--- title: "Portland City Council City Life Committee Meeting 10/27/26" date: 2026-10-27T14:00:00-07:00 durationMinutes: 70 videoUrl: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhbqAf7gjgA" --- # Portland City Council City Life Committee Meeting 10/27/26 **The City Life Committee voted 5-0 to send full City Council an ordinance declaring two Portland Bureau of Transportation parcels in District 1 surplus property and authorizing their sale at fair market value, with a recommendation that it pass ([00:26:54](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1614)).** ## Surplus lots near I-205 sent to full council Councilor Dan Ryan (District 2) moved the referral, and Councilor Eric Zimmerman (District 4) seconded ([00:26:21](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1581)). Councilors Candace Avalos (District 1) and Angelita Morillo (District 3) and committee chair Elana Pirtle-Guiney (District 2) joined them in voting yes. David McEldowney, Real Property Services Division Manager, said the parcels sit at the east end of the Foster-Woodstock couplet, about two blocks east of Interstate 205. They are remnants of that road project and total about 3,500 square feet, enough to be built on without combining them with another lot. The transportation bureau will keep a 3-foot strip along Woodstock for future sidewalk widening. No other bureau or outside agency wanted the land. McEldowney said holding it has costs: last year brought more than 300 campsite complaints and 24 camp removals estimated at **$45,000** ([00:19:18](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1158)). Morillo asked whether the city's housing bureau had considered the parcels for land banking. "The response back we receive from PHB is they're not really interested in onesies, twosies," McEldowney said ([00:22:39](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1359)). Pirtle-Guiney asked whether the city offers lots like this to affordable-housing developers before listing them publicly. "Not that I'm aware of," he answered ([00:24:05](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1445)), adding that any such buyer would have the same priority as other purchasers. He offered to follow up with the housing bureau, and Pirtle-Guiney said she wanted that information before the full council vote ([00:26:50](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1610)). One person signed up to testify but did not speak when called. ## Cable fees projected to keep falling In a presentation with no action attached, Andrew Speer, Franchise Utility Program Manager, said the city collects "just over $100 million a year" from companies using the public right-of-way, making that revenue the third-largest contributor to the general fund ([00:29:19](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1759)). Cable subscriptions peaked in 2016, and he expects 15,000 or more fewer subscribers by the end of 2026. Comcast pays a franchise fee of 5% of gross cable revenue under a 10-year agreement renewed this year that runs to 2036. By its last years, Speer projected franchise fees "well under $2 million." He projected that fees for public, educational and government (PEG) channels would drop below $500,000. He said a 2019 Federal Communications Commission "mixed-use rule" lets the city charge fees only on cable revenue, not internet revenue. Comcast, Speer said, is the only cable provider in Portland ([00:55:13](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=3313)) and holds a market share of "over 80%." His back-of-the-envelope estimate put the uncollected sum at "just under $12 million of fees that we could be assessing to Comcast but currently cannot" ([01:05:54](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=3954)). Pirtle-Guiney said charging smaller internet companies but not the largest provider "seems a bit, a bit off" ([01:06:53](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=4013)). Speer said PEG channels can be watched only by cable subscribers. He also said he knew of no city that had stopped issuing cable franchises ([00:59:42](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=3582)). Pirtle-Guiney asked staff to plan for keeping all community programming, not only council meetings, available to residents regardless of streaming subscriptions. Ryan said "a democracy doesn't move forward without providing such access to public meetings" ([01:07:44](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=4064)). Morillo asked about changing the city's 2018 fee method for small wireless cell sites. Speer said a change is under consideration after code updates; a separate per-foot fee change would bring in "maybe tens of thousands" ([00:49:18](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=2958)). He said the wireless industry once forecast 700 small cells in Portland and ended up with about 230 ([00:52:57](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=3177)). Zimmerman said he wanted a staff recommendation rather than "A council-driven type of process." He also joked that the chair had lived up "to the spirit of public access television today, that this session might be one of the greater monotonous sessions" ([01:04:26](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=3866)). Pirtle-Guiney replied: "We had a session today where somebody rapped and danced on the testimony table, so I'm not sure what's boring about today's meeting" ([01:05:43](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=3943)). ## Public comment: Clean and Safe critique, a fentanyl song Three people spoke during open comment. Galib Bin Imhotep El praised the Trail Blazers' season-opening win, which he recalled as "by, I think it was 42 points" ([00:09:37](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=577)). Anita Davidson, a downtown condominium owner in District 4, said "almost nothing has improved since the city auditor reported recommendations in late 2020" for the Clean and Safe district ([00:12:28](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=748)). She said its directors remain bound by nondisclosure agreements, ratepayers cannot see budgets or minutes, and the program carries "20% overhead" for services the city now provides itself. She also noted the tabled Parkrose proposal and the withdrawal of the St. Johns and Pearl neighborhoods. Alex Stein said "Portland's got the cleanest and the best fentanyl" and began singing a song about injecting the drug. Pirtle-Guiney cut him off: "I think that we're gonna need to, uh, we need you in the chair, or—" ([00:17:17](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1037)). Stein responded, "I'll leave, but just tell me why I'm leaving," and added, "I have my First Amendment right to speak" ([00:17:30](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1050)). The chair then said "we are not suggesting folks come here to use illegal drugs, um, but we do provide opportunity for anybody who wants to to sign up and speak" ([00:17:45](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=1065)). Any dancing is not audible in the record; it is known only from the chair's later remark. ## Other business The committee approved minutes from its two September meetings by unanimous consent ([00:08:30](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=510)). Ryan did not answer the opening roll call but voted on the surplus property item. ## What's next The surplus parcel ordinance goes to full City Council, and Pirtle-Guiney asked for information on offering such lots to affordable-housing partners before that vote. Comcast's franchise runs through 2036, and Speer said negotiations typically begin about two years before expiration. The committee meets again in two weeks to take up the city's cannabis program fees and administration-proposed code amendments, plus an administration ordinance with new equity and workforce provisions for a city program ([01:08:21](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-27-clc-1?t=4101)). --- ## Minutes Approval **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [6:47] Good afternoon. It is It is 2:02 on Tuesday, October 27th. I am calling to order this meeting of the City Life Committee. Keelan, could you please call the roll? **Keelan McClymont** [6:58] Good afternoon. Zimmerman? **Eric Zimmerman** [7:01] Here. **Keelan McClymont** [7:03] Avalos? **Candace Avalos** [7:05] Present. **Keelan McClymont** [7:07] Ryan? Morillo? **Angelita Morillo** [7:11] Here. **Keelan McClymont** [7:13] Pirtle-Guiney? **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [7:13] Here. Kevin, could you please read our rules of order? **Keelan McClymont** [7:19] Welcome to the meeting of the City Life Committee. To testify before this committee in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda/city-life-committee or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes 1 hour prior to the meeting. In-person testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the chair states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [8:30] Thank you very much, colleagues. ### 1. City Life Committee draft meeting minutes for September 8, 2026 and September 22, 2026 **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [8:32] The first item on our agenda today is approval of our meeting minutes for our 2 September meetings. I'm sure everybody has read them thoroughly. Do I have unanimous consent to adopt the minutes? Not seeing any objections, we will adopt the minutes for our 2 September meetings. ## Regular Agenda **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [8:50] Keelan, could you please call the next item on our agenda? ### 2. Public input on City Life Committee topics **Keelan McClymont** [8:52] Item 2, document 2026-383, public input on City Life Committee topics. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [9:00] Thank you. And for folks who are listening in for the first time, every week we make sure to have time for people to talk about items that fall within the jurisdiction of the City Life Committee but that are not on our agenda, and I believe we have a few people signed up today. Keelan, could you please call up our first testifier? **Keelan McClymont** [9:21] Uh, first up today we have Galib Bin Imhotep El. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [9:28] Welcome. Thank you for joining us. **Galib Bin Imhotep El** [9:37] Greetings, committee members. Um, usually I have a speech or something to say about city life that's more pertinent or civilly, you know, progressive. But today I'm just going to talk about something that happened here over the past week and a half that I think solidified my position in this city as far as whether I'm going or staying. About, I want to say, 4, maybe 5 years ago, I can't remember exactly how long, but LeBron James somehow slipped up and became a Los Angeles Laker. I stopped watching basketball. I could not bear to know that my team from birth decided to pick up a guy who I just can't look at as far as great basketball players. I just don't see it in him. Great athlete, not great basketball player. Anyway, he left the Lakers and I said, great, now I can watch basketball. Then lo and behold, he left something behind. What? His son, Bronny. I can't be a Laker fan, I'm sorry. So I made a switch, and what better switch to make than a team that I've always kind of enjoyed watching play basketball, a very gritty team, Portland Trail Blazers. I'm in the city, why not? So, um, the first game of the season happens. I get to see 21 points scored. Ja Morant and Damian Lillard get hot and get on fire before anything else happens in the NBA. What a welcome as a fan. I'd like to go on public record to tell the Portland Trail Blazers, thank you for such a great welcome package. The best opening game in the history of the Portland Trail Blazers was this season's opening game. Thank you. They won by, I think it was 42 points. It was outlandish. I, I watched it from probably the 5th minute of the first quarter to the end, and I smiled the entire time. They never let up. They look like they're going to do great things this year. I can easily see in 5 years a team of this nature making it a long way. Hopefully they make it another 2 decades and 5 years in this same city. I just wanted to let you guys know that I love the Portland Trail Blazers, I love the city of Portland, and I love you all unconditionally. Thank you. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [12:14] Thank you for being here and for the recounting of that fantastic game. **Keelan McClymont** [12:21] Next up, we have Anita Davidson joining us online. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [12:25] Welcome, Ms. Davidson. Thank you for being here. **Anita Davidson** [12:28] Thank you. Yes, my name is Anita Davidson, and I own a condominium downtown in District 4. I'm here to give you a ratepayer's report card on Clean and Safe and to introduce a couple of new concerns. Unfortunately, from our perspective, and I speak for more than myself, almost nothing has improved since the city auditor reported recommendations in late 2020, and the consultant hired by the city echoed those in 2024. The first category was governance. The ESDs were to become more representative, transparent, and accountable. Ratepayer representation at Clean and Safe has not increased, however, and directors are still bound by nondisclosure agreements. Ratepayers still have no access to meetings, minutes, budgets, agendas, resolutions, or reports. The program measures Clean and Safe reports also need updating. The second recommendation had to do with oversight. The city established an ESD coordinator position, and the job has become one of liaison and advocacy. That has its purpose. Unfortunately, those are incompatible with oversight. A good cop, bad cop can rarely be done by one person. The 3rd recommendation had to do with creating guidelines, which was done in 2024 in a draft ESD handbook and draft ESD petition packet when Clean and Safe lobbied for expansion. However, the documents were flawed, were public— never publicly vetted, never run through City Council for approval, or approved as administrative rules. Essentially, the ESDs are running on procedures created by the ESD coordinator, and they remain flawed. In 2024, we raised multiple issues about those specifically related to insufficient notification and lack of criteria for the repair support required. The guidelines were rolled out anyway, and, and then the flaws have been caught by these new neighborhoods now considering ESDs. This committee itself has before it the tabled ordinance for— proposed ordinance for Parkrose with similar objections, and St. Johns and Pearl neighborhoods have withdrawn. So I consider this, this area of guidelines also to be a failure so far. But now I have my 2 new concerns because I've done additional research since. Actually, the days of enhanced services are gone, and I'd like the City Life Committee to consider this. Everything Clean and Safe does offers is now a basic service funded and provided more efficiently and more cost-effectively by our government than through Clean and Safe with its 20% overhead. The city's realized that— realized this, that we need this for revitalization, and now provides its own sidewalk cleaning, graffiti removal, extra security, extra lighting, year-round holiday lighting, PBOT pays TriMet to clean and secure the transit mall. The state has paid Clean and Safe to provide extra security downtown, and parks now are using Clean and Safe to run the extra parks. But why are we ratepayers required to pay for these as enhanced services? Finally, I'd just like to say that there is a better picture, a better model, and that is in Seattle. The links and so forth are in my written testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Thank you. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [15:43] Thank you so much for raising these concerns. We appreciate it. **Keelan McClymont** [15:48] Next up, we have Alex Stein. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [15:52] Welcome. Thank you for being here with us. **Alex Stein** [15:54] Yo, yo, thank you for having me. Yo, my name is Alex Stein. I came from Texas. I was here, uh, for a rehabilitation stint, and I'll be honest with you, Portland's got the cleanest and the best fentanyl In the world. And I know a lot of other people, a lot of other cities, they say, oh, our fennel's the best in Vegas. It's not as good. And that's why I love Portland. That's why I'm never leaving Portland. And my great-great-great-grandmother was a slave, and my great-great-great-grandfather was a plantation owner. So I'm 1/32nd Black, and I see a room full of whites. I see like one other Black dude. He's talking about LeBron James. And I was like, that's what I'm talking about. But LeBron James is not on fentanyl. And so what I'm saying, if you thinking about coming to Portland, if you thinking about it, you need to get up on here. So I made y'all a little song about how much and how clean the fentanyl is up in this. All right? So this is for all, all the people curious, all the addicts out there. Yo. Yo, I love that fentanyl. I stick that needle in my vein. I mix the fentanyl with a little cocaine, Portland, this city is insane, 'cause I'm freaking, I'm freaking. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [17:17] I think that we're gonna need to, uh, we need you in the chair, or—. **Alex Stein** [17:23] What am I doing wrong? **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [17:26] We're happy to hear from you. What am I doing wrong? We're happy to hear from you, but—. **Alex Stein** [17:30] I'll leave, but just tell me why I'm leaving. I never—. Why? Wait, wait, wait, wait, I have my First Amendment right to speak. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [17:37] Thank you very much for being here with us today. **Alex Stein** [17:40] Y'all got the cleanest fentanyl. Y'all got the cleanest fentanyl. It's causing illegitimate crap lives. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [17:45] I will just add to that in the time that's left that, uh, we are not suggesting folks come here to use illegal drugs, um, but we do provide opportunity for anybody who wants to to sign up and speak. Keelan, do we have anybody else signed up today? **Keelan McClymont** [18:07] That completes testimony for this item. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [18:09] Hey, well, there we go. Um, Keelan, could you please read the next thing on our agenda? ### 3. Declare two parcels of land as surplus property and authorize the Bureau of Transportation to dispose of the property for fair market value **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [18:17] Uh, item 3, document 2026-371, declare 2 parcels of land as surplus property and authorize the Bureau of Transportation to dispose of the property for Thank you both for being here. Colleagues, I'll remind you that at our last meeting, we had a conversation about broadly when and why pieces of property are sold, when the city decides that we don't want to hold on to any property any longer. So this is the, the next piece coming forward for us to consider. Councilor Dan Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. **David McEldowney** [18:59] I'm going to have a hard time topping that last act. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [19:06] As long as you don't start dancing on the table there, we are fine with you continuing with content related to council. We just—. **David McEldowney** [19:14] Thank you so much. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [19:16] Don't dance on the table. **David McEldowney** [19:18] I am David McEldowney. I'm the real— well, I should say good morning, councilors. I'm David McEldowney. I'm the Real Property Services Division Manager for Piedmont-Wilshire. I'm joined by Kevin Balak, who is supervisor in our property management section. And we've got the presentation up. Great. Yes, as you mentioned, we were here 2 weeks ago to talk about a broader conversation on the city's surplus property process, and these properties will look familiar. Kevin, go ahead. As a reminder, these these properties or these parcels are located at the east end of the Foster-Woodstock couplet, which is about 2 blocks east of I-205 in District 1. And the parcels themselves are remnants left over from the construction of that project. And combined, they total about 3,500 square feet. They are zoned are considered a standalone building site, meaning that, you know, they're capable of housing and without being assembled to another property. Kevin, you want to go to the next slide? Some key points. This is what we talked about 2 weeks ago about a Category 3 property. So the Category 3 properties are the the highest level or most scrutiny is received by the review by the bureaus. During that review, PBOT determined that we needed to review or retain 3 feet or a strip of property along Woodstock for future widening of the sidewalk there. No other city bureaus nor outside agencies expressed any interest in these parcels. As a Category 3, that also receives a public comment period. During the public comment period, we did receive comments along the lines of, you know, yes, please develop that property, take care of this property, and folks who were just interested in buying it to develop it because they saw the signs that were posted out there. Signs were also— or the information was also posted on the city's website. As a reminder too, There's holding costs to this property. Last year, the Impact Reduction Program manager reported that there were more than 300 campsite complaints here. There were 60 risk assessments made by the city's contractor, resulting in 24 camp removals that totaled $45,000, or that was the estimate for last year. And with that, I will conclude our presentation. Happy to answer any questions that you may have. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [22:18] Thank you. Colleagues, questions? Councilor Morillo, go right ahead. **Angelita Morillo** [22:28] Yeah, thank you so much for this presentation. I was wondering if PHB considered this land for land banking in making this decision, or if it was, you know, not chosen for that for a certain reason. **David McEldowney** [22:39] Yes, they are definitely part of that process. We always reach out to them. The response back we receive from PHB is they're not really interested in onesies, twosies. They need the economy of scale of larger land. And so tomorrow you'll— the full council will hear about the ODOT trade we're doing. Those larger parcels, that's what they're interested in. It just doesn't pencil out trying to get the private capital for smaller parcels like this. **Angelita Morillo** [23:10] Gotcha. Okay, that makes a lot of sense. And so I take it no one has been considering this specific land 'cause it's just too small? **David McEldowney** [23:17] Correct, yeah. **Angelita Morillo** [23:18] Okay, great. Thanks so much. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [23:21] Thank you, Councilor. Question along a similar line. Have we— I know there was some, when you gave the presentation 2 weeks ago, there were some properties that were specifically offered to certain types of housing development from PHB, if I remember correctly. Do we have a process whereby with a piece of land like this that is available for development for residential units, we check in with entities that develop the onesies-twosies for affordable housing to see if any of our providers of affordable housing opportunities were interested before we make it available on the open market? **David McEldowney** [24:05] Not that I'm aware of. I'm not sure what PHB's process is when they get notified of these parcels, if they do something similar to that. Um, typically what would happen is if council, the full council approved this as surplus, we would put it out on the open market. If somebody was interested in that, they would have the same priority as any other purchaser, but I'm not aware of a specific process for that. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [24:31] Okay, I'd like to learn more about whether there is a process that we could be using there, and if we don't have something developed, whether we might consider developing something. We have a number of entities in the city who are trying to develop affordable homeownership opportunities through land banking outside of the city, and I, I recognize that perhaps the economies of scale are not there for land banking and development by the city, but we do have partners that do that work outside of the city, and it— I think we should consider, if affordable homeownership opportunities are a priority, a parcel like this for, for those partners. **David McEldowney** [25:17] I would be happy to connect with PHB following this meeting. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [25:21] Thank you, I'd appreciate that. Colleagues, any other questions or comments? Okay, um, if the committee is interested in moving this forward to full council—. **Keelan McClymont** [25:32] Sorry, sorry. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [25:32] Oh, do we have testimony? **Keelan McClymont** [25:34] We do. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [25:34] I am sorry, I didn't think we had anybody signed up. I apologize. Uh, let's move to public testimony. **Keelan McClymont** [25:40] Great, thanks. We have one person signed up, John Carmen. John Carmen. Okay, that completes testimony. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [26:07] Okay, um, is there a motion to move this to full council? **Dan Ryan** [26:15] So moved. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [26:16] I assume that's with a do pass recommendation? **Dan Ryan** [26:18] Yes. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [26:19] Okay, is there a second? **Eric Zimmerman** [26:21] Yes, second. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [26:22] Okay, moved by Ryan, seconded by Zimmerman. Uh, Keelan, could you please call the vote? **Keelan McClymont** [26:31] Zimmerman? **Eric Zimmerman** [26:32] Aye. **Keelan McClymont** [26:32] Avalos? **Candace Avalos** [26:37] Aye. **Keelan McClymont** [26:38] Ryan? **Dan Ryan** [26:39] Aye. **Keelan McClymont** [26:41] Thank you, Councilor. Murillo? **Angelita Morillo** [26:44] Aye. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [26:50] Aye. And I'll appreciate getting that additional information before full council. **Keelan McClymont** [26:54] A motion to refer the ordinance document number 2026-371 to City Council with the recommendation it be passed is approved. **David McEldowney** [27:02] Thank you. Thank you. ### 4. The future of cable **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [27:09] Colleagues, the final item on our agenda is a presentation By the— by our BPS staff. And we were going to take a break first, but we've moved pretty quickly. So if you are ready, Andrew, we can start now. And then if we get a significant number of questions, we'll take a break. And if not, we'll move through. Does that sound all right? **Andrew Speer** [27:34] That's great. Thank you. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [27:35] Okay, perfect. And colleagues, by way of background here, in the spring, we were given a fair amount of information about our cable regulatory environment, leading to some budget decisions around moving to regulating our cable industry ourselves as a city, as opposed to through a joint body with our neighboring cities. And we heard about the financial unsustainability of the programs that are currently funded through Um, our cable regulation sources. I had said at the time that it seemed to me that there was a need for a broader conversation about what the timeline looked like before we completely run out of funding to support the organizations that are currently supported through this funding stream, and also what the timeline looks like as more and more people within our community leave cable and receive their news and entertainment through other sources. There's also a piece of this around who we regulate and how we are able to regulate them. And so we are bringing back a presentation today— thank you, Mr. Speier— to delve into some of those broader topics. There is no imminent action coming for this council to take, but we wanted to make sure you had this background following the conversations we had in the spring. Thank you. Because there will be over the next few years actions that council can or eventually will have to take based on the direction that you'll see us heading in the charts that we have before us today. Great. **Andrew Speer** [29:19] Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, council. My name is Andrew Spear, and I'm the Franchise Utility Program Manager here at the city within BPS. I'll be walking through some data and a little bit of background and also some structural information on how we administer access to right-of-way. This is just an overview of the items we'll cover. But again, we're wanting to key you in on how do we allow access to the right-of-way as a starting point, just regardless of who the actor is in the right— that has assets in the right-of-way. And then go into a little bit of detail on what is cable-specific and how that impacts our ability as a jurisdiction to regulate that entity. And then there's some other nuance related to cable around certain fees that we assess cable providers that are unique from other providers in the right-of-way. And then lastly, got— I have a little bit of questions I think to pose or just engage in conversation with you all on, on what does the future look like. Uh, first up is the right-of-way access. So how do we administer access to the right-of-way? Uh, when I joined the city in 2023, we were working on an effort to replace franchise agreements and instead go to a code-based system, and so that we'd avoid the need to negotiate franchise agreements into the future. We still have franchise agreements that are— our last one expires in 2037, with the exception of Comcast. But as those franchise agreements expire, they'll be coming onto the right-of-way code, which is Chapter 12.15. And then on the right-hand side of the slide here, you have the different yes. So those are the entities that are registered either under right-of-way code or have a franchise agreement. Just for reference point, the core utilities listed there— PGE, Pacific Power, and Northwest Natural— they make up about 60% of the fees we recover from access to the right-of-way. I wanted to demonstrate a little bit of what the benefits have been and were when we were proposing right-of-way code. Namely, we don't have to negotiate franchise agreements. Franchise agreements are one-to-one contracts. Contracts between an entity and the jurisdiction. And so they can include a lot of different provisions that may not relate to the right-of-way. And so they can be one-off things that are just items that need to be negotiated that don't pertain to infrastructure that's in the right-of-way. Maybe it's related to permitting or some other item that doesn't relate to the fees. But we also, through the right-of-way code, are able to have one universal code that that creates a level playing field for users of the right-of-way, which I think has a lot of benefits because we're not arguing with one company over— that's a different argument from Company B. And so there's some economies of scale on how we can administer and ensure compliance. Wanted to give you a little overview about who are the bureaus across the city that interact or engage with the right-of-way. So we as BPS, we provide the legal access to the right-of-way via our code and then franchise agreements. And then PBOT operates and maintains the asset, the physical asset itself. BTS has infrastructure in the right-of-way that they pay fees on, namely fiber. And then the Revenue Bureau, they are the entity that we work with to process our payments. Just for reference point, again, we bring in about just over $100 million a year, and we're the 3rd largest contributor to the city's general fund. And then the Water Bureau, via water and sewer, pay into the fund also as part of their fees with their assets in the right-of-way. So earlier this year, we brought forward the items related to the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission dissolution. So I just wanted to level set with you all about what the commission performed on behalf of the jurisdictions, and then that'll kind of give some context to the rest of the presentation. So the Mount Hood Cable Regulatory Commission provided this list of duties on behalf of jurisdictions. I'd like to highlight the first bullet, which is negotiate the franchise agreement. So the franchise agreement was negotiated on behalf of all member jurisdictions, so all 6 member jurisdictions, and then— Uh, we also applied compliance of the franchise agreement, uh, across all jurisdictions as well. So there were some instances where we would, you know, call out, uh, certain violations and then resolve that with Comcast. Many times it wasn't— didn't result in a fine, but, uh, there were instances where a fine was working towards being assessed. Um, also did a lot of work on the the advocacy front, right, tracking and maintaining awareness on FCC and federal legislation. That was critical, I think, mostly in the '80s, the early part of the commission's formation. But I'll get to some stuff later here in these slides that will show some other angles of federal legislation that are trying to take away jurisdictional authority to administer it right away. Access. And then we also did the contracting for— the commission rather did contracting for the community media centers. So we had the 2 community media centers within the Cable Regulatory Commission, which was Open Signal and Metro East. So those contracts were through the commission, and then we also through the commission provided the funds out to the community media centers, which were PEG funds, the public education and government PEG funds for assets that purchased on behalf of PEG programming. And then lastly, the key item which I think really impacted community greatly was the grants program that the commission administered, which created original programming and content that would be aired on the cable channels. These next slides will show some of the trends we've been seeing both to revenue and customers over time. And I think we'll give some context to the remainder of the presentation. This first graph provides a look at the cable subscriber trend, right? The cutting the cord has been around for some time now, maybe 2 decades. But here we can kind of see the impact of it with 2016 being the peak of our cable subscribers here Uh, in the city. And you see the 2025 amount. We don't yet have the '26 amount, but I would expect that we are another $15,000 or more less than this '25 amount when we end this calendar year. So how does that impact our revenues? Uh, this slide, uh, the upper line, which is the blue line, is a representation of the franchise fees and just for reference point, the franchise fee is a standard assessment of a fee, which is 5% of gross revenues earned within the City of Portland. So that's the upper line. And then the lower line that's in orange is a representation of the PEG revenue. So the public education and government revenue that is only allowable for capital purchases related to PEG programming. That is assessed also on gross percentage of gross revenues, but but for the most of this line, it was at a 3% rate. And so I just wanted to also key you in on the start date in 2026. Earlier this year is when we renewed the franchise agreement with Comcast, which was a 10-year agreement. And then our end date is 2036. I wasn't able to get 36 on the graph for some reason, so apologies, but the end date is there in red text. Thank you. So you can see by the time we get out towards the last 2 or 3 years of the franchise agreement, we start to get well under $2 million for franchise fees. And then PEG, we're near— we're under $500,000, probably closer to $350,000 or $200,000. So that really doesn't allow for us to accommodate for either inflation or any other, right, cost trends. And so how do we then look at this going forward is, I think, the biggest question as a city for whether or not we have a franchise agreement going into the future for cable. This next slide is keying in on some legal frameworks that impact cable uniquely. And so I'll just walk through those. The Cable Act is the federal legislation which governs how cable operates across the country. It's what formed the PEG, Public Education and Government dollars and the use thereof. It also sets out the requirement to— for jurisdictions to have a franchise agreement, meaning we can't have cable or Comcast be under the right-of-way code. We need to have a franchise agreement in order for them to operate On the right-hand side is an FCC regulation that I wanted to make you aware of. And I think we've talked briefly in a couple other contexts in other presentations on this mixed-use rule. But in short, the mixed-use rule was passed in 2019 by the FCC, and it prevents jurisdictions from assigning fees for other services who are cable operators. So what does that mean? Think of Comcast as a cable operator. Right. Cable operator and an ISP, an internet service provider, we can only assess fees on the cable portion of their revenues earned within the city. The internet that they earn— internet revenues associated with internet service, we cannot assess fees on. And so that's, uh, as you go forward through time, right, their, their customer base and growth is in the internet side and the decline is in the cable side. Thank you. Um, couple threats just to think of more globally when it comes to federal, uh, legislation and/or the FCC. So over the past 2 and a half, 3 years, there's been an effort by Congress to propose some legislation. It was first started as House Bill, uh, 3557, which, you know, without going into too much detail, it provided a pathway that restricted the jurisdictions, the local jurisdiction's ability to govern its right-of-way. And so the best analogy that there is, uh, with wireless, um, the FCC has been able to institute rulemaking that, you know, prevents us as jurisdictions from siting a location in the right-of-way. For example, if, if AT&T or Verizon says, I want it here, there's uh, any way for us to prevent that location so long as it meets, you know, reasonable land use standards and safety requirements. So that 3557 legislation that's popped up twice now in 2 different Congresses is getting at that at a more global stage. And so across industries and would impact, you know, mostly in the telecom— telecommunications sector and prevent jurisdictions from, you know, not siting or similarly, with the FCC rulemaking, we've just seen a trend with wanting the FCC engaging in open dockets to explore other rulemaking that would prevent autonomy of the jurisdiction, namely in the space of shot clocks or siting of facilities again. Community media and PEGs. So the community media centers, and for us here in Portland, that's Open Signal, are a critical part of the public communications and then PEG being the public education and government revenues, which was the orange line that we saw on the graph with the revenue slide. Public education and government. So there's 2 different modes that cities and jurisdictions will take. Some do in-house airing and recording of their public meetings. So most, you know, relatable to us is Seattle has all that in-house for their city. We have the model of using a community media center, which is Open Signal, and we contract with them. As part of the dissolution, we just created a citywide procurement contract that any bureau that has public meetings can access and get Open Signal services for recording and airing that meeting. They also interface with Comcast for the— there's encoders that transfer the signal from—. The internet. The recording that Open Signal provides onto the cable network. And so they have those encoders and do that transfer of the signal onto the cable network. And then we also, as a city, provide— so we have their fee for service via the procurement contract, and then we also issue them PEG revenues for their capital needs related to airing the the content onto the cable network. And then we also provide them through BPS a grant for their digital equity work that they do in the community as well. So I'll start to get into some just questions, I think mostly, but I'll have some commentary on those questions as we go. I think the largest question in my mind is the first bullet, which is you know, is a cable franchise needed? And what does that look like through time as we look at the revenues? And then we think about the growth of ISP service or needs. And what are the— what's the opportunity costs that we're looking at from a revenue perspective? And then I think we need to be vigilant on the areas My previous slides that were calling out those federal and legislative threats, being able to monitor those, advocate. We do through my program's work, we also advocate with the FCC and provide responses to their dockets. So we're doing that work. And then we're also a member of an organization called NTOA, which we collaborate and advocate on behalf of local jurisdictional needs around right-of-way and cable and access and telecommunication issues. On the PEG piece, you know, what is the— you saw the decline of PEG or the forecast decline. What does that look like and how does that meet the needs or not meet the needs of our current situation with Open Signal and their future capital needs over time? And how do we— what are the needs of our service for recording as public meetings through time as well? This is my last content slide here, but when I think of our program's work and what it does on behalf of residents in the city, it's really ensuring that we recover fair compensation for use of the right-of-way. And so with that in mind, I reference back to that previous bullet on the first slide, on the last slide of you know, how do we ensure that Comcast is paying its share appropriately for the revenues it earns within the jurisdiction? And so that's, you know, again, just both how I approach this work and then wanting to ensure that we're recovering the appropriate fees for the use of these companies with their assets in the right-of-way. And then, you know, how do we think about and deal with that that decline of revenues with Open Signal and their capital needs. And, you know, I, I think these last 2 bullets were repeated on the earlier slide, but I'm really interested in also thinking through, through our MHCRC work, right? We had the community benefits via the grants program. With the commission being gone, we don't have that same grants program. And so how do we as a city think about community benefits in the telecom thank you. So the question is, what's the impact on community space or cable space, and what can we propose moving forward? That's a question that me and my team are thinking through and recommending kind of a few options up through our leadership. So how do we move forward in that space, given that cable is declining and peg— and that's impacting revenues? That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [47:08] Colleagues, does anybody want to start us off with questions? Councilor Montavilla. **Angelita Morillo** [47:16] Um, thank you, Chair. Um, thanks so much for this presentation. Uh, I just had one or two questions. Um, so it's my understanding that in 2018, the FCC adopted rules and regulations around fees related to small cells during the rise in 5G availability, um, and that ruling around allowed for one or two fee methodologies for local jurisdictions, a federally prescribed safe harbor fee, which the council adopted, or a fee calculation with the approximate actual costs of small wireless facility deployments, which is a cost recovery methodology. Has any consideration of changing the methodology to bring in more revenue to cover program costs been considered? **Andrew Speer** [48:01] Yes, it has been considered and was when we were bringing right-of-way code to the council for approval. And so it's— there's a few layers. I think there's some practical right-of-way code updates that we need to make and that the bureau is working on and we are working on to bring forward to you all. And then within that, I think we can then look kind of shift gears to looking at the fees, um, but it has been on the list of to-dos to circle back to. **Angelita Morillo** [48:33] Gotcha. So if we were to make a switch, we would have to address those things first and then consider that, or would we not do that at all? **Andrew Speer** [48:42] Do you mean address the right-of-way code updates and then the fees? **Angelita Morillo** [48:47] Yeah. **Andrew Speer** [48:47] Um, I, I don't— I think it's a little bit up to the willingness of what's recommended. I, I, from the programmatic end, I wanted to be able to get the, um, the administrative changes because that's really tying into our compliance enforcement and that being the first step before making any fee changes. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [49:11] Gotcha. **Angelita Morillo** [49:11] Okay. And are there any other fee increases that we should be considering at this time? **Andrew Speer** [49:18] There was, yeah, I mean, for the right-of-way code, there was one other small practical item related to the per-foot fees and the minimum payment associated with that. But that, it's somewhat of a nominal impact because there's not a lot of per-foot payers. So we're not talking hundreds of thousands, but maybe tens of thousands. **Angelita Morillo** [49:43] Gotcha. Okay. Um, all right, I think that's all the questions I had. Thanks for your time. **Andrew Speer** [49:48] Thank you. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [49:49] Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Ryan. **Dan Ryan** [49:51] Thank you, Chair Pirtle-Guiney. And a couple questions. Um, first one is slide 14. I just want to know what you mean— I'm assuming what you mean by permitting shot clocks, perhaps because we had a basketball testimony earlier. What is that? What does that mean? **Andrew Speer** [50:09] Yeah, with Order 621 that was passed in 2019, it imposed on jurisdictions an amount of days in which they must process permits. And so it required— I forget the number of days, but I think it was— I want to say less than 60, but don't quote me. It required— it put that, um, onus on, for us, PBOT, to process those permits in that amount of time or less. **Dan Ryan** [50:44] So it was kind of what I was thinking. **Andrew Speer** [50:46] Um, yeah, yeah. **Dan Ryan** [50:47] Okay, thanks, Andrew. The second one is slide 18, and you asked what our concerns would be. Probably the only one that's really rattled in my head has been how does the city manage the public education government PEG, the services over time. That's probably the main thing that I've been thinking about when we have this conversation. So I look forward to any suggestions you have since you live and breathe this daily. **Andrew Speer** [51:12] Yeah, I mean, I, um, I, I think there's both an administrative and a policy question there, right? Um, I, as cable declines, and if we didn't, for instance, after 2036 have a cable franchise there would be nothing for us to air to, um, under the current system we're on now, right, with how we use Open Signal. And so, um, I, I mean, that, that's just a question for that future leadership and council, like, how do we, how do we need to operate in a kind of post-cable world? Um, I wasn't necessarily recommending anything either way. But just illustrating that other cities have different modes of, you know, recording and broadcasting their government meetings. **Dan Ryan** [52:05] Well, I think it's great that you're suggesting something because it's going to go away. And so I think we all want access. So I think hearing what some of those other systems are and that you're, as the leader of this unit within the city, you're explaining to us what future could look like. **Andrew Speer** [52:23] Thank you. Yeah, I, I think there's an opportunity to assess what the needs are, and then how does that needs align with community and access, which kind of my— has been my operating. **Dan Ryan** [52:34] I think what you just said is really easy to go like this to, like agreement. So, um, anyway, here for this journey, and, uh, just know that's the top of mind for me, is to make sure that the public has access to government. That's all. And I have to say, I kind of like this permitting clock for permits in general. Hi, Donnie. Um, I think it's a good language that we can keep putting into the culture. **Andrew Speer** [52:57] And I do want to note on the permitting shot clock, I think industry came in for the wireless side and said, hey, you know, we're going to deploy 700 small cells into your community. What we ended up with was under 300 Uh, total cell sites, and then of that, about 230 were small cells. And so, you know, I think there's a— I, I just want council over time to be aware that when these new deployments come forward, there's a lot of, uh, expectation and forecasts and promise made. But, um, in Seattle, talking to my colleagues up there, they had this similar experience where yes. A large number was forecasted. And so that— it's the tail wagging the dog where you have a lot of staffing up within anticipation for those permitting inflow, and then the shot clock stress. And in talking with PBOT, they don't have the demand nearly to what they had staffed for. So it's a tension that has existed. And they've more than met the shot clock requirements with all their providers. And on the wireless side, What many times will occur is that a site will be permitted for, and then it won't be built within the year time that the permit was issued, and so the permit expires. Um, so there's a lot of industry, you know, construction build-out issues. **Dan Ryan** [54:27] I was actually kind of having fun with that, but I was enjoying the fact that I was learning about the forecasting of sales. And, you know, you don't take these jobs unless you're curious. So anyway, thank you for that education. Appreciate it. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [54:39] Thank you, Councilor. I've got a couple of questions. As we are talking about this and we see that chart with fewer and fewer people subscribing to cable and less and less revenue coming in from that to monitor the programs, as I have heard people talk about this and as we had the conversation in the spring, we talk about one provider, we talk about Comcast. How many cable providers are there in our community at this Um, let's see. I—. **Andrew Speer** [55:11] Oh, excuse me, cable providers? **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [55:13] Providers. **Andrew Speer** [55:13] We, we only have Comcast. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [55:15] Okay, so that is the last cable provider left in Portland. And the FCC rule that you flagged, the mixed-use rule, did that say that you can't regulate an entity as an internet and a cable provider, or that you cannot regulate— that if If an entity provides some cable, you must regulate them as a cable provider. You can't regulate them as an internet provider. Is it an either/or, or is it an if A, then not B? **Andrew Speer** [55:44] Well, I think there's 2 ways to think about it. One is on the fee and the fee assessment, and then one is on the practical, like, operations of the right-of-way, so the permitting and construction side. So we have the ability through our— since it's a shared line that that, that their Comcast is using. We have full ability to regulate the construction and the permitting requirements as if it— we don't delineate between services there, right? But then on the fee side of things, for the compensation and use of the right-of-way, we can only assess fees on the gross revenues earned for cable and not internet. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [56:24] Okay. So essentially, we have many internet providers. We have one joint cable and internet provider. It takes the same amount of staff work to regulate the use of the right-of-way for both our solely internet providers and our internet plus cable provider. We can assess the full cost recovery from our internet providers and not from the provider that is yeah, there's a little bit of nuance there. **Andrew Speer** [56:59] The cable— we don't have maybe as many cable providers across the city as we might envision. We have Comcast, we have Lumen or CenturyLink, which—. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [57:12] Providers. **Andrew Speer** [57:13] Yes, which used to be— which recently sold their fiber assets to Verizon. Sets to AT&T. So AT&T is, is its only entity providing ISP service. And then, um, Ziply, uh, Ziply Fiber, which provides telephone, wired telephone service and internet service. The, the market share of Comcast is about— is over 80%. So they're covering 80% of the jurisdiction, and then and the other 2 providers are roughly 20%. And so that's the lay of the land in terms of who's out there as providers. But I'm sorry, and I forgot your question. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [57:56] That's okay. That's okay. That's actually helpful information. What would happen if we said we weren't regulating cable anymore? We're going to reach a point where there are, I'm going to use the number 10, 10 subscribers left. Sure. Do we, are we in this environment until that number naturally gets to zero? Or is there a point where we say we're not doing this anymore? And if so, what happens to those subscribers at that point? **Andrew Speer** [58:33] Yeah, I mean, I think that's the policy question of, Is it right? So we have the franchise agreement, which could be terminated if it was mutually agreed upon early, but let's just say it goes to its full term to 2036. So do we— we, you know, companies will reach out about 2 years before the franchise agreement is expiring to start negotiations to re-up, so there's a question in my mind of, is there— you know, we, we can see here what the— we expect the revenues to be. That's not correlating to customer counts exactly, but, um, at that— that is kind of my question to you all, is like, at what point is, is the floor low enough that it's no longer viable to maintain a cable franchise in the city? **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [59:30] Okay, for cities that, um, would no longer have cable franchises, I'm assuming this has happened somewhere. We're not the only city facing this. I—. **Andrew Speer** [59:42] We are, we are certainly not unique with what we're facing, but I don't know of any city that said no, we're not doing cable franchises. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [59:49] Are there cities that do their, their PEG programming through other broadcast means, not through cable? Is there a city that's figured out we still want to have this public interest programming, right? And not just the streaming of our meetings. I know we are very funny and interesting and good-looking up here, but there's lots of other programming on Open Signal station. So are there cities that have figured out beyond just the streaming of government meetings, those public and educational pieces of the PEG work, um, a space to move those to off of cable? And what does that look like in those communities? **Andrew Speer** [1:00:35] Um, I've had conversations through conferences with, uh, entities that do the in-house work, um, where the employees are, are city employees. I've talked with a couple of them, and they, they're on the East Coast, I forget what jurisdictions, but they were telling me that they've worked out agreements with streaming services to provide like a, you know, kind of an on-demand option of accessing PEG-like offerings. So either council meetings or unique programming. But I don't know of any other tangible examples outside of those one or two conversations I've had. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:01:15] So presumably when we reach the point where we say we're not regulating cable anymore, we don't have a franchise agreement anymore, and we regulate Comcast like we do our other internet providers, um, we could have some sort of agreement where some of the funds that come in from that regulation pay for access to on-demand content through a streaming service, both both for our meetings and for the other public and educational content that Open Signal provides. **Andrew Speer** [1:01:49] That, yes, that could be an option. I, I think one thing that's helpful to keep in mind is PEG channels are unique to cable. Like, you have to have cable in order to have access to the PEG channels. And so, right, people are accessing, for instance, council meetings through YouTube, and other, right, the other streaming, or Open Signal maintains the links to meetings through their website as well. So I just think it's important that within the discussion, the only access to PEG channels is through one having cable. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:02:26] And when you put it on streaming, then it's limited to people who have that streaming subscription potentially. **Andrew Speer** [1:02:31] Correct. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:02:32] Though if the city were to use fees to subsidize let's use YouTube, a YouTube channel that then provided all of the content, not just again our interesting conversations, but all of the PEG content. And then we could also consider facilitating agreements with streaming services. Would that be the, um, the best— would that maximize access? I'm trying to think about how in the future we maximize access to the content that we are worried we're going to lose as the number of cable subscribers decreases? **Andrew Speer** [1:03:12] Yeah, I mean, I, I, I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that question fully, but, um, I, I think there's— what stands out to me is that there's an opportunity to evaluate the need and then how access could be given out differently, um, through either Public spaces like YouTube or streaming services that are paid for. **Dan Ryan** [1:03:35] Yeah. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:03:36] Thank you. I hope that as your team is considering that, you're looking not just at the streaming of our own meetings, but the other content that is currently, I'm going to say, somewhat subsidized through those fees that we collect. And how do we make sure that as the paradigm of how people stream media changes, we continue to have access to that type of programming that is available to the entire community, whether or not you subscribe to a streaming service. And I hope that as you're asking the questions you listed, you're holding that as one of the goals that we ultimately get to in the answers. **Andrew Speer** [1:04:16] Yes. Yeah, for sure. Thank you. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:04:17] Great. Colleagues, any other questions? Councilor Zimmerman. **Eric Zimmerman** [1:04:26] Thanks. Um, as somebody who appeared on public access, I think my first time maybe at like 10, 9 or 10 years old, I also quickly learned in the '90s it was a great channel to go to in the middle of the night if you needed to fall back asleep. And so I just want to compliment you, Chair, for living up to the spirit of public access television today, that this session might be one of the greater monotonous sessions and I think it just made so much sense that there was no flair in this because— I appreciate you, Andrew. I'm being a little bit funny here because it is important and it's so dry and it's so difficult to like get through this. So I say all this because it's important. It's a part of our revenue stream. We're gonna have to figure it out. And I'm also just— for me on these types of things, I'm going to be looking for a staff recommendation for like what makes the most sense rather than A council-driven type of process. And I think sometimes we should say that out loud, that there are other people who are probably in the best position to make good recommendations. And I would say that you're one of those people right now for us, for the City of Portland. So you've done a great job living up to the public access spirit of committees and why we're boring, as government should be so many times. I hope that many people fall back asleep after watching this if they happen upon it. So thank you, Chair. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:05:43] We had a session today where somebody rapped and danced on the testimony table, so I'm not sure what's boring about today's meeting. **Andrew Speer** [1:05:54] If, if I could maybe highlight one thing to your point, Councilor Zimmerman, doing some back-of-the-envelope math, if we look at the number of households in Portland and then we assume 80% of those households are in Comcast district, you get to about $12 million, just under $12 million of fees that we could be assessing to Comcast but currently cannot. And so, you know, I think at one time, right, you can see on this graph in, you know, 2015 era, we were getting, you know, we were up past $10 million for sure. And so now that cable isn't at that adoption rate, That feels like the important nexus to discuss about, like, the recommendation being that internet service is the important thing to go after— not go after, but to ensure compensation of use of the right-of-way for. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:06:53] Thank you, colleagues and, and Councilor. While this may be dry, I do think that when we talk about $12 million that could be used to ensure that the programming that while dry is important, is accessible. And also to think about how we could better, better secure access for all members of our community to internet services if we had some of those funds coming in. I think there's a lot of opportunity for the community being left on the table and also So to think that we are assessing for the, the use of our smaller internet companies and not the largest provider seems a bit, a bit off. **Dan Ryan** [1:07:41] So still dry. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:07:43] Still dry. Councilor Ryan. **Dan Ryan** [1:07:44] To add to the dryness, and the person has the most experience putting Portlanders to sleep because I was on the school board on Channel 28 and the aux, um, I'm a civics nerd, and so I like C-SPAN. I like these kind of programs. Where you actually watch the meeting and you get it unfiltered, as opposed to sifting through whatever's happening today with a lot of spin. And, um, I just hope we do figure this out because I think that a democracy doesn't move forward without providing such access to public meetings. So thank you. **Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:08:21] Seeing no one else in the queue, I think you've heard a little bit about some of our interests up here, and you and I have had additional conversations about what we might be able to do. Colleagues, like I said, there's nothing imminent coming forward, but this is a conversation that I think we just need to have in the back of our minds. Our next meeting is in 2 weeks, and we are going to be touching on 2 really interesting topics, Councilor Zimmerman. I'm not surprised. Councilor Dan Ryan. Thank you, Mayor. We're talking about our city's cannabis program and the fees that come in from that program and how they are used and our cannabis code. There is— there are some amendments to that code that the administration has asked to bring forward. And then you will remember last year we had a conversation about needing to change some of the equity and workforce provisions within the CIP in the P section. And we will have an ordinance from the administration coming to us at our next meeting with a proposal for new equity and workforce provisions within that program as well. With that, I will see you all in 2 weeks, and we are adjourned. **Dan Ryan** [1:09:37] Thank you.