The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-04-14

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (26,767 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Moore. Good afternoon. It is 2:00 on Tuesday, April 14th. I am calling to order the first meeting of the city life committee. Could you please call the roll? Ryan. Here.

Morillo here. Zimmerman. Avalos present.

Pirtle-guiney here. And, christopher, could you please read our rules of order and decorum?

Welcome to the meeting of the city life committee to testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance in the committee agenda at wwe. Council agenda, committee, dash dash committee, or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one 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 three minutes unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others. Testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. State your name for the record. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization represents virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.

Thank you. Colleagues, of all the new committees that have been put together, in some ways, this one feels the most new. Our portfolio combines what used to be parts of or all of the work of three separate committees, and I don't believe that any of us sat on all three of those last time around. So while many of the things that we will do will be a continuation of work that those committees did, many of the themes are the same of the themes in those committees. And I know that a few of you sat on one or more of those previous committees getting to talk about these issues together. And in light of the themes that we're bringing in from each of those committees, is a new space for our council. I'm immensely optimistic about the work ahead of us and about the perspectives that the five of us together bring as we do that work. I know we all care deeply about the city and the constituencies who we will be hearing from in this work, and that we all bring important and unique experiences to the table. I hope that we can hold on to that. As we do this work, I will try to ensure that we hear from a broad group of portlanders who represent the various perspectives and experiences we will need to hear to bring all of these ideas together as well. The city life committee is focused on the day to day lived experiences of portlanders. We'll consider policies that define what it's like to live, work and play in our city. Our mission entails a broad set of issues economic development, labor workforce, climate resilience, sustainability, tourism, parks, programing, arts, entertainment, sports and more to orient us and portlanders to our assignment. My office has developed a framework which I hope will serve as a useful starting point, though I assume it will shift as we all leave our marks on the work before us. It will guide our panels. Today, the framework will be up on the screen as we open our first agenda item, and I believe it is posted online as well. It contains three buckets that I think help to define how these very different issues relate to each other. What is the future of portland's economy? Where is it set right now, and is that the direction we want it to move in? How do we build community resilience broadly encompassing the people, sustainability, our environment, our spaces? And what is the experience of the people who live here and the people who visit here? And is it what we want it to be? This framework is a starting place. Our policy direction, the overarching themes, the work that we do will of course, be defined by the five of us and our colleagues who bring work to this committee, as well as the portlanders who testify before us over the course of the next year. This public engagement piece is absolutely critical. And you'll note that after today's meeting, I will set aside 15 minutes at the start of every city life meeting for a period of public communication, just like we have at full council for portlanders who are watching our meeting today, please hear this as an invitation. If you have thoughts on topics related to the work of this committee, sign up for a public communication slot so that we can hear from you and make sure that the things you're thinking about are part of the dialog that we have as we do our work. The new form of government promised to be engaging and responsive. I want to make sure that at every meeting, we set aside time for that. Today will be an exception. And instead we have about an hour and a half of panels with leaders in our community who represent a broad range of backgrounds and fields, all of which relate in some way to the themes before us. In all of our future meetings. Expect to start with that public communication period, colleagues, and then expect that we'll have one meaty topic, a big policy that needs a lot of discussion and work, a presentation about something that we should be thinking about for the future, a chance for discussion about the direction that we're headed, as well as time set aside every work every week for the work that just has to get done to ground our year ahead. We'll need to level set. We're not starting from scratch. There is already work happening in our bureaus. There is already work that the committees that came before us started, but we need to know what direction we want to head. Our goal is not to solve everything, but it is to identify where this committee can make the biggest difference for portlanders, and how we can be thinking about the issues in front of us, and the places where our collective visions for our city intersect. I'm enormously excited by the panels that we have today to help us start to think about those different directions. We'll get to those panels in just a few minutes, but before we get any further, I'd like to invite our vice chair, councilor Zimmerman, to say a few words if you'd like.

I think you've summed it up. I mean, I appreciate the the work that you did at chair in terms of bringing us together to kind of say, what's the direction that we're going to go. I think that watching you chair a committee this, this cycle is going to be fun. And we can switch, we can switch chairs and I'll be your vice chair. You are a great vice chair to me last year. I plan to do the same for you. Thanks for setting the direction here.

Thank you. Councilor colleagues, we have a series of panels before us and then two other agenda items today, so I'd like to have us dive in. Could you please call agenda item one?

Item number one, document number 2020 6-130. City life committee. Introduction. The future of portland's economy, community resilience, and the experience of residents and visitors.

Thank you. So colleagues, we have three panels before us today organized around those three themes. In the first panel, we'll hear about the future of our economy. We'll hear from business and workforce leaders, a labor economist, all talking about where we're headed. Andrew hoan, president and ceo of the Portland metro chamber, will kick us off, followed by doctor mary king, emerita professor of economics at Portland state university and former board member and vice president of the Oregon center for public policy. Steven Green, co-founder and executive director of better Portland. Patrick gehring, chief program officer at work systems, and jules bailey, executive director at the clean industry hub. If you all want to come up while I announce the other panels, that's fine. Next, we'll hear from community and city leaders on the work being done to build community resilience, including human economic sustainability and environmental resilience. The panelists are nate mccoy, president and ceo of the national association of minority contractors and interim executive director of the black business association of Oregon. Amy nagy, interim director for development and investments at prosper Portland. Tracy scott, co-chair of the pcf committee. Vivien satterfield, portland's chief sustainability officer, and jeremy van keuren, our community preparedness manager at pbem. And we'll close out with a committee that explores the work we have before us, impacting the experiences of people who live and visit Portland, where we'll hear from courtney varano, deputy director of movement building for all families, Oregon. Bernal cruz munoz, a member of the city's new portlanders policy commission, subhashini ganesan forbes, former chair of the Oregon arts commission. Jessica Green, executive director with the Portland parks foundation, and lori wimmer, executive secretary treasurer of the northwest Oregon labor council. Each panelist will give some brief remarks, and my hope is that at the end of each panel, we will have time for a few questions or comments from colleagues. Those of us up here, because we are trying to hear a lot of voices from the community today, we won't have time for everybody's questions about everything, but I am happy to make sure if there are people we want to hear more from or topics we want more discussion time on to make sure those make our future agendas. So please let me know after the meeting where you'd like us to spend more time. With that, I will turn it over to our first panel. And mr. Hone, would you like to begin?

Sure. And I do have a slide deck to accompany this. I was told that was. It's way overboard.

It it is up on our computers. Maybe we can get it up on the screen. Perfect. So that folks online can see as well. There we go.

Why don't you kick us to the first slide, then? Oh, there it is. Great. Well thank you. Hi, andrew hoan, president and ceo of Portland metro chamber. Proud registered lobbyist. You'll be hearing a lot about research and reports in my slide deck here and presentation. These have been all transmitted to you in advance. I went to state also clearly my gratitude for being invited. I've been eight years on the job, and this is the first time I have ever been asked to join this council to present generally on the economy. I represent the largest business advocacy organization in the state of Oregon. Next slide. So I think first and foremost, we've had some dark days going from the pandemic. And obviously we still have challenges. But one thing that should be clear by all the headlines we've been reading over the last several years is that we are capable of big things and we are still worthy of investment. And yes, we have had major successes and we celebrate all of these. Next slide. None more than, I think, the improvements in livability. Those improvements have overwhelmingly delivered increases in the things that I think we visibly understand as vibrancy. And that's foot traffic. And you can see here the overall nexus between livability improvements and foot traffic going up year in and year out. This is good news, but this is where the good news ends. Based on this progress, it would take ten more years to fully recover the vibrancy in the central city. Next slide. We can't lie to ourselves anymore. We have an economic policy challenge in Portland. Clearly stated. Next slide. This is what we call the anti superlative slide. You'll note that in all of these we are last in the nation in all the categories that you do not want to be last in. And we are first in all the categories that you do not want to be first in. Most importantly, if you look to the very bottom note, there. We are nearly last in the nation in employment. Next slide. The Oregon employment department released this just last week. Over the past 12 months, the metro area has lost nearly 23,000 jobs, 23,000 individuals who no longer have employment. Next slide. If you want to ask the question about how we're doing here in Multnomah county, this was released in September of last year. We have lost 10,000 jobs in a single year just in Multnomah county. If you're wondering what that little red arrow is in the lower left hand corner there, that's Portland. That's where we stack up against every other city in the nation. Second to last. Next slide. I want to point to this. It's a tale of two counties. Our region is capable of growth. If you note this, since pre-pandemic times, the difference between Multnomah county and Clark county could not be more stark. This committee should take every effort to understand this, why we got here, how we got here, and what do we do about it? Next slide. This is my favorite slide. It's also important to recognize the Oregon trail is dead. Natural increases in population will not happen. There are now more deaths than there are births due to current federal immigration policies. We will not be seeing international migration to our community. And that means one thing and one thing. Simply put, we must compete to retain and attract every household and every single business in our community. Next slide. You asked for the big ideas. Well, there's no shortage of ideas. And I would just point out we have publicly available data both from our chamber, other chambers, just like better Portland, that all put it out there very publicly. There are thousands of ideas about how to improve our economy. The most important question is why should we improve the economy? Next slide. If you care nothing else for the private sector, then know this. Third bullet point business taxes grew in collections 85% between 2019 fiscal year and 2023 fiscal year. At that point in time, business taxes accounted for half of the general fund revenue. Now, that has changed over the last several years, and we will be rereleasing this report. But just to note, for the private sector to thrive, that means the public sector will as well. Our success is your success. Next slide. So I want to talk about solutions and just end on this note. Generally speaking, at the end of the day, you'd ask for the big idea. The big idea is culture change, the relationship between the private sector and the public sector has, for well over a decade, been fundamentally broken. We must change this relationship. It's about collaboration. If every single business or private sector employer looks like a nail, then the only tool you have is a hammer. The difference has to be stark, dramatic and urgent. We need collaboration on the big ideas so that we can solve them together. Thank you. That's all I have for my presentation.

Thank you. And I'll note as we move through that, presentations are all posted online, as are supplemental materials with full testimony from a few of the folks who are here today and colleagues. I'm passing out a handout that doctor king has asked us to have in front of us as she speaks. Doctor king, go right ahead.

Thank you very much. And thank you for inviting me. Next slide please. Oh, do you have my slides? Thank you. Next slide please. Thanks.

Thank you.

Wish you could just say we certainly have challenges. Affordability, I believe at the top of the list but slowed in migration of young professionals. The ongoing loss of young families soon after their children are born. Falling office building values due to the workshop and study from home. Revolution. Lack of federal dollars since reagan but really worsening and no replacement for cities and local governments of the property taxes limited in the 90s. Next slide please. We also have a lot of advantages. We think of our natural setting. One thing I'd like to point out is consistently rising incomes at the top. Over the last ten years, unfazed by passage of our local taxes in 2020. I'll just tell you that there's no bar for 2020, because this is the census 1% data, a sample too small to deal with the lack of participation in 2020, people did not fill out their forms. Next slide please. So local economic development, what do we do? The best metric for local economic development is higher income per person, especially at the bottom and the middle. We want a higher proportion of better jobs, not just jobs. And the point is to create a more inclusive economy, more people working for higher pay spending more locally, less need for social services and more tax revenue. The best strategies for raising incomes per person are investing in people, and a skilled labor force is what attracts businesses. I've got several. You can see education, training, childcare, health care, several other things. Economic security can go in more detail at another time, but I want to show you an example of how powerful these kinds of investments are. Next slide please. And that this example is investments in young children's programs or families versus business tax incentives. And what the metric is the impact on per capita income relative to cost. And what you can see is, for instance, universal pre-k on the left is enormous. The economic results of that followed here by childcare for children from low income families from birth. Second, help with parenting from a nurse foundation partnership. And the one on the far right is business tax incentives. And those are very tightly targeted, which are the most effective, of course, but are not the most common. So next slide please. In short, I believe that we should worry less about raising taxes or cutting tax breaks when it comes to location decisions. People locate for family jobs, schools, amenities like culture and outdoor recreation, very rarely for taxes, and to think more about investing in people's capacities. Again, we also want to think about, again, attracting young professionals. These are the high income households of the future. And they're far more mobile than older, high income households and retaining young families. And that's critically about affordability. Next slide please. Strategies for Portland right now in terms of what are my ideas that I think we should be looking at affordability and housing with building prices falling, it's changing. What how much conversion to housing, pencils from office buildings. And that's something the city can facilitate, as well as supporting publicly owned, permanently affordable, mixed income housing developments that the market will not provide, and to pursue more evidence based strategies on getting people housed who currently are not investing in people. What can the city do? A few things. I think youth employment programs and diversion from the criminal justice system are a couple. Finding more space in the public buildings for preschool for all is another, and I think we need to consider at this point some sort of. I say local levy, but I really mean a tax supporting our schools locally and Portland state and examples would be cranking up Novick inequality tax, a high end payroll tax, and testing our ability to expand pdf, a very successful tax to other industries for other uses. We're grandfathered in. But last I want to say, I think we need to recognize that the work and shop from home revolution is here to stay. And for that reason, we should become a little bit less downtown centric in terms of where we expect economic activity to concentrate and work a little harder. Further on encouraging our 15 minute, livable, walkable neighborhoods that include employment and services. Thank you. Happy to answer questions any time, including later.

Thank you so much. We are going to move through the panel and then take some questions. And I would love to have us hear next from steven Green with better Portland.

Thank you. Chair, vice chair, members of city life committee. My name is steven Green. I'm one of the co-founders of better Portland and founder of vanport studio. I've spent over 20 years in economic development, business, finance, and as a founder here in Portland, I've worked at one of the largest banks in the city, as well as one of the smallest. And I've been part of hundreds of real estate transactions as a commercial banker and later working for the city of Portland, as well as thousands of deals for local small businesses. And through all of that, I've tried to carry forward a belief that always has been part of what makes the business landscape here so special. Community over competition. I was asked here today to share a big idea about how we can meaningfully move forward, the economy, now and into the future. I'll be direct. I believe a both a path forward may actually require us to actually look small, more local, more intentional, and more Portland. In the coming weeks, we're going to hear a lot about what's missing from the budget, but we should spend just as much time talking about where the money we already have is going. Every year, the city of Portland spends hundreds of millions of dollars on contracts, goods, services, construction, technology. That spending is not neutral. Who we choose to power wash city hall. What catering business provides food for an evening meeting, or where we get our morning tea, our debits or credits into the trust bucket with the local companies that are the backbone of the city's economy. Every dollar is either. Every dollar either stays here and circulates through our neighborhoods or leaves the city and doesn't come back. The data is clear. When a dollar goes to a national firm, about $0.33 stays in the community. When it goes to a locally owned business, it's closer to $0.68. That gap 33 versus 68 is where I believe the opportunity lives. When you look at what the city spends each year, even partially closing that gap equals tens of millions of dollars staying local each year. That's jobs. That's business growth. That's real momentum in neighborhoods that need it most. And here's the key point. That money's already moving. We're not deciding whether to spend it. We already are. We're deciding who it reaches and whether it builds Portland or leaves it. The state of oregon's 2023 disparity study looked at $3.18 billion in public spending. It found that minority and women owned contracting firms make up 34% of the available businesses here, but received just 11% of contract dollars. When you dig deeper, black owned businesses made up 0.5% of available firms, but only got 0.1% of the dollars awarded. Those numbers aren't an indictment, they're a baseline. But here's the issue Portland hasn't completed a disparity study since 2009. We're operating without a clear picture of today's reality. And while we absolutely need to update the data, we don't need to wait to start doing better. So here's my idea. First dollar local dollar simple. For every discretionary expenditure and city contract under $150,000, which is the range where the city already has flexibilities. Bureaus start local. They reach out to three at least three qualified local businesses, and if they don't know of any, they can ask the office of small business staff to help them. They document that outreach and if a local firm can do the work at a fair price, they get the contract. If not, it goes to the open market. That's it. Not a goal, not a pilot, a standard first step. That is not an aspiration, but a scoreboard. Other cities are already doing this in different ways chicago, new orleans, phoenix, seattle. What they've all learned is simple when you change the default, you have a better chance of changing the outcome. You don't have to exclude anyone. You just have to make sure local businesses actually get a real first look. Let's be honest about where we're at. Portland's rebuilding downtown's reimagining and our local business ecosystem, especially black, latino and aapi owned businesses took a generational hit over the last six years. But the people that are still here, they're resilient, they're ready, and they're open for business. Right now. What they're looking for is a signal. The city is that the city is serious about building an economy that includes them. This policy sends that signal and it does it without new dollars. It's about using what we already spend more intentionally. This is within your reach. This committee could issue an executive directive, ask for updated procurement policies and help set clear expectations across the bureaus. And Portland already has infrastructure to track it. We were the first city in the country to adopt the open contracting data standard, giving us access to city spend in real time. So the data is there, the systems are there. We just need to know what we need right now is the decision, because this isn't about whether we have enough resources. It's about whether we're willing to use the ones we already have on purpose. The businesses that would benefit from this are already here. They've stayed. They've invested, they've bet on Portland even when it hasn't been that easy. This is our chance to bet on them back. And if we can make that the standard and not the exception, we won't just be taking. We won't just be talking about economic recovery. We'll actually be practicing it. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that overview and idea. Patrick gehring, you want to talk to us about workforce.

Thank you, chair and thank you, councilors. I want to echo my colleague doctor kim's support for employment programs and summer jobs for youth. And I'm bringing a different big idea. So everyone knows yesterday that peace talks broke down between the us and iran, and we're going to see some serious economic consequences. This is because about 20% of the global oil supply moves through the strait of hormuz and dependency globally on that supply chain will create an economic shock. If we don't reopen the strait. But there's another potentially more debilitating supply chain threat we're already addressing through national industrial policy, where our region, the Portland metro area, plays a key role in the strait of taiwan. One company in one country produces over 60% of the semiconductor chips and 90% of the super advanced chips. And china has been crystal clear. It believes that taiwan is part of china and will someday take it back. As you know, semiconductors are essential in everything from cars to computers to drones and ai. Because of this, militarily and economically compromising dependency, the united states is reshoring. Our semiconductor industry, beginning with the chips act, of course, the cradle of the American and global semiconductor industry is in Washington county, not in Portland. So why is this about Portland? 37% of Portland workers go to work outside of the city of Portland. They then come home to spend their money, send their kids to school, buy goods and services here in Portland. In fact, manufacturing has the highest economic multiplier of any industry and can support broad economic prosperity and a solid middle class. It also includes entry level jobs that pay good wages. A while ago, I was at a forum in hillsboro and I heard an elected official there say that no state is great without a great major city. That's an acknowledgment of the interests and fates in our region, of the cities and counties which are intertwined. And she was talking about Portland, not her own community. I think it can be easier for people in a big city like Portland to be looking more inwardly and not paying attention to what's happening in the cities, counties and regions around them. But that's not what more than a third of Portland workers are doing when they go to other cities to work. Our workforce and our economy is regional at work systems. We're starting to see the threats from ai materializing in work that entails disembodied intelligence like coding, writing, analyzing data, and developing big ideas to present to city councilors. Manufacturing is a hands on process that does not share this vulnerability to displacement by ai and to the contrary, ai will drive employment growth in the semiconductor industry as demand for chips grows to meet the processing needs, semiconductor will be countercyclical to ai job losses. In other words, these jobs are growing. They pay well and they include opportunities at all skill levels. We recently collaborated with intel, pcc and others to develop a program called quick start to manufacturing. This was reported in the economist magazine. We train people for semiconductor manufacturing jobs at intel in a ten day curriculum. What that means is that the 14% of portlanders, whose highest level of educational attainment can go into these good careers and family wages. We are at the precipice of a chip hungry era of ai, and we're embarking on a national project to reshore semiconductor manufacturing. We can't afford not to catch this train. We need our elected officials and policymakers across the regional economy, including Portland, Multnomah county, Washington county, Beaverton, hillsboro and the state of Oregon to work together to put the Portland metro area back, front and center in the effort to reshore American semiconductor manufacturing. Thank you.

Thank you. And I promise I will always look to people first for policy ideas. Jules bailey, can you talk to us a little bit about this is actually a great segue to talking about clean tech.

Absolutely. Councilors. I'm jules bailey and I am the newly minted executive director contracted to the clean industry hub. When I say newly minted, this is day two. So get to get thrown right in here with the city council. And I get to be a bit of a palate cleanser between this panel and the next one. And we've heard a lot of really important concerns today, but this is mostly good news. And before I get to it, though, I do want to take a point of personal privilege and say, as I believe the only former elected official on these panels, thank you. You all have a very hard job. And in fact, in many ways, it's a lot harder than when I was in this, which is getting to be a long time ago now. And the fact that you show up and that you have put yourself forward and that you have given personal sacrifice to this city, does not go unnoticed by a lot of people. So thank you for the work that you do and your willingness to serve all of you. The clean industry hub is really exciting. It's the embodiment of partnership, and it's a partnership between the city, between private, the private sector, between community groups and environmental advocates, and more. It's received seed funding from PCEF and we take that investment seriously. The community groups that created PCEF had a lot of foresight, and we honor that. So here's the challenge. Heavy industry has been an important part of portland's economy for the last hundred years. In many ways, this is a manufacturing town, and the metals and manufacturing have built a lot of the economy in Portland. As a result, industry is about 12% of portland's carbon emissions. But it's the hardest one of those sectors to get at. It's not the biggest sector. Transportation is bigger, but it's hard to get at those industrial emissions. The Portland climate emergency work plan acknowledges the importance of this sector and the need to decarbonize it, while keeping businesses operating. Industrial decarbonization is tricky because it requires big investments a lot of times at once, and potentially long horizons. And many of the processes are complex and energy intensive. You can't impose a one size fits all tax or regulation and expect it to work across these diversity of businesses. It's very high touch, it's high facilitation, it's costly, and it often requires the right technology and access to low carbon fuels to make it work. So here's the big idea. This is where the hub comes in. Portland has the opportunity to be a national leader in the clean and circular industry and industrial decarbonization field. We created this hub, modeled after a really successful one in denmark that uses public seed money to leverage private investment. It's unique in the us, and it puts Portland on the map at the intersection of economic development and climate action. And it's grown out of this really remarkable partnership between prosper, PSU and a wide range of community stakeholders and partners. There are community benefits baked into every part of this effort, and it identifies potential projects and maps public and private investment into them aligned with the state and the state's goals. So it's a model based on partnership incentives and symbiosis, not just regulation. So what can you all do? In many ways you've already done it. But going forward, we need to streamline the path to getting these projects identified and done. And that means prosper, the hub, bts and others all have to work together to map opportunities and direct investment, and we have to build trust with the private sector and the organizations that serve them, like the port of Portland, as well as continue to serve community and community based groups that have been part of this process all along. Once those projects get identified, then we need to be able to work quickly to map dollars into them and clear any administrative hurdles in order to get these projects done and implemented as fast as possible and as efficiently as possible. Industrial processes are, by definition, energy intensive and efficiency alone won't be enough. So we also need clean, low carbon energy fuels available for decarbonization of industrial facilities. And that means removing some of the barriers to investment in those things. So this is an emerging effort. We're just getting off the ground, and we look forward to coming back to you later this year with concrete projects and demonstrated results and checking back in. Thank you.

Thank you so much. So, colleagues, we have about ten minutes before we need to start our next panel. Are there questions for any of our panelists comments or thoughts on anything that you've heard or anything else you'd like to add? While we're still thinking about the future of our economy? Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Professor king. Right, got that right. I just wanted to appreciate your bullet point about finding more space in public buildings for preschool, for. All right. I think that is the path to success for that program. I think a lot of people are not aware that actually that program took off and tried to create a lot of new hard space and building of buildings. But we also had declining enrollment in pbs at the same time in classrooms that went empty. So thanks for noting that in a very nonpartizan way of just like we have opportunities and preschool for all has been bounced around at different times, but it truly is. I mean, that metric that you showed about it's, it's earnings impact on people's lives is huge. And we have all the space that we probably need to achieve that commitment to all of Multnomah county it now it's just about execution. So thanks for highlighting one of the very easy executable dots on the map there. It's great.

Thank you. Councilor. Councilor. Ryan.

Thank you. Thank you chair. That was a this is quite a panel. You offered a lot of variety of opinions and I appreciate that. I want to start with first of all, andrew, we did have economic data presented at the first meeting with your group. Right? Wasn't that correct last year? All right. Correct. And I appreciate that you level set at us with some data as well. And I was fascinated by the diversity of thought that came out. Also diving into different industries was great. I think what I'd like to follow up with with the professor, your doctor. Professor. Okay. Psu. Yeah, is how do you explain the contrast between Multnomah county and Clark county? When I listen to what you said, it was easy to listen to and support. But it's true that a lot of families have left Portland, even though we've been passing some of the policies that you mentioned. And so seeing that contrast between Multnomah county and Clark county was pretty stark in the earlier slides. What's your thought on how to explain with two things? Could be true perhaps, and I'd like to hear you explain how two things can be true.

Well, for starters, I don't think we're as different as that data would imply. If you look at the loss of young families from large urban counties in through the pandemic years that applied to every county in our metro area, including Clark. And so affordability is an issue and was and the working from home changed things all over the country, in large urban counties. So that's part of it. The, the. And it seems to me that's the major number. But I would go back and say that the data that we have on Multnomah county losing young children, I know further back than I do for Clark county, and I know that it's been true in the shows up in the census 2000, 2010 and 2020. So, well, prior to any tax changes or anything like that, but already building affordability issues for families with young children. So we have lost in those three census years, 10% of the kids born in the county by preschool age. So families are looking for more house for their money. And the other thing I wonder about Clark county is about the perceived quality of the schools. I mean, oregon's been underfunding their schools now for 30 years, and we're really up against it. And we haven't been able to see much effective leadership to restore us to the situation before property tax limitations. So I think that's a big difference between Oregon and Washington at the moment. And when you talk taxes between Oregon and Washington, Washington residents pay more in tax than Oregonians do, but they don't feel it as easily because so much of it is sales tax.

And earlier your statement was that you didn't agree with some of the data. Is that your comment?

No, it was more about what are we losing to Clark county? I think I'm addressing a different angle on that, which is the situation for young families.

Okay. Andrew, do you have any comments?

Yeah. You know.

I was kind of contrasting.

Yeah. I'll quote the county economist. We are in what's known as a donut economy. And that is that growth is exclusive to the exterior of our region where one regional economy. So in fact, Clackamas and Washington counties still continue to grow. That's on the Oregon side of the river a little bit, but not much. Clark county is obviously the leader. If you took Clark county out of our region, we would be definitively in a remarkable recession right now. And then specifically to the regional economy. Look, there is no place that is defined by a regional economy in this country that has such a segregation of outcomes simultaneously. There is no place in this country that has a bigger difference in their tax structure than our local economy.

When you especially when you compare. Multnomah Clark correct. It's the biggest nexus you can find nationally.

To the point that if you went four miles north of where we are presently located and you are a single individual potentially making $150,000, you could receive potentially upwards of a 14% pay raise. And so in some cases, people are making specific choices. That's not a wholesale, you know, commentary on the overall tax structure. But at the end of the day, the most important thing that happens is if you're going to have the tax structure we do have, you must deliver quality services and execute on those services. And then simultaneously recommend or again, let me step back and point out, I think it's important for this committee to ask the questions themselves. Why are businesses leaving? Why are we losing jobs? You don't have to take our word for it at all. I would invite businesses that have left this community. I would invite people that have left this community, ask this question of them, because it's up to you to make these decisions, not based on talking heads, but on the experiences of people that are leaving. And I would just ask the folks, the 10,000 individuals that lost their jobs over the last 12 months here just in Multnomah county, what happened? Why is our economy more challenged than every other city in this country?

Thank you. Thank you chair. I found the two presentations back to back were the most fascinating, and I just wanted to give you a chance to explain further. I believed your data. I believe what you're saying to trying to reconcile this.

Could I say one thing about the tax structure? Our total taxes are not higher. It's the only tax that is higher is the marginal tax level on incomes. The rest of them as a package or all of them as a package are lower. So and we have had a difference, a huge difference in income tax levels with Washington forever. And we have not seen mass migration. So I think we need to look at other factors when we're thinking about what's going on.

Doctor king, do you have data on that?

Yes, yes. I'd be happy to share that data with you.

Let's make sure we get that to everybody on the committee so that we're all looking at the same things. Thank you. Councilor. Ryan councilor. Morillo. And then we'll move to the next panel after that.

Thank you all so much for this presentation. Really appreciate the perspective that we're getting today and excited to be on this committee and to explore this further with everybody. And thank you for professor king, for clarifying that. I was going to raise my hand to say the same thing. So I appreciate that. I had a question for mr. Bailey at the end of what you were talking about. I, I think I may have missed it. I just wanted to clarify, I think you said that there needs to be some investment in more clean fuels. Is that correct or did I misunderstand you or mishear you?

Thank you. Councilor what I said was that we need access to clean fuels because a lot of these these industrial processes are energy intensive. So the fact that you need heat in many ways to make these industrial processes work. So making sure that there's an availability for those kinds of fuels that are low carbon fuels that can provide heat is important.

And are you referring to renewable fuels when you're talking about that, or.

Yes, renewable fuels would be important or other sources of of low carbon energy.

And what is your perspective on moving away from fuel entirely and starting to move towards expanding our electricity grid, given what's happening and maybe happening for a very long time.

I'm certainly in favor of electrification as well, too. And so some of it is dependent on the specific industrial process, whether or not electricity can replace that equipment within a particular facility to replace that industrial process. But where that's possible, absolutely. Having clean electricity and having a secure and reliable grid is incredibly important.

Thank you.

Thank you to all our panelists on our first panel. I really appreciate you bringing such varied perspectives to help us start thinking about our work.

Thank you, thank you.

Second panel is nate mccoy, amy nagy, traci scott, vivian satterfield, and jeremy van karen. And on this panel, we'll hear different perspectives on building community resilience. Community resilience encompasses a lot of different types of ways or ways of being resilient and rather than different perspectives. On a similar topic on this panel, I suspect we will hear a lot of different meanings of the term resilience and a lot of different ways that we need to make sure we are strengthening our community in Portland. Nate, would you like to kick us off?

Yes. Thank you. Chair. Vice chair, members of the city life committee, thank you for having me here today. For the record, my name is nate mccoy, president and ceo of the national association of minority contractors for the state of Oregon, as well as the interim executive director of the black business association of Oregon. I'm all kind of blend both panels because I could see myself in both of these panels the prior and this one. But let me first state that small businesses and communities most impacted by policies tend to be the most resilient folks in our communities. So I just want to state that that's where I think our parallels definitely are between panels. I want to give a quick brief, I guess, mission background of both organizations. For some that may not know namak and bao very well and then certainly lean into some, some structural challenges that we see past, present, and probably in the future, but hopefully we together can work on it. The mission of namak, Oregon focuses primarily on construction and design industries and economic inclusion within public and private projects. Our mission is to eliminate barriers to full and profitable participation for small construction and design firms, supporting capacity building and business development for those firms, and promoting diverse workforce inclusion. As these businesses have equitable procurement and pathways to grow their business. Overall, namak oregon's purpose is to ensure businesses of color have access, relationships, skills, and opportunity pipelines to compete and succeed in construction economy. And we support that through a variety of what we call owner's rep services at namak and bao, which I will, which I will paraphrase as some of the big bond projects. If we look at Multnomah county library bond, Portland public school bond, Portland community college bond, and the beautiful airport that namak played the role as owner's rep on, you can't deny how much inclusion we've had on a couple of projects, and I just can see how we could expand those opportunities to be more resilient and how we support bandwidth of our agencies. Procurement staffs across the board are pretty small and thin, but yet procurement is the pathway to all economic opportunities for small businesses in the community. So we want to see that replicated and expanded and scaled. And then on the black business association, Oregon side focused, as stephen Green and andrew hone and others said, solely on economic development policy and an agenda to change some of the baselines that continue to show inequities that we clearly see in disparity studies at the state and local levels. And the big center, if you will, for us, is empowering black owned businesses to grow, lead and thrive and advocating for those policies and systems changes so that we can see sustainable economic equity. And then, you know, this is very big building infrastructure partnerships and cultural responsive support networks. I mean, I think we all know that from youth all the way up to adults, we have to we have to have best business practices in some of these firms know how to do the work, but haven't been in places to where they've ran businesses to know how to run the business side of the work. And so we're helping support them through mentoring and a lot of different programing. And so in essence, bbl works to create lasting systemic change. So black entrepreneurs and our collective small business communities can achieve long term economic mobility and success in Oregon. So with that said, the biggest thing I want folks to hear, because with the federal rhetoric, you would think that much of what we do for small businesses are handouts, protecting small businesses through our work and others is less about shielding. And, you know, hand-holding to the point of like, we're running these businesses for folks. These firms are very resilient and what they really, really need politicians and certainly electeds to hear is that their problems are not in their business. It's the structural challenges, reducing barriers, increasing access to opportunity and sustainable workforce. And as andrew hoan and others mentioned, the problem really is the systems that we operate in. I can look at many of the systems that we have at city of Portland. As a former employee of the city of Portland, and many of the procurements always talk about large businesses and how much experience you have to have to build anything. If you're a small business who feels they're set to build a big project, a pool, a convention center, or whatever it might be, there should be a pathway for you to be able to achieve that goal. We have some within the naimark family who are doing that, and we again want to see more succeed. Here are the the big, big problems though. We have disparity studies that have no implementation strategy. And I go back 15 years with disparity studies all the way back to vera katz days here. We've done nothing with these disparity studies other than continue to have conversations, committees. And we need to move past words and into real, true action. And I think that's where the partnerships happen with those that can help move the needle and understand these systems we've operated in for far too long. Contract access and relationship brokerage. I think it's a myth that small businesses have the same luxury and relationships as large businesses. Many of the project managers within the bureaus, I won't name folks, but they've worked with a lot of these contractors for 20 plus years, and you wonder why they keep showing up and getting the same projects year after year. We've got to change that dynamic and put them in a little bit more of a visibility seat so that they can see their market opportunities just as well as big business capacity building and technical assistance. Working with procurement, I can tell you that in the last budget cycle, we slashed a lot of technical assistance resources that were helping my non-profits and a lot of other non-profits help people earn while they learn. On city of Portland projects, bull run being one of those examples, but we know that these systems can change. And if we can dedicate more resources, we can see a little bit more roi on that spin. The other thing I'll also mention is a collective voice and a collective voice and market visibility. I'm happy to be on a panel with a lot of other folks who help support the community. I want to see us challenge ourselves to work more inclusively together with you all. But then outside of these four walls that we're also convening and coming up with strategies together. So my commitment will not just be about what you all do, but what I also do in my own beloved community as well. And then one cool one that I really love to say that I think will hopefully enhance cobid the system that a lot of small businesses have to go through to get certification to be accounted for on goals set by public agencies, on projects. We find that over 6,070% of businesses out there have no idea what cobid is, so we decided to spend our own resilient funds to create our own crm system. That crm system already holds 350 firms that we've found with the 12 staff that we have at nymag. I think we could expand that at the state level and find more and more. And both me and stephen Green and support of pmc will be talking with secretary tobias read to talk about how we find more and more businesses throughout the state that have to renew their business. So can we somehow collect that data so that we can go out to these communities that we're a part of and help people get cobid certified, and just help them find that opportunity as a design, construction or goods and service business for our for our whole state of Oregon. Here's the big idea for me. And let me just state what I wrote down because this kind of encapsulates it. Namekagon and cbo don't just support diverse businesses. What we really, truly do is stabilize them in an ecosystem with other people at the same size of their company, so that they can feel empowered, so they can feel like they're not alone, and so they can feel also, there's a network of supports as well as workforce, so that as they do scale, they're not looking outward. They can come to a name and our business hub and others to like get the supports and resources they need. So for me, I've said it before, the prime contractor development program, I can't say it enough. The program goes back to when I was a city employee ten years ago out of a disparity study. It was a way to literally create tiers of contractors 200,000 and below contractors after they graduated that program. Basically, as steven Green said, you can let direct contracts out to them. There was technical assistance fund tied to the program. Once you got a couple of projects in that level of tier one, you would rise up to the tier two, you'd have million dollar and below contracts that would almost be in your pipeline of small business bidding opportunities. And then when you got through with that one, you could go up to tier three, which would be a little above a million. I can't name a better program that we need to reinvest in and really stand back up so that we can add, hopefully, goods and service businesses to that, so that we can create a pool of, call it 100 businesses that can be directed contract work opportunities, get technical assistance, and then hire from their own communities. Program worked well until we had some challenges with nepotism and some folks who had shoplifted the program, if I'm being honest. But those folks were not some of the contractors of color. So the program went away for a while, and we're hoping that we can reinvest because to me, that would be the quickest way for us to start showing our community that we are open for business, and that these disparity studies will not dictate your opportunity or not. So with that said, I'm here alone, my panelists to answer questions as we all talk today. So thank you.

Thank you so much for kicking us off. Here. We have amy nagy next talking about how the new iteration of tif districts work to build community resilience.

Great. Thank you so much for having me. I do have a deck. Great. Awesome. Thank you so much. So for the record, I am amy nagy. I am currently serving as the interim director of development and investments at prosper Portland, which is the city's economic development agency. The department is responsible for managing the city's tax increment finance districts, also known as tif districts, in coordination with the Portland housing bureau. In more recent years, this has been done through district action plans that set the community priorities and investments in five year increments, with the goal of creating healthy and vibrant neighborhoods. As you all know, six new tif districts were approved in 2024. We're replicating the co-creation model that was developed in the tif district to set priorities and budget allocations in partnership with community members in each of these districts. Next slide please. Community members asked for a new approach to tif. This led to roughly a four year process to create the tif district plan, which outlines the long term vision, the goals and eligible project types. Prosper. Portland and fb worked with the cully community leadership committee, a community based advisory committee, to create the district's first action plan, which you all approved recently. Thank you so much. The plan sets five year priorities and allocates the funding for the selected programs and projects. It serves as a roadmap to guide the implementation and ensure accountability for housing and economic outcomes that are intended to work together. Progress will be reviewed every five years, and a new plan will be developed in partnership with that same committee, based on updated community priorities. Next slide please. The action plan currently directs $31 million of funding to investments focused on community stabilization and anti-displacement goals through wealth building and ownership opportunities for people in cully. Funding through grant and loan programs can be assessed by the community for costs associated with climate preparedness and environmental adaptation costs, including roof replacements, energy systems, new windows, solar panel installation, etc. Amongst others associated with construction. These types of investments are designed to support community resilience by keeping people in their homes, small businesses open, and creating jobs. Next slide please. The action plan establishes a financial certainty for the community to know. Funding is available to make improvements when needed and further their own goals. The clc can be. It can also recommend changes to those priority allocations. They have the power to do that, and if they see the opportunity to achieve a different outcome midway through ongoing engagement and relationship building amongst community based liaisons that are on the ground, and having a key presence in that in that district is helping us to build trust with community residents, with business owners, etc. And it's creating actually a stronger, I would say, more adaptable social network that's helping create some stability. And in particularly, we'll need it in moments of times of crisis. I'll close with this. Is that a commitment to resilience kind of the big idea, if you will? The commitment to resilience is really a commitment to the long term engagement and centering that particular community's needs. Getting to that point, it can be super bumpy. As you all know, it took four years just to get to the the actual tif district plan, and then two more years for the action plan. But and it takes a long time, but the lasting, it's lasting. And that is, I think, what we actually need to be prioritizing at this time. Thank you.

Thank you so much for bringing that into the conversation. Next, we have tracy scott to talk about the PCEF community grants. Thank you so much for being here.

Yeah. Good afternoon, chair pirtle-guiney and members of the committee. Thank you for having me. I'm tracy scott, the co-chair of the Portland clean energy fund and director of energy programs at energy trust of Oregon. I'm here today in both capacities. Energy trust, for the record, is. Thank you so much. Maybe I skipped forward is an independent nonprofit that helps Oregonians access clean, affordable energy, including here in the city of Portland, reaching portland's priority populations requires coordination across programs and partners, so we should continue and strengthen the alignment between PCEF and energy trust to maximize impact in the years ahead. Pcef through the climate investment plan and community grants, is one part of the system energy trust through incentives, services and technical expertise is another. When these efforts are aligned, we deliver stronger and more efficient results. For Portland communities, working together allows us to go deeper with the same households and neighborhoods, for example, by stacking funding with energy trust, incentives, coordination and coordinating outreach, and through trusted community based organizations and sharing technical expertise makes participation easier for portlanders. The one big idea is to treat cooling as essential infrastructure. One of the clearest shifts we're seeing is around heat. This is already affecting portlanders today through cooling. Portland pcf has helped bring cooling into more than 20,000 homes. Energy trust is also supporting heat pump adoption at scale by helping expanding access to more permanent heat cooling solutions for customers. At the same time, we're seeing progress at the state level, particularly around landlord provided cooling. Recognizing that access to cooling needs to be more consistent across all housing types. Taken together, this is pointing in the same direction. Cooling is no longer optional. It's a basic health and safety need. The opportunity now is to treat it that way, less as a programmatic response and more as a standard part of housing and infrastructure infrastructure going forward. At its core, resiliency means can people stay safe, cool, connected and supported during extreme heat, wildfire smoke and power outages, investments that help people during those moments also strengthen communities for the long term through pcf's cooling cooling Portland initiative. I'm sorry, the most effective investments deliver multiple benefits all at once. Deep, deep energy retrofits and home upgrades can lower utility bills, improve indoor air quality, increase safety during heat events, and reduce emissions. In some cases, households have saved over $1,000 per year while gaining critical cooling and energy resilience. Pcf's value is also reflected in who it reaches and how it delivers solutions to into communities and facilities that traditional systems do not always reach effectively, and those solutions are shaped by organizations that understand their communities best. We're facing compounding climate impacts more heat, more smoke, and more extreme weather. Alongside under investments in priority population buildings and increasing affordability pressure. Clean energy upgrades help address both these strategies save energy, generate renewable power, store energy, store energy when it's needed, and ultimately lower bills while protecting people from rising costs. We cannot do this work alone. It depends on partnerships among cities. Programs like pcf utilities, community organizations, and customers we serve. We align our efforts. The more we align our efforts, the stronger results will deliver. So in closing, energy trust looks forward to continuing and strengthening this work alongside pcf. For all portlanders work that keeps people safe during extreme heat. Work that maintains critical services during outages, and work that lowers bills and emissions at the same time. Thank you.

Thank you so much, and thank you for bringing forward that that big idea connected to the theme as well. Next committee, we will hear from vivian satterfield about some of our climate action work at the city. Go right ahead.

Thank you. Chair, vice chair, members of the committee, thank you for having me this afternoon. I'm vivian satterfield, your chief sustainability officer. I want to start my comments today with the big picture. Every issue that this committee has purview over economic development, parks, labor equity, community resilience has a climate dimension. Portland faces an enormous challenge ahead to meet our 2030 climate goal established by the 2020 climate emergency declaration of reducing community wide carbon emissions by at least 50% below 1990 levels, we must reduce emissions by 24% in the next four years. That's essentially doubling the pace of our annual reductions for four years. And that's a herculean task that weighs heavy on the minds of the city's climate practitioners. We cannot meet those goals without recognizing how deeply interdependent climate action is with our energy system, our ability to decarbonize while maintaining affordability depends on a grid and utility partners that are prepared, accountable, and aligned with our climate goals. At the same time, we must prepare our community for the impacts that are already here. As mentioned, the 2022 climate emergency work plan called out the need for portlanders to be resilient to everyday climate stresses like heat, wildfire, smoke, power outages, flooding and these events don't hit everyone equally. They deepen disparities that communities of color and low income portlanders already face. Our work must start from that reality. We appreciate the work of the subcommittee for dedicating their time and resources there as well. Early findings from the climate change risk assessment that I've initiated with the Oregon climate change research institute point to heat. As one of our most urgent threats. We expect roughly 60 days each year with a heat index above 80°f. That's three weeks more than in the past. We're also looking at increases of 9 to 11 days of extreme fire danger. We all lived through the deadly 2021 heat dome, but 70 community members in Multnomah county did not. We know how disruptive wildfire smoke and extreme storms are when they close parks, schools and cancel events. So I take these climate projections seriously because they give us a sobering reality check on the climate impacts to public health, our infrastructure, our economy and workforce. This February, the city auditor told us plainly what we already knew as part of our climate justice audit, Portland has lacked clear direction, measurable strategies and accountability structures to meet its own climate commitments and community needs for resiliency. The

The final climate emergency work plan progress report stated it clearly. This moment invites Portland to lead with transparency and courage. What we need is discipline, resource commitments and steady follow through to actualize our climate goals. One concept to follow through on that could meaningfully improve portland's future is to align our energy and resilience strategies. A coordinated energy strategy, in the form of a Portland virtual power plant could help us get ahead of rising energy costs and plan for a future where households, neighborhoods, businesses, and community institutions produce and manage more of their own energy. We've already got many of those familiar toolbox in our toolbox. Think small scale battery storage, community based renewables, smart thermostats. You probably have these in your homes heat pumps, even electric vehicles. Those all give us flexibility in how energy is generated and stored close to where we need it. When coordinated, they strengthen grid reliability, support decarbonization, decarbonization, and keep energy affordable. And importantly, they provide resilience during outages. Imagine community centers functioning as true resilience hubs with backup power that keeps people safe during extreme heat or storms. One way this committee can support is to connect climate directly to housing and economic development projects, and make the linkage explicit in policy and budgetary decisions. That could look like adopting carbon performance and cooling standards for buildings to become more resilient to hotter days. Advancing resilience hubs citywide. Adopting a smart surfaces approach. Investing in trees, solar reflective and permeable surfaces, cool roofs that can all reduce heat, save energy, and lower long term costs. There are additional recommendations and ready concepts that I look forward to sharing with you at a future time, if you choose to focus your efforts here. Lastly, I'll leave you with this. Climate work doesn't follow an election cycle or even a linear project timeline. It demands steady, sustained commitment. The role I'm in as your cso, alongside the recently established sustainability and climate commission, were designed here to provide support to you as city decision makers develop measurable strategies and offer a level of coordination that simply hasn't existed before. I encourage you to take advantage of this moment to protect portlanders, grow equitably, and build a future that is more resilient, more affordable, and more just. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And colleagues, we'll close out this panel with jeremy van keuren talking about our net team's.

Thank you, chair, vice chair and members of the committee. My name is jeremy van keuren, and I'm the community preparedness manager for the Portland bureau of emergency management. And you've heard me speak before. Something I often open with is to point out that in the aftermath of a disaster, between 90 to 95% of all the people who are rescued are rescued by their neighbors. So community resilience is something that's very important to us. With my team, I manage the neighborhood emergency team program, which includes 1500 portlanders and 80 neighborhoods trained as disaster responders for their communities. We also manage the code, which stands for community organizations active in disaster. This is a network of community based organizations and faith based institutions working with us to prepare their constituent communities for climate emergencies. In emergency management, we say that relationships are infrastructure, net and the code are how we are building that infrastructure. And that brings me to one of the ideas I was looking forward to broaching, which is to expand and socialize the code. Code organizations are common in areas of the country that experience frequent disasters. In florida, for example, anytime there's a hurricane, the local ngos and faith groups there already know their role and how to interface with emergency responders. They've already prepared their communities, and they are immediately ready and available to help. With the growing threat of climate emergencies, we need to build that same level of trust and socialization with non-profits and faith organizations in our region. And it was gratifying to hear nate bring up the procurement process. Something that would be really helpful to us is we, you know, we work with, again, with small organizations, we might contract with them to open a cooling center during summer heat emergencies. But the procurement process is not particularly friendly to your corner church or your very small nonprofit organization. And I want to emphasize that procurement staff that I've worked with have been nothing but helpful as much as they can be when we do work with them. But the system itself. I would say, is not particularly conducive to working with folks at that scale. Another big idea that we're interested in in monitoring is the start of climate resilience districts. This is a movement we've been observing in california, and it's too soon to say if it'll bear fruit. But the idea is that local governments are creating geographic districts where they have the option of using mechanisms like tax increment financing, bonds and grants to invest in climate resilience. And finally, and I apologize, my my comments are relatively short. I think our new form of government offers new opportunities for bureaus and partner government offices to collaborate on community resilience. Community resilience means many different things to many different people. As was pointed out at the beginning. I work in the disaster management space, but many other bureaus are working on their own points of entry to community resilience. And I'm hoping to be part of a more holistic and cross bureau approach to community resilience that will have us working towards common goals. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And thank you to all of our panelists. Colleagues, we have about five minutes. If anybody has any questions or points that you'd like to highlight from this panel. I'm pausing because I have somebody looking at their notes.

So I'll just off the cuff, I didn't know you were going to allow us to do this. It's great. So I am listening. And then it makes me want to ask questions since I'm listening to you. Jeremy, what you brought up at the end was really fascinating. And you were careful. You're very diplomatic, but you were talking about procurement and that there's some roadblocks to working with certain organizations. Can you not maybe not be as diplomatic and be a little more concrete on what that means?

Sure. So we are caught in an intersection with working with community based organizations, cbos, where the state of Oregon is. Tightening up their rules around insurance. And at the same time, here at the city, we're introducing a new procurement system through ariba, which has been pretty efficient, but trying to onboard some of our our contractors and consultant consultants, frankly, has been it's been extremely challenging. And I think there's just some growing pains there. But for example, you know, I have invoices from last September that have still not been paid. And our partners have been very patient with us. They get it. They understand that this is a new system, but that's just not acceptable, especially for small organizations. So I don't know if I'm completely addressing your question, but those are definitely the challenges.

Know how to have more meetings and ask more questions. And I can see why you brought nate in in terms of that issue. I have a better understanding of because I've heard about it for a longer period of time. I remember with just with bonds and that they can't do certain projects. So it's like you're, you're, you're small and you're growing, but you're not there yet. Like when are you ever going to be there? And so it's kind of gets down to the, the I part of di and how we can be more inclusive when we start building these systems. And sometimes our policies choke each other from the state to local. And that's me trying to be diplomatic.

Yeah.

And, and say that I heard you did I am I following what you're.

Yeah, I.

Connected with nate.

And. Yeah. And I think I think that would be a good idea. And yes, for situations like we'll have an independent consultant who is delivering life saving training in the community that is culturally relevant and in a different language. And then, but then when we asked them to come on as a vendor, even if they are their own person, they have to have auto insurance, liability insurance, just all kinds of insurance carrying like $1 million worth of it for just that's.

Why you went back to the neighbors helping neighbors theme, and that some of our policies make that difficult to do.

Yeah. And I want to be careful to say that I don't think people should carry less insurance, but the the insurance regime that we seem to have is, is not helpful for us and the communities that we serve.

I didn't hear you say that. And I just have to say, when I've been at neighborhood association meetings, I think twice, we were there like, it's so great when you're there. I think you really do engage the room. That's not always an easy room. You engage the room and they really do connect with one another and you can see it taking off. So thank you for your service. Thank you. And that's the one question I was drilling in on. Does anyone else have any. Yeah.

I think we're going to move to our next panel. And I know there are other questions for you all. We'll get them to you and make sure that we follow up on other things. But I'd like to make sure we have time for a break after this next panel. So thank you all so much for being part of our overview and helping us to start out our thinking on our work today. Colleagues, for our final panel, we're looking at the experience of people who live and visit Portland. And this is a broad spectrum of the work that's been assigned to our committee. We'll hear from courtney verano about from for all families Oregon, about the experience of families in our community. Bernal, cruz munoz from the new portlanders policy commission about the experience of members of our community who are new to Portland and to this country. We'll hear from subhashini ganesan, forbes from our arts commission about arts. Broadly, arts intersect with this committee in a lot of ways. So this will be just a taste of that work. From jessica Green about how parks help to create the foundation for the experience of people who are here. And from lori wimmer, looking broadly at the experience of working people in Portland. Courtney, please go right ahead.

Thank you. Chair pirtle-guiney vice chair Zimmerman, members of the committee. For the record, my name is courtney varano. My pronouns are she and her. And I'm here on behalf of for all families, Oregon, formerly family forward, Oregon. And this is actually my first time as a portlander testifying in front of city council. So check off my bucket list. We organize caregivers, parents and child care providers in the fight for racial, gender, and economic justice and to really center and uplift care at the center of our communities. When caregivers and advocates talk about making Portland family friendly, we're not just talking about parks and playgrounds, but we are talking about whether parents can afford to live here while raising children, whether childcare providers can make enough to stay in the profession, and the fact that so many families are just one missed paycheck away from losing everything. Because here is a tough reality about Portland. Child care is unaffordable for nearly all families in Portland, regardless of income. A Portland family paying for infant care faces an average cost of nearly $20,000 per year, outpacing the cost of in-state public college tuition by about 50%, a recent lendingtree study shows. A household with two children needs to make over $400,000 a year for it to be deemed affordable. Meanwhile, this is actually more than three times the median income for a family of four in the city. So what happens when families can't access care? One thing we can look to actually is the Portland metro chamber's recent study that found women with children under six face the lowest workforce participation. Participation rates of any women or of all women. And the report explicitly states that the high cost and limited availability of infant and toddler care is a key barrier. This is even more troubling when we understand that the childcare workforce is 95% self-identified women black, brown, melanated and immigrant women are disproportionately represented in this essential workforce, yet they make an average of just $35,000 a year. Providers are closing because they can't afford to stay open, and it's creating the largest workforce shortage gap in Oregon across all sectors. So what's the big idea? Portland has to start treating childcare like the essential economic infrastructure it is alongside transportation, housing, utilities. Every $1 invested returns 4 to $16 in economic benefit. That's better than almost any infrastructure project that this city could fund. So here are three concrete actions that Portland can take. First, eliminate zoning and building code red tape childcare providers are facing months, even years, navigating permits and zoning. The city should create a fast track approval process, waive all permitting fees for new and expanding centers, and assign a dedicated navigator to help providers, particularly a dedicated navigator. That, and program that is multilingual, multicultural to serve this really unique workforce that we have. Second, subsidized childcare worker wages through existing infrastructure that we already have. The city doesn't need to make any new bureaucracy to do this. The center for career development and childhood care at PSU has already disbursed millions in direct payments to the childcare workforce in 2024 and 2025, so Portland should commit city funds to partner with the center and PSU and continue these wage supplements for Portland providers past the 2026 year. This is direct economic support to workers that make every other sector possible. And third, we should provide pregnant mothers and families much needed financial support. Portland should create a city funded direct cash program with no strings attached. Payments for pregnant mothers and families with children under the age of one. Similar to our kids, which has been enormously successful in several cities across the state of michigan. And in fact, we actually have a privately funded program operating just starting right here in Multnomah county. The bridge project research shows that direct cash has one of the highest roi of any anti-poverty intervention reducing childhood poverty, improving maternal health, and increasing housing stability, actually reducing the amount of evictions of families and people that are living in urban areas. And we learned this firsthand actually during the pandemic, when the expanded child tax credit reduced childhood poverty in the entire country by half in just one year. So to to conclude, the question is simple. Does Portland want to be a city where only the wealthy can raise children, or a city where working families can put down roots, build wealth, and contribute long term? These three policies I've outlined are achievable and funded by investments that pay for themselves many times over. And frankly, they are necessary if we want Portland to be a city where families don't just survive but thrive. Thank you.

Thank you so much for kicking off this panel for us. Bernard, you are up next.

Thank you. Good afternoon. It's nice to see you all again. And thank you for having me here today. Members of this committee, I'm here today. My name is bernard cruz munoz, and I'm here today representing the new portlanders city commission, whereby members have been elected to represent and sort of bring voice to newcomers to the city, mainly migrants and folks who have been displaced. It is an honor to speak with you today and to be a resource to continue to be a resource to city life, to carry out the good work of developing good policy that advances the interests of an equitable city. The nprc really believes that Portland should pay close attention to the safety and the sense of wellness and belonging currently among migrants, and in all migrants and displaced people in the community. Many are facing concerns about ice presence, rising xenophobic rhetoric and the fears of family separation. As a result, some of us feel hesitant to leave our homes. Some of us feel worried and concerned about traveling not just in our own communities, but abroad. My father is actually one person who has decided not to return for a visit to guatemala, for fear of how he might be treated on the way back. This way is very heavily on my family, but I know it's not true just for my family, but our community at large. So one big idea for this complicated problem, or an opportunity for improvement, is this strengthening of the community support and making a clear, visible commitment from local government to protect vulnerable populations. This means more intentionally engaging the broader community and partner organizations to promote safety and wellness. It also means investing in programs and strategies that center these needs. As seen recently in efforts like funding saw, it is important that we continue to bear in mind that wellness is not defined by the lack of pathology. That is to say, just because we aren't ill, one should not conclude that our communities are well. City council has a key role to play by being present, actively listening. Thank you. And standing in solidarity. Solidarity with these communities, showing up to events, building trust through consistent engagement, communicating transparently about the actions being taken, and taking a proactive approach that anticipates the needs and supports and supports safety and well-being before the crisis arises, and then responding only after harm has already occurred. Let us consider, for instance, that the wellness of our migrant communities is a measure of public health and therefore, in the interests of the public at large. Thank you.

Thank you so much for bringing that into the conversation and making sure it's part of the work that we do.

Thank you colleagues.

Next, we will hear from subhashini ganesan forbes about arts in our community. Please.

For the record, my name is subhashini forbes. Thank you for including me in this conversation. I come to you today with my full self as a choreographer, nonprofit founder and administrator, and civic leader. In my various roles, I am honored to interact with the arts, music and culture sector of our city and beyond through many different ways, and that helps me bring what I hope is a holistic perspective to this work. It's a little daunting to speak on behalf of arts and music and culture. So I want to lay lay a little groundwork, tell you my big idea, say why and give you some house. There are three major components of the arts, culture and music sector that needs tending at all times. If city council's goal is to strengthen quality of life and belonging across Portland, people. Product, place, people. That means artists, creatives, culture bearers think choreographers, visual artists, muralists, playwrights, actors, dancers, musicians, composers, conductors, authors representing a vast array of cultures that represent our city people also means arts education specialists, teaching artists, art specialists within our school systems, and all those who bring the precious and critical type of learning into classrooms where young people learn to be creative, innovative and curious. People also means technicians. The lighting designers, sound designers, backstage staff, costume designers, set designers, book layout experts, preservationists, restoration experts. And that goes on. People also means the administrators, those who are supporting the mission of the sector by taking on executive development, communication, finances, related positions and organizations to support the making and thriving of the sector. And people also means voters and civic leaders who shape the well-being of our city for decades now we go to product. All the people I listed are making things. Their artistic and creative processes lead to political plays, dance performances, books, literary magazines, music albums, music concerts, operas, street art, public art murals, book fairs, tedx events, film festivals, year round seasons of intergenerational arts, culture and music experiences. And thirdly, place. We can call them venues, big venues, small venues, theaters, concert halls, galleries, museums, bookshops, arenas, parks and alternative venues like schools. These are the spaces that become imbued and embodied with arts, culture and music activations. That is the community and sector that I'm speaking on behalf of. So the big idea, all three components need tending to simultaneously and equitably in order for Portland to shine as a safe, community resilient city, the tendency sometimes is to prioritize place first, product next, and trust that the people will therefore be taken care of. This trickle down theory just does not work. Equally, supporting the people, product and place of the sector will benefit Portland economically and elevate community resilience and safety. I could tell you all the economic data that exists. I trust you know, or else I will send them to you. But I feel that I want to talk about a different kind of economic well-being of this three pronged approach. Resources allow the people of the sector to gather as a thriving artistic community, making, creating and celebrating the core of risk taking and creativity. And this is economically attractive in so many ways. People who are making the product need assurance of some steady resources. So in addition to place, say, a residency option, provide a monetary stipend. As you all know, making money comes from spending money to trust that economic growth could come with no compensation for the people of the sector, but only monetary incentives for place and products is a viewpoint that needs to be shifted. So let's look at the other side, which is community resilience and safety perspective. It's all about brain science. Research shows that human experiences of awe and wonderment. So think about going to nature and seeing a mountain. Think about the night sky with the milky way. Think about that dance performance that made you cry. And you don't know why. So these experiences of awe and wonderment are scientifically proven to provide pathways for our brains to be resilient, be more creative, and bring our full selves to any situation. With neuro arts and neuroaesthetics burgeoning in the last 20 years, we see a clear pathway to wellbeing, community cohesion and safety. People are experiencing artistic expression and or when the same people engage in artistic activity, they allow for their brains to enter spaces of surprise, curiosity and risk taking. This immediately allows for synapses to transmit that feeling of safety, and this safety allows for even more creativity. So innovation, future thinking, and true community centered problem solving opportunities. So the people, product and place of the arts, culture and music sector become this have this ability to be in the driver's seat of community safety together. So if at this point you're thinking, well, that's all great, but what are we going to do about this? Glad you asked. I have a few things to tell you. Use. Use the our creative future cultural plan that the city of Portland led and then adopted in 2024. It's got a lot of intelligent ways that tangible steps can be taken. It's divided into five goals with a lot of subsections, but I think it would be a missed opportunity if this committee did not use that document as a start of a playbook. Secondly, build an accessible, sleek, sophisticated and central clearinghouse that is a one stop shop for locals and tourists to know the riches that is the arts, music and culture sector of Portland clearinghouse exists. Lists exists, but I'm going to. Bold, sophisticated and sleek. Thirdly, find a way to truly embed arts education across our schools so that the next generation of audiences, philanthropists, civic leaders, and donors will naturally find their way to the fold. Consistent arts education supports our youth in battling loneliness and builds healthy, empowered ways to build relationships across our nation. Research after research shows that arts education effectively reduces absenteeism and promotes overall academic achievement levels. If we're going to attract families to live, create, and be a long term member of our city, we need arts, education and schools to support our youth in educational lives. Fourth, downtown is truly at the front and center of so many conversations right now. Probably rightfully so. But Portland is larger where many microcultures as much as we're a microclimates, and I would urge the committee to find ways to resource the people, products, and places across the four districts and convene a citywide resource council, rather than an oversight committee from stakeholders in the arts, culture and music sector so that you have partners in the community who can give you the latest on the heartbeat of the people, product and place you want to know about. There's so much we can do together without overthinking it. If you can join the thousands of artists, culture bearers and creatives who work alongside organizations to build meaningful artistic experiences and expressions in unique, powerful venues all across our city. The people, the products and places of the arts, culture and music sector are doing the work right now, and it would be an absolute honor to join hands with the civic life committee to strengthen and enliven our city through resourced and thoughtful projects. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. We are committee members. Moving on to jessica Green to talk about parks.

Thank you.

Council, can you hear me? My name is jessica Green. I'm the executive director of the Portland parks foundation. We're a citywide parks nonprofit that exists to mobilize support for our parks and natural areas. I've been asked to speak today about the role of parks programing in supporting families and community life here in Portland. It is a topic near and dear to my heart. I have three children who spend more time on sports fields than anywhere else. I'm also the current board chair of friends of tryon creek and on the board of the Oregon girls lacrosse association. All that is to say, parks programing is my life. I want to take a moment to also say thank you, councilors, for referring the levy last year to preserve parks programing, especially discounted parks programing, as we experience it today. While parks programing is quite broad and like, I was a little intimidated to be covering all parks programing, I am narrowing the focus today to youth parks programing and its impact on the livability for families in our city. I'd like to start out with the fact that play serves as a powerful, accessible tool to meet basic fundamental human needs for kids. Play fosters physical health, mental well-being, and social connection. Portland parks and recreation and partner programing in our public parks and community centers plays an essential role in equitable access to play for portland's kids summer camps, after school programs, sports teams, recreational classes, swim lessons, teen services, just to name a handful. For families, youth parks programing means reliable, affordable childcare outside school hours. Safe, structured environment for kids, the ability to stay employed and economically stable. So when we talk about youth parks programing, we're also talking about economic stability, public safety, and family and individual well-being. If we want to. If we want Portland to be a city where families can realistically stay, work and raise kids, then reliable, affordable youth programing is not optional. It's essential infrastructure. When surveyed last year, residents ranked access to affordable recreation among the top things they are willing to invest in in our parks, programing above everything else other than litter pickup, which matched it. So I came today with three opportunities to present to city council in a way that you can lead in this space. First, protect and prioritize youth programing as a core service parks and our partners are doing an incredible job at innovative and affordable programing, but we cannot deliver consistent, high quality program without stable funding and functional spaces. The good news is parks is developing a long range financial plan, and I ask that you ensure that it explicitly centers youth programing. I also encourage you to better understand the broader issue of play by getting involved with local coalitions. For example, with support from nike, aspen institute's project play is working on the state of play report for Portland, a report coming later this year that will highlight barriers and opportunities for children across the region to play sports and be physically active. The project's goal is to build consensus around high impact strategic initiatives that will support all youth to thrive through sport and movement. I encourage someone from this council to be an active member of future coalition work coming out of that report and the policy building that will follow. Second, I encourage this council to invest in what enables programs to run, all too often, asset maintenance and program delivery are pitted against each other. They're a team and they need to be treated that way. Deferred maintenance is already canceling or limiting programs. I encourage you to support reforms, capital dollars, and partnerships to better support usable program ready spaces. Third, no surprise here. Use partnerships to enhance and expand programing. First, do this by leaning into project connect and community partnership work that came out of the 2020 parks levy. If you aren't familiar with it, I encourage you to learn more. A ton of park programing is led by amazing partners working to fill gaps and are committed to keeping play affordable and accessible, versus pay to play models that have become the norm and are eliminating affordable, community based programs and excluding kids from participating in play. I can't speak more highly about this work. I encourage you to convene key stakeholders in this work, both from city staff and from the program participants, and identify additional opportunities and gaps. And lastly, also pave the way for private investment. We've talked about this a lot in the last year, and I'm going to continue to talk about it. And I would love to work with council. Even hearing jeremy speak earlier to remove internal barriers in order to accelerate partner projects and programs to expand access. Parks are so uniquely positioned with strong private interests to invest in projects that could expand programing. So let's create pathways for trusted partners to supplement the system through privately led, city approved projects to expand reach, affordability, and the speed in which we can do this. So to summarize the takeaways from today, the opportunity in front of you is to align policy and funding so that youth parks programing can be delivered reliably, equitably, and at scale. This includes stabilizing operations funding. So programs are not dependent on short term solutions. Protecting youth programing as a core service, especially in communities with the greatest need, prioritizing capital investments that restore and activate spaces where programs happen and leverage partnerships to expand impact. Not to replace core responsibility. Though access to youth programing is one of the reasons families choose and stay in Portland. If we want to retain families, this is where we need to continue to invest. Thank you.

Thank you so much, colleagues. We will wrap up this panel with lori wimmer talking about working people in our community. Right ahead, lori.

Thank you, madam chair and committee members for your record. Lori wimmer, representing the northwest Oregon labor council, keenly aware that I am the person standing between you and break. I want to offer my congratulations to the new city life committee, which holds space across a giant landscape of issues critical to Portland livability. Just as your mission is vast, so too are the concerns of the workers for whom I'm honored to speak. Today, I was asked to address for a few minutes how Portland workers are faring. Given that our council represents thousands of public and private sector workers, there's a lot to say. But I will just share the top lines here. I have my full report for you in your written materials, and I hope you will take the time to read it, because they, about 16 labor leaders gave us their input, and I believe it's worth your time, given the need to boil it all down this afternoon though, and with apologies to sesame street, let me say that today's testimony is brought to you by the letter p. Apparently we both did that. People, projects, partnerships, public safety priorities, proximity parks and Portland state university. First people workers, especially at the lower end of the earnings spectrum, identify issues of safety, fear for the future, economic struggles and low morale. After past layoffs, those still employed are asked to do more with less, and this has become unsustainable. One union leader told us that a side effect of the consolidation project at the city is that dozens of union jobs are disappearing, to be replaced by unrepresented positions. Reductions in force should never result in de unionization projects. Contracting remains a key issue. Our building trades folks point out that there is a need for trans bureau consistency in contract administration. One example brought to me was that apprenticeship is required for all crafts on the bull run project that you heard about earlier, but under the same agreement, it's not required for the carolina truck sewer trunk sewer rehab project. Consistency is the necessary ingredient as it relates to contracting out of city jobs. We continue to stress in our city budget letter, which is also incorporated with my written testimony that Portland overpays for the work of contractors to do the same work that city employees do. Ending this practice would recover significant sums of money to balance the budget with fewer layoffs. Please refer to that labor coalition paper that we we submitted that talks about that in a great deal of detail. Our workforce also believes that public funds, whether for city employees or for money, that flows to partners, grantees and contractors should come with the expectation that these recipients provide good family wage jobs. You can make that a caveat of your spending. Little idea partnerships as projects emerge on the horizon, workers are asked that successful working partnerships with public and private entities be forged that leverage resources and problem solvers to meet this moment. Our iac members, for example, concerned about the future of p5 venues and the arts organizations you heard so much about within them. Ask that the voices of labor and not landowners, be those you prioritize to ensure that good paying arts jobs continue uninterrupted and add cultural and economic value to portland's recovery. Public safety aspects of this topic rose again and again in my conversations with workers in Portland. Our firefighters, psr and chat employees, for example, have faced a ten year recruitment and retention problem that will only be exacerbated by the cola reductions being floated for the next budget and budget, decisions that lengthen response times by cutting replacement workers will also imperil not only worker safety but that of all portlanders. Our public safety sector does its utmost to keep us all safe, but they're understaffed for the level of community distress that we still confront our grocery workers, bus drivers, parks employees, health care workers and many others have reported that they still feel unsafe on the job. Our workforce asks that the issue be taken for the serious quality of life concern. It is, especially in our lowest income neighborhoods and in our marginalized communities priorities. When addressing budget balancing this spring, you will be challenged to minimize service losses and maximize investment and revenue opportunities. Our workers ask that you prioritize union representation, which is the best way to ensure that workers can live here and thrive. Proximity the housing affordability crisis has pushed out many of our workers who can no longer afford to live in the city where they work. A gis study was done by one of those private sector workforce unions to discover how far from their jobs their workers lived. The answer was far. This means long commutes, which is a cost and time burden for the employee, but also for governments. Facing down infrastructure costs diminish revenues, to say nothing of climate impacts. Parks. The experience of our seasonal and permanent parks workers related to us issues of affordability, workplace safety and exploitation of the casual workforce. They experienced daily theft and drug related incidents, and weekly assaults on staff. Yet there is no on site security, and responses from rangers and law enforcement are slow. As the largest employer of teenagers in Portland, this is particularly troubling. Psu PSU is one of the key institutions that could be a part of portland's economic recovery, but instead it's facing a historic contraction due to its own insufficient funding, which may result in laying off 200 of the 100 faculty and professional academics in their employ. Part of the cause of this crisis is declining enrollment, accelerated by the perception of a downtown that is unsafe. Clearly, the fate of the college is connected to the fate of the city and vice versa. Finally, my parting words also a p while nearly 9000. Actually, I heard 10,000 today. My numbers were slightly lower. 9000 jobs have been lost in the Portland metro region in the recent past, and with a shift to part time work accelerating at the highest rate in a decade, our workforce continues to bear the brunt of the systemic and community wide ills that have beset us since the pandemic, as well as of policy decisions at various government levels. For instance, our plumbers and pipefitters at ua 290 report that they have the lowest job levels in 13 years. In preparation for this presentation, as I said, I spoke to 16 union leaders representing thousands of public and private sector workers. I won't list them here in the interest of time, but you have them in your written information. But nearly universally, I will say that they ask that you support frontline workers over administrative bloat, that you end for the city workers, expensive contracting out that you ensure partnering entities receive city funds, partnering entities that receive city funds. Make sure they're good paying employers, and ensure that all of us, businesses and individuals pay our fair share to support a vibrant and recovered city. Finally, they ask that we provide just transition for workers whose industries are negatively impacted by policies, however noble, that result in eliminating their jobs. Thank you so much for considering our perspectives.

Thank you for closing us out with that overview. I think we're going to take one question so that we have time for a break. Councilor Avalos go right ahead.

Candace Avalos: All right. Thank you. It's a couple comments. Is that all right? All right. Well thank you all for being here and sharing your experiences. I think that the stories that you've shared very much align with my goals and what I'm trying to tackle as a committee member. So I just wanted to share just a couple of quick notes about how I'm thinking about the work ahead. So it doesn't directly just apply to this panel, but to all of you. But again, thank you. I just, you know, we've been talking about how there's a big scope for this committee. And but I don't see that the city life portfolio is a set of separate issues, right? As we are discussing, it's all an interconnected system and our economy, our communities and the experience of living in Portland are all deeply linked. Right. We know that. And I think that our role in this committee is to pull at those threads and understand how decisions in one area impact others in impact outcomes in another area. And I wanted to just name something that I think is critical that climate work no longer has a dedicated committee home, and I don't want climate justice to get lost or buried because of that. I think the previous panel really shared the interconnectedness of climate work in all of this, and I just wanted to elevate that because climate justice isn't just about sustainability, it's about core resilience for our city, and it shapes public health and economic opportunity, housing stability, right? Whether portlanders, especially those that are most impacted by environmental injustice, can thrive in the long term. So I just wanted to state that because I believe that if we're serious about building a strong and inclusive economy, that climate justice needs to be part of that. Also, I wanted to lift up something that I heard as it relates to immigrant businesses and refugee businesses. Right now, many of those small businesses are businesses are navigating unique and rapidly changing sets of challenges, particularly uncertainty driven by federal actions. And so I just think that that's this is a space where I want to elevate that particular issue because it is a sensitive and time sensitive to what's going on right now. And I think that we need to make sure to not just be fair weather friends to the small businesses that we purportedly uplift, particularly immigrant businesses. And lastly, I'll just say that, you know, as we're talking about the economy broadly, what's important to remember and what I'm hearing in your words, right, is that our local economy is powered by our communities. So the people that live here and work here and invest. And so when we talk about growing our economy, then our response need to be needs to be investing in those communities, right? Investing in those small businesses and making sure that we're building some lasting economic resilience from the ground up. So that doesn't mean large corporate tax breaks. That means investing in community based orgs and small businesses that are already the backbone. Ultimately, I hope that this committee can really connect those dots between economic development and community resilience and do that in a way that is reflective of the lived experience of portlanders, especially with this last panel shared with us of the economic and affordability issues that I believe the city has some levers that we need to be pulling. So thank you for your perspectives. I'm really grateful to hear all the partners that are excited to work with us. And so I'm sure I'll be seeing you a lot this year. That's all. Thanks.

Thank you, councilor and thank you to our panel for bringing some really important perspectives about how all of this affects people who are here every day. We appreciate all of your input.

May I ask you a question very quickly? What is the national threshold for poverty?

We'll get that data to you. I don't have it off the top of my head, but we can look it up. We're going to move to a short break in just a minute, and I'm sure someone can get it for you. Colleagues, as we wrap up this agenda item, I just want to thank you. I know this was a lot for a first day. We'll get our voices in more as we move forward, but I wanted to make sure we could hear these 15 different perspectives on the work that we have before us, and a huge thanks to all of our panelists for being part of the conversation. We are going to take a seven minute break and be back here at 405. We are in recess.

For.

Now, and it was a.

Good sometimes st. Johns. But.

Thank you.

Welcome back. I am reconvening our committee meeting. I know our colleagues will be here in just a moment. And could we please hear item two on our agenda?

Item number two, document number 2020 6-1 31. Amend franchise granted to comcast of Oregon to inc to reflect the dissolution of the mount hood cable regulatory commission.

Thank you and colleagues I believe we have a staff presentation from Eric engstrom and andrew spear. And I'll note before we get started that in, I believe, two committee meetings, we will have additional ordinances related to the mount hood cable regulatory commission coming before us. These are coming, unfortunately, not all together because of some of the timing needs of a few of them. But as we move through the conversation today, know that we will have other conversations coming that are related to this topic. Eric, go right ahead.

Thank you, chair, for the record. Eric engstrom, I'm the director of the bureau of planning and sustainability. And with me is andrew spear, who's the manager of our franchise utility program at the city. And you, you alluded to one of the things I want to just start off by saying is exactly that, that this is one of several things. As you may know, the mount hood cable regulatory commission manages cable television franchises throughout the county. And there's a process right now going on to dissolve that commission and devolve those responsibilities back to the individual cities. And so there are a number of actions that are coming to council in a sequence related to the unwinding of that. This is one of them. We're also amending city code to remove some incidental references to the commission, and we also need to set up a new city fund to take dedicated revenue related to the cable franchise. And then the mayor's budget, I anticipate, will have at least a couple decision packages related to movement of money around to accommodate that revenue coming to the city. So that's the overall context is there's several of these things. The the amendment to the cable franchise is largely technical because the city will continue to have that franchise, and we're not changing any other terms with the franchise. And I'll turn it over to andrew to to talk about that.

Great. Thanks, Eric. Good afternoon everyone. My name is andrew spear and I'm the manager of the franchise utility program for the city within bts. And we're here, as Eric said, to recommend amendment to the franchise agreement for comcast related to aspects of the franchise that site make reference to the mount hood cable regulatory commission. And the urgency around this is just that as part of our city's charter, we have a 90 day waiting period before effective date. And so in order to have a period that is within the next payment window for the quarterly payments that comcast provides the city, we wanted to have an effective date within the next quarter as we start quarter one of the fiscal year. Just wanted to provide a couple slides with some background about the crc dissolution. And part of what we're timing here is, is in the last. So since the fall of this past year, the commission underwent committee work to recommend dissolution of the committee as recommended as part of their strategic planning process as a commission. That's a that's a long runway discussion that ties back to the changing demographic of cable in our community and the subscribership falling out. Since about the past ten years, we've seen a 100,000 decline within the cable subscribers that mhc irc covers for its jurisdiction. In January of 2026 of the cable commission and the jurisdictions agreed on a dissolution of the commission, which is part of the iga that formed. The commission required all the jurisdictions to sign a dissolution agreement, which we all have signed and are working on implementing as part of this process that we're here before you today, and then other work that's undergoing. This is just a brief timeline of where we've been and where we're at. On the far right is where we're at currently, and it was through the past six months that we've identified that the cable franchise would need to be amended as part of this work to dissolve the commission and ensure continuity of the franchise agreement through time with the city of Portland. And I just wanted to note, this cable franchise was approved last year by this council. But again, it included references to the crc. So which is why we're here today. So the need or the why of the need of to to be here to amend the franchise agreement as part of the franchise agreement, there's certain aspects of compliance and reporting and other technical aspects of the operation of the agreement that require oversight. And as part of that oversight, those functions had been previously delegated to the crc. And we actually, in our bureau staff, the crc work. And so that will be changing as the dissolution happens. But and refocusing more towards the franchise utility work in my group. But as part of our work, we just need to be able to have clear lines on who the granting body is responsible for administering the franchise. And so just the practical removal of language related to mh, crc, and then other aspects are I'll get to on the next slide, relate to some technical areas around the reporting and the ensuring that sections that had been negotiated as a whole for crc are memorialized in the agreement. Now, that is just portland's agreement. This slide just includes where the practical changes are in the agreement. And I believe in your exhibit, you had a red line that included these these direct changes if you wanted to reference. But in short, the crc or the call out of crc in the agreement, those are all stricken and either put to back to city or grantor. And then we added sections that have been negotiated. I was referencing just a bit ago, the sections that have been negotiated in the agreement that are tied to video on demand. As an example, the number of hours of video on demand that were negotiated as part of the contract, that was for the whole of mh, crc that comcast would need to agree to. And so there's a section added in the agreement that includes references to those sections that have kind of commission wide negotiated amounts. We also removed the section that cites and calls out the formation of the iga that created the crc, just as a practical matter. And then there was a few brief deletions at the back end of the agreement that comports with the mayor's directive on di language as it pertains to contracts. That was a practical matter, as recommended by our legal counsel. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to take questions from the committee.

Thank you. So just to summarize, this was the dissolution of the crc was brought forward by the board or by the commission as a recommendation. And all of the members of crc are now moving through the process of dissolution. What we have before us today is the code change or the contract changes to ensure that come July 1st, we can have our own individual relationship with comcast rather than working through the crc, which will be dissolving. Is that accurate?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Councilor Avalos, you have questions.

Yeah. Thank you. So I'm understanding that the dissolution is again due to the lack of funding and many other things. But I'm curious, what specific responsibilities will the city now take that were previously handled regionally?

So the mhk was staffed by Portland staff. And so functionally, Portland won't face any changes in service related to administering the comcast franchise agreement and running any compliance related to the agreement. So practically, we won't see any change on our end as Portland.

But what what the commission has done is they oversee compliance. So they do play some role in fielding calls or complaints about comcast or other franchisee services. They have historically run a grant program with some of the peg funds that we receive for public education and government funds, and then they disperse money to the community media centers, opensignal and metro east and monitor compliance of those funds with the applicable federal laws. So we would continue doing that work as as andrew said, we already do the work wearing our mh, crc hat. We're just taking that hat off, and now we're going to do the same work as the city.

Okay. That's helpful. And then to one of the last points you made, I'm curious how we plan to ensure continuity in the community media funding and services during this transition. And are there any partners or programs impacted that we should know about?

Yeah, that's part of the purpose of doing this is that is the the group of jurisdictions responsible for the mhc concluded that we could preserve that funding longer if we removed the cost of running a commission jointly, and that that ends up being a million plus dollars a year to run a commission of that size and complexity. So the this action of dissolution actually preserves more money for a longer amount of time, assuming that cable franchise revenue continues to drop, the biggest impact probably is we're reaching a point right now where it's no longer viable to both support the community media centers and run the grant program. So we are planning to to sunset the grant program over the next year. Although there are grants being released this year before the commission dissolves.

And as part of the timeline to dissolve the commission, we're working internally to work to reestablish the grants between Portland and opensignal for the distribution of the peg funds that they receive. And also there's a citywide procurement process going on to establish them as the contractor who will, you know, who actually broadcast these meetings and other meetings across the city with different commissions and so on. So that work is part of our dissolution process internally here at the city as well.

Okay. Well, that's a bummer to hear. As far as the grant program, you know, not being sustainable, but I think I just want to keep an eye to how we support some of these programs. Lastly was just curious. I mean, it sounds like overall, like you said, we're taking off our mhk hat, but most things seem to be the same. Right. But are there any regional standards or protections under mh, crc that will change now that we're in administering independently, that we should be aware of?

The commission has, you know, has a has had a presence over the previous few decades in at the national level, just in terms of advocacy for, you know, community media generally and in ongoing, you know, work that we've done to, to address things like fcc rules that address cable and broadcasting. And so there is a loss there a little bit. And so to some extent, you know, the council needs to pick up that hat and continue asking us those questions.

Okay. Well, thank you so much. I understand that this is, you know, mostly technical, but wanted to make sure that we feel like the programing and that it's going to continue in its mostly its same form. And that's what I'm hearing. So I am supportive of that. And thanks for answering my questions.

Thank you. Councilor. I will pause for a minute to see if there's any public testimony.

No one signed up.

Okay. We'll continue with council discussion then. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Yeah.

Thank you chair. I first of all, thank you. The process that you outlined that you're going through, it's very technical and you're handling it really well. Don't let me get in the way of that. I'm going to ask a question that I don't know the answer to, obviously. And I also don't even know. I think it's relevant, but it gets at that programing. So I'm one of those people that likes to get my information from like c-span and watching boring meetings, because then I don't have someone translating to me what I'm hearing. And I think there's a lot of people that still like to get their information that way. So is the access to that information that I think comes from the traditional cable challenges that are now becoming not watched as much because so many people have cut their cables. I thought I heard that the programing access will still be something we care about.

Yeah. Under the under these.

I in the right place to ask that question.

Yeah.

I know we were such a technical conversation.

I believe so under the changes of the agreement, there's nothing in here that changes the operations or technical aspects of cable operation in the city. And and there are no policy item changes within it either. And so what we have today will be going forward.

This in the short term. Yeah. There's no changes to, you know, like what channels are required to carry for public access. In the long run, we will face this existential crisis of if cable revenue continues to decline over the long run, we eventually will reach a point where it's not going to be an industry. And then that that will force us to rethink how we provide those services. But this action by by moving away from a commission that costs money to operate will bias a few more years to keep talking about that solution.

Okay, so what I brought up is being discussed somewhere.

Yes.

Yeah. I mean, I think there's a lot of discussions around cable and you, you see the channels falling off and, you know, but those aren't necessarily related directly to this is the agreement.

This is a public access so that, you know, there's really that true raw democracy that continues.

Yeah. And we, we engage with opensignal regularly and as part of their long term strategic planning, they're engaged with us and as partners.

And I think part of that topic, that long term strategy topic, would be an appropriate thing for this committee to discuss in the future in another venue as well.

What did you say? I couldn't.

Hear, I just I think that topic that that strategic thinking about how we solve for this in the future would be a good topic for this committee to continue talking about.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Councilor. I want to clarify something based on what I heard in your answers to councilor Ryan and in the presentation, I think that the money that has come in to the crc in the past was spent in three different ways, ensuring that we have public access, not broader what's on cable, but that we have our local public access stations, grants to look at programing for those stations and the operating costs of the commission itself. And I think that the recommendation that came from the commission was that we must preserve that public access at all costs, and what we're doing right now is dissolving the commission. And over the next year or two, moving away from the grant programs so that we can retain our local public access stations for a little bit longer. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, perfect. Just making sure. When we got into the questioning there, I wasn't quite sure.

That's why I bounced off of.

Yeah.

Colleagues, are there any other questions, concerns, discussion. Okay. Thank you so much for the information. And I believe this is coming to us as an emergency ordinance so that it can come to full council and go into effect before July 1st, when the recommendation for the dissolution of the crc goes into effect. So we are voting to refer to full council. I would take a motion to that effect.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you. And this is an emergency ordinance.

Oh okay. Just to confirm. Moved by Ryan and seconded by Morillo. Yes.

Ryan I.

What are you. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I pirtle-guiney. I with a vote of five a's. The motion to refer the ordinance document number 2020 6-1 31 to city council with a recommendation it be passed has passed.

Thank you. Could you please read our final agenda item for us?

Item number three, document 2020 6-1 31. Approved funding recommendations of the Portland children's levy allocation committee for July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029.

Thank you so much. We have a number of folks from the children's levy who are coming up to share some information with us today. I want to just remind us all that as we talk about the children's levy council has a very limited and specific role. This ordinance covers grant decisions that have been made by the allocation committee. The allocation committee is required by the levy ballot measure and authorizing legislation, and their role is to allocate resources generated by the levy. This includes deciding the funding process and the grants that result from that process. We don't pick the individual grants. What we do is consider the process and the decisions that came out of it, and whether that process meets the the bar meets the standard that is set for them and either approve the grants that came through that process because we believe the process was correct, or remand the grants back to the allocation committee to reconsider their process. By law, the funds must be used for direct services to support children, youth and families. Before we hand it over to the children's levy team. Councilor Ryan, I know you sit on their committee. Is there anything that you would like to share to kick us off today?

I'm good. I'm glad that you're all here. I hope that you all enjoyed listening to them explain the very diligent process that they went through to get to this place. I appreciate it, it's always data driven and very transparent. Thanks.

Okay.

Director mcelroy, would you like to start us off?

Absolutely. Thank you. Good afternoon, councilors, and thanks for welcoming us to your first city life committee meeting. My name is meg mcelroy. I use she her pronouns. I'm the interim director at the children's levy, and presenting with me today are erica bridgeman, grants manager with the children's levy, and alex sanchez, who serves on our community council advisory body. You'll hear more about that work in this presentation, as well as katrina peterson, who's our policy and engagement coordinator, is here to help us answer questions. So the ordinance before you covers two funding decisions made by the children's levy allocation committee for city council's consideration. The first is $2.5 million in three year grants that resulted from our recent small grants funding process that was implemented over the past year. And the second is an 8% funding increase to the levy's current three year large grants. And this presentation will review the process and the rationale for those decisions. Just as a reminder, the children's. Excuse me, city council resolution 37 610 referred to children's levy to voters in spring of 2023, and voters overwhelmingly reauthorized it for a fourth time, extending the current levy through June 30th of 2029. The authorizing legislation that councilor Pirtle-guiney referred to earlier, as she said, requires the five member allocation committee to make all funding decisions to have oversight over the funding process and of levy performance. It caps administration of the fund at 5% and is that is subject to annual audits, all of which can be found on our website. Uses of the funds must be for direct services for children and families in six specific program areas after school child abuse prevention, intervention, early childhood, foster care, hunger relief and mentoring. We're required to conduct a community engagement process every five years to inform the funding priorities in those six areas, and the allocation committee must operate a competitive grant process and fund applications based on scores and other community conditions to foster a balanced and integrated citywide system of services.

For the record, my name is erica bridgman, and I use she her pronouns, and I manage the small and the mentoring grants. At the Portland children's levy pcl had two major equity efforts. Result from community engagement six years ago. These efforts were recommended by empress rules consulting and a team from PSU center for improvement for child and family studies, child and family services. In response, pcl launched its first small grants in 2020 to increase access to levy funds for smaller organizations and to strengthen their capacity to serve children and families, including black, indigenous children of color and children with disabilities. In addition, pcl launched its community advisory council in 2023. We have 12 volunteer members that represent a diverse range of experience and pcl program areas and community served. They advise community engagement, funding priorities, application questions, scoring criteria and the grant review process. In some three groups have different roles and responsibilities in pcl grants, funding process. Pcl community council advises staff and allocation committee members on the design of the funding process. They've also made funding recommendations to the allocation committee. The allocation committee decides all the funding decisions, including allocations of pcl resources, the funding processes, which applications to fund the grant amounts, and they consider advice and recommendations from the community council, the staff and public testimony. By law. Grant decisions made by the allocation committee must go to city council for final approval or remand the set of decisions back to allocation committee. If city council finds that the allocation committee did not follow its requirements for today's ordinance, the city attorney advised that council may approve a remand to the set of small grants entirely and approve or reject all large grants amendments entirely. Pcl small grants are for organizations with annual revenues in their last close fiscal year of between 90,000 and 750,000 organizations, with revenues, over 750,000 were eligible for pcl large grants last year. The three year minimum small grant is for 81,000 and the maximum is 240,000. All pcl grants, including the small grants, are for direct services to children and families and not for general operating costs. They must address at least one funding priority and the pcl program area. Pcl funding priorities come from our 20 2425 community engagement process that was led by camille e tremore, in collaboration with pxe international. They spoke with over 700 portlanders in 26 languages through surveys, focus groups, and interviews. Pcl published its small grants application on October 15th, 2025. The application included two components written questions which focus on the organization's experience with children and families, and proposed program services and annual grant budgets, and a smartphone video of up to five minutes addressing the applicant's unique strengths, successes and proposed uses of pcl funds. The video component was offered to help applicants tell their story conversationally. All scoring criteria were listed in the application. Pcl staff hosted information sessions for applicants, pcl published all emailed questions from applicants and our answers on our website. Applications were due on December 1st, 2025. Reviewers completed training on anti-bias scoring criteria and more, and the review process took place in December and January of 2025. Among the 12 people reviewing grants, 67% identified as black, indigenous or people of color, 33% identified as white, 33% identified as lgbtqia to s-plus and 25% identified as having a disability.

So while those grants were being reviewed and scored in December of 2025, we received updated revenue projections. So typically each year in December, the city economist provides the children's levy with revenue projections for the current fiscal year and future fiscal year's projections in December 2024 were what we use to determine the grant amounts for grant making in spring 2025. The projections that we received most recently in December 2025, showed higher forecasts compared to what we were provided in 2024. We've experienced that type of variation both up and down with projections in the past, so we asked the city economist about the increase in. He explained that the main factors were that the forecast for 2024 was more conservative than actual growth on assessed values, and that compression impacts were not as steep as he projected in 2024. So based on the economist projections and other factors, the levy has an additional 6.5 million in projected future revenue revenue over three years. That's approximately 2 million per year. They come from the following sources 2.8 million from increased tax revenues for fiscal years 26, 27 and 28 1.7 million from an offset on compression from the new parks levy for the next fiscal years and 27 and 28. The resolution that council passed, referring the parks levy to voters, continued a long standing agreement for the parks levy to offset compression revenue losses to the children's levy, and then 2 million are from various factors, including higher actual revenues in fiscal year 25, projected increased interest on the children's levy for fiscal years 26, 27 and 28, and grant underspending from grants that ended in fiscal year 25. So to be clear, these are mainly projected future property tax revenues and they have not been yet collected but will be in coming years. So one month after learning that information, our allocation committee met on the 27th of January and voted unanimously to allocate the money as follows. They added an additional 1 million to small grants, bringing the three year total to 2.5 million for fiscal years, 27 through 29 and funding up to 12 grants. That's an increase over their original plans in October of 2025 to allocate 1.5 million for 6 to 10 grants. They added an additional 5.2 million to our current 94 three year grants, so this would be an 8% increase on those three year grant awards available for grants to grantees to use in fiscal years 27 and 28, and it left a balance of 300,000 in our fund balance toward grant renewals in fiscal year 29, when current three year grants will be eligible for renewal. And just a reminder, revenue from the children's levy is legally required to be spent on grants that support children and families and not for other purposes. The committee's rationale for these decisions include, with regard to small grants, the ability to meet more of the demand, and the applicant pool, which you'll hear more about shortly. Funding up to 12 grants as close as possible to their full funding request, and trying to strike a balance between funding more grants and that application process with the fact that those are higher need grants for capacity building and working within our current staff capacity. Their rationale for the increases for the large grants was to move these grant, excuse me, these resources as efficiently as possible into community with amending current grants effective July 1st, 2026, to support colas at our current grants and to stabilize services for children and families where these grantee organization partners are facing other funding cuts from local, state and federal sources to mitigate the impact of the 21% reductions that these that were made last year when these grants were provided in the spring. And finally, the allocation committee decided against revisiting the 74 unfunded applications from its previous grants process. The majority of those scored below median. Several had past performance challenges with their levy grants and requiring staff to design a process for the unfunded applications would delay these resources getting into community altogether. These decisions on our pcos community centered funding process, implemented over the past three years.

For the record, my name is alex sanchez. I use he him or they them pronouns. Returning to pcl small grants. Our review wrapped up in January. Total points available for an application was 76, and the median total score for these applications was 54. And the 33 applications scored scored at the median or higher. Pcls community council met February 23rd in a public meeting to recommend applications to the allocation committee. Staff developed three policy lenses for the community council to consider score, order, the high number of after school applications, and a balancing across all six program areas. After rounds of small and large group discussion, community council received an electronic ballot with all 55 applications. Our first round of votes resulted in 11 applications selected and a tie for 12th place amongst three applications, each receiving four of nine votes. A second round of voting on only those three broke the tie and resulted in one application receiving five of nine votes, one receiving four of nine votes and one receiving no votes in that second round. In general, council prioritized total score in their decision making on the ballot, members were asked to ask which factors influenced their votes score balancing across program area, prioritization of particular program area or funding priority, or other factors. And of the nine members voting, seven said score was highly influential and other factors were much less influential. When we were thinking about our decision making.

This slide outlines the steps in March leading to the allocation committee meeting on April 7th for small grants, funding decisions. Applicants and the allocation committee received all funding recommendations on March 3rd. The allocation committee had previously received all scores and applicant videos. In February, applicants had the option to submit up to 400 words of written testimony during March. The allocation committee met on April 7th. They shared individual reflections on applicant testimony and their policy lenses and preparing for funding decisions. The committee deliberated on the applications and voted unanimously to fund the 12 applications recommended by the community council. This slide shows the 12 applications for small grants. This list is in alphabetical order. Each grant is recommended at the three year amount requested by the applicant. The capital letters after the capital letter. Abbreviations after the names of the applicant indicate the program area that the applicant proposes to offer services in their after school mentoring, hunger relief, early childhood, and foster care. As we wrap our presentation, we want to acknowledge the difficult budget season. We want to acknowledge the difficult budget season facing the city. Hopefully, this is one bright spot where the city can invest in Portland children and families. We request the committee to forward the allocation committee's decision to the full city council for consideration.

Thank you so much for that overview, colleagues. We do have a few people signed up for public testimony, but are there any clarifying questions for the folks from the children's levy before we turn to public testimony? Okay, don't go too far. We may have questions later, but let's hear from members of the community first. Go right ahead.

We have two people signed up. When I call your name, come up to the dais. If you are in the room or I don't see anybody online. So I think they're both in the room. And you can begin your testimony whenever you get here. First is jennifer hartnett and second is lionel irving.

Welcome. Thank you for joining us today.

Just go ahead and begin. Okay. Hi. Thank you for being here. My name is jennifer hartnett, and I'm here on behalf of lungevity. I serve as a business manager, not a consultant. And that distinction matters because my role is to build systems that function with stability, integrity, and measurable outcomes. I want to be clear about what accountability truly means in funding. Accountability is not just about compliance and reporting. It's about whether funding systems are structured in a way that allows organizations to actually deliver consistently without disruption. If systems are not built for delivery, outcomes will fail regardless of compliance. And accountability has to be two sided. We cannot only measure organizational performance. We must also ensure funding systems are structured to support that performance. Right now, there's gaps. Organizations are often expected to front costs, carry payroll or wait on reimbursement, disrupting services in real time. At the same time, when organizations can no longer qualify or unable to fully expend funds, there is no clear mechanism to respond without alternates. Immediate reallocation funding sits idle with community needs unmet. During that time, additional work could have been done, services expanded and outcomes strengthened across Portland districts. If we are serious about impact, funding must be able to move with the work. That means building systems that support delivery on the front end and adapt. Conditions change because when we get this right, we are not just funding programs, we're ensuring resources and communities when they are needed. So I would recommend that we relook at how we did the allocations for these individual recommendations and suggest an alternate. Thank you.

Just to clarify, are you making that proposal for both the short but both the small grants and the extensions or the the expansion?

Both.

Okay. Thank you.

Last call for lionel.

Welcome. Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon councilors. My name is lionel irving. I am the executive director of love is stronger. And I will say today that I am truly blessed because I was able to see and hear the panels that you guys had come before the community. And I really appreciate that because I was able to I'm a stakeholder for all panels as as we deal with young men and women who are experienced some of the most traumatizing events in their life. And so I just really encouraged to hear the kind of work that was happening in our city, but also made me think of if all the adults are having this much trouble, you know, being sustainable inside our city, what is happening to our youth? And as I stand in the balance for the young men and women, for love is stronger, I came to advocate for love and stronger to be the alternate for the pcl small grant because we had to score. That would put us in like 13th or 12th place, but also because of what makes us set us apart from other organizations is we're not a culturally specific program, we're closely delivered, meaning that when you walk into our space, you see representation from all the community members of young men and women who have experienced a lot of traumatic events. And to me, that is where the real power is, is when we stop trying to identify young people by color or economics, and we start identifying by their conditions, we start putting in position to help them heal, so they can feel some of these spaces of this clean energy boom that we're about to have. Love and stronger is currently in contract with pcf for a planning grant for workforce development for underserved community members, and it is my goal to create pathways for our most underserved, overlooked community members to be successful because our economics is only as strong as our youth are, especially those who are overlooked and often under-resourced. So I don't and I don't, you know, envy you guys at all because you stand in a tough place to stand in front of the community. But I appreciate you guys for the service that you do. And this never should be, ever. Competition between community based organizations. It should only be collaboration. That's why I stand before you guys and ask to be the alternate, because I know the rigors for the city of portland's requirements for insurance, which is a huge boom that they talked about earlier today, which is a barrier. And I will just say that the young lady just got up there when she started talking about accountability. What I thought about accountability is when accountability is only one way, then it becomes a barrier. Accountability is both ways. It's just not from the service providers, but it's also from the funders. And so when we get to that lens, then we can continue to have long lasting impact. Thank you guys for the work that you do, and I truly appreciate each and every one of you. Have I seen plenty of you guys out in the community, and I thank you for that. Have a great day.

Thank you so much for being here with us today.

And that completes public testimony.

Fantastic. Thank you, councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Thank you. And the folks are still in the room, right, did I. Okay. They're there. All right. So first of all, I appreciate the intent behind the small grants program to expand access and create more opportunities for these smaller community based groups. It's also clear from the presentation that demand continues to far exceed our available resources, which is always the case, but it just speaks to the the need for ongoing investment. So thank you for taking those steps and great to hear that we can invest more due to some updated revenue projections. So especially in times like these, we need to invest more in children and families. I just have a couple of quick questions about, you know, this effort. So the small grants program was designed to expand access. And so can you talk to me a little bit about how successful this round was and reaching smaller and culturally specific organizations?

So all of the organizations who apply for small grants must be have revenues between 90,000 to 750,000. So they are all smaller organizations. In terms of culturally specific, we were able to ask for some demographic information about organization staff and their board of directors on the application questions, but the allocation committee and the community council did not consider those demographic questions as part of their decision making. Due to the restrictions of the executive order. However, after that, we were able to analyze some of the data that was given to us by the applicants. So 11 of 12 applications that were selected had 50% or more of their staff identifying as black, indigenous, or people of color. And nine of the 12 applications selected had boards of directors that were 50% or more black, indigenous, or people of color.

Thank you. I don't love hearing, though, that that executive order continues to be a barrier, and it's something that we need to keep talking about. I was curious, of the 55 applicants, do we have any insight into who was not funded and if there are any patterns in who is getting left out from these opportunities?

That's a great question. I'm not sure we've analyzed it thoroughly. I would say, having looked at it briefly, based on the amount of funding that applicants requested, so applicants could request up to $240,000, that was the maximum three year amount. And also applicants were limited to requesting. This is true for all of our applications, no more than 30% of their annual revenues in the last fiscal year for grant. So if they requested smaller amounts, that means they were smaller organizations by revenue. And in general, of the 12 organizations recommended for funding, they tended to be on that higher funding request level, meaning they were asking for maximum grants, meaning their organization size in that range from up to 750,000 annually. They were closer to that than they were at the lesser range. Does that answer your question?

Councilor it does, and therefore brings me to my last question in how we measure success for both the small grants and the large grants, because I think that's part of the issue, is that we want to ensure that we are bringing in some of these smaller groups, but when you measure them side by side, it's an unfair comparison. So now that we've added, you know, a lot of these newer small grants, can you talk about how you plan to measure their success?

You bet.

I think one measurement of success is that this is the second time we've done a round of small grants. The first round of small grants. We had seven grantees that were awarded of that. Of those seven, six were eligible and applied for large grants in this round. So their capacity had grown to where they were no longer eligible for small grants, and they applied for large grants. Of those six, four were funded. And what, you know, is a highly competitive round. So even though it was a highly competitive round, even though they were smaller organizations, four of the six were funded in that round. So that indicates some success. A big part of the emphasis of the small grants portfolio is to do capacity building of these organizations. And so I do think those who are funded at the higher end that like 750 range or 500,000 up are able to really take advantage of the additional training, additional support, and kind of coaching that comes from the small grants and then grow into becoming larger organizations that are able to provide more services for more children, youth, and families.

That's great. I'd love to hear that. And I think in general, we need to keep working on that because there are a lot of small groups that could really use some more technical assistance and guidance so that they can be more successful for community, but it requires our help. So this is a thing that I'm bringing up across many different bureaus. So thanks for your work. I look forward to supporting this.

Thank you sir.

I just want to.

I just want to acknowledge something that they have a limitation of 5% of the whole pot to be spent on staffing. And so the fact that you use technical assistance work and how much you get in there and work with each grantee is really impressive considering that constraint. I just wanted to lift that.

Thank you.

Councilor zimmermann.

Thanks. You know, going through the the list of awards, etc. Just it is quite clear, you know, the saying it takes a village. It was quite true. And I think that that's just a really important part of this work. And sometimes with, with funding packages, we have a tendency to go through the list with a fine tooth comb. And in this case, and in this, I think the importance is actually not to do it. I actually appreciate how we preamble that this is about the process. In whose role is what here, because when it takes a village, it is fair to say not everybody understands what it what it takes for every member of that village. And so I think that that's really reflective in what you've put forward here. I appreciate the effort toward a small grant while ensuring that the larger, more established remains. Still, the focus in terms of our outcomes are at, I believe, in innovation, but that it can't be the main thing. You still got to stay on the main line of effort while you see what you can help along to see if it gets any grasp and and the innovation track. It's okay to stumble occasionally, but in the main track, right? We've got to stay true to the mission. So I think you've, I think you've laid out what looks to me to be very fair, to be very thoughtful, appreciative of just the the depth and breadth and diversity of the village. And so I think that's the heart of where I see this at and why deeply supportive. I appreciate what our council president said recently, and he says often is that his concern is the three o'clock to eight o'clock hours for kids. And given the earlier panels about childcare and things of those natures, anything that is moving in the prosocial direction is a good idea. If it gets you off of these, that's a good idea. And most of these programs look like they're headed in that direction. So thanks for helping the schools out. Thanks for helping the parents out. You. I think your words will make the neighborhoods better. Thanks.

Thanks. Councilor.

Councilor.

Ryan. Yeah.

Council president, I think sorry, it's a habit of. Chair. Thank you so much. Can you please explain our next step when it comes to alternates? Because we did discuss that.

Sure. Councilor Ryan at the allocation committee meeting on April 7th, there was discussion after the 12 applications were selected for grants about whether or not there should be consideration of an alternate grant. And that came up because in our first cohort of small grants, originally eight grants were made. And in the course of grant negotiations, one applicant declined their grant. So this was before they entered into contract. And in fact, to lionel's point, the entity that declined their grant had a hard time with the insurance requirements, and they decided to walk away from the grant. At that time, the funds were were distributed. Allocation committee at that time decided to distribute those funds to the remaining seven small grantees because they had been funded for less than they were eligible to receive. But it came up again in this context because there were so many applicants this time, and the allocation committee was trying to decide whether they should fund more applicants if they could, and really decided against doing that in order to not stretch staff capacity further. We've already increased total grants by 26% with the same fte that we've had, and instead we're looking to whether or not they should create an alternate for these grants. Should somebody decline their grant in the course of negotiations, they decided to table that discussion until their June meeting because they have no process for identifying an alternate at this point. So they want to discuss that in June. Councilor did that answer your question?

Absolutely. We decided not to do it on the fly at that meeting, but we wanted to make sure that we had a thorough process, and I look forward to that conversation at the next meeting. Thanks.

Councilor thank you for asking that question. I think what that means is that we heard testimony today about alternates. There's not a recommendation before us on that topic, but there may be a recommendation coming to us in the future based on the conversations that are forthcoming with the committee. Is that correct?

That's correct. If I can offer one clarification, it will be forthcoming, but at a time, potentially after this ordinance goes forward to full council.

It would be something we would adopt in the future.

Correct?

Okay. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, we do have an opportunity to refer both exhibit a, the small grants, and exhibit b, the amendments to the budget that was approved last year to full council with a due pass recommendation. Is there a motion to that end?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Thank you. Could we call the roll?

Just want to confirm. Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Morillo.

Correct.

All right. Thank you. Ryan. I Morillo. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I pirtle-guiney. I with a vote of five is the motion to refer the ordinance document number 2020 6-1 32 to city council with the recommendation to be passed has passed.

Thank you.

Thank you all so much. Colleagues. We do have a committee meeting in two weeks on April 28th, though our timing is a little bit off that day. We'll be meeting in the morning. We will have our first opportunity for a public communication from portlanders about topics that are within this committee's jurisdiction. We will hear a one on one presentation from prosper Portland in light of their leadership changes within the last year, they have requested the opportunity to talk to us about their programs and their plans, and then we will hear some ordinances presented by the council president about arts tax reforms. Thank you for bearing with me with a long agenda today. And we do have posted online supplemental materials from our first agenda item, including that overview of the themes before our committee that my staff has put together. I hope you review that all. Thank you so much. And with that, today's meeting is adjourned.