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.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, I just met with Amanda.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Good afternoon, it is 2:02 on Tuesday, August 11th.
I am calling to order this welcome to this meeting of the City Life Committee.
Wendy, could you please call the roll?
Unidentified speaker
Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Here.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Here.
Candace Avalos
Avalos.
Present.
Dan Ryan
Ryan.
Here.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Here.
And Christopher, could you please read the statement of conduct?
Christopher
Welcome to the meeting of the City Life Committee.
To testify before this committee in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the committee agenda At www.portland.gov/council/agenda/city-life-committee or by calling 311.
Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link.
Registration for virtual testimony closes 1 hour prior to the meeting.
In-person testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard.
If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the chair states otherwise.
Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
The chair preserves order.
Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed.
If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony should address the matter being considered.
When testifying, state your name for the record.
If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Christopher.
Colleagues, we have 5 items on our agenda today after our regular public input slot, we will return to the conversation that we were having at our last meeting about performing arts venues.
Then after a short break, we will have 3 new items.
Item number 4 was submitted by Councilor Zimmerman, and Councilor, I believe your office has requested that we reorder the agenda to move that item to a future meeting, that there were some pieces that weren't ready yet today.
Is that correct?
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks.
This is about the PFAS chemicals in firefighter suits, and frankly, we're just tapped out from everything going on with Centennial Mills, and the ability to really pull this together and present today would've been irresponsible.
So if we can just bump to a future date, that would be very welcomed.
Candace Avalos
Great.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And I think our next meeting agenda, we probably won't have time to give it the full time it needs, but the agenda after that, we could likely put it on.
So that would be— That's great.
Eric Zimmerman
We just didn't want to, Send it back to office.
It is, it is ready.
It just— I need the city staff to help with it when at a future date.
So thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So colleagues, do I have unanimous consent to move agenda item 4 to a future committee meeting?
Okay, I'm not seeing any concerns, so let's go ahead and move that item.
And for folks who are listening who are prepared to speak to that item, I would expect that to come back in late September.
With that, why don't we move to our first agenda item?
Uh, Wendy, could you please call that for us?
Unidentified speaker
Yes, thank you.
Item number 1, public input on City Life Committee topics, document number 2026-284.
We have one individual who signed up, Ghalib El.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Welcome.
Thank you for being here with us today.
Elizabeth Lee
Thank you.
Galib Benemotebel
This was actually intended for tomorrow during the big show, but, uh, they give you one of these a month, so I used that last week.
So I'm going to speak on the Motor Center deal.
And good afternoon, my name is Galib Benemotebel.
I'm domiciled in District 4, and what I am speaking on to me is a subject that I believe is an egregious taxation of your governance resources.
Just to let you know that I've been here and I've spoken a lot, but there's not a lot that's known about me personally.
I grew up in LA County near the Great Western Forum, born in 1982.
Magic Johnson, Showtime, Pat Riley— lifelong Laker fan.
What can I do about it?
Sorry.
As a Laker fan in the '80s though, I learned to enjoy gritty, tough, hard-nosed basketball.
Fast forward a decade, 12, 13 years old, and I'm watching Eldon Campbell and Nick Van Exel get murdered by Clyde the Glide Drexler and Rod Strickland.
I swore this guy could jump out the building.
I did not know he had a ceiling.
So after all this, we have Arbeta Sabonis, we get Damon Stoudamire, we get Rasheed Wallace.
You know, there were a lot of memories that I have specifically as a Laker fan.
That are Portland highlights.
They might highlight the Lakers, but I can tell for Portland they were highlights too because they caused me some heartache.
I could continue to go on speaking on them, but then I'd be speaking about a Moda Center deal for hours without actually speaking about the Moda Center deal.
So what I've done is I submitted a document to the city clerk— I mean, to the council clerk.
Keelan McClymont
Council Clerk.
Galib Benemotebel
And it's got a set of economical values and some ideas or concepts that might have been overlooked.
I'm not sure because I haven't seen what's going on with all the talks, but I think some of the things that I put in there might not have been considered by Mr. Dundon.
And there's also a letter to Mr. Dundon explaining to him what happens potentially from the idea of moving a Portland Trail Blazers team out of Portland.
I don't even know where you would— what other city has a Trail Blazers?
And that thing appeal to the one sense that I think that man really does have?
Because if you get 99 more of those, then you got a dollar and he has another dollar.
So I'm not sure if he's going to look at this submission or if this testimony is going to matter to him.
But I do know this much about the situation.
I cannot personally fathom a Portland Trailblazer lacking in the NBA.
I cannot see that.
I have been born with it.
I want to die with it.
No matter what happens, the Moda Center is going to still be there.
We'll still be here.
And I love you all unconditionally.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you for being here and sharing those memories.
Keelan McClymont
That concludes public input.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Wendy, could you go ahead and call agenda item 2?
Unidentified speaker
Yes, thank you.
Agenda item 2, accept the future of large-scale performing arts recommendations to advance a new Broadway-capable venue as part of the proposed Performing Arts and Culture Center at Portland State University and initiate planning for the future of the Keller Auditorium resolution, document number 2026-270.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Great, thank you very much.
So colleagues, as you may remember, we had a presentation and a number of folks testify at our last meeting, presentation both on our publicly owned performing arts venues broadly and then also on the possibility of a new performing arts venue to take on our large-scale productions and the future of the Keller in a situation like that, to become a— to fill a different gap in our performing arts ecosystem.
We were not able to jump into discussion at our last meeting.
We've prioritized public testimony.
Today we will be able to have that conversation.
The city is really looking at 2 big decisions on this topic.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We're navigating the transfer of our venues, something we're not voting on today, but that we know is sitting in the background as we have these conversations, and then contemplating the future of our large-scale Broadway-capable performing arts spaces.
And again, with that transfer, the future of Keller and how it fits into our system in a very important way moving forward as well.
The resolution before us affirms the city's commitment to a new city-owned Broadway-capable venue as part of the Performing Arts and Culture Center at Portland State University.
It allows our staff, our administrative staff, to move forward with conversations around that venue and around what it would take to get there.
It also acknowledges the role that the Keller will need to continue to play both through that construction process as our Broadway-capable venue and after that construction process as an important part of our ecosystem moving forward.
The resolution received extensive testimony, not only in person but also written testimony, which I hope everybody has had an opportunity to look through.
We have folks from the invited testimony panels here.
I don't think we have We have quite everybody, but most folks who were here on invited panels in case there are questions for them that we weren't able to get to at the last meeting.
We also have our administrative staff here, I believe, to answer questions that come up around what the future of those conversations with PSU would be moving forward.
So we should have everybody we need to answer questions.
And I know that we have a number of amendments that have been posted, plus an additional that I didn't So we'll have an opportunity to discuss all of those.
So what we've done is reopen the resolution.
We'll get right into our deliberation.
And I want to note, because I have heard some questions about the follow-up to the first part of our discussion last— 2 weeks ago, that there will need to be more conversation about the P5 transfer and the future of management of our venues.
That's something that I am happy to have this committee take up in the future if this is the right venue.
And I'll work with the council president to see if that's something better taken up by the full council or by a small group of liaisons and how he wants to deal with that.
But we will make sure that the presentation we received isn't the end of that conversation.
Thank you.
So today, let's focus on the resolution before us and make sure we can get through the discussion that we need to have on the various pieces and amendments.
And with that, I'll look to the queue to see if there's anybody who'd like to start us out.
Councilor Avalos, go right ahead.
Candace Avalos
All right, thank you.
I'm going to approach this in a few ways.
I'm going to say a couple of points to frame what I am trying to do.
I'm going to explain explain the 3 amendments that I have proposed, which you should have in your inbox, and I haven't looked online, I assume are online.
Great.
And then I do have some follow-up questions that I want to get some answers to.
After I do those 3 things, then I will formally move each amendment and we can go into each.
Does that sound okay, Chair?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
That works, yes.
Candace Avalos
So, Full house.
Thanks for being here, everybody.
I want to start by first thanking everyone who's put years of work into this.
I recognize the need to address the future of the Keller, its seismic vulnerabilities and deferred maintenance, and the importance of maintaining a Broadway-capable venue without a prolonged closure that would have a significant, significant economic and cultural impact.
I also see the potential in the partnership with PSU.
The state has already made a significant investment and the analysis before us suggests that a new venue at PSU could increase attendance, operating revenue, and economic impact.
But I want to distinguish today between supporting that direction and financially committing the city to it.
I do not believe those are the same decision, and that is what I'm trying to address with some of my amendments and have a discussion with this committee.
The materials that we received themselves tell us that there is significant work to do.
We don't yet have a fully defined capital stack.
Thank you.
We don't know the city's ultimate contribution.
We don't know all of our ongoing operating and maintenance obligations.
And we're simultaneously beginning a separate process to determine the future and eventual cost of the Keller.
We've had a lot of conversations recently about major city-owned cultural and entertainment assets.
And one lesson I'm taking from those conversations is that council needs to establish its guardrails at the beginning of these processes, not after expectations and commitments have already been established.
Established.
I don't want us to create a situation where council makes the policy commitment today and then months from now is presented with a financial package that we're effectively expected to approve because we've already said, the way that this is currently written, in my opinion, that the project must happen.
My 3 amendments are therefore not intended to stop the PSU work.
They're intended to let that work continue while being precise about what council is and is not deciding today.
So let me explain the 3 amendments.
The first one, this changes the city's language.
It says commitment, in quote, commitment to building the venue into support for advancing planning and pre-development for a potential venue.
I'm understanding that part of this resolution is about responding to the, uh, work that was done by the work group.
I don't remember what they're called, committee work group, um, that is proposing recommendations.
But the way that those recommendations, in my opinion, are coming in this resolution are very rigid.
They are very must, will, have to.
And I'm trying to say may, could, you know, we'll see.
That's what I'm trying to do with my amendments.
Because again, I have to look at the entire budget, and I'm looking at— I'm staring down another conversation we're going to have tomorrow about more money.
There's a lot of other budget, um, and this is my attempt to make sure we're not making pre-commitments that I don't know where they're coming from yet when I have to protect core services that East Portlanders need.
That is my interest in the first one.
The second amendment creates the financial guardrail.
So it makes explicit that this resolution does not authorize, appropriate, or commit additional city funds for development or construction.
And before the city enters an agreement that financially obligates us, Council must receive the total project cost, the fully defined capital stack, the proposed city contribution, commitments from other partners, ongoing operating and maintenance obligations, return on investment analysis, and material financial risks.
Again, I believe these are basic things that any legislator would ask before committing millions of dollars.
If we're eventually going to ask Portlanders to make this significant investment on the project, I think that is the minimum that we should be receiving before we say yes.
The 3rd amendment addresses the project commitment agreement with PSU.
I support developing that agreement so that the partners can establish the scope, the schedule, governance, and continue developing the financial strategy.
But I do not think that an administrative agreement should commit the city to implementing a capital funding strategy that council hasn't seen or approved.
So this amendment changes that to developing a proposed capital funding strategy and explicitly preserves council approval before that agreement can financially commit the city to development or construction.
So collectively, I am trying to protect the council from making too many early agreements because again, I have to protect the whole budget.
I support you.
I worked at PSU for 8 years.
Go Vikes!
I see the vision.
I see the intent.
I also want to address and hear the many hundreds of people who have emailed me about the Keller and how important that is and how this 2-venue solution— it's complicated.
I hear that.
I hear that in the testimony.
What I'm trying to provide here is a path that sets us forward to get this information, to assure that the work that has been done until this point, all the analysis, that we can honor and acknowledge that.
And say before I approve as written, because as written, if these amendments do not pass, I cannot support.
So I'm going to say that up front so you're not surprised.
I won't support leaving committee if I feel like it's leaving committee with extreme conditions that I don't think we are prepared to back up.
And so just so you know, that's my intent.
And so as far as my questions here, and I guess you said that there are people in the room, I don't— apologies, wasn't I wasn't here last time, so I don't know who those people are.
So are they here?
Wente Johannes
What—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Why don't you ask your question and we'll figure out if it's best answered by the administration, by PSU, by some of the folks who— we had folks who were supporting a different approach, mostly focused around the Keller, folks from labor, a few other panels last time.
But why don't you ask the question?
Angelita Morillo
Sounds good.
Candace Avalos
I have like a million of them, so let me pick one.
Let's start here, because based on what I've described on what my intent is, I want to just make sure that the public understands the distinction that we're discussing today, and that again, without my amendments, what does it mean legally, financially, and practically for council to, quote, affirm the city's commitment— that's how it's written— to this venue?
So what would the city be committing itself to today?
I think that's a good question.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So City Administrator Lee, I'm going to let you start with that one.
And if we need to turn to an attorney, maybe we can call somebody into the room because I don't think we have the attorneys here right now.
Elizabeth Lee
Yeah, I would lean towards attorney answering a part of that question.
My understanding is us still being a partner in it, nothing committing ourselves financially as a city to anything at this point in time.
That's something that we've been pretty adamant about as we continue to have conversations as it relates to the We know there will potentially be infrastructure things that will potentially have to be done in the area, uh, to accommodate a new facility, uh, but that's the only thing that we have evaluated as a city is looking at what would infrastructure look like in that area.
Candace Avalos
Okay, thank you.
Uh, that is an answer, does not satisfy my question, but thank you for the answer.
I do think that it would be preferable to get some legal direction, because again, I'm trying to understand what does this resolution mean, right?
Resolutions are guidance, they are direction, but as written, there are some pretty strong, in my opinion, words that are like, we'll commit to funding this.
And again, I'm not going to commit to funding anything that I don't have specs for or information on, and that's what concerns me as is.
So I'll leave that at that.
If we can get an attorney here, I would appreciate that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor, um, we have our fantastic staff Council Operations working on trying to see if any of the attorneys who work in this area of our city's business are available right now.
Candace Avalos
Okay, sounds good.
Let's talk about city exposure and off-ramps for this.
So what are the city's potential ongoing obligations after construction?
Like, do we have any of that that we're able to digest right now?
Not just the capital contribution, but operations, maintenance.
I'm also hearing this info about the P5 and how fits in all that.
Can you just tell me more about what that potentially looks like?
Elizabeth Lee
Nothing at this time.
This venue is not part of the P5, which we're still going through conversation right now of long-term operations and maintenance of it.
That's something that we would have to talk through as this building is coming online.
Ultimately, who would be the operator of the facility and who would be responsible for those improvements or maintenance items that have to be done?
That'd have to be a contractual agreement that we'd have to work through.
Candace Avalos
And right now, as it's written, do you believe that if the updated cost is substantially higher than expected or fundraising falls short or the city's contribution is more than we can afford, can we stop or substantially change course without creating additional financial liability?
Elizabeth Lee
My intent would be to have all that upfront.
To council for consideration and decision point before we move forward.
I would never want to bring anything to the council where we're finding out midstream that this project could potentially cost us more than what we were intending for it to cost.
We would build in certain contingencies as it relates to any project, as it relates to doing a cost analysis or feasibility analysis of the project itself.
But we would not be trying to come back to council midstream of a project and say, hey, we need additional money associated to get this across the finish line.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
When we're talking about the project community agreement that is due per this on December 1st, is there anything that staff believes needs to be in that agreement that would financially obligate the city before council has reviewed the completed financial plan?
Elizabeth Lee
Not to my knowledge.
I don't know if we have staff that have looked through it through the detail, but nothing has been brought to my attention as it relates to anything that would cause a red flag or second consideration.
Candace Avalos
Okay, um, I'll ask one more question, and, um, which is, uh, as it relates to Keller.
So I appreciate that we're not abandoning Keller while pursuing PSC that seems to be the intent here, but we are potentially talking about 2 significant capital projects over time.
So when will council have enough information to understand the combined financial exposure of the PSU venue and whatever investment we ultimately decide to make at Keller?
Elizabeth Lee
Councilor, I would say let me follow up with you because this has been conversations we've been having internally of looking at if council did move forward with a PSU project, what is the capital investment that we need to make in Keller?
Because we can't afford to let Keller just sit idle.
And I think a part of this conversation as well too is what would be the use of Keller in this new framework?
We know we've had conversations as it relates to it being a smaller venue to attract different types of acts for our arts community, but I think that's that's still conversations that we're having internally to kind of figure out what does that look like and what is that capital investment that we need to make to make that truly something that can be reality for us.
But I will ensure that we follow up with council with those different options and funding plans as we come towards a final decision on this.
Candace Avalos
Thank you for answering my questions.
So I'll start moving towards the amendments that all I don't formally move, but I, I just want to reiterate that I do see real opportunity here, and I understand why PSU emerged as the preferred location, and I absolutely understand why avoiding a prolonged Keller closure matters for our arts organizations and workers.
I've been hearing about that for several months, or even prior to being on council, so it's been something I've had my finger on the pulse of.
I also care deeply about the future of the Keller.
I think there's there's clearly enormous public attachment to that building for lots of reasons, and that site.
And I want the next phase of community engagement to genuinely shape what happens there.
But ultimately, you know, why I'm bringing these amendments is because these are major public assets and potentially major public investments.
Uh, and I, I just want to— I don't think we can reasonably separate those decisions from the city's overall financial capacity when we're looking at all of them as a bulk, in addition to the millions of other things that we're looking at.
And so these are just asking us to preserve the distinction between planning a project and paying for a project.
That's what my amendments do.
I want to advance the work, I want to develop the capital stack, and I want to bring a complete financial picture back to the elected council before we're committing Portland taxpayers to any bill.
So with that, I will go ahead and start by moving Avalos 1.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Second.
Candace Avalos
Which again is about changing commitment to support for advancing planning and pre-development.
That's kind of the core of Avalos 1.
So I ask for a second on Avalos 1.
Angelita Morillo
Second.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, moved by Avalos, seconded by Morillo.
And Councilor Avalos, you've spoken to this in your broader remarks.
Do you want to say anything specific to this amendment?
Candace Avalos
Um, so, uh, I will say where the change is.
So there is a, um, in the second be it resolved clause, currently it says, um, the City Council affirm— be it further resolved that the City Council affirm the city's commitment to a new city-owned approximately 3,000-seat Broadway-capable venue, blah blah blah.
Instead, I say the City Council support advancing planning and pre-development for a potential new city-owned, approximately 3,000-seat Broadway-capable venue.
And then at the end, I add, subject to future City Council review and approval of the project's financial plan, capital funding strategy, and city financial obligations.
So that is the entirety of Avalos 1.
Sumner Knoll
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor Avalos.
Councilor Murillo, are you in the queue to speak to this amendment?
Go right ahead.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, thank you everyone so much for being here today.
And as I'm sure you've seen in the news, we have a lot of big investment projects that are being asked of us as city councilors.
We are also in the biggest budget deficit we've seen in a long time.
We just cut around $160 million, cut core services and jobs.
So if we're approaching these projects with scrutiny, I just want to say as a PSU alum who studied political science and legal studies there, it is not because It's because we have to do our due diligence during a very difficult financial time.
So I just wanted to start there.
I appreciate this amendment for sort of clarifying that language and making it a little bit clearer what's happening here, because while we are constantly told that resolutions and term sheets are non-binding, we know that politically they are binding, whether it is a legal change or not.
I think that's a great point.
We are making a commitment, and I don't believe— I'm not in the business of making commitments that I can't follow through on.
So I will be supporting this amendment.
And a thing that I had a question as well about is that same language about shared commitment further down.
We have one part that says, be it further resolved, the Deputy City Administrator is directed to develop a project commitment agreement with PSU by December 1st of this year.
That establishes the scope, schedule, and governance framework for the project and a shared commitment between city and Portland State University to develop and implement the full capital funding strategy.
So I just want to get the full scope maybe from you, City Administrator, about in that clause, what exactly does shared commitment for the city mean if we sign off and, you know, push this forward now?
And it sounds like maybe we have an attorney in the room now.
No.
No.
Oh, just kidding.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We will momentarily.
She got delayed on the way down.
No worries.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you for being here.
Eric Zimmerman
It would probably just be appropriate if you're part of the staff who presented on this, I would go ahead and plant yourself at the table here.
We're going to be here a bit.
Unidentified speaker
All right.
Thank you, Councilor.
Can you just— there were questions related to what that December 1st target would be included in that pre-capital stack.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, it says that the framework for the project is a shared commitment between the city and Portland State to develop and implement the full capital funding strategy.
So I think I'm just wanting to clarify here on the record what full commitment means.
Does it mean that we're gonna say, yes, we like the idea of this project, but later people are gonna come to us and ask for $100 million we don't have?
What does that exactly look like?
Unidentified speaker
Thank you for the question, Councilor.
Daniel Oliveira, for the record.
I'm gonna take one step back just to acknowledge that where we're at today with PSU is sort of in this holding pattern where there's a lot of details for that whole project.
That need to be shared with us.
And likewise, we need to lean in with our staff capacity to see how the city would show up.
So some of the details I'm going to share are vague because we haven't really begun that work together.
But in theory, what you're asking for is something that looks like clarity from us, from staff, to say if there would be a potential financial contribution from the city, if that would be an idea that would be on the table, like many that we'll contemplate from the private sector, philanthropy, etc., that we would come to you all In advance with— so there's no surprises, but what that might look like.
And in order for us to do that is we'll have to lean in with the university to understand what their existing capital is, where their gaps are, what makes most sense from us from an operating perspective.
This also is informed by the future of the P5, which we're working on as well, because there could be some leverage there.
So there's a lot of unknowns.
I'm naming this to say that we have work to do, which is why this December 1st date is so important.
Thank you.
Because we have to answer those questions.
I do think it's not the intent, and I'll speak for myself here, has never been the intent for the administration to come to you with a price tag for you to vote on in December for an arena, for a new venue.
Sorry, arena's on my mind.
Angelita Morillo
Okay, that's clarifying and I think helpful as far as what they're looking into here.
I think—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Sorry, just want to pause and let you know we do have an attorney in the room now if you had questions that needed an attorney's perspective.
Angelita Morillo
Hi, Heidi.
Take your time.
I have more to rant about, you know.
Um, I think, uh, yeah, the, the commitment part, that's, that's helpful clarity because I think, um, I'm sort of losing my train of thought.
I think we have a lot of big projects, like for example well, I don't know what our different options are for funding this.
If we're gonna do bonding, for example, there's only so much bonding that we can do.
We already have bonding for the Sidewalk Improvement Plan, SIP, that I know a lot of councilors really care about.
It's gonna create sidewalks in Districts 1 and 4.
There's a limit to how much money is flowing in our economy and what we can do.
So I think it's just hard with the limited information of where all these different things are coming forward.
But from what I'm hearing from you, this is an affirmation that we are going to look into it and plan together, not a commitment in any other way.
Unidentified speaker
Correct, Councilor.
And thank you for naming the broader infrastructure needs of our city.
And I'll just speak for my own service area for a moment.
It's not just Keller and PSU, but we also have other P5 venues that are sorely in need of investment.
We're also contemplating other investments across the city.
That we're going to have to pick some, you know, there's winners and losers in this, right?
We don't have an infinite number of options.
So that's going to be one of your responsibilities with the power of the purse to make those calls and we can deliver on those commitments.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Angelita Morillo
I think that's helpful.
I, again, I'm in favor of your amendment.
Thanks for bringing it forward.
I'll be supporting that and just removing language that can give anyone false impressions if we pass this.
But I think that We keep passing these resolutions that say, don't worry, we're not holding you to it, but we're gonna also signal that we're moving ahead with this thing without having clear commitments.
And I think that that puts us in a really dangerous position as a council from a legislative perspective, and I think can give false impressions to the community about what's happening.
So I will just leave it at that, that that's not my favorite practice that this council has gotten into.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Thanks, Donny.
I don't know if you or others want to come up here, but my questions for all these amendments will be kind of similar in terms of the language on its face seems in my mind quite simple in terms of changing the affirm to support.
But it's probably because of you and our work in another organization right now that I'm like, Being very careful on words matter and there is intent.
And so I just continually, as we go through these, if there's any red flags, I guess it's my invite to you all as the administration to say we think that significantly changes the intent.
And I, and I am inviting you— I don't know that we've always invited that, and I am inviting it as part of my decision-making.
If you think that about any of the amendments today, to please raise that flag and so we can discuss that part, because I don't want to support what seems like a, um, a rather mundane change that actually has third-order effects.
And so I'm looking to you.
I'm not seeing that in this Avalos 1 currently.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, Councilor, the most important thing for staff, and I'll just speak on behalf of us candidly, is to be given clarity of direction so we can actually roll up our sleeves and get to work on this.
I feel like we've been in a lot of paralysis on what are we going to do.
And at some point, we just need to put the staff time in to actually answering the questions that Councilor Murillo just asked, answering the questions that Councilor Avalos's amendments are contemplating.
Those are fair questions.
We just haven't had the, the green light to go do it.
And so amendments, great.
The underlying, thank you.
Let's go so we can come back to you all with some, some clarity.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, uh, thanks for that.
I'll have, as we get into, I'm sure the movement of the second and the third will be a thank you, Councilor.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Ryan.
Thank you.
I can go if you're not ready.
I just was going to give you the courtesy of going first.
Dan Ryan
No, it's fine.
It was surprising because you know how order changes.
Um, good afternoon everyone.
It's great to see you.
I've been in this meeting, unlike my colleagues, for several years, and it's really been a similar meeting now for several years.
So I understand what, what's going on.
DCI-Aleveira means when it's time for us to provide some clarity.
And unlike any other item I've dealt with in my 6 years on council, it's by far the most awkward.
And here's why.
I worked at PSU for 9 years.
I was the development director for the first capital campaign about 4 presidents ago.
Daniel Bernstein was the president then, rest in peace.
And I worked at the Oregon Ballet Theatre.
Thank you.
As the head of development, these are my people.
I see people with— I don't know what your buttons say.
I can't see them.
I know some are red, some are white, and they say different things.
And all of you are usually on the same side of doing everything you can to make Portland a better city.
Your civic record, your love for this city, your support to do things that are big and difficult.
Thank you.
You're usually all aligned to come together to do that.
So that's why it's also awkward.
Yeah, truly, it's really bizarre to see people that went to your wedding and they're on different sides of the aisle on this issue.
And I also think that we've been challenged to get the reality of what this vote is today.
And I do think, Councilor Zimmerman, that the amendments that are being floated have some similar themes.
And so I actually just have a couple questions I'd like to ask to get some things level-set a little bit further.
And one is, is the state's commitment of $137 million only for the PSU Student Performing Arts Center?
Candace Avalos
No.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Why don't we have somebody from PSU come up to make sure we get a precise answer on that question?
Dan Ryan
That's the PSU row.
Okay.
Hello, President.
Thank you for your time.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And if you two can go ahead and introduce yourselves, we'd appreciate it.
Yeah, for the record, I'm Anne Cudd.
I'm the president of Portland State University.
And I'm Jason Franklin
And I'm Jason Franklin.
I'm associate vice president for planning, construction, and real estate at Portland State University.
Unidentified speaker
And I'm going to let Jason answer the question because he will have the exact dollar number for the parking.
And I'm Jason Franklin
Yes, so the $137 million is the state's commitment to PSU to construct performing arts venue at the location, and that money would primarily be used for constructing the education component and the parking component of So obviously the parking would be used by everybody at the facility, so that is a shared use.
And then because the education component and the city's owned— city-owned component would be developed together, there is some overlap.
So this was seen in the recently constructed Vanport building that we built in conjunction with the City of Portland, OHSU, and PCC.
And the Portland Public Library.
Each of us brought our own color of money, as it were, to the project, but it all went into the same pot and all went together to build that building.
So including the foundation, the mechanical system, the electrical system, all those things that you need to construct a new facility.
So yes, it does go towards the PSU portion of it, but it also goes towards the overall project of building this—.
Dan Ryan
The infrastructure of the project.
Jason Franklin
Yes.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Is there any funding for the Broadway venue from the state?
Jason Franklin
Currently, there is no funding for the Broadway-capable venue from the state.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
So the $137 million is for the PSU Student Performing Arts Center and infrastructure surrounding it, mostly the parking lot?
Jason Franklin
Correct.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
Jason, can I—.
Dan Ryan
Can you provide a budget for—.
Unidentified speaker
Sorry, may I just add one just other editorial on that?
The value proposition of those dollars being in is that it increases our likelihood to complete the capital stack.
Investors like to see money in, especially public dollars in early, and this just enhances our ability.
So I would say it's not just $135 million, it's $135 million with a booster, and that—.
Dan Ryan
$137 million.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, $137 million with a booster, that we lead in with that and we're in a much stronger position, including this, the city venue specifically.
Okay.
Dan Ryan
Can you provide a budget for the $44 million that the city is committing to fund?
That's probably for you, Donny, or you, City Administrator.
That's the number everyone's floating around.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor, is the question what that $44 million would be used for?
Dan Ryan
Yeah.
Could someone just verify that this is hearsay or is it real?
What's the identified sources for the $44 million?
Unidentified speaker
Councilor, we're aware of the request from the university, but I think that's one of those questions we'd unpack with them once we activated the TAC, the Technical Assistance Committee.
Dan Ryan
We're being asked to vote today, but we can't verify.
We can verify that the university wants $44 million from the city, but—.
Candace Avalos
We are not asking for the city to vote for $44 million today.
Unidentified speaker
What we were doing was, I think, offering an estimate of what would be needed to instill enough confidence to move forward and to do the design, the initial design.
And so, and that would be a design of the Broadway-capable venue as well as the rest of the project.
Jason Franklin
Yeah, so just to be clear, that $44 million, as the president said, is for the city-owned facility, and it would fund design, cost estimating, all the way through the project.
So at some point in these large projects, you need to hire architects and construction folks and others, and you need to move, move through the project.
And to Councilor Avalos's point, that isn't an open checkbook, or open checkbook just to say whatever it costs.
It is at the beginning to say here's what our budget is, and to give that to folks to say, all right, here's the budget, here's how we're going to deliver the project and the program for that budget.
So, but that work does cost money, and to begin to move the project forward, as Donny was mentioning, it does require that initial investment to move forward.
So that is entirely up to the council's purview of allocating funding, of course.
We're here today, and we have been for the last 3 years, as your partners in this project and ready to roll up our sleeves and move forward.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
But since it's really clear that this money will be desired, and it sounds like it could be more than $44 million, what kind of conversations is the city having about where that source will be?
Unidentified speaker
We have not begun that conversation.
And as just committed to Councilor Murillo, we wouldn't have that until we understood what the needs were.
And Jason outlined fairly what it could look like, but we have not begun that work in earnest.
It'd be premature for us to tell—.
Dan Ryan
I'm clear that there'll be a big ask for money.
So I think that was established just now.
If the project were to abandon at some point prior to construction, are any of the pre-development costs paid by the city going to be reimbursed?
Elizabeth Lee
That would be something that'd have to be worked out on a development agreement if we move forward.
Unidentified speaker
Councilor, these are, these are important questions, and I, I want to be sincere about that, that we'd love to get back to you with them.
But what we're essentially asking to do with this resolution is to give the City of Portland staff the green light to sit down with the, the university to contemplate those questions and put it on paper.
And that's the type of work we've been talking about, that pre-dev work that needs to happen, including a development agreement that would outline the types of terms.
So these are totally appropriate questions.
We just need the time to answer them.
Dan Ryan
Thank you for having— for giving me that, that they're appropriate questions.
And I think listening to the other councilors, that's what made me want to ask those questions, because I felt like there was some stuff that we weren't getting out into the transparency of this conversation at a really critical time.
So I think that's where you're seeing cold feet right now, is that we're having so many conversations right now about trying to find money for big things that matter.
And adding more to that list in this lovely week in August is a little— it's overwhelming.
And so I think it's okay to just look each other in the eye and say, yes, there will be an ask of the city.
Yes, it will be a number that's at least this much.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
And how would we move forward without it?
So I just wanted to get that out on the table.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Avalos, I do have a few questions, but before I jump in, did you have questions for the attorney?
Heidi's here now.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So I want to start with a question similar to Councilor Zimmerman's.
If we move this amendment, Avalos 1, DC Oliveira, are you still able to do all of the work that the administration needs to set you up to be able to do to answer the questions that are being asked today?
Unidentified speaker
That is a completely reasonable question to ask in a moment when we— this particular team that's working on venues is pretty overleveraged.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I, I think I'm looking at Avalos 1 versus the underlying without it.
If we change the language from affirming the city's commitment to supporting advancing planning and pre-development, does that new language still allow you the ability to do all of the work that would get the answers to the questions that we're asking today?
Unidentified speaker
I think the answer to that is yes, but I obviously want to make sure we have the staff capacity to do that well.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Certainly.
And I think that applies to the underlying as well.
Dan Ryan
Yes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I want to make sure that in doing this, we're protecting the city's interests and not holding back our ability to get the answers to the questions that are being asked.
Councilor Avalos, I think, There are clearly a lot of questions and I think concerns that we all share around not committing too much too quickly and also wanting to move forward and be able to get the answers to these questions.
And I've been hearing you and Councilor Murillo and Councilor Ryan ask a lot of questions that are the steps that I'm hoping we get to if we pass the underlying.
I think your amendment, Avalos 1, if it thank you.
I think that this still allows the administration to get all of those answers for us, ensures that we're being clear with the public about what this step really means.
My read on this has been that what this step means is that we're saying get these answers and this is the direction we think we want to go, but let's make sure this is the direction we want to go.
And I think your language provides clarity there.
So assuming that we don't hear as we move through the rest of the questions that there are some concerns with this language being broad enough to allow the administration to track down all of those answers, I'm happy to support that added clarity today.
Councilor Avalos, you're back in the queue.
Did you have more before we vote on this?
Okay.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, just to say thank you for this discussion.
Just to clarify again, my intent, it is to keep this moving forward.
I just felt that the way that it's currently written, it's like a affirm that we will commit, that's way too strong for me to say yes to right now.
I cannot affirm to you right now that I'm going to commit to money that I don't know how much it is.
I don't know what this $44 million is.
I don't know how much it's eventually going to be.
I don't know what the Keller versus PSC— there's a lot of unknowns, and the way it's written is too strong for me to put my support behind.
So I wrote it in a way where it's like, we support you moving forward, we support getting the information, and then I'm just trying to ease my stress that if we pass it without these amendments and it says affirm the city's commitment, then people are going to say you passed that resolution, you already said you're going to do it even though we didn't have the price tag, now you're committed to it.
That's what I'm trying to avoid.
So I'm trying to find the legislative way to protect us from being able to just later have that checkpoint that I'm hearing is the intent, right?
The intent is to bring us that information.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
So that we can make those decisions.
I don't think that that intent is reflected in the language, and that's how I'm trying to change the language.
Dan Ryan
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Ryan, did you have something additional before we vote?
Dan Ryan
I know we're not discussing the operational model, but I appreciate that the chair brought it up last week or 2 weeks ago so we could discuss it, and also was brought up again today.
I was the person 2 years ago that said we can't move forward with any capital stack without clarity about a new operational model.
The current operational model is flawed.
I've known that for 20 years.
And every artistic director that moves here from another market is just ready to leave after about a year because they realize how difficult it is to make ends meet as an arts administrator with the current operational model.
So I want to remind us that we cannot kick that can down the road.
Thank you.
And also have ambiguous capital stack numbers all at the same time, which is where we are today.
So today, how can I in good consciousness make decisions that say yes to this?
That's all.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Seeing no one else in the queue, Wendy, can you please call the roll on Avalos 1, which replaces affirm the city's commitment with support advancing planning?
And some other language in that same, be it further resolved.
Unidentified speaker
Yes to Avalos 1, moved by Avalos, seconded by Morillo.
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Wente Johannes
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Yeah, this will make whatever this is better.
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment is approved with 5 aye votes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Councilor Avalos, I believe you have 2 more amendments to move, and I'll just flag that I believe Councilor Zimmerman has an amendment or 2 as well.
Um, so yeah, go right ahead.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
All right, so Avalos 2, let me remind you what that is.
So this is about creating the financial guardrail.
It makes explicit that this resolution does not authorize, appropriate, or commit Yes.
Additional city funds.
Again, combined with the rest of the language, is just another protection to ensure that we're not saying this is giving you full permission, and you being the administration who's executing this, to approve that unless we get all this information and we— it comes back to council.
So the way that it's written, it is as a— as 2 additional be it further resolved So it says, be it further resolved that adoption of this resolution does not authorize, appropriate, or commit city funds for, for development or construction of the proposed Portland State University venue beyond funding previously authorized by the City Council.
So I put that carve-out of whatever we already did.
It's not retroactive, it's just moving forward.
And then the second one is, be it further resolved that prior to execution of any agreement that financially obligates the city to development or construction of the proposed PSU venue, the DCA shall return to City Council with the detailed financial plan described in this resolution, including— I won't read the whole thing.
It's all the financial legalese stuff, just making sure that it's in there, that that's what I'm expecting to get back, and that— because these are the kinds of— this is the kind of information that's going to help inform my ultimate decision.
So I want to confirm and lock it in this resolution that we're going to get that.
So I will move Avalos 2.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Zimmerman to the amendment?
Eric Zimmerman
I would like to give you a second.
And the reason I am gonna— before I hold that, I wanna ask you one thing 'cause it's a crux and I would like to see if you're amenable to it.
You have in the second part, Councilor, a return on invested capital analysis.
It's almost like the very last sentence.
I would ask you to actually remove that before we second, and here's why.
I think quantifying return on investment in the arts and education is almost an impossible task, and it's actually not one of the measuring sticks that I'll use for was it successful or was it not.
I think it's well-intended, but I think it's probably poorly applied in this situation.
If you would reintroduce that without the return on invested capital analysis, so strike that, I would be happy to second, and then I would encourage us Okay, I agree.
Candace Avalos
I'm happy to, for folks, reintroduce Avalos 2A, and it's gonna be everything it has except for the sentence return on invested capital analysis, or the part of that sentence.
Everything else as is.
So Avalos 2A, is that fair?
Eric Zimmerman
Second.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Can the clerk take that as 2A, or do we need to call it Avalos 4?
Unidentified speaker
2A is fine.
Can you clarify one more time which part is being removed?
Eric Zimmerman
So on the second paragraph of her amendment, toward the very bottom, there is a comma, return on invested capital analysis, comma.
It's third to last of that sentence.
If we could remove those 5 words.
That would be 2A.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
2A is moved by Avalos and seconded by Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Yes.
Candace Avalos
Okay, thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Zimmerman, are you—.
Eric Zimmerman
So to that then, the question, Donny, any significant change or concerns from the staff perspective on your intent for this resolution?
Unidentified speaker
No, Councilor.
Galib Benemotebel
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I am in the queue, and I'm actually not sure how to do this when I'm chairing, but I'd like to divide the amendment.
Right.
I am very supportive of the first part with one question that I'm going to be asking DCA Oliveira in just a moment.
The second be it resolved, though, reads to me like we are last dollar in.
And I am concerned that we're giving the direction that we need to know what other funding sources are already in the door before we approve dollars in.
And often in projects like this, public dollars can't be the last dollar in, especially if this is a project that we are going to own and be a part of.
And so I'm uncomfortable setting up a condition that's I think the first part of that, be it further resolved, the second, be it further resolved, getting information back about the development, the construction, things like that, the estimated project costs make sense to me.
But when you get down past total estimated project cost, that's where it starts to feel to me like last dollar in.
Depending on the answer that DC Oliveira has to my question, I'd like to I'd like to support the first part.
I think that's really important, but I can't support the second.
So, DCA Oliveira, if we pass that first resolved, which says that we don't authorize or appropriate city funds for the development or construction, does that still allow you to use funds for staff time to do the work that we are asking you to do elsewhere in the resolution?
Unidentified speaker
Councilor, I read that.
That's talking about the future state and that would not hinder our ability to do the work in the predev.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, perfect.
So with that, I would like to divide the question.
Like I said, I've chaired other people doing that.
It's a little awkward to do it as chair, but to our clerk and council ops, do you need anything other than me to say that and then to declare which part I'd like us to vote on first?
That should be good.
Okay.
Councilor Avalos, do you have a preference on which we vote on first?
Candace Avalos
I don't, but I have a question.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Candace Avalos
So as far as the second clause, I heard you say that after— tell me again, you said after this point I'm concerned, which—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'm gonna read it out loud to make sure I catch the right point.
So be it further resolved that prior to execution of any agreement that financially obligates the DCA shall return to City Council with the detailed financial plan described in this resolution, including a fully defined capital stack.
I, I read that to mean the types of areas we expect to get the money from, not the exact dollar amount from each particular donor.
By fully defined, total estimated project cost.
I think that's what it means.
Proposed city contribution.
I would end it at estimated project cost.
Proposed city contribution and funding sources.
I think we sometimes want to weigh in on the funding sources.
So there's a bit of a pickle of which comes first there.
Confirmed and anticipated funding from other public and private partners starts to sound like we're last dollar in, which I think holds back the ability to get those dollars.
And proposed city contribution.
Elizabeth Lee
Yes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Anticipated and ongoing operating and maintenance obligations, I'd be happy to take out the lines before that and move that up.
So I guess what I would do if you wanted to amend this to have my support on all of it is I would say read through, including a fully defined capital stack, total estimated project cost, and anticipated ongoing city operations and maintenance obligations I've been in sandstorms that are clearer than that, so I'm having a real tough time understanding both the intent and where you're trying to cut.
Eric Zimmerman
So can you first start with your intent here, Councilor?
Dan Ryan
I think that would help us.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
There are pieces of this paragraph, including, um, saying that we need to be told what the funding sources are before we We can move forward when I know that this council likes to have an opportunity to weigh in on the funding sources.
So I think we're setting up a future which comes first.
We are saying that we won't do anything until we know the confirmed and anticipated funding from other public and private partners.
But we know that often if we are— I won't even say often.
If this is a building that the city will own, and we set up that we have to be last dollar in because we need to know the other confirmed funding sources, including private contributions already, we're not going to get those private contributions because they need to see that the owner of the building is putting dollars in.
So I think that again sets us up for failure.
There are a few other clauses like that that I can't support because I think they set us up to not so I am happy to either divide, which is the motion that I had made, or if Councilor Avalos prefers to amend this, and I'm happy to read what I would move forward to get this to a place where I can support at least the first part and maybe all of it, but I can't support it as that second part is currently written because I don't think it sets us up to be able to actually meet the goal.
Dan Ryan
Got it.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Does that provide a little more clarity?
Elizabeth Lee
Yes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Or at least sandy water.
Eric Zimmerman
It does.
And the guy sitting on the side of this conversation, if you guys are able to amend it, I think you probably get the same outcome rather than splitting, splitting it out.
Candace Avalos
I, I guess, um, I would love to hear what other folks think about that.
I don't— I'm not married to it, uh, but— and I don't— I kind of understand your logic.
I don't agree that it exactly does that, but I hear where you're coming from.
But yeah, Maybe before I make a decision on if I want to do that, I'd love to know where everyone else is on that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Murillo, go right ahead.
Unidentified speaker
If—.
Angelita Morillo
Do you think it would be possible to just, um, draft the edit so we could read through it?
I think it's kind of hard to follow.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I am happy to do that right now.
Eric Zimmerman
Can we have unanimous consent to move to Avalos 3 while that work happens?
Candace Avalos
I was going to say I'm just going to share it.
Right now so I could show you guys.
Is that okay?
Angelita Morillo
Avalos 3?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No, no, she has Avalos 2 up.
Councilor Avalos, let's try it this way, and if it's too complicated, we're going to move to Avalos 3, and I'll send it out to everybody.
So this would say, be it further resolved that prior to execution of any agreement that financially obligates the city to development or construction of the proposed PSU venue, the DCA shall return to City Council with the detailed financial plan described in this section including a fully defined capital stack, total estimated project cost.
We're taking out the highlighted part and saying, and anticipated ongoing city operating and maintenance obligations and material financial risks for City Council review and approval.
So the highlighted part here would be removed.
Angelita Morillo
Second.
Loretta Smith
I—.
Candace Avalos
Not a hill I'll die on.
I think the meat of what I'm looking for is in the rest of it, so I, I'm okay taking that out unless there's any argument people have for we should keep it in.
Okay, if not, then okay, let's do 2B.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Clerk, I am going to withdraw my motion to divide, and I believe Councilor Avalos is going to withdraw the motion and now I will move 2B, which is what we just described and what we have on the screen.
And for the clerk and council operations, we are happy to get you a clean copy of this so that you have that for files.
And for folks watching, hopefully seeing it on the screen helped us get there.
And I'm happy to second Avalos 2B unless Councilor Zimmerman still wants to hold that second.
Galib Benemotebel
Rock and roll.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, great.
So moved by Avalos, seconded by Pirtle-Guiney.
Um, Councilor Morillo, are you still in the queue?
Angelita Morillo
No.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, Councilor Avalos, are you in the queue?
Candace Avalos
Can you tell me more, Councilor Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Yeah, um, I just think it got worse and confusing, and so I'm going from a yes on that amendment to a no.
And a lot of it— no, the screen just went away.
Let me dig in my hard copy.
I like the clarity about the funding.
I thought that was really smart.
And especially what we're all arguing about lately, it just seems odd that we would take that out.
We're not negotiating with, you know, sophisticated NBA people on this one.
We're talking to ourselves.
And so let's just be honest with each other.
Candace Avalos
Okay, but I'm LOLing because I was like, no, but I just asked and you all were like, it's fine.
Unidentified speaker
And now you're—.
Dan Ryan
It's not.
I didn't say it was fine.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Dan Ryan
I was over here trying to get my old eyes to figure out what the hell was happening.
So, you know, different.
Candace Avalos
Well, then my bad, we moved too quickly.
I don't know what to do.
Um, you've got a problem either way.
You've—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So I think you need to decide if you want to go back to 2A.
I will divide it.
I will vote no on the second half.
You may have the votes without me.
Or if you want to go to 2B, which is what's on the table now, and move forward.
This is your amendment.
Candace Avalos
So so Councilor Ryan, I'm hearing you say you preferred having that section because why?
Dan Ryan
Certainty, clarity.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Councilor Morillo, what do you think about that?
Angelita Morillo
I agree with Councilor Ryan.
Um, I think it's good for it to just be clear as is.
Let's just vote on the original.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Sorry to jostle everybody.
Sorry, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
I'm just gonna bring it back because that's what I originally wanted.
Back to 2A.
Back to 2A.
It's divided.
Let's vote on each of them individually, and then we can—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We're going to reverse a little bit.
We're at 2A, moved by Avalos, seconded by Zimmerman.
I'm going to move to divide the question.
I will have us vote on the first be it resolved first.
And I don't— Councilor Murillo, are you in the queue?
Councilor Bryan, are you in the queue?
Dan Ryan
Uh, no.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, seeing no one in the queue, Wendy, could you please call the roll on the first half of Avalos 2A, the be it resolved that begins, the adoption of this resolution does not authorize, appropriate, or commit city funds?
Unidentified speaker
Moved by Avalos, seconded by Zimmerman, question mark?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Correct.
Unidentified speaker
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
And now could you please call the roll on the second half of Avalos 2A, be it further resolved that prior to execution of any agreement that financially obligates the city, et cetera.
Dan Ryan
In the original language.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
2A, which is the language that was seconded by Councilor Zimmerman.
So it removed return on invested capital analysis.
Unidentified speaker
On the second half of Avalos 2A, Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Elizabeth Lee
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Unidentified speaker
The motion is approved with 4 aye votes and 1 nay vote.
Candace Avalos
Okay, okay, last one.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
All right, Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue before—.
Eric Zimmerman
To talk about 3.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, great.
Councilor Avalos.
Avalos, 3.
Candace Avalos
All right, the last one is, um, this is about the project commitment agreement with PSU.
So again, I support developing that agreement so that they can establish the scope, etc.
I just don't think that an administrative agreement should commit the city to implementing a capital funding strategy that council hasn't seen or approved.
So I believe what I'm doing here is changing it.
Um, the amendment changes that to developing a proposed capital funding strategy and preserves Council approval again before we commit.
Uh, more specifically, I am adding a section.
I'm striking— I'm under be it further resolved that the Deputy City Administrator is directed to develop a project agreement, project commitment agreement with PSU by December 1st, 2026 that establishes the scope, schedule, and governance framework for the project.
And what it originally said, and a shared commitment between the city and Portland State University to develop and implement a full capital funding strategy.
I took— I struck that out and instead will say a shared commitment between the city and Portland State to develop a proposed full capital funding strategy, provided that the project commitment agreement shall not obligate the city to provide capital funding or otherwise financially commit the city to development or construction of the project without subsequent city council approval.
So again, just another layer of protection.
Sorry, I was going to share so that you could see.
So there it is.
And I will— and, and this addresses what, um, Councilor Morillo was asking earlier, I think, at least.
So, um, yeah, there it is.
I ask for a second.
Angelita Morillo
Second.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Mr. Olvera, from your perspective and your team's perspective for this resolution, does it change thank you for the question, Councilor.
Unidentified speaker
No, it doesn't, with the caveat that I think what I'd like to do with our colleagues at PSU is come back with a, a clear plan of what the different milestones are going to be, because we, you know, we're talking about a project commitment agreement, which makes total sense, but there's also development agreements.
We're going to have probably some financing agreements.
So I probably want to sequence those out because I think a lot of this is reasonable and fair to come back to you all.
That'll probably be in stages and not all at once.
So the answer is yes, with the caveat that we'll probably work together with a project plan for you all to take a look at.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
Every development project I've been a part of in government for many years now has been in stages.
None of it's been all at once.
So that sounds normal to me.
Thank you.
Colleagues, I will support this.
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Any other discussion on Avalos 3?
Seeing none, Wendy, can you please call the roll?
Unidentified speaker
Avalos 3, moved by Avalos, seconded by Morillo.
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment is approved.
Candace Avalos
Thank you, colleagues.
I will stop torturing you.
I appreciate the discussion.
I feel a lot better about this.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue?
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
I'm in the queue as a courtesy to Councilor Clark from District 4 who's asked me to submit Clark 1 as an amendment to this document.
I see Councilor Clark in the audience.
So for— instead of me trying to butcher her intent, I'd invite Councilor Clark up to—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Clark, would you like to join us?
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
I believe all committee members have received this now via their email.
If you want to pull it up, as the— I— what I see is, I think, 3 or 4 be it resolved paragraphs that have some adjustment.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Clerk, I'll note for folks who are in the audience or watching online that this is not posted yet, but it has been submitted to the clerk, and we will have it up for records as soon as possible.
And Christopher, are you able to screen share this?
Okay, we'll get it up on the screen so that people can follow along.
Go right ahead, Councilor Clark.
Unidentified speaker
Great, thank you.
Olivia Clark
For the record, this is Olivia Clark.
I'm a councilor from District 4.
First, I just want to say thank you to Councilor Avalos for those amendments.
I really appreciate all that work that you did and the committee's support for those.
I think it makes this a much better resolution, and thank you.
I'm here because this amendment, Clark 1, it adds some phrasing around including operations and maintenance responsibilities as a part of the pre-development function.
That's in the amendment to be considered for the financial plan.
But it also, most importantly for me, it links the Keller with the PSU.
And it requires that they be a part of the overall package.
Dan Ryan
Okay.
Olivia Clark
Should they be developed in tandem?
What's going to happen with the Keller?
You know, the Keller needs to stay open the whole time anyway if we do proceed.
You know, if we get the information that we need and we make a decision that we're going to raise the money to actually implement the PSU conceptual plan at this point, the Keller has to stay open.
We don't know exactly what the future will be, but I think we need to plan that in tandem with this so I brought that forward, and I brought that forward partly because some of the things I've heard from you committee members on the dais about the importance of the Keller and how people feel about it.
But, you know, from day one when I was elected, I'm concerned about how we care for what we own, all the assets that we have.
And Keller is an important city asset that's been neglected over the years.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Olivia Clark
And, you know, we've made comments about all the things that need to be improved, and which is what led us to this point here.
But now we're going to keep the Keller open for how many more years with all those problems?
So it's kind of an interesting conundrum here, but we do need to keep the Keller open.
This resolution addresses that, but we need to plan for the future in tandem with PSU, and that's what this language does.
If you look at the be there, be it resolved.
I've added to that if and when the PSU, the city and PSU seek funding sources, that they'll be done in tandem, and that the future of the Keller to be considered in tandem with the PSU 3,000-seat venue.
So I'm hoping that you'll support that to keep, keep our eye on the Keller along with the PSU proposal.
Elizabeth Lee
Second.
Olivia Clark
And I would note for Councilor Zimmerman that earlier in the resolution, it does refer to ROI.
There's another piece that refers to ROI also, if you want to take that out.
I don't know.
Eric Zimmerman
No, I just didn't want to add more bad language.
Olivia Clark
Okay, more bad.
Okay.
So I know there are representatives of Keller in the audience, and I, when I brought this up to DCA Oliveira that I was making this.
I know he has some concerns about just staff time that he may want to address, but my, my bottom line attempt, uh, goal here is to really keep our eye on the Keller and do this in tandem if we're going to approve this resolution.
Eric Zimmerman
So there you have it, folks.
I would so move.
Angelita Morillo
I'll second that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue for anything additional on this?
Eric Zimmerman
I'm not.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Um, Christopher, I know you were trying to share screen.
Oh, was that the right item, or was that— I'm just trying to make sure we're looking at the same language.
Sumner Knoll
It was.
Angelita Morillo
Oh, okay, no worries.
I think I have it in front of me.
So we're looking at Clark 1.
Oh, thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
This is the be it further resolved that if and when the city and PSU seek funding sources for the new Broadway Theater, those efforts must also include funding for the renovation of the Keller into a smaller theater.
This includes money sought from City Council and the state legislature, Metro, federal government, philanthropic communities, voters, et cetera.
I am just a little bit concerned about this based on the same sort of discussion that we've had before.
And I just wanna understand because I think the must also include part of it feels very binding.
I'm very non-committal today.
I'm going to need to understand some of that.
Just, yeah, I think that, that just gives me pause.
Olivia Clark
Is that something that you want to change in coordination with what Councilor Avalos had done earlier to change the language there?
So take out the must, or—.
Angelita Morillo
Well, I think you sent 2 different amendments.
Clark 1 and Clark 2.
I know we haven't talked about Clark 2 yet, but when I compared them, I preferred Clark 2 over them, but I don't like either.
But if I had to choose, I would probably choose Clark 2 because I think it gives us a bit more wiggle room to work with.
So just— but obviously we haven't discussed that one yet.
Olivia Clark
Just for clarity, Clark 2 decouples the funding aspect.
Away from the PSU proposal.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, and Clark 2, from what I've read— and I'm sorry, I'm not trying to open up a different discussion— but it says where feasible.
And I think that that gives us the appropriate wiggle room based on not having some of this information yet to make a decision.
So that's sort of my analysis on those.
But I understand we're veering off.
I'm just flagging that the must also include for funding in Clark 1 gives me I'm not sure I would support that right now.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor, anything further?
Okay.
Councilor Zimmerman, did you have something further?
Eric Zimmerman
I'd like to go after.
Candace Avalos
Okay, great.
Angelita Morillo
Do you have questions?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'll note before I ask my questions, Councilor Murillo, I do hear your concerns.
At the top of that be it resolved, it says that the city will identify funding sources where feasible.
And that, I think, gave me some sense that we were saying where we can do this.
That was in Clark 2.
I apologize.
In Clark 1, there was also a caveat there.
Let me pull it up.
If and when the city and PSU seek funding sources— there we go—.
Angelita Morillo
That it was that if we seek funding sources, it should be done in I think my understanding of if and when we seek funding sources is less about the feasibility and more about the inevitability that we will.
That's how I read that.
But maybe I'm not reading that intention correctly.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So, Councilor Clark, I'm not sure if the right person to answer this is in the administration or if you've had conversations about this, but we're looking in your Clark one amendment at making sure that we continue to upgrade the Keller, that the city continue to invest in the Keller doesn't give me any pause at all, that we seek funding simultaneously doesn't give me any pause at all.
But this says that we'll continue to upgrade the facility even as we move forward through the planning process.
And I want to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up to make upgrades before we have made the plan for what the future is that our city wants and that our performing arts ecosystem needs for the Keller, so that any upgrades we make are in line with that.
Have you had any conversations about what that, what that word means and what that looks like as we move forward?
Olivia Clark
Thank you, Councilor.
I think there are some immediate needs at the Keller that we've talked about, potentially restroom upgrading, nothing that would interfere with the future redevelopment of the Keller.
But I fear that there are things that may need to be taken care of.
They may be ADA issues that we have to deal with.
I don't know how long the Keller is going to be open, how many years it's going to take for us to get to this PSU redevelopment project.
So there, along those lines, there may be things that need to be done.
I'm not recommending that we do anything in particular, just saying that something might need to happen to keep it open.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you.
Olivia Clark
That's my intent.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
And CA Lee, is that the way that the administration is reading the implementation here?
Angelita Morillo
Yes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you.
I want to just note, because this focuses on tying the future of a new Broadway-capable venue at PSU with the future of a redevelopment of Keller, that there are a lot of other venues in our performing arts portfolio that also need upgrades and improvements.
And so while I am happy to support this, because I do think it's important to be clear that we thank you.
I think it's important that as we see a critical role for Keller in our performing arts ecosystem moving forward, that we're doing this not at the expense of our other venues, and that as we move through the next few years where dollars are very tight and hopefully get to a place where we can think about how we maintain our assets in a more comprehensive and better way that the can I make a comment to that point?
Olivia Clark
I think that we just sort of mentioned that in the future there'll need to be a capital campaign around the PSU development.
And you're right, there are lots of other needs, not just in our performing arts venues, but in lots of other venues.
And when our asset management plan comes forward, we're going to need to look at all the assets that we have that are at risk.
Galib Benemotebel
And we'll have to make decisions about what we want to do with those.
Olivia Clark
So you're absolutely right in throwing in consideration of the other P5, the other venues that we own.
But I would even broaden that to say that we have other needs all over the city, fire stations, whatever it is, that we're going to be learning about which ones are really at risk of failure.
Angelita Morillo
Absolutely.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And thank you for broadening it even more.
I have a couple of folks flagging that they have concerns about version control.
And Councilor Zimmerman, did you want to address that?
Yeah, I think that's a really good point.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
The version that we have up and in front of us.
Eric Zimmerman
I would propose actually that we take a 5-minute break.
I think, Councilor Clark, I can see some folks fluttering behind you.
And so I think we might be able to make a more sound decision if we ensure what we're looking at is your intended language with all the eaches.
But after that, I would like to speak to them.
Is that all right, Madam Chair?
Candace Avalos
So the next point of question, just a quick question though, or request maybe, 'cause I wonder, I guess I don't understand, are 1 and 2 supposed to go together or are they options like we choose one of them?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I think that that's part of the version control concerns that are being raised right now.
We generally toward the middle of our meeting take a 15-minute break.
I was going to do that at the close of this item, but what I'm going to do is have us take our 15-minute break now instead so we can work out the version control.
While everybody gets a moment to stretch their legs.
When we come back, we'll finish this item and move directly into the next item on the agenda.
So why don't we all make sure we're back here at 3:37.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Okay, let's do it.
I am calling us back to order.
Thank you all.
I think we are more clear on where we're going now, and I am going to turn it over to Councilor Zimmerman, who I believe is going to change his motion.
Eric Zimmerman
I'm going to do whatever Councilor Clark tells me to do.
I actually am not sure what—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I think we are withdrawing the motion.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, Councilor Clark, do you want me to withdraw the motion on your behalf?
Okay, colleagues, I withdraw the motion on her behalf.
Do you want me to move the next one?
Okay, I would like to move Clark-Zimmerman 2 and ask Councilor Clark to speak to it.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
And I'll second that so that you can go ahead and introduce it.
Olivia Clark
Uh, thank you.
Um, slight change between the 2 amendments, between the Clark 1 and the Clark 2.
The Clark 2 basically decouples the funding aspect of PSU, um, and the Keller.
That's the—.
Angelita Morillo
It—.
Olivia Clark
So the new, um, new and improved, be it therefore resolved, is basically it's up to the city to identify and pursue funding sources where feasible to support implementation of adopted plan for the future of Keller Auditorium, including potential funding from the city, the state, the legislature, Metro, federal government, and other appropriate sources.
So it just decouples the search for funding from PSU and Keller.
That's all.
And the rest of it is the same.
Oh, it's slightly, slightly different.
There was a Scribner's error in the last, um, B, it therefore resolved, but it's fine.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilors.
Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue?
Eric Zimmerman
Yeah, so I'll use this opportunity to speak to it.
This is why I was supportive of both, and I appreciate Councilor Clark, I think, leading the way for us in District 4 on this.
The Keller is a foundational building for the community.
I think that we have been at times concerned about what is new, does it also reflect what is our history?
And I think that this is trying to send that message that the future, whatever it may be with a new PSU Performing Arts and Education Center, is not intended to leave the Keller in the dust, so to speak.
And that's why I'm going to support this.
And I think that that was an important signal that Councilor Clark has worked with the community on.
And to Councilor Ryan's point, this is one of those where it's been difficult as we've watched usually folks who are on the same side of different topics.
It's quite split.
Yeah.
Sharon Gary Smith
Frankly.
Eric Zimmerman
And so I spoke just this morning to members of the Downtown Neighborhood Association who again reiterated some concerns, and I have just appreciated that.
So I'll be supportive of this.
I appreciate you, Councilor Clark, and I appreciate the support of the rest of the committee so that we can send this paragraph eventually on if it does so pass.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Seeing no one else in the queue, Wendy, can you please call the roll on Clark-Zimmerman 2, or is it Zimmerman-Clark 2?
Candace Avalos
Sorry, I just jumped into the queue.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'm sorry.
Councilor Avalos, go right ahead.
Candace Avalos
Just to clarify, so what I'm looking at on screen, there's nothing else in the scroll?
It's just what I see right here?
Okay, just wanna make sure.
Olivia Clark
Well, no, if you scroll up, there is the addition of the language and operations and maintenance responsibilities.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
Oops, sorry.
Candace Avalos
Okay, thank you.
Dan Ryan
That's all.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, seeing no one else in the queue for real this time, Wendy, could you please call the roll on Clark-Zimmerman 2?
Unidentified speaker
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
No.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment is approved with 4 aye votes and 1 nay vote.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor Clark, for bringing that forward.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Are we speaking to the overall resolution here?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We are on the underline, and I don't believe there are any more amendments coming, so go right ahead.
Eric Zimmerman
Okay, thank you, uh, Chair, and thank you to everybody who's presented and helped us work through this, I think what I would call is a difficult topic.
Um, many, many months ago I've asked, uh, I'll just say the arts community to try and speak with one voice on this because this experience is the sum total of my experience other than being an audience member with, with the arts and planning an arts venue and planning the future of a venue It has been difficult.
You come to office with some skill sets.
This is not a skill set or an experience level that I came with.
And so learning a lot has been this process for me.
Councilor Clark has helped us, I think, carve out and send a message that the future of PSU's Performing Arts Center doesn't mean the end of Keller's future.
And I think that that is incredibly important.
I looked up and I took a look at just some of the types of things that were built by somebody I admire, and I think they probably built them a little bit maybe in the less planned but also needed given the times.
And I just want to articulate this because this is how I'm going to vote yes today.
So I believe that when your economy is not hitting on all cylinders, I believe that we missed a great opportunity during the Great Recession that occurred right after I graduated from college, that we missed the mark, so to speak, in developing of housing, and we are paying for it this many years later, almost 20 years later.
I would have loved an FDR-style approach in 2008 that would have allowed us to develop housing in the communities.
I would have loved an FDR approach that would have allowed us to develop housing in the communities.
Thank you.
Would have done more than just— and I don't disagree— but more than just bail out some of the big auto and banks and others.
Because Build, Baby, Build is something I've said a lot throughout my time in office.
It's something I say a lot because I believe that to its core, even though it comes with some connotations and some mistakes along the way, that you have to be a growing city to be a successful city.
And so Portland is in its micro recession right now.
Olivia Clark
Yeah.
Eric Zimmerman
It's hyper-localized to Portland.
It is our own problem.
It is not the United States' problem necessarily.
It might not even be the state of Oregon's problem.
But when the city of Portland is in recession, it becomes the state of Oregon's problem.
And so FDR didn't know if Timberline Lodge was going to be a good idea.
He didn't know if the Bonneville Dam was going to be a good idea.
Didn't know if the Crater Lake National Park, the Portland Airport, Burnside Tunnel, and even some of the other projects but the WPA got to work when the economy was frozen.
And I don't know a lot about the arts, and I don't know if we need 2 Broadways.
I don't know if we need 3,000, 1,800, or 800.
But I do know that we need cranes in the air.
And those of you who have worked on this, I've been clear with you where I have reservations.
And for, for that, I have deeply appreciated that you have worked out some of the details to help me get there.
I appreciate that we have set a commitment that as a new project, if it does go forward, that Keller stays open so that that workforce doesn't get shut down the way that they did before.
That as we move forward, a future envisioning for what the future of Keller can be and an expanded workforce at the education, at the PSU and education site is something that is, I think, achievable.
So for those reasons, getting cranes in the air, build, baby, build.
And I am looking to those of you who really have your fingerprints on this document to deliver on the aspirational whereases in this document about costs, about shared, about capital stacks, about, about the way in which the city is going to be asked to commit.
But I'm not going to turn down the opportunity to leverage state dollars to get the Portland economy cranes in the air.
Jason Franklin
Thank you.
Eric Zimmerman
And so this has been challenging, but I just wanted to be right in the first to just set it here.
I no longer need to be convinced.
I'm an FDR kind of Democrat, and today is the day for Portland to help others start spending in our economy, and that's why I'll be supportive.
So thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, thank you to my colleagues for helping to get those amendments passed.
Like I said at the beginning, those were very contingent on my support.
As you also heard from my questions, I still have a lot of questions, and I reserve the right to continue asking those as it comes to the council and as we continue deciding further action.
I know that the resolution is one step leading to the December 1st, so those are 2 separate council actions that need to be taken.
I'm willing to move this step forward out of committee so that we can get that in motion, so I can hear from my other colleagues on the rest of the council how they're feeling.
I think these questions will likely come up as well.
And as you have heard, there are reservations because we do have very real financial constraints.
But I do also agree that there is a point where government has to do their part.
And so, you know, not to relitigate Councilor Zimmerman's wonderful speech there, Mr. FDR Democrat, I hear the spirit of what you're saying and I do agree.
And so I'm looking forward to seeing how this goes.
And I do want to protect the arts.
At the end of the day, that is why I'm showing my support.
And again, thank you to all the many hundreds that emailed about Keller.
I hear you, I see you.
I want to protect artists and workers.
I want to build great venues that Portlanders can enjoy.
And I'm hoping that with the changes, I will support this so that we can take those next few steps.
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you, Chair.
I'll be brief because I know we have a lot of important items to get to today.
Thank you so much, members of the audience who are here today to talk about this.
I, like Councilor Avalos, appreciate the amendments that you brought forward today to clarify some of that language, and I am going to continue to have questions when it goes to full council.
So I don't feel fully settled on this issue I'm going to vote it out of committee to hear the rest of my colleagues and their concerns since it does impact so many.
It impacts the entire city.
All of the districts are impacted by what happens with PSU and with the Keller.
So for that, I will be voting it out of committee for further discussion at full council.
And thank you everyone for your time.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
I can see where this is going and I I understand.
I hope I'm wrong, and I really mean that sincerely.
I'm rooting for both PSU.
I'm always rooting for the arts.
Um, I don't need to continue to pound my chest about how important that is.
I've done that my whole life.
And I do think the amendment's made this better.
Um, but the conversation that we had earlier when there— when I couldn't get any clarity on On the financing, um, I'm just really concerned.
I'm really concerned that, um, we're once again moving something forward without any clarity on how we're going to pay for it.
I feel like we have a lot of risk.
I care about urban planning, and I've always loved my hometown in terms of that.
I think that We did a lot of work to make South Downtown an attractive place to live.
PSU's been a part of that, continues to be a part of that.
The whole development around Keller going south to all the housing developments, the Halperin Fountains, thank you to the people that have been working their tails off for years to bring those back.
And I don't want to take the risk of seeing more blight in downtown Portland.
And there's a big risk here that if we put money towards something that still doesn't have a clarity in how it's going to pencil out, then we're just solidifying that ambiguity coupled with the ambiguity about having Keller go dark someday.
And I don't want to Be advanced from the years I'm in now, walking downtown and seeing a dark cellar across from the, the most iconic piece of public art our city has.
What great city would do that risk, take that risk to take that beautiful piece of public art and not make that front and center of that part of town?
Like, how would we give up on that?
And so, all right, I'm with Old Portland up here.
Old Portland fights to keep its basketball team in its hometown.
It fights to make sure we don't add more blight to an area that we put tons and tons of sweat and tears into years ago that we've covenanted.
And I so want to be that person that gets excited about this wonderful new state-of-the-art performing arts center with New high-quality sound, which I do complain about in Keller.
So, wow, wow, I want all of it, but it's just not realistic.
And so I think today, again, I hope I'm wrong, but today I can't get on the bandwagon to abandon the Keller to support something that is not on our balance sheet.
Sumner Knoll
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
It's that simple to me at the end of the day.
So I think, um, I think I'm in the minority on this.
I'm getting used to that now and then, but I wanted to make sure that, um, I had that voice of dissent into this conversation because this will continue to be the conversation, especially since I couldn't get any clarity on the answers around the proposed $44 million that's been floated around.
Galib Benemotebel
Thank you.
Dan Ryan
That was my opportunity to be swayed, and you didn't sway me.
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
You know, I get asked a lot why I'm optimistic about Portland's future and why I'm optimistic about Portland and where I see people who have a vision for our city's future.
And we don't know as We pointed out during the questions where the funding for this project is going to come, and we have a performing arts ecosystem that needs a lot of work.
But here's what I do know.
I do know that performing arts is a space where thriving large organizations, accessible shows that bring people out fund the base, the core of a workforce who can then go and bring their talents to small productions.
They bring people into the arts who can then support our local homegrown arts organizations.
And those local organizations that tell stories that aren't told on the larger stages help to connect people to the arts who might not be connected, who then discover the rest I know that although I desperately want us to have our arts ecosystem downtown more centralized so that we have a true theater district, and this moves us unfortunately in a different direction, that the arts in Portland are spread throughout our city, and that a healthy arts ecosystem in Portland has major players downtown but also has theaters and theater companies spread across every district of our city.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Connecting people across Portland to this thing we call art.
And I know that if we don't take this step, we're not going to continue to provide the arts ecosystem, to provide our theater companies, both local and the touring companies that come through, with the spaces that they need.
And I know that if we take this step, there are a lot more questions to answer.
Thank you.
There is a lot more work to be done, but we can start to build that vision for what the future is in our city for our arts.
And we can have the conversations with all of our companies, our theater companies, about what spaces they need and what that looks like that might be different from today and how not only a new PSU venue, but the opportunity that that affords us within the Keller Building, which is such a critical part of that ecosystem for us could be and how it can make sure that we have better access to the arts, both for patrons, for viewers, better access for Portlanders who don't always go see the arts now, but also for the stage companies, the theater companies, the performers, the directors, the storytellers in our community to find the right spaces there is a lot of information I need before we approve funding for these projects, but taking this step today says we are in on the vision.
It says we are in on the future.
It says we want those answers so that we can build what our arts ecosystem looks like for the future of our city.
And I'm excited that we get to take that step today.
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
And that we get to start to learn more about the opportunity and engage our city in what I hope will be a collective funding process to get this done so that it's not all on the capital C City of Portland, so that we can invest in our smaller stages as well and make sure that we're bringing all of our arts up together in doing this.
Colleagues, I don't see anybody else in the queue, so with that, I'm going to ask Wendy to call for a vote.
And this is on the underlying resolution.
Unidentified speaker
Um, may I get a motion, please?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Oh, I'm sorry, we need a motion on this out of committee, don't we?
Eric Zimmerman
I would move that we send it to council.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Is that neutral or with a do pass recommendation?
Eric Zimmerman
With do pass recommendation.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
I'll second that.
Unidentified speaker
Motion to refer the resolution as amended, document number 2026-270, to council with the recommendation it be adopted.
Moved by Zimmerman, seconded by Pirtle-Guiney.
Angelita Morillo
Morillo, knowing that this is not committing us to anything, But opening us up for further discussion, aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Angelita Morillo
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Dan Ryan
Yeah, I've been in this meeting a long time, so it's time to make decisions.
Um, I vote no.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The motion is approved with 4 aye votes and no— and 1 nay vote.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, colleagues.
That moves us to item 3 on our agenda.
Wendy, could you please call item 3?
Unidentified speaker
Yes, thank you.
Item number 3, document number 2026-285, direct the city administrator to advance a process to identify a development partner for city-owned properties adjacent to the Moda Center.
Resolution.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, colleagues.
This is an item brought forward by Councilors Ryan, Knoll, and myself.
I'd like to invite Councilor Knoll, if he's in the room, up to the table.
I'll give a few remarks and then turn it over to my co-carriers and District 2 colleagues.
And we may need to stall for a minute while he comes in from another meeting.
So colleagues, as you each know, sitting in your districts, There's often space between each of us and our district colleagues on many issues that come before us.
And because of that, when I see 3 people from the same district lean in on a project and bring something together, I think that's really meaningful.
When I see 3 people come together and lean in on a project in their district, I think it reflects that there is something special going on there that is so important to the future of that district that it crosses what can sometimes lead to other divides.
So today you have before you a resolution brought by your District 2 colleagues, Councilors Ryan, Kanal, and myself.
It's a resolution that asks the city to begin a process of identifying and negotiating with a development partner for city-owned parcels surrounding the Moda Center and Veterans Memorial Coliseum.
This is within our district, and we're bringing it forward because we have a unique opportunity in front of us as we work through what the whole city has watched in a drawn-out process to figure out if we can come to terms on a long-term lease agreement with the Moda Center.
We also have to be thinking seriously about what is happening around that space and how the broader area and the development there contributes both to the future of the Rose Quarter and the Moda Center and to the future of Lower Albina just next door.
The city owns several of the parcels that are directly around the Moda Center, and although we lack the funds or a specific vision for the future of these parcels, there are organizations within our city who have both.
The resolution before us establishes a clear set of expectations for what we need in a development partner: a group that has a community-oriented mission.
That has already demonstrated development and financial experience and expertise, that has the ability to bring significant outside investment to the table, and that has a track record of working in the public interest.
These are things that align with our values as a city.
And this resolution critically acknowledges that there is an organization which fits our criteria, who is already working with the city on development in this part of town.
Albina Vision Trust has come to the city with interest in these parcels and a vision to move forward development on them.
Albina Vision Trust has spent years developing a comprehensive vision, not just for these 3 parcels, but for the restoration of Lower Albina broadly.
They've built relationships, partnerships, and an investment strategy necessary to turn that vision into a future.
Their restorative redevelopment of Lower Albina is one of the most transformative projects underway, not just in our city, but across the state and the country.
Bringing that work that they are already doing to the doorstep of the Moda Center creates an opportunity to connect 2 major investments in this part of Portland.
And to make sure, frankly, that the two developments support each other and strengthen each other rather than standing apart.
This is good for community development.
It's good for Portland's economy.
It's good for our work to advance racial justice and make up for the harms of the past.
It is good for the core values that our city stands for.
The construction of I-5 and decades of urban renewal displaced thousands of Black Portlanders, Black homeowners, Black businesses from Lower Albina, and the consequences of those decisions are still lived today.
We can't undo that history, but as we have discussed on many other occasions, the actions that we take now can set forward a better future.
And this resolution is one step toward ensuring that alongside the important decisions that we will be making around Moda, the city is advancing restorative development and creating opportunities for community wealth building and supporting a more vibrant and connected Lower Albina.
Importantly, the city does not— the resolution, I apologize, does not commit the city to a particular development project what is this land worth?
What could development rights generate?
What outside investment could a development partner bring in?
What public investment might ultimately be necessary?
And how should a partnership between the city and Albina Vision Trust be structured to make this project a reality?
Angelita Morillo
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Those questions will come back to council.
What we're doing today is providing our direction that we want to see these city-owned parcels developed by a community-centered organization.
We set our criteria for that development partner, and we acknowledge that we have a partner ready to go who meets those criteria in Albina Vision Trust, and that we should begin negotiating in earnest with Albina Vision Trust.
Thank you.
And trust to make this partnership happen.
Those negotiations will lead to the answers to many questions that I'm sure we have about the details, but we can't get there until we sit down at the table together.
I believe this is the right path forward for our city.
It honors the history of the neighborhood.
It creates the conditions for people who live here to benefit from its future, and it ensures that this part of our city is moving forward in a way that connects the many projects around it together.
I'd like to turn it over to my fellow co-sponsors, Councilor Ryan and Councilor Knaall, to add their voices to this conversation as well.
Councilor Ryan, would you like to go next while Councilor Knaall comes up to the table?
Christopher
Sure.
Dan Ryan
Actually, I'll let Councilor Knaall go next.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, Councilor Knaall.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you, Chair Pearl-Guiney.
Sumner Knoll
Let me get the, uh, mic going here.
Um, for the record, my name is Sumner Knoll.
I am a city councilor in District 2, North and Northeast Portland, and a co-sponsor of this resolution.
Thank you, Chair Pearl-Guiney, for the chance to briefly address the committee.
I'm pleased to be a co-sponsor with my 2 colleagues in District 2.
I'm grateful for the partnership of both you, uh, Madam Chair, as well as Councilor Ryan, in working to make our district better for obviously, we all know that we must build an equitable, community-centered future for this part of our city.
This includes not only the broader discussion on the Moda Center and whether to renovate, how to renovate, et cetera.
It also includes a conversation about the Rose Quarter broadly and development rights.
This area is part of the long history of community building, but also community displacement, as well as development in Portland and discussions around the future of Lower Albina, historically Black part of Portland, must recognize that.
Jason Franklin
Thank you.
Sumner Knoll
And we have, as a city council, must also continue to reckon with it.
This resolution represents a city commitment to restorative development and much-needed neighborhood activation in the Rose Quarter.
It also represents meaningful community partnership to shape what we want our city to be.
Albina Vision Trust has been a leader in this work and in this community for years and is exactly the kind of partner that the city would benefit from working with to realize the area's full potential in a way that works for all of us.
This represent— this resolution represents the start of a process that includes all the normal checks and balances in terms of fiscal responsibility, but also commits us from the start to building a future that reconnects and strengthens communities.
I'm excited to get started on this partnership, and I hope that you conclude your discussion today by referring this resolution to the full council.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor Knoll, and you're welcome to stay if you'd like for the rest of the discussion, but we understand if you have other meetings to get to.
Sumner Knoll
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Yes, thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilor Kunal, it's great to work with you on this.
Candace Avalos
Uh, for—.
Dan Ryan
Was it 5 of my 6 years on council, I've been listening to, learning from, and working with Alpina Vision Trust.
It's good to see you, Winta and Miss Shirley.
I asked for and connected dots actually when I could between the Rose Quarter leaders back in 2021 and Albina Vision Trust to make sure that you were at the same table, and I'm proud of that.
At first it didn't seem like you were, so it's really awesome to see that progress.
Renovating the Moda Center is a piece of a larger— is piece of a larger area of public and private partnerships connecting Albina to the Lloyd District.
We need to move in tandem with Albina Vision Trust and the Lloyd District.
We we and continue to work on the adopted adopted by the council in 2024.
That's when we adopted the the vision for the Lower Albina Plan.
The city now has a chance to make sure this remains.
Successful partnership by renovating Moda Center and inviting new investment into Albina.
There's a lot of synergy here.
It makes sense that we're approaching this at this moment in time.
We can add up to 10 parcels as a welcoming part of the AVT 94-acre plan to restore the area and bring economic opportunity to both the Albina community, first and foremost, AVT not only affirms city objectives, but it also emphasizes supporting youth and children.
It's very family-focused.
Generational success and wealth are so important for this city, and focusing on children is such a vital part of a successful community.
Restoring justice in that neighborhood is so vital.
So this is just a really smart strategic step as we move forward as partners.
And as we move forward with some prosperity for that area at a much-needed time in our city's history, we're really down.
Councilor Zimmerman was right.
There's a lot of special economic conditions that are really haunting Portland, and it's time for government to really work closer with partners.
Thank you.
To get some movements going, development going.
So I think the meetings that you've had with us of late did turn up the urgency, and I appreciate that.
I appreciate that the 3 of us in 1 hour could get on the same page about something.
You were being really gentle with that, but that doesn't happen very often.
But we do see the big picture here, and I'm grateful that we're We're taking a breath right now in the middle of the other big conversation that we'll finalize tomorrow to get moving on some guidelines to make sure that we're connecting the dots at this time.
I appreciate you.
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor Ryan.
Colleagues, before we move into public testimony and discussion, I believe we have a brief bit of information from DCA Oliveira, and we will follow that with an opportunity for our representatives from Albina Vision Trust to provide some information as well.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you, Chair.
Don Oliveira, for the record.
The councilors did such a great job outlining the value proposition of this partnership, so what I thought I would do is offer up just a little background for your awareness and the public's about the history of our partnership with AVT.
And some of the work that is ongoing and continues to be a priority for our our bureaus.
One second here.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Christopher
Come on.
Unidentified speaker
All right.
So this is a real high.
Level overview of just some of the activities that are happening in Lower Albina.
I'll note that this covers quite a few different bureaus, and we're not touching everything we do, but some material projects that I think are relevant to this conversation.
So we're going to talk about some of those, those project backgrounds, the current status, and some of the issues we're grappling with.
But the councilor said it best— this is not a one-off or just a moment in time.
This is building on a history of work and partnership and is the right time to contemplate what's next in the phase of building back the Lower Albina area.
So here's a snapshot overhead view of the area we're talking about.
Just to name it because it's come up earlier, the green is the Rose Quarter campus, which includes the Moda Center and the VMC and the parking garages.
But really, when we talk about Albina, we're talking about a broader area.
Um, but even beyond that, even before that, um, the North Northeast Quadrant Plan was really the first time that the city contemplated, uh, designing with this area in mind, thinking about entertainment, recreation, a lot of different opportunities.
This area, if you think about the Moda Center towards Lloyd and all the way down, ultimately down towards the, the, um, Convention Center.
But there's a lot of key projects that are happening here that we're going to talk about.
But first, some of the background.
Um, beyond just, uh, the Portland Plan or the Comprehensive Plan, every time the city's contemplated discussions around this area, whether it be Central City or that Northeast Quadrant Plan, we've been talking about general themes.
How do we reconnect this neighborhood?
How do we ensure that it's, uh, inclusive?
How do we ensure that economic development is just?
How do we elevate communities that have been burdened, displaced, but also create opportunities that are not just transactional but are, are ongoing.
Um, one of the things that we're really excited about working with Albina Vision on is they have a really clear goal and vision process that we were— Councilor Ryan mentioned it being adopted in July 2024, but we've been grateful to be partners with them on contemplating what comes next, including the discussion before you.
One example of a project that we've been partnering with AVT on, um, has had several bureaus involved— PBOT, BPS, Prosper, to name a few— is part of the Reconnecting Communities grant, which was a federal grant that we got from U.S. Department of Transportation.
This was aligned with the work that was happening with the Rose Quarter project, but really got us to start thinking about how we would use these dollars in this, this Rose Quarter project to reconnect the, the throughways on the framework of the streets in that area.
Including at the Moda Center.
Another example of this work, started thinking about how people would move through the area.
As you can see that while these are, you know, high-level plans, there's a lot of thought given to a future state where this neighborhood's connected and thriving and has a variety of key areas.
One example is looking at that western hub onto the left side of the project.
This would be like a major hub for entertainment.
This would be the place where people would access the waterfront.
And really connect these areas.
And in order to do that, we need a stronger street and transportation network, which PBOT is leading on.
Another example of the work that we're doing is really contemplating the future of the Rose Quarter campus.
So although this is a concept and should not be considered in any way or form the way we're going to go with this parcel, the idea before you in this resolution you're contemplating is not the first time we've thought about how we might incorporate the Rose Quarter campus, the Moda Center operations, VMC operations, with a broader neighborhood.
As you can see here, we start looking at different ways that people can enter and exit the campus, how those, those localized garage become something different, and how this connected to the waterfront again.
Again, this is conceptual and in no way suggests this is what we're doing, but it just shows you that there's a lot of work been done to contemplate how we might design this area in a different way.
And here's some more renderings of the perspective from the waterfront.
Again, not to say this is what's happening or what the plan is, but again, this tells you the opportunity and potential of working with somebody like Elvina Vision, uh, Trust on this area.
It's not just going to be because we have an NBA arena, it's going to be because we have local developers and community partners who have a vision for what this neighborhood is going to look like.
And how we're going to thread all those working parts together.
Again, Councilor Ryan mentioned the 2024 resolution that really focused on a couple of the catalyst sites in the area.
That would be the, the Matthew Prophet site, which is the purple, um, box just north of— northeast of the Moda Center and the waterfront.
We did studies, we've done engagement work with AVT Uh, really bringing in community to answer the question of what could this neighborhood do if we had the resources and were willing to partner to, to activate this property.
And last but not least, just because, um, it's coming up in a couple of weeks, um, there is a significant, um, you know, opportunity with the I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project, especially if, um, the federal funding comes back in to cap those, uh, interstates to really reconnect this neighborhood and, and really change fundamentally how we interact with both Alvina, but also the potential to have that nexus with the Moda Center and VMC, to have a walkable neighborhood that people can get to on good transit or to bike, would really change the dynamic of that neighborhood and really be a vibrant place for entertainment and sports activities, etc.
And that's the end of my presentation.
Again, I wanted to go briefly, mainly just to give you all context that this isn't coming out of left field.
Mixing my sports metaphors there, but it was really to show you that this is building on an incredible amount of work, both from city but from our community partners, obviously led by ABT, to really think about this neighborhood in a very different way.
This resolution is an important next step as we contemplate the future of the Moda Center.
We also should be thinking about how we're going to activate those parcels around it.
And thank you for your time.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
I do have a brief question for the Um, no, I, I can wait for the other presentations.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Um, I would like to have Wente Johannes, the executive director of Albina Vision Trust, and Ms. Sharon Gary-Smith, who is on the board of directors, come up and just offer you two the opportunity to speak to this for a few minutes before we move to council discussion.
Wente Johannes
Excellent, thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair and Councilors.
My name is Wente Johannes.
I serve as Executive Director of Albina Vision Trust.
Of course, I want to begin by thanking Councilors Kanal, Ryan, and Pirtle-Guiney for bringing this resolution forward.
It's a significant step forward in our collaborative work together.
Albina Vision Trust was formed in 2017 for a simple reason: The city played a significant role in destroying a neighborhood and then spent decades studying it.
Albina, as you know, was home to 4 out of every— 4 out of 5 Black Portland families.
We know that its destruction cost Black Portlanders more than $1 billion in stolen wealth.
We exist because the community decided that the next chapter of Lower Albina would not be written about us it would be written by us for the good of all Portlanders.
We are interested in expressing our values for how we will care for one another and having that reflected in an important central city neighborhood.
For over a decade, we have done exactly what we have said we would do.
We have built.
Albina 1 opened last summer, welcoming families home to the district for the first time in 40 years.
These are homes where residents don't pay any utilities bills, where units that were set at 60% AMI we were able to offer at 40 to 45%, knowing that that's the average AMI of Black Portlanders.
This is a building where we had a BIPOC apprenticeship rate of 70— of 22% was our goal, but we achieved 75%.
When we hired our general contractor for that building, the— when they put the crane in the sky, that was only the second time in Oregon State history that that was true.
I share this to say that this is what it looks like when an organization is committed to the outcomes over this time, we have also acquired the only residential building that was left in the district, the historic Paramount Apartments, which housed 66 units of naturally occurring affordable housing.
We were able to braid together both public and private funding to make sure that this building would retain permanent affordability for the next 100 years.
And on top of that, we actually lowered the rent for residents in the building and are offering rents at 50 to 60% AMI.
We then purchased an office building which was a vacant storefront that had been on Williams for many years and have converted this into an active gallery where half a dozen artists get to showcase their work and where we house our office as well as a gathering space that has served many over the last year that it's been open.
We have secured significant dollars, including federal investments for transportation, to rebuild the infrastructure network in the neighborhood.
We have made progress with Portland Public School to free up a 10.5-acre site so that, as Councilor Ryan was thank you.
We have planned for over a decade, and we have produced the community investment plan, which has won international awards for its excellence in design and ambition.
We have created durable partnerships with Portland Trail Blazers through the Albina Rose Alliance, With Lewis and Clark College to provide an anchor educational hub in the district, with, uh, and with many other partners knowing that the neighborhood will be built together.
All of this together, Coleman, has culminated in the nation's largest restorative redevelopment effort.
I share this context with you to say that not only are we capable We are committed, and our track record shows you that it has been our singular focus in making sure that piece by piece we pull together the partnerships necessary to not only dream about the future but to build it today, is why this resolution is, is important.
And as Councilor Pirtle-Guiney already made clear, what's in front of you today is this is not a land transfer.
It is a resolution to begin the negotiation process.
We are confident that in partnership with the city, we can come to terms that help us stop thinking about the district in fragmented terms and instead take this from a place that people primarily drive through and where people drive home from to make it A district that is both world-class and working class.
This is the whole idea and driving purpose of the Albina Vision Trust.
We want abundant, affordable, and diverse housing.
We want children to be able to walk to the river.
We want small and medium-sized businesses.
And when we— while we recognize that we have inherited a legacy of destruction, part of the joy of this work is that the Albina vision at its core is one of Portland's greatest civic projects.
This is where we get to move from talking about our values to expressing them through action.
And so I hope that this council will provide support for moving this resolution forward to the full body.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Sharon Gary Smith
It's a pleasure to be before the City Life Committee.
I'm Sharon Gary Smith.
I'm the eldest daughter of the late Frederick Douglass Gary Jr. and Bobby Lou Mosley Gary, who were adamant advocates of social justice and racial justice and stood up against yes.
Your former predecessors, I'll say, to talk about the city of Portland's dreams and aspirations and its reality, particularly as it pertained to the harsh punishment and disregard for many Black American residents and others of color.
My family's home is one of those that was taken by the use of eminent domain and removed from the city in displacement efforts.
In fact, my front door is now the driveway entrance to Portland Public Schools Matthew Prophet Center.
I'm here today because I'm so pleased that at this time the council has considered the opportunity and the necessity for allowing community-based development To lead and be an important priority in its considerations and deliberations, particularly in the neighborhood that was pulled asunder by a city council many, many years ago.
You can't change the narrative, but we can certainly drive forward with a better one, a more inclusive one.
My response to the resolution recommending that the city form a development partnership with Albina Vision Trust is based on the level of dedication and movement that AVT has demonstrated over the past 10-plus years in cultivating widespread community engagement in its focused forward thinking that recaptures will restore, rebuild, and reroute the home of the majority of Portland's Black community in Lower Albina.
I believe that AVT has proven it has the cultural knowledge and professional skills necessary to successfully navigate and negotiate a path forward with its vision that matches the city's.
It has repeatedly demonstrated it is well-versed and capable in critical community outreach.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
Sharon Gary Smith
Property development, real estate acquisition and stewardship, and even determining and going forward to gather together all the partners who should have a vested interest in the best Portland we can create.
This is certainly demonstrated, as Wenta Johannes just said, in the development of the 94-unit Albina One on Flint Avenue and Broadway, the first significant development in that community that was mine and is yours as well.
In over 40 years, it was nationally lauded.
It has received numerous awards and even a significant amount of financial contribution in the last administration.
That was taken back in the current administration.
It has intimate knowledge in local community investment.
It has dedicated itself to creating and stewarding land reclamation, rebuilding cultural excitement and engagements, and restoring presence and pride in what is possible for our once thriving Black community.
I don't believe that the city administrator, this council, would have to look far or further or create a longtime process to identify a development partner who brings this— these significant attributes to the next phase of your work.
Albina Motor Center it's all the same territory, and it should be thought of in concert with each other and not separately, as was done when the Moda Center was promised as a gathering space in Lower Albina, a place of joy and activity throughout the year, not just when the Blazers were in town.
That didn't happen.
I've seen the work I've been one of the many, many community members, business, government reps who have come together across differences to find ways of negotiating together a path that will better Lower Albina, contribute economically to the city, and allow us all to have joy and cultural opportunity in our neighborhood.
Loretta Smith
Thank you.
Sharon Gary Smith
As well as wealth building and financial security in Lower Albina.
I believe in buying back land that was taken.
I believe in rebuilding community, and I certainly believe in rerooting the values and the cultural significance of Lower Albina in partnership with the city of Portland.
Eric Zimmerman
Second.
Sharon Gary Smith
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you both very much.
Uh, Wendy, do we have any public testimony signed up?
Keelan McClymont
No one signed up.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, colleagues, we're going to move into discussion.
I know there is an amendment filed, and we are going to try to use our words efficiently so we can get to the presentation that is also on our agenda today.
Councilor Avalos, go right ahead.
Candace Avalos
Okay, thank you.
Um, let's see.
All right, let's start with, uh, thanking my D2 colleagues for bringing this proposal forward.
Um, so throughout all of our discussions about Moda, and I get that this is intended to go alongside it, um, I have been thinking, of course, not just about the arena but also the city-owned properties adjacent to it and, and the enormous, in my opinion, responsibility that we have as stewards of those public assets.
I also think that we can't talk about development in this area without acknowledging its history, so thank you for sharing that context.
Laura Albina was once the heart of Portland's Black community, and that has to be said on the record because that is the subtext that is encompassing this conversation.
And government-led development decisions displaced families and businesses and I really want to speak to that and, and just say that repairing that harm is important to me.
AVT has spent years developing a restorative vision for Lower Albina grounded in repairing those historic harms and creating a new model of what development can look like.
And so I want to be clear that the amendment I'm about to propose is not about questioning AVT as a development partner.
And in fact, I want to thank you, Wynta, from ABT, for helping and working directly with me on this amendment.
We spent all morning scrambling, trying to get it right, trying to get to a place where both of our needs could be met.
And so very grateful to you that those concerns that I raised, we were able to put into language that I feel good about and I will be putting forward.
So what the amendment does is 3 primary things.
First, it makes it clear that the city administrator will negotiate in earnest and exclusively with AVT for the opportunity to serve as the city's development partner.
So we're not telling AVT that they have the first opportunity while simultaneously negotiating it with someone else.
This is something that we discussed, and I agree that we should give AVT a real opportunity to make this ask.
Second, the amendment makes clear that the opportunity cannot be assigned or transferred.
Essentially, I— that doesn't prevent ABT from bringing together the development and financing and other partnerships necessary to do the work, but it does simply mean that the opportunity council is providing cannot itself be transferred without coming back to council.
So I just want to secure council's right that we are, you know, if we decide to make you a partner, that any change in that partnership needs to be approved by council.
Olivia Clark
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
So I want that guardrail.
And then third, we establish a 12-month limit on the negotiation period.
Again, I was concerned about, you know, this kind of indefinite nature of how it was written, and I wanted to talk through what it would look like to put some kind of a time limit.
And again, we discussed this together, and that doesn't mean that the negotiations also have to take 12 months.
So it also— it's the ceiling.
So So if the city and ABT reach mutually acceptable terms sooner, great.
But it also speaks to if we reach that point without an agreement, or if the city administrator determines sooner that mutually acceptable terms can't be reasonably reached, then the administration has to come back to council before either continuing negotiations with ABT or beginning a process to select an alternative development partner.
I think that it was important that we had an I think that AVT getting a genuine and exclusive opportunity to negotiate is important.
The city getting a clear process and timeline and a viable agreement.
And if a viable agreement can't be reached, then neither party is locked into an indefinite process.
That was my main concern.
So I want council to be able to decide what's next.
And I also want to make one thing clear, because I think it's important for the public to understand.
Eric Zimmerman
Yes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I think that the council has to be clear about what's going on.
Candace Avalos
So just to be clear, we are establishing the process through which the city will negotiate a potential development partnership, and any binding agreements still have to return to council for consideration.
So that means that council is going to have another opportunity to evaluate this agreement, including the value of the city's development rights, the disposition strategy for these public properties, any proposed public land use changes, and any proposed development plans.
Galib Benemotebel
Thank you.
Candace Avalos
Financial support, the responsibilities of all the parties involved, and whether the final agreement is in the public's interest, which is ultimately our responsibility as legislators.
So I think that that strikes an appropriate balance.
And ultimately, Laura Baina is a powerful example to me of what can happen when government makes consequential development decisions without the people most affected having power in those decisions.
And so I'm hoping that we can write this next chapter differently.
I do want restorative development I want community partnership and public accountability.
And again, thank you so much for working with me, um, to put together language that I think can accomplish those goals.
So with that, I will move Avalos Amendment 1.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Is there a second?
Angelita Morillo
Second.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, Councilor Murillo, you're in the queue.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, um, Councilor Avalos, thanks for bringing this forward.
I was curious if we could get more rationale behind using the word exclusively in your amendment.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, um, we discussed this, and ultimately it was about giving them the true first right to refusal and ensuring that they are able to, um, not have to compete with other interests.
So we're just being really explicit that we're giving them a year essentially to work with our team, make a proposal.
Again, still has to be approved, but, um, just gives them the security that they can actually make a true first bid.
So extra protection for them.
I, I can see both sides of, you know, if that's good or not, but I decided to go with it feeling like the rest of the protections, uh, protected the city's interest.
Angelita Morillo
Okay, um, Is Donnie— or sorry, DCA Oliveira— or any legal people here to help us today?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
We have both an attorney and our DCA in the room.
Yes.
Angelita Morillo
An attorney is the word I was looking for.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Why don't we have you both come up so that we're prepared no matter where this question heads?
Angelita Morillo
Um, and maybe this is also a question for the city administrator too, so anyone who wants I think my question is, so, well, I'll give you a preamble.
We are doing what I think is similar to the Moda term sheet, where we are coming up with, we are saying this is not a commitment, this is just a list of things we're looking at, but there absolutely is a political commitment.
And this is the first that I'm seeing this resolution.
I think it's important to note that We were not necessarily briefed on it or the full potential for the items and what is possible here.
So bear with me as I ask these questions.
It is to wrap my head around it and really try to get to a yes is what I'm getting to.
What does it look like?
Because ABT is not the only community developer here.
Candace Avalos
Right.
Dan Ryan
Thank you.
Angelita Morillo
So, if we are in the city, what does it look like for the city to negotiate with anyone else or to even have a process where— we've had processes in the past where the city includes additional points for community-led organizations or affected folks who are bidding for different projects.
So what would it look like to negotiate with other people, or what has that looked like in the past?
For similar projects?
Maybe that's a better question for Donnie.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, okay, so thanks for the question, Councilor.
Uh, taking away from this project, if I may, typically if we were going to be looking at a disposition of, of property, we would have— we have a process, the city has a process for that, right?
You've experienced it as council to take action on that.
So typically we would send out a notification and work with a potential developer on a variety of different You know, elements depending on what we were looking for.
Are they going to develop housing on it?
Are we just selling the property, you know, at market value to get it off our books?
Whatever the case may be.
In this particular case, what the resolution is essentially framing is that as we're parallel negotiating lease terms for the— related to the Moda Center, once those which currently are in the current bridge agreement belong as first right of refusal to the Blazers, we would pick up the— what would happen on day 1 after that bridge agreement ends.
We think that the— at least the base language of the resolution was pretty clear that we would still work with, in this case, AVT, to ensure they met all the requirements that we think are practical, ultimately to come back to council for a final vote.
That's really important to really get on the record.
This isn't you all handing them the keys to the lots.
There's still a process that we'd have to go through, and that's outlined in the resolution.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
The difference here is that you're just giving us a direction, which happens in housing projects, by the way.
There's— when we have property that we, um, work with our nonprofit partners on, we typically do an RFP or an RFQ.
We're sort of using this process instead of that in this particular case.
Angelita Morillo
Okay, that makes sense.
So with property disposition in other cases, do we have an open process or So it would be abnormal for us to do sole sourcing right now for this?
Unidentified speaker
This— I don't think this is giving them the parcels, to be really clear.
That you're essentially giving the administration, you know, guidance to work with a partner, in this case AVT, to contemplate the transition, because we don't have the rights technically to hand over.
So what you're basically saying is, hey, negotiate, and then we'll make a decision.
In good faith with AVT and come back to us for that formal process that we would go through still.
It's still have to go through council, um, to actualize that disposition.
Angelita Morillo
Gotcha.
And what is the criteria that we normally look for to say that a developer is capable of building out some— a parcel as large as this?
Unidentified speaker
Oh, it depends on the project counselor.
It could range from, you know, experience, uh, Sort of commitment in the community, values-based, you know, elements that we would do, um, the project team, who's their project team, all those sorts of things.
Pretty standard stuff for development.
Um, and in this case, we, you know, we would trust that we would work with AVT to outline those, those parameters.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Angelita Morillo
Um, I think I, I'm comfortable with this amendment.
And I feel like maybe just stay up here because we might have more questions for you.
Sorry.
I think I'm comfortable with this amendment if we can remove exclusivity out of it because I think that's too binding.
This is already, I think, making a pretty large commitment to AVT and saying that we are going to look at them first.
But this is not the only community developer that exists that focuses specifically on Albina and displaced folks in that neighborhood.
So I think this resolution to me is already written as sole source.
Am I wrong about that, Donny?
I mean, or sorry, DC Oliveira.
I should stop doing that.
Too casual.
Unidentified speaker
It's all right.
The word exclusivity does cause us a little pause.
We want to remain as open and flexible as possible to the process.
I'd want to send a signal broadly, that while we are absolutely working with AVT, we are not bound until we do the process.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
Our normal disposition process.
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, I would just, I just, it's not even about AVT, honestly.
I think we've just been told to make a lot of commitments over the past few weeks for a lot of things that we don't have information on.
And it's hard for me as a councilor to do that.
Um, so if you're okay with removing exclusivity out of it, then I would be okay with this amendment.
Candace Avalos
I am totally okay with that.
And so procedurally-wise, what did we do last time?
Elizabeth Lee
Is it remove it?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Draw Avalos 1.
You would resubmit as Avalos 1A, um, with that word removed.
Candace Avalos
Thank you.
Yeah, so you're gonna specifically— you're gonna remove and exclusively, both of those words.
Everything else stays thank you.
Angelita Morillo
And I will second, uh, yeah, second to the amendment.
Um, I like it, and, uh, I have follow-up questions after we vote on this amendment.
Thanks.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you.
Um, that actually addresses the question that I had here.
Colleagues, I don't see anybody else in the queue.
I do see our colleague Councilor Smith here.
And Councilor Smith, I wasn't sure if you wanted to speak at all today, and if so, if you wanted to speak to the amendment or to the underlying.
Dan Ryan
You can stay here.
I was going to go hang it over there.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, I'll be right back.
Loretta Smith
It just seems so weird.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Could you introduce yourself for the record?
Loretta Smith
Yes, yes, sorry.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Loretta Smith
My name is, uh, Loretta Smith.
I'm a councilor for District 1, and, uh, thank you all for giving me the, the honor to be able to speak to this.
I was good with either the, um, the amendment or the underlying, because what I do know is that Albina Vision Trust, they have been a leader in community-based, uh, redevelopment.
I was in DC 2 weeks ago And I ran into Christopher Coles.
He was the, uh, undersecretary under Biden, and he was singing AVT's praise in, in Washington, DC.
And he talked about it in one of his, um, in one of his workshops.
So this is not a, uh, a project that they have forgotten and that they're still trying to push.
So I really appreciate Chris Christopher, for, uh, letting the nation know about this project.
I do believe that exclusivity, it makes it very clear what and who we are talking to.
Being in government for over 20 years, I have seen government use organizations and put their names on things, and then they double deal And they're talking to other folks.
So the exclusivity really makes sense in terms of making sure that AVT is getting a fair shot at being able to develop the property that's identified.
So I just want to say thank you so much for giving me this opportunity.
I wholeheartedly support this project and, uh, do support you all supporting this project.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Mr. City Administrator, did you have something you wanted to add?
Elizabeth Lee
Yes, just a clarification on the amendment as well, just to give, uh, the committee a full picture.
Typically on any type of development opportunity like this, we wouldn't necessarily come back to council as it relates to if this deal doesn't work, bring another deal.
Typically, we would run a process in this to get a full spectrum of developers, and if this does not necessarily work.
So I just want to caveat that for council, we wouldn't just keep coming back to you developer after developer in this, just to bring in front of council as it relates to who may potentially develop the land.
Thank you.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Mr. City Administrator, does that mean that under the underlying, you would be directed to negotiate with Albina Vision Trust, and if that doesn't work, if a deal can't be reached, you would then fall back on the list of criteria and continue moving forward?
Under the amendment, however, you are explicitly directed to come back to council to get any new potential developers approved.
So that would be outside of the normal process.
Elizabeth Lee
Normal process.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Is that okay?
Candace Avalos
Correct.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Councilor Murillo, are you back in the queue on this amendment?
Angelita Morillo
This is after the amendment.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Councilor Avalos.
Candace Avalos
All right.
Just hearing the discussion you're having, I guess I want to understand, like, Agree, and thank you.
I think the way that I wrote it was just saying, just trying to— the intent is just saying, like, make sure that once the clock runs out, you're coming back.
Because again, my interest is the clock and there being one.
Um, you know, how you come back after, I'm indifferent to.
But, um, so is there something based on what I heard that I should change in order to address that intent that I'm trying to go for?
Elizabeth Lee
I have your intent, so we'll— we can follow— still follow through on that.
Candace Avalos
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'm sorry, colleagues, I'm putting myself in the queue because I'm a little concerned now because I read this as very different from that intent.
Be it further resolved, this opportunity may not be assigned or transferred to another entity without subsequent approval by the Portland City Council leads me to believe that you can't follow that intent.
Candace Avalos
That is for AVT.
So that's AVT can't.
So maybe it should say AVT specifically there.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I read this as saying the city could not negotiate with anybody else.
If your intent is really the clock, I think that's simply the line on the last be it further resolved in the underlying that says, and for a period not to exceed 12 months from when negotiations begin.
The rest of it, I binds the city administration to come back to us before they could move forward if things were to not work with Albina Vision Trust.
Candace Avalos
All right, so as is, and we already took and exclusively out, so just FYI, that's what a new draft we're working from.
So this, be it further resolved, the opportunity may not be assigned or transferred, there's heartburn I'm hearing about that because you feel it reaches restricts the city administrator from doing what now?
Say it again.
Elizabeth Lee
It's just outside of our normal process.
If we were doing any type of development process, we would not be coming back to council with new developers each time.
Uh, what typically would happen is we would make a recommendation to council as it relates to a development process, or even have a conversation with council as it relates to if we're running through a process which developer got selected.
That's typically how a process would have run.
Candace Avalos
Okay, so is there interest from colleagues then?
I mean, I'm trying to workshop it in real time here, so, uh, I, I guess, is there a desire to remove that section?
I, I said my intent, that's what I'm trying to get at.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Let me go to Councilor Murillo and then I might have Yeah, I—.
Angelita Morillo
My main concern was the exclusively part, and it's a lot because of what you said, City Administrator, because I, I'm sort of confused as to why we wouldn't have an open process with specific qualifications that say you get additional points if you are an organization that focuses on the community, has met this criteria, you know, that does— that is going to give preference without locking us in, without having seen any— I know the history of the work that's being done, but I don't know anything about this project.
Like, I would love commitments on on social housing.
I would love to know what's— what type of housing is going to be built.
What, um, these are the types of things that I think I would want to be stated on the record in order to feel more comfortable with it.
Um, but I just—.
Elizabeth Lee
I think in, in this type of situation, what this resolution is saying is, is that we're going to work in good faith effort with AVT.
It's not locking the city in from the standpoint of saying you're obligated to have AVT develop this land, but it's saying that the city will make a good faith effort in working with AVT and giving them the first opportunity to bring about a plan for the development of these parcels of land.
Angelita Morillo
And so what you're saying, though, is say that there is this timeline and for some reason they cannot fulfill this timeline, then the administration gets to pick a developer without us, which may not have the community interest in that way?
Elizabeth Lee
No, we would go through a process at that point in time, a public process, RFP process, to find a developer or people to submit proposals for the development of those parcels.
Angelita Morillo
Okay.
If this is supposedly non-binding, what are the city's plans to look at any other competitive proposals?
Sumner Knoll
Do it.
Elizabeth Lee
You know, anytime we go through any of this type of development, and Donnie can kind of give a history of what has happened with this land, this is pretty difficult land to develop overall, uh, and I know there's been options as it relates to people developing the land.
But you gotta keep in mind too, this, some of this land is being used currently by the Trail Blazers now as a, as part of their operations for the Moda Center.
So a lot of these considerations have to be taken into when we're looking at potential developers or who may be interested in developing that site because of the restrictions that are on this site.
But I'll let Donny kind of talk through kind of history of development in that area.
Unidentified speaker
Yeah, thank you, City Administrator.
So, Councilor, if I'm hearing you, just want to repeat back so I can— you're asking what process would we normally run and/or what sort of commitments would we get from an agreed-upon partner?
Is that sort of the general theme?
Angelita Morillo
I think you've already answered that, which is that this is an abnormal process, which is fine because we may be when you're trying to address historic harms, you're gonna do something different, right?
Elizabeth Lee
Yeah.
Angelita Morillo
But I think my question is, based on some of the language written in the amendment of these are some things that have to be fulfilled in order to move forward or to not have clawbacks, then what is the city, how is the city planning on engaging anybody else should that fall through?
Is there any plan for that?
Who are we doing outreach to?
Is it gonna be 1803, SEI, other folks who have done development projects?
Like, what does that look like?
Unidentified speaker
Great question, Councilor.
I think the moment— just going to name it because we're right in the middle of it— is we're in the midst of a pretty interesting process around the lease agreement to the Moda Center with the Blazers.
The Albina Rose Alliance is an existing partnership between the Blazers and AVT, putting them in real prime position to even contemplate these, as CA Lee mentioned already, very complex development scenarios for those parcels.
So right out of the gate, why this timeline is, is meaningful right now is as we negotiate with the Blazers and with AVT, those are going to be cross-pollinated at some point.
When we come back in December for the definitive documents for the final lease, the non-relocation, the development rights scenario will probably be on the table as well, best case scenario.
And because of that, those conversations are going to— they're linked in that place, and AVT is in prime position to have those conversations now.
If we were to contemplate another, you know, viable option that you're alluding to, yes, but the timeline to get that done won't fit into our reality right now, which is we're trying to get to December.
And given ABT's work with the city and the Blazers to date, they're a pretty practical option right now, frankly.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Gotcha.
Angelita Morillo
Okay.
And I just want to reaffirm for anyone who's listening or watching, this is my first time seeing this resolution, we didn't— I haven't had a briefing on this project.
I think we learned about it happening a week ago, things that you guys were working on, and there's also quorum issues.
So this is our only venue to have this discussion with all the partners in the administration here.
So I'm asking questions because I'm just trying to understand what the process is and what our options are moving forward, but I'll leave it there.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor, and I thank you for acknowledging the quorum issues because 2 of us on this committee were co-sponsoring it.
We were a little limited.
Eric Zimmerman
Let's be clear, quorum does not require that we cannot talk to one another.
I would love it if folks would still take the opportunity to share things.
It doesn't mean you cannot talk to your colleagues.
This crutch is being used to, I think, well, I'll just stop there.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Avalos, I put myself in the queue.
You had asked for suggestions here.
I think if what you're trying to do is ensure that we don't exceed that 12-month period, that there's some time-boundness here in what is moving forward, but that you do want the administration to be able to move through the normal process wherein if we can't reach a deal with AVT in that amount of time, they would go through that, that regular process with the parameters that are laid out here.
I might suggest that you strip back the amendment to just the single line at the end of the current be it further resolved and move a new amendment that simply adds to the underlying at the very end and for a period not to exceed 12 months from when negotiations begin, which would give you the time-boundness and also that process that says here's what we want because this is what we want we're starting with this.
Group that we know can give us that.
And if that doesn't work within this period of time, the administration would use those parameters.
Candace Avalos
I'm open to that with one caveat.
I'm curious how you feel about the first thing that I changed, not the exclusively one where I say for the opportunity to serve as these cities instead of as the new development partners, because that's another layer for me of like, again, this is an opportunity.
It's not guaranteeing that they will be that.
And then having the, the 12-month, I would be fine with those 2 things.
So for the opportunity to serve and the 12-month and striking everything else, I would be okay with moving that.
And then I will continue to think and work with you all.
If there are things that I feel it's still not doing, I can bring that to the council.
So I'd be willing to move it forward with that.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'm looking to my co-sponsor to see if that would be amenable to him or not.
I don't mean to put you on the spot.
Dan Ryan
Well, yes you do.
That's just fine.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Oh, okay.
I mean to put you on the spot because I don't want to move forward without my co-sponsor.
Dan Ryan
How about that?
I'm really proud to help sponsor and support this resolution.
It's just gonna have such a lasting impact on District 2 and the entire city.
So I want to get this right.
And the amendment has been thoughtful and it's caused some confusion.
I really appreciated your line of questioning, Councilor Morello, about the exclusivity.
That was satisfying to me, and I appreciate that that seemed to be a friendly amendment with you.
Okay.
And so I can live with this version.
I want to make sure we move this forward.
And I think that— what's that?
Candace Avalos
The version we just described or the one—.
Dan Ryan
The one where we add the 12-month thing to give us a safeguard.
I can go with that.
I want to make sure that we align this up with our conversations about MODA, and I don't want us to risk losing that opportunity to keep knitting that together.
And, and I think when we bring this to the full council, we'll probably have some more dialogue, obviously, because we'll add 7 curious folks, and we'll see where it goes from there.
But I, I do think this is evolving quite well, and I really appreciate that we've been in dialogue frequently I've talked frequently about it with you, and I thought we were going to be able to talk to you all much sooner, but there were just more edits that were flying around.
So I apologize for my part for not bringing it to you earlier.
I was waiting for the ink to dry with you and Councilor Knoll.
Yeah.
Yeah, I can live with this.
Okay.
The one that you added on, right?
You were friendly to that too.
Candace Avalos
Yeah, so, so let's clean this up.
Yeah, how about I introduce Avalos 2?
Okay, Avalos 2 is simply going to do 2 things, and I will share my screen so you can see.
Avalos 2 is going to add this section here that says, for the opportunity to serve as the City's development partner instead of as the new.
That's part 1.
And then part 2 is we will have this, and for a period not to exceed 12 months from negotiations begin.
And then I guess I take this last and out because I'm also going to take this out.
So as it stands, it would say those 2 things.
So I'm cleaning it up here so you can see it.
So you've got part 1.
Galib Benemotebel
And part 2.
Unidentified speaker
Sorry, let me clean—.
Candace Avalos
Clear this off as well.
Dan Ryan
That works.
Candace Avalos
Yep.
Part 1 right here and part 2 right here.
So that is Avalos 2.
Dan Ryan
I love cuts.
Candace Avalos
So I will move Avalos 2.
Do I have a second for that?
Wente Johannes
Second.
Sharon Gary Smith
Okay.
Loretta Smith
Okay.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Morillo, are you in the queue on Avalos 2?
And I recognize that we're at 5:01.
You're not, Councilor Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
I'm not.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, seeing no one in the queue on Avalos 2, Wendy, can you please call the roll?
Angelita Morillo
Morillo?
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Avalos 2 is adopted.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, thank you.
And Councilor Morillo, are you in the queue on the underline?
Angelita Morillo
Yeah, if, if people are going to try to rush this through today when it's clear that there are more questions, then I have more questions that I need answered before we leave the committee, because I need to know what the timeline is on getting more information on how this work is going to be financed and how that timeline is So, Councilor, there is not a—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
This specifically directs us in these negotiations to figure out many of the answers to those questions.
What we have before us is a resolution saying, go work with a partner who meets these criteria.
Here's one ready to work with us.
We're going to work with them.
To see if there's a deal to be had here.
And that deal would encompass who is funding what and what that looks like.
There is no commitment for city money here.
In fact, specifically, this points out the opportunity to bring in other dollars.
It doesn't say we wouldn't at some point approve money for this, but there is not a financing plan here because we don't even know yet yeah, and the term sheet is doing the same thing for the Moda deal, and we're seeing how everyone's being pressured into a decision there too.
Angelita Morillo
City Administrator, I see you have something to say.
Elizabeth Lee
No, I was just gonna concur that at this point in time, we don't know any costs associated with any potential, uh, development deal, credit development deal, or any of that.
With AVT on this.
I think part of the conversation in which we would be coming back to the City Council to provide that level of detail too, as we have conversations and negotiations with AVT of what that potentially will look like.
No matter what, anytime you're looking at development of this size and scale, there will, will be some infrastructure costs associated with a project that AVT or any developer may ask the city to contribute towards that development.
And that's a strong thing that the city has to take under consideration as we look at any potential development on these sites.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Councilor Zimmerman, last word.
Unidentified speaker
Really, last word?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I don't have anything else to say.
Eric Zimmerman
I was going to table it.
I'll tell you, I'm— I mean, I think committees are designed to work things out, and my next item that's up that will not be heard is designed to work things out.
And so, um, I, I think this is— I, I can't wait to vote for this, and I think committees are designed to work things out.
And so I think that tabling it, adjourning this meeting, apologizing to the invited guests for the next item— I am deeply sorry that you have been here for as many hours as you have— would be the most appropriate thing at this point.
I'd move to adjourn this meeting.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I'm not sure that that's something that a councilor who's not chair can do.
You could move to table an item.
Candace Avalos
Um, and is it table or continue to the next meeting?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Either.
Dan Ryan
Then I'd like to call the vote.
Oh, okay.
Angelita Morillo
Oh, he had the floor.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
So, Councilor Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
I will, I'll withdraw.
Unidentified speaker
You guys want to vote for it?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Councilor Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Yeah, calling the vote.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, is that a motion that needs a second?
Candace Avalos
You want to vote for it now?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yeah.
I don't know.
Angelita Morillo
Okay, why don't we just—.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Ryan has moved that we call the vote.
I am going to ask Wendy to do so.
Dan Ryan
You can't second it?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I can second it.
That moves us there.
Sharon Gary Smith
Yeah.
Unidentified speaker
We do need a motion and a second.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Councilor Ryan has moved.
I'll second.
Unidentified speaker
Morillo, this is on, uh, the underlying resolution as amended.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
I've approved your amendment, so we're on the underlying.
Galib Benemotebel
Yes.
Angelita Morillo
We can just have a harder discussion at full council because this committee is unwilling to do some of the hard work here.
So aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman, absent.
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Yeah, not my preferred method, but I do have more things to bring, and so I'll bring them to full council.
I'll vote aye for now.
Unidentified speaker
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
I want Oh, go ahead, Wendy.
Unidentified speaker
Just to clarify—.
Candace Avalos
Oh, all right.
Unidentified speaker
If you put something on the table, then you have to vote to take it off again.
Otherwise, you can just continue it.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
This said a vote to pass.
Loretta Smith
Yeah.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Sorry, I was one step behind y'all.
Dan Ryan
It's understandable.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay, and Councilor Zimmerman just added an aye before you called the final vote tally, so I think we're at final vote tally now.
Unidentified speaker
The motion to refer the resolution as amended, document number 2026-285, to City Council with the recommendation it be adopted is approved with 5 aye votes.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Thank you.
Colleagues, I want to apologize to our guests who are in the room whose Item we didn't get to, and Councilor Zimmerman, who brought that item forward.
We had a number of last-minute amendments that popped less than an hour before this committee meeting, and things went a little longer because of that.
We will make sure to look at our schedules for the next 2 meetings to ensure that within the next month we can get all of these things on the calendar.
With that, I will adjourn our meeting.
Loretta Smith
Adjourned.