Portland City Council AM Session 08/12/26

4:00Good morning.

4:01I'm calling to order this meeting of the Portland City Council.

4:07Can we please call the roll?

4:09Good morning.

4:09Koyama Lane?

4:10Here.

4:11Morillo?

4:12Here.

4:12Here.

4:13Here.

4:15Here.

4:16Here.

4:18Here.

4:18Present.

4:20Smith.

4:21Here.

4:23Here.

4:24Pirtle-Guiney.

4:25Here.

4:26Ryan.

4:28Dunphy.

4:29Here.

4:30And could we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?

4:33Good morning.

4:34Welcome to the Portland City Council.

4:35To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.

4:43Information on engaging with council can be found at the individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.

4:51Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.

4:54The presiding officer preserves order.

4:56Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed.

5:04If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.

5:07Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.

5:10Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.

5:13Thank you.

5:13Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.

5:17Your testimony should address the matter being considered.

5:20When testifying, state your name for the record.

5:22Your address is not necessary.

5:24If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.

5:27Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.

5:31Thank you.

5:32Thank you very much.

5:33Our first item, as always, is agenda approval.

5:36Colleagues, are there any requests to amend the agenda, to reorder items, or to reschedule an item to a future meeting date?

5:43Not seeing anyone looking excited.

5:44Do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda?

5:48The agenda is approved.

5:49Great, thank you.

5:50Keelan, can we please move to public communications?

5:53First up today, we have Joel Corcoran.

5:56Good morning.

5:56Come on up, introduce yourself for the record.

5:59You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.

6:04Good morning.

6:06I'm Joel Corcoran, a resident of District 3 and also a candidate for City Council.

6:11Kathleen Sadat's comments last week moved me to come address you today.

6:17We've been working with a new type of city government now for about 18 months.

6:21This offers a unique opportunity for a new style of politics, particularly during this election.

6:30Yet City Council continues to replicate the same cycle of polarization, demonization, and alienation we've seen play out at the federal level for over 25 years, those of us who've served in the federal government have seen this firsthand.

6:48That knowledge and experience makes us informed critics, but criticism is easy; collaborating is hard.

6:57Governing is just goddamn difficult, even at the best of times, and we certainly do not live in the best of times right now.

7:03Our federal government poses existential threats to democracy and the republic generally.

7:09And to Portland in particular, our state and local governments are the last line of defense against those threats.

7:17It's up to us to mount that defense—all of us, we the people—but especially of those those of us who are running for state and local office, incumbents and challengers alike.

7:28I think those of us seeking elected office should work to restore democracy and solve the political problems that need to be solved.

7:35We are the ones who will lead Portland's political culture and norms.

7:39We should take that responsibility seriously.

7:43This election offers an opportunity for all of us to help City Council work better together as an institution, but that will require all of us to work better together.

7:56That will require reversing the conventional wisdom of politics and elections especially.

8:02We could continue with the conventional wisdom of elections, Those practices of vilifying each other, demonizing our opponents.

8:11Or we could try something new, actually collaborating now in advance of taking office in January.

8:20We can encourage diversity, equity, and collaboration now, some of our core city values, or continue mimicking these so-called values of national politics.

8:31This election will decide who serves on council next year.

8:34It will not decide who gets to continue working for the public good.

8:39We'll all still be around after Election Day.

8:42We'll all still be trying to help the city of Portland and our communities.

8:47We can choose to engage in collaboration.

8:50We can share ideas and work together to create good policy.

8:54We can demonstrate passionate advocacy without polarization.

8:58We can disagree without demonizing.

9:01The choices are entirely up to us.

9:03Thank you for your time this morning.

9:05Thank you very much.

9:09Next up, we have Injured and Pissed Off.

9:15Good morning.

9:16Come on up.

9:38Good morning.

9:39My name's Injured and Pissed Off.

9:42I swear my name is Injured and Pissed Off, and I have a paper here from the state that says that the state pays $19,166 a month that's in dollars.

10:01That figures up to $628.39 a day.

10:07That's, uh, I figured up what the golden years means.

10:13It means that the state pays a lot of money.

10:19This has only recently happened.

10:22This, this since February 3rd, I'm in a care facility.

10:28And I've got to pay $1,375 on top of that, of the $19,166.

10:43And there's good ideas and there's bad ideas.

10:48And, uh, in 95 days, uh, will be November 15th, And November 15th, 2010, which will practically be 16 years, I had catastrophic injuries, broke my left hip and fractured 2 of my vertebrae in my spinal cord and got mistreated at the hospital.

11:21After the hip surgery, ignoring the spinal cord injuries.

11:25And maybe that's the reason why the state's having to cough up that much money.

11:31But the city and the county and animal control and the Home Forward— it was HAP at the time of the injuries— hasn't paid me even a penny.

11:44In fact, even the state hasn't paid me one penny.

11:47Thank you.

11:49I'm rather disappointed at that.

11:51Of course, being injured and pissed off, well, you kind of get used to that kind of stuff.

12:00I'll be leaving this paper here for the board clerk, if that's all right.

12:09My service animal was a real service animal.

12:13It was attacked 7 times in less than 6 years.

12:20It's against Oregon law to even interfere with a service animal, but when the city owns the property that you rent at and the state controls your medical appointments and— or the lack of care or anything, well, they couldn't get away with all that, what they were doing, which was nothing.

12:42Thank you.

12:43Thank you very much for being here this morning.

12:47Next up, we have John Rosa-Pepp.

12:51Can I hand it?

12:53Of course.

12:56Thank you.

13:03John Rosa-Pepp.

13:10Okay, next up we have Lee King.

13:23Lee King.

13:28That completes communications for today.

13:30Okay, thank you, colleagues.

13:34Our third item on our agenda is actually a time certain that starts at 9:45, and so we cannot quite move to that quite yet.

13:44Um, start with some jokes.

13:48That's a full 5 minutes.

13:50I don't think I can actually do that.

13:51Um, colleagues, let's move to item number 5, which is the only non— the next non-time certain item on our agenda.

13:59Item 5, document 2026-01.

14:02Direct the Portland Bureau of Transportation to evaluate and implement no turn on red restrictions at signalized intersections within the high crash network.

14:11Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance.

14:14Is there any further council discussion before we move to a vote?

14:21Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll?

14:24Oh, there we go.

14:26People jumped in as soon as I said it.

14:27There we go.

14:27Councilor Smith first.

14:29Thank you.

14:30Thank you, Mr.

14:31Chair.

14:32Um, just wanted to say we read this last week and it's a very important ordinance that will save lives in the city of Portland.

14:42And I want to make note that this is a pilot that's going to be piloted in specific areas in the, um, high crash corridor and It is going to cost about $800,000.

14:58So I think today we take a, a long overdue step to fulfill our promise to the people of Portland.

15:06I believe far too long our street design has prioritized moving cars through intersections as fast as possible rather than ensuring our neighbors reach their destinations safely.

15:20So for far too long, we have placed haphazard motorist convenience over the elderly and pedestrian safety.

15:29The numbers do not lie, and neither do the stories of the families in District 1.

15:37In District 1, we've lost to date 11 lives.

15:42District 2—.

15:43No!

15:44They have lost 5 lives.

15:48In District 4, they have also, um, Have lost 5 lives, and in District 3, there are 7 more lives that will not be here in the city of Portland.

16:01We know that when a driver looks left for an opening in traffic, their eyes leave the crosswalk on the right— on their right.

16:10In that split second, we risk the life of a child walking to school, a neighbor in a wheelchair, or a commuter on a bike.

16:18Thank you.

16:19Something has to be done.

16:21The No Turn on Red ordinance is our best response, and I think it's one of our best responses.

16:28It changes the default setting.

16:31It establishes a fundamental truth in our city code that pedestrian life is non-negotiable.

16:39This policy is also an issue of equity.

16:43Our mobility-impaired residents and elderly community members deserve the confidence that when they walk to a signal that turns white, the crosswalk is truly theirs because we know that no turn on red signage reduces all crashes by 9% and decreases pedestrian and bicycle crashes by 41%.

17:08Safety should not depend on how fast you can stop off of a curb.

17:13I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the advocates who brought their lived experiences To the chamber, to PBOT staff, and for their leadership, and to each of you for recognizing that leadership requires action.

17:28And I am proud to be able to cast a vote for this ordinance in, in the affirmative on the ordinance today for safer, more walkable, and more human Portland roads.

17:43I also want to thank Oregon Walks, and Verde for all their help in making sure that we had language that would be acceptable in the community and that it would help to save lives today.

17:59Thank you.

18:00Thank you, Councilor Smith.

18:01Councilor Novick.

18:03Thank you, Mr. President.

18:04I feel kind of silly making this mundane point after Councilor Smith's eloquent speech, but I just did want to point out that this is a pilot that could have— this is not banning right turn on red throughout the city.

18:15This is something that could add 30 no-turn-on-red intersections, adding to the 200 that we already have.

18:23Thank you, Councilor Novick.

18:24Councilor Koyama Lane.

18:28Thank you.

18:29I just want to say thank you again to my colleagues, especially Councilor Smith, and to the staff at PBOT, to Director Williams, to Dana Dickman, for all your support with this and with Vision Zero.

18:42And thank you to the community groups.

18:44Thank you, Councilor Smith, that you were willing to open your door and really hear them.

18:51Oregon Walks, Verde, BikeCloud, Families for Safe Streets.

18:56This is important work.

18:57It's really hard work, but it's heart work, and it takes a long time, but it's worth it.

19:02And I'm very proud to vote aye and hope that the rest of my colleagues join me in that.

19:08Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.

19:09Councilor Ryan.

19:10Yes, thank you, Council President, and thank you, co-sponsors.

19:14I have to admit, Councilor Smith, I went into your office yesterday and, um, I for some reason have had so many random people say you can't pass that.

19:22But I, I, like them, at first thought it was universal throughout the whole city on every stop sign, right?

19:28And A, that wouldn't be very realistic, and B, it wouldn't be too popular if it was every stop sign throughout the city when you're in an area that's quiet and there's no one around.

19:37And then when you targeted it on high crash corridors, when you had data that said these are the intersections where we're having the most pedestrian incidents, I was all in.

19:49So I appreciate the fact that you all edited this and made it a targeted use of pedestrian safety.

19:57And I'm, I'm in.

19:58So thank you.

19:59I do look forward to the findings.

20:02And so I hope that we have reports on the data.

20:04Thank you.

20:04Um, that shows the impact of this, and so that we continue to make our decisions based on that type of information called data.

20:12Thanks.

20:13Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

20:20Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll?

20:25Koyama Lane?

20:26Aye.

20:26Murillo?

20:27Aye.

20:28Novick?

20:29Aye.

20:29Clark?

20:32Aye.

20:34Aye.

20:37Aye.

20:39Aye.

20:43The ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.

20:47Congratulations, colleagues.

20:49Thank you.

20:49Can we please call item number 3?

20:54Document 2026-242, amend the comprehensive plan map and zoning map for a vacant lot on Northwest 31st Avenue, described as Willamette Heights Addition, Block 18, Lot 14, at the request of Portland Parks and Recreation, LU26-007966-CPZC.

21:14Colleagues, this is our official second reading, though I think we've heard this a dozen times at this point.

21:20Uh, is there any further discussion on this hopefully final reading of this item?

21:30Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, can we call the roll?

21:34Koyama Lane?

21:35Aye.

21:36Murillo?

21:37Aye.

21:37Novick?

21:38Aye.

21:38Clark?

21:39Aye.

21:39Green?

21:40Aye.

21:41Zimmerman?

21:41Aye.

21:42Avalos?

21:43Aye.

21:43Smith?

21:44Aye.

21:44Kanal?

21:45Aye.

21:45Pirtle-Guiney?

21:47Aye.

21:47Ryan?

21:48Aye.

21:49Dunphy?

21:49Aye.

21:50The ordinance passes with a vote of 12 ayes.

21:54Okay, our next item is also listed as a time certain at 9:50.

22:01It is 9:48.

22:02We're going to wait 90 seconds.

22:10Did I tell my joke about the caveman and the bear?

22:16Yeah.

22:16Okay, I told that one.

22:17It's yours.

22:18Time's certain.

22:19Council President, I would invite people to the National Night Out at Hillsdale tonight.

22:24Have a great time.

22:25National Night Out is a great event.

22:27I've been to a couple this year.

22:28Looking forward to it.

22:29If you're able to come out or go to one in your neighborhood, they're on different nights sometimes.

22:32You should look it up because they can be a great connection to people you haven't seen in a while.

22:37Post-COVID, pro-social activity outside, away from your screens and off your couch is a good thing.

22:43Stop.

22:44That doesn't sound like a joke, Eric.

22:46Thank you, Councilor.

22:48Mr. President, Councilor, I fear I need to say that I think that Councilor Green should have declared a conflict in the last item because as green, he obviously is biased against red.

22:58That's a good one.

23:01All right, that just shows you I'm willing to overcome my own personal biases in the interest of the city as a whole.

23:07Council President, can we go to the administrative report?

23:10Unfortunately, we, we listed the time that is a time certain.

23:12Oh, we did?

23:13Yeah, that's my bad.

23:14Oh, okay, got it.

23:16This is good.

23:17This is looking close.

23:18Honestly, I appreciate the levity, folks.

23:19This is a, uh, this is still a fun place to work sometimes.

23:26All right, um, that's close enough.

23:29Keelan, can we call item number 4, please?

23:33Item 4, document 2026-293.

23:37August 2026 City Administrator Update.

23:41Thank you, and thank you everybody for your patience on this.

23:44Uh, Mr. Administrator— Mr. City Administrator, it's a full title, I apologize.

23:49Raymond, please update us.

23:51Thank you, Council President, and good morning to City Council.

23:54Uh, the theme of this report this month is creativity.

23:58This is opportunity to highlight creative solutions to problems and innovative ways to approach our work that our city employees have done.

24:07A few items I wanted to highlight this month on that theme is the Public Environment Management Office has 7 signal wrap installations planned for summer 2026 across all 4 districts.

24:22These installations add color and joy to the city sidewalks and proactively address issues of tagging and other damage that occur to signal boxes with a goal of saving money on maintenance costs long-term.

24:35Thank you.

24:3626-27 Path to Leadership is accepting applications.

24:40This is a program to support leadership development for a wide range of folks across the city, and we encourage all interested parties to apply.

24:50The Lloyd Holiday, uh, Relocation Grant is a limited-time grant program developed to support Lloyd Center, uh, mall tenants, uh, activate vacant storefronts, and drive foot traffic in the Lloyd Holiday TIF District by providing funding for moving expenses and tenant improvements.

25:08Thanks to the Prosper team, city councilors, and mayor's team for quickly standing up this program.

25:16Oregon DEQ issued the city a solid waste permit after creative, creative collaboration between BES, PP&D, PBOT Maintenance and Operations, and DEQ and Metro yielded updated operational plans, a new storage location, permitting, uh, solutions, and efficient daily operational, uh, continuity.

25:41PBOT is launching a street cleaning pilot, uh, before bringing back local street cleaning citywide, uh, which we are hearing is a big demand from our public.

25:51This is in addition to the regular street cleaning of major arterials and collector streets bike lanes and other fall/winter leaf day services.

26:00The pilot in Keaton, Cathedral Park, and St. John began this summer.

26:07The City of Portland Safe Blocks team alongside our partners across the public safety service areas hosting, like Councilor Zimmerman just mentioned, 4 National Night Out events this summer.

26:19The events provide an opportunity for community members and public safety programs to build relationships, Foster trust and strengthen partnerships.

26:29I also want to note to council that the behavioral health work session referenced on page 2 has been rescheduled to September 9th.

26:38And also, you'll also note that this month the budget note tracker included as Appendix A includes the current fiscal year FY26-27 budget notes as well as updates from last fiscal year as requested.

26:54Thank you.

26:55And just one update on the ICE facility and the land use.

26:59Uh, this is still being, uh, in the court system now, so there's still no new updates on that.

27:06I have the DCAs here with me as well to answer any questions or take any feedback that council may have.

27:12Thank you.

27:13Mr. City Administrator.

27:14Councilor Knoll.

27:17Thank you, City Administrator.

27:18Thank you, Council President.

27:19Um, First, thank you for adding the appendix back with last year's budget notes.

27:26I'm gonna be following up on a couple specific things in there.

27:29I wanted to ask if you could give a little bit more specifics on a couple things.

27:34The 24/7 RV location at North Portland Road being closed and the folks who are in the RVs, it talks about assistance but doesn't really say more.

27:47What is the city doing to support that transition?

27:53I know through Portland Solutions, we're looking at how we provide wraparound services in these type of situations.

27:59If the person needs aid or assistance with housing or anything of that sort, that's what we've been looking at providing in those type of situations.

28:08But I can have Portland Solutions do a more in-depth memo to the council as it relates to the services we are providing and how many people are we interacting with in this, uh, operation.

28:21Yeah, I guess, uh, just to put a finer point, just where is someone supposed to go in their RV is the, the real question, um, that I have there.

28:28I'll follow up with you on, on that.

28:32Um, it notes the number of candidates who have opted into small donor elections for the year, 24, which I appreciate the update on.

28:39Um, but I'm not sure if I should read into that?

28:41Any concerns or, or, uh, positives around are we still on track for the full, you know, $100K per tier, that all that, there's no nothing to worry about there?

28:51I haven't heard any concerns from staff as it relates to that, but we can make sure that we follow up on it too as well, make sure.

28:58Thanks.

28:59On the PGE update, um, it says that the city and PGE reached an agreement on the Harborton project.

29:07I have a 2-part question.

29:09Were there other parties to the mediation, and were there other parties to the agreement?

29:15There were other parties in the beginning of it.

29:18I think towards the tail end of it, it was, uh, city, uh, negotiating with PGE on as it relates to the overall, uh, agreement that we signed off on that would be coming to council.

29:31Okay, okay, so there were others.

29:33Okay.

29:33Thanks.

29:34Appreciate the update on the Lloyd Holiday relocation grant program.

29:37I'm very appreciative of that, specifically for the idea of keeping folks in that neighborhood and eventually expanding it to others who would like to move into that neighborhood.

29:46Appreciated the shout out to SafeBlocks, to PPB's partnership with OSP on the drug mission there, the street cleaning pilot in Kenton and Cathedral Park and St. Johns.

30:00So if you live in those 3 neighborhoods, please look out for that.

30:02Thank you.

30:03Um, in these 2, um, I did want to ask a couple questions on the claims clarifications here.

30:10Um, on the claims list, there are, uh, when it says defense verdict, that means that we went to court, we chose not to settle, and ultimately the court ruled in, in favor of us, or ruled in favor— because it— I'm noting there's a line here.

30:28Um, it's on page It alleges— the person alleges that they were injured when PPB officers sprayed him with chemical irritant while filming police activity during protest.

30:39And it says total incurred $173,000.

30:43It also says defense verdict.

30:45Can I get a little clarity on what that—.

30:46Yeah, I would have to ask legal to weigh in on that.

30:48If they— that would have to be a legal interpretation of what that means.

30:52Okay.

30:53I, I guess it implies that the defense won, meaning us, but also we have a cost.

30:58So I'm just trying to make sure I understand that piece, if that was just our legal interpretation.

31:01Legal cost or if that— if I'm misinterpreting.

31:05And similarly, we asked a couple months ago about information on the claims denied piece.

31:12So for example, a few lines lower down, also on page 36, there's an allegation of PPB officers damaging property with chemical agents when entering to arrest subject.

31:22That's marked, among many others, as claim denied with zero.

31:26And I just want to understand, like, what's what's the— what's the next— can't— does that just mean that a person can sue after that but they haven't yet, or what exactly happens in those scenarios?

31:35Let us follow up with a legal memo to, to you, Councilor, on that to kind of just break that down.

31:42Okay, um, great.

31:45And I think that's everything.

31:47I'll follow up with you on a couple other things afterwards, but thank you so much.

31:51Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

31:53Councilor Koyama Lane.

31:54Thanks, Council President.

31:57Thank you, City Attorney Lee, for sharing in your report about the Path to Leadership program.

32:02My office had the opportunity to attend this year's cohort's presentation day, and we're really genuinely impressed by all of the good ideas and projects that came from our staff.

32:14So the Path to Leadership program is a 9-month program.

32:18It's a leadership development program for emerging city employee leaders who are not in a manager or supervisor role, and it's designed to build leadership skills, foster collaboration across city bureaus.

32:30I know that one of my staff on my council team staff was a member of a cohort in the past, and this is a really challenging time where we're navigating a lot of change and reductions, and my team has been so inspired to see many city staff showing up with energy and commitment to make our city services better.

32:47I know that 2 of the projects, those project teams presented at a recent Chief of Staff's meeting, and those 2 projects were quarterly review and cross-service.

32:59And both of those ideas around quarterly capital project reviews and cross-service area circles of practice are ones that can actually be implemented with little to no additional expense and could make a really positive impact.

33:12And so I would— Councilor Loretta Smith.

33:14Love to plug, if it's possible to schedule a time, Council President, for those teams to have a chance to come present to councilors, or maybe even at Committee of the Whole, whatever the appropriate setting would be.

33:25I would love to see that.

33:26I think it's really important to highlight that there's a lot of creativity and innovation amongst our city staff, even as reductions are happening.

33:34So let me know if there's anything I can offer in support with that.

33:37Thank you.

33:39Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane.

33:40Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, before I go to you, our city attorney actually has an answer for Councilor Kanal.

33:48And I'm happy to put this into an email or memo if it's easier, but you asked the 2 questions about the claims, and the claims technically come from risk, but I can speak to what they were.

33:55So the first one was a defense verdict, and you asked about amount incurred, and yes, that would be legal expenses.

34:02And so looking at that one, just 'cause I know what that case is, The city and the officer won on summary judgment.

34:11So in federal court, on summary judgment, the judgment was in favor of the city.

34:15And those were costs incurred both in the city's internal defense, and I believe in that case the officer had outside counsel.

34:23So, and that would be the total expenses there.

34:26And RISC could probably give you a more specific breakdown of that.

34:30And on the claims denied, that's correct.

34:32So that would be a claim that RISC received a tort claim notice for.

34:35Okay.

34:35Denied the claim and then the individual could sue.

34:39But I'd have to look at any given one, but presumably hasn't sued at this point.

34:44Yeah, just the 2 I would— I appreciate that.

34:46The 2 I was looking at were the 2 alleging use of chemical weapons by the Portland Police Bureau on page 36.

34:54Just to clarify that first one, that's the one that summary judgment was granted based on qualified immunity?

35:02We got summary judgment on the one that you asked about.

35:06I believe the officer got summary judgment on qualified immunity and the city won summary judgment with respect to the Monell claim that was raised.

35:13Yes, there were 2 claims raised in that case.

35:16Monell claim.

35:16Thank you.

35:20And I don't have a specific, we can kind of get a specific one on chemical agents.

35:27And the claim denied there, I'd have to follow up with risk 'cause that would've never come to our office yet on what kind of where it is in the process.

35:35But given the claim date, it probably was just a claim denied and they could sue at some point.

35:41Thank you.

35:42Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

35:43Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, thank you.

35:45Thank you, Council President, Mr. City Administrator.

35:49In one of the staff shoutouts, you all had a shoutout to our, Immigration Officer Brenda and the work that she did with one of my team members, Faisal Usman, to put on a forum to help people in our community understand what their rights were.

36:06I want to thank you for including him in that shout out and also thank the administration for putting those forums on.

36:11I know that was, I believe, the second of 4 or 5 that you all are doing with different communities to make sure that people within our city know what resources they have available.

36:23And I think that's a huge part of the work to make sure that everybody not only is welcome in our community but is safe in our community.

36:32And it's a piece of the work that happens behind the scenes, not at this dais, so people outside of those communities don't always hear about it.

36:39I think it's important to elevate that, so I appreciate you including it in your report this month.

36:45Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

36:46And, uh, Councilor Koyama Lane, uh, your idea of getting a presentation of those leadership cohort, uh, proposals is a great one.

36:52My office is going to work to figure out how to make that happen.

36:56Colleagues, any further questions for our city administrator about his monthly report?

37:03Thank you very much.

37:04Can we please call item number 6?

37:07Document 2026-280, authorize a non-binding term sheet with Rip City Management LLC and Trailblazers Holdings LLC outlining the terms Vermoda Center arena renovation operating and lease agreements that will keep the Portland Trail Blazers playing in Portland for at least 20 more years.

37:27Thank you, Keelan.

37:28Colleagues, we are here at last on August 12th.

37:30We have before us a draft term sheet and a package of amendments carefully put together by our professional negotiators in response to council's input.

37:39I appreciate how these amendments are responsive to so many of the different amendments proposed last week.

37:44In a form that our negotiators agree empowers them as they move through this process.

37:49We are in a position to move this resolution forward with adjustments that have been authored by and have the full support of our negotiating team.

37:56They're responsive to City Council deliberations and maintain a market-rate deal that reflects Portland values.

38:02It has been said many times, but it bears repeating, that this term sheet process is unique.

38:08Usually a legislative body steps in to review terms that have already been discussed and approved our sports team, the Portland Trail Blazers, have yet to officially negotiate on the proposed terms.

38:22And so this sheet is both a carefully measured proposal and our first offer to our negotiating partners.

38:29As this is its own beginning, I would like to quickly review the recent steps that we have taken to arrive here.

38:352 weeks ago, council considered a draft term sheet in a work session.

38:38Thank you.

38:39That hearing marked the first public engagement in this negotiation by our partners, the Blazers.

38:44We heard them affirm a commitment to the city and heard their feedback on draft terms.

38:49We then worked through the draft term sheet together, learning with the public about what the document actually says and would do.

39:01Then last Wednesday, council returned and heard testimony from the public on the same draft terms.

39:07We heard a panel of community leaders speaking to the Moda Center, the Rose Quarter, and the Low End, and the terms, and then heard from the community at large, stretching over 3 hours of intelligent, passionate commentary from Portlanders.

39:21On Thursday, we finally turned to the legislative process.

39:25Our elected representatives brought a range of proposed amendments to the terms that we've been discussing and on which we'd heard so much feedback.

39:33At the time, I took a principled position that I was not comfortable voting yes on amendments that had not been touched by our lawyers or our professional negotiating team.

39:41And while none of the amendments were adopted that day, we did open and discuss them, and I made a commitment to bringing what had been discussed to our professional team to assess.

39:50My ask to the team was this: please take what we can from these concepts and bring back to us a package that you think moves these terms in the right direction.

39:59More responsive to Portlanders and a stronger position for our negotiators, all fully lawyer-reviewed.

40:05And that package of amendments is before us now, co-sponsored by our full District 2 delegation and crafted with the leadership of our negotiating team.

40:15I believe that the amendments—.

40:16Is that inside or outside?

40:18It's outside.

40:18Okay.

40:19Thank you.

40:20I believe these amendments give a fair and direct representation of the City of Portland's first offer to the Blazers, adopting smart technical amendments, strengthening our commitment to oversight, and including an additional commitment to revenue shared back to the city we all love.

40:35Negotiations will continue.

40:37I stand by our professional team's assessment that this is a good place to begin.

40:42But I— and I do want to acknowledge that some of my colleagues— that while I said to some of my colleagues that while I set an expectation that amendments heard last week should have been reviewed by our negotiating team to earn my support, there was some genuine confusion about what that request meant.

40:57And when emotions can run as high as the stakes are for the people, for our people and our city, I offer my thanks to this council for mending our fences and finding a way to continue to move forward together.

41:07Today we will open the co-sponsored amendment packages together— Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Kanal 1 and 2— discuss and vote on them in that order.

41:16And after any other and, and after any other discussion, we will consider and vote on the proposed technical amendments that conforms our team— our terms to conditions approved by our partners at the county last week.

41:27We'll close with the day with a vote on the— to adopt the underlying resolution and term sheet.

41:32And with that, I will move Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Kanal 1 and 2 and ask for a second.

41:39Second.

41:41Councilor Clark, I believe, was slightly ahead there.

41:45Second.

41:46Thank you.

41:46I'd like to start by recognizing DCA Donnie Oliveira and our negotiating team to help us walk through this amendment package.

41:54And at the end of the presentation, we'll recognize co-sponsors for their remarks and enter into discussion.

42:01Team, it's all yours.

42:07Thank you, Council President, Council Vice President, councilors.

42:10My name is Donnie Oliveira, for the record.

42:12My colleagues will introduce themselves in a second.

42:15Point of order, Mr. President.

42:16Can we please have technical turn up the volume?

42:18I, I can't hear you, Donnie.

42:19Fully understand.

42:20Thanks.

42:22Adam's going to help us crank as much juice out of this system as we can, and I'll ask our presenters to speak directly into the mic.

42:29All right, thank you.

42:32You want to go ahead and introduce yourself?

42:33Uh, Ken McGare from the City Attorney's Office, for the record.

42:37Carl Hirsch, managing partner, Stafford All right, thank you, councilors.

42:42Thank you, team.

42:43So before you is going to be 3 proposed amendment packages.

42:48We'll walk through those in a second.

42:50I just want to set the stage here just for the public's record that, as Council President alluded to, these are not normal circumstances by which a term sheet would be developed.

42:59Ideally, we would have been sitting here in front of you with terms that included details not just on the renovation program but other aspects but a normal term sheet would've included the other side's interests, this being the Blazers.

43:15Nonetheless, we're at a position today to ensure that the city's team, now the county's team, and now the state's team understand clearly where we're going, what is the roadmap, and how do we ensure that the deal that we get to keep the Blazers and more specifically to renovate the Moda Center have clear outlines and defined goals.

43:34Thank you.

43:36Last thing I'll just offer is if the council chooses to adopt the resolution today, which includes the term sheet, our task at hand is clear but still very uncertain.

43:46In order for us to come to you all in December with the details you need to make definitive decisions on financing and the renovation, we will need information from the Portland Trail Blazers.

43:59With that—.

43:59Apologies, point of information.

44:00Can you say again?

44:01I couldn't hear the first part of your sentence.

44:03Sorry.

44:04In order for us to come back to you in December, we will need details that we currently do not have.

44:10Those details are related to the renovation-specific terms, the renovation plan, and of course, a term sheet that the Blazers will agree to.

44:21Nonetheless, we move forward because that's the right move for the City of Portland on behalf, again, of the county and our partners at the state as well.

44:28All right, next slide, please.

44:29Thank you.

44:32Before you is— I'm going to walk through the proposed amendments to the resolution, and these are actual— these are the actual language in the resolution.

44:40I'm stating that because when we walk through the term sheet, the way to share it is a little bit more tricky.

44:46The resolution amendments before you incorporate changes that we heard from the council and county deliberations last week and prior.

44:55The spirit of these resolutions amendments are to tighten up the understanding in your direction for us to understand about how the deal will be made.

45:05It'll also emphasize the types of revenues that we're talking about.

45:10And we also want to clarify, you know, how the financial decisions come to you all in that next phase.

45:17Next slide, please.

45:20On these 2 changes, they're the last addition.

45:23This continues with the theme of fiscal responsibility and ensuring that we aren't making any commitments before council has an opportunity to review and have input on that.

45:32Again, those details will be incumbent on our ability to collect information and work with the Blazers to have those details on what the renovations being— renovations dollars are being spent on.

45:44But again, no specific funding sources until those details are outlined.

45:48Thank you.

45:49Next slide, please.

45:51And the last chunk of additions relate to details that you've asked for that we will— are in the term sheet but reinforced here, that we will come back to you all with clarity on the ROI of our financial contributions, everything from the potential revenue streams from the deal as well as the community benefits that we hope to engage the Blazers and our community partners on that are outlined in Exhibit B.

46:17The final resolve that's on here just is explicit to say that we will not weaken our position from the bridge agreement, ensures that our, our next lease agreement and terms are consistent in strength to the existing bridge agreement.

46:29I'm going to stop there to, to take any questions related just to the resolution amendments.

46:36No.

46:36Okay, thank you.

46:37Colleagues, any further questions on this portion of the amendment?

46:42All right, next.

46:44Oh, Councilor Novick.

46:45We're talking just about the resolution, not about the term sheet?

46:47Correct.

46:48That's what— yes, this amendment just changes the language in the resolution.

46:51Yeah, I'll also offer in this moment regarding the resolution, um, there were a lot of discussion last week about, uh, questions that we think are honored and already resolved in the term sheet, and we're happy to answer questions about those related to the joint authorities decision-making authority, its oversight abilities, and its final decision-making on a variety of different aspects.

47:15But nonetheless, let's move to the term sheet slide, please.

47:18Oh, Councilor Kanal has a— I'm sorry.

47:20Thank you.

47:22This might be a good pivot point anyway, because I think you might have a response that includes the term sheet.

47:28At the end in the resolution, at the end of page 3 and the beginning of page 4, there is a Whereas clause that is struck and then rewritten, and I would like you to kind of explain what that means.

47:41What what exactly the change was there?

47:44It's the one that says that any future ongoing city investments in the Moda Center during the new lease term will be paid for by the actual user fee revenue, and then it replaces it with user fee revenue the city receives from blah blah blah may be explicitly dedicated.

47:59It seems clear if you just look at that in a vacuum, but given that none of the text related to it in the actual term sheet changed, I want to understand what that change means.

48:09Thank you for the question, Councilor.

48:12I think there's an opportunity for flexibility there.

48:15We're opening ourselves up to options with that versus the will to May.

48:20Okay, simply put, the term sheet still says everything it said before.

48:24There's no change in the user fee portion there.

48:27Correct.

48:28That's correct, Councilor.

48:30And the user— the term sheet actually— I think what you're driving at is the term sheet actually says that the revenues received by the city beyond the amounts that are shown on the Exhibit D, and we've talked about that a few times over the weeks, will not be available for capital projects at the arena.

48:47So put a finer point on that, or another way of saying that is anything above what we have thank you.

49:02So I'm looking at the text, just following up on Councilor Knoll's question.

49:07So I see that the whereas clause appears to soften that commitment as a sort of, we may spend up to the dollar amounts indeed, but I, I don't see a hard stop.

49:18Okay.

49:19I don't see anything that amends the financial impact statement that does say that we will spend $275 million.

49:25So was that an oversight, or is that— are we still putting in the financial impact statement that the other part of this funding is $275 million pursuant to Exhibit D?

49:39Yeah, Councilor.

49:39So the commitment of the ongoing and the Exhibit D is still there.

49:43I think what What Ken just alluded to is in the event that the user fees go beyond those amounts collected, they were not guaranteed to go right back into the Moda Center.

49:54That's the flexibility that I was alluding to as well.

49:57It would be the Spectator Venue Fund's discretion on how the number above those dollars amount collected in Exhibit D, or how those are spent.

50:05I understand that part, but the change in the red lines in the resolution are talking about the numbers up to that amount and softening it from will to may.

50:17And so that's the piece that I'm saying is the financial impact statement speaks to the numbers up to the $275,000, which is not what you're talking about, which is over the $275,000.

50:32Well, I mean, at this point, Councilor, I think one way of answering your question is we still don't have a scope and budget from the Trailblazers about the renovation.

50:41So we don't really have any idea of what that ongoing $275,000 over the 20 years is going to be.

50:48So we're just trying to provide ourselves flexibility within that.

50:53I think that, you know, the kind of the discussions that have been ongoing over the last few months have always presumed that $13.75 million annual amount or $275 million total would be put back into the building.

51:13And this was simply meant to clarify and give us flexibility with regards to any amounts over that at some of the questions from others.

51:24Okay.

51:24And that's just to be clear, that's in addition to the renovation budget?

51:28The $275 million is in addition to the renovation budget.

51:32Thank you, Councilor Green.

51:33Councilor Knoll?

51:36I'm happy to wait until after.

51:39Okay.

51:39Until after—.

51:40Kristen.

51:41Yeah, Kristen, go ahead.

51:47Thank you, Council President.

51:48Again, for the record, my name is Kristen Dennis, working temporarily with the city.

51:56Just to answer the question a little bit more, part of the intent behind changing this language and addressing it this way Yes.

52:02And the other thing is we heard last week from particularly Councilor Green and Avalos wanting to have some flexibility on which buckets are used for which financial contributions.

52:15So for instance, this allows potentially spectator funds to be used for that initial $120,000 should the council decide to do that.

52:31Thank you, Kristen.

52:40Councilor Knoll.

52:42Yeah, just to follow up on Councilor Green's question, um, there were other things that were brought up in the impact statement last time, um, on the— this is on the resolutions still, uh, specifically the second full paragraph, third total I guess, on the financial and budgetary impacts that were raised as, you know, should we be presenting as fact things that are contestable propositions in here?

53:08Was this discussed or was it just it's in the impact statement so it didn't get to be a part of it?

53:12Can you describe the process for evaluating that?

53:14Yeah, thanks for the question, Councilor.

53:16Um, in all, in all honesty, we didn't contemplate redrafting the impact statements.

53:21We were largely focused on the Term sheet and resolution.

53:23It's something that we can, can go back and, and change though, if that's— if there are things you want to strike.

53:30I think, I think that 3rd paragraph, at the— at a minimum, noting its contestability for me, but I, I will defer to Councilor Green on what's relevant to him.

53:40Yeah, I mean, I offered an amendment last week that would have done what we need to do, which would— I mean, the financial and budgetary impact statement, if you look at the drafting Manual for the auditor is not a place to describe potential economic impact analysis.

53:54It's to describe very specifically the impact in the city's budget.

53:57So all this front matter doesn't belong there.

53:59If we want to make a change, you need to go back and look at Green Avalos 1 from last week, which does all that.

54:04Thanks.

54:06Thank you, councilors.

54:10Donnie, want to take us— all right, through the next part?

54:13Okay.

54:14Let's advance slides, please.

54:18People are lined up at the food bank.

54:21All right, so for the term sheet, um, review, uh, just given the nature of how the edits landed, they're a little bit more challenging to share on a slide.

54:29Um, we're going to walk through the sort of the, the each amendment, just describing its impact.

54:34Again, these details came from, um, conversations from you all and as well as the county.

54:39Um, so one of the first elements that was added is we added a footnote in the preamble referencing SB 1501 and included that as an exhibit.

54:47That was logical given that we did the same maneuver with the county's resolution as well.

54:54We also strengthened language related to the renovation budget regarding the Joint Authority's approval for the public funding contribution.

55:02This was heard loud and clear that we wanted to be more explicit about the approval stance that the Jordan Authority has.

55:09We also included clarifying language related to the city's development rights.

55:14We had that conversation at City Life, and we just were explicit that the city owns the parcels and will and continues to own those parcels and have development right authority beyond the bridge agreement.

55:25We also added this language related to third-party leases that acknowledges that the funding contributions will include benefits for third-party tenants.

55:32Thank you.

55:33I think it's pretty clear on who we're referring to on that.

55:38Next slide, please.

55:42And probably one of the more material changes was adding of a, of a rent element at $2 million per year with an escalator of a CPI-W.

55:49This was obviously— we heard from both the county and you all about interests and, and rents or, or tenant lease payments.

55:59And so this element is in there reflecting that.

56:02We also added some stronger language related to the community benefits and specifically talking about their investment in their charitable work with the community and also language related to them reporting back.

56:15So provisions about reporting back on whatever community benefits are negotiated, having a report-back mechanism on that.

56:24We also, to to strengthen the list of organizations we gave examples of in the CBA Exhibit B, just to again demonstrate the types of organizations that we would work with.

56:37Again, just want to reiterate that we are not negotiating the CBA today.

56:40The CBA would be negotiated with all parties— Blazers, community organizations, the county— as necessary.

56:47But Exhibit B outlines the direction that we'd like those conversations to go.

56:51Thank you.

56:53Uh, next slide, please.

56:55And then last, the 3rd amendment package that's in front of you today is, is a technical amendment which really adds the Multnomah County as a party to this negotiation, including them as a joint authority, um, a member, as well as added their resolution, which is included as an exhibit in the complete package.

57:14And so that wraps up the, the additional 2 packages.

57:18Thank you, Donnie.

57:18Councilor Knoll?

57:20Oh, legacy hand.

57:21Okay, great.

57:22Councilor Avalos.

57:25All right, I have a series of questions, and, um, let me start with a quick one, which is as it relates to the rent.

57:35Thank you for putting it in there.

57:37Is that money going directly to the general fund?

57:40Where's the money from the rent going?

57:42We haven't comp— uh, contemplated that mechanism, Councilor, but I— it would It would assume be a general fund contribution.

57:49We'd have to talk to our finance team about that, but it would not go to the spectator fund.

57:55Yeah, it would be helpful to just understand that that rent is not going to just go back into the building because that's my concern.

58:03It is not explicit in here.

58:05The way that it reads in the term sheet is that it is— it doesn't have where it's going.

58:12This year we got 7 schools shut down, and we want to talk about renovation?

58:17Fuck this.

58:18Our taxes should be spent on our children.

58:21That's going to bring more tax to our community.

58:25I agree.

58:26Thanks.

58:27Um, so yeah, I think, uh, my next question then— well, actually, let me just end on that to say, is there a way to make it more explicit?

58:37Is it that you don't want to be explicit about where it goes?

58:40Councilor, yeah, we could make it more explicit.

58:42It was— we were not intending it to go back to the fund.

58:45Yeah.

58:45That really has nothing to do with the Blazers.

58:48So in the term sheet, we're focusing on the Blazers and what they give us.

58:51How the city decides to utilize that is up to the city.

58:55So I think it confuses the issue if we put it into the specific use into where the— to the Blazers.

59:02Sure, but we are dedicating other It would, it would be—.

59:10We can check in with, with Director Levine and, and get back to you about that mechanism, but that seems like a reasonable, uh, addition.

59:17All right, next question.

59:19So here's what I want to understand about where we're at with this amendment package, what has taken to get to here, right?

59:27Because the whole thing that we heard last week was we want the negotiating team to vet these ideas, right?

59:35And so can the negotiating team clarify for the record which of council's requested owner contributions, for example, were actually presented to RIP City Management or Trailblazers ownership?

59:47Specifically, were private capital contributions, revenue sharing, participation in naming rights, things that I brought last week that I was told were not viable, but is it because they were rejected by the Blazers, or is it because the negotiating team did not advance those requests?

1:00:06Thank you for the question, Councilor.

1:00:09We requested all those things and more of the Blazers back in June.

1:00:14The exact date, Ken?

1:00:17I believe it was July 6th.

1:00:19July 6th.

1:00:20So all those, all those things plus were asked of the Blazers.

1:00:24And while we did not get a formal response, which we've been requesting, we've heard very clearly through the conversations we have with leadership that those are non-starters.

1:00:34And also, just broadly speaking, change the math on that 573 component that was originally framed in the spring.

1:00:44Okay, so they did not give us an affirmative no.

1:00:48They just gave vibes that they don't want to.

1:00:50They talked to the media that they didn't want to, but they didn't tell you in writing officially no.

1:00:54Correct.

1:00:55That's correct.

1:00:56Okay.

1:00:56I think, Councilor, it's fair to say what we asked them is what will be the private contribution.

1:01:02And as part of the negotiation, I think as Donnie started off the meeting, in a normal scenario, we would've reached a meeting of the minds on this term sheet and come to you with a term sheet.

1:01:15And we asked them what would be the private contribution.

1:01:19Next, you know, the negotiating would have been, and how is that made up?

1:01:23And that could have been from all of the things that you listed in your proposed amendment last week.

1:01:29You know, a combination, one, it just never worked out that way.

1:01:34Okay, thank you.

1:01:36As it relates to the protections, the amendment package directs staff to preserve protections comparable to the existing bridge agreement.

1:01:46Again, this was another amendment that I had raised that concept.

1:01:49So thank you for adding some language on that.

1:01:51But can you all clarify— and I don't know if maybe the city attorney needs to clarify this— like, what does that mean?

1:01:56Like, does that include preserving existing, like, private matching principles, for example, existing city rights and claims?

1:02:03Any— like, I want to understand in lawyer speak what that means for how to protect those existing agreements in the bridge agreement.

1:02:12Sure.

1:02:12I think it's fair to say that the 1995 agreements are antiquated in some respects.

1:02:18And Mr. Hirsch can speak to this a little bit.

1:02:21And I think you've heard from others that the new suite of agreements for arena and stadium deals are more protective of cities, or they're structured a little differently.

1:02:35We have no intention of going into negotiations downgrading any kind of the rights and remedies that the city has right now.

1:02:44In fact, we will probably strengthen them, particularly with regards to the non-relocation agreements and some of the other terms in the lease that will be a little bit more specific and a little bit more enforceable.

1:02:59Thank you.

1:03:01We have 3 amendments before us.

1:03:03I wanted to understand the I wanna make sure that Amendment 3, and just so I'm sure, Amendment 3 is the one where we're adding the Exhibits F and E, right?

1:03:13I just wanna make sure that when we—.

1:03:15I think it's just that.

1:03:16It's just Amendment 3 is just F. That's the county.

1:03:19Right.

1:03:20Yeah.

1:03:20Right, right, right.

1:03:20Thank you.

1:03:21I just wanna, I guess, because the way that you all did that, right, you essentially just copy pasted what the county asked for, what they approved.

1:03:29But I don't, I wanna understand how is that going to interact with what we approve in either Amendments 1 and 2 or whatever we end up approving is, um, that, uh, what am I trying to say, will Amendment 3 not inadvertently weaken anything that we approve in our version?

1:03:49I just want to understand what the county's relationship and us putting that in there, how that affects what we're asking for as the city.

1:03:54Thank you for the question, Councilor.

1:03:55I should have said this in my original talking points.

1:03:58Our current read of the Oh yeah, our current read of the resolution language is that many of the themes that would be in a term sheet are in the term sheet minus the rent, which was included, and all the other elements will be, will be discussed with the city and the county outside of the term sheet.

1:04:14They're more city-county relationship issues, not term sheet.

1:04:17So our current understanding is, uh, the amendments are in there, either already were in there or we've added Language to strengthen and be consistent with our directives.

1:04:29I think we wanted— again, the term sheet is to the Trailblazers.

1:04:34We wanted to make clear to them that the county had conditions for their funding and some requests.

1:04:41And so how we've structured it is as a footnote that says the county will be part of the joint authority, and the conditions to their public funding are expressed in the exhibit, which is the resolution.

1:04:52We didn't want to At least I didn't want to speak for them other than what they said themselves, which was the resolution.

1:05:00Thank you.

1:05:00That's helpful.

1:05:03Last question, and then I'll have one thing to say.

1:05:08We've been talking a lot about the term sheet being a floor or ceiling.

1:05:12We've been talking about, at least I have, right?

1:05:14Is it— what is the box you are negotiating from?

1:05:17And because we're coming at this term sheet without all of the information, as you said at the Can you help me understand that— is this what we approve today, if we approve it today, is it intended to serve as the city's minimum negotiating position and that any material weakening of those protections would return to council before approval?

1:05:39I just want to again, and I also asked you last time, if you have another great opportunity that they magically present that wasn't something we discussed, Thank you for that question, Councilor.

1:05:52I'll take a stab at it and turn it over to Carl.

1:05:55We're not thinking about this as a ceiling or a floor.

1:05:59This is just a position to start from.

1:06:01You can appreciate that in any negotiation, they're going to come with their own asks and aspects, which will change the dynamics quite a bit.

1:06:08So to your second part about if there are new elements that come in over time that are especially those that are beneficial to the city, I think that's a question that we'll have to Of course, we would, we would, you know, take action to, you know, realize them.

1:06:18But Carl, do you want to add your thoughts, please?

1:06:20Yeah, thanks, Donnie.

1:06:23This is really the framework for us to open negotiations with them.

1:06:27So I assume there will be a lot of push and pull on a lot of these different issues.

1:06:31So I think everything is really on the table once we get to the table, and this just gets us to the table.

1:06:38Okay, thank you so much.

1:06:40Thank you for answering those questions.

1:06:42I will then share my comments on how I feel about the So I'll start by saying something that might surprise people after our conversation.

1:06:50Thank you.

1:06:50I am genuinely grateful for this amendment package.

1:06:54I spent a lot of time going through it, and I think that you all heard a significant amount of what council raised last week.

1:07:00So thank you to Donnie and the team.

1:07:02I want to give you that credit.

1:07:05Last week, I introduced a lot of amendments, 12, I guess 13 with Green Avalos 1.

1:07:10And because I believe that the term sheet needed stronger protections for Portlanders, and not all of those ideas were— I didn't expect them to appear exactly as I wrote them, but I do see in here how you wanted to, or how you got to the underlying principles, and that's what mattered most to me.

1:07:27So some of the highlights of what I appreciate that you added: I wanted us to protect the city's development rights.

1:07:33Thank you for making that explicit.

1:07:34Like I said last week, I just felt like it was silent on that, and I wanted to be clear that the Blazers don't get to keep those I wanted protections around the other professional sports.

1:07:43Thanks for adding more language on that.

1:07:45Stronger maintenance protections.

1:07:47That's why I'm asking these questions about the bridge agreement.

1:07:49I just want to ensure that we're not going to get back a deal where we have to pay 100% of maintenance when we're currently paying 50%.

1:07:56Thank you for adding the accountability stuff around community benefits.

1:08:00Again, not exactly how I asked for it, but I think still accomplishes what I was trying to do.

1:08:05And a lot of my other amendments were about getting greater clarity about the city's financial exposure and more council oversight before additional public dollars could be committed.

1:08:16So thank you for attempting to address some of Green Avalos 1.

1:08:20It definitely doesn't get to what I'm asking for, but I think it starts to.

1:08:24And importantly, I wanted rent.

1:08:26So I put that forward last week because I think that Rip City should pay rent for a publicly owned arena that they operate and get a lot of revenue from.

1:08:35So thank you if that rent is in this package.

1:08:37Councilor Avalos, Ultimately, I think how we got here is that council— I'll thank councilors who came forward last week with proposals.

1:08:46They did their job last week, scrutinized the proposal, asked difficult questions, offered amendments.

1:08:51We disagreed, we voted, and to your credit, I think the negotiation team listened to that discussion and came back with a stronger document.

1:08:57So thank you.

1:08:58That is exactly why I was so insistent that council needed an opportunity to legislate.

1:09:04And so I'm really grateful that this package is materially better because we had that opportunity.

1:09:08Councilor Loretta Smith.

1:09:08We were able to.

1:09:10And I also want to be clear about what I think it demonstrates, that putting amendments forward was not undermining the negotiation, because that's kind of what I kept hearing.

1:09:18Asking for more was not irresponsible, because clearly you put things in there that we asked for.

1:09:24And council exercising its legislative authority did help improve the city's negotiating position, which is what I'm hearing you say.

1:09:30So I just want to make that clear on the record.

1:09:33I hope we remember that As this process continues, because this is not the last time that this agreement is gonna come before us.

1:09:39So I want us to remember that it is important for us to legislate as councilors.

1:09:43So I do support this amendment package.

1:09:46I appreciate the work that went into it, and I will plan to support it.

1:09:49Thanks.

1:09:51Thank you, Councilor Avalos.

1:09:53I actually am going to, before we continue with council discussion and some technical questions about this, I do wanna turn it over to the co-sponsors first and go ahead and get opening remarks from them on this, and then we'll return to full technical questions and council discussion.

1:10:05So Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, please kick us off.

1:10:08Thanks, Council President, and thank you especially to our negotiating team and attorneys who spent some time over the last week looking these pieces over.

1:10:20Colleagues, this has been a difficult process the last couple of weeks, and in part that's because we are in a really tough position.

1:10:28We have a massive decision about what to do with a city-owned space, and we don't have a good faith negotiating partner.

1:10:36So we're having to figure this out a bit in a vacuum.

1:10:40And despite the fact that this topic has gotten enormously heated at times, though I think we are in a better place there today, I want to remind us all that nobody up here is the other side.

1:10:51We'll be negotiating against another side soon.

1:10:57In fact, I think all 12 of us have a shared goal, which is getting the best possible deal for Portland.

1:11:02I think that's a goal shared by Portlanders as well.

1:11:07Some councilors have focused on getting there by securing as many concessions as possible in the term sheet, and those councilors brought some critical improvements by way of amendments last week to address this.

1:11:18Other councilors have been laser-focused on making sure this term sheet is as practical as possible to show everybody involved that Portland is serious and acting in good faith and ready to get that best deal.

1:11:33I've been set on ensuring that whether maximizing concessions or practicality or landing somewhere in between, we have the strongest position at the negotiating table, which is sometimes the strongest term sheet and sometimes a little bit different.

1:11:50I've negotiated many things over my career, but I have never negotiated a sports arena deal.

1:11:55So in trying to figure out what gives us the strongest position at the table, I have to rely on our negotiating team and trust them about what will get us there.

1:12:07When I talk to Portlanders in my district, what I hear genuinely Is that folks want to see a fully activated and vibrant Moda Center, and they want a realistic, practical, good deal for the city in any lease agreement with our anchor tenant.

1:12:28And I believe that both of these values are critical.

1:12:32The first is critical for its implications for our economy, jobs at the Moda Center, our ability to attract investment in the surrounding area.

1:12:39And yes, for sports fans and concertgoers who need access at the arena.

1:12:45And the second is critical for all Portlanders, including those who don't see themselves in these categories, in this discussion, in this deal, who don't live in that part of town and are honestly just trying to make ends meet in our city.

1:12:59I voted no on amendments last week because I was worried we could put at risk Holding both those values, that we could step into a situation where they came in conflict with each other.

1:13:12And I wanted us to continue to prioritize balancing them.

1:13:17I believe that the process that the council president offered us, that we could take all of our amendments, have our negotiators, our experts about what they need at the table, review them and bring them back— rather, I'm sorry, and bring us back a proposal that both strengthened The term sheet, but also focused on setting us up to have the strongest position in what we know are going to be difficult negotiations with the Blazers, could work.

1:13:43I know some councilors disagreed with my analysis and with the approach that I took last week, and I want to be clear that I think we all came in good faith with the approaches we brought to the table, and I know we can disagree on strategy.

1:13:58And still work together.

1:14:00I was clear in my remarks then that I liked much of what was on the table and hoped to improve the term sheet if our negotiating team felt that it would be— that they would be in a good negotiating position with the Blazers, both in our ability to get a deal done that keeps the Blazers in Portland and in our ability to actually deliver on these benefits for the city.

1:14:24It has to be practical, functional, enforceable.

1:14:28I'm really impressed with what our team brought back to us.

1:14:32It included many of the terms that we heard last week, some of which are materially, financially better for the city.

1:14:41And it also, from what I have heard from our team, ensures that we continue to have the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.

1:14:48Thank you.

1:14:49And that strong position at the negotiating table is not just the term sheet, but how we present it and how we work together in bringing it forward.

1:14:58So I hope that as you all look over this term sheet, you can feel good about our next step.

1:15:05And I would ask for all of you to consider this with the same good faith that we all brought last week and to help us move forward.

1:15:15Thank you.

1:15:15On the advice of our experts with what can give us the strongest position at the negotiating table.

1:15:23Thank you all.

1:15:23Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:15:25Councilor Ryan.

1:15:27Thank you, Council President.

1:15:29And first, thank you for holding this very challenging process, which will go on through December.

1:15:38So I know you were a reluctant Council President, but you're doing a really great job.

1:15:44Trying to bring us all together and keeping us civilized as we move through this very difficult conversation.

1:15:50Thank you, Council President.

1:15:51And thank you, negotiating team, for always being direct and clear.

1:15:55I know we've had a few salty conversations over the last couple days, and that will continue.

1:16:01And this is complicated, and I appreciate your perseverance and your clarity.

1:16:07Thank you.

1:16:09As many of you know by now, my heart is Rip City.

1:16:12I have a lot to say on this topic, and I'm proud that we are here today to come together as a majority to set up our negotiation team for success.

1:16:23My why on this is guided by both my head and my heart.

1:16:27Let me start with my heart.

1:16:28I was 8 in 1970 and attended a Blazer game, and I'll never forget it.

1:16:33In fact, I didn't miss a game In every season, even when I rooted for them on the road when I was living in New York City and Seattle.

1:16:42I was able to skip school in 1977, my freshman year of high school, and be part of the championship parade.

1:16:50I was numb with pain after we blew the 4th quarter lead in LA in the Western Finals in June of 2000.

1:16:57God, I could still feel that.

1:16:59The joy and the pain of being a Blazer fan is a wild roller coaster.

1:17:03It truly begins— but it does do this: it brings us all together.

1:17:08When the Blazers are in the playoffs, this town lights up.

1:17:13Thank you to the many Blazer fans who have come up to me randomly to share their stories.

1:17:19The amount of parents and grandparents talking to me at the various night outs I've been going to and picnics about taking their kid to a Blazer game, of being that kid, And those cherished memories have really reminded me what deep love we have in Portland for Rip City.

1:17:37Here's to all of us as we hold that 8-year-old kid in our hearts today.

1:17:42Summary of my head on this is clear: jobs, macroeconomics ROI, which is crystal clear.

1:17:50If we want to see more money in our general fund during our budget season, You want us to secure our team for the long term.

1:17:58And again, jobs.

1:18:01I'm grateful to my council colleagues and the administration for the spirited conversations around this starting point for negotiations.

1:18:09I'm also grateful to RIP City Management for finally showing up recently and joining us for the work session.

1:18:16That was a refreshing little step.

1:18:19And this, the state, the county have done their part.

1:18:22And it's time for us to do ours, to keep our team home.

1:18:26In my 6 years on council, I can't think of a time when the state, the county, and the city have been aligned on an important issue.

1:18:36I've seen enough from Tom Dundon to know that he is actively pursuing opportunities elsewhere.

1:18:42In fact, I'm no longer really talking to Tom Dundon.

1:18:45This is for the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver and fellow owners.

1:18:49And the Trailblazer fans as we come together and bring Texas Tom along.

1:18:54As a lifelong Blazer fan, no matter where I resided, I have been a true Blazer maniac.

1:19:00And as a city councilor, I have to look at the big picture, and I'm going to fight to keep the Trailblazers home.

1:19:07Throughout this process, I have doubled down on the economic imperative of keeping the NBA franchise in Portland, and I want to remind Portlanders that we are What we are fighting for— our city, our community, and Portland's economic longevity and vibrancy.

1:19:23We are moving forward in good faith.

1:19:25Our negotiation team will be set up for success with this vote, and this is just a start.

1:19:31The final product is in November— December, and we will look at, look at it the same as it does today.

1:19:37So this fight will continue until we secure 20 more years of Rip City in the Rose City.

1:19:47I want to close with acknowledgement of my colleagues in D2.

1:19:51As you know, we cover a lot of ground with our points of views.

1:19:55On this issue, the most important economic development issue in my 6 years on council, we've had many thoughtful, sometimes heated conversations with all 3 of us always committed to success Defined by setting up our negotiation team to win.

1:20:13We know our city is much better off for the long term with the Portland Trail Blazers remaining in Portland and yes, residing in D2.

1:20:23So glad we're here today for jobs, for our macroeconomics of our city to improve the general fund of our city's budget, and for that 8-year-old kid.

1:20:32Thank you.

1:20:33I'm proud to vote yes today to move this important work forward.

1:20:37And rip city.

1:20:38Thanks.

1:20:40Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

1:20:41Councilor Knoll.

1:20:42Thank you, Council President.

1:20:43Thank you to you two colleagues.

1:20:44I'm happy to bring these amendments forward again, this time as a package.

1:20:48Regardless of what people might think of the overall term sheet, and we'll discuss that right after these two amendment votes, the amendment package improves the resolution and improves the term sheet before us, and I hope colleagues will support it.

1:20:58I'll keep my comments specific to the amendment package.

1:21:01Just quick recap.

1:21:02The resolution amendments include a commitment to use a regular budget process to allocate dollars, not the continuation of backroom deals.

1:21:08Clarity on the mayor's authority to sign this term sheet by adding that he can commit to the content of the term sheet but cannot commit to the use of any specific funding source.

1:21:16Clarity on the city administrator's authority to negotiate to get something based on this framework but cannot commit to any specific funding source.

1:21:22And an addition of a clause which says that we're committed to some return on investment.

1:21:26Last week I said that this was the bare minimum.

1:21:28I'm grateful not only for the general things, but specifically that this was included.

1:21:30Thank you.

1:21:32The term sheet amendments include a note that the joint authority has final approval over how the public dollars are spent.

1:21:36This in and of itself does not solve any problem, but it is half of a solution, the other half of which will be ensuring council has a direct voice in choosing, not just rubber stamping, who is on the joint authority, and ideally serving on it ourselves.

1:21:49It notes the development rights are with the city, that a commitment to the benefits not only supporting the Blazers but other tenants like the Fire for the first time in ask for rent.

1:21:56Thank you.

1:21:57Clear language on cost overruns being privately funded, annual reports on compliance with community benefits agreements, which will create transparency and trust on that side of the deal, the addition of more community partners for community redevelopment so that in addition to Albina Vision Trust, we're also asking for collaboration with the Strengthen Our Communities Coalition, Elevate Oregon, and the Heller School.

1:22:16Finally, it asks for a commitment from the Blazers to continue their charitable donations, which I think they do anyway, but can't hurt to include.

1:22:22There are also some technical things.

1:22:23Thank you.

1:22:24These are all good things in my view.

1:22:26My goal is to consider each amendment today not for what it could be, but for what it is.

1:22:30And then once we decide on each amendment, look at the overall package and decide if we've gotten far enough to earn my support or not, or if there's something else that we can do that hasn't yet been proposed to make it a little better each time.

1:22:40So on these 2 amendment packages, I'll be voting yes, and I'd ask colleagues to do the same.

1:22:44Thanks.

1:22:45Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

1:22:46Thank you, colleagues.

1:22:46Now we are in council discussion, both technical and Just open discussion of the amendments as moved.

1:22:52Councilor Novick.

1:22:54Thank you, Mr. President.

1:22:56Assuming that— I know that it's 3% or CPI, whichever is less, but assuming that there is a 3% increase in the $2 million in rent over 20 years, what would that work out to in nominal dollars over the course of 20 years?

1:23:12Councilor, that was— it's about approximately $45 million.

1:23:16Approximately.

1:23:17Um, and, uh, also going back to the payment in lieu of taxes, um, what do we think that that will come out to in nominal dollars over the course of 20 years, the city's share of it?

1:23:29It's approximately $95 to $100 million.

1:23:32The city's share?

1:23:33Oh, sorry, the city's share.

1:23:35I think we'll need to negotiate that with our colleagues at the county.

1:23:38But if it's a third, then it's around $33 million.

1:23:40Yeah, sorry.

1:23:41Thank you.

1:23:44Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:23:45Councilor Morillo.

1:23:47Thank you.

1:23:48And are we just in clarifying questions or everything?

1:23:51Everything for the amendments.

1:23:53Okay.

1:23:53To the amendments though, specifically, but clarifying and discussion.

1:23:57Okay.

1:23:58I'm wondering where the number for the rent came from or how you decided, how you landed on that number, if you can explain that to us.

1:24:09Sure.

1:24:09Uh, we looked at, uh, what was out there in the industry.

1:24:14We looked at what would be reasonable.

1:24:16We looked at what the county did, and that's how we determined the rent number.

1:24:21We wanted to be aligned with the county.

1:24:25Okay, but we're not aligned with the county on some other things.

1:24:33There are things that the county put in their resolution that are more city-county relational conversations, less Blazers-focused.

1:24:47Okay.

1:24:48I mean, I think that the conflicts of things that they have promised to certain groups on the deal are going to be a conflict that the city has to address as well, because some of our amendments to the term sheet directly conflict with that.

1:25:01But I understand that.

1:25:03Okay.

1:25:06I would have preferred a more rigorous analysis for the rent decision since it was one of the biggest asks that we have up here.

1:25:17Thankful for my colleagues who brought up amendments last week.

1:25:22I appreciate your efforts.

1:25:25Our efforts, really.

1:25:26And it is because of that that this term sheet is going to be improved.

1:25:31And thank you to the advocates for pushing us to bring all of those things and for all of the, frankly, free labor and research that the community did to get us to a much better position, because we wouldn't have been here without you.

1:25:44And I am glad everyone got a chance to give a big speech now that they cannibalized our amendments from last week.

1:25:50But whatever it takes to get people to a better deal, that's fine with me.

1:25:54I'd rather get that done now.

1:26:00I have a lot to say, but I think I will— I will say, as far as the amendments go, this is definitely better.

1:26:07So thank you to my colleagues who brought those forward, and thank you for being responsive to that.

1:26:14It is because of the tireless efforts of community members and of some members of this body that this is being improved at all.

1:26:22And I will say, even with these changes, renowned economists who focus on this issue are still calling it the worst deal of all time.

1:26:33And we as a council body can sit up here and talk about the 8-year-olds who live in our hearts who love the Blazers all we want, but those kids in reality can't eat because they don't have school lunches because we have chosen as a state to fund a billionaire over their school lunches.

1:26:53And I say that as someone who was a SNAP policy advocate before I became a city councilor who worked on those issues.

1:27:00The one thing that is missing from these amendments is the Green-Avalos 1 amendment.

1:27:06That one, to me, was actually the most critical of all because it would have strengthened council and joint authority oversight powers and removed a commitment of $275 million of city funds to post-renovation capital projects.

1:27:21The freed-up money could have then been used to fund the city's $120 million upfront renovation contribution.

1:27:28And so to put that in simpler terms, it's essentially saying that we didn't want to sign a blank check of $275 million for projects that haven't been justified or even identified yet, especially when we are already committing To $120 million upfront at a time when the city is gutting core services.

1:27:48Nothing stops management from coming to the city joint authority at any time to ask for funding for clearly defined and justified projects, where we can then publicly debate the merits and trade-offs of that funding.

1:28:00But the idea that we would write a blank check of $275 million for undefined expenses without even considering if or how the Blazers would contribute is pretty outrageous to me.

1:28:14And if we weren't committing this $275 million now for these undefined projects with no defined Blazers contribution, we would be able to bond against it for our $120 million upfront contribution.

1:28:28This means that we wouldn't have to cut into the Portland Clean Energy Fund or the general fund or break our parks levy promise or cut police.

1:28:36So by doing the responsible thing and not writing a blank check for undefined projects, we would be rewarded later because we wouldn't have to cut core services.

1:28:48And it is not lost on me that the other amendment that didn't make it into this package was Morillo 1.

1:28:54And what did that one do?

1:28:55It was one of the most basic amendments I could have brought forward.

1:28:58It was asking for the city's budget office councilor Smith.

1:29:03I asked for the City Budget Office to bring us a report 30 days before council is supposed to commit to financials on this.

1:29:09That's all I asked for.

1:29:11I asked for if we are going to take money from this, if we're going to do bonds, is that going to impact the Sidewalk Improvement Plan, SIP, that we all voted for to fund with bonds, by the way?

1:29:21We cannot endlessly create bonds.

1:29:24There is a limited amount of revenue to move in the city.

1:29:27We cannot endlessly target the general fund.

1:29:31We have already cut $160 million from it and laid off a bunch of services and employees.

1:29:38So what's going to happen, because I think what was really the stickler with Morillo 1 was the 30-day deadline.

1:29:45I am telling you now, I'm going to call it right now, council is not going to be told about what the options are until the day before we have to vote on this.

1:29:54And we're going to be told, whoopsies, we don't have the money, you're going to have to take it from the Portland Clean Energy Fund.

1:29:58Councilor Loretta Smith.

1:29:59Because if we had time to examine this 30 days before, we would probably argue with you and try to find different options and not touch the things that the community has held sacred.

1:30:11Okay.

1:30:12So the 2 amendments that I think are really critical for council information and to actually concretely get us a good deal did not make it in this, and that was Morillo 1 and that was Green-Avalos 1.

1:30:26So I will definitely be supportive of these packages because it's an improvement, but make no mistake that this is not a good deal.

1:30:38This is still the worst deal in the country.

1:30:40We are still paying more than any other stadium is, and the public is getting fleeced.

1:30:46And for anyone to act like it is mature or it is a good governance thing To push this forward without doing our due diligence is not doing their due diligence.

1:30:59And I'll leave it at that.

1:31:00Thank you, Councilor Morillo.

1:31:02Councilor Green.

1:31:05Thank you, Mr. President.

1:31:07First of all, I just want to say that the sort of combined set of packages is a significant improvement from where we started.

1:31:16So thank you for whoever heard us on that, but I want to note that I know that some of my colleagues, maybe some folks in the administration, maybe some in the public are frustrated that some of us put up those amendments, but it was because we put up those amendments that we saw this improvement.

1:31:34Full stop.

1:31:36And I appreciate Councilor Pirtle-Guiney for your explanation of why you were silent and didn't engage with the amendments last time.

1:31:44Thank you.

1:31:44At least you've explained yourself.

1:31:47I don't agree with that.

1:31:48But I would like to understand why this was a sort of— what was the thinking behind this being like a District 2 delegation type of thing?

1:31:56Because Councilor Ryan didn't engage at all and sent out in his newsletter that, like, quote, we blocked all the amendments, and sort of bragging for that, suggesting that there was kind of a coordinated block there.

1:32:07So I'm just curious what the thinking was.

1:32:09Why are those councilors now supporting this?

1:32:11Well, I think that's a good question.

1:32:12Does anyone want to answer that?

1:32:17Councilor, I'm happy to speak to my, my own position.

1:32:21I can't speak to why others are there.

1:32:24Um, and I think I was clear last week and have been in the interceding week that I take seriously making sure we have the strongest position at the table.

1:32:39Table.

1:32:41And for better or worse, what we have are our negotiating team, our experts, to tell us what they think they can do with things at the table.

1:32:51I wanted to hear from them.

1:32:53The fact that we hadn't heard from them last week left me not able to support things.

1:32:58The fact that we have heard from them now saying that they think that they can bring this to the table and have the strongest position led me to say I'm happy to lend my support here.

1:33:10And in order to be honest in what I said last week, I wanted to make that abundantly clear, to not just sit back and at the end make my vote, but to say I have heard from folks now, and therefore I want to step forward and suggest that this Is the right path for us to take, that this is the right decision to have the strongest position for our city.

1:33:38And was there an idea that because the Moda Center is in District 2, it should be the District 2 councilors?

1:33:44That was mine.

1:33:44That was my request.

1:33:46It is a guiding philosophy for my work as council president that I choose not to intervene or lead on efforts that don't include the councilors for where something is physically located.

1:33:56And it felt really important to me to demonstrate to both the public and to my colleagues that this is centered in District 2.

1:34:03And I wanted to demonstrate to the full public that this is council moving forward in a collaborative way.

1:34:11So that was my intent of inviting all of the District 2 councilors to join.

1:34:15So it was your invitation?

1:34:16Absolutely.

1:34:16Okay.

1:34:17I appreciate that.

1:34:19Do either of you want to say anything?

1:34:23Thanks, Councilor Green.

1:34:24Yeah, similar to Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, I wanted to make sure our negotiating team was set up with an opportunity to win.

1:34:30Okay, thanks.

1:34:32I've been consistent with that for months.

1:34:34Okay, thanks.

1:34:37Yeah, uh, obviously I supported all this stuff last week.

1:34:41I wanted to make sure it could pass this week.

1:34:43All right, thanks.

1:34:44I wanted to give you guys that courtesy.

1:34:49I think the challenge that I have with that methodology, although I hear your position, I really do, is that we can't do this negotiation and come to a consensus position behind closed doors because this is a resolution, this is a council action, and under Oregon public meeting law, we cannot settle the question that way.

1:35:14And so the way that we do this the negotiating team needs to know our starting position so they can go behind closed doors.

1:35:25And in order for the public to know what their councilors are fighting for, we have to do it up here.

1:35:31And so I hear, I hear you all on your strategic thinking on making sure that we broker this with the negotiating team, but that I think sets up a pretty dangerous situation for us.

1:35:41Thank you.

1:35:42I don't want us to go down this road where we essentially pay short shrift to the deliberative process up here, say no, block amendments, and then huddle behind closed doors and bring together a package that sort of says this is the will of the body.

1:36:05That can't happen again.

1:36:06Thank you, Mayor.

1:36:10That being said, I want to speak to the amendments on the floor.

1:36:17Like I said, I think that they're a significant improvement.

1:36:20I want to speak directly to the rent clause.

1:36:22I want to thank Councilor Avalos for cooking this up and asking for it and putting it in there.

1:36:29And I want to note that your original language did leave the negotiating team quite a lot of discretion.

1:36:33Thank you.

1:36:35And so I think in the spirit of making sure our team is successful, I think you hit the mark with that your first time.

1:36:43And so the number there, $2 million and 3%, those are largely arbitrary.

1:36:48I understand, Mr. Hirsch, you said you've kind of looked at the market and kind of did a gut check on what's out there.

1:36:55But that is— this is not a liquid market.

1:36:57There's no price discovery in a market like this.

1:36:59I think it's a good starting point.

1:36:59These are all just 1 or 2 data points, and these are sort of kind of gut checks.

1:37:06And so at this point, colleagues, I think the— and by the way, I want to correct the record.

1:37:10Donnie, you said— Deputy City Administrator Oliveira, you said that it was $43 million or $45 million maybe with interest or with the escalation rate.

1:37:18It's $53 million with compound growth.

1:37:20Thank you for correcting that.

1:37:22That was back of the envelope, but yeah, thank you for correcting that.

1:37:24Gotcha.

1:37:24That's okay.

1:37:25I did the math too.

1:37:27So that's better.

1:37:29That's actually much better for the public than $40 million plus $3 million.

1:37:36And if you took it, if you looked at, well, let me just, I'm not gonna go into the weeds on the spreadsheet much longer, but I will note that that's an improvement, but these are still largely arbitrary.

1:37:46And so at this point, I'd move to amend this amendment.

1:37:48I think it's Pirtle-Guiney 2, or no, it's— 3.

1:37:51Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Kanal.

1:37:55Yeah, Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Kanal.

1:37:58Let's see here, 2, which is the actual term sheet.

1:38:01And on page 3, I think is where the language on the— no, page 4 is the language on the rent, which reads, Rip City will pay rent in the amount of $2 million during each year of the term, escalated by CPI-W, which is, Clerical workers and urban workers index, um, or 3%, whichever is less.

1:38:23Uh, I'm going to move that language to read instead, and I'll send this to the clerk.

1:38:27I'll send this to all of you as well.

1:38:28I'm doing this on the fly.

1:38:30Um, Rip City will pay rent in the amount of $2 million during each year of the term, escalated by the maximum allowable rate established annually by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services yes.

1:38:43This is pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 90-324.

1:38:47And colleagues, that is the Oregon Rent Stabilization Act.

1:38:50So there's already a methodology that establishes the maximum rate at which you can raise rent for Oregonians.

1:38:58And I think that we should key it to that because one, we have something to hang our hat on.

1:39:06And two, I don't know why we would charge Rip City Management we would give them a better rent control deal than we're giving Portlanders, Portland tenants.

1:39:1453% Of my constituents are renters in District 4.

1:39:19And if we can't do rent control at the City of Portland because the state has preempted us at a 7% plus CPI rent, which is, which is deplorable, then why, why would we give Dundon a better deal than that?

1:39:32So I think that's quite reasonable.

1:39:34In fact, it It creates an incentive structure for if we adopt this term sheet and we adopt some definitive agreements, then maybe RIP City management, maybe Tom Dundon, can lobby the state legislature to lower the rent cap and do a more aggressive rent control body.

1:39:48And that will lower his exposure and give a gift to tenants.

1:39:50So I will hope for a second on this.

1:39:52Second.

1:39:53Thanks.

1:39:56Councilor Green moves, uh, the Green Amendment to Dunphy, Pirtle, Gueaney, Kanal, Ryan 2, and Councilor Avalos seconds.

1:40:08Colleagues, discussion to the, uh, the amendment to the amendment?

1:40:14Uh, Councilor Smith.

1:40:15Thank you.

1:40:16Um, thank you, Mr. President.

1:40:19Question for you, Councilor Green.

1:40:21Will this, this, this ordinance or this item that you just described Is that for commercial leases or residential leases?

1:40:33Thanks for the question.

1:40:35This is only for the tenant in the Moda Center in this deal.

1:40:39This is just—.

1:40:39No, no, no, but you reference something.

1:40:41You reference something.

1:40:43Is that, is that in accordance with commercial leases or residential leases?

1:40:48It's in accordance with the residential methodology in ORS 90-3 what is it?

1:40:55And so my question would be to— okay, so my question would be to, um, the legal counsel.

1:41:00If this is based off of residential units, and this is not a residential lease, this is a commercial lease, it would not apply.

1:41:10It's just a formula rate, Councilor.

1:41:12They've, they've, they've added an arbitrary number here.

1:41:15I'm also adding in a number as well.

1:41:18Right, but you're using something that's based on a residential rate.

1:41:24Legal counsel, please advise.

1:41:27Sure.

1:41:28Councilor, I think Councilor Green is correct.

1:41:32He's asking that the amendment reference the statute.

1:41:36We would not be able to apply the statute standing alone to a non-residential tenant.

1:41:45What Councilor Green is doing is simply referencing That statute, obviously.

1:41:50I understand that, but, yeah, but understand that you can't reference something to me about a commercial lease and, and make it apples to apples about a residential lease.

1:42:03So it is not appropriate.

1:42:06I, I don't opine on whether something is appropriate or inappropriate, but it—.

1:42:10Well, I need you— I need your— I need your legal counsel.

1:42:14Is Robert here, because I need to understand if we're going to, if we're going to add an amendment based on something that's in ORS for a residential and we are trying to craft a commercial lease, it does not match up.

1:42:30You'll— you're never going to get those kind of same residential and commercial attributes in a, in a lease.

1:42:38I would agree with you on that.

1:42:41That would be something obviously the Trailblazers would say, and that would be a significant argument that they would make.

1:42:49That being said, I don't know what the commercial lease rate says.

1:42:56Exactly.

1:42:56And if we're gonna talk about this, let's talk about some statutes that govern commercial leases.

1:43:03You're not gonna just spout anything to me and think that I'm gonna go for it.

1:43:08Um, go, go ahead.

1:43:11I, I just say it is very common in, uh, stadium and arena leases around the country that CPI is what is used to govern the increases.

1:43:20Okay.

1:43:21It is in most cases, that's what it's in, and that's why we chose it.

1:43:25And, and you cho— you chose that, but if that's the case, why did we have to put it in an amendment?

1:43:32Why didn't you put it there to begin with?

1:43:33We didn't have rent in the In the beginning, right?

1:43:37So this is tied to the rent specifically.

1:43:40And are you okay with it?

1:43:45Whether I'm okay with it doesn't matter.

1:43:47As a starting position, I understand it, and, and we will work with it.

1:43:53Right.

1:43:54For folks who may not have the ability to To even pay for their rent in the city of Portland.

1:44:03Thank you, Robert.

1:44:04Could you take a seat and, and help me out here for a second?

1:44:11Um, what I'm trying to— what I'm trying to make sure is that if we're going to discuss this, that we should discuss it with things that, that are clear for me.

1:44:23And if that's what you normally do In leases for commercial leases.

1:44:28And that's what you're saying, that they use that in commercial leases as well?

1:44:32Yeah, these are all usually leases between teams or operating companies and municipalities.

1:44:39CPI is usually what governs the rent.

1:44:42And even though it says it's based on residential, it's not based on residential.

1:44:47Not based on residential.

1:44:48Well, that's what I asked him.

1:44:49It's based on the overall— I mean, Councilor Green's, uh, amendment.

1:44:55But CPI—.

1:44:56Yeah, so Robert, could you help me out to make sure that we're, we're being consistent?

1:45:08Hi, I'm sorry, it's City Attorney Taylor.

1:45:12Let me use this one.

1:45:14Uh, hi, Robert Taylor, City Attorney.

1:45:16So, uh, We would be entering into a contract with the tenant here at the Moda Center.

1:45:22They would be agreeing to pay us rent.

1:45:26And then the question is, how much is that rent going to be increased each year?

1:45:31And in that contract with the Blazers, we can set the rate of increase in contract.

1:45:38And you can choose to set that rate of increase and peg it to CPI.

1:45:43CPI.

1:45:44Right.

1:45:45Or you can peg it to some other number that's created.

1:45:52Councilor Green is suggesting that we do not—.

1:45:55Peg it to CPI.

1:45:56Yeah, that we do not use CPI, that instead we use this rate that's set at the state by statute.

1:46:04For residential.

1:46:05Normally that statute applies to residential increases.

1:46:11Councilor Green has an explanation for why he believes that's appropriate to do as a matter of policy.

1:46:21There may be other reasons why we— it might be appropriate as a matter of policy to keep it pegged at CPI.

1:46:27That's a choice you as council can make.

1:46:29Yeah, and I think if we're going to do something, let's keep it to what a commercial lease would be, not mixing apples and oranges together.

1:46:37If it's— if CPI is what it is, but we're adding this extra piece through this amendment process, I, I just don't think that it's, it's, it's appropriate.

1:46:48And I think that's, that's a good debate and discussion for council to have, and you can choose either one.

1:46:54Okay, so what do we have in there right now?

1:46:58CPI.

1:46:59We got CPI.

1:47:00And so, um, Councilor Green, what do you want to add?

1:47:05So this law raises the rent per year by 7% plus CPI in the Oregon state statute, in the lesser of the two, or 10%, whichever is less.

1:47:17Okay, tell me the—.

1:47:18So what I'm trying to do here is say we should do the same thing.

1:47:24It's 10% or CPI, the methodology, whichever is less.

1:47:29Which— well, just— yeah, it's— I'm just adopting their methodology for this fiscal year.

1:47:33It's 9.26%.

1:47:35Right.

1:47:36And so you want to move it up to 10%?

1:47:39I want to move it up to the maximum allowable rate that the Department of Administrative Services sets every year based upon the CPI plus 7%.

1:47:46And so the Department of Administrative Services, when they're doing residential rates, this is what they— this is what they would raise it to.

1:47:54And so you want us to put a residential Um, kind of amendment on a commercial lease.

1:48:01I want us to say we're going to cap our rent increase at the rent increase that the state sets for renters.

1:48:09And if Tom Dundon would like a lower rent increase, then he can lobby the legislature to lower that cap for everyone else.

1:48:19That's what I'm saying.

1:48:20Yeah, I hear what you're saying.

1:48:21Thank you.

1:48:23Thank you, Councilor Smith.

1:48:25Councilor Knoll.

1:48:26Thanks, colleagues.

1:48:27At the end of what I'm about to say, I'm going to move to request to close the queue.

1:48:31So just fair warning if you want to get in the queue.

1:48:35So I think it's important to note that if we're talking about commercial leases, the reference to CPI-W is itself not perfect because it's for urban wage earners and clerical workers.

1:48:45It's not itself an index based on average commercial rent increases.

1:48:49Or anything like that.

1:48:51It is common to use it, and I recognize that.

1:48:52I agree with you.

1:48:54But it's also imperfect in terms of the sort of ideological— logical connection, sorry.

1:49:02If, on the other hand, we wanted to index it to the maximum allowable under Oregon state law for commercial rent increases, we could do that because that is infinity.

1:49:11So actually, we are, by doing it the way that Councilor Green is proposing it—.

1:49:17I agree with you.

1:49:17We're actually saying that we're protecting the tenant, the primary tenant here, from the maximum allowable commercial rent increase per year.

1:49:29So if Councilor Smith would like to propose that amendment to the amendment to the amendment, I would probably support that because it would allow for increased rent over time.

1:49:39But I think that's not actually what we're going for here.

1:49:41Neither one of them is perfect is the point I'm trying to make.

1:49:43One is more common sense.

1:49:44I think it's more common sense.

1:49:44And then the other.

1:49:46And so I think it's fair to look at our state law for it.

1:49:50Um, I also have some doubts about the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the federal government and its calculations of inflation at this time.

1:50:01I think that's fair for anyone who's been watching out there.

1:50:03So I'll be supporting the amendment, and I am grateful to Councilor Green for putting it forward.

1:50:08And I will request that we limit debate to those currently in the queue on both the amendment to the amendment And the amendment.

1:50:15Thank you, Councilor Knoll.

1:50:16I am going to limit debate to the amendment to the amendment, though I will not limit debate on the underlying amendment yet because there may be some conversation after this vote.

1:50:25So I'm limiting debate on the amendment to the amendment to those in queue.

1:50:28Councilor Murillo.

1:50:30Thank you.

1:50:31Um, thank you so much, Councilor Green, for bringing this up.

1:50:33I think this is a fantastic, um, amendment to the amendment, and I find it wholeheartedly ironic that just a few weeks ago everyone was a tenant's rights advocate when the tenant is a— is not a regular person renting.

1:50:49Suddenly everyone was saying that we have to make outrageous improvements, luxury upgrades to a building because a tenant needs them.

1:50:59As a renter, as one of what, 2 or 3 renters on this city council, if I wanted vaulted ceilings, I wouldn't get to tell my landlord that that was Part of a regular maintenance upgrade?

1:51:08They would say no.

1:51:11The only thing that you can do is safety, and most landlords don't always follow through with that either.

1:51:16So I think that this is a really big improvement, and the CPI doesn't apply to commercial leases, as was already outlined.

1:51:25I would also like to point out that there actually is an apartment in the Moda Center, so it actually, you know— It's a great apartment.

1:51:32Maybe there's some legal area there to discuss about what counts as residential.

1:51:37But this is not about the law.

1:51:41This is about using a methodology and using, yeah, some sort of standard that we can actually measure this by.

1:51:49Because right now, what was given to us is a little bit arbitrary.

1:51:52And I appreciate you bringing something that creates a standard by which we are measuring this.

1:51:57So I will wholeheartedly be supporting that.

1:51:59Thank you for bringing it forward.

1:52:00Thank you.

1:52:01And we live in a country with Citizens United as a court case, which means that corporations are people.

1:52:06So there's a very wishy-washy line in this country about if a company is a person.

1:52:13And so maybe residential rates are going to apply commercially, and so be it.

1:52:18Thank you, Councilor Morillo.

1:52:19Councilor Novick.

1:52:20Thank you, Mr. President.

1:52:22Councilor Green, what do you— we've heard that assuming that CPI winds up being 3%, that The proposal that the Yoshihara team brought to us would be, well, according to you, $53 million over 20 years.

1:52:37What do you think that under your proposal the amount would be over 20 years?

1:52:40I'm so glad you asked that question because that's why I got back in the queue to provide that precise answer.

1:52:46And so the methodology under ORS 90-whatever that I had on the screen a second ago establishes a lesser of 2 values.

1:52:54And so It's 7% plus CPI or 10%.

1:52:59But if so, in a worst-case scenario, most conservative assumption, assume there's zero inflation, it's 7%.

1:53:05And so letting 7% escalate annually for 20 years starts from $2 million a year and gets to $7.2 over the course of that series.

1:53:16And that's a total of $82 million a year for the entire duration of the lease.

1:53:20Thank you.

1:53:21So an increase of, um, an increase of $29 million from what's there?

1:53:28Something like that.

1:53:29But I mean, CPI isn't going to be zero.

1:53:31I mean, do you have a calculation that assumes like the average CPI over the last 10 years or something?

1:53:39Um, well, so 7% average CPI— on average CPI is 3% over the last 4 years.

1:53:48State law caps it at 10% at most.

1:53:50So if we put 10% in there, that's a total of $114, $115 million in rent collected over 20 years.

1:54:00That grows, that compounds, you know, annually.

1:54:05Okay.

1:54:06And if you do that, it reduces our net cost of this deal to $250 million.

1:54:13$45 Million with the most conservative financing assumptions instead of $436 million with interest.

1:54:22Mr. President, is this the time I have to make comments, not just to ask questions?

1:54:26Yeah.

1:54:27So here's where I am.

1:54:31I mean, I have been pushing to get a deal where the city gets back what it puts in, expressing that really liberally.

1:54:39And based on an assumption, which is just an assumption, that we borrow the money, I've asked Jonas, and also based on my assumption that we count the estimated $45 million in business license tax as sort of part of the deal, and so we'd be borrowing $75 million.

1:55:00I asked Jonas, what does that work out to under a reasonably predictable interest rate over 20 years?

1:55:06And it was $117 million.

1:55:09So I'm looking for a proposal, the numbers add up to $17 million, and right now if it's $53.33, then it's about $31 million short.

1:55:18So I'll support any proposal that gets us to the range of, you know, the range of $31 additional million.

1:55:27I'm not sure that I'm willing to support a proposal that goes significantly beyond that.

1:55:33Councilor Smith.

1:55:34So I'm going to puzzle over that.

1:55:37But I just want to tell you, if you wanted to amend your amendment to the amendment to an amount that comes out to additional $31 million, then I definitely support it.

1:55:45You're welcome, Councilor.

1:55:47So are you doing that math based upon the $120 million?

1:55:51Yeah, based on $120 million minus $45 million plus the interest rate that Jonas thought we might get if we borrowed $75 million.

1:55:58And you're not doing that math on the extra $275,000 in capital contributions over 20 years.

1:56:03That I'm not.

1:56:03That I'm assuming, you know, that, you know, we're pay— we're, we're using the money we get, we, we get, and it washes out.

1:56:10Okay, thanks.

1:56:12Thank you, Councilor Novick.

1:56:13Vice President Clark.

1:56:15Thank you, Council President.

1:56:16Is there, um, I don't know who can answer this, is there a law, a state law that actually regulates commercial rents?

1:56:22I'm sorry, I walked out of the room.

1:56:24I may have missed that.

1:56:25There is no law?

1:56:26There's no law at all at the state level that— Okay.

1:56:31You know, it gave me a lot of comfort and confidence that our team had vetted all of the amendments from the other day, and I really appreciate the work that you've done to incorporate those that made sense.

1:56:45And I'm wondering, did I miss you commenting on this particular one when I left the room, or have you I just— it gives me a lot of confidence that these things have been vetted by our team and they make sense.

1:56:58So I'm nervous about this particular amendment.

1:57:03Does anybody want to— have you already said something about this or opined at all?

1:57:08Did I miss it?

1:57:10I'm sorry.

1:57:11I'm sorry I missed it.

1:57:12Okay, my fault.

1:57:13Carl had said that they could work with this.

1:57:17But that is my— is that accurate, Carl?

1:57:21About the rent in general?

1:57:24Yes, I did say that.

1:57:27And I think he also said that CPI was normal in the escalator for these type of deals.

1:57:35These kinds of negotiations.

1:57:37That's what I would imagine is just a standard across the industry.

1:57:41You would see that in most leases.

1:57:43Right.

1:57:43I'd say 99% of the leases.

1:57:46Maybe instead of doing that here, we should be working on state legislation to change the percentage on rent control.

1:57:54Anyway, thank you.

1:57:55Thank you for answering my question.

1:57:56Thank you, Vice President Clark.

1:57:58Councilor Avalos.

1:58:03Thank you.

1:58:04And thank you, Councilor Green.

1:58:07Happy to co-sponsor this amendment with you.

1:58:09You all should have it in your packet.

1:58:13Yes.

1:58:14You know, we talk all the time about inflation and all that.

1:58:17A flat $2 million payment 20 years from now is not the same as $2 million today.

1:58:22So this simply preserves the value of the rent over time using an existing Oregon standard that everyone is already familiar with.

1:58:29I think it's pretty straightforward.

1:58:31It's clear that we can do these things.

1:58:33I, I, I see that there is a tension between what people feel they can do as legislators and what they need permission to do by the negotiators.

1:58:41I believe we have the right to put this forward.

1:58:44I believe that it's, it's pretty open-ended, frankly.

1:58:47So the negotiating team has plenty of leeway with how to interpret it.

1:58:50But putting a standard in there so that we can make sure we're getting a true return over 20 years, I think is the bare minimum.

1:58:57And I think you should support it.

1:58:58Thanks.

1:58:59Thank you, Councilor Avalos.

1:59:01Callings, having limited debate to those in the queue on the amendment to the amendment.

1:59:04Can we please call a roll on— are we calling— is it Green, Avalos, one?

1:59:09Okay.

1:59:10Moved by Green, seconded by Avalos.

1:59:13Koyama Lane?

1:59:14Aye.

1:59:15Morillo?

1:59:16Aye.

1:59:16Novick?

1:59:17Nay.

1:59:18Clark?

1:59:18No.

1:59:19Green?

1:59:21Aye.

1:59:21Zimmerman?

1:59:22No.

1:59:23Avalos?

1:59:23Aye.

1:59:24Smith?

1:59:25No.

1:59:25Kanal?

1:59:26Aye.

1:59:27Pirtle-Guiney?

1:59:29No.

1:59:32No.

1:59:34Aye.

1:59:35The amendment to the amendment fails with a vote of 6 ayes and 6 nays.

1:59:39Colleagues, to the underlying amendment, is there any further discussion?

1:59:43Councilor Smith.

1:59:44Thank you.

1:59:46I just want to be clear to the negotiators that I appreciate the work that you've done.

1:59:50I know that this is really tough.

1:59:53This is not a giveaway that you put forward to us.

1:59:56It's not a handout.

1:59:57It's very deliberate.

1:59:59It's a structured partnership with equal access between a land and a tenant anchor, an anchor tenant.

2:00:07And I want to give you kudos for doing what you're doing.

2:00:09This is, this is a lot of high-pressure stuff.

2:00:12And you brought back a $3 million annual direct payment back to the city, Multnomah County, and Portland Public Schools, which I, which I think should be commended.

2:00:24And it captured event user fees, parking revenues, and a direct share of profits from the Veterans Memorial Coliseum.

2:00:34That being secured, if we can get a binding commitment for union labor protections, community benefit agreements, and an alignment with historic restoration of the Albina neighborhood and the rebirth and the revitalization, I think Um, we can call it a good day in December.

2:00:56But I'm looking forward to what you're doing because, you know, I've heard a lot of conversation about this being a really bad deal.

2:01:03This— when we looked at other deals and you compare this deal, this NBA arena agreement across the country, from Oklahoma City to Milwaukee to Sacramento, Portland's negotiated terms thank you.

2:01:18Thank you, Mayor.

2:01:19I think the ordinance stands out as an incredibly responsible and protective, um, uh, document of the public trust.

2:01:27So I think we're securing a guaranteed 20-year commitment, if we can get that, with, uh, Rip City, um, while reinvesting in the city-owned asset.

2:01:38And I want to repeat, this is a city-owned asset that we must keep up, not only for the Blazers but for concerts and for the Fire.

2:01:46That is what we're doing.

2:01:48And, um, as, as a, uh, owner of a smallplex, you have to keep it up.

2:01:54And I think that, um, the real-world trade-offs that you had to make, you did a great job.

2:02:02And nothing is going to be perfect, and we cannot let the perfect, uh, become the enemy of the good.

2:02:08And when we demand an impossible standard of absolute, we do not get a better deal.

2:02:13Thank you.

2:02:14We get gridlock.

2:02:16So I want to make sure that we're not risking our state funding timelines that are going to expire in December.

2:02:25And I want to signal to our, our workforce, our labor partners, and our central city businesses that Portland cannot take yes for an answer.

2:02:39We have to have—.

2:02:40Ayes.

2:02:41Yes.

2:02:41For an answer.

2:02:42So the Moda Center is, is a, um, it is, it is, it has lots of memories and, uh, family stories and all the things that we talked about when we even talked about the, uh, the Lloyd Center.

2:02:58But I think this is an economic engine for downtown and for the city of Portland and for the state of Oregon.

2:03:04It is a hospitality hub of the state.

2:03:08It is the front door of the state, and we need to keep it.

2:03:12And I want you all to do everything that you think you can do at the negotiating table to make sure that we have a fair deal and that we keep the Blazers right here in Portland, Oregon.

2:03:23Thank you.

2:03:25Thank you, Councilor Smith.

2:03:26Councilor Kanal, to the amendment.

2:03:28Yeah, so we're debating both amendments, just to clarify, right?

2:03:30Yes.

2:03:31I request to limit debate on both amendments.

2:03:34I'm happy— I'm going to give folks 10 seconds to get in the queue, and then I'm going to limit debate to the amendments to those in the queue.

2:03:46Councilor Novick.

2:03:48Thank you, Mr. President.

2:03:49I'm planning to vote yes on the amendment, but I wanted to ask you something.

2:03:54You, Frank— Mr. President, you surprised me by voting for Councilor Green's amendment, and as I've said, my goal is to get to an extra $31 million in order for me to vote for the underlying package.

2:04:06So I'm contemplating making a front room deal with you if you're willing to contemplate that.

2:04:14I wasn't planning to offer any additional amendments myself today, but I would be happy to offer an amendment which would increase the amount of rent sufficiently to get us an extra $31 million.

2:04:24And but I'd be counting on you to support that.

2:04:26So I just wanted to ask you now if that's worth thinking about.

2:04:29I, at this point, I'm ready to move okay.

2:04:35Thank you.

2:04:37Great.

2:04:38Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, could we please call the roll?

2:04:44We're going to— not going to vote on them as a package.

2:04:46We're voting on Amendment 1 first, Amendment 2 second.

2:04:50Could we please call the roll on Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Ryan, Kanal 1?

2:04:56Moved by Dunphy, seconded by Clark.

2:04:58Koyama Lane?

2:04:59Aye.

2:05:00Murillo?

2:05:01Aye.

2:05:01Novick?

2:05:02Aye.

2:05:03Clark?

2:05:04Aye.

2:05:04Greene?

2:05:05Aye.

2:05:06Zimmerman?

2:05:08Aye.

2:05:08Avalos?

2:05:09Aye.

2:05:10Smith?

2:05:10Aye.

2:05:11Kanal?

2:05:12Aye.

2:05:13Pirtle-Guiney?

2:05:14Aye.

2:05:14Ryan?

2:05:15Aye.

2:05:16Dunphy?

2:05:16Aye.

2:05:20Thank you very much, colleagues.

2:05:21And can we please call the roll on Moved by Dunphy, seconded by Clark.

2:05:30Aye.

2:05:34Aye.

2:05:36Aye.

2:05:39Green.

2:05:40Aye.

2:05:41Sorry, I didn't hear that.

2:05:45Thank you.

2:05:47Aye.

2:05:50Aye.

2:05:52Aye.

2:05:53Ryan.

2:05:54Aye.

2:05:57Is that aye?

2:06:00Sorry, that is very loud out there.

2:06:05Thanks.

2:06:06Dunphy.

2:06:07Aye.

2:06:08The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.

2:06:12Hey, can we please colleagues, discussion of the technical— wait, actually, I'm going to see if there are any other further amendments that are being proposed.

2:06:21Councilor Knoll.

2:06:22Thank you, Council President.

2:06:23So a note on the amendments we just passed.

2:06:26I want to be clear, I don't think the mayor's negotiating team needed to vet these.

2:06:31I think we should have done this the way the charter intends and that voters approved, where we exercise our independent judgment as 12 elected officials and make decisions.

2:06:37That didn't happen last week, but given that it mattered to colleagues who evidently didn't know that at least 2 of us who proposed amendments, Councilor Novick and I, did in fact follow the process as outlined in one of the several emails we got with recommendations on how to do this.

2:06:49We got to where we are today, and I'm grateful that for the first time in this process, I personally felt listened to in part with the content of these amendments by the negotiating team and by 3 colleagues who had voted no on all this last week.

2:07:02Um, and I appreciate that.

2:07:03I also— that's basically me saying I agree with everything Councilor Avalos said earlier.

2:07:06Thank you.

2:07:07I also appreciate that my colleagues have been willing to do the hard work of thinking creatively, listening to constituents, looking at the evidence, and coming up with policy proposals to improve the term sheet.

2:07:16Several of us brought the energy and ideas to the conversation that Portlanders have been asking for.

2:07:21And specifically, I want to note that 4 other colleagues, Councilor Avalos, Murillo, Green, and Novick, along with myself, offered the amendments, some of which ultimately got repackaged into this.

2:07:29Rent is a huge deal.

2:07:30Councilor Avalos, among others, deserves a lot of credit for this.

2:07:33It seems to be based off of Avalos 6 and a bit of 5.

2:07:35Thank you.

2:07:35The rewording in the resolution appears to be based off of Green and Avalos, as does the added text on the joint authority in the term sheet.

2:07:41The development rights are based on Avalos 1.

2:07:43Avalos 3 appears to be incorporated into the resolution.

2:07:46Avalos 4 seems to be nodded to in the term sheet amendment about other tenants.

2:07:49Avalos 9 and 11 seem to be referenced in the community benefits agreement updates.

2:07:53The updates with clarity on the authorities of the mayor and city administrator are part of Canal 1, and Canal 4 on a return on investment was added in full.

2:08:01There are other things, however, that aren't in those packages that I did want to note.

2:08:04Yes.

2:08:04We've already noted Councilor Green's point about the impact statement.

2:08:11Councilor Novick and I both raised the issue of having flexibility over a slightly higher user fee.

2:08:16Councilor Novick discussed reconfiguring the parking split.

2:08:19Councilor Murillo proposed clarity and 30 days' notice, among other things, before we vote on budget and funding sources, including opportunity costs.

2:08:27And opportunity costs may be the biggest part of this that has let— is a stone that has yet to be turned over here.

2:08:32Councilor Novick, Because it's not as though, despite what you may have heard by a signature gatherer in the last few months, it's not as though PSF money is sitting around unspent, right?

2:08:42It's all appropriated.

2:08:44So if we are going to use it, or frankly general fund money, there's an opportunity cost, something that won't get funded.

2:08:49And we haven't looked at that yet.

2:08:50And there's a concern that if we don't look into it, if we don't guarantee in the term sheet that we're going to look into it, we might not by the time December rolls around.

2:08:58Thank you.

2:08:59Councilor Green and Avalos proposed being clear that the council can remove people from the joint authority, which I think is really important.

2:09:05It was in one of the amendments down in the footnotes, but it was clearly in track changes.

2:09:10And Councilor Avalos has, of course, raised private capital contributions, revenue sharing, and participation naming rights.

2:09:16I want to focus on one missing piece, though, which is the part of Canal 1 that didn't get in to protect PSF.

2:09:22I propose that we say we can only evaluate the use of a restricted fund with enough information and time to evaluate it through the standard evaluation processes.

2:09:32I think that both Councilor Murillo's amendment and mine were attempting to resolve a similar concern, which is the idea, I think it's December 9th that the plan is to have a final vote ideally on this, that on December 8th, we're told by probably somebody who works for the city that this is all piecefable, don't worry about it, just go with it.

2:09:52Thank you.

2:09:54And I'm very concerned about that, trying to get out ahead of it.

2:09:58We haven't managed to yet.

2:09:59If there's the votes to do it today, I definitely want to do that today.

2:10:02If not, I will, you know, certainly have that as a concern going forward.

2:10:07But I wanted to note that in brief, in passing, when I asked questions, the negotiating team told me that you think PCF evaluation processes are already protected.

2:10:18Yes.

2:10:19And I wanted to ask if you could give a little bit more detail on that to me, my colleagues, and to the public.

2:10:24Thanks for the question, Councilor.

2:10:25So in this particular case, I believe we are talking about any time that in the code, any time that council will take an action related to the PSF code, the PSF committee will deliberate on those topics.

2:10:39So in the event that we have details that could potentially utilize PSF dollars for this renovation, before that came to council, the PCF committee would contemplate it.

2:10:50The original plan for this particular moment in time was that we had scheduled time in July for the PCF committee to receive details from the Blazers and their architect team, by which they could have, in theory, assuming the data was obvious and the eligibility was clear, would've made a recommendation to council to proceed with contemplation of the $75 million or whatever the number would've been.

2:11:10I think that's a good point.

2:11:11Because we didn't get those details, that meeting never happened.

2:11:14So our working assumption remains the same.

2:11:17Like all other PSF actions, before they come to council, the PSF committee will evaluate and make a recommendation.

2:11:24So that means that in the event that we don't get the information in time for that process before a final vote in December, that your proposal would by necessity not include PSF?

2:11:36Councilor, absolutely.

2:11:37But also, if we don't have the details for PSF, that means we probably don't have the details for the whole package.

2:11:42Okay, I agree on that.

2:11:44I appreciate the first half of that because I agree that probably on the second half, but the first half did not have probably, and I appreciate that.

2:11:54The other thing that I wanted to try and get on the record here is there's nothing in this that outsources the decision on PSF eligibility to the joint authority in this document, right?

2:12:04Correct.

2:12:05It's 100%.

2:12:06The allocation of city resources follow the normal city process.

2:12:10Which means City Council determines that based on input for the PSEF committee?

2:12:14Correct.

2:12:14Okay.

2:12:15I appreciate that.

2:12:17Obviously, colleagues, my concern has been that having the way the joint authority is currently contemplated, having the same people who are appointed by someone who wanted to use PSEF for sweeps a few months ago be deciding whether or not it's eligible for this has been a concern to me.

2:12:35And I appreciate that several of my colleagues have worked on fixing that latter problem and we'll do that here.

2:12:40I appreciate that.

2:12:41I would still like it to be more specific than that.

2:12:44I doubt, but I will ask as colleagues are discussing this for them to prove me wrong if I am wrong.

2:12:50But I doubt that there are the votes to reconsider that previous amendment.

2:12:54If so, I would love it if someone who voted no on it previously said so, so that we could do it.

2:12:59The rest of either Kanal 1 or Murillo 1.

2:13:01I actually think Murillo 1 is longer and may take a little longer to read, but I think it's better.

2:13:06It's more comprehensive, frankly.

2:13:08And I got 2/3 of what's in Kanal 1 already in.

2:13:11But either one for me would be sufficient.

2:13:12Councilor Dan Ryan.

2:13:13Sufficient to meet that particular concern.

2:13:15And so I, I am curious about that, and I just wanted to get that on the record.

2:13:19And I appreciate the, the answers to the questions, but also I, I still would prefer it to be a little bit more explicit because one of the things that's come up here is, um, there's not a lot of public trust, um, around this process.

2:13:32I think I'm saying that in the most understatement way possible.

2:13:35Um, and I think that one thing that we can do— I understand that from a legal perspective and from, you know, the jobs that you all have, it doesn't necessarily need to have certain things in the text.

2:13:46But for the people that are one row behind you and evidently outside in the plaza, uh, it might be helpful to have those things to, to be clearer.

2:13:55So that's my interest there.

2:13:56Um, but I'll, I'll leave it at that for now and let the discussion continue.

2:14:00Thanks.

2:14:01Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

2:14:02Uh, colleagues, just to— for clarity, uh, it is my intention to get us through to the technical amendment and then we'll take a rest Councilor Novick.

2:14:12Mr. President, did you say that it's time for us to offer any other amendments?

2:14:16Absolutely.

2:14:18Okay.

2:14:19A couple of weeks ago, President Hankins told us that no team would sign a lease that puts it in the red for 20 years.

2:14:27I asked the question, why would a landlord sign a lease that puts us in the red for 20 years?

2:14:34Based on, as I was saying earlier, I think that the amount that we'll be putting in, assuming we borrow the money and discounting the, you know, the business license fee money, would be $117 million.

2:14:46We are right now, thanks to the proposals that have been brought forward, at about $86 million.

2:14:53So based on my pure back-of-the-envelope calculations, I think that in order to get to $117 million and get to an even deal, We'd have to increase the rent to $3.17 million a year.

2:15:07So I move to increase the rent amount to $3.17 million.

2:15:12Councilor Novick has moved.

2:15:14We'll call this Novick 1, 2, I don't know.

2:15:19And are you able to reduce that to writing?

2:15:22Yes.

2:15:23Thank you.

2:15:23Is there a second?

2:15:28Second, because I want to debate it.

2:15:29I want to know more.

2:15:30Okay, Councilor Green seconds.

2:15:35Colleagues to the, uh, Novick— I believe it's Novick 2 at this point.

2:15:40So colleagues to Novick 2, to those in the queue.

2:15:43Uh, Councilor Murillo.

2:15:46Uh, I was going to talk about something else, but I'm interested to learn more and see the language.

2:15:50I'm not really sure why you didn't support Councilor Green's amendment, but sure, we can just Okay, Councilor Knoll.

2:15:57Aye.

2:15:58Okay, Councilor Green.

2:16:01Yeah, I just need you to clarify what you're doing here, Councilor.

2:16:06Is that flat nominal across 20 years?

2:16:09Is that the base and then escalated at 3%?

2:16:12Sorry, it's— it would— no, it would be changing the $2 million in the current proposal to $3.17 million with the same escalator.

2:16:19Okay.

2:16:20That's my question.

2:16:23I'm doing my math while we sit here and talk.

2:16:26Thank you, Councilor Green.

2:16:28Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

2:16:29Thank you, Council President.

2:16:31Councilor Novick, your calculations are based on us borrowing and paying interest, us bonding for this essentially.

2:16:38Is that correct?

2:16:40Yeah, my assumption, my assumption was that we're not going to approve using PCF money, um, Or even if we did, we'd only approve it as a loan.

2:16:48So I told Jonas, all right, if we're going to put up $120 million, let's assume we are going to get $45 million in business license tax money from the sale of the Blazers.

2:16:57I realize that's money we would get anyway, but at least it's Blazer-related.

2:17:01So that leaves us another $75 million.

2:17:03And I asked Jonas, what is a reasonable interest rate we'd expect to get if we're borrowing $75 million?

2:17:09And I think he said something like 4.6%.

2:17:11Apply that, come to $117 million.

2:17:13Thank you.

2:17:14So I'm trying to figure out how we get back $117 million over 20 years.

2:17:21Understood.

2:17:22If we were able to do this without borrowing, and I'm not looking specifically to PSAP, I want to be really clear, there are other funding sources that have been floated through this whole process, we would be at even now, correct?

2:17:40Based on your calculations that you've done?

2:17:42Yeah, but I don't care.

2:17:43I mean, I'm closing my mind.

2:17:45I'm assuming that we have to borrow the money.

2:17:47That's my assumption.

2:17:48Thank you for that clarification.

2:17:51Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

2:17:52Councilor Smith.

2:17:55Thank you.

2:17:56Um, that's a, a really thoughtful idea, but it is making us make a decision on the money piece, um, when we haven't been presented with the money piece, and I don't want to just piecemeal something together when we may, as Councilor Pirtle-Guiney says, we may have some other options to be able to pay for this outright.

2:18:18So I don't want to mess anything up right now, but thank you for coming up with that very clever formula.

2:18:28I just don't think that it's— I don't think that it is good for us to make a decision like this outside of the bigger conversation that we're going to have around how do we pay for the whole thing.

2:18:45Thank you, Councilor Smith.

2:18:45Thank you.

2:18:46Councilor Green.

2:18:49Yeah, I'm inclined to support it.

2:18:50Um, I'll note that it is, it is more reven— more revenue and rent than the sort of most rosy scenario for Tom Dundon.

2:19:01And less revenue and rent for the worst-case scenario for Tom Dundon.

2:19:06It's a little closer to the 7% zero bound.

2:19:12So I'm fine with that.

2:19:13It's certainly better than not having the extra here, significantly better so.

2:19:21The total cost is $400 million, so it does leave a gap, but I appreciate what you're doing.

2:19:25You're getting us closer to a thing, and I would also urge my colleagues support this because if you're going to be a fiscally responsible person in our budget setting choices, like we had a lot of conversation last spring about what it means to be fiscally responsible.

2:19:42And if you're going to say, well, maybe we'll hope to get some other revenue later on a hope and a prayer, I don't know how that squares with previous positions taken.

2:19:52So kudos to Councilor Novick.

2:19:54Thank you.

2:19:55You have my endorsement.

2:19:57Let's vote yes on this.

2:19:59Thank you.

2:19:59Councilor Green?

2:20:02Councilor Murray is still for the— okay, cool.

2:20:04Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, can we please—.

2:20:06I'm in the queue.

2:20:07Oh, you are in the queue again.

2:20:07I'm sorry.

2:20:08Councilor Smith?

2:20:08Councilor Smith?

2:20:09Um, I just have a quick question.

2:20:11So adding this amendment, which is adding to a non-binding, um, term sheet already, it does not bind us to that if we in the future to this, um, amendment that Councilor Novick is trying to, uh, to push through?

2:20:29Councilor Reed, that would be our starting position with negotiations if it, if it was adopted.

2:20:34But what I'm saying, but it's not— this is not a binding document, right?

2:20:40No, but it's directive.

2:20:41It's— we're taking it as a starting position.

2:20:43Okay, I, I appreciate you taking it as a starting position, but what I'm, what I'm trying to say is If we do this amendment saying where the money comes from and how much money we get back and how we, how we pay for this now, does it bind us to doing this thing that he's trying to do?

2:21:04Um, I, I don't, I don't think so, Councilor.

2:21:06I think if I understand the Councilor's amendment, it's— he's really tweaking the details around the rent and he's basing it on some assumptions about the broader funding, which I think in all fairness we have to sort out, but the—.

2:21:18But we haven't decided that yet.

2:21:20But what I'm trying to— what I'm trying to find out is, does it make us do what he says he's going to do since this is a non-binding document that we're sending?

2:21:30No.

2:21:31No.

2:21:33Okay, thank you.

2:21:36Thank you, Councilor Smith.

2:21:39Calling— seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Novick 2?

2:21:43I'm sorry, yeah, is that right?

2:21:45We're calling it Novick— I don't know, Novick 1.

2:21:50We'll call it whatever.

2:21:52Yeah.

2:21:52Uh, moved by Novick, seconded by Green.

2:21:55Koyama Lane?

2:21:57Aye.

2:21:58Green?

2:21:59Aye.

2:22:00Novick?

2:22:01Aye.

2:22:02Clark?

2:22:03No.

2:22:05Green?

2:22:06Aye.

2:22:07Zimmerman?

2:22:07No.

2:22:11No.

2:22:12Null.

2:22:13Aye.

2:22:14No.

2:22:16No.

2:22:19Aye.

2:22:20Uh, the amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes and 5 nays.

2:22:25Thank you, colleagues.

2:22:27Councilor Morillo.

2:22:29Thank you.

2:22:31Um, I I appreciate everything that you laid out, Councilor Kanal, as far as accountability for these public dollars.

2:22:40So because of that, I'm gonna re— I, I would also like to hear people's rationale for Murillo 1, um, specifically.

2:22:48Uh, and everyone keeps asking me this, it's Murillo or Murillo?

2:22:51It's English and Spanish, it's fine either way.

2:22:54But I want to bring this back because I think that we need some accountability and for not just ourselves, but also for the public, for why we are making certain decisions and also to figure out the opportunity costs.

2:23:09Because if we are being given information that's very last minute about the budget vote in December, and say we do end up having to use PSF dollars for this because we have obligated ourselves to something and there are no other alternative funds, which is a very real possibility.

2:23:28Yes.

2:23:28Possibility.

2:23:29There are currently invested in climate projects that are going to have to be— we're going to remove the funding for those projects.

2:23:38Every single PCF dollar is already allocated.

2:23:41So if we are not willing to get clarity around what we are going to be cutting, I, I don't really understand what the drawback is for us having more information as a council body to make a responsible vote.

2:23:56So I've emailed that to you and your staff to review the language again.

2:24:01It should be in your inboxes right now just for easy access.

2:24:05And I would just like to hear if folks have any rationale for why they would be against having more information as the body that has the power of the purse on this.

2:24:15And Councilor, are you moving this or just is this for the purpose of the discussion?

2:24:19I will move it.

2:24:22Second.

2:24:23Thank you.

2:24:24Okay, colleagues.

2:24:26Point of information, Council President.

2:24:27Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

2:24:29Can a previously failed amendment be reintroduced as is by somebody who voted for it?

2:24:40I thought previously failed amendments could only be reintroduced by somebody who voted in the Who voted in the prevailing, and therefore a tweaked language of this might be able to be introduced under a different number, but this cannot be reintroduced as is.

2:24:57That was my understanding as well.

2:25:01Recognizing that we are going to be introducing some more amendments before we get to the technical one, I'm going to go ahead and give us a 10-minute break right now, and we will plan on having another break after the technical amendment is back.

2:25:10But we will figure out that— answer that question and give everybody a human break.

2:25:14We'll be back at 12 o'clock, please.

2:40:04Thank you.

2:40:08And we are back.

2:40:11Thank you all very much, folks.

2:40:13Councilor Murillo.

2:40:18Settle down, everybody.

2:40:20Okay, um, thank you, Council President.

2:40:22Uh, I wanted to clarify, so Yes.

2:40:24I think some of our colleagues are still coming back, but I will be dropping the original introduction of the original Morillo 1.

2:40:32And instead, you should have in your inboxes right now something from Susie from my office, Morillo Canal Amendment to this ordinance.

2:40:43And it changes it to, instead of 30 days, having a report 30 days before council has to make a vote on it, 15 days, because we heard from the administration that having the standardized 2 weeks deadline would be a better option and would be more feasible.

2:41:00And if I could get a second for that, I would like—.

2:41:03Councilor Murillo moves— what are we calling this?

2:41:07Murillo 3?

2:41:082?

2:41:09It's Murillo-Kanal, I think, 1.

2:41:11Yeah, Murillo-Kanal 1, and Councilor Avalos seconds.

2:41:16Colleagues, discussion of the amendment?

2:41:17Councilor Kanal is not here.

2:41:19So seconded.

2:41:19Councilor Smith.

2:41:21Thank you.

2:41:23Is this to give a mandatory 30-day, um, that they have to give us something 30 days before they give it to the Blazers?

2:41:3115 Days for us, for our consideration.

2:41:34I'm happy to re-explain it.

2:41:36So, um, what this is asking is for the, the Chief Financial Officer and the City Administrator to give us a report 15 days before council has to make a decision, because they said 15 days was more feasible than 30 days, on the financial aspects of anything we will be voting on.

2:41:55And that is going to be an opportunity cost analysis.

2:41:59So for example, if they say, okay, we're going to be able to fund the arena changes with a bond, we would be able to see what the cost could be to SIP moving forward since that's also funded with bonds.

2:42:09Or if we're going to take money from the Portland Clean Energy Fund, we're going to see which programs and things are going to be defunded in order to fund this instead.

2:42:19So just having more clarity for ourselves and for the public what the opportunity costs are of every decision.

2:42:25It doesn't limit our decision.

2:42:26It is simply more information for us to make a vote before we have to take it.

2:42:33One of the concerns or challenges to this In the way that it's written is when I've seen folks, they go up to the, to the last minute and they're not able to tell you what they're going to do.

2:42:46So I think that this could be problematic, and, um, it's putting too stringent of guardrails to give you information that they may not have.

2:42:58So what happens if, if they don't have the information in 15 days?

2:43:02What happens to them?

2:43:03What's the What's the consequence?

2:43:09I think that we're just asking them to provide whatever information they have.

2:43:12There isn't a built-in consequence for our employees or something like that.

2:43:17But I think to say that we don't have any information to make this decision is also false.

2:43:22We know which programs in the Portland Clean Energy Fund, for example, are funded right now.

2:43:26So I'm just saying, say that the Moda Center is able to justify the renovations under PCEF.

2:43:32We still need to know which programs are going to be defunded in order to fund this new thing.

2:43:38So there will be trade-offs, but the council and the public deserves to be very clear about what those trade-offs are going to be.

2:43:45And we have been calling for public process.

2:43:47I mean, I think part of the frustration that the public— that we're witnessing from the public is that there is a lack of information for us and for them.

2:43:55So you're assuming that there's going to be a defunding of something.

2:43:58I think we have some debt that's going to be flying off.

2:44:01I think we're going to have an increased, um, BLT.

2:44:05I think we're going to have, um, we're going to have the PCF interest.

2:44:08So there, there are a lot of avenues.

2:44:11We don't necessarily have to cut anything to pay for this.

2:44:19Debt would be paid back by revenue that could be spent on other things.

2:44:23And I would say, uh, you know, Councilor Smith, If there isn't going to be a cost, then they can just explain that in the report.

2:44:31Okay.

2:44:32Thank you, Councilor Smith.

2:44:33Councilor Novick.

2:44:35Thank you, Mr. President.

2:44:37Councilor Morillo, I'm with you on the PCF part.

2:44:40The problem I have with the general fund part is we know what the general fund is, and we can't ask the administration to predict how we, the council, might change the general fund based on anything that happens here.

2:44:52I mean, we know that the general fund goes to police, fire, and parks largely, and it's our decision as to what goes where.

2:45:00So I don't really think that the general fund part really adds anything that we don't know.

2:45:06The PSF thing, I totally agree.

2:45:08If the administration is going to propose using PSF funds, they should say where it comes from.

2:45:12May I respond?

2:45:13Absolutely.

2:45:15So thanks, I appreciate that question.

2:45:20It can contextualize the potential cuts within that 5-year framework.

2:45:25So I think that that's really important because we have a 5-year forecast for what things are going to look like.

2:45:30So each of the sources that we list in this, which is PSF, the general fund, debt capacity, business license tax forecasts and models for capacity, those are all things that we have.

2:45:42For the general fund, we have that 5-year forecast.

2:45:44Okay.

2:45:50Sorry, I am getting a lot of messages right now at the same time.

2:45:53But whether this analysis is done before or after, we are getting— there is going to be a trade-off and we need to— to me, this is the bare minimum information that we need to decide what that trade-off is going to be.

2:46:04Because while we don't know exactly how councilors are going to vote on the budget overall, we do know that there are some things that are absolutely essential that can't be cut without thank you, councilor.

2:46:21Thank you, Councilor Novick.

2:46:24Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

2:46:27Thank you, Council President.

2:46:28So Councilor Murillo, you're adding to this document, which is otherwise about our relationship with Rip City Management and the negotiations, this isn't about when we get the information.

2:46:49I'll say it differently.

2:46:50This isn't about when we get the information from Rip City Management and the Blazers.

2:46:53This is about the relationship that the council has with the administration.

2:46:59No, this is about the financial options that we have to make a vote with Rip City Management because we need to decide what our funding options are going to be, and we need all of the information before we make that decision.

2:47:09So this Yes.

2:47:09Is not about when we get the information.

2:47:10Obviously, the body delivering that will be our CFO, but there's a portion that says, be it further resolved that the city— the Portland City Council directs the city administration to work with Rip City Management, the Trail Blazers, and the State of Oregon and the arena joint authority to develop a formative definitive document and amendments to the existing agreements as necessitated by the terms contained in Exhibit A.

2:47:35So we are directing them to do this in conjunction with them.

2:47:43Tell me where that is, because what I'm looking at is something that says, be it further resolved that at least 15 days before council votes, um, on various instruments, the city administrator and chief financial officer shall prepare a report for council.

2:48:03I guess my concern here, colleagues, is that we're putting together a term sheet for how we work with the Blazers.

2:48:10I was—.

2:48:11I absolutely agree that we need to have a clear public process.

2:48:16That's what I think we did in our work sessions and what we do when we're up here.

2:48:22I absolutely agree, and I'll look to the city administrator as I say this, That we need information about funding options in time to make decisions.

2:48:31And we need more than just this is the only option.

2:48:35We need to be able to understand what the trade-offs for various options are.

2:48:38That conversation needs to be had.

2:48:39It needs to be had not just in an executive session, but up here as well.