway and lengthened the timeline for this.
And also, I'm worried that grandfathering creates some messy implementation, some questions regarding, you know, which businesses qualify, what happens if ownership changes, can exempted restaurants expand sales or if exemptions can transfer to new entities.
So for that reason, I— for all of those, I think that a universal, more universal standard is cleaner and simpler and is going to be easier for us to enforce.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Council President.
I just want to acknowledge, thank you so much, Councilor Zimmerman, for putting this on the docket.
This amendment is really thoughtful.
It doesn't look like it has the support, but I think what you did is you listened to the testimony and you came up with the solution for those who were brave enough to come into the council room and speak on the importance of this for their business.
At a time where our economy is suffering like I've never seen it before, and when we have a few restaurants that really pleaded with us to please prevent this ban.
And I've heard from numerous restaurants that don't serve foie gras that also wanted us to not pass this ban.
I just really think it's very thoughtful that we have an amendment today that would have allowed those loyal businesses that are some of, as Councilor Clark said, some of the most, the strongest part of our local economy is our is our gourmet restaurants and cuisine.
Anytime anyone visits, that's one of the first things they go to.
So I just really, again, thank you for this thoughtful amendment.
I'm really proud to vote aye on it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
First, let me say I think I take the amendment in good faith.
I wish I'd known there was one coming.
I would've loved to be aware of that.
But I think I really appreciated the comments about the hookah ban.
Personally, I had not known a lot of the history about that.
I left town for a few years, came back, and it occurred in between.
And some of my memories as a young person coming into town before I was— before I left was going to some of the hookah lounges.
And so I appreciate that.
And obviously the cultural context the context is not lost on me, given my background.
I think what I'm struggling with is the applicability to something that's not— we're not hearing a cultural protections argument on foie gras at this moment.
And if there is one that we're going to entertain, then let's have that conversation.
But I do appreciate that comment.
I think there are conversations there that may be worth having in a different context with the county.
I guess had we been having a conversation around a two-tiered system, because that's essentially what this would be creating, is saying any new restaurant that wishes to serve foie gras or any existing restaurant that doesn't currently serve it that wishes to start serving it would exist in one plane of one legal category.
It would be unable to do so.
And then anyone who has already been serving it as of June 1st would be able to continue using it.
And I think that there are always gonna be 2-tier questions like what Councilor Koyama Lane said.
But if the idea was there's 2 tiers and it takes effect at a different time, that'd be one thing.
But if it just never takes effect, that's something that I've got concerns about because it essentially would mean that there is no practical change from adopting this ordinance.
That's where I'm at at the moment.
But I am trying to engage with this because I appreciate the attempt to get to a place where it might get someone to a yes.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
I just, I'm not seeing those 2 things.
And so at this moment, I'm a no as a result of that.
Keelan McClymont
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Knell.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
So to the not knowing it was coming, the point being is that quite literally today, racking my brain last night and trying to find a way in language.
So in our engagement with the City Attorney's Office, we used some language that and we considered some of the points as it— as we think about our smoking bans, right?
We all know that smoking is not legal in restaurants anymore or clubs the way it was maybe when some folks on this dais were younger.
Um, but there are still places in which you can apparently light up a cigar in our community inside, indoors.
They were grandfathered in.
And so that was kind of where the model kind of came from.
Um, and but that that, that just— it was, uh, some trying to think through like what would implementation look like and applicability.
So I appreciate that.
I want to offer just one last piece.
I do think there's a cultural aspect.
I just don't think it's a cultural aspect that's highly represented in Portland and is speaking out.
And I don't know that that's even my main concern.
I've just used it as an example of sometimes we have unintended consequences.
But I would say this, if this were to pass, I would support us moving this to an emergency, and I would be one of the 9.
And I, and I think that there is a path there that should be— I hope is considered, um, not friendly in the way we say friendly amendments, but I, I think that is a very workable piece.
And to the questions that Councilor Koyama Lane raises, I think those are also quite pertinent.
I don't know that they need to be in an ordinance to answer those applicability about sale or ownership changes, etc.
But I think that we take a look at what is the practice in other places where grandfathering has occurred, and does that go with the license of the business, or does it go with the ownership on the, on the, you know, at the Secretary of State's?
I don't know that answer yet.
I don't think it has to be in ordinance to decide that, but I think those are really valid, valid points.
But if this were to pass, I would support an emergency, and I'd be the 9th vote to, to help it get through as your current timeline is.
Thank you for the consideration.
Zachary Lindahl
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Um, I've been interested in the debate between my colleagues today, and, you know, I've actually spent a lot of time meeting with people about this issue broadly.
I came in very much undecided, and I think that may be not unique but somewhat rare on this issue across this and I've been really impressed by the commitment to making progress on animal welfare concerns, the commitment to talking about what a clear enforceable policy would look like, the commitment to balancing free choice and different choices, and an openness to having a community with different choices with our collective moral conscious.
And so I actually find this amendment very interesting because we know that there are a number of restaurants in our community that periodically serve foie gras on their menu.
We've heard about seasonal choices and things like that.
We also have heard that we have at least one restaurant in our community where foie gras has become kind of the, the center of what a lot of people go there for.
And I think this allows us to differentiate between those 2 things.
I think it will eventually phase out foie gras in our city over time because most restaurants don't exist forever.
And it ensures that we don't continue down the path of an action that a number of folks in our community have raised animal welfare concerns about while also having that conversation about that balance there.
So I, I'm very interested in this, and if the concern that my colleagues have is the policy direction in general, then perhaps there is not a path.
But I wanted to I put myself in the queue just to clarify for folks at home.
I certainly would be interested in being one of 9 to make sure that we don't delay in decision-making if this were adopted.
Thank you, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
I put myself in the queue just to clarify for folks at home, tobacco is bad.
As the former lobbyist for the American Cancer Society, 1 hour of hookah is the equivalent of over 100 cigarettes.
And tobacco is a North American plant that was brought to the Middle East as a part of colonialism.
Seeing no one else in the queue for the comment— it's absolutely true.
Could we please move to a vote on Zimmerman 1?
Rebecca Dobert
This is Zimmerman 1, moved by Councilor Zimmerman, seconded by Councilor Ryan.
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
No.
Councilor Loretta Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Uh, Kanelle?
Eric Engstrom
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Novick?
Steve Novick
Nay.
Rebecca Dobert
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Green?
Mitch Green
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
No.
Rebecca Dobert
And the amendment fails with 5 aye, 7 nay votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, to the underlying.
Rebecca Dobert
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
All right, thank you.
Um, yeah, colleagues, I won't bury the lead.
I support this ordinance.
And to be honest, I think that one of the reasons this conversation has become so strange to me is that we've spent weeks debating something that, yeah, in the grand scheme of Portland challenges is actually pretty small.
We do have major conversations ahead of us about housing and homelessness and public safety and transportation and affordability.
This isn't one of those conversations, and that's also okay.
Not every policy that comes before council needs to be a grand referendum on the future of the city.
Sometimes community members come to us and they say, we've identified a problem, we think there's a reasonable solution, and we'd like you to act.
And sometimes the answer is simply, that seems reasonable.
And that is part of governing too.
We pass major policies, we pass technical policies, we pass niche policies, we pass policies that matter deeply to communities that may be small in number but care enough to organize, testify, and participate in democracy.
That is what happened here.
Do I think foie gras is the most important issue facing District 1?
Absolutely not.
My constituents are talking to me about rent and groceries and child care and transportation and basic affordability.
But I also don't think that every item that comes before council to be measured against the single biggest crisis facing the city, because if that were the standard, then we would never do anything except talk about one issue all day, every day.
The reality is that local government does a lot of things at once, and I think we sometimes contribute to public frustration when we turn relatively straightforward decisions into political theater.
Portlanders want us to focus on the big issues, I agree, but they also want us to be capable of making routine decisions, responding to community concerns, So for me, this falls into that category.
So while animal welfare is not necessarily my primary policy passion, I respect the advocates who brought this forward.
I understand the values argument that they're making, and I think that this is a reasonable policy, and so I plan on supporting it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Uh, thank you, Council President.
Before we get too much further into the discussion, I just want to clarify that I'm not opposed to the ordinance.
I just want to clarify up front because I think the county has handled some phone calls around this and a bit of a panic of like, oh my God, are we on the hook for enforcement?
I just want to make it crystal clear that at no— at this point, there has not been a conversation with the county about county handling the implementation.
So if this were to pass, the City of Portland may entertain an IGA or a conversation with the county on how to actually handle the enforcement side of this.
But that hasn't happened yet.
Okay.
This is very much a sort of, um, um, kind of a sort of complaint-driven system and a presumption system.
So there's not, there's not an enforcement arm that's like center, like forefronted in here, and it's certainly not the county.
So if there's folks from the county watching this, rest assured that we're not committing you to anything at this point.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
Following up a bit on what Councilor Avalos was saying, We have all heard from a number of people saying, I can't believe that this is the City Council's priority.
And this was not one of my high priorities.
I didn't propose bringing this to this body.
My priorities are reducing gun violence and making sure that the students at McDaniel High School don't have to walk through a gauntlet of sex trafficking and making sure that we're doing our part to address climate change and using the resources that we have in the Portland Clean Energy Fund to do that in the most effective and cost-effective way.
Effective way possible.
But when we have a vote in this body, we don't get to vote high priority or low priority.
We vote yes or no.
And again, I'm following the lead of the overwhelming majority of city councilors in New York City, the epicenter of fine dining in America, and Pittsburgh, not known as a wacky liberal city, in saying that I just cannot say that I feel like it's okay to force-feed an animal to produce an expensive delicacy.
And I know that reasonable people can disagree.
It's an emotional issue.
So by definition, reasonable people can disagree.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Councilor President.
Back to the unintended consequences.
I just maybe have a question for the carrier of this proposed ordinance about what you think the estimated cost in time and money will be for the city administration to prosecute a violation, or whether it's the city or the county.
Do you have any sense for that?
Can you clue us into what it might cost as an unintended consequence?
Mitch Green
We do have Director Engstrom in the office or in the chambers who might be able to answer that, because our office has worked with them on the cost side of this and the implementation piece.
So I'd be curious to see if that's something he wants to entertain.
Not to put you on the spot, Director, but you're on the spot.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Welcome, Director Engstrom.
Eric Engstrom
Thank you.
For the record, Eric Engstrom.
I'm the director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.
Um, the councilor has spoken with our office about what this might look like if the city were administering it.
We've talked about what the logical places would be for administration to occur.
There's been some discussion that the county may play a role, but no commitments, and that would be a discussion that we would have in the future if it passes.
Um, BPS has been considered for that role in part because we have folks through our sustainability program as well as our waste program who are regularly engaging with restaurants, and in our case through composting technical assistance.
But, but we're there.
The county is obviously there from a health department perspective.
Um, and we've also taken on enforcement of a number of other things recently, such as the leaf blower ban.
Yes.
Things like that.
As you've pointed out, this is not a situation where there's a large number of players out there in the world.
There's a relatively small number of entities that serve this.
So we're not seeing it as a major endeavor.
There would likely be some ramp-up cost in year 1 to potentially develop some administrative rules, do an education campaign for people to understand that the rules exist.
That could involve a person in our office having to work on this part-time for the first 6 months of its implementation.
Ongoing, again, because there's not too many restaurants, we don't anticipate there'd be, you know, very many complaints on this.
That would not likely be consequential to a budgeting perspective.
Thank you.
That said, you know, having this role, minor role, in a number of different things does add up.
So ideally you would consider the, the financial consequences when you add a program like that to a bureau.
Um, it's, it's definitely not, um, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and it's, it's probably not $100 a year either, but, um, there is a small cost and it would thank you.
Olivia Clark
Just one other question along the same lines.
I understand that farmers have actually challenged these ordinances in other states, in New York, in California, where they actually overturned it for a period of time, and in Chicago.
So I'm wondering what the unintended consequence might be or the estimated cost of a legal defense.
Well, I think that's a very good question.
Mitch Green
Councilor, I don't know that I can give you that number.
I mean, I suppose that's a risk that we always take before this body when we make policy that might invite someone who doesn't like our policy to try to sue us and challenge us.
We take those risks all the time.
And we do have a legal risk fund to hedge against that sort of a thing.
And so I don't think that there's a direct cost estimate that one can make.
Eric Engstrom
I'll just note that we have a legal risk fund.
Thank you.
Mitch Green
I personally am comfortable taking that risk, and I don't know if there's much more I can offer you than that.
Olivia Clark
I appreciate that.
And maybe that's a fund we should have looked at raiding.
I didn't think about that fund.
Mitch Green
I think some other councilors have in prior discussions.
Adrienne Delgado
Yes.
Olivia Clark
It does concern me, and I'm really curious to know what happened in Chicago.
Mitch Green
Maybe that's irrelevant to the vote today, but Chicago did and, you know, if you want to take the legal conversation further, we do have Rob from the City Attorney's Office who's advised on this issue online available to answer that question.
So you can ask the question to Rob about the legal risk.
He'd be happy to answer your questions, I think.
Robert Taylor
I'm looking at what happened in Chicago, and you're correct, it was passed.
And then another city council repealed it.
So it wasn't due to a legal challenge.
As far as what happened in New York City, initially the ban was struck down.
New York has an Agricultural and Markets Act law that regulates agricultural practices throughout the state.
So initially that ban was struck down.
It was on appeal and actually In, uh, I believe it was at the end of March of this year that was reversed.
So it is now banned in New York.
It hasn't been implemented, but that, that, um, lower court decision was reversed.
Uh, when I started working on this in the fall, that wasn't the case.
I mean, this, this just changed a couple months ago.
Uh, so that's what happened with New York and Chicago.
I forget if you asked another jurisdiction.
Um, but I will say I've spent time looking at California, the definitions.
The, the act is modeled after California's ban, which had 12 years of litigation that went up to the 9th Circuit.
Initially, this ordinance had some what I viewed to be some legal defects.
So I recommended we go with what was in the 9th Circuit since we are in the 9th Circuit.
So I think it should be legally defensible.
Thank you.
As far as the amendment that failed today, that was a, I thought, a reasonable limitation because we had, uh, I had some concerns on it's a 180-day implementation or effective date period.
So there was a concern that folks might try to race to get foie gras on the menu.
I think what was drafted addressed that by having it dated June 1st.
Thank you.
So that could have remedied that, but that did not pass.
If you've got more questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you, Rob.
Olivia Clark
I really appreciate that information that in Chicago it was actually another council that overturned it.
I didn't realize it had been in the courts for 11 years in California.
I wouldn't be shocked if that happened here, another attempt.
But thank you so much.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
It was a legacy.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Thank you, Council President.
From a personal values perspective, some of my colleagues may feel very strongly about this issue, and I understand that.
Yet my filter is to focus on making decisions about our infrastructure, our public spaces, services we deliver, and I know the majority of Portlanders want us to improve on our primary purpose.
It's really hard for me to understand why we're legislating on a handful of local restaurants' menu choices.
It's no surprise to anyone who's been tracking this.
I see all of the lobbyists who are here, the community's here, the grassroots support.
We saw you last year in the Arts and Economy Committee, and we did vote this legislation down, as you know, by a 3-2 vote.
And so I will remain consistent with my vote against this legislation.
This ban will further tarnish our economic development reputation at a time we can least afford it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Uh, thank you, Mr. President.
Just following up on what Rob just said, um, there is Ninth Circuit precedent upholding the California ban, and we are in the Ninth Circuit.
So I think that for somebody to challenge this would be a fool's errand.
And as an aside, I'd also mention that Kamala Harris was quite proud of her defense of California's foie gras ban as Attorney General.
And Kamala Harris is about as mainstream— no offense— about as mainstream a figure as you can get.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Koyama Lane.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
I also wanted to highlight that at least 27 countries have limited the production, sale, or import of foie gras, and King Charles has banned it from all royal residences.
Portland has a really vibrant food scene and is one of the coolest places to eat.
I really do believe in our ability to continue having incredible food scene without foie gras.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Um, I find a couple of the arguments here really good faith and a couple that are really challenging to associate with.
We, we cannot legislate from a position of fear that one person might file a lawsuit.
We've had this debate on at least 10 things over the last year and a half where there's the idea of empowering a singular person who might have enough money to hire a lawyer to stop any legislation before we even adopt it.
It becomes a valid concept that can be used to not pass in the first place, and I find that to be absurd, whether it's on this or on any other ordinance.
Um, so that, that argument does not have weight because we cannot— not only is it one person should not be able to prevent us from having a legitimate policy conversation, but also that is not actually a fairly distributed set of power because not everybody has the money to hire a lawyer to sue the city.
And I imagine that most of the people— the other argument I want to point out is that most of the people out here I imagine are not paid to advocate for this.
And you may have to register as a lobbyist because the city requires, if you do a certain amount of time advocating, that you have to register as a lobbyist.
But the idea that people are paid to be here is not always the case.
I haven't committed to this either way in public, so it's been— I've seen 2 articles now saying so-and-so hasn't said where they're at on it, but I've been supportive of it for a long time.
I support it because I think it's not about what we're talking— only about what we're putting inside of us.
Dan Ryan
It's about how it got in there.
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
And that production issue is the problem.
We often limit— we use, when we talk about gas taxes, we use the argument not only about its consumption here being a problem, but also its production and how harmful that is to justify why we do gas taxes.
We do this with many other policy choices we make, that it's not only about what happens in front of us, but how the thing got to be in the first place.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I think that's a good point.
Sameer Kanal
To us in the first place.
And, and what we're talking about is an abusive treatment.
And so I'm proud to support legislation to address animal welfare at the production level, even though it's not here, through responsible commerce practices and our community's commitment to compassion and ethical treatment of animals.
As someone who's not vegan myself, I'm also especially proud that Portland has this scene.
And in District 2, we have a vibrant community-centered vegan food culture.
So I'll take the opportunity to shout out Vegan Flipside Market on June 27th at the Arbor Beer Lodge, and shout out to Peter Schufter at the Arbor Beer Lodge for working with my office to ensure that the alley was graveled by PBOT to ensure a good experience for market event attendees.
We have the Veganizer Market.
We have a lot of different things going on, and I think when we talk about what we might lose, we should also have a conversation on what we're helping grow.
Because we have— I have cousins who are vegans who live in Southern California, and they talk about how easy it is when they come up here to find the options that they want.
And that's really important to me as someone who obviously wants my cousins, who I am very close to, to come visit.
And I think that's the case for just about everybody who's sitting around the country who may have any sort of dietary restriction, whether it's voluntary or it's health-based, to be able to say, I can come here and get what I want to eat and have that.
And part of that is about ensuring that we have a compassionate system in the first place.
And the other thing I want to just shout out is, you know, Councilor Green has been responsive to a real community that exists, not just the people in this room.
I've heard about it from a lot of folks, and I'm proud to stay on the same side as Councilor Green in supporting those local organizers, the small businesses, and the, of course, the animal rights activists who brought this issue forward for Councilor Green to champion and care Thank you, Councilor Knoll.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Uh, thanks.
While I agree with the— I would have liked to have spent time on other things.
I think this should have died at committee the way it did die at committee.
Um, I, I do think it's been irresponsible to bring it forward.
It has come forward, and I agree with Councilor Novick, we do have to take a yes or no.
But I'm also, I'm not really sure what triggered a few members, but I'm apologizing to Councilor Clark.
I don't know why my amendment brought such, I think, very terrible words that were just said to you a few minutes ago.
I think that was irresponsible of a few members, and really there was an undertone there.
I'm not totally sure if I understood it, but like I said, I don't really care about foie gras, but when it comes to—.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Clark.
Eric Zimmerman
Personal choices and things like that.
There's been— yes, there are limits, right?
And I think about safety to others and safety to yourself.
If those 2 things are met, then I think that we have to really question what is the role in government here.
So for me, I won't be supporting this because I don't see this being a thing that is hurting the person who eats it, and I don't see it hurting a person who chooses not to eat it if someone near them chooses to.
So, uh, this feels like a punch down at the minority That I just don't want to be a part of.
I just find it like government will always have this— there will be a voice always that comes up.
How we protect that voice, whether it be 1, 5, or 500, is something that I'm trying to think through on this a lot.
And so for me, this doesn't pass that test, and I don't see a safety concern for the people that we are given a duty to protect.
And so I don't know why we would inject ourselves here.
And so So I do believe that this should not pass today.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Sameer Kanal
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
I thought I'd just place on the record that I believe very deeply that one of our most urgent priorities is economic development in the City of Portland.
And I think this body's focus, my particular focus on liberalizing our housing production methods housing is one of the center points of that economic development strategy.
If we can make it easier to build more housing in this city, then you get more people staying here, and that's the engine of growth.
That has largely been my focus.
I'll just note that I have a lot of faith and confidence in the innovative capacity of our local restaurant scene, which has demonstrated over the decades to respond to conditions, innovate, offer new menus, and really attract that.
And so perhaps I have more confidence in these restaurants than some other folks, but I continue to have that confidence because I've seen it.
I've seen it in action.
And so I don't think that this tarnishes our economic development capabilities at all.
And I look forward to moving to a vote.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Council President.
Um, while I respect the concerns that have been raised around animal welfare, I do not believe this is the right time for council to move forward with this policy.
And as I said before, there's already a broader statewide ballot measure being pursued that would ask Oregon voters to weigh in on major restrictions related to animal products, hunting, fishing, and Uh, agricultural practices.
And before I signal support for local policy in this space, I believe we should let the statewide conversation play out and hear directly from Oregon voters.
This ordinance may be well-intentioned, and which I believe it is, but I do not believe it is— it is the responsibility for this council or any other council to take steps in this juncture.
I, I believe that if there's any government, local government, that should be working on this, it should be Multnomah County.
And for those reasons, I will be voting no.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Seeing no one else in the queue, Rebecca, can we please move to a roll call vote?
Colleagues online, please turn your cameras on.
Rebecca Dobert
Calling the vote on 2026- Councilor Mitchell, 149.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
The ordinance passes with 7 ayes and 5 nays.
Jamie Dunphy
I appreciate that.
We do not allow applause in this room right now, but thank you very much for everybody for being here and for all your support.
Rebecca, can we please move to item number 15?
Rebecca Dobert
Item 15, adopt and implement the Moderate Income Revolving Loan Program, document number 2026-124.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
Since our friends in green shirts are exiting and it's a little loud, I'm going to wait just a second before we turn over to Claire Adamsick with Council Operations for a committee staff summary report?
Yeah, we're good.
Claire, go right ahead.
Claire Adamsick
Thank you, Council President and councilors.
For the record, Claire Adamsick, Council Policy Analyst and staff to the Housing and Permitting Committee.
The ordinance before you, document number 2026-124, was heard in the Housing and Permitting Committee on April 7th, where it was referred to full council as amended with a recommendation to pass.
The ordinance adopts and implements the City of Portland Moderate Income Revolving Loan Program in accordance with the terms described in Exhibit A, which describe the establishment of a grant program to fund developers for eligible housing projects, defines affordability requirements and other applicable terms, designates Prosper Portland as the administrator of the program and clarifies requirements for program administration and compliance in accordance with state law, directs the city to work with the Multnomah County Tax Assessor to establish a process to exempt from property tax thank you.
Eligible housing projects that use a fee-in-lieu option to repay program loans.
And the committee approved an amendment to the ordinance that changed the income qualifications for eligible housing projects from 60% to 50% of area median income, or AMI, and also clarified the program will support the development of low-income in addition to middle-income housing projects.
The amendment also reduced the minimum number of required housing units for eligible projects thank you.
The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts, economic and real estate development impacts, and community impacts and community involvement.
One person provided testimony at the committee meeting on April 7th, and no one submitted written testimony prior to committee action.
General themes of the testimony the committee heard included supporting the city's ability to utilize available state dollars for eligible development projects, Allowing grant access for smaller development projects by reducing the 75-unit minimum.
And finally, a suggestion to remove the prioritization of mixed-use development projects and maintain focus on residential unit development.
And that concludes the committee staff summary.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much, Claire.
Councilor Avalos, this came out of the Housing and Permitting Committee.
Can I turn it to you?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Right.
Candace Avalos
Yes, so this item came to committee in April.
The ordinance establishes Portland's Moderate Income Revolving Loan Program and enables the city to access state funding created through Senate Bill 1537.
The program allows the city to receive no-interest loans from the state and provide grants to eligible housing developments that meet affordability requirements.
The ordinance designates Prosper Portland as the program administrator and establishes the framework necessary for the city to participate in the program.
At committee, members discussed program oversight and accountability, how the city will evaluate whether the program is achieving its housing and financial goals, We also discussed state requirements related to tax increment financing districts and project eligibility criteria.
The committee approved an amendment that lowered the affordability threshold from 60% AMI to 50% AMI, as Claire mentioned, also clarified that the program can support low-income as well as middle-income housing, and reduced the minimum project size from 75 units to 20 units to expand access to smaller developments.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Candace Avalos
Public testimony generally supported the city's ability to leverage available state funding or state housing dollars and expressed support for making the program accessible to a broader range of housing projects.
After discussion and adoption of the amendment, the committee voted to recommend the ordinance to the full council.
That is my report.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much, Councilor Avalos.
Colleagues, there are 4 people signed up to testify on this.
There's a couple folks in the queue, and I also understand there are some amendments, so I'd like to I'm going to turn first to Councilor Green to float his amendments so that we can have that and our folks who are going to testify can respond to that.
And then Councilors Smith and Murillo, for technical questions, I'll come to you and then we'll go to testimony.
So Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Council President.
Colleagues, I'm bringing 3— proposing 3 amendments today.
They're titled Green 2, Green 3, and Green 4.
I decided to split these because they all do kind of different things and don't wanna complicate the matter.
The first amendment basically just strikes the minimum unit count eligibility requirement entirely.
It also strikes the requirement to sort of prioritize these— this program eligibility for mixed use.
And I can speak, I can motivate kind of broadly when we get into discussion.
Okay.
Excuse me.
Green 3, which is the second of my amendments.
The nomenclature is funny because Green 1 failed in committee, so I'm bringing Green 2 back as Green 1.
But Green 3 is the second of my amendments that just adds an explicit kind of disclosure requirement to council for the due diligence documents, like kind of pro forma underwriting requirements that are already in state law, so that council has some oversight capability.
For funds that it ultimately is on the hook for.
And then finally, Green 4 strikes the delegation clauses that put this implementation underwriting function in Prosper Portland and moves it actually into the Portland Housing Bureau.
So those are what the 3 amendments do.
I take them independently.
I could live with any of them passing, but hopefully all of them.
So.
Thank you.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Uh, Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Yes, uh, thank you, Council President.
Um, in terms of those amendments, did you drop any of those in the, uh, committee?
Mitch Green
Yeah, we had a total of 30 minutes in that for that item on that day, and so I introduced Green 1, which is the same as Green 2 today.
Didn't have much time to make the case.
It failed.
So I'm, I'm trying to—.
Loretta Smith
That's what I was trying to figure out, if it had failed in, in committee.
Donnie Oliveira
Yeah, thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Robert Taylor
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Uh, thank you, Council President.
On that same thought, so the overriding failed in the committee and then you split it up into amendments?
Mitch Green
I did a very narrow amendment, Councilor, in committee, um, based upon some testimony and email exchanges I had with the developer that just struck the minimum limit.
That failed.
And so since then I've had conversations and so I'm adding more.
But that first one that did fail, I'm trying to bring that back and also strike the mixed-use part, which was not in the first amendment.
And I did that because I think this is just gonna foreclose a lot of opportunities the developers are ready to go on.
So that's why I'm bringing it back a little bit differently this time.
Dan Ryan
But you didn't bring it back to the committee.
Mitch Green
It advanced out of committee.
Dan Ryan
Oh, so you did bring all these amendments?
Mitch Green
I brought one of them to committee.
Dan Ryan
And it failed.
Mitch Green
And then since then, I've had the opportunity to think more about what I want to do with this piece of legislation.
And so I'm bringing—.
Dan Ryan
Well, since then, I'm just confused why since then you didn't choose to go back to the committee for all of you to—.
Mitch Green
It didn't go back to the committee, Councilor.
It came straight to council.
I didn't have an opportunity to take it back to committee.
Dan Ryan
Because that committee's disbanded?
Mitch Green
No, this is the Housing and Permitting— came out of the Housing and Permitting Committee.
Jamie Dunphy
Yeah, the committee voted to refer it.
Dan Ryan
Oh, they did?
Okay.
I think we had a miscommunication in front of everybody right now.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Because what I heard you answer first was that it died in committee.
Mitch Green
The amendment— one of the amendments did die in committee.
Okay.
And what I'm trying to do now is have an opportunity to discuss with my colleagues and then that was resurrected and then it passed.
Jamie Dunphy
The ordinance passed out of committee.
The amendment failed in committee.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
I was really listening.
That's why I had to ask technical questions.
Yeah, it's confusing when you're not on the committee sometimes.
Mitch Green
Absolutely.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
I just wanted to ask those technical questions before there's testimony.
Candace Avalos
Great.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Zachary Lindahl
Thanks.
Eric Zimmerman
These are pretty significant changes.
So I guess my I think as we go through the conversation, I'm going to be looking to the staff to understand why they brought an original, because you've, you've made a lot of changes here, and I— you're not exactly a person I consider the developer whisperer.
So I am wondering why it is they were brought from the staff in one perspective and now they're changing.
So I think that'll be where I'm listening to see.
And staff, I hope you're prepared to start talking about what the staff thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
I was actually going to say the same thing.
I'm just wondering whether it'd be appropriate to ask Donnie Oliveira and his team up to answer some questions.
Yeah, would that be appropriate now?
Jamie Dunphy
This would be an appropriate time for that.
Yeah, we are in technical questions.
Steve Novick
Okay, Mr. Oliveira.
Just asking you to hold forth on all of these amendments, the numeric limitation, the mixed-use requirement, the disclosure idea, and the idea of switching from Prosper to PHB.
Donnie Oliveira
Great.
Thank you, Councilors.
Donnie Oliveira, for the record, Deputy City Administrator.
Let's start with— I'll just go down the line.
Is that appropriate?
Thank you, Mayor.
Regarding the threshold, this was a conversation that happened at committee.
The original intent was 75, and the rationale behind that was essentially looking at what's in our pipeline for development around the city, and especially actually seeing what's happening with the SDC exemption.
We're seeing a lot of projects coming in in that smaller window, 2 to 10 units is really the sweet spot right there.
And that's also consistent with what we're just seeing with the financing models that are happening right now.
We're seeing a lot of interest and capacity for those smaller, important projects still, by the way.
I don't want to sound like I'm disparaging.
Any housing production is good production right now.
But we're still seeing a lack of those bigger projects, over 40, over 75, that really moves our housing production needle.
So when we're looking at a product like— financing project like Merle, the idea is—.
Thank you.
Let's try to incentivize those bigger projects.
And just for the public's knowledge, the MERL project out of the state has a fund of $50 million statewide.
And while we think it'll be competitive and first come, first serve, so to speak, we don't believe the whole $50 million will come to the City of Portland.
So we're likely to see a few projects come our way.
And I think our preference would be those projects would be larger in capacity.
Thank you.
We'll take what we can get, of course.
But there was no specifically strategic— I think I said this on the DIA SAC committee— the number could have been 60, could have been 90.
75 was just to signal that we were looking for something in that higher production level.
Regarding the framing of mixed-use as something to contemplate and consider prioritize, that can be struck, especially if that number goes down.
That's just to encourage these vital developments that we look like, Look for, especially in our higher density commercial corridors where a larger project would likely exist.
And then last thing, just to acknowledge why 20 seemed practical at the time of the committee, 'cause we were negotiating with the committee on the fly, is that keeps inclusionary housing threshold in place.
So those units below 20, or those projects below 20 don't hit IH.
So 20 was the threshold.
But again, that was— I'm sorry.
Largely on the fly working with the committee to contemplate that number.
I said this to a couple of councilors before, while we want to encourage the higher unit production, it is a policy choice for council to set that limit or not.
When it comes to the disclosure, it's legally doable.
The one thing we would just caution, and this is speculative, but we just want to acknowledge this, On behalf of the teams, it may dissuade some people from participating if they're not comfortable having their financials disclosed.
So that's just something for us to contemplate.
I can't guarantee that won't happen or will happen, but that's something we would be just— we'd flag for council's contemplation.
But it's technically allowable to share that information with council at the appropriate time.
And regarding Green 4, Yes.
When it comes to the management of the program's administration of the program, here's what our current thinking is.
Prosper's in the best position to do that right now, largely because it was true back then, it's even more so now with the newly adopted housing package, the $56 million that council just directed.
It's the same team that would run the MRL that is now on the hook for the revolving loan fund for the rent buydown program.
And that's all new work for them.
And so there's actually another program they're going to be launching next fiscal year as well.
So we're truly at a capacity where there's going to be some trade-offs or things are just going to slow down.
So it'd be my recommendation, and why I'm speaking here and not the bureaus, is to say if we're looking for all these projects to move forward congruently and with some urgency, we can't over-leverage the Housing Bureau.
And that would be— that's just our recommendation, would be it still sticks with Prosper.
Thank you.
And the other piece about the— there was a striking of some language related to TIF.
We can solve for that on the back end with an IG between the bureaus, but it is more administrative work.
And I would just encourage councilors to give us as much flexibility as possible to administer the program.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Novick, anything?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much, councilor.
And colleagues, reminder, we are in technical and clarifying questions, and we have 4 okay, Donnie.
Like I said, I had some questions.
Eric Zimmerman
So sorry, it was a little unclear what you were saying there in terms of what the position was.
You, you went all over the map.
I think we went back to Carmen Sandiego.
Um, so 20, 0, or 75, right?
You started at 75, the committee changed it to 20, and now he's making a proposal at 0.
Yeah.
So you mentioned something with IH as it relates to 20, but these are all restricted 50% AMI.
Isn't that what you guys adjusted it to?
So what are we talking about here?
Donnie Oliveira
So we're looking for maximum flexibility.
So from that logic, reducing the minimum would allow units that are, or projects that are 4 to 6 units to be in play.
And yes, the different financing mechanisms change based on the size of the project.
That's absolutely true.
I was saying if we were keeping the project levels relatively high, the difference between 19 and 20 is IH or not IH.
Again, options.
It's just an option that a potential housing producer could take advantage of.
So there's really no— at this point, if the question is should it be zero or something else, we would say at a minimum 20.
Eric Zimmerman
But if it's I feel like there should be some understanding for what— so when I, when I am complaining often to people about they didn't build high enough in my district, often they'll say to me, because this type of construction above, let's say, the 8th floor or the 7th floor or whatever, it significantly changes the cost.
And so that gives us an idea for where in the cost structure assistance is needed.
So what I'd be looking for is where, where in the middle-income revolving loan world is the most help needed in terms of 75% as a base, 20% as a base, or 0% as a base.
And I say that with $50 million across the state, yes, is nothing.
Correct.
So great, we can finance A couple of projects.
Donnie Oliveira
A couple of floors?
We could finance a couple—.
Eric Zimmerman
A couple of floors in a couple of projects, 'cause we're not gonna get the whole $50 million.
Donnie Oliveira
Correct.
And this is not designed, this fund is not designed to be the full capital stack of a project.
It's designed to support and assist in that.
But you are speaking to this question of what project types need the most help.
And I think it's fair to say across the board, across the city, all project types need help right now.
I mean, I'm bringing up the SDC exemption because this is action this council took last year.
We are seeing, We're seeing the usage of that product, which is great, but not to the scale that we hope.
And it's still— we're still in the middle of the program.
We're seeing at this nice threshold of middle housing, which is great.
What we are not seeing though is the larger projects that are going from those wood frame buildings to your concrete buildings.
And that's where the gap's just not being met right now.
So those larger projects, those 8-story projects, the financing's just not working out.
So in theory, as we're introducing a new product into the market, Thank you.
Now, does reducing the minimum prevent a project like that from coming online?
It does not.
So that's what I'm saying.
It—.
By reducing the minimum, you don't hinder a project like that from coming in.
But what is true is you just increase the range of projects that might come in.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, so your amendment, Councilor Green, gives me a lot of pause at the minimum issue, but I do appreciate the mixed-use.
And I expect, based on testimony here, I expect I'll probably go ahead and ask to split that question.
With respect to the other technical aspects, so the— I want to make sure I understand.
So was the requirement for disclosure documents to the council okay, to the city seems something somewhat reasonable.
To the council seems very strange to me, and I'm trying to think in the course of our other work, is this a unique thing?
You mentioned something about whether or not organizations may or may not want to.
Is this a unique thing?
How does that play out currently in the Housing Bureau or in PROSPER?
What kind of change does this actually implement if Green 3 were to pass?
Donnie Oliveira
If I read the amendment correctly, the, the direction would be for the Bureau to disseminate, um, the financing, uh, term sheets related to a particular project to council.
Eric Zimmerman
And does that take an ordinance to accomplish that, or is that saying all financial sheets that ever come to the city that want this program have to also come to us?
Am I going to get inundated with every application?
Donnie Oliveira
It was not our understanding that was all projects.
It was just related to the MURL.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, but I'm— I mean, correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption.
As the MRL is written without this, the assessment if a project is applicable and awardable, you would have some sense of their financial documents before you made that— and I say you mean the city— before you made that determination.
Is that accurate?
Mitch Green
Correct.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Eric Zimmerman
In this case now, not only will you all have that, but now all those documents will come to the council.
Am I getting a courier pigeon?
What am I getting to go through their documents?
Donnie Oliveira
Councilor, I, I think that based on the amendment, we're working from the assumption that the documents related to that specific deal for the financing of that project would be made available to council.
Eric Zimmerman
If I were to ask for those now, are they not?
Chido Dilawayo
Yeah.
Adrienne Delgado
Hi, Adrienne Delgado with City Attorney's Office.
So I think the way that this would work and the intention would be that council, when they want the documents, would pass a resolution so that the entire council is requesting the documents.
Now generally, if you want to get documents from a bureau, I think our office has issued advice that you can ask the city administrator for reports.
You also also have some investigatory power, um, if you were doing a full investigation on a bureau.
But this, I think, is a more direct path to requesting specific records instead of asking for a report from the city administrator.
But we would still expect a resolution to be brought forth every time that you want to receive the records.
Eric Zimmerman
That would be strange.
I asked for records all the time and I've never passed a resolution for them.
Adrienne Delgado
Well, trying to understand, and I think right, that's getting into probably the nuances of the relationship.
Like, if a councilor calls a bureau, there's no legal restriction that the bureau would not give you the records.
But I think this is a request to formally turn over records to the entire council, is the way that I was interpreting it.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Mitch Green
All right.
Eric Zimmerman
And then, uh, in the third piece, I want to make sure, given Councilor Ryan's conversation about what did or didn't happen in committee, did the Housing Bureau versus Prosper conversation happen at committee?
And is this a bring back or not?
Mitch Green
I do think that one was part of my first effort.
And like, I think I got a total of 12 minutes to talk about it.
It died immediately.
We didn't have time for a reasonable debate on that.
So I've split it into a different theme because I recognize some of these may be all right, last technical question.
Eric Zimmerman
Are we under some sort of time crunch?
Is that why it moved out of committee so fast instead of getting work done?
Mitch Green
That day we had 30 minutes allocated to this item, and then we had the Keep Portland in the House TAO ordinance, and that was the bigger, lengthier piece of business to fill.
And so we didn't really have time to run long.
Eric Zimmerman
But like, this doesn't have a— we don't have to adopt by a day or we lose out on applications?
Yeah.
Okay.
I just, I asked that in the spirit of some committees have taken the spirit of committees, which is working it out, and others are just conveyor belting through.
So it feels like you guys had some more to have, but you keep, guys keep talking about we only had so much time.
But, uh, okay, that's it for my technical questions.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Oh, I was just putting my hand in the queue for the underlying after the post-testimony.
Jamie Dunphy
So Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Uh, so I'm going to keep the, the comments here specific to the, the, um, the questions, the technical questions.
But I, I wanted to ask, um, I've gotten a couple more as we've been going through this.
DC Oliveira, you mentioned, um, that we will get a couple projects.
Do you anticipate that we're going to be allocated this?
Can you, can you speak to why we're looking at projects instead of dollars?
Like, wouldn't the idea of smaller projects, if we were getting— if we were anticipating a finite set of dollars, mean more projects could get some portion of financing?
I'm seeing nods behind you, so.
Donnie Oliveira
When I mentioned the— yeah, thank you for giving me a chance to clarify.
When I mentioned the couple projects, that's what we were contemplating, a couple larger projects.
You're right, in theory, if they're smaller projects, but again, I'm speculating on what the state's going to allocate to the city.
It's a $50 million pot of resources once we have our program up and running.
Again, these programs have to come in to, you know, apply.
We have to work with them and to make sure they're, you know, ready to go.
And of course, we're putting our resources as a safety net to back these loans.
So we also want to do the due diligence.
One thing I didn't mention related to this—.
Sameer Kanal
Just before you— I'll let you go on, but just to clarify, the thing that they will be allocating to us is a dollar amount.
Donnie Oliveira
Loans, yeah, through the—.
Jamie Dunphy
Through loans.
Sameer Kanal
It will not be a number of loans, it will be a number of dollars.
Is that correct?
Correct.
Eric Engstrom
Okay, thanks.
Donnie Oliveira
And we don't know what that number is too.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, fair enough.
But sorry, carry on.
Donnie Oliveira
Yeah.
Oh, just, um, related to the administration of the program, which is still— is also material to your question, um, PHB manages programs up to a certain AMI amount, and then Prosper manages like the middle income level.
So if we're looking at PHB But using TIF dollars, for example, to back some of these loans, we're basically having 2 different administrative processes that make it a little convoluted for our community to navigate.
It's manageable, but I just want to add that just adds a little bit more confusion.
But it speaks to the reason why your question reminded me of that, Councilor, is when we are looking at some of these pro formas on the projects, these larger projects, that's sort of the sweet spot, what Prosper does.
Like, that's what they're good at.
Trying to get these middle-income housing projects built.
And PHP can do it as well, but we'd really be kind of ping-ponging between the 2 bureaus on trying to land which projects we're prioritizing as we move them through the state.
So it just adds a little bit more dynamic to the administration.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, thanks.
And then I'm a little— I'm going to switch to Adrian, if that's okay, for Amendment 3 here.
I'm—.
This seemed a lot more straightforward until that response that you gave to Councilor Zimmerman.
Would removing the words upon request make it easier?
Because I think the idea of having to go through a resolution to get basic information necessary to do our jobs is really unappealing to me.
Adrienne Delgado
I think it's— I mean, it's just that a resolution is how the council Council speaks as a body, so I think it depends on your intent.
If the intent is that each council member could access the records individually, that's different than the council accessing records, right?
So I would kind of put it back to the council on what the intent is.
If the intent is that you meet as a body and you review the records, then they would be coming to the council.
Sameer Kanal
I think I would then I appreciate the opportunity.
Mitch Green
My intent is actually to really honor the executive side's ability to execute things, and I think the MURL is a really important program.
It does give me some risk profile concerns, and I think that the state law does require certain underwriting and disclosure requirements I think there's a clause that says you must show a but-for need, that if not for this loan, you would not be able to do an affordable project.
So there's a pretty high standard there for making the case in a due diligence sense.
I don't actually want to go in and ask for these records all the time.
I don't.
And I don't think— I think that's actually inappropriate for councilors to do.
But I think that there's a time where council should say, hey, we might have some concerns that perhaps the implementation or the choice to award a grant that we now have to pay back to the state may— is straying from the intent of the state law.
So how do we do oversight on this?
And I want to make sure that we are not in a situation where some councilors— and not to sort of suggest any ill intent— but some councilors are not able to get access to that information without a pathway.
And so just by writing it into the codifying it right here to say, look, it's going to be council as a body that would need to sort of say we have an interest in this.
That was my intent.
I think earlier, I think my staff, when we were contemplating what to do, we sort of thought about maybe, well, any councilor at any time could request this.
I was like, no, I think that's overly— you're putting your hand too far into the administration side.
And so that's— so I'm happy I'm actually very much interested in us using this as a method to say there's a formal way to get this, and with all the appropriate redactions that would be appropriate, to sort of make sure that this program is being implemented in accordance with the law and we're not exposing ourselves to undue risk.
So that's my intent.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, so then from the purpose of where we're at right now, it sounds to me like that interpretation that we just received aligns with your intent, and we can debate if that's the right thing to do thank you, Councilor Smith.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So hearing that last response, is the administration's interpretation that if we pass that amendment, an individual councilor who is looking to better understand a single project would not be able to do that?
To more casually request that and receive the information the way that we can with any other record that we're trying to, to be able to review?
Donnie Oliveira
Yeah, Councilor, uh, thanks for the question.
I think it's more of a relation— relationship issue.
I don't, I don't know if, um, yeah, that's okay, I'm not sure there's my question.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'm trying to understand if we pass that amendment, if that actually limits our ability to get information more casually in the way that we normally would.
Adrienne Delgado
It wouldn't legally change the way that you interact with the executive branch.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I understand the legal.
Donnie Oliveira
Councilor, I don't think we've ever been in a situation where we've provided, you know, loan details to council.
You know, there's some, you know, concern about just, you know, public record type things in general.
But I think if you're asking us for information on a regular basis for projects, Where appropriate, we share that information.
In this particular case, I was— we were interpreting it that Councilor Green was asking for projects explicit to this program.
So we would go in consciously knowing that we'd be preparing this information in a way that would likely be conveyed to the City Council.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
Excuse me just a second.
Councilor Green, well, let me— I, I'm going to beat this a little bit.
Um, we'll be lucky if we get any of this money.
I mean, it's not very much money, but I am concerned that I don't want to do anything based on your comment, that would dissuade anyone from investing here.
I don't want to add anything that's suspect or that would, that would be an impediment to somebody wanting to come here and, and work on a project.
I guess that, that's kind of my concern on the other end.
And if there's a way for us to get this information, great, but it seems a little, um, Over the top.
I don't know, you can help clarify that for me.
I, I don't feel like I need it, and I don't want to dissuade anyone.
And if I really needed it, I know how to get it.
So I don't know if it's really—.
Mitch Green
I think those are reasonable questions, and I, I'm prepared to sort of lay all that out when we get into discussion debate.
Okay.
And I did structure these specifically as independent things, understanding that some of these things may not pass because folks have a different risk assessment than I do.
So, um, I am prepared to speak to your concern.
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Okay, thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Rebecca, can we move to public testimony, please?
Rebecca Dobert
First up, we have Robert Pyle.
Jamie Dunphy
Welcome, Robert.
Come on up, introduce yourself for the record.
Welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
Robert Pyle
Good afternoon, Council.
For the record, my name is Robert Pyle.
I'm the principal of Oakley Free Development.
I'm here today to ask you to please support the Green 2 amendment to the MRL ordinance and remove the minimum unit requirement and mixed-use preference.
There is no minimum unit requirement in the state statute, and there should not be any minimum unit requirement in our local ordinance.
Cottage clusters and townhomes are specifically eligible housing types for the MRL program under the statutory definition of middle housing in ORS 197A.
These project types are effectively precluded from the program if the 20-unit minimum unit is retained.
In 2025, only 1,652 units of housing were submitted for permit against the updated annual goal of 4,500.
The $50 million MRL fund is first-come, first-served, and the— and we should seek as much of that as possible.
The only statutory allocation is 20% to rural areas.
Thank you.
We cannot both be serious about our housing production goals and support a 20-unit minimum requirement for the MRL program.
We need all the tools we can get, and arbitrarily limiting access to this program serves no purpose that I can tell.
During the Housing and Permitting Committee meeting April 7th, uh, DCA Oliveira confirmed the staff workload is the same for a 5-unit or a 75-unit project.
Um, funding to administer the program comes from a 5% fee built into every loan.
As part of the state statute.
Loan funds come from the state budget allocation with no impact to the city budget.
I'll repeat, these funds are provided by the state with no impact to the city budget.
As Councilor Green recently put it, a revolving loan program is the cheat code for housing production.
A 20-unit minimum requirement also conflicts with inclusionary housing and the multiple-unit limited tax exemption, the multi-program.
20 To 75-unit projects, which are eligible for both, Thank you.
There are zero areas of District 1 that are eligible for the multi program, meaning the MURL is the only potential tool to support the production of moderate-income housing in District 1.
Many projects of 20 units or more in D1 still won't be feasible due to construction type and the use of concrete and steel, but many 5 to 19-unit projects Wood-framed could be.
Additionally, projects over approximately 30 units will trigger the BOLI prevailing wage requirements, creating additional feasibility challenges.
Senator Pham is holding a housing production roundtable in the GA District on June 22nd, which I know some of you are attending.
As the chief sponsor of the MORAL program, it would be great to share with her that we adopted an ordinance that allowed for the broadest possible use of this tool.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you so much for being here.
Rebecca Dobert
Zachary Lindahl's online.
You can unmute and begin testimony.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
Zachary Lindahl
I just want to make sure everybody can hear me.
My side seems to be pretty quiet.
We can hear you.
Excellent.
Council President Dunphy, Vice President Clark, and Portland City Council, for the record, my name is Zach Lindahl and I'm the Director of Government Affairs for Multifamily Northwest.
We represent nearly 300,000 rental homes across Oregon.
And the professionals who own, operate, and maintain them.
Multifamily Northwest is pleased to support Document 2026-124, which would implement— adopt and implement the Moderate Income Revolving Loan Program known as MIRRL.
This ordinance is practical, forward-looking step that enables the City of Portland to finance more housing by authorizing the Housing and Community Services Department to fund mixed-income housing developments and establish a dedicated Portland's housing shortage requires policies that increase housing supply across income levels.
Mixed-income housing plays an important role in that effort by supporting financially viable projects that include both market-rate and affordable units.
Our organization has a long history of supporting policies such as this, as it provides an additional financing tool that can help, help projects move forward that might otherwise stall due to funding gaps.
In fact, Multifamily Northwest enthusiastically supported both Senate Bill 1537 during the 2024 session as well as House Bill 4037 during the 2026 session, allowing the creation of the local MRL.
By establishing the new local MRL and the rules established by OHCS, the City of Portland has created a program that provides flexibility while maintaining accountability.
The ability to offer below-market below-market short-term loans can help unlock private capital, support project feasibility, and accelerate housing production.
Additionally, our team would like to recognize the intention of this policy to help provide housing to those earning between 50% and 120% area median income.
This diversity of affordable housing is critical.
Dedicated workforce housing priced at 80% to 120% is often the least represented in our housing continuum.
And the most precarious to finance and build.
Lastly, I would like to say, say that we support Councilor Green's amendment that eliminates the cap on the number of units for these projects.
This change in the cap will allow for developers to consider a variety of projects that might work best for them.
Multifamily Northwest supports policies that move Portland closer to achieving 120,000 new units by 2045 and the governor's goal of producing 36,000 new units every year.
We believe this ordinance aligns squarely with the objective by extending the city's capacity to support housing development at scale without overprescribing outcomes or adding unnecessary barriers.
Thank you for your time.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you so much for being here today.
Mitch Green
Thank you.
Rebecca Dobert
Benjamin Gilbert.
Jamie Dunphy
Robert, if you want to sit, you don't have to sit there.
Donnie Oliveira
Hello, my name is Benjamin Gilbert.
I'm a tenant in District 4 and a volunteer lobbyist for the Portland Democratic Socialists of America.
I support the adoption and implementation of the, of the Moderate Income Revolving Loan Program as amended.
Mitch Green
I want to specifically voice my support for Green 3 and 4.
It's essential that we build state capacity in housing development.
The Housing Bureau, not Prosper Portland, is the logical place for this.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Rebecca Dobert
Jordan Lewis.
Jordan, you can unmute and go ahead online.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Hello, City Council.
My name is Jordan Lewis.
My pronouns are he/him, and I'm a volunteer lobbyist with Portland DSA.
I'm testifying in support of Green Amendments 2, 3, and 4.
I support Green 2 because I think Uh, Portland needs residential infill yesterday.
More people in city limits means more tax revenue for services, more transit riders, and the cost to provide sewer and water services is split between more ratepayers.
These are all consensus goals for the city, and if we can get them done sooner with a more diverse portfolio of smaller units, then we should do that.
I also support Green 2 as someone who lives above 7 vacant ground floor retail units.
Councilor Dan Ryan.
We clearly have too much mixed-use development for a city of our density, and until we get that density up, mixed-use requirements function functionally as taxes on new developments.
If someday we enter another Portlandia-era building boom, that'll be a great problem to have, and we can recalibrate our retail standards then.
But right now, I think something needs to change to better outcomes.
I'm also supportive of Green 3 and 4.
Thank you.
Because we are living in the shadow of just decades of failures by markets, by governments to provide housing where people want to live.
And we have to treat that like an emergency.
I'd almost treat it like an earthquake.
And after an earthquake, we don't delegate it outside of government.
No, we should have state capacity to fix these like super pressing problems.
Housing is the number one problem for the Portland area.
So I would really like to see government stand up and remediate this problem just like it stood up and remediated like earthquakes in Alaska or California.
Yeah, that's all I gotta say.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you very much.
Rebecca Dobert
That concludes testimony.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, colleagues, we are now into discussion of the underlying.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, Council President.
At this time, I'd like to move Green 1.
I'm going to do these separately.
Green 2.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Green 2.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Councilor Green moves Green 2.
Is there a second?
Dan Ryan
I'll second that.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Ryan seconds.
Colleagues, to the discussion.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity for the discussion.
We did have a brief discussion in committee about this.
I think for me, the economics of scale when you build something right now with the external forces that we're facing, the cost of capital, the cost of labor inputs, the cost of material inputs, make it really hard to complete a capital stack even with this little bit of MRL for larger units.
And while I do want to see those go up, especially in areas that are zoned for density, Right now we have a lot of capacity to build, and that's been created by the residential infill program.
And the buildings that have been built under this program are affordable at the middle-income level just by the native characteristics of those projects.
And so for me, it's about how quickly can we disperse these dollars out the door to get shovels in the ground.
And I think I was moved by Robert Pyle's sort of testimony, and also he reached out to my office.
We had a couple conversations, and, you know, he showed me the permits in flight, walked me through kind of the economics of these projects.
And I have actually seen the success stories of folks who've been able to go out there and buy one of these units for $200,000 to $300,000.
And that is squarely in the affordability range.
Or, you know, in the case of an apartment, it's just a— it's a function of the cost.
Thank you.
Of production so that you can have lower rents there too.
And so I really do think this is going to allow us to spend the dollars.
And when you're in a crisis of faith in government where you're constantly wondering if our taxes are then translating into benefits that people can feel, I think it's better for the long-term health of the MRL program, which I would like to see expanded at the state level, if we can show a lot of case studies of success.
Thank you.
In Portland, Oregon, of putting some buildings up.
In my district, there's a program that's currently not eligible as written on Southwest Nebraska Street that could be something financed with MRL and their gap could be closed.
So that's my primary reason for Green 2.
Also, we have a glut of commercial retail space right now, and adding more to that, I think, hurts our current storefront owners because then they have to deal with the fact that there's new competition for the storefronts that are vacant next to them.
And it also just works against the economics of the situation we're in right now.
And so you heard that also from Multifamily Northwest as well.
And so I ask for your support for Green 2.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Colleagues, to Green 2, Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Yeah, thanks for the discussion, folks.
Um, so as we have shared, yes, we did discuss it in committee, um, and we made the decision at that time to move it from 75 to 20.
I supported that change because the 20 units, um, like we've been saying and like you heard from Donnie, and I do agree with that argument that we're trying to stretch these dollars, right?
It is a limited pot of money.
And given this, the— given that, um, it makes sense to me to prioritize projects that deliver more units per dollar.
So that's why I supported moving it to 20.
And then I don't— now I'm like, can't remember, did we try to move it to 0 in committee and we failed that?
I can't remember.
But we ended up— we landed on 20, um, and I stood by that for those reasons.
I think that the— and, you know, thank you, Robert.
We've been, uh, in communication with I've spoken with him as well, my office, and I think the arguments around wanting to infuse dollars right away, wanting to give— make sure that these dollars are eligible in District 1, of course, is going to hit home for me.
And, you know, when I talked with Donnie about this, I think ultimately it's a policy choice.
And I think the policy choice—.
Yes.
Discernible reason, I guess.
I don't remember how he phrased it, that we would be making this policy choice.
I disagree.
I think there is a reason to make a policy choice of 20 units for everything that we've said, and it's not a hill I need to die on.
I think it's fine to just bring it to the state's level.
And so while I didn't support it in committee and I still have my feelings like I would prefer 20, it's not a hill I'm interested in dying on.
I want to get cranes in the sky, and I want to get some of that middle housing built in East Portland.
So I'll, I'll go ahead and plan to support it today.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
I wanted to give one last opportunity to the staff.
You included mixed-use for a reason, I have to presume.
What was that reason?
Because I am generally in agreement that that is an unnecessary code requirement that we have just blanketed across the city and we are seeing failing in a lot of places.
So like, what was the reason?
I can't— I hope it wasn't just happenstance.
Donnie Oliveira
No, Councilor.
And just for clarity, in the original ordinance, it references it as one of the things we would look at as a priority, was like not a must-have, because we were looking at the different structures of a project.
Mixed-use would be a thing that we'd contemplate.
Because in many cases when we're talking about the larger projects, based on where those would go by our zoning, it makes sense to have a mixed-use development in places like a 75-unit project would go.
Now with the rest of Green 2, by reducing the minimum, the mixed-use component becomes irrelevant.
'Cause it's absolutely right, you wouldn't build a mixed-use building with 4 units in every zone.
That's just, that's not a relevant consideration.
Loretta Smith
So.
Eric Engstrom
Councilor Smith.
Donnie Oliveira
If Green 2 is adopted holistically, then that makes you— piece becomes moot.
Mitch Green
Okay, thanks.
Eric Zimmerman
And who from the city brought this original work to the committee?
What department or what section?
Where'd this come from?
Donnie Oliveira
It's actually Prosper Housing.
It was Prosper Housing and Revenue.
Eric Zimmerman
And Revenue.
Okay.
That's why Tim's here.
Okay.
All right.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thanks, Council President.
I, you know, I, I was listening to everything Councilor Avalos was saying about our discussion in committee and wanted to jump in to say that for those reasons, I'm actually not going to support this amendment.
We did have a discussion about the right level.
We heard from advocates who were worried 75 would be too high.
We heard from folks in the administration that they wanted to make sure that we captured— if it's first come, first serve, and if we're only going to get so many projects, let's make sure we're capturing some of those larger projects.
And we settled on 20, that number where inclusionary zoning in to say we already have a line here.
Let's make sure that we're focused not on the cottage clusters and duplexes, which I think are actually an incredibly important part of the system, but a different part of the system.
Let's make sure we're focused on those larger-scale projects.
Um, let's make sure we're focused because we specifically said transit-oriented, um, as one of the other criteria here for preference.
When you talk about transit-oriented, we are often More likely to be talking about mixed use.
There was a really intentional decision here, and I, I feel the need to stick with that decision that we made as we evaluated all of these pieces through a true quick discussion but relatively comprehensive conversation in committee.
Thanks, Council President.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Colleagues, I put myself in the queue.
I'm going to be supportive of Green 2.
I will tell you that first, when we have— first, I think Robert Pyle is a fantastic developer and the infill model that he has been working on and a lot of cottage cluster things.
When we hear from Multifamily Northwest coming and telling us please do this, and then we also have DSA here telling us to do this, I feel like either this is a great idea or somehow a terrible idea that I just can't understand.
But it seems like a really good idea to me.
I also think that I mean, I will be honest and I will be transparent to this body.
I am not certain that inclusionary housing is serving our city well.
The number of 19-unit buildings, the concerns I hear from developers, the sort of automatic triggers, I'm just not sure that right now it is helping.
And I also am really concerned about this.
So for that purpose, I am concerned about this MRL being tagged at the 20-unit building.
Thank you.
I also am worried about trying to make— trying to use this as a tool to entice bigger projects, because I have been hearing from developers that those projects are simply not coming right now, that those investors who would be bringing that level of capital are looking around and saying, we could spend X on building a new building, or we could spend a tenth of X and buy a building that's currently in foreclosure.
And if this could help make some of the smaller projects A 10-unit, a 15-unit, something on my side of town, as Mr. Pyle was saying, actually start and we can get any units going, I think that that's a really big deal right now.
In a perfect world, if we were in the Portlandia era, absolutely, let's tie it to a bigger thing and see if we can get more skyscrapers.
But that ain't where we are right now.
So I'm gonna be supportive of this.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, I just— one last pitch on this.
Green 2 is really designed to maximize the flexibility and lower the burden as much as possible for developers, just because I do think that we need to really use every tool in the toolkit right now to just get production going.
That will help our economic picture in ways that have a multiplier effect.
The other amendments are different.
And so I just want you to focus on the nature of Green 2 and the intent behind it.
And again, hope that you see that I'm trying to speed up the rate of housing production here.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, thank you, Council President.
You actually said much of the things that I would've said, so I really appreciate your comments.
The adaptable shift from this body is a really encouraging sign.
Thank you, Robert Pyle.
There you are.
For sharing your lived experience.
I believe you.
Superb testimony.
Thanks.
We can't have housing production numbers like 2025.
It's just unacceptable.
We have to do something.
So let's align with the state.
Let's move some dirt.
I'm all in for green too.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Ryan, 'cause you said the word green, it came outta my mouth.
Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick
Thank you, Mr. President.
I had the same reaction you did to the varied testimony on this topic.
I also just need to take this opportunity to say that I said earlier that I wasn't going to go to Le Pigeon because I've been warned that somebody might spit in my food.
That was a joke in bad taste that I should not have repeated.
Le Pigeon did not warn me of that, and I'm planning to go there on July 10th.
And if somebody wants to join me, because I don't have a date, I will pay.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
You got 8— you got 7 months.
Okay, uh, Councilor Zimmerman, is that a legacy hand?
Yeah.
Okay, thank you.
Um, colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue to discuss Green 2, Rebecca, can we please call the roll on Green 2?
Rebecca Dobert
Green 2, moved by Green, seconded by Ryan.
Jamie Dunphy
And cameras on, please, colleagues.
Rebecca Dobert
Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
No.
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Adrienne Delgado
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo?
Uh, absent.
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Thanks to Robert and to Zach for their testimony.
I'm an aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Avalos?
Angelita Morillo
Sorry, go ahead, go ahead, Murillo.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Sorry, I'm here.
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Aye.
Candace Avalos
And I vote aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo is an aye.
Candace Avalos
Avalos is an aye.
Yeah.
Rebecca Dobert
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
And the amendment's approved with 11 ayes, 1 nay vote.
Thank you very much.
Councilor Novick?
Steve Novick
Legacy?
Legacy.
Mitch Green
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Thank you, colleagues.
I'd like to move Green— what is it— 3.
I look for a second.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Green moves Green 3.
Councilor Kanal seconds.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, thank you, colleagues.
Um, we got into this a little bit during the technical discussion, but the the intent behind Green 3 is just to add an explicit recognition that City Council can engage more formally on making sure that this program is being implemented to state law.
And I know that there's an implicit duty and right of Council to invoke its charter investigatory powers.
I think that that's That's way up the scale of oversight.
That's, that's a blunt tool for something like this.
It's much more direct, um, as you heard from our city attorney, to just sort of say explicitly that, um, the city's program manager, their designee, shall make available to council these, these financial statements.
And, uh, this, this one will be especially important for me if we don't pass Green 4, because now we've got this separation of the the designee is Prosper Portland.
We don't have that ability to sort of do that investigation on Prosper Portland because they're a distinct entity.
And so this just writes in, writes into the code that there is an expectation that council can exercise its oversight powers responsibly when appropriate through this codification.
And it would obviously apply whoever the designee is, but— I think that's a good point.
That's the spirit behind it.
It doesn't do anything more than that.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Colleagues, I had intended to give us a restroom break before moving to the next amendment, so I'm going to pause this right here and I'm going to give us a 10-minute restroom break and have everybody back here at 4:15.
We still have an entire— we have 2 other items after this still, so in addition to the one we're on.
So see you in 10 minutes.
And we are back, friends.
We are in discussion of Green 3.
Councilor Clark, turning to you.
Olivia Clark
Uh, thank you, Council President.
I think— oh, Green 3, right.
Um, I just would, um, was going to reiterate my concern about adding anything that dissuades private participation in the stack, and, um, It just seems like there are ways for us to get this information if we really need to have it.
Um, so I'm— I appreciate your efforts on this, I really do, um, as a housing advocate.
So, uh, I just don't want to do anything that might prevent, uh, the private sector from getting involved in a, in a project.
So I'm probably going to vote no.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor.
Vice President Clark.
Colleagues, any further discussion of Green 3?
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, thank you, Council President.
I think it gets to both 3 and 4.
Um, DCL Alvaro, could you please come up?
Well, 3 I, I have opinions on because when I was Housing Commissioner, I, I, I fully trusted the staff's due diligence in the process that we had, so I don't— I'm I'm clear, I'm a no on that.
But I thought I heard on 4, but I think you're being very diplomatic and perhaps I wasn't hearing it, but I heard capacity strain and challenges.
Is that true?
Is that on both or on 4?
Donnie Oliveira
Yeah, Councilor, are we, just to be clear, are we discussing just 3 or are we open to 4?
Candace Avalos
Sorry.
Jamie Dunphy
We're on 3, but you're welcome to comment on 4.
Dan Ryan
Okay, great.
Donnie Oliveira
Thank you for—.
Dan Ryan
Trying to be efficient.
Absolutely.
Time.
Donnie Oliveira
Donnie Oliveira for the record.
Regarding 4, the question is, about capacity.
And right now at PHB, we are aggressively standing up new programs that council directed the bureau to do related to the $56 million ordinance, the Keeping Portlanders Housed initiative.
And those are some really big lifts and really excited to get those forward.
We've shared some of the timelines with the project sponsors on that.
It'd be the same team, a very small but mighty team that is working on those that would pivot to work on MRL because we are This is also an urgent program as well.
And so we do have limitations just staffing capacity-wise at the Housing Bureau.
There's talented team partners that can support Prosper in this, but at the same time, the projects we're looking at too, Prosper just has the capacity and the expertise to move these forward quickly, working with the state to get these dollars allocated.
So it would be our preference that the administration remains with Prosper, acknowledging just the capacity at Thank you so much.
Dan Ryan
I needed to hear that directly.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, just speaking into it, like, colleagues, I recognize that not everyone's comfortable with this.
And Councilor Clark, I hear your concerns and I take them well.
I think for me, if we don't pass this, I think it's still incumbent on this body to at times ask the questions it needs to ask and do the, do this oversight it needs to do.
It just— it will become a little bit more ad hoc, and this just provides a kind of formal declaration.
But I'll leave it there.
I'm not going to try to, uh, you know, um, uh, what's the euphemism?
I'm not— I'll just leave it there.
I, I accept the position that folks are in, um, and this is why I separated the amendments in the first place.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Council President.
Do we have, um, the acting city administrator with us right now?
Jamie Dunphy
We have an acting city administrator.
It is, uh, uh, DCA Dhanapal.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, that'll work.
Um, we don't usually put language like this in ordinances that we pass.
Is there— I'm gonna think about how I want to ask this.
I'm trying to understand the necessity.
Is there an assumption right now in the direction that you all both give and get that when councilors or the council requests information, it is gotten to us as quickly as feasible?
Or is that not an assumption on all work that we do?
Again, sorry, is there an assumption within the administration right now that when councilors, or when the council— it sounds like this language the lawyers would say we would need to pass a resolution for anyway— That when we ask for something, it should be gotten to us for information or financial statements, it should be gotten to us as soon as possible, or is that not an assumption for any similar ask that council might make?
Chido Dilawayo
I will have to check with City Administrator Lee for the response, but we are— our goal is to get it back to you as soon as possible.
Loretta Smith
That's, that's the—.
Keelan McClymont
On the administrative side, we try to get back to you as soon as possible.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
And I put you in an awkward position.
You are not the, the always city administrator, and I apologize for that, DCA Dhanapal.
You know, when we break with precedent, when we say something somewhere and not everywhere, that starts to create or can start to create the precedent that we mean it in some places and not other places.
And Councilor Green, I agree with you very much that there are going to be places where we need to do some oversight and we should ask for the information to be able to do that.
And it concerns me that we were told that if we pass this, we'll need to pass a resolution when we want the information anyway, because anytime we pass a resolution, we should get that information.
In fact, we shouldn't have to.
Anytime we ask for something, we should get that information.
So as long as that is the administration's intent always, I am hesitant to pass this language here and start to say, hey, sometimes we call it out and sometimes we don't, and then leave to legal interpretation the difference between our intent and what we, what we might want in those different scenarios.
Councilor Smith.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Murillo.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
Um, is one of the housing city attorneys who was here earlier, if they could come up?
Um, are we allowed to compel Prosper to give us a pro forma?
Um, I think, you know, I think sometimes when I'm thinking of these amendments, there are varying degrees to which any number of us can get And pieces of information, and it really varies person by person that they're speaking with in each bureau or agency.
Adrienne Delgado
I think there's a number of ways that you can request information from Prosper.
It's not going to be the same path that we've been talking about with asking the city administrator or calling a bureau and asking for advice, um, for the records.
There you could ask for, you know, an issue of public records request.
When we send money from the general fund, we would execute an IGA, and I would assume there would be a term in that IGA that Prosper has to disclose records when we, when we ask for them.
But it's not the same path.
So I think part of the discussion is like, if this is— if Prosper is going to be executing this program, then We would either— this clause would help the city get records from Prosper, or when Prosper executes an IGA with the city administrator or revenue, then that's another pathway, um, to— for the city to get records from Prosper, is to include that clause in the IGA.
And would a records request get us a really redacted pro forma from Prosper, or would we get to Generally, um, I can answer it from the, like, from the Housing Bureau attorney perspective, is that when we get a public records request that involves financial information of a developer, that we would redact that information because it's— there is a specific public records law exemption.
So certain financial information, including the pro forma, would generally be redacted.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
Okay, and if we asked the Housing Bureau for a pro forma, can they provide that?
Adrienne Delgado
There's certainly nothing that prevents them from providing it.
So the public records exemption is conditional, meaning that you have— the city has the choice whether or not to exercise it.
Angelita Morillo
Okay, I think in, in my experience, when my office has asked for pro formas, that's not how it's worked out in practice.
Um, they have said— the Housing Bureau said that they're not able to send them over, um, and it really depends on Prosper's responsiveness as well if we get them or not.
Um, I also think that there is something to be said here about the fact that we are elected officials who are technically, uh, having some oversight over these dollars but then not having direct oversight over them.
And that means that, that we as elected officials have to do records requests on a city agency to get information, I think is kind of concerning.
So that's part of why I think that this amendment matters, because we need to have a different avenue for getting this information.
And, and that's why I'll be supportive of it.
So thanks for answering my questions.
Mitch Green
I appreciate you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, I just wanted to Respond briefly to, I think, the line of concern that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney raised.
And I tend to agree, but I think I want to just make it clear why I included this here.
I am sympathetic to that sort of like precedent thing.
It's just that in the state law that created the MURL, there's a whole section that explicitly says there is an obligation to disclose the full financials And make the case that you have a but-for need.
And so I think especially when we're in a case where there is a potential principal-agent separation and council as the budget authority is ultimately on the hook for paying back whatever choice the designee has made for the developer, we should be able to have a pathway to sort of look in and inspect those books, so to speak.
Thank you.
So that was the motivation there.
I, I, I think it's very peculiar.
It's, it's, it's particular to this thing that we're trying to do here.
Um, I don't contemplate that generally for all of our legislation because we do just have that native authority.
Um, and I'll just leave it there.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, thank you, Councilor Green.
Seeing no one else in the queue, Rebecca, Okay, could we please call the roll on Green 3?
Rebecca Dobert
Green 3, moved by Green, seconded by Kanal.
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
And the amendment fails with 6 aye, 6 no votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay, Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Uh, I don't think this is going to pass, but I do just want to move it and just I just have— I want to put on the record why I introduced it.
So I would like to move Green 4.
Can I ask for a second?
Robert Pyle
Thanks.
Angelita Morillo
Second.
Mitch Green
Okay.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Green has moved Green 4.
Councilor Kanal has seconded.
Councilor Green.
Mitch Green
Yeah, colleagues, briefly, I think there's just— there's a couple reasons why I think Green 4 improves this and puts the city in a position to be better stewards of those state funds and also, frankly, our own money because we have to pay it back.
And it comes from— I'll firstly speak to my experience as a counterparty risk analyst in my prior career.
Whenever a decision is made to advance a loan to one party, there's an immediate— and there's an obliga— particularly in a situation where like the grantee, who's the developer, receives the grant through the underwriting process, and then simultaneously the City of Portland now has a loan obligation to the state of Oregon, we now enter into what's called counterparty risk.
Because if the person— if there's a default situation or the— there's 2 sources of payback in this method.
It's fee and lieu, and then there's the sort of proceeds from a TIF district.
If either of those fail to materialize, we still have to pay back the state of Oregon.
And so we still— we now— we bear the exposure for counterparty risk.
And so having that I think that having the agent, the underwriting agent be the city itself mitigates that counterparty risk.
You can mitigate the counterparty risk by having more controls.
We just passed— we just failed to pass an amendment that I think would have probably helped mitigate that a little bit by giving council some oversight.
But it does introduce some risk.
I'm not saying the risk is insurmountable.
We take on risks all the time.
I think the risk is insurmountable.
But it is something that I thought about because of my prior experience.
The other piece is that I actually think that revolving loan funds are going to become a very important and central part of housing production in general, whether we're talking about market housing, social housing, anything in between.
And I want them to be successful, and I want us to do a lot more of them, and I want the state to re-up this program and expand it.
And so I think that Developing the administrative capacity for the City of Portland to facilitate that as we do it, we just capitalize a small revolving loan for our own selves.
Building that capability, I think, is really important.
And so having this work be done in the Portland Housing Bureau and be funded by that 5% fee that Robert Pyle spoke to earlier gives us an opportunity to build that capacity in-house.
This is not a— I think it's important to note that the vote of no confidence in Prosper Portland.
They do great work over there, but Prosper Portland needs to focus, in my view, on economic development, and Portland Housing Bureau should focus on housing production.
That's the— those are the lanes that Nick Fish actually— Commissioner Nick Fish identified and articulated when we split these things off in the first place.
So I go back to that kind of initial intent.
And so I worry if we go down this road, we'll continue to sort of I guess in some sense lose an opportunity to build that administrative capacity.
So that's my primary motivation.
It's risk.
It's a risk thing as well as it is a let's build our administrative capacity frame.
And so hope, hope, hope for support.
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you, Council President.
Thanks, Councilor Green, for doing the work on this and all the other amendments as well.
I'm going to smash the yes button on this one.
I I think it's really vital that for the taxpayers that are looking at us as a steward of this particular program, obviously they paid into it from the state perspective.
It's vital that we are able to keep this in-house to be able to exercise that democratic control and have the actual oversight of the program.
And we've had this conversation around democratic accountability several times.
I think that's really vital.
I think it's also fair to point out that I really appreciate DCA Oliveira's point about having enough— whether or not PHB has enough staff.
I also want to note that Prosper Portland is facing the same concerns.
Prosper Portland is zeroing out its equity department, for example, right now.
They are also facing some of the same issues, and I think the question is how do we solve for the problem as opposed to just take the face value Which I think is accurate of where we're at staffing-wise, and assume it can't be changed.
I think we can do what we need to do to provide enough capacity.
That 5% would go a long way, I imagine, towards that, but also ensure that we're not simply looking at one potential option in a vacuum and not taking into account that Prosper is also facing some of the same staff capacity concerns there as well.
Mitch Green
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Knoll.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, thank you.
Um, I hear and understand that argument, Councilor Kanal, and I appreciate you, Councilor Green.
Um, I, I do understand where you're coming from.
Um, and, um, you know, like I said in committee, I believe that there are some policy ways to go— excuse me— policy ways to go about it.
Um, also Just like oversight and reporting requirements.
I'm not convinced at this moment that changing this improves the program, and I am actually pretty concerned about the Housing Bureau's capacity.
And I say that as somebody who's working very closely with them and is constantly pushing them, and there— it's, it's too much.
And please know I will be coming back at some point this year to ask council to help me figure out how to increase capacity.
Thank you.
In the Housing Bureau too, because they are doing excellent work, but they are at the breaking point, and I want to acknowledge that because I'm really grateful for what they've been doing.
So I think because this is a program that is going to draw down those dollars very quickly, it's kind of a one-time thing.
I'm not too concerned about the long-term governance questions, even though I agree with your governance questions, Councilor Green.
Thank you.
I just don't think this particular thing will address those necessarily, and I want your help and I want everyone's help in increasing Housing Bureau's capacity.
And let's absolutely talk about those governance questions overall.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Vice President Clark.
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Council President.
Um, thank you, Councilor Green, for your continued advocacy on all things housing.
I really appreciate that.
But I, at this point, I really agree with Councilor Avalos and the notes that I had written when I first read this, that there's just so much fluidity right now in the housing industrial complex, you know, with not just our bureau but with Home Forward and other things, that I would prefer that this issue be come back to the Housing Committee for further review.
And I also feel like we need to be careful about the language.
Councilor Avalos.
To give our new Cornel Wesley, who's still relatively new, an opportunity to really right the ship at Prosper.
So I'm gonna vote against this, but I definitely appreciate your effort and really agree with Councilor Avalos.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Vice President Clark.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you, Mr. President.
I was looking at this and I'm at the point, Councilor Green, that we need to get a handle on what the Portland Housing Bureau is doing, period, before giving them any additional, um, things to do, because I'm not clear that they're doing what they need to do right now, especially with the challenges they've had.
And so putting some more responsibility over there, that's not what we need to be doing.
Um, Prosper Portland is capable and able To do this.
And the governance and boosting up, we can't boost a whole lot up right now because people are losing their jobs.
So I don't know how we boost up a bureau or any bureau in this city until we get a handle on how we fill our gaps in our budget and until we can bring some more revenue in.
We need different revenue sources.
Councilor Loretta Smith.
To be able to boost up any office existing or new or plans to expand any other bureaus in the City of Portland.
So I will be voting no for this.
I hear you.
I'm—.
I hear you, but now is not the time.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Murillo.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you, Council President.
Um, colleagues, I kind of want us to think back to just a few months ago when the news came out about the Made in Old Town controversy with Prosper Portland and how Prosper Portland had mismanaged funds by spending, uh, giving a $7 million loan for a sneaker company.
And then it turns out that the building was only appraised for, I think it was close to $4 million.
So they got millions more than was needed due to Prior relationships that were established there in ways that are not fully vetted.
When we have— we as a city council have no direct oversight on Prosper or how they use their funding, and that puts us in a really precarious position when we are not able to do any oversight whatsoever.
We—.
They can make mistakes, and the city is going to be in the position of footing the bill.
Councilmember Koyama Lane.
And then not only that, but we don't even have the power to retroactively look at those mistakes and do oversight and correct them in the future.
So if we don't have a mechanism for doing any oversight on Prosper, that's going to put us in a really bad position, and we are going to be handling the payments for their mistakes with our taxpayer dollars because that's how we're funded.
So I think it's really important that we do vote this amendment through.
Councilmember Smith, I think we have a motion to table.
And I think as other folks have stated, you know, the Housing Bureau and Prosper are both going through staffing changes.
So there's going to be struggles on either end.
But at least we as council can exercise our oversight authority to make sure that those dollars are spent appropriately.
And I don't bring up the Made in Old Town thing to like throw anyone under the bus publicly, but that is a big thing that happened that we can't just brush aside when we're talking about millions of dollars.
Councilmember Smith, I think you're Yes.
They got like $4 million extra that was not needed, and that, that can't be responsible governance on our end.
So because of that, and because we have such limited oversight over how Prosper does things, I think that we do need to rein that in a bit.
Um, and I will be supportive of the amendment overall, and I, I hope that this council is just more interested in doing oversight moving forward because I feel like we are relinquishing some of our core powers when we do this.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So that's it.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Colleagues, I put myself in the queue.
I will say I am supportive of the principle of what this amendment is trying to do.
But I will tell you that DCA Oliveira's concerns about capacity are very real, and he wouldn't come up and say it publicly if it weren't probably already past the point where it is too Thank you.
Thank you very much for the few folks at the PHB.
But to that end, I do have some concerns about the fact that— well, first I'd like to just sort of say the state of Oregon does the underwriting of this, but the city of Portland backs the loan.
Prosper won't be making any of the decisions on the specific loan terms, and the state is the one that gets to make the final call on which of these projects is actually— I think it's worth— I don't know a lot about finance, and so I'm just trying to state these things very clearly for myself.
Yes.
But the concern I have is, and I have a lot of faith in our— the new Prosper director, Cornell Wesley.
I think he's moving this bureau in the right direction.
But I do have worries about separating our low-income housing from our moderate-income housing programs.
I have worries about the fact that if the city is backing the loan, but we can't— we don't necessarily have direct insight into what Prosper's decision-making process is or the other documents that they are considering, That leaves us in a precarious position and also leaves us in a financially precarious position because Prosper is not capital C City of Portland government.
So I think that the right place for housing loans and housing programs should be the Housing Bureau.
But I also definitely hear that there is capacity issues.
I suspect based on the conversations that this doesn't have the votes to pass.
So we should move forward.
It is 4:45.
Thank you.
But I do think that fundamentally we should not be duplicating kinds of projects.
We should really find out like what is somebody— what is a bureau's lane and put them in there.
And then it is up to us to right-size the staffing and resources.
That's all I have to say.
Councilor Knoll.
Steve Novick
Thanks.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, I mean, I think this is a— I appreciate the comments.
I appreciate everything that you just said as well.
Well, I mean, I, I don't know about prognostication as it relates to the, the, um, amendment or the underlying, but I, I know that this passing would give me the confidence in the underlying ordinance, um, which may be relevant to those who are counting.
Um, and I, I'm very, very— this is the most important amendment I think that we've talked about.
It's also the last one that I see right now, so I have no idea if, uh, there's another mechanism And to create that confidence in those who may not have it, like myself.
But I do think that there's a conversation we have to have here because right now we have influence over, I think, one thing at Prosper, which is going to come to the Committee of the Whole at some point, which is appointing one member or reappointing a member to the board.
And that's, I think, a really concerning lack of influence over an agency that we seem to be giving more and more and more Thank you.
And I've had— there are times where I think that's important to do.
I supported the Storefront Support Program being at Prosper, for example.
I think that's a good use of Prosper.
So it's not exclusively everything should go there or nothing should go there.
It's that we should be thoughtful about this.
And I think it's pretty obvious to me that it's a better fit at the Portland Housing Bureau.
I think that the second Part of that chronologically is how do we ensure the capacity is, is there necessarily to support the work and sort of address the concern that has been raised by the Deputy City Administrator?
Because I do think that's worth, worth addressing, even if we don't put more work there, but certainly if we do.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
And I also just want to add the fact that, um, when you give the money to the Portland Housing Bureau, they're not going to have access to other resources that, that, um, Prosper Portland has, because it's not going to be just like one and done.
They're going to have to probably put a capital stack with it, and we don't have that extra capital stack that they have over at Prosper.
So, I mean, they're not prepared for this, and, um, I'll be asking all of you to, to pass on this and vote no.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So I heard the amendment sponsor talk about being concerned about creating a revolving loan at Prosper and not at the city.
Council President, is there anybody there who is able to speak to what power we have as council through our budget role with Prosper to move programs between Prosper and the city and carry the dollars that go with those programs from Prosper back to the city, should we develop a loan program at Prosper and decide that we want it in the Housing Bureau a few years from now when the capacity exists?
Jamie Dunphy
Let's see, is there anybody here who could speak to the legality of that?
Chido Dilawayo
DC Oliveira, would you like to come up?
Donnie Oliveira
Uh, Donnie Oliveira for the record.
Uh, Councilor, the question that you asked, I'm, I'm not going to speak to the housing program for a second, but the, the conditions by which the city, uh, could work with Prosper to bring a program with resources from Prosper to the city, or in that same manner from the city to Prosper, uh, is being discussed.
Like, what's the process to do that?
So the answer is yes, we are contemplating what that structure would look like.
It doesn't necessarily even have to be a budget action.
It could be an IGA.
But we're working with the City Attorney's Office on that, talking about a different program.
I just want to flag 2 things for this conversation.
There's a lot of merit to the questions that councilors may have brought about oversight of PROSPER, organizationally where resources belong to do these programs.
Thank you.
What's the role of Prosper versus housing when it comes to housing production?
Those are all valid things that we're contemplating in the administration and things that this council should discuss as well.
What I want to flag, and I believe Councilor Avalos said this most eloquently, is the program that we're talking about right now is very short-term and largely, and I think Councilor President, you said this as well, the administration of it is a pass-through function where the state really is the loaner.
Like, they're the ones providing the resources.
The administrator, whether it's Prosper or Housing Bureau, is doing the pass-through.
Still administration work, still a lot of work.
I don't want to minimize it, but it's less financial burden from a decision-making perspective.
Councilor Murillo, you are right.
The city will ultimately back these loans, whether it be through TIF or other mechanisms, but the program itself is largely short time.
What we're hoping to do is focus the PHB staff on those longer-term programs that councilors are seeking.
Rent buydown, the revolving loan, et cetera, and allow Prosper to do this work because, A, it's in their portfolio today and it is a more timely lift.
So hopefully that answers your question, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, and the underlying question about oversight.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
It does.
Thanks.
And I think it gives me the assurance that I need to move forward as things are drafted, especially given the short-term nature of this program.
I do think it is important Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Knoll.
Yeah, DC Oliveira, I'm just— I think it's important that we have a clear path to do that.
If not, I think council may need to help weigh in there as well at some point.
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Knoll.
Sameer Kanal
Yeah, DC Oliveira, I'm just— I think it's important that I'm we have a clear path to do gonna that.
Ask one more.
Jamie Dunphy
I moonwalk back up.
Sameer Kanal
Sorry.
Jamie Dunphy
Um, thank you.
Sameer Kanal
We had the same conversation like a year ago.
Yeah.
And there's been nothing from the administration yet to resolve the underlying issue about oversight.
So can we expect that there's going to be some— or I shouldn't say oversight, democratic accountability?
Is there, is there anything in the works that we can, that we can look forward to from the administration, or is this something where we're gonna Because again, if we've, we've had this conversation, if we don't get something, it becomes a blunt instrument conversation.
Sure.
And that's what we have available to us.
Can we look forward to literally anything coming out of the administration related to democratic accountability?
Donnie Oliveira
Regarding democratic accountability, Councilor, thank you for the question.
I—.
It is absolutely a conversation that needs to happen on this dais related to what, what our existing structure is like the functional, like how Prosper exists, you know, a redevelopment agency in the city of Portland, what it does, this, this body's oversight of it through the budget process and not.
I was referring to questions that we've been contemplating on the, the second part that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney asked about moving programs over and what the mechanisms are for that.
Your question though is clearly about what is this body's role in oversight of basically programmatic functions of the agency, correct?
Yes.
And that needs to be discussed foundationally, what it is today and what it could be.
Sameer Kanal
I mean, that and Main and Old Town type of situation.
I mean, I think—.
I'm sorry.
The Main and Old Town situation.
Donnie Oliveira
Yeah.
And this is also where you've alluded to it, the appointment of a board.
Prosper has a public body that makes these decisions as well.
So in a lot of ways, that body functions publicly as a government agency that is— or entity, excuse me, That is making decisions on behalf of the public dollar.
Not this council, of course, but that, that's another place where public oversight happens.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thanks.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Um, thank you, DCA Alavarado, because I was going to bring up again Prosper Portland has their own board that they have to adhere to.
Anything that changes or anything, any scope of work that has to go through their board The only thing that we do is appoint a, um, an executive director, and that's done out of the mayor's office.
So I think we, we need to stay in our lane, y'all.
We got enough stuff to do over here that we don't have under control yet before we start trying to mess with Prosper.
Just let it go.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, Rebecca, can we please move to a roll call vote on Green Green 4, moved by Green, seconded by Kanal.
Rebecca Dobert
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Absent.
Rebecca Dobert
Ryan?
She's coming online.
Oh, sorry.
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Um, no.
Rebecca Dobert
Pirtle-Guiney is a no.
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Novick?
Steve Novick
In light of Mr. Oliveira's comment that this is a limited-time program, and I think that the mural should live short and prosper.
Rebecca Dobert
Wow.
That's terrible.
Novick is nay.
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Rebecca Dobert
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Rebecca Dobert
The amendment fails with 5 aye, 7 no votes.
Jamie Dunphy
Colleagues, seeing No other amendments proposed.
Is there further discussion of this item?
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, thank you all.
I just want to appreciate the conversation that we have had over this.
I think that the things that we're wrestling with right now are exactly what I'm hoping we can start to get some clarity about.
As a council, I'm really grateful to housing committee members who engaged in a great discussion on Tuesday about the progress of the unified housing strategy and where— what we're going to be bringing to council is a discussion about what we need to prioritize, what's most important.
And it is nitty-gritty, it's wonky like the conversation that we had, but I just want to emphasize the importance of that.
And I think that the city will appreciate us wrestling with this.
And so I just want to encourage us to keep doing that.
And I also say that because I think honestly I'm pretty shook by the polling data, and I think we need to really work hard to show Portlanders that we are serious about making responsible policy decisions that are going to move housing production forward.
Thank you.
Forward, that we're going to address these governance issues that absolutely need to be addressed as we're creating, you know, continuing to stand up our form of government.
And I'm really looking to my colleagues to bring those ideas to the table, and let's create more space for that.
Obviously, Housing Committee is one place for that, but something I want to talk to Council President and Councilor Kanal about really elevating more in maybe Committee of the Whole because it is— it affects all of us.
It's all of our, you know, top priorities in lots of ways, and I'm just really grateful for that discussion.
Even where there's disagreements, I think we're moving something forward that's positive.
So I wanted to say that.
Rebecca Dobert
Thank you.
Jamie Dunphy
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, this item is a non-emergency ordinance, moves now to second reading.
And colleagues, it is currently We have 2 additional items regarding the Mt.
Hood Cable Regulatory Commission and Cable Franchise Fund.
We are not going to be able to get to this.
I am going to continue these 2 items to the next available agenda, which is likely 2 weeks out because next week we are doing our final votes on the budget.
So I will be continuing document number 2026-175 and document 2026-176.
Thank you.
We're just so late that—.
Loretta Smith
I know.