City Council · morning

4:34Keelan, let, um, Council President know that I'm on, that I'm on live.

4:45I'll do it.

4:45I'll resign from council.

4:47Good morning.

4:48I am calling to order this meeting of the Portland City Council.

4:51It is Wednesday, September 9th.

4:53Keelan, can you please call the roll?

4:55Good morning.

4:56Koyama Lane?

4:57Here.

4:57Murillo?

4:58Here.

5:00Novick?

5:00Here.

5:01Clark?

5:02Um.

5:05Green?

5:06Here.

5:08Zimmerman.

5:11Avalos.

5:12Present.

5:12Smith.

5:14Here.

5:15Kanal.

5:16Here.

5:16Pirtle-Guiney.

5:19Here.

5:20Here.

5:21Dunphy.

5:22Here.

5:22And can we please, uh, read the rules of decorum for the chamber?

5:25Good morning.

5:26Welcome to Portland City Council.

5:28To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.

5:36Information on engaging with the council can be found on the council Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.

5:44Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.

5:47The presiding officer preserves order.

5:48Disruptive 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.

5:57If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.

5:59Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.

6:02Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.

6:05Thank you.

6:05Additionally, Council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.

6:09Your testimony should address the matter being considered.

6:11When testifying, state your name for the record.

6:14Your address is not necessary.

6:15If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.

6:19And virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the Council Clerk calls your name.

6:22Thank you.

6:23Thank you very much.

6:24Colleagues, we have a jam-packed agenda, and unfortunately it looks like we are going to have jam-packed agendas for the remainder of this year.

6:30Last year, or last week, we went 4 hours long and multiple councilors spoke individually Usually for more than 30 minutes.

6:39I will be limiting debate today to 5 minutes per councilor per item.

6:42You're welcome to get back into the queue, but we have to get through a lot of stuff today.

6:47First item on our agenda is always the approval of the agenda.

6:51However, the following items were pulled from the consent agenda this week.

6:55A community member with a fiduciary interest in the property up for foreclosure pulled item 16, which is regarding 2734 And 2738 Northeast Alberta Street to give testimony.

7:07That request came in before the agenda publication, and the item is placed first on the regular agenda.

7:12The administration came to arrangements with the property owners of properties in foreclosure related to documents 252, 257, and 258, and has asked that they be pulled and referred back to the mayor.

7:23And Councilor Smith pulled document 306 related to the council public information officer classification documents 247, 248, 250, 253, 260, and 261, all foreclosures, for further discussion.

7:38That certainly means that we will not get to item 21, advertising on bus benches, or item 22, data center NDAs, today.

7:45If anyone is here for that, I apologize, we will not hear that today.

7:49I'd like to move to postpone both of these items, most likely data centers to next week and bus benches to the following, pending feedback from the sponsors.

7:57Second.

7:58Uh, may I have unanimous consent to reschedule these items?

8:01Aye.

8:02Okay, thank you.

8:03Those items are rescheduled.

8:04And for today, the items that have been pulled from consent have been placed at the end of the agenda in order, as is standard practice.

8:11I'd like to place at the beginning of the regular agenda documents 252, 257, and 258, the foreclosures that are going to be sent back to the mayor as a package, followed immediately by document 306, The council PIO position.

8:28We'll leave the rest of the foreclosures at the end of the agenda.

8:31May I have unanimous consent to do so?

8:35Thank you very much.

8:36The order items are reordered.

8:38Are there any other requests to amend the agenda, to reorder items, or reschedule an item for a future meeting date?

8:44Council President, I'm just curious, um, items 18, 19, and 20, they've been, uh, read, uh, previously, some multiple times, and we've had People come to the council multiple times, and I don't want to sit through another meeting where we don't get to items 19 and 20, for example.

9:03Yeah, I would, as is standard practice, we will not be having staff presentation on the items that were pulled from consent.

9:09I'll be turning to the councilor who specifically pulled them and ask if she has specific questions about them.

9:14And I believe that Councilor Smith may be amenable to calling items 15 through 20 as an—.

9:21I don't want to take up more time, but I would be very upset if we don't get through item 20.

9:2520 Today, because it's becoming quite concerning why we're dragging this out so long.

9:30Yep.

9:31Thank you.

9:31Thank you, sir.

9:33Uh, Councilor Knoll?

9:35It's for the next time.

9:36Understood.

9:37Thank you, colleagues.

9:38Do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda?

9:41The agenda is approved.

9:43Thank you very much.

9:45Keelan, could we please call public communications?

9:49First up today, we have Kat Inez.

10:02Kat, can you hear us?

10:12Kat, you're muted.

10:19Can you hear me?

10:20Yes, we see you and hear you.

10:23Awesome.

10:24Good morning, my name is Cat Innes.

10:26I live in Beaverton and regularly travel to Portland to spend money at Portland businesses and produce events here.

10:31I'm here to talk about ODOT's 5-week closure on southbound I-5.

10:36I want to be clear, I support repairing this infrastructure.

10:40I support doing it in a way that makes sure that workers are safe.

10:43I want the road fixed.

10:45What I'm questioning is how ODOT determined that the 5-week continuous closure was the most cost-effective way and whose costs were included in that calculation.

10:54A project doesn't simply become cheaper because the costs move off ODOT's balance sheets.

10:59I've already experienced this on both sides.

11:01As a customer, I regularly drive from Beaverton to a small fitness studio in Portland, and during this closure, I'm choosing not to make that trip.

11:09That's money I would normally spend in Portland businesses that's not reaching the business I'm also a small event producer with an event in October at the Star during this closure.

11:20I don't know how many people won't decide to buy a ticket because they're worried about traffic.

11:24I don't know how the closure might affect my performers, crew, audience, and everyone traveling to the venue.

11:30And that's part of why I'm here.

11:31My question, when ODOT says construction alternative is cheaper than another, is anyone measuring costs like mine?

11:37Councilor Smith.

11:38I'm only one person, but multiply that impact across the region.

11:41Businesses will lose customers and revenue.

11:43Workers will spend more time— additional time in commute and fuel.

11:47Freight and delivery will encounter congestion, driving up the cost of goods.

11:51And Portland streets will absorb traffic displaced from I-5.

11:55Those are real costs, even when they don't appear on ODOT's budget sheet.

12:00I understand this closure begins in 2 days.

12:02I'm not asking for it to stop.

12:03I'm asking you to learn from it.

12:05This won't be the last major transportation disruption Portland faces.

12:09We have additional work needed on I-5 and a much bigger interstate bridge replacement project ahead of us.

12:15I ask the council to document the economic and transportation impacts during these 5 weeks and ask ODOT to publicly show what's included when comparing alternatives.

12:24Did it assign a value to freight delays, road time user loss of business activity, additional fuel consumption?

12:30Thank you.

12:31I found all this information difficult to find.

12:33If those costs were included, please show us the analysis.

12:36If they weren't, we should ask why and make, and make sure they consider it before the major next project, because Oregon has enormous transportation investments in front of us.

12:46Oregonians deserve good stewardship of both our transportation system and our public dollars that support it.

12:54Good stewardship isn't simply finding the least expensive way to build.

12:56Councilor Smith.

12:57Complete a project.

12:58It's understanding the total cost of the choices we make, including borne by the public.

13:03Oregon residents and businesses have their time too— or Oregon residents' time and businesses have value too.

13:10Thank you so much today.

13:13Thank you very much.

13:14Thank you very much.

13:16Next up, we have David Dysart.

13:32Good morning.

13:37Good morning.

13:37My name is Dan Ryan.

13:39I've lived in the downtown area for nearly 20 years and in Portland on both sides of the river for the better part of 37 years.

13:47Portland's grown significantly during that time.

13:49But the city's leadership has failed to address many of the challenges and crises that follow.

13:55We're living with the consequences of small thinking, naive assumptions, and bureaucratic finger-pointing.

14:02We can't solve our big problems if we care more about process than outcomes.

14:07Too often we've made the perfect the enemy of the good.

14:09It's like being surprised 200 people couldn't agree on the perfect sobering sentence, so they just gave up.

14:15But at least every conceivable interest group Too often we're more focused on virtue signaling to our tribes than helping the most vulnerable among us, more concerned about ideology than individuals in need.

14:30Our downtown and adjacent neighborhoods are at the center of these challenges.

14:33Sorry, pause for a quick sec.

14:35Your microphone is off.

14:36Uh, staff, are we able to get the microphone turned on at the desk there?

14:40There we go.

14:40I see the little green light.

14:41Sorry, sorry to interrupt.

14:42Please go ahead.

14:43Do I need to begin again?

14:44Yeah, why don't you go ahead and start over?

14:47Thanks for the trial run.

14:49That's great.

14:51Good morning.

14:51My name is David Dysart.

14:53I've lived in the downtown area for nearly 20 years and in Portland on both sides of the river for the better part of 37 years.

15:00Portland's grown significantly during that time, but the city's leadership has failed to address many of the challenges and crises that followed.

15:08We're living with the consequences of small thinking, naive assumptions, and bureaucratic finger-pointing.

15:14We can't solve our big problems if we care more about process than outcomes.

15:19Too often we've made the perfect the enemy of the good, like being surprised 200 people couldn't agree on the perfect sobering center, so they just gave up.

15:27But at least every conceivable interest group got a voice in doing nothing.

15:32And too often we're more focused on virtue signaling to our tribes than helping the most vulnerable among us, more concerned about ideology than individuals in need.

15:42Thank you.

15:43Our downtown and adjacent neighborhoods are at the center of these challenges.

15:46They bear the brunt of them.

15:48Downtown isn't just another neighborhood.

15:49It's our heart, and it's on life support.

15:53Portlanders have lost confidence in this council.

15:56Taking up ideologically driven agendas from special interests sends a message you're not focused on the critical challenges we face.

16:03Perception is reality in politics, and you're squandering the precious bandwidth you have to win hearts and minds.

16:08Thank you.

16:09We need to care more about who's on our streets than who's in the White House.

16:14We need to care more about who's on our streets than who's in the White House.

16:21Trips to Europe for social housing ideas, banning niche food and renaming already renamed streets.

16:26Our house is on fire and we're picking out curtains.

16:30If you're not focused on economic development, people in crisis on our streets, and public safety, you're not meeting the moment.

16:36Your inaction is doing the talking.

16:39We're hemorrhaging our tax base, driving out the very people and businesses we need to fund basic services.

16:45It used to be a no-brainer to be in Portland.

16:47Now it's a challenged choice.

16:50It's vital we attract more investment and visitors downtown, but we are either unwilling or unable to meaningfully address the human crisis on our streets.

16:58Name one entrance to downtown where visitors don't either immediately or within short distance confront a humanitarian crisis.

17:05We declared a state of emergency on the houseless 20 years ago.

17:10Can we blame folks for thinking we have no idea how to run a city?

17:14Why in 2026 are the same first 4 blocks that folks encounter from the Burnside Bridge into downtown a dystopian nightmare?

17:21Over 40,000 trips go across that bridge every day.

17:25When people see this chaos, they perceive the city is in crisis and unable to deal with its challenges.

17:29Councilmember Herbold.

17:30Leading many to avoid downtown and for some, Portland altogether.

17:34That's not keeping Portland weird.

17:36It's keeping Portland broke.

17:37Thank you for your time.

17:38Good day.

17:39Thank you very much.

17:42Next up, we have Addie Smith.

17:50Addie, you're muted.

17:56Can you hear us?

18:00Um, I'm sorry, Keelan, can you go to the next person and let me go last, please?

18:07Sure thing.

18:07Uh, we'll go on to Alata Fajina.

18:16Alata?

18:27Um, all right, we'll go on to Roger Wohl.

18:35We're just laughing about what showed up up there.

18:41A little levity is well recommended.

18:42So thank you.

18:43Please feel free to introduce yourself for the record.

18:46Good morning.

18:47My name is Roger Wohl, and I am here representing the Oregon Rail Heritage Foundation and the Oregon Rail Heritage Center.

18:54We're located at Tilikum Crossing Bridge at Southeast Water Avenue, and we're part of District 3.

19:00Here today with me are Renee Devereaux, our executive director, Rick Franklin, the board chair president, and Jim Thomas, a board member, and a former deputy city attorney, David Gerling.

19:11I want to begin with something that you all may not know.

19:16The City of Portland owns 3 historic steam locomotives, gigantic steam locomotives.

19:26They're housed at the Oregon Rail Heritage Center on land also owned by the City of Portland.

19:33So we have a very close relationship.

19:36Those locomotives are entrusted to our care through agreements with the city.

19:40Thank you.

19:40For both the preservation and their operation.

19:43These aren't just simply museum artifacts.

19:47They are part of Portland's living history.

19:50They include the Southern Pacific 4449, one of the world's best-known steam locomotives.

19:55It was the American Freedom Train in 1976 bicentennial, pulling historical artifacts over 30,000 miles over 27 months around this nation.

20:06Thank you.

20:09These locomotives bring visitors to Portland from across the country and around the world.

20:13They provide schoolchildren, families, and the public an opportunity to learn how railroads and diverse workers helped to build Portland and our nation, and the important role railroads continue to play today.

20:26More than 40,000 people visit the Rail Heritage Center each year, and our excursion trains carry approximately 30,000 passengers.

20:34You may have heard the Holiday Express whistle during the holiday season.

20:38Today we have an opportunity to protect the railroad that makes much of that possible.

20:45ORF has entered into an agreement to purchase and permanently preserve the Oregon Pacific Railroad, which runs adjacent to us.

20:54This is not an abandoned railroad we hope someday to restore.

20:58It is a working railroad in Portland today.

21:01It serves industrial businesses, connects with both the Union Pacific and BNSF, and preserves a rare and unique urban freight corridor.

21:11Once a railroad corridor like this disappears, it is almost impossible to recreate.

21:22It is also a railroad of our historic trains operate on.

21:27Purchases will be permanently protect our operations strengthen our educational and tourism programs, and preserve an important infrastructure.

21:37ORF has applied for funding through the Oregon State Connect Oregon program, and we're asking that you support us today, not with funding, but with a letter to the Oregon Department of Transportation to support this purchase and the preservation of this corridor in Portland, Oregon.

21:55Thank you.

21:56Thank you very much.

22:01Addie, can you hear us?

22:06Yes, I'm ready.

22:07Give me one second.

22:24I apologize, I dropped my laptop, so it's going haywire.

22:29Hello, my name is Addie Smith.

22:31Today's Wednesday, September 9th, 2026.

22:34I'm speaking before the Portland City Council.

22:36I want to once again call out Sophie Peel at the Willamette Weekly for her racist and biased reporting on Ivory Matthews, the former CEO at Home Forward.

22:47Home Forward still employs Ian Davies, the chief operating officer, who's likely responsible for the $30 million shortfall.

22:55As Chief Operating Officer, he was responsible for the mid- and long-term operations of HomeForward's real estate portfolio, making strategic recommendations on sales, capital issues, and most importantly, cash flow.

23:09The COO should analyze property performance to balance financial returns with improving housing stability and the tenant experience, integrate safety standards across properties, and build frameworks for leadership responses to urgent emergency situations.

23:23Thank you.

23:23The Chief Operating Officer is responsible for overseeing the daily execution of strategic and operational objectives.

23:32They lead the organization's housing service and asset management programs, ensuring that operations are aligned with the organization's mission and racial equity goals.

23:42Ian Davey has not done this and should be terminated.

23:46Sophie Peel, a white woman, hasn't mentioned Ian Davey's Once.

23:50She also hasn't mentioned the former Chief Financial Officer Candy Sage, another white woman, in any of her reporting.

23:57It is racist and it is biased.

24:02Ian Davies has been with Home Forward for 7 years and Candy Sage was with Home Forward for over 20 years.

24:07Not to mention her silence on uneducated and unqualified Michael Bonacore, who's been with Home Forward for over 20 years, but mentions the over $30 million shortfall.

24:16We're talking about training A Black woman attended who worked for Home Forward for 4 years.

24:22Next, I want to call out the Democratic Party of Oregon officers Nathan Soltz, Kim Schmidt, Eileen Keeley, Diane Grover, Kian Trong, Steph Newton, and especially Candy Emmons and Ron Morgan.

24:35The Democratic Party of Oregon officers are racist.

24:38Candy Emmons told a Black woman that she wasn't a fit to volunteer at the state fair.

24:44This after the Black woman had signed up.

24:45Thank you.

24:46Scheduled the time slot, gone to the booth training, and set aside time to go.

24:50This Black woman is an elected PCP, mails dozens of postcards, volunteers their time with multiple Democratic Party committees, and more.

24:58She's also been asked to canvass for the current governor.

25:01However, Candy Emmons says she's not a fit to volunteer at a booth, yet people register to vote at the state fair.

25:08It's time to remove Nathan Schultz and all of the officers in the Democratic Party of Oregon.

25:12They've ignored numerous racist experiences.

25:15Why are Black people consistently told to focus on making sure a Republican doesn't take office over anti-Blackness and racism within the party?

25:23These are white Democrats being racist to Black Democrats within the party.

25:28It is time for new leadership.

25:30I also want to call out the city council, Gresham City Council, Multnomah County Commissioners, and the mayor for keeping the same board members in place at Home Forward.

25:37Thank you.

25:38Thank you.

25:39Thank you very much.

25:43Our alternate today is Susan Murnahan.

25:50Susan?

25:57That completes public communications.

25:59Thank you very much.

26:02Colleagues, our next item is the consent agenda approval.

26:07Uh, Keelan, can you please call the— can you please read the consent agenda?

26:12Yeah, um, the consent agenda, um, I'll call the roll for the remainder of the items on the consent agenda that weren't pulled.

26:21Okay, Koyama Lane?

26:23Aye.

26:25Murillo?

26:27Aye.

26:28Novick?

26:28Aye.

26:29Clark?

26:30Aye.

26:31Green?

26:31Aye.

26:32Zimmerman?

26:33Aye.

26:33Avalos?

26:34Aye.

26:35Smith?

26:36Aye.

26:36Kanal?

26:37Aye.

26:38Pirtle-Guiney?

26:40Aye.

26:41Ryan?

26:42Aye.

26:42Dunphy?

26:43Aye.

26:44The consent agenda is approved with 12 aye votes.

26:47Thank you.

26:47Keelan, can we please call items 6, 7, and 8 together as a packet?

26:59Okay, sorry, just a second.

27:00Let me make sure.

27:09Okay, item— our document 2026-252, initiate foreclosure action on 7250 Northeast Lombard Street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.

27:27Document 2— oh, sorry, document 2026-257, initiate foreclosure action on 4324 Southeast 65th Avenue for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.

27:44And document 2026-258, initiate foreclosure action on 6627 Southeast Woodstock Boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.

27:57Thank you very much, Keelan.

27:58Colleagues, uh, Revenue has asked that these items be referred back to the mayor's office, which they have the right to do.

28:04But I see Councilor Kanal has—.

28:05Yeah, I would object to referring back item 6.

28:09Um, okay, so we have— and, and if I can take 30 seconds to speak to it, it's simply that this isn't our district.

28:16I've gotten absolutely no information on what's gone on, and I don't think it's appropriate for the administration to use the council agenda as leverage without actually talking to us about what's going on here.

28:30So the numbers are changing on the agenda, just so everybody knows.

28:33This is the Lombard one.

28:34Gotcha.

28:35Thank you.

28:35I'm referring to 2026-252.

28:38Well, uh, the administration does have the right to pull items back, and so, uh, I will be asking for the council to have further— for further information on this as the administration pulls it back.

28:50But, uh, Then thank you for coming up, but I don't actually need you.

28:54Uh, the administration has the right to pull these back, and so these 3 items will be placed on file.

29:01And Keelan, can we please call item number 9?

29:07Okay.

29:12Uh, document 2026-306, create new non-represented classification of council public information officer and Thank you.

29:27Since this item was on consent, there is not a staff summary report for it.

29:31Councilor Smith, you pulled this item.

29:34You're welcome to— Can you read the item, please, Keelan?

29:46Yes, I can repeat the title.

29:49Create a new non-represented classification of council public Information Officer and establish a compensation range for this classification.

29:59Document number 2026-306.

30:03Yes, Council President.

30:05I pulled this item because I wasn't quite clear what it was and what the objective was, was going to be for this.

30:12Um, it is in Council Operations.

30:15I thought this particular position was under the city administrator, and I had further conversation with— is Is Dana here?

30:24Dana is in the back of the room.

30:25Yes, come on up, Dana.

30:36And I just wanted to make sure that, um, Dana— we had a conversation yesterday, and I just wanted to make sure that this was a position that was to serve all of council, that this was not a, um, uh, A CA Lee position.

30:51This was not a mayor's position.

30:52This is the position that will serve all 12 of us, and that's what I wanted to make sure.

30:57And we had that conversation in private, but I wanted to say it out here.

31:00That was the reason why I pulled it.

31:02Sure.

31:02Councilor—.

31:03Uh, Council President and Councilor Smith, that's correct.

31:06This position has been—.

31:07Introduce yourself for the record.

31:08Oh darn it, thanks.

31:10Uh, good morning.

31:11Dana Richardson, Council Operations Manager.

31:13Um, this position has currently been serving the council doing a lot of these duties as our senior council aide.

31:22There—.

31:22That's the reason for this new classification, is to better reflect the scope, um, of the work of this individual.

31:30And yes, they work on behalf of the entire council.

31:35And the one point that you made that was very, um, that, that was, that was clear, that the reason why I pulled it in addition to that other issue was that it had something to do with personnel and labor.

31:48And I thought, wow, why is this person doing labor.

31:51So can you explain the other reason why, um, this job description was, was, uh, described in this way?

31:59Yes, Councilor Smith.

32:00Um, as the classification is presented, this position is non-represented, and it will allow the person in this position to speak on behalf of the council when the council has a united position on a labor or personnel issue.

32:16Relating to our employees in labor.

32:18Exactly.

32:19Okay, thank you.

32:20I appreciate it, and thank you for coming up.

32:23Thank you very much, Councilor.

32:24Colleagues, is there any further discussion on this item?

32:28Seeing no one in the queue, this item now moves to second reading.

32:31Thank you.

32:31Can we please call, um, sorry, item— new item number 10, the, uh, Northeast Alberta Street foreclosure.

32:42Document 2026-, uh, I'm sorry, you know what, let me make sure I'm calling the right one.

32:53Um, the document—.

32:56All right, document, uh, 2026-256.

33:00There we go.

33:00Thank you so much.

33:05Initiate, uh, document 2026-256 Initiate foreclosure action on 2734 through 2738 Northeast Alberta Street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.

33:21Thank you, uh, colleagues.

33:22As before, this was an item that was pulled from consent.

33:26There's not a staff summary report available.

33:29I understand there is a person available here to speak to this item, but I will turn to Councilor Avalos and see if she possibly has any opening remarks on it.

33:37You are welcome to say no.

33:39Well, I do.

33:40Yeah.

33:41Okay.

33:41I'll share my chair remarks.

33:43So these ordinances come to the council from Housing and Permitting.

33:48They authorize the city treasurer to initiate foreclosure proceedings on delinquent city liens.

33:54And these were identified through the city's vacant and distressed properties process and were determined to meet the criteria for foreclosure under city administrative rule.

34:03The committee first heard these items on July 21st, and they're definitely Definitely, as you can see, was a lot of mixing around of things.

34:10But, um, at that meeting— oh boy, whatever I was reading just disappeared in front of my eyes.

34:18Uh, okay, hold on.

34:20Um, shoot, one second.

34:28Uh, okay, so, um, rather than immediately advancing the full package, we continued the items to August 4th, um, to give the committee members additional time to understand.

34:42Um, and then that additional time did result in some changes, and so that's why we've got some properties that, um, were ultimately withdrawn after some resolutions were reached, uh, including owners satisfying outstanding balances or entering into payment plans.

34:56We also, um, held the Herald Street property in committee to give the property's owner— uh, property owner's family additional time to determine whether they can resolve the situation.

35:08Um, and yeah, I think that's all for now.

35:10Thank you.

35:11Thank you very much.

35:12Keelan, I understand there is someone signed up for public testimony on this.

35:19Uh, yeah, we have one person signed up.

35:21Miso Honey.

35:24Sorry, somebody is trolling us, Council President.

35:31Oh, is that what— I didn't, I didn't hear it.

35:33Inappropriate.

35:35Fair enough.

35:36I did not catch that.

35:37Thank you, Councilor.

35:39Okay, seeing no one else to discuss this, this item— colleagues, is there any further council discussion on this?

35:46Seeing none, this item moves to second reading.

35:49Thank you.

35:50Can we please call, uh, new item number 11, which is document 2026-272?

36:03Oh, sorry.

36:11Uh, item, uh, yeah, document 2026-272, appropriate grant award of $35 million for Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program.

36:21Colleagues, This is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance.

36:27We've already had testimony and, uh, staff summary report.

36:30Is there any further council discussion on this item?

36:34Seeing none, Keelan, can we please call the roll?

36:36Koyama Lane.

36:37Aye.

36:38Murillo.

36:39Aye.

36:40Novick.

36:41Aye.

36:42Clark.

36:44Aye.

36:45Aye.

36:45Zimmerman.

36:47Aye.

36:47Aye.

36:48Smith.

36:49Aye.

36:49Kanal.

36:50Aye.

36:51Pirtle-Guiney.

36:52Aye.

36:53Ryan.

36:54Aye.

36:55Dunphy.

36:56Aye.

36:56The ordinance passes with a vote of 12 ayes.

36:59Thank you.

37:00Keelan, could we please call item— new number item number 12, document 2026-243?

37:16Aye.

37:17Authorize exception to Code Chapter 17.93, renaming city streets, and authorize the renaming of Cesar E. Chavez Boulevard to Campesinos Boulevard.

37:28Allow exceptions to Code Sections 17.93.010, 17.93.020, 17.93.030, 17.93.040, and 17.93.041.

37:46Thank you very much.

37:47Colleagues, we heard public testimony on this, but this was continued as a first— I believe it was continued as a continued first reading.

37:52But I also understand that Councilor Koyama Lane has an amendment.

37:55So Councilor Koyama Lane, am I wrong?

38:00Point of order.

38:01Oh, okay, I'm wrong.

38:01Second reading.

38:02This is the second reading.

38:03Okay, but I still understand Councilor Koyama Lane has an amendment.

38:06Yeah, first I would like to welcome our Mexican Consul General Carlos Quesnel.

38:11Who's here with us today.

38:13It's an honor to have him here.

38:16The conversation last week was really moving and meaningful.

38:19I want to thank all my colleagues for engaging in very thoughtful ways, honoring the Campesinos community and movement while also acknowledging and addressing the concerns of the residents who want to revert it back to 39th.

38:33And it's really important that we recognize the work of activists and community Naming a street is one of the most visible, permanent ways a city can honor historical legacies, communities.

38:44Additionally, it's important that we listen to survivors like Dolores Huerta and honor Latinx labor leaders and farmworkers by renaming this boulevard to Campesinos.

38:55Thank you to all of the community members who came to testify and support our city's continued commitment to our values.

39:02And as Councilor Smith said at our last meeting, we are making history.

39:05Thank you.

39:05It's true.

39:06History is now, and I hope the history books tell a story of a community that took a stand to honor labor leaders, survivors, and marginalized community members, and ultimately change the code to make a better process for everyone.

39:18That's what we're gonna work on next.

39:21Additionally, I'd like to introduce an amendment.

39:23Our ordinance as it stands has not accounted for the double signage requirement that's in the current code, which requires featuring both Cesar Chavez Boulevard and Calpacinos for 5 years.

39:34This would be unacceptable because of the circumstances around Chavez.

39:38And so this amendment waives the 5-year requirement and seeks to remove Chavez's name from our streets as soon as possible.

39:45This amendment was crafted with the support of folks in PBOT, with DCA, and also a city attorney helped with this, and also Councilor Smith.

39:57And as Councilor Knoll said last week, supporting survivors is part of our commitment to equity.

40:02Moving quickly on this rather than debating it indefinitely is itself a form of that support.

40:07Thank you for those words.

40:10So I would like to formally move Koyama Lane 1.

40:16Councilor Koyama Lane moves Koyama Lane 1.

40:18Is there a second?

40:20Second.

40:21Second.

40:22Councilor Clark, just a little bit there.

40:24Councilor Clark seconds.

40:25Colleagues, discussion of the amendment?

40:27Point of information, where is the amendment?

40:30It should be in your inbox.

40:32In our inbox.

40:33Okay.

40:34Uh, thank you.

40:35To discussion of the amendment, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

40:37Yeah, Council President, I'm sorry to have to ask questions about this, um, but I would like to ask a question of the PBOT director.

40:51What?

40:52Interim DCA.

40:53You're right.

40:54Also acting PBOT director.

40:56Interim DCA and acting PBOT director Williams.

40:59Thank you.

41:00When we had a discussion about the underlying item, I asked you about how the transition would work and the notification of the various entities that make changes in systems so people can still have their daily lives continue.

41:14That was a concern that I heard raised by multiple people who live along the street.

41:19Is the retention of 2 street signs for 5 years Something that we do to help individuals going down the street with wayfinding, or is it something that we do because there is a technical implication for all of those various mapping entities and apps and things like that, which we would be changing by limiting this to a 1-year period of time?

41:47Essentially what I'm trying to understand is, is this, um, Is this about people recognizing what street it is, and is this about the name and keeping a name up there that folks rightfully want removed, or is there a more technical implication that would have an impact on the people who live on the street and their ability to live their daily lives?

42:11Good morning, Councilor.

42:13Thank you very much for the question.

42:14For the record, Millicent Williams, Deputy City Administrator, Interim Deputy City Administrator for Public Works.

42:19And Acting PBOT Director.

42:22To address your question, it's a little bit of both.

42:25There is the technical need for us to maintain the signs and the naming convention as it currently exists today, and that's for any street.

42:34But there's also the need to acknowledge that it does take the time to transition those names through all of the entities that we discussed last week, to include the U.S.

42:44Postal Service, of Of course, the State Department of Transportation and others, the mapping services, all of those folks need to be made aware of those changes.

42:54The reduction in the amount of time does not change the urgency and the need to address that name changing.

43:03And for the record, it does not keep historical systems from acknowledging even 39th Street.

43:12So there are systems today that if you access them looking for Cesar Chavez, Yes.

43:20So there's a longstanding history of names showing up on the record for a very long period of time, allowing people the opportunity to change their deeds, to change the stationery, to change whatever they need to change without there being a significant impediment to them being able to receive whatever it is that they need to receive, for banks to be able to make the changes that need to be made.

43:49And for there not to be any punitive or accidental skipping of people receiving whatever it is that they need.

43:58So does—.

44:01I'm sorry, does limiting this from 5 years to 1 year create a technical difference in implementation and in the experience for people who live on the street, or is it simply about what sign happens to be on the street corner and there is no So there's no technical difference?

44:19There's no technical difference.

44:21Okay, thank you.

44:22Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

44:24Councilor Novick.

44:25Thank you, Mr. President.

44:26I also have a question for the acting deputy.

44:30So I just wanted to— I think that this relates— for how long will the post office deliver mail to Cesar Chavez?

44:40In fact, does the post office even still deliver mail to 39th?

44:43Yes, forever.

44:45They will continue to deliver to 39th, to Cesar Chavez, and then to the newly named street.

44:54And this is for the sponsor as well.

44:57I mean, have we done any outreach to businesses or residents along Cesar Chavez to like ask them if there'd be any particular value to them to having more than More than a year to make this adjustment?

45:11I actually met with some folks in Creston-Kenilworth yesterday, and I were upset about the process, and I was saying, well, you know that the same signs are up for 5 years, and some of them found it reassuring.

45:23I was just wondering if we've done any outreach to folks to ask about whether, you know, a year is long enough.

45:32Thank you for the question.

45:33I've had conversations with some business owners, and And when we were on the dais last week, invited any folks that would like assistance or would like support with the changes to reach out to my office and also suggested that Prosper Portland be tapped for figuring out how we can use some of those small business grants to support.

45:52But this amendment is more of something that we did with PBOT in the last few hours.

45:58Thank you for your support on this, realizing that rather than giving PBOT 5 years to do this.

46:04It actually mandates in the code that you have to have both names up.

46:09So wanted to provide flexibility.

46:10And when talking with Director, Interim DCA, and Shoshana Cohen, they said— I got a suggestion from Shoshana to use the same language that was used when we just changed Jackson.

46:23So this is what they suggested that we did.

46:26That was a year as well?

46:28I believe it's 2 years for, for Jack— is it, is it a year?

46:30I'm sorry, I, I don't have the details on Jackson even though we just finished doing that work the other day.

46:36I can get— I can double-check with Shoshana.

46:38Yeah, I can, I can certainly find that out for you, Councilor.

46:40Thank you.

46:41Thank you, Councilor Novick.

46:42Councilor Smith.

46:43Thank you.

46:44Um, thank you, Interim DCA, uh, Williams.

46:50Uh, I just found out about this 3 hours ago, and I was not aware that there was already an amendment in the work that was being worked on, I was told about this, like, we can bring this up because it might be an issue and we may be able to do this as an amendment.

47:07But this is clearly something that had been thought about.

47:11I was not sure about the 1 year.

47:14I just— it just stuck in my head about the 1 year and giving people time to There's a lot going on.

47:23Giving people time to change their letterhead and all those things, I don't think that 1 year is enough.

47:33That's what I'm saying.

47:36I don't think it's enough.

47:37I don't know that we can get it out in a year.

47:40Do you think we can get this out in a year?

47:43We would not be able— it's likely that we would not be able to do all the name changes and post all of the signs within a year, given the overall process.

47:51So that's what I'm concerned about.

47:55Um, do we need 5?

47:58Probably not.

47:59Uh, but 1 is, is, um, not impossible, but it would be not without its challenges.

48:05So I would like to add another year onto this, add another, add another amendment to this to give more time, because I'm just I'm just not clear.

48:18So I'd like to make a motion and add an amendment to the amendment to give another year.

48:27Does she have the floor?

48:29Sorry, we're in the middle of the one amendment motion right now, so we'll need to—.

48:35So we're unable to— yeah, we are debating a motion.

48:38We cannot make a positional motion during that.

48:40But if the—.

48:42You can—.

48:42We can introduce—.

48:43Thank you, Council President.

48:44Thank you, Council President.

48:46I did have the floor.

48:47I had my hand up.

48:48Yep.

48:50Thank you very much.

48:53Uh, let's see, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, you already spoke, so I'll come back to you.

48:56Council President, is it, um, can I be recognized to pull my amendment and then restate it with 2 years?

49:03Uh, let me get through the queue here real quick.

49:05You are quickly coming up here in a second.

49:07Councilor Knoll.

49:08All right, so, um, just in terms of the, the The renaming of Jackson Street to Rose Hill Street.

49:15Mm-hmm.

49:16That's— we're talking about Ordinance 192142 that was adopted in February of this year.

49:23That does 6 months.

49:25So I'm gonna read from that.

49:27The requirements in the code subsection 1793.060 are hereby waived for the proposed renaming of a portion of Southwest Jackson Street to Southwest Rose Hill Street.

49:35Instead, the existing street name sign and proposed new street name sign shall both be posted and maintained for 6 months following approval for the proposed renaming of a portion of Southwest Jackson Street to Southwest Rose Hill Street.

49:47Why would it be different in this particular— is it, is it simply the length of the street, or is there another reason why, uh, a year would be insufficient?

49:57Thank you for that, Councilor.

49:58After I said 2 years, I remembered that it was a 6-month period.

50:02Part of that is driven by the length of the street.

50:05There are a limited number of blocks.

50:07It's That's 3 blocks that we would need to change the signage on for us to remove Jackson and change it to Rose Hill.

50:15So that is something that we could do quite quickly with limited amount of labor and planning.

50:22And there are a significantly smaller number of addresses that we would need to engage with in order to do that, to make that change.

50:31The Cesar Chavez Street naming, renaming requires— it's a 5.5-mile stretch.

50:37Good.

50:38So we would need to address that, get the signage produced.

50:45There would be some outreach on the staff's behalf, and we would also need to work with the Oregon Department of Transportation.

50:51There are street signs, or there are wayfinding signs that cross the interstate.

50:57And so there would be the need to do that coordination because it would require a closure in either direction where those signs are for us to replace the signs.

51:06So it would take a little bit more effort, or significantly more effort, in order to do that.

51:11Again, something that could be done within a year, uh, uh, because of the length of the, um, street and the details associated, it, um, would be a, a hard, a hard push.

51:24And, um, I'd also like to acknowledge that while we do have staff that dedicate a portion of their time to this This would require the bureau to identify additional folks to help to ensure that we got this over the finish line or create the opportunity for the person who spends most of their time working on, for example, the Rose Hill Street renaming, dedicate almost all of their time to that effort.

51:53Thanks.

51:54So I was— that makes sense.

51:56I was curious if there were any other reasons I think, and maybe this didn't happen between the two, but my recollection is that between April when this came up and now, the one person who makes the signs left PBOT.

52:09That's less of a concern now.

52:11The sign maker did retire in April, so we no longer have a sign shop within the bureau.

52:18We do have on tap contractors who are able to create the signs that we need.

52:28Thank you.

52:32Councilor Clameling.

52:3717.93.06 Implementation A says both names will be in place for a period of 5 years unless a petition is submitted to the city administrator from a majority of abutting property occupants requesting that the dual signage period be extended to 10 years.

52:55Be shortened.

52:55Okay.

52:56Both street names will be maintained for the 5-year period at the same level of maintenance approved for street name sign maintenance citywide, at which time the old name will be removed.

53:09The way this code is written says there's no way in 5 years that Chavez's name will come down.

53:17I would like for there to be some flexibility.

53:19I asked for PBOT for help on what to pick I was told 1 year.

53:25Now I'm hearing something different.

53:27I was actually okay with just changing the wording to up to 5 years so PBOT can have some flexibility.

53:35So I'm seeing some nodding.

53:36So maybe that's what I need to draft rather than asking others for support.

53:40So I will be bringing that.

53:42What I would like is if things are going well, for PBOT to have the choice to take that name down.

53:48Okay.

53:49Not be forced to keep both up.

53:51Because one of my constituents sent me a note that says every time they see Cesar Chavez Street when they go to Safeway or Trader Joe's, they're reminded about men abusing women and getting away with it.

54:04So I will be bringing a new amendment.

54:06I'll withdraw my current one.

54:07Okay.

54:08Councilor, uh, Clark, do you agree with withdrawing that since you seconded?

54:13Yes.

54:13Okay.

54:13Councilor Councilor Koyama Lane's amendment has been withdrawn.

54:17Colleagues, now to the underlying, which changes my order of people talking.

54:22Councilor Novick.

54:25Yes, thank you, Mr. President.

54:27There's an amendment that I thought of bringing last week and decided it wasn't worth it because it's just a whereas clause.

54:32And since then, I've concluded that it is worth doing, and I still wasn't going to do it if there weren't any other amendments because I don't want to post— I'm not trying to mess with the second reading, but there's language in paragraph 2 of the resolution that says there's widespread consensus in the community to make this name change.

54:53And I don't think that's actually true.

54:56The majority of people, individual people who have commented on this proposal, are opposed to it.

55:00There's a lot of people who would like it to be 39th.

55:04So by saying there's widespread consensus in the community, I think it kind of It tells a lot of people that they don't exist.

55:11And although I agree with this name change, I'm concerned, particularly when there really was very little outreach to the broader community about this issue.

55:20I'm concerned about having that language.

55:22So again, because there's another amendment on the floor, we've sent out the proposed amendment, which would simply say under item 2, instead of widespread consensus across the community is coalesced around a shared desire, just say council desires to swiftly rename Portland Cesar Chavez Boulevard in a manner that benefits and honors La Causa Latino, Latinx labor leaders, and farmworker organizations.

55:48So I offer that amendment.

55:50Councilor Novick moves Novick 1.

55:52Is there a second?

55:54Second.

55:55Councilor Kanal seconds.

55:56Colleagues to the amendment?

56:00Councilor Smith to the amendment?

56:02Thank you.

56:05I don't support this amendment.

56:08I think it is general enough and that there is widespread support for this.

56:13I did not say there, there was overwhelming support.

56:17Um, words matter, and there is wide support.

56:20Um, all you have to do is go to my Facebook and Instagram pages and you will see the wide support.

56:27Now, if you're saying the people who live in District 3, I mean, that, that's That's, that's a little bit, um, that's different.

56:36But I think changing the, um, the spirit of what this is, because there is widespread support for this name change, and trying to wordsmith this at this point, I think, is, um, is not Critical for us to pass this ordinance today.

57:00I think it's nitpicking.

57:01Thank you, Councilor Smith.

57:04There's— is there someone else in the queue who wants to speak to this amendment?

57:07Yeah.

57:09Councilor Green.

57:10Thank you.

57:11Um, Councilor Novick is a person who cares a lot about precision in our findings and also our impact statements.

57:19I think it's a more— I think it's truer to say that council just It's a declarative statement of council's will.

57:24Council desires to do this thing, and we're not adding extra assertions about the consensus position.

57:31So for that reason, I'm going to support your amendment.

57:34Thank you.

57:36Anybody else in the queue that wants to speak to this amendment?

57:41It has been— I'm sorry.

57:45Councilor Smith?

57:45My hand is up.

57:46I'm sorry, I can't—.

57:47Okay.

57:47Go ahead.

57:48Thank you.

57:49Thank you, Madam Vice President.

57:53Um, the— is Marta here?

57:58Marta and some of the, um, advocates, could you please come up to the, to the desk?

58:07And so I hate to go over this again.

58:11There were over 350 organizations and individuals who signed a letter to show that there was widespread support.

58:21And if you want to also say, in addition to widespread support, that there is council support as well, okay.

58:29But leaving it where it is— so can you tell me, Mark, could you introduce—.

58:34I'm sorry, Councilor, we, we do not have, uh, public testimony or invited testimony on second readings.

58:39So I appreciate these folks are definitely Of order.

58:42Absolutely.

58:42Can I ask you a question?

58:43Yeah.

58:44Can you give me a point of personal privilege?

58:48Because we're debating whether or not we change a word and we're wordsmithing on the second reading.

58:54If that was a problem, I feel like it should have been brought up before.

59:00Heard, but I am not going to be entertaining additional public testimony at this time.

59:05Sorry.

59:06Thank you.

59:08Thank you.

59:10Okay, it's not allowing us to talk.

59:14Thank you very much.

59:16Councilor Novick.

59:17I just wanted to say thank you, Mr. President.

59:19Um, Councilor Smith, I agree that words matter, and the word that was most of concern to me here is widespread consensus, which implies that everybody agrees.

59:29You've said widespread support.

59:31I would actually be okay if we changed it to There is widespread support in the community for swiftly renaming, etc.

59:40Thank you.

59:41May I answer?

59:43Um, sure, Councilor Novick, that sounds a lot better.

59:50Uh, in that case, hang on, let me, um, see, um, what that would mean.

59:59Um, I'm just doing on the fly.

1:00:02There is widespread support.

1:00:04I would change it to there's widespread support in the community to swiftly rename.

1:00:13And again, amendments, even though I appreciate the conversation, we do need to reduce this to writing.

1:00:21I'll do that.

1:00:21Okay, thank you, Councilor.

1:00:22Councilor Morillo.

1:00:23I just want to get some clarification from Councilor Novick.

1:00:28So when you say in the community, are you talking about within the Latino community?

1:00:33Since you're saying that folks in District 3 in the Laurelhurst neighborhood are not for it, what is the intention of the change now?

1:00:43May I respond?

1:00:44Yes, sir.

1:00:45Um, I think that since we're the Portland City Council, we say in the community, we mean the entire community of the city of Portland.

1:00:52And I would also note, if it matters, that we had a letter this week objecting to the process for this, although they're not the name change from the Creston-Kenilworth neighborhood, not from the Laurelhurst neighborhood.

1:01:06I think that, I think that the community is the entire community of Portland, not just people that some councilors happen to have talked to.

1:01:14Yeah, that's fair.

1:01:15Um, I, I understand that.

1:01:17I think, um, yeah, this is a tough one.

1:01:22Um, I understand why there are times where this council has circumvented process, because I do think we have a tendency to do process for the process at times.

1:01:34And this is very painful specifically for the Latino community, so we're having a bit of a different reaction to it right now.

1:01:43Um, and, uh, honestly, I think some of the comments about changing it back to 39th are also an erasure of what was done With the original name change.

1:01:55And so I just want to name that here as a South American immigrant on this council, as our communities are being targeted and we are being forced to hide and not be seen, not go to work for potentially being targeted by immigration enforcement, that I think we are being told to Hide, not be a part of the public, not be seen in many ways.

1:02:22And so we are not a huge majority in District 3.

1:02:27District 3, like the rest of the city, is vast majority white, non-immigrant.

1:02:33But there are Latinos in District 3 too, and this is uniquely painful for us.

1:02:38So I guess I just want to name that as we're proceeding with this discussion about when we say who the majority is.

1:02:44Thank you.

1:02:45This city is also majority white, and they don't have the ties to that community that's actively being harmed.

1:02:53And, um, and yeah, sorry, I'm a little sick today, so I'm not being as eloquent as I want to be, but I hope that I'm just like naming the, the tension as we're having that discussion moving forward.

1:03:04Thank you, Councilor Morillo.

1:03:05Colleagues, I would like to move this towards a vote, please.

1:03:07Uh, colleagues who are in the queue have each spoken a number of times.

1:03:12I'm withdrawing that and ask my chief of staff to quickly write up the revised amendment that talks about support rather than consensus.

1:03:23Thank you very much.

1:03:24Councilor Smith.

1:03:28Thank you, Council President.

1:03:30I was just going to call the question.

1:03:32Gotcha.

1:03:32Thank you.

1:03:34Point of information.

1:03:35Yes.

1:03:35Councilmember Wilson.

1:03:36Yes.

1:03:36Point of information.

1:03:37Councilor Avalos.

1:03:38It sounds like we have 2 amendments that are being crafted.

1:03:40Can I just confirm, are Councilor Novick and Councilor Priyamalane, are you working on getting us something?

1:03:45Yes.

1:03:46Okay.

1:03:46So is it that we just need to pause until those are ready?

1:03:51Like 5 minutes?

1:03:52Council President.

1:03:53Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:03:54I'm in the queue to propose that we move this until after the next item on the agenda and hope that the time of the next item gives us time to get those 2 amendments.

1:04:04Not because I want to delay this unnecessarily, but because I think we have some folks who are hoping to have an opportunity, and I don't want to delay our meeting stalling.

1:04:13Second.

1:04:14I agree.

1:04:15Okay, then I am going to ask that we move— I don't procedurally know how to do this.

1:04:23We just move to the next item and come back to this?

1:04:26How do I do this?

1:04:27I think you have the option, without objection from the rest of council, to just pause or Pause this item and then come back to it.

1:04:37We're going to pause this item so councilors can get, uh, additional work done, and we're going to move to item 13, which is document 2026-270, and we'll come back to this one.

1:04:50Accept the future of large-scale performing arts recommendations to advance a new Broadway-capable venue as part of the proposed Performing Arts and Culture Center at Portland State University.

1:05:03Thank you, colleagues.

1:05:07This is a continued first— oh, this is a resolution.

1:05:10We are continuing from last week where we heard 53 pieces of testimony.

1:05:14We are now into a position where we have technical and clarifying questions or council discussion.

1:05:23Is there any— yeah, folks, feel free to jump into the queue.

1:05:26Actually, I have a couple of technical or clarifying questions, and I'm hoping that Uh, Donnie or Sue Pak are available to come on up.

1:05:38There's Sue.

1:05:40Hi, Sue.

1:05:42Donnie, she could join.

1:05:55Councilor Oliveira.

1:06:03Thank you.

1:06:05And Sue, maybe you are able to answer this first one, and we'll also, in the process of me talking, we'll give Donnie a few minutes to walk in.

1:06:11But in response to some of the testimony that I heard last week, there was a little— there was some— there was a lack of clarity on whether or not the new Performing Arts and Culture Center will be a city-owned asset.

1:06:25Can you confirm that whatever gets built, where it gets built, this will continue to be a city-owned asset and will have the same share of, you know, of revenue as it does currently with the other P5 venues?

1:06:40Uh, for the record, I'm Sue Pack.

1:06:43Um, my understanding is that it would be a city-owned asset.

1:06:49As to who operates it and what would be Kind of the business plan or revenue share.

1:06:57None of that has been determined at this point.

1:07:00We need a decision first and then we can move on to think through those very important details.

1:07:07And to that exact specific end, the RFP for management of the P5 goes out today, I understand, or at least this week, hopefully at some point.

1:07:19Does the structure imagined in the RFP Give us space to fold in a proposed new theater into the P5 umbrella?

1:07:30The current— the RFP, the way it's written now, is just for the current 5 venues as a part of Portland 5.

1:07:39It will make it clear that PSU is not included, and that would have to be a separate process.

1:07:48And we would need to consider again who's operating and what is the operating model to— and a future RFP potentially.

1:08:01And then one other question I had in response to public testimony that we heard last week was what— and you may not be able to answer this directly, but what was the city's assessment of the seismic risk of the Keller?

1:08:16We heard conflicting things last week.

1:08:18Yeah.

1:08:20So the city commissioned a study in 2020, Miller Consulting Engineers, and their conclusion was that Keller Auditorium would not withstand a major earthquake.

1:08:34In testimony, we did hear from others who were a part of the Halperin proposal and concepting Otherwise, to our knowledge, that was not a full structural analysis of the Keller by a licensed structural engineer, and the only one of that kind was what was conducted and recognized by the city in 2020.

1:09:08Thank you.

1:09:09Colleagues, go ahead and jump in the queue for any technical or clarifying questions or discussion broadly.

1:09:13Councilor Ryan kicks off.

1:09:15Thank you, Council President.

1:09:18Um, questions about the city's financial responsibility.

1:09:21It hasn't been very clear.

1:09:23Um, is it $44 million?

1:09:27The city has not made a commitment at this time to the $44 million that was posed.

1:09:34Okay.

1:09:34So we're discussing a resolution that doesn't have a financial commitment to PSU?

1:09:38There are no financial commitments.

1:09:39The resolution greenlights financial planning and getting clarity on the roles and responsibilities of PSU and the city.

1:09:47Okay, it's been murky at best.

1:09:49So sometimes I hear that we are, sometimes I don't.

1:09:53If in fact we did, we are going to commit, I heard that from PSU itself, when does PSU expect that payment?

1:10:02Maybe someone from PSU who has that expectation— hi, Sarah— could come up and say what that answer is.

1:10:11Huh?

1:10:11Right.

1:10:14So she was walking up.

1:10:16Yeah, we just need this to be transparent.

1:10:21Hi.

1:10:21Sure.

1:10:22Hi, Councilor Ryan.

1:10:23This is Sarah Schwarz, uh, PSU president, PSU Foundation president, and lead for the project, for the record.

1:10:30So this, this resolution simply allows us to get in the room and start to figure out how the financial stack will come together between PSU and the city.

1:10:39At this stage, we have from the last 2 and a half years several partners who have put resources forward and made commitments.

1:10:46So we do need at some point very soon some level of commitment from the city that they are fully in on the project, which includes some identification of resource towards the project Specifically towards the project that will be owned by the City of Portland, which is the 3,000-seat venue.

1:11:03I appreciate you being clear about that.

1:11:05So there is going to be a financial commitment.

1:11:09Um, uh, DCA, hi, you're here.

1:11:12Maybe you have some sense of where the source is for that.

1:11:17Hi, CFO Biery.

1:11:19Uh, thank you, Councilor.

1:11:21Uh, for the record, I'm not City Administrator Raymond Leach, Chief Financial Officer I would just acknowledge, as was mentioned, it's a dynamic situation with lots of possible pathways.

1:11:35And so it just remains, I think, an active conversation to identify how that— both the broader cost share and the city obligation will ultimately play out.

1:11:43Okay.

1:11:44So in summary, we know there's going to be a financial commitment.

1:11:48We know that it's going to be due sooner than later.

1:11:51And we don't have a source identified.

1:11:52Okay.

1:11:53Thanks.

1:11:54Another technical question is about the traffic studies.

1:11:57Did we do a traffic study on Southwest— is that 3rd in front of the Keller between the fountain and the—.

1:12:05Yeah.

1:12:06Did we do a study on what I think a lot of people envisioned is for that to not be a street, but that to be an open plaza that would allow more flexibility as we envision a remodeled and restored, historically restored Keller?

1:12:20The study that we did asked for 3 scenarios since we were at that point considering a 2-venue strategy.

1:12:28So it was renovated Keller, new site at PSU, or both operating simultaneously.

1:12:37And so that was what was requested.

1:12:39And there were no fatal flaws for any of those scenarios.

1:12:46As to—.

1:12:49Kind of a deeper detailed study on the closure of 3rd Avenue.

1:12:54I would have to get back to you on that.

1:12:55I know that was something that was in conversation.

1:12:59I don't have the details or the specifics on what was concluded regarding that.

1:13:06Okay, thank you.

1:13:07So there wasn't a traffic study with that specific vision in mind.

1:13:11What about on Southwest Lincoln?

1:13:14Where it's one lane and then you have the light rail in the middle.

1:13:16Was there a traffic study that looked at the impact of the traffic going to the performances, going to the hotel, up to maybe 4,000 people on that one-lane road?

1:13:27What was that?

1:13:27What was the conclusion of that traffic study?

1:13:31I'd have to look at the technical report.

1:13:35I'm sorry, I'm not so familiar with the The details and the technical, um, this is not my area of expertise.

1:13:44These are questions I've been asking for like 3 or 4 years, so I just want some answers someday.

1:13:49Yeah, thank you.

1:13:50Be happy to share with you the full, uh, traffic study.

1:13:55Thank you, Councilor Ryan.

1:13:56Councilor Green.

1:13:57Thank you, Council President.

1:14:01Um, so we heard some testimony last week on The need to upgrade the performing sort of arts curricula, you know, capacity at Portland State.

1:14:16I've done the tour.

1:14:17It's woefully inadequate for those students.

1:14:19So I guess my question is, the resolution that we're contemplating is about the City of Portland doing a performing arts venue.

1:14:27If the city did not do that, would those students still get an upgraded set of facilities?

1:14:32Yes.

1:14:32To do their, their work in?

1:14:37I would answer that question to say that right now we are fully focused on the vision that we've presented to you.

1:14:41And of course, there can be scenario planning that can happen if in fact there's a change in the direction.

1:14:47But we are fully forward with the Keller— excuse me, with the 3,000-seat venue being a part of the project at this time.

1:14:56Okay.

1:14:57So It's not super clear, but—.

1:15:02Well, if I can restate that, I apologize.

1:15:05The highest and best use of the 4.25 acres is having the 3,000-seat venue at the heart of a larger cultural and academic setting.

1:15:14So we would in fact love over time to have all the appropriate spaces for our students, but at this moment in time, this particular vision makes sense as highest and best use for that set of Okay, thanks for clarifying on that.

1:15:29So I just wanna make sure that we know what we're talking about and the public knows what we're talking about.

1:15:34So we are contemplating a resolution to move us down a path that will go towards a financial commitment, and that's about a performing arts venue.

1:15:46And so all the testimony we heard about the students is ancillary to that?

1:15:50Correct.

1:15:51Really what's before the council is the determination around building the 3,000-seat venue on the PSU land.

1:15:57But if the city council chose not to go down this road, it wouldn't be because the city council made a decision why those students wouldn't get those upgrades.

1:16:05It'd be Portland State University, right?

1:16:06Correct.

1:16:07Then it would be back to us to make determinations from there.

1:16:10Thank you.

1:16:11And I meant to start my timer, Council President.

1:16:14I apologize.

1:16:15Okay, I started it for you.

1:16:16Yeah, I know you did.

1:16:18Okay.

1:16:20CFO Biery, I don't know if you know this answer off the top of your head, and if you don't, that's okay.

1:16:24We can try to get it into the conversation.

1:16:27But I recall when we were thinking through the financial stability work and we're trying to understand our cost centers, the internal service fund and the rate structure that sort of recover those costs Some of that's driven by the Vanport building and the debt service on that.

1:16:48Do you have a sense of scale on that?

1:16:52Yeah, Councilor, I don't know off the top of my head what that sense of scale is, but we can work with the team to get you specifically those amounts and how they factor through those facilities-related interagency rates.

1:17:03Thank you.

1:17:04And I apologize for putting you on the spot like that.

1:17:07You don't want to give an imprecise answer, but the reason I bring it up is because To Councilor Ryan's questions, if we go down this road and then we ended up getting into the same financial arrangement that we currently have with the Vanport Building, that's going to drive an increase in our internal service costs.

1:17:24And so unless we are able to identify a specific source of funds that doesn't do that, we just have to recognize that this would be a decision that raises the overall cost across all of our bureaus.

1:17:34And I know I'm running out of time, so I think the last question I have The question I have actually for the city attorney is that one of the things I've been thinking a lot about is the division of power between the executive and the council.

1:17:46And when we adopt a resolution like this, in the city attorney's view, would it then empower the executive to start signing contracts and negotiating on behalf of the city that would then bind the city in some kind of sense?

1:18:00That's the question I have.

1:18:01Councilor I think generally the city administrator is empowered to sign contracts as long as there's a budget allocation for it.

1:18:12That's what's specified in the charter.

1:18:14So if, if there's not a— if it's not budgeted for, then they're not going to be able to sign a contract.

1:18:23Is that—.

1:18:23Does that answer your question?

1:18:24Or, I mean, it does, because I think the thing I'm concerned about, like, we recently signed a contract with the city attorney's office We just approved a contract for the U.S. Tennis Association, which I know that there's a difference of opinion on that at this dais, but that's a 25-year contract and we approved a 1-year budget.

1:18:41And so I'm starting to get nervous about what is the length of time.

1:18:45Have we failed to sort of clarify what that scope and boundary is?

1:18:48Right.

1:18:49What I don't want to happen here is all of the background information has been said, is sort of couched in terms of don't worry, this does not commit the city to anything financially.

1:18:59You'll always have a choice.

1:19:00But if we take this step, are we then going to be presented with a no-choice scenario where it's like, well, your guys already said yes by a resolution, so now pay for it?

1:19:08Like, that's what I'm worried about.

1:19:09And I, I want to make sure that that's on the record now, uh, because it's not $44 million, it's $440 million, because the $44 is 10%.

1:19:18That's a 10% kitty up front.

1:19:20And that's what I've gotten from my conversations as well.

1:19:22And so if we're going to go down this road of committing ourselves to $440 million with no funding source, I think that's a fair point.

1:19:28We just need to be crystal clear about what that means and what our trade-offs are.

1:19:31So, um, I'll leave it there for now.

1:19:35Uh, thank you.

1:19:36Thank you very much, Councilor Green.

1:19:37Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:19:39Thank you, Council President.

1:19:40Uh, Sue, I want to ask a quick question because you said something in your conversation with Councilor Dunphy that was curious to me.

1:19:48So I, I understand from the previous conversations we had in committee and from the dialogue that you with the councilor— council president that the moving forward with conversations around a city-owned venue on the PSU campus would be separate from our P5 venues.

1:20:09But is there anything in the RFP that's on the table right now for the operation of those venues, or in the resolution that we're moving forward today, that would prevent us from operating a future venue owned by the city and located on the PSU campus alongside our P5 venues if a future city council or administration decided that that was the best choice for the city?

1:20:32The RFP does not limit that possibility.

1:20:35Okay.

1:20:35Nor does what we're considering today.

1:20:37So we're essentially leaving that open.

1:20:39We're not binding ourselves to that.

1:20:40We're also not binding ourselves away from that.

1:20:43Okay.

1:20:44I think that's important.

1:20:45I think these conversations about cost are important.

1:20:49Colleagues, we are being asked how we want to move forward for the arts in our community, and I, I just would ask that we figure out a way that we can take this step in a way that is comfortable for folks.

1:21:04If we need to get some things on the record, let's make sure we do that, but let's move forward.

1:21:09We need to have a venue that can operate these large-scale productions.

1:21:14We need to do so in a way that Doesn't create a break in operations, which would be negative for our community for a lot of different reasons.

1:21:25First and foremost, the jobs, but also the access to culture and the arts.

1:21:30And I think this gives us the step to start to do that.

1:21:32So I hope we take that seriously.

1:21:34It gives us the step to start to do that while also continuing to invest in the Keller.

1:21:40And I hope we can find a way to move forward today without too much delay.

1:21:42Thank you.

1:21:43Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

1:21:45Councilor Smith.

1:21:50Thank you, Council President.

1:21:52I want to go back to the cost of this and something that Councilor Green said in terms of the entire cost of this particular— that the buy-in would be $440 million from the City of Portland.

1:22:08Is this what it is binding us to?

1:22:11The estimated cost for the 3,000-seater at PSU is $447 million.

1:22:18That is not to say that the city would be on the hook for the entire amount.

1:22:22The hope is with this resolution that there can be further work done in terms of financial planning and developing a capital stack to understand what the funding sources are.

1:22:35The city certainly will need to commit But the thinking is there would be diversified sources.

1:22:43So let me tell you what my concern is.

1:22:45I was on the Arts Committee when this came up, and I wanted to figure out a pathway so that the Keller could get done because we actually own that right now.

1:22:56We're not building a stage.

1:22:59We already have a stage that we can go forward with.

1:23:02The other piece that I'm having a dual conversation with myself about is that, um, we have a contract that we have to get done with, with the Blazers, and that is another multi-hundred million dollar deal.

1:23:20And I'm trying to figure out where we get all this money from.

1:23:24Unless there's some money under the, the park benches that I don't know about, it's not clear to me.

1:23:31Um, In terms of getting a capital stack, I would think that you would have the capital stack figured out before you got a resolution from us.

1:23:41Why not go get a capital stack and tell me where you're getting the money from before you're asking me to, to vote blindly on something that I, I don't see a pathway?

1:23:54I don't see a pathway how we do this.

1:23:57That's—.

1:23:57And I needed to explain from our CFO to the to the folks who brought it here how we're going to pay for this.

1:24:04If we want to just do a resolution to say, oh yeah, we're thinking about it and that's what we're going to do, but this resolution binds us to pay for this right now.

1:24:16It does not.

1:24:17But it— but in essence it does.

1:24:19It's saying that we're, we're, we're going to go forward, and then once we find out what the stack looks like, then we would— we're doing things backwards to me.

1:24:28If I may, Councilor Smith, if I could just jump in for a quick moment.

1:24:31So 3 years ago, when the city asked for a proposal for a new venue as a contemplation point, we did do significant work on the PSU side to start to develop what a capital stack could look like.

1:24:42Right.

1:24:43Over the last 2 and a half years, with changes in council and a whole variety of things, any conversations that we might have been able to have with any of the financial folks across the city Those have been put on hold.

1:24:55We have not had any access to speak with people to actually say, here are the 27 things that we have on our list that we think could be possibilities.

1:25:03Not all of them are going to be from the city.

1:25:05They come from a variety of sources.

1:25:07What this resolution does from our perspective is finally allows that conversation to happen.

1:25:13We are not here trying to hoodwink you into any sort of long-term commitment.

1:25:18This is to take that next step that we've really been waiting for for quite a long time.

1:25:22To sit in a room and say, of this list of items and of things that you know, what's our path forward?

1:25:28And again, it will not rely solely on city assets and city dollars.

1:25:32Many municipalities are able to put together creative paths forward.

1:25:36We think Portland has a real shot at being able to do that too, but we need to be able to do that with the partners of the city to figure it out.

1:25:43Right.

1:25:43And I don't think you're trying to hoodwink us at all.

1:25:45I think you're trying to, to get us through this resolution, make PSU the priority.

1:25:50That's what I think you're trying to do without having the other capital stack to go along with it.

1:25:56Um, if I could also—.

1:25:58I'm sorry, just add in on this too.

1:26:00So also over this course of time, we have secured the state bonds, again primarily for the PSU component, but it will serve all of the undergirdings for the entire project.

1:26:10And even more importantly, we have $12.5 million in philanthropy.

1:26:14Yes.

1:26:15Donors who stepped forward almost within the first 6 months of the first round of City Council action, who were very entrepreneurial and said they wanted to step forward to show confidence that there are folks who are willing to support a project of this scale and of this vision.

1:26:30I am the primary fundraiser for it.

1:26:32I am concerned that we will start to lose donor interest in this project and perhaps even donor philanthropy that's been stated to date because of the protracted nature of the project.

1:26:41Thank you.

1:26:42Which is not to say that this isn't huge, and we need to be very diligent in stepping through each point.

1:26:48I guess my— what I would hope that we could walk away from today is a sense of urgency to move forward and suss this out.

1:26:56Because to Councilor Ryan's question and others, and Councilor Green's, it may be that after a couple of months of working together, we may determine in fact that we come back to you and say The path looks pretty different than what we thought it might be.

1:27:11Now we're going a different direction.

1:27:13So PSU and our donors also have a component in this as well too.

1:27:18But again, we're missing the city's voice at the table to actually do the financial stack work.

1:27:24Right, because they want to know that the city is going to come in.

1:27:27And so while we are saying it doesn't, um, it doesn't bind us to this, but it really does bind us to it.

1:27:34And until we figure out how we're going to pay for all these other things that we have in the queue right now, I'm not comfortable right now with this resolution.

1:27:43I'm not comfortable with this at all.

1:27:46And I understand you're trying to keep your donors together, but I also know that there are a lot of students who are not going to be able to go to school at PSU because there are a lot of funding that you're missing on the other public And so while kids are not allowed— are not going to be allowed to go to school because of the funding issues that you have on the public side, not the private fundraising side for this, it just does not look good that you're raising all these millions and gazillions of dollars and then we have students who are not going to be able to go to school.

1:28:22So that's a problem.

1:28:24That's a public relations problem.

1:28:26Councilor Smith.

1:28:26Last year we raised $45.6 million almost specifically for student success and student support at the PSU Foundation.

1:28:35I understand the optics.

1:28:37I think very similar to what City Council is facing, we have to both manage very challenging financial situations at the same time of looking forward toward big vision.

1:28:47An investment forward is one way to ensure that our students will have state-of-the-art facilities that we will grow enrollment in areas where we are already having lots of enrollment growth across the campus.

1:28:58The College of the Arts is a gem for us.

1:29:00We see this as a transformational opportunity and a way to do 2 things at once: work on our financial sustainability and our student support for the immediate future— or for the immediate now, I should say— while being visionary and forward-thinking for our students of the future, not to mention our city of Portland.

1:29:17And thank you very much.

1:29:19We're past 5 minutes.

1:29:20Thank you.

1:29:21Councilor Smith.

1:29:22Councilor Kanal.

1:29:24Thank you.

1:29:25Um, I'll save my comment things for, for later.

1:29:29I, I think, um, the questions I have are, are really derived from a context that, that Councilor Green referenced, um, which is the tennis center.

1:29:39Um, that doesn't sound like it's relevant to everybody, but I want to just be clear that on May 18th, uh, in this chamber, um, we did a technical amendment to extend funding for the, the tennis center Which was going to expire June 30th of this year to December 31st of this year.

1:29:54And in that, I asked whether or not that would commit us to a path of privatization, and I was told no, we'll be— it'll come back.

1:30:01I'll read the transcript in a moment.

1:30:03And then, oh, I found out yesterday in the chamber that a contract has already been signed to transfer control to the Portland Tennis Center.

1:30:11So I agree with Councilor Smith's analysis that this would commit us.

1:30:16Thank you.

1:30:17Um, and there's— so I think that we have to have that conversation, but I don't think it's—.

1:30:21It's—.

1:30:21And that's not because of anything PSU's done.

1:30:24That has to do with the internal side within this chamber and between the 2 floors of this building.

1:30:29Um, that is my concern.

1:30:31I just want to be clear about that.

1:30:32Um, I just— transcript here is Amendment 3, Technical Amendment 3, talks about making— about thoughtful decision-making and implementation of the potential transition.

1:30:42I'm a little curious as to There hasn't yet been a council vote on transferring anything with USTA, and there's several councilors who've expressed concern, trepidation, whatever word, hesitation, let's say, about it.

1:30:52So I'm curious how much this commits us to that course of action without a debate.

1:30:55That's me asking, uh, CA Lee.

1:30:57His response: it doesn't commit you to it.

1:30:59Council officially has to adopt the budget, which this would be a part of it.

1:31:02This is just amending the portions of the mayor's proposed budget as it relates to this work.

1:31:06Council officially will make the decision as it relates to the overall adopted budget, which this may be a included as part of your deliberation with this amendment.

1:31:12And I asked, so the adopted budget is where the decision on transferring, on privatizing this, the Portland Tennis Center, is made, or is that a separate standalone ordinance?

1:31:21It's the appropriation of the money is done through this budgeting process.

1:31:23If there's documentation as it relates to the privatization of that, that would be done separately.

1:31:30So we were told that we were going to get a separate conversation on it, and then behind our back— and I, I use those those words very specifically.

1:31:37It was done around us.

1:31:39I believe that if we were to support this resolution, we're committing to the whole package.

1:31:43Now, that might only be $44 million, $42 million, not the whole, because I recognize that there's other financial components that are part of this.

1:31:54But I did want to ask the council president if you could remind us, how much did it cost?

1:31:59Well, we quoted about moving your desk Across the hall in your district, in your City Hall office?

1:32:06It was about $24,000.

1:32:08Okay.

1:32:09So $24,000 to move a desk, a distance that's about from here to the back of this chamber.

1:32:15That's the internal rates that we're paying, and that's what's going to go up if we don't have another funding source.

1:32:21So that's already, I would argue, too high.

1:32:25I think that's probably a consensus position here, that $24,000 to move a desk is too high.

1:32:30Um, but it's one of several things that we've been quoted these extremely high amounts on here, and, and we as councilors have, you know, the, the charges are levied on us just the same as between the bureaus.

1:32:44So that's a concern that I have.

1:32:46And I, I did want to ask, I really appreciate Councilor Ryan, um, outlining his thoughts, which he's been bringing up for a few years.

1:32:54I also noted in the The ex officio report that Councilor Clark served on that, but did not support this recommendation as per the report.

1:33:04And I would be really curious as we go through the queue, I'm not gonna put you on the spot, if you can speak to that because I think these are questions that I imagine you were more in the weeds as was Councilor Ryan on this.

1:33:19I did wanna say thank you to Sue because I know You were the contact person yesterday.

1:33:25We talked about the Interstate Firehouse Cultural Center, and I know that— I don't know if you still work on that, or, uh, and when we talk about the arts, they're not just large-scale venues downtown.

1:33:37They're also 99-seat theaters on Interstate in District 2 where people have often seen their first plays.

1:33:45And so they're also the Keller that already exists.

1:33:48They're also potentially whatever happens at Piazzetta.

1:33:50Yeah.

1:33:51And so I would love to have that broader conversation here.

1:33:54And I understand that, that there's been a long process going on.

1:33:59And I think one of the challenges is that when you run for office, you kind of inherit all of the muck that came before.

1:34:07And there was a lot of that prior to January 1st, 2025 that we're digging out of here.

1:34:13And that means owning some of the decisions in the past, but it also means owning the fact that the budget is not great.

1:34:17Thank you.

1:34:18And so I don't know that there is the financial resources available to do all the things we would wanna do.

1:34:23And I'm interested as this process continues in exploring if there's a path I hadn't thought of.

1:34:29Thanks.

1:34:29Thank you, Councilor Kanal.

1:34:32Colleagues, I'll just note, I do see DCA Donnie Oliveira hanging out in the back if there are any technical questions that Sue is unable to answer.

1:34:40Councilor Avalos.

1:34:42Thank you.

1:34:44Let me start by saying I'm feeling conflicted and a little bit confused.

1:34:49I'm listening to the answers to the questions that my colleagues are asking, and I'm starting to grow concerned.

1:34:57And so, but I wanted to start by also flagging some amendments that I brought forward in City Life and talked about why I did that.

1:35:05And, you know, I came into this having those amendments feeling Okay, uh, but now I'm— I don't know how I'm feeling.

1:35:13So I just want to be honest that I am grappling with this.

1:35:16But what the amendments were doing, the principle behind them was, um, essentially what I'm hearing, these fears, right, that we're advancing a project, um, but not financially committing to it.

1:35:28And so I amended it in a way that supports— that makes the resolution support planning and pre-development for the, you know, potential new Thank you.

1:35:38Thank you, Mayor.

1:35:38So this resolution is a resolution that authorizes the city to move forward with the development of the proposed Rosewood Park Parkland Park venue, but also preserves council's approval of the financial plan, the capital funding strategy, the city's financial obligations before we make a final commitment.

1:35:46It also makes it explicit that this resolution does not authorize or commit additional city funding for development or construction.

1:35:54Before the city takes on those obligations, staff need to return to council with the total project cost and the city— proposed city contribution, the full capital stack, etc., etc.

1:36:03So I guess what I'm wanting to understand, and I also want to say this for everyone that's left in the queue, because one, I'd love to hear a reaction on like, if you had those fears, did my amendments help those fears at all?

1:36:20And if not, tell me more.

1:36:21I'd love to know.

1:36:22Um, and then I also would love to hear from you.

1:36:25I see you're next in the queue, Councilor Clark, or Vice President Clark, um, about what was going on.

1:36:30Um, and then I think, I guess, what is the, um, this sentiment that people are feeling that if we put this forward, that even though it technically doesn't commit, people feel committed?

1:36:43I think that, um, I want to understand what your expectation is of us by approving this.

1:36:49Like, does— why does it have to come to us?

1:36:51I guess I know that there was a commission and we have to approve findings, and so I guess I'm just feeling I'm trying to understand the process of why this has to come in this way to us.

1:37:02And then also, I imagine it is the expectation that by us approving this planning, that PSU expects us to be part of that capital stack.

1:37:13So I think I'm also wanting to get what happens if we approve this, we move forward, and we as the city, you know, per my amendments, I'm hoping that any decision on actual funding is still gonna come back to us.

1:37:24So I'm not committing any money to this.

1:37:25Councilor Smith.

1:37:28I absolutely agree with my colleagues that I don't even know where that's coming from.

1:37:32But are you going to be expecting us to be part of the capital stack?

1:37:36And if we are not, then what?

1:37:37And then I guess another question of what happens if this resolution does not pass?

1:37:41Because I'm just kind of glancing around the dais and I don't know if people are having appetite for this.

1:37:46And so I think I'm also weighing like, what does that mean if it doesn't pass?

1:37:49So I don't know who those questions are for.

1:37:53They're kind of broad.

1:37:56Maybe let me direct the question around what is the expectation of us as a city?

1:37:59Yeah.

1:37:59Us being part of the capital stack.

1:38:00Like, if we're part of this planning, are you expecting us to be part of that?

1:38:05How are you seeing the city's, uh, role moving forward?

1:38:08Yes, I just want to restate again that this would be the city's venue.

1:38:12PSU was invited by the city, the then council, uh, to come forward with a proposal, as they did for a variety of groups.

1:38:19And we went through a whole process to winnow down to the decision that happened in, um, October of 2024, which was a 2-venue strategy to continue looking at the Keller and to also start moving forward on the PSU site.

1:38:33There was an LOI that was signed in November of 2024 between PSU and the city administrator that clearly outlined the next steps, which included things like developing a capital stack, securing state funding, taking the lead on philanthropic work.

1:38:47We've accomplished all of those things.

1:38:49That LOI also contained a market feasibility study request, an economic feasibility study request, Yes.

1:38:55A traffic study, all of which have been completed.

1:38:58And in addition to that, of course, the mayor's ex officio and the steering committee, which were convened this spring to again review the materials to really look at the issue.

1:39:07I state all of that to say that it's been a very thorough process and it started with the city.

1:39:13So yes, this is the city's venue.

1:39:15PSU is here as your partner.

1:39:17We believe that we can help unlock resources to pay for portions of the city component.

1:39:22But at the end of the day, this came from a city request.

1:39:25It would be a city venue, and the city would absolutely be part of the partnership in financing the project.

1:39:31And by the project, I mean only the 3,000-seat venue.

1:39:35We have all the costs covered for the PSU academic and community spaces, and we have a partner negotiation for the hotel, and we have the parking paid for.

1:39:43Okay.

1:39:44So that's the only part that's in front of City Council.

1:39:46Thank you.

1:39:47And I think also, Vice President Clark, when you go up, I'd love to— if you could share about your amendment with the council.

1:39:52I think I can take that one.

1:39:53Councilor Taylor, and maybe explain a little bit of that.

1:39:55But I think what you're hearing from this council is that, as what I'm realizing as a councilor, is that decisions get made before we're here, right?

1:40:06And we're picking things up.

1:40:08We're also facing unexpected budget shortfalls.

1:40:12I mean, we've had only budget deficits since we've been councilors, so we are very wary of where our dollars go.

1:40:19And so I think just to— so that you— I say that because I don't want you to feel like we don't think that you did your due diligence or that you did the process or that the city started this.

1:40:27Absolutely.

1:40:28That wasn't me, but I am still responsible for those things.

1:40:31But, you know, I have to weigh what is current, right?

1:40:34And what is our current budget capacity?

1:40:37And so I think that's where I'm grappling because I'm like, what— by us even telling you to do this and go through this whole process, what have we unintentionally committed through there?

1:40:48And so I'm not trying to go back necessarily on our commitments, but I am faced with a literal budget reality that I like— doesn't matter what I commit if I don't have money for it, right?

1:40:58So I think that's what we're grappling with, just so you know that it's not about feeling like that process wasn't thorough.

1:41:04I think it was.

1:41:05I think we're just hitting a wall with our budget, and that's what we're weighing.

1:41:09Completely appreciate that.

1:41:11Just very much respect your position, and I'll say again, similar to PSU, right, there's the immediate crunch as well as trying to be visionary for the future.

1:41:18Sure.

1:41:18I also just wanted to note for the capital stack, while the city would be a component of it, there are other dollars including federal dollars that we see as possible for this project.

1:41:27We also see private funders, and we also see philanthropy both local as well as nationally.

1:41:32So I don't want to again soft sell this.

1:41:34There's definitely city dollars that would be put into this, as it being a city venue.

1:41:40And we're just really excited to start doing some of the homework with you all because we think there could be a path.

1:41:46Last thing I'll say, we've done multiple case studies with a whole variety of venues.

1:41:50These only come along maybe once every 20 years nationally.

1:41:53They're a really big deal.

1:41:55You do need to take the time to feel like you are very much in support of this vision and that you see the city wanting to put this forward.

1:42:01So we want you to be doing that too.

1:42:04I will tell you, in none of those cases Did any municipality start down the track knowing exactly where all the dollars are going to come from?

1:42:11If you look at the Dr. Phillips Center, which is really a state-of-the-art 10-acre project that is still continuing to develop today, they went through about 4 mayors and I don't know how many city councils in order to accomplish the project, but they did get there and it is now a gold standard nationally.

1:42:27We see an opportunity for Portland to become a center of gravity like that.

1:42:30I also respectfully understand what you're weighing and this snapshot in time, which is different from where we started.

1:42:35Thank you.

1:42:35A couple of years ago.

1:42:36So thank you.

1:42:37Councilor Avalos, may I respond to your question about why are we bringing this before you?

1:42:43That would be helpful.

1:42:43Thank you.

1:42:44Um, just to back up a little bit, in the previous form of government, October 2024, there was a council resolution that basically there were 2 options: Keller or PSU.

1:42:56The direction was let's try to do both.

1:42:59So that's the 2-venue strategy.

1:43:01Can Portland support 2 large-scale, 3,000-seat Broadway-capable theaters?

1:43:09And then we did economic— an economic impact study, market feasibility study, transportation study.

1:43:16The conclusion was Portland only has demand program supply and market demand for one venue, one large-scale venue.

1:43:26Thank you.

1:43:27So then the question becomes, which one?

1:43:30And that's where our consultants who— Hund and Partners, who did the market feasibility and economic impact study, recommended building new at PSU.

1:43:44And the steering committee unanimously supported building new at PSU, and the ex officio Supported it with the majority, not all members.

1:43:59And so based on all those recommendations, the mayor's resolution is coming forward and saying, let's move forward in planning, not committing, to building a new venue at PSU and reimagining the Keller as a smaller venue.

1:44:18And And we need your support on that approach because the 2-venue strategy is not an option.

1:44:26Thank you.

1:44:26That's all for now.

1:44:27Thank you, Councilor Avalos.

1:44:28Colleagues, just a heads up, there are 8 more councilors in the queue.

1:44:31I am going to limit debate after Councilor Clark concludes, so if anybody else wants to get in the queue, uh, please do now.

1:44:38Vice President Clark, take it away.

1:44:39Uh, thank you, Councilor President.

1:44:40I wasn't prepared to actually, um, make a huge statement.

1:44:44I was going to save that But I'll, I'll try to weave it all together.

1:44:46You can do that after.

1:44:47Um, I really appreciate, um, Councilor Avalos's, um, amendments and my own.

1:44:52I think we were both trying to thread the needle.

1:44:54We're both trying to make this palatable and protect ourselves.

1:44:58And, and from my perspective, it's to keep, um, working on the Keller.

1:45:03Um, clearly I've been an advocate for the Keller all the way through this process.

1:45:08On the ex officio committee, I was pro Keller.

1:45:11I think that the transportation study was substandard.

1:45:14I really do.

1:45:14I don't think it was, um, as complete as it should be given the impact of 405 and the light rail right in front of the facility.

1:45:22Um, I wasn't happy with the Hundon, uh, report.

1:45:25I thought they went beyond what they were asked to do by making a recommendation to support, um, PSU.

1:45:32Um, so I was on the, um, short end of the stick in the ex officio group.

1:45:38But I realized I was on the losing end, and I said, well, what we need to do is to have addenda, which you and I have addressed in our amendments.

1:45:46I did want to go back to what some of the other— my other colleagues mentioned earlier and just pursue this.

1:45:54I, I'm not— I don't understand why we need a resolution necessarily.

1:45:57I mean, this is work that could be done by the administration, you would think.

1:46:01You know, a lot of this work However, I'm very sensitive to the fact that PSU needs to have a new academic facility.

1:46:12My choir practices at PSU.

1:46:14It's as bad as my high school.

1:46:16You know, they do need another facility.

1:46:18So I respect that.

1:46:20And they went to the legislature, they got the funds, and I don't want to get in the way of that.

1:46:26I want them to have that facility.

1:46:28Thank you.

1:46:29Lots of concerns obviously have expressed all the way through this process.

1:46:33I want to go back to what Councilor Green brought up about the commitment.

1:46:39And in the, um, in the resolution, it talks about December 1st.

1:46:44Does that mean that on December 1st, this— the report answering all these questions that are in the resolution is coming back to us?

1:46:52Maybe— I don't know if Donnie Oliveira can answer that.

1:46:55Is that going to be a decision point for us December 1st?

1:46:59What does that mean exactly?

1:47:01And, and to the point about decisions get made without us having a vote, I want to be very clear that, and as you have amended this resolution to say, we are not making a financial commitment.

1:47:16End of statement.

1:47:17We are not.

1:47:18But what happens on December 1st?

1:47:20Does it come back to us at that point?

1:47:21Yes.

1:47:22Are you coming to council for another decision?

1:47:25Yeah, thank you for the question, Vice President Clark.

1:47:29Donnie Oliveira, for the record.

1:47:30Apologize I couldn't be here any sooner.

1:47:32Um, Councilor, I think the place to start is picking up something that both Sarah and Sue have, uh, expressed already.

1:47:41Part of the resolution, part of the intent, if it was here, was to stop the swirl, um, that was going on for the last several years.

1:47:47I've been a part of this conversation for for many years as well about what to do with the venues.

1:47:52And the reality is, is all we're asking for is a green light to formally sit down with PSU to contemplate what it might look like for the city to participate in this— the RFP process that we started, to Sarah's point, about investing in a performing arts venue on a PSU parcel.

1:48:11As a reminder, the reason why we're even here is because when we started contemplating a renovation of Keller, Very quickly we understood that the impact of doing that, of pausing Broadway operations programming, would be detrimental not just to Broadway but to our overall P5 venues.

1:48:28So that's why that secondary venue even became a scenario to contemplate.

1:48:32So it's not just a pick one or the other, it is what is the opportunity cost or impact to only do Keller.

1:48:38So that's where the secondary venue option even began to become a possibility, was we started to realize that you can't just displace Broadway for 6 months.

1:48:46That's not viable.

1:48:48You can't just pay off the labor.

1:48:50That's not real.

1:48:51What is real is we want to sustain Broadway operations.

1:48:54So back to your question.

1:48:56So we have this resolution before you, and thank you, Councilor Avalos, for your amendments that crystallize that we need some to do some homework that we haven't done, by the way.

1:49:04And I just want to acknowledge this right now candidly with you all.

1:49:07If we had done all the work and come to you all with a really baked capital stack, Thank you.

1:49:11I'm guessing there would have been some frustrations that we did that work without getting a green light from you first, right?

1:49:16So there's a little bit of a tension here.

1:49:18What do you want us to do?

1:49:19Bring you the numbers or get your permission to do advance that work in transparency?

1:49:24So here we are asking, hey, administration, go forth, figure it out, work with PSU, and come back to us on December 1st with a concept that we can get behind.

1:49:35Or maybe not.

1:49:37Maybe it doesn't work out.

1:49:39We haven't done the work yet.

1:49:40We really haven't.

1:49:41Our CFO hasn't been involved because we haven't started that conversation.

1:49:45So I completely hear the concern that many of you have about committing dollars.

1:49:49Completely fair.

1:49:50We're concerned too because we haven't started the work.

1:49:54So, Councilor, December 1st, best-case scenario, we work out with our partners at PSU with a viable option for this council to contemplate Maybe it's for $44 million, maybe it's for $100 million, maybe it's for the full capital stack because we, we hit the lottery.

1:50:08But I don't have that information for you because we haven't started the work.

1:50:12Is that helpful?

1:50:14Yeah, I appreciate that.

1:50:16And I won't take up any more time.

1:50:18I'd like to come back later and talk about this a little bit more.

1:50:21But I am, bottom line, very concerned about the money.

1:50:25And I would just reiterate what I've heard from my colleagues is there is no We're focused right now on MOTA.

1:50:32How do we get the money for MOTA?

1:50:34I just don't— I don't foresee us coming back in December and saying, okay, capital stack, yeah, we're going to go for this money.

1:50:40I think we're going to be in the same place in December that we are today, unfortunately.

1:50:48But I am trying to thread the needle.

1:50:49And I know, Donnie, with all due respect, that you didn't like my amendments about keeping Keller alive, but I do think that we can make small investments in Keller.

1:50:57We're going to keep Keller open while we go through this process.

1:51:01Keller has to stay open for the Broadway in America shows, and Keller has to stay open to be able to support P5.

1:51:08It's the only profitable thing we have in P5.

1:51:11So I'm just worried that we're, we're not kicking the can.

1:51:14We're getting more information, but we are going to keep Keller alive.

1:51:18And Keller, in this resolution, we amended it to do this in tandem with the Keller.

1:51:26I'll just leave it at that.

1:51:26Thank you, Mr.

1:51:27Chair.

1:51:28Thank you, colleagues.

1:51:28There are 10 councilors in queue.

1:51:31It is 11:15.

1:51:32Our staff need a break.

1:51:33I'm going to give us a 15-minute break and come back here at— okay, I'm gonna give us a 12-minute break.

1:51:38I'm gonna have us all back here at 11:30.

1:51:41Thank you.

2:06:07Council is adjourned.

2:06:10Welcome back, folks.

2:06:11Thank you all so much for your patience.

2:06:13I understand we are going to be losing a couple folks here in a few minutes.

2:06:16And so, colleagues, with your permission, I am going to— I have noted the queue in the lineup for the conversation with regard to the large-scale performing arts venue.

2:06:28We are going to go back to the Campesinos item.

2:06:33I understand there are still 2 amendments and then an underlying— then we will move to pass it.

2:06:41So with your Permission, colleagues, I would like to again pause item 13 and reopen item 12.

2:06:52And Keelan, do you need to read it, reread it, or are we just on it now?

2:06:55Yeah, I, I think we can just move back to it since I've already read it.

2:06:59Okay, colleagues, go ahead and pull yourselves out of the queue for the, uh, Keller item and feel free to jump into the queue for the now reopened item 12, document 2026-243.

2:07:12And I believe we have amendments to start with.

2:07:14Is this correct?

2:07:15Councilor Koyama Lane, would you like to start with yours?

2:07:18Yes, I would like to move Koyama Lane Amendment 2.

2:07:23You should have a copy of that in your inbox.

2:07:26It connects what we were talking about earlier.

2:07:28It now states that the requirements in code subsection 17.93.060.A are hereby waived for the proposed renaming of Northeast and Southeast Cesar Chavez Boulevard Instead, the existing street name sign and proposed new name sign shall both be posted and maintained up to 5 years following approval for the proposed renaming of the names.

2:07:57Thank you for your feedback, and I'd like to formally move this amendment and would appreciate a second.

2:08:02Second.

2:08:02Councilor Koyama Lane moves Koyama Lane 2.

2:08:04Councilor Clark— Vice President Clark, do you move?

2:08:05Second.

2:08:06Second.

2:08:07Colleagues, is there discussion of this amendment?

2:08:11Councilor Murillo?

2:08:12No.

2:08:12Councilor Novick?

2:08:14No.

2:08:14Councilor Pirtle-Guiney?

2:08:15Thank you.

2:08:16I appreciate the changes.

2:08:18And I just want to say on the record that I hope that PBOT, because this is a flexible timeline, gives notification on the specific timeline that residents along the street should expect to those residents with some Some advance warning.

2:08:34For example, if 10 months in you think you can do this in 18 months, shoot folks who live on the street and have businesses on the street a letter letting them know that.

2:08:44I hope that PBOT is listening.

2:08:46I don't see folks in the room, but I will follow up to make sure they know that that is a request.

2:08:51Thank you, Councilor, for amending your language.

2:08:54Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

2:08:57Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion of Uh, Koyama Lane 2.

2:09:01Keelan, could we please call the roll?

2:09:02Moved by Koyama Lane, seconded by Clark.

2:09:05Koyama Lane.

2:09:06Aye.

2:09:06Morillo.

2:09:07Aye.

2:09:08Novick.

2:09:11Aye.

2:09:12Clark.

2:09:12Aye.

2:09:13Aye.

2:09:14Aye.

2:09:15Denphy.

2:09:18Aye.

2:09:19The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.

2:09:22Thank you very much.

2:09:23Councilor Novick.

2:09:25Thank you, Mr. President.

2:09:27I'd like to move my rewritten amendment, which is Novick 2, because we sent out an erroneous version first, that the amendment would amend paragraph 2 to say there is widespread support in the community to swiftly rename Portland Cesar Chavez Boulevard in a manner that befits and honors, et cetera, et cetera.

2:09:48Second.

2:09:49Councilor Novick moves Novick 2.

2:09:50Councilor Kanal seconds.

2:09:52Colleagues, is there further discussion of the amendments?

2:09:57Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll on Novick 2?

2:10:01Moved by Novick, seconded by Kanal.

2:10:05Koyama Lane?

2:10:05Aye.

2:10:06Murillo?

2:10:09Aye.

2:10:09Aye.

2:10:10Aye.

2:10:11Aye.

2:10:12Aye.

2:10:12Aye.

2:10:12Aye.

2:10:12The motion passes unanimously.

2:10:20Aye.

2:10:21Aye.

2:10:22Dunphy?

2:10:22Aye.

2:10:23The amendment is approved with 12 aye votes.

2:10:26Thank you.

2:10:26Councilor Vice President Clark?

2:10:28Uh, thank you, Council President.

2:10:29I would like to offer an amendment, um, to the ordinance to add an emergency clause.

2:10:32Uh, I believe it's important that we move this item forward and not delay another week.

2:10:37We would like to ensure that we are responsive to community concerns about the negative impact of survivors of abuse and others, and to ensure that we facilitate the timely operation of Okay.

2:10:50Thank you.

2:10:50Vice President Clark moves Clark 1.

2:10:52Uh, Councilor Ryan seconds.

2:10:54The, uh, this amendment's been reviewed.

2:10:56I see it in writing, so I see a copy.

2:10:57Do we have a copy of it?

2:11:00I have.

2:11:01Okay.

2:11:03Uh, of the emergency clause?

2:11:05Yeah, the emergency clause.

2:11:06Yeah, we can send it.

2:11:08Okay, I'm gonna get that into your inboxes, colleagues.

2:11:11Uh, any discussion of the Clark 1 amendment?

2:11:18Keelan, have you gotten a copy of this yet?

2:11:21Um, let me check.

2:11:26I think my team is clear on the reason for the emergency, so I think we can proceed with the vote if you're ready.

2:11:32Sounds good.