The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-04-08

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (35,518 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

And. Good morning. It is 930. We are calling to order the Wednesday, April 8th meeting of the Portland city council. Keelan, can we please call the roll?

Good morning. Kanal here. Pirtle-guiney. Hello, Ryan. Koyama Lane aye, Morillo here. Novick here.

I love you starting on time.

Novick online. No. CClark here. Green here. Zimmerman here.

Pavlo's present.

SSmith Dunphy here.

And can we please read the rules of decorum?

Thank you. Council president, welcome to the Portland city council to testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.Portland.gov/council agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states. Otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. 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, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony today should address the matter being considered when testifying. State your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent, and virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls their name. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Colleagues. Are there any requests to amend the agenda? Our first item is agenda approval. Looking. I've not received any. I'm looking around. I'm seeing no eye contact with anybody. That's great. Do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? I got a thumbs up. Continued. Oh, I got a thumbs up and no eye contact, right? The agenda is approved. Keelan can you please call public communications?

First up, we have david gwyther.

Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you for letting me speak today.

Make sure to introduce yourself. For the record, you're welcome to share your pronouns if you'd like. And you have three minutes.

My name is david gwyther. I'm with radio cab. I haven't really got my eight hours in, so I guess I'm a lobbyist. Maybe I'm not. We'll see. Anyway, the the subject I'm dealing with is avs. I call them robo cabs. They're autonomous vehicles that at some point in time, may seek to ply the streets of Portland and scoop up as much money as they can and take it back to the billionaires that sent them. And what you're losing when every current private driver that you lose is going to cost the city and the state and the feds considerable tax dollars and other fees, right now, every driver in Portland and there's over 12,000. I didn't realize that until I got into this 12,000 licensed for hire licensees in the city of Portland. That's $75,075 per person. Another $100 in business license taxes. Cabs, for example, have a little plate, 25 bucks for that plate. But the big one is personal property taxes on as part of rental income, property taxes. Everyone that lives in Portland pays those one way or the other. The. The company radio cab is owned by the drivers, and we've been around for 80 years and been paying property taxes on our headquarters and lots that we store the cabs in all that time, which built these helped build the 16,200 miles of roads that the cabs will be using so far for free. As far as I know, each driver also pays self-employment taxes. This is something that a lot of them find out the hard way is about 16% of the gross income. After. Of course, the cab expenses, but that pays for social security, fica, etc. The robo cabs don't pay our taxes 35 bucks a pop. That adds up when there's 12,000 people paying gas taxes, their rvs. They will be using substantial amount of electricity, which means the. Of course, the ai use the most. So anyway, in wrapping up, thank you for the time here. I may be back next month to complete my presentation. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Okay.

Thank you so much for being here and thanks for bringing us this this issue.

Next up we have jonathan stark.

Good morning. Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Hi, councilors. My name is john starr. I'm a resident of district two. I want to talk to you today about the proposed transportation utility fee. Utility bills have been rising significantly over the last decade, so I'm baffled. The city is proposing to make utility bills even higher with an unrelated transportation fee. Utility bills are a necessity. I don't have a choice in paying them. I do, however, have choices when it comes to transportation. Fortunately, my commute is three miles, so I have a number of options to get there. Some days I bike and some days I take transit. But my short commute didn't happen by accident. I used to drive 35 miles to work every day and was fortunate enough to find employment closer to home. I'm now one less car wearing out the roadways, one less car of congestion and one less car contributing to PBOT $6.6 billion maintenance backlog. If Portland wants to be a more sustainable, financially resilient city, which I imagine most proponents of the tough one, you're going to need more people to make decisions like I have. The problem with the transportation utility fee is that it is completely divorced from driving behavior. Every mile driven adds to the maintenance backlog, and if enough people drive, the city needs to spend billions on costly infrastructure upgrades that add to our future maintenance liabilities. My three mile commute costs $2.80 by bus. If I drive, I pay $0.05 and stay in local gas taxes and the parking is free. If you do the math, I contribute 5,500% more revenue to the city when I choose the bus over the car. The financial incentives here are backwards, and I'm frankly not surprised. Pbot has a $6.6 billion backlog. If Portland proceeds with the tough. We're not being financially responsible. We're making our maintenance bills even bigger because you're signaling to drivers to drive even more. To be clear, road maintenance funding has to correlate with road usage, or the city will never raise enough revenue to pay for it all. In my opinion, the city should raise the gas tax to get the funding PBOT needs in 2027. Fuel taxes are directly correlated to road usage, so the more you drive, the more you pay. 97% of the vehicles registered in Oregon have internal combustion engines, so it's still an effective way to raise revenue. Pbot currently raises about $18 million a year through a ten cent gas tax, which is 40% of the largest tough projections. In the longer term, Portland needs to adopt congestion pricing. New york city implemented congestion pricing last year to overwhelmingly positive results. Now that it's implemented, new yorkers don't want to taken away because it has improved trip times significantly for many drivers. In conclusion, I think I can afford to pay more than $0.05 on my daily commute. Heck, I can afford the bus. I urge the council to vote no on the transportation utility fee. Thanks for listening.

Thank you so much for being here this morning.

Next up we have les poole.

Good morning. Just introduce yourself for the record pronouns if you prefer, and you have three minutes.

Good morning. My name is les poole. I grew up in Portland, lived in east county for a long time. And I'm here about the Portland water bureau treatment plant fiasco. Fiasco is a pleasant word for it. It really is, folks. We have a project that was in the 300 to $500 million price range, and while there were a lot of changes and additions to the concept, ultimately we ended up with a $2 billion monster. That still troubles me and the community of cottrell and folks that respect the Oregon land use plan, that it ended up on farmland where it did and how it did. You know, there's a good neighbor agreement that they've got signed out there. I can assure you the number of times it's been violated would probably take me six, eight, ten pages of documentation. One of the most egregious violations, not only of the good neighbor agreement, but of what I believe to be. Violation of good business and good stewardship, is with an 87 year old widow whose home was damaged in construction. There's miles of pipeline going in, the very large pipes. They're burying, burying them very deeply on dodge park boulevard. I know of a few homes that were damaged, but one specifically is a woman who, coincidentally, her deceased husband built the home. And when she turned in a claim last year, no response for months. Eventually, a vague denial and I put together a letter in September of last year. That letter made note that she had not only been mistreated and ignored, but I've concerns that something might happen again because construction was going to continue after the time frame when the legal legal issues shut it down. So in my document, I made it clear that she had been mistreated and that if any additional damage occurred, would we expect the same result? Excuse me? Lo and behold, that's exactly what happened. They came back out, they finished burying pipes. They used 55,000, 55,000 pound excavators to pound and slam the dirt, and they damaged her home. She's into this about $10,000 now, and I will be contacting the water bureau. I'm here in front of you because the buck does stop with you folks, and I will follow up with you in writing and hopefully we can resolve this. This is unacceptable. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next up we have john hollister.

Good morning. Please introduce yourself for the record.

My name is john hollister and I live in district four. It's it's so weird to be here giving testimony in front of someone that abused me. So it's kind of weird. But that being said, I have concern of well, he's he's. Commissioner Novick is not here. I have concern that he can respond in to a citizen and tell them to themselves in the heart, and that there is no form of public apology. Actually, I called him afterwards and he told me he would not apologize, and he felt it was necessary to say, and that does not seem becoming of a professional member of. You know, the city council. So basically he's lost my support. I've mentioned last testimony that Portland has lost the blazers. And whatever you might think, the Portland has lost the blazers. Whether or not seattle gets an expansion team or not. And it's due to tense crime and homelessness. And so ask seattle, oakland and san diego how their stadium politics worked. All of them lost their sports because the city councils in those respective states thought they had an angle to be able to maneuver. And they found that there were other cities that would welcome their teams. Also want to refer back to Morillo one, and which was co-sponsored by Mitch Green, or actually commissioner Councilor. What do we call yourself? Councilor Green. And it turns out that neither of you have ever been to a cleanup and realize that rapid response who responds to those are made up of 95% people that are formerly incarcerated and homelessness. They understand about humanitarian, humanitarian outreach. I'm done testifying this year, but when I come back next year, I hope to see a lot of new faces. Thanks a lot.

Next up, we have susan clary.

Good morning.

Please make sure to introduce yourself. For the record, welcome to share your pronouns. And you have three minutes.

My name is susan clary and I live in the southeast brooklyn neighborhood, which is part of district three. I have some comments to make on this PBOT transportation utility fee. Aimed at repairing the roads in the city of Portland. I think we will all agree that it is the vehicles that damage the roads. You are using residential housing through the water bureau, billing information to assess damage and ignoring the subject that damages the roads vehicles, also limiting the scope to personal vehicles and not other vehicles that damage the roads. I feel the city government has done very little to distribute the road repairs correctly. They are unfair. This is unfair to assess a residential unit from the water bureau list and not the vehicles. Many of the residential units have more than one vehicle. Here's an example. I live in the brooklyn neighborhood on a residential street. This is my assessment of my block, which is all residential housing. There are 13 residential units on my block and there are 19 vehicles associated with those 13 units. Six vehicles are not be accounted for. Some people have two and three cars. From my understanding, I will be assessed the same as the units that have two and three cars. You are missing one third of the vehicles on my block. How many vehicles are you missing in Portland? I've been assessed the same amount for one vehicle as others that own more than one. Other issues. Not evaluating the all the vehicles the same. We have gas vehicles, hybrids and evs. I own a gas powered vehicle and I paid $240 in gas taxes. In the last 12 months, hybrids have contributed less to the gas tax fund, and evs don't pay any gas taxes. Also, consider construction sites that bring in heavy construction equipment to build buildings like apartments and business buildings. They damage the roads. We have a union pacific railroad container transfer station on southeast holgate, east of southeast 17. They transfer these heavy containers in onto the rail cars. There are hundreds of these trucks that come in on holgate. Have you considered company fleet vehicles? And you have to remember there are other counties that use our roads to commute, like Clackamas, Clark and Washington county. I feel you need to go back to the drawing board to fairly assess how to pay for road repairs. You have to find a way to include the vehicles that use the roads in Portland, and not a quick fix by taxing residential housing. The water bureau is not a fair way to collect money for road repairs. Thank you very much.

This morning.

That completes communications.

Excellent. Colleagues, before we move to the city administrator's report on the federal interventions in our city, I wanted to turn it over to councilor Clark, very briefly.

Olivia Clark: Thank you. Council president colleagues. Every day in our work in Portland, we're standing on the shoulders of people who came before us. And one of the reasons Portland is such a livable city is because of the visionary efforts to create a strong transit system, a transit mall, a Portland street car, and the pioneer courthouse square. But last month, a portlander who played a tremendous leading role in those public works projects passed away. Roger shields. He had a lasting impact that we all benefit from across the city every day. At shields s.johnson, he led the teams that delivered providence park, the max blue line and portland's living room, pioneer square. At Portland streetcar, he expanded our rail system to the east side and at the river district. He helped to restore union station and transform the pearl district. And I'm going to tear up now. This morning, we're joined by his colleagues who have agreed on very short notice to share a very brief memory and honor of roger shields. So please take it away and introduce yourself.

Good morning, council president. Members of the council. Thank you for this moment. I'm doug, I'm a former partner of roger shields. I'm here today with rick gustafson to my right. He's also a former partner. And kim knox, a current partner of shields johnson. We have some very brief remarks about our beloved roger shields. Roger understood something this council knows well, downtown isn't just the center of Portland. It's the economic engine that funds parks, schools and services in every neighborhood from st. Johns to Sellwood and public investments that reach communities from ashland to astoria. There is no striving, thriving Portland and no thriving Oregon without a strong downtown core. The bones of that great city are still here. That's roger's legacy. The foundation is solid. What Portland needs now is the next generation willing to do what roger did show up, do the hard work, and let someone else take the bow. Roger built the city once. The question for all of us, including this council, is who builds it next? And with that, kim.

Yeah, I'm kim knox. I'm a resident of district four. I'm here to say that we also know that times have changed, and the pressures on the city are very different than they were when these projects that doug just walked through happened. But what hasn't changed is our ability to build on the Portland model, which. Roger, I'm going to cry, which roger exemplified in his understanding of partnerships, the public partnership, the private partnership, and the nonprofits that keep these places going. Our civic spaces, our civic infrastructure. And so what we're we're very much appreciate you acknowledging, roger, today. Thank you very much, councilor Clark. And with that, I'll turn it over to rick.

I'm rick gustafson, partner of s o j with roger. Met roger in 1973. I was planning the transit mall operations, and he was the project manager for the transit mall. In 1973. We formed a bond with each other. I was working at TriMet and then subsequently we collaborated on getting the first light rail line approved in. As metro executive, I work closely with roger, who is the project manager in the downtown light rail construction in the 80s joined the firm in 1987 and worked for the 13 years to get the streetcar started and operational and working in. Roger has been a close friend, close associate, and still a partner with me in a property, and we're. He was a lifelong friend and. And a very great stimulus for Portland. I admired his work and his recognition of the balance. And thank you for recognizing him this morning.

Thank you all for coming and recognizing that we are all standing on the shoulders of the people who came before us. Thank you.

Thank you very much. City administrator.

Good morning, council president, vice president, councilors. No new updates as it relates to the ice facility. Land use violations since the administrative hearing officer dismissed the case. Keep in mind we still have the administrative policy that is still in place, and we will be hopefully bringing back forth something to the city council in the may time frame this summer. And also just a reminder to our community, residents of Portland, that if you do have a violation and would like to report a violation, you can go through our website to submit those violations at the detention facility at that time. This is the only information we have.

Perfect. Thank you. And colleagues, I have one more update for you about the the city council or council website and some public visibility of items in the queue. Sometime next week I will be taking a web page live that shows all published legislative items listed by the next date that they are scheduled for an agenda, including published and referred but unscheduled items. Ultimately, this is going to allow my office to begin making more use of the time certain agenda with the ultimate goal of this body having the public giving the public at least two weeks advance notice on items that will be coming before council. As with everything we're doing on council process, this work stands on the shoulders of former president pirtle-guiney and former vice president Koyama Lane. It benefits hugely from the input from vice president Clark, and it will be an iterative process. So look for that in the next hopefully in the next week. Keelan can we please move to the consent agenda? Item number four.

Yeah. So the consent agenda, there were no requests to pull items. Would you like me to go ahead and call the role on that colleagues.

Any objections? Seeing none please go ahead and call the role.

Thank you. Kanal. I pirtle-guiney Ryan,

Koyama Lane I aye, Morillo. I Novick. Councilor Novick. Absent Clark. A Green a Zimmerman. A Avalos. I Smith. I Dunphy.

The consent agenda is approved with ten yes votes and two absent.

Thank you. Can we please call item number five?

Item number five, document 2020 6-079. Appropriate grants from the state of Oregon transportation safety office and from Oregon. Impact for a total of $322,555 to increase traffic safety.

Colleagues is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, keelan, can you please call the roll? Kanal I.

Pirtle-guiney absent Ryan. I Koyama Lane I aye, Morillo I Novick absent Clark a Green I Zimmerman I pavlo's. I Smith. I Dunphy. I. The ordinance passes with ten yes votes and two absent.

Thank you for your patience with us, PBOT as we are, and I believe it was maybe police. It doesn't matter. Thank you, city staff, for your patience on that one. Can we please read item number six?

Item six document 2020 6-077. Amend business license law code to increase the business license tax gross receipts exemption. Amend code section 7.02.400.

Colleagues. This is also the second reading of a non emergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion on this item? Seeing none keelan please call the roll.

No. I pirtle-guiney absent.

Ryan I.

Koyama Lane I.

Morillo I.

Novick.

I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I pavlo's. I Smith. I Dunphy. I. The ordinance passes with 11 yes votes and one absent.

Fantastic. And can we please call items seven and eight together?

Item seven document 2020 6-119. Authorize a temporary interfund loan not to exceed $15 million from the facilities services fund to the health insurance operating fund to provide interim funding for employee health benefits and to avoid negative cash and fund balances at the end of fy 20 2526. Item eight document 2020 6-120 adopt the fy 20 2526 technical adjustment ordinance and make other budget related changes.

Point of order.

Counselor Smith.

Thank you. Why are we hearing both of these together?

It was a request from the administration. The the interfund loan item is a simple a emergency ordinance with a must pass to achieve basic solvency for the city through the end of the fiscal year. So it was requested that we hear it and pass it before we enter. The more complicated discussions can.

Can I object to that?

Sure.

I would like to object to it. We need to hear it separately.

That's fine. We can call up staff and go ahead and have a conversation about item seven first, then. We will of course have separate votes on the two items. But however you want to approach this.

Okay, sorry, ruth levine, budget director so would you like to speak to the inner fun loan piece first?

Let's talk to the interfund loan piece first.

Okay, so the interfund loan ordinance is ordinance simply authorizing this interfund loan from. Sorry. The. From the facility services fund to the health insurance operating fund. And the reason for this loan, we've presented it in a couple of work sessions that the health insurance operating fund, which is the fund out of which we pay all of our essentially our health claims for all city employees and all the people who are on our health insurance plans. We are self-insured, self-insured as a city. And so all of the claims get paid out of the health insurance operating fund, and all of our premiums get paid into that fund as their revenue source, which with which, with which they pay those claims. The fund balance for that is projected to go negative at the end of this fiscal year. And we can't have that under state budget law. And so the the reason we're bringing this forward as an emergency loan is to essentially put that fund back in the in the positive for this year. And the facility services fund was just a place from which to draw those resources as large fund. But it does need to be repaid. And that's part of the ordinance that would authorize the loan is repaid with interest. So it leaves that fund whole, and it has to be repaid next year. And the. The 2627 budget planning, the general fund forecast and the other funds have already forecasted the repayment of that loan. So it's already sort of baked into the the budget planning for next year. It doesn't increase the deficit any more than we've already discussed with council. It's it was sort of planned for we did a round of briefings on this issue back in December, I believe, with each of your offices. And then we've flagged it subsequently as the continued claims costs have come in and we settled on the $15 million amount to ensure that the fund would have enough fund balance at the end of the year. So the spring tore budgets, the revenue in the health insurance operating fund for this loan. The loan proceeds, and it budgets the expense of the loan in the facility services fund. So this standalone ordinance and the reason they were put together is because that has the budget for it. And this is just the ordinance authorizing the loan itself.

Thank you. Colleagues, any technical or clarifying questions, councilor Smith?

Loretta Smith: No.

Okay, okay.

Councilor Kanal thank you, council president.

Thank you for the presentation. A couple questions. First, the. On the underlying actual ordinance itself, what is the expectation of the amount of interest it refers to? Calculating the interest based off of the expected investment returns, which I believe is basically the opportunity cost for the facility services fund. If they'd invested it with the investment fund instead. But is there a projection for how much that would be?

Yeah. Councilor, I don't know. I don't have off the top of my head, but I, I can't recall if we have that. I assume it's not in the financial impact statement, so I just apologize. We're not. Not expecting to have questions here today on that.

Ostensibly this would be the the general expected yield on our investments, right?

That's correct.

That's correct. Yeah. It's aligned. Yeah. Correct. I mean there's no net net gain to the city. Right. It's just making sure that the fund that's the loan fund remains whole to what they would have earned had they not temporarily loaned those funds.

Okay. So I'm interested for for three reasons. One is just to understand this ordinance. The second is to understand our general investment yields, which is maybe a little bit separate conversation. But the same question can answer both. But the third is to understand if maybe there's a better loan option, because without knowing that interest level, if that's, you know, I don't know how good our investment yield is, but if it's a high yield that might make this a very good or a neutral choice for the facility services fund perspective, but less of a good choice from the health reserve perspective. And if it's a lower yield, then it might make it a very good choice. So I'm trying to understand that piece.

Yeah. The challenge councilor is there. There aren't many funds that have that the appropriate legal flexibility and available balance to sort of make to affect this temporary change. And so it's, it's more about finding the funds that can bridge that temporary gap and remain whole without causing other risks or trade offs.

Let me clarify. I wasn't meaning to compare to another potential internal fund to borrow from. I was trying to compare to the outside options.

Yeah. Gotcha. Thank you for that clarification and sorry for the record. Jonas biery chief financial officer yeah, so the delta, the difference here is if it's an external fund, then that interest payment would actually go to somebody that's outside the city rather than sort of paying ourselves. So that's another key point, right? If we had let's make up some numbers. If our internal if the rate that we charge on this internal fund is based upon our internal earnings rate of, let's say it's 3%, just to pick a number, we're paying from one fund in the city to another fund in the city. Still city dollar, 3% net zero to the city overall, if we're externally borrowing at that 3% or probably at a higher rate of borrowing than we're paying that 3 or 4% interest to somebody outside the city, to a bank, frankly, that would.

Be around 3%. Just to benchmark, it would be $450,000. That's 3% of the 15.

If that interest were applied over a 12 month period, that feels right. It may be less than that. If we transact that at a different time frame.

Okay.

We can circle back to that another time or feel free to follow up. No need to to hold it up here. I had a couple other questions. One is, is there a plan in place to or a intent to brief us in a separate conversation around the long term plan to build back this reserve so that we're not in a position to do this again?

Yes, I believe there are have been and in prior council discussions, meetings about the health fund broadly related. So so snapshot. Yeah. So those have happened. And I know we've talked in this room in the context of budget and budget planning. And they'll be come up again here as we get post measures proposed, the long term trajectory of that health fund and the increase to health rates to make sure that we have the ability both to replenish this loan and to rebuild that fund balance to the appropriate level over the next I think it's 2 or 3 years is the plan three years? And so, yes, we've had some dialog to preview that, and there will be more coming to you to make sure that this is a one time event relative to what's hopefully a one time, massively more than expected increase in those health costs.

Okay, I'll just note because the last couple times we've seen it, it's a, it's a graph that goes into next fiscal year and then does not go past that. And I'm trying to understand because we're supposed to be in the 30 something million dollar range, I believe right now for the fun. Just trying to understand how we get back to that, which I imagine is, is certainly not next year in the graphs we've been provided, but it could be two, three, five, I don't know.

Yeah. The, the plan, I think we, we include it in the December briefings, but it's definitely been a while. Is, is still we've calculated to rebuild that reserve over three years as a projection using sort of the increase. If we're sort of collecting rates on the employer side above what would otherwise be required to, you know, continue our plan for the next year, and that is rebuilding the reserve. I'll just flag it will have to continue to update you because obviously every year the actuals come in different from projected. And so that number will will change based on how the actuals come in. But the plan is for three years.

Great. And then last question is not really about the content of this, but the emergency ordinance aspect of it. If this were to be a first reading today and voted on on the 15th, and it would take effect on may 15th, why would that not be okay in terms of getting it done before the budget takes effect?

Yeah, I'm not sure that's a good question. Councilor I'm not sure it totally matters. My assumption is it was probably just filed that way initially, because we weren't really sure of how the timing would align and making sure that we had the ability to pass it. But I we're not thinking of a reason why it could have couldn't have that emergency clause removed. And I don't know if attorneys have any other feedback on that, but.

I'm seeing a shake their head.

I mean, it's.

It's less of a legal question. Yes. Council can always remove an emergency clause from an ordinance. It's more a question of timing and whether that creates problems for the fund. So it would be if you passed it next week, I think because it's an interfund loan, not an appropriation, it would be a 30 day effective date. So I guess that's the calculation for.

So if this took.

Effect on may 15th, the sky wouldn't fall is what I'm hearing.

I think the sky would not fall.

Okay. Thank you, council president.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.

Thank you council president. So I want to make sure I know where I'm going to see the back end of the repayment here. This is a one year $15 million loan. Are we repaying that full $15 million plus banking the first year of rebuilding the reserve in the 2627 budget? Is that where we should expect to see that proposal? Or will the repayment proposal for the 15 million come in the 2728 budget? What is the what is the step two that we should expect to see possibly very, very near to now?

Yeah. It's in the 2627 budget. So I think you should expect to see it in the mayor's proposal. So the in the forecast we were already assuming. An interfund loan. We had to increase the amount slightly since since that forecast was put together in November, but we were already assuming that and we were already assuming the repayment of the reserve, which is why for the for the sort of lmc portion of the health fund, we were looking at almost a 23% increase in rates on the employer side for next year because of the both the loan repayment and the rebuilding of the reserve. So there's this huge spike, and you can see that in the general fund forecast. That's like a big part of the reason that the the expenses spike so much next year. So we've already been planning for that. And we'll, it will be included in the budget.

Okay. And thinking about those interest payments. And when we, when we start accruing interest on this loan, if we pass this on emergency versus not, will that change when we actually receive the dollars and therefore when interest payments start? Or are we not going to receive the dollars until the last possible moment that we need them in order to limit the amount of interest? I understand you saying we're paying ourself, not somebody else. That's a good thing. But it also means we're paying the interest. We're not accruing it from outside investments. So I'd like to make sure that we minimize the amount of time that those payments are coming from us, as opposed to coming from outside investors.

Yeah, I would anticipate councilor That we don't execute this until the moment we need to, which I assume would be June 30th or before the start of the fiscal year.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, council president.

Thank you. Okay. Keelan has anyone signed up for public testimony on this item?

No one has signed up.

Okay, colleagues, we now move into debate of item seven, councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: We had talked about other funds that would be able to support this. I didn't get any feedback from the general fund reserve in regards to why we couldn't use that. Instead of the facility's.

Yeah. So I mean, the the general reserve fund is, you know, has to be sort of has a policy around it that sort of directs when it ought to be used. So we would have to find council would have to find that the sort of recession trigger is met and then decide to use that for this purpose. I think the reason we went with the interfund loan is because we have a known revenue source to repay it. It's not that we which is rates, essentially health benefit rates. And so. It's not a sort of. Open ended need. I guess there's a clear revenue stream that we're going to use to repay the loan. Sort of as soon as we have enough in the bank next fiscal year to minimize the amount of interest that accrues. I think the general fund reserve is typically. Thought of as something that is used for operational needs in, in, you know, an emergency, fiscal or otherwise, to continue to pay salaries and, and do the city's business. And since this is something that's, you know, significant and, and problematic, obviously it needs to be addressed. It's just we, we have a mechanism to repay it. So the interfund loan is, is, was the recommendation.

And so if we do not support this agenda item today, what is going to happen?

So if if council did not pass this interfund loan ordinance, we would have to come back to council to look for some other pathway to make the health insurance operating fund whole, because we can't not pay our bills, obviously. And so there there has to be some pathway to kind of ensure that the health insurance operating fund ends with a positive balance at the end of the fiscal year.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Councilor Kanal thank you, council president. I have a comment, a question and possibly a motion. The comment is, first off, thank you for the work on this. I understand the everything about the emergency ordinance question I'm about to ask is make sense to me and I appreciate it and intend to vote in support of this council president. If, hypothetically, the emergency clause was removed, would this be something that could get a second reading next week?

Yeah.

Okay, colleagues, I move to strike section two from the ordinance, which is the emergency clause reading. The council declares an emergency exists in order to avoid negative cash balances in the health operating fund at the end of fy 2526, which would violate state budget law in us gaap. Therefore, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the council. And my rationale for this is, as I asked a few moments ago, if this were to get voted on next week instead of today and take effect 30 days after that, the sky would not fall. The purpose of an emergency ordinance is for situations where there would be an emergency, or that there would be a very big negative consequence in the event that we don't pass it for roughly a year at least, I've been bringing up the fact that we use the emergency ordinance clause. We overuse it in my opinion, and that it has had the effect of reducing the ability of the public to understand what's happening before it happens and potentially weigh in on it. This item did not go to committee, which is fine, and also has not had a chance for the public to understand it. So I think it's it's less about the idea that it would be nice. I don't think we should be using emergency ordinances as a reason to do things to make it done faster. That's not the purpose of it.

Councilor Kanal has moved to strike section two, the emergency clause. Is there a second? Councilor? I'm not hearing one. Okay. Moving forward. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: I was in the queue to debate if there was a second and there was not. I've removed myself from the queue.

Okay. Thank you, councilor Smith. Is that a legacy hand? Councilor Kanal same great colleagues seeing no further debate. No one in the queue. No one signed up for testimony. This is an emergency item that will require 9/12 votes. Keelan can we please call the vote?

Kanal. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. Aye, Morillo Koyama Lane. I Morillo. Absent Novick. I cclark. I Green. A Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. I Dunphy I. The ordinance passes with 11 yes votes and one absent.

Okay. Can we please call item number eight?

Item eight, document 2020 6-1 20. Adopt the fy 2025 dash 26 technical adjustment ordinance and make other budget related changes.

Welcome cfo jonas biery and budget director ruth levine. Please take it away.

Great. Thanks for having us. So we are here today for the first reading of the spring technical adjustment ordinance. We presented to you all last week. A week ago on April 1st, during a work session on this ordinance, there have been no changes. We had already filed at that time to get on the agenda for today. So all of the substantive content that was filed is the same. I know there's at least one amendment, so obviously, today is the opportunity for you all to discuss that. Just a quick note on well, a quick note for the public on what this ordinance is, and then I'll talk quickly about process. So the spring technical adjustment ordinance is the is a spring supplemental budget process. The primary purposes of it are to make any necessary adjustments based on actual spending throughout the course of the year in all city funds to true up. In many cases, the fund balances to reflect what was in the to true up the beginning fund balance for 2526 to match what was in the ending fund balance from 2425. In our audited financial statement in the act for this is sort of the first opportunity since the afr was released to do that. And so those fund balances are being chewed up here. And, and in this year, the the spring technical adjustment ordinance also crucially addresses shortfall in revenue, primarily in the general fund. And so we have to adjust contingencies and other line items and expenditures and the like in order to ensure that the general fund ends within balance according to state budget law. And so the spring technical adjustment ordinance includes several adjustments in the general fund to ensure that that happens. I'm not going to go through those all in detail because we just talked about them last week, but happy to answer any further questions on those. So that's my very brief overview of what what we're doing here today in terms of process. So the the proposal was to have the first reading today to hear any amendments that you all would like to discuss and then move to a second reading next week where you would approve this. The timing is intended to align so that this is so that the spring tor is completed before the mayor's proposal is released on April 20th, so that you can transition into into discussion of the 2627 budget without having to have this hanging over your heads. So that's just my quick note on process.

Perfect. Thank you. Ruth. Colleagues, this is an opportunity for technical and clarifying questions. But also I understand that there are at least five amendments that have been pre filed, and there may be additional if anyone does have a pre filed, I'm going to give you an opportunity to to present it or if not move it, but just give a quick preview before we move to testimony. And then we will discuss amendments after that, starting with councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. I noticed that I was pushed down. My amendment was up first and now your amendment is above mine. So I just wondered how that happened.

I think they are. The most recent gets filed at the top and things get moved down. So if you please feel free to preview your amendment.

Okay, so I have a question, a technical question. The last information that we received from the budget office said that there was $106 million that was found. I noticed in in your exhibit, an exhibit one, there was a number that said 177 million. I don't imagine that that is the new number. So could you tell me the new number that we actually can can earmark because we have amendments that earmark for 40 amendments that earmarked for 56. I just want to know what the total is, because I know it's more than 106 million that was lost or that was found, or that was hidden or supplanted, I don't know.

So I think you're referring specifically to the housing bureau's non-general budget. Yes. Yeah.

What was that total amount?

The sorry, I'm just pulling up a spreadsheet. I'm not sure where the 177 million number is.

It was in your exhibit for agenda items. Item seven. They had a they had a number of 177, but it didn't indicate if that was the entire amount that was going to be actually appropriated from the Portland housing bureau. If that was just the total amount that we were reconciling with this, with today's action.

Yeah. So, okay, just sort of two answers. So first, if you're looking at exhibit one in page four of exhibit one, so this is these are the changes to the appropriations schedule from the spring technical adjustment as filed. And this includes, as I said earlier, all of those like true ups to fund balance in the various funds. This the change in the Portland housing bureau on page five is 118 076869. That's the total change in appropriation in the Portland housing bureau. I would not say that that's the same as the that that's sort of apples to apples with the 106 million that was in the memo. They're kind of different animals. Yeah.

So I guess what I'm trying to find out what was the exact number. I know murillo's office said that there was about 144,000, and you all were supposed to come back. I just need to know what is that Portland housing bureau number? Because that's very important because we could actually appropriate the entire number. I just want to know what that number is.

Well, so the the ending fund balance, the 2425 ending fund balance from the occ for, for the Portland housing bureau, outside of their general fund is 145 million. Some of that, however, was already budgeted and there were various.

It was previously looked at as two budget, but it was not budgeted. It was not put in. In the last year.

Sorry, 8 million of the 145 was in the fall technical adjustment ordinance, so they had already included it in their budget document.

Is that minus that, what is that 100.

And 137.

So that's the number. And 106 is not the number. Is that so. Is that what I'm hearing from you.

Again, I wouldn't say they're exactly apples to apples because the. Again, it's across five different funds that each have their own legal restrictions, but also.

But I'm just trying to get the number, whether it's restricted or not restricted. Ruth, just work with me, please, because this is very important, jonas, because I'm trying to put forward amendments and I'm trying I have to talk about the other amendments. They're all well under 137. But my point is we could actually appropriate up to 137 if we chose to. That's the point that I'm trying to make.

Yeah. Councilor so let me try to for the record. Jonas biery chief financial officer so, as ruth rightly suggested, there's sort of different animals, although they're both animals, to use your suggestion that yes, council can adjust those. Correct. Yes. So the 106 that was previously discussed is money that was unbudgeted and targeted for future year uses. Right. And so there's been lots of dialog about how could that those dollars be redeployed.

Look at that differently. It was hidden for future use. And when you target something, you you appropriate it.

And there's a second amount that I don't know, I don't want to get lost in the numbers. I don't want to say the wrong thing here, but it's that 30 million that delta that we're talking about right now, which is also referenced in a memo that was sent by khalidx March 28th. So I just refer folks to that. If you haven't seen it, it also references this the same scenario. Those are dollars that would have been or maybe have already been deployed this fiscal year that are being trued up in this budget, just as other dollars in other funds are chewed up in the fall. Tor cfo biery.

You're confusing me right now. Just please, please walk with me and talk with me. That $106 million is no longer 106. It is now 137 that we lost. No, ma'am, that was not unappropriate. So please tell me that number. I just need to know that number.

106 million that's been discussed remains the same. That is still the 106 million.

So was that other 30 million? Was that budgeted?

That was not budgeted.

Thank you. That's that's it. Stop stop stop stop. That's it. It's 137 million that was not budgeted in the 2526. So what I'm saying, I wanted the public to know there is 137 million that's out here that has not been budgeted yet, and that it is available for this council to budget. This council has decided through amendments and through my amendment, which I'm getting ready to talk about. First. Mr. President, I'm choosing to take 40 million of the 137 that has not been previously budgeted. That was expected and should have been budgeted for 25, 26. And that $40 million. I won't go through the whole thing. 20 million of that is going to go through the rental services money, and that will basically offer rent assistance for renters experiencing any type of eviction prevention. Folks who are in homeless shelters that can get rent assistance through this, and also folks who are on an affordability level, they could also get rent assistance if they can't afford their rent. My $40 million also includes two specific projects hacienda community development corporation for 3.5 million. And then we go down to the short term rental monies. I identified our house for 500,000 oasis of praise for $2 million. Williams and russell self-enhancement inc. Homeownership project, urban plaza, broadway corridor, and that equals up $11.1 million. I decided not to because I was working off $106 million budget office, and I decided not to actually budget the entire 106, which now we know is 137, and also put $5.1 million towards the general fund that the mayor can use any way that he wants. I know there are some concerns that people may have right now because they don't want to appropriate, but I did see that the housing in permitting committee yesterday, they did appropriate. And they appropriated dollars to their favorite bureau at the city public safety in parks. That is a form of appropriation as well. So when we say we want some transparency, there are other budgets in other bureaus in this city government that would have liked to have an opportunity at getting those $8.6 million. It is important, and it is critical to know that my $40 million, at least 90% of it, is in the supplemental budget. So as we're looking forward, people are calling what's different, what's new? The base core of the money for rental services, the money for projects. And the project that I did leave out was the the broadway corridor. And so I think we took such a long time in the feedback that I was getting from other councilors. The reason why they weren't putting this on the agenda is because they didn't want to support broadway corridor. But funny thing happened on the way to grandma's house yesterday.

Good morning.

Broadway corridor was approved in the two. They say the white developer. That's what broadway corridor represents. They didn't want to. They did not want to fund that. But there was an amendment that our chair allowed to happen and support it. And then they took away the community development, community based developers who have black and brown leadership. They took all their money away. That's not right. That's not fair. And with my motion for $40 million, it will keep everybody whole. And I urge my colleagues to think again about what you did yesterday and what the look is to the community. Again, white developers, developers of color, they're gone. The white developers, which I did support that project. And I'm not saying that I don't, I support it, but that look is not a good look for us, particularly when we all supported the george floyd measure that me and my colleague in district one put forward, and that particular resolution said that we're going to try to identify ways in which we can help communities of color. Now, that doesn't sound like we helped communities of color when we had an opportunity to, it sounded like we were doing status quo. And so I'm urging all of my colleagues to support my amendment, including the communities of color, community based developers, which are putting forward home ownership opportunities that will give that generational wealth that all of you all talk about. Oh, we want to make sure that communities of color, they have generational wealth. I don't believe y'all. I don't believe y'all because yesterday was the tale of the tape. We need to be consistent, you guys. This is our one and only opportunity to go in and identify projects that we think that will be good for the entire community, not just one segment of the community. And until we start being consistent in what we do and how we do and how we keep measures off the off the docket, I have still is not lost on me. That, mr. President, you removed my agenda item on February 18th. You removed councilor Eric zimmerman's agenda item for this very thing on February 18th. And so you have some accomplices up here who supported you in that effort. I don't like it. You did a drive by. You did an administrative political drive by on my agenda item, and I don't like it. That's why I'm bringing it back.

There you go.

So thank you very much.

Thank you. Colleagues, I just want to note, I sent out a memo yesterday that we are under robert's rules, limited to ten minutes of debate per item or per motion, per councilor and councilor. I just want to note that just for reference, that was almost 13 minutes. So, colleagues, if we can please.

13 minutes, sir.

The democracy works in funny ways and the majority of this council made it an action. So. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mister mister president. So yesterday in committee we came up with a with a package on the housing money, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't. The part I. And one thing that we did was we stripped out almost all of the references to specific projects based on the principle that the council should not be generally in the business of picking and choosing projects. And we also said that unless the unless the city is actually buying and controlling properties, our investment in housing projects should be loans rather than grants. And we did actually change the we did call out broadway carter specifically, but we also changed the investment in broadway. Carter, from what the sponsors of that wanted. And so I also, I personally said yesterday that although I like the principle that the council should not be involved in adopting a specific projects, and I thought that's a good starting point. I also said that I reserve the right to make exceptions, and in particular I said, I reserve the right to hear councilor Smith out on the hacienda proposal, which strikes me that it might be might be a basis for an exception. I do not think that we should try to resolve all of the ins and outs of the housing money today. I would rather pass a clean tao and have continuing discussions with the full council about the housing money. What I want to know is, can we do that? Can we simply today pass the tao as proposed and delay any discussion about allocating the housing money? Or is there something that legally we have to do about the housing money today? So that's the question I have for jonas and ruth.

So I guess a couple of answers to that question. The tao, as filed, includes the true up of the fund balances and the sort of expenses placed in contingency. And so that action would happen as part of the tao as filed. The other action that would happen as part of the tao is filed is to transfer $4.3 million to the general fund as part of that suite of solutions that we have to ensure that the general fund ends in balance for the current fiscal year. So if council did not pass any amendments but did pass the tao, that would be the impact of that. I guess what that would leave then is sort of what happens to the rest of the money. That's sort of available to be allocated within those housing funds. You don't have to make that decision as part of this ordinance. It can be done as part of the 2627 budget process. Does that answer your question?

But point of information isn't the isn't some of the money in the amendment for this tao, though? So wouldn't we have to pull that out?

The 4.3 million. There's a $4.3 million transfer from hif, from that 2% tlt sub fund to the general fund. So that's the only portion of it that this tao would touch if it were unamended. So yeah, that I guess put it another way, if if you don't want to send that money to the general fund, there would have to be some other solution to keep the general fund balanced. But other than that 4.3 million, the rest of it is sort of largely it's unallocated. It's just sitting in contingency. And so the rest of it is the part that council doesn't have to do it in the spring. Tao it can be done in the 2627 approved budget.

Thank you. Ruth, I just want to confirm that no disrespect. I want to confirm that with jonas. We do not have to do anything with the housing money. We don't have to do anything extra with the housing money that the current tao proposal doesn't do.

Councilor. That's correct. I agree with the budget office director.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor. Zimmerman.

I put my hand up just after you had presented the overall tao and the previous work session and just wanted to say thanks, I appreciate it. It's hard work. It makes sense to me. And. Councilor Novick last question about that 4.3 to the general fund makes a lot of sense to me. So certainly prepared to, you know, excuse me to pass this and wanted to give the budget office and the finance office appreciation for the way you've laid out the documents on this. As I get used to the city model of the taos, it gets easier every time. It's still requires at least some sort of translating, but appreciated that. And I think shoring things up so we can have a larger budget discussion may be an appropriate take here, but thanks. I'm not I'm not proposing any changes unless I see wild changes getting proposed. So thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. President.

Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Are you asking us to take our amendments off? Because I'm not prepared to take my amendment off today.

I'm not asking. I'm asking for right now. We are in still in technical and clarifying questions.

And I was wondering because everybody is talking about we're just going to vote for the tao without any amendments.

We are.

I don't I don't support that, I don't support that.

And we.

Have to.

Let you know, two other colleagues in the queue who are going to introduce their amendments right now, I believe. Yeah. Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Thank you. And then process wise. So we should introduce these amendments. Then we'll go to testimony and then we'll come back. Yes. And then we're not moving them right now. Or are we moving them?

Is my intention to move amendments today.

Okay. So you want me to. All right.

So preview our amendments right now so the public can respond to them. And we will move to testimony. Then we will go in the order. We'll go Smith. Avalos. Pirtle-guiney.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. Okay.

Seconds at this time, please. What was the last thing we're not let's not move into the motion right now. Just present.

That's what I was asking. So. No, I'm not asking for a second. I'm just announcing. Please. Okay, great. I'll just keep this simple then. We've got an amendment posted as Avalos Green Dunphy Morillo one. This is the product of the conversation from the housing and permitting committee yesterday, which is the allocation of the unbudgeted housing dollars. There were a bunch of different amendments that were considered, some of which were adopted. All of that is reflected in the amendment that you see listed on the website. And the goal is for us to just to speak a little bit to what councilor Novick was saying. You know, we've heard no, technically, we don't have to do anything with that. I would definitely urge that we do because one, you know, some of those dollars are tied up in this tile. So I guess I wasn't super clear on that answer. We can talk about that later, but that's just a concern about if we don't do anything with that amendment, because it has dollars tied into the this. How do you want to respond to that?

Yeah, sure. So yeah, it's a good question. It's a little confusing. The tau as filed because we filed a balanced general fund proposal, moved that 4.3 million from that sub fund into the general fund. Your the amendment that came out of housing committee yesterday spoke to that same bucket in the technical portion of that amendment. At the bottom, there's like an appropriations schedule kind of red line. It takes like the delta, essentially, between what was already put there and what was proposed to be put to the general fund in housing committee yesterday. Does that make sense? So essentially, they agreed. So there's no issue, right. Like the 4.3 million that was already filed. And the amendment that came out of housing agree on sending money to the general fund. And so it's just a technical matter of making sure the right amount gets moved.

In other words, if the tau is approved as is with zero amendments, that 4.3 will still be going to that fund. That's I just wanted to make sure that that's still part of the tau. So really, we're just kind of a double tap on our end, but it's already accounted for. Okay. Just wanted to make sure that was clear. But yeah, that that is the amendment before you. And then we'll hear your testimony and talk about it after. Thank you.

Thank you, mr. President. What if that particular amendment doesn't pass and mine passes that has a 5.1. How do you reconcile that?

I well, I look to our budget director.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Sorry.

I have a similar amendment, and it gives back 5.1 million to the general fund instead of 4.3. So how do you reconcile that since you've matched up your numbers with this amendment that hasn't been approved?

Go ahead.

So I think basically, as a general matter, whatever any amendment that council approves to the tor today would is assumed to be an amendment on top of the base tor as filed. And so since whatever number you want to send to the general fund, if it's $5 million, we would just send the delta between the 4.3 that is sent in the base as filed and whatever amendment passes today. So we would in that case, if it was 5 million, we would send 700,000. So if it's the only trouble comes is if it's less than the 4.3, then in order to pass the tor council would have to find some other source of funding to true up to balance the general fund. So we will. But but as a general matter, all of the amendments that you're thinking about, it's a little confusing because the process was parallel and now it's together. But just think about it. As for the general fund, 4.3 is the base. If there's any above 4.3, we would just add it to the we would take the delta.

Yeah, I just wanted to know what the technical piece was around that. And thank you for letting us know that if it's less than 4.3, we're going to have to do some some other moving around. Thank you.

Yep.

Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.

Thank you.

Council president colleagues, I have four amendments filed. All of them are filed. Under the assumption that Avalos, Dunphy Green Morillo one is adopted. If that is not adopted, I likely won't move these amendments. I am still cross-checking them with ssmith one to see if any would be necessary. Pirtle-guiney one. Brings up a conversation that I introduced yesterday, and this is unfortunately a newer conversation because we have a crisis that a few of us were alerted to more recently, in our housing market, there are deeply affordable, supportive housing units in our community, which we are at risk of losing. This is some of the hardest housing to secure, and some of the community members who are the the most difficult to support, because we don't have a lot of units that address the needs that they have. And. We need to look at how we can make sure that we keep those units online. Pirtle-guiney one puts a small amount of money, $3 million, toward ensuring that we don't lose those deeply affordable, primarily under 30% ami, though a small amount of the funds is available for units at a little bit higher level. Because some of those units are, I believe, 40 or 45% ami supportive housing units. Pirtle-guiney two addresses a project which councilor Smith brought up as well. This is the hacienda community development corporation project monaca, and this is an opportunity to bring housing online by the end of this year. We have heard repeatedly from people that we have a crisis now that we need to address, and we have an opportunity to take a property that has a significant amount of public investment in it, which is at risk of not being completed, the shell of which is done, which would provide over 50 family size units if completed and close the funding gap. Pirtle-guiney three restores the projects which were stripped out of the proposal yesterday. I'll speak more to this in relation to pirtle-guiney one, two and three when we're in full debate. But colleagues, I would suggest that there was a significant shift in direction yesterday in committee in what this proposal looks like, a significant change from the previous conversations that we have had. And after we were told that the goal was to bring forward a proposal that captured everybody's priorities, I take issue with that change that I think lost many councilors priorities. I'll speak more to this later when we're in full discussion, but I want to provide that context for why pirtle-guiney one, two, and three are back on the table today. I normally would not bring forward amendments that were part of the discussion in committee, but I think we need to talk about that significant change. Pirtle-guiney four is in response to that change that was made. I believe that if we are stripping out projects that provide us affordable homeownership opportunities, and if we are using a lower number than some of the previous proposals had for down payment assistance, that we need to make sure that our new revolving loan and social housing acquisition fund allow for models that. That provide opportunity for home ownership, homeownership in this country, in this state, in this city is the number one way that working families build equity. And it is the number one way that we can control rising costs year over year. On people's housing bill. Those are just realities. So if in fact, this council wants to move forward with a new approach that was introduced for the first time yesterday, that's a pretty significant shift from what we have been talking about. I think we need to discuss why home ownership was not part of that revolving loan and social housing acquisition bucket, and I think that it needs to be part of our work moving forward. If we are truly committed to supporting low income and working families in our community and ensuring that they have stable housing costs, that's pirtle-guiney four. I look forward to talking more about these after we hear from members of the public, and I want to thank our tao team, our cbo, and. Of all of the folks who have worked on this, because I suspect that a lot of the discussion today will be about housing and not about the tao that's before us. And I know that a lot of work went into the underlying that probably won't get acknowledged through that discussion. So I want to take this moment now to just appreciate all of the work that you have done to ensure that we continue to move forward with a balanced budget, even in difficult fiscal times.

Thank you. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Councilor Kanal. I k councilor Smith. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Similar. I'll only propose minor amendments if other amendments end up passing, and that is to ensure that we have more than a single building in broadway corridor going forward. And that original broadway 5.6 is what those amendments do. Thanks.

Thank you very much, colleagues. I am going to give us a ten minute break before we start for our public testimony on this item and final debate. So it is 1052. Please be back at 1102. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we are back. Thank you. Welcome, folks. Keelan, can we please call up public testimony?

Right.

We have 18 people signed up. I will call people up in groups of five. When you sit down at the testimony table, go ahead and state your name for the record and begin your testimony. First up, we have molly hogan, mandy campos, anna konicki, michelle hornbeck, Ryan Ryan salas.

Welcome, folks. Please come on up. Introduce yourself for the record pronouns. And you have three minutes. Go ahead, molly, take it away.

I sure will. Oh, my gosh, y'all got me fired up. Hello, council. My name is molly hogan and I'm the director of welcome home coalition, a multicultural housing justice alliance that believes we can have a system that ensures everyone has access to a home, no matter their income. For the sake of so many households on the verge of losing their housing this month and those on the verge of becoming housed again, I beg you all to move forward together, to pass either the Green Morillo amendment, the Smith amendment, the pirtle-guiney amendments, just pass a damn amendment today and move this housing money. This is unacceptable. What I just heard that you're thinking about not even moving it. There's a saying that says money doesn't buy happiness. But guess what? Studies have shown that it does buy happiness up to about 80 k. And we all know why, right? Because when you know how you're going to pay your rent and bills, you can relax and focus on other things, other thoughts besides stressing and surviving right now. Trump has threatened iran by saying, quote, a whole civilization will die tonight. This man is a harsh mirror of what this country's legacy of unchecked capitalism, colonialism, racism, and patriarchy has arrived us to this man and his administration. Policy choices are rooted in hatred and violence, and no fiscal intelligence. His administration's policy response to homelessness has been to cut rent assistance, harsher enforcement of laws that criminalize poverty, addiction, and not having a home. Increasing funding to build more congregate shelters eerily similar to the increase in ice detention centers and increased lighttech funding, which has proven to create less and less affordable housing. With rents that poor and working class people can actually afford. And the uncomfortable truth is that the city of portland's policy response to homelessness is the same as the trump administration. This city has focused on policy responses that seem to hope that with enough punitive measures, people will suddenly bootstrap their way out of homelessness. And I hope we can agree that your methods are not working. Homelessness has increased in Multnomah county over two years, 67%. And the percentage of people moving out of your ever growing shelter system has decreased to a dismal year over year, and now the average is just 16%. However, I want to compare our expensive neighbor to the south san francisco. Did you know that they only saw a 7% increase over two years in their homelessness? I know right, san francisco crazy. And if you dig into where public investments from sfs are city, our home fund went. San francisco spent six times more on permanent housing acquisition and operations. Eviction prevention and mental health support than on shelter six times as much. We need shelters, folks, but people don't need to live there forever. So basically, what I really want to stress, and you can tell I'm stressing that you all have a choice today to do something different. You don't have to. Do you really want to be able to say that you have the same response to homelessness as donald trump? Can you, as leaders, prioritize people's right to survive with safety and privacy over someone's right to make a profit? Please take a different approach and please pass either the Green Morillo amendment, the Smith amendment, the pirtle-guiney amendments. Just get this housing money out into community hands and do it today. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Very good.

Yeah.

Mandy.

Please go ahead.

Ditto. My name is mandy campos. I use she her pronouns. I'm with the welcome home coalition, but I'm testifying from my experience as someone who has worked in housing the last six years, from housing subsidies, from young parents coming out of homelessness. 60% of these young parents were facing domestic violence, which takes about seven attempts to leave successfully. A lot of them were coming out of their first attempt. Emergency rental assistance for eviction prevention and renters rights education, and the renters rights hotline. With the community alliance of tenants. I support the Avalos Green Morillo Dunphy. One amendment to the spring tow ordinance, but also just kind of like moving something forward. Today. I want to reemphasize my points from yesterday in the housing committee meeting. My experience has shown me that eviction prevention through emergency rental assistance is a necessary tourniquet to a bleeding wound, to a larger systemic failure that does need to be addressed. However, it's a wound that is urgent and needs to be tended nonetheless. We can look forward and make our plans, but we need to meet people where they're at today with their needs today. The cost of living continues to go up. Affordable housing is not affordable, wages continue to stay stagnant and the conditions of the properties do not improve with each rent increase. It's called emergency rental assistance because it's an emergency. We need you all to move forward with the urgency that your constituents face day to day, while you sit here and debate in circle for months on end. We need you to move forward and make some decisions today. Not soon, not later, not next week. Not next month. Today, we need emergency rental assistance to keep households afloat while we figure out how to do more than the bare minimum for our communities. To quote the 101 notes on the la tenant union. Note five when we call this a housing crisis, it benefits the people who design housing, who build housing, who profit from housing, not the people who live in it. Note 55 there is no shortage of housing except for poor and working people, which the market has never and will never provide. Note 57 landlords don't provide housing they extract from housing. Developers don't provide housing. They speculate on it. So I urge you, instead of putting part of these funds in the hands of for profit developers, it needs to go into eviction prevention, debt, buy down or public acquisition categories. I urge you to do right by the people in the communities you serve. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is michelle hornbeck, and I am a part of welcome home coalition. But also my personal experience gives me a seat at this table. I'm in a lot of pain, so I'm going to try to get through this really quick. But so first of all, I don't understand why we're here. Are you in about some money that was already approved last year because somebody messed up, misplaced it, took it home, stuffed it under their mattress, whatever the heck happened to it? It's none of my business. The point is, is that that same money that was allocated last year should directly go right now. All these other amendments that you guys want to do and play with, that's your business. And I ain't got nothing to do with it. I almost became homeless since last year because I had an emergency crisis and there was no assistance out there. And I fight every time we come here. Every county meeting, every city meeting. I didn't make it last night because I was in too much pain. But my point is, is that I've been homeless. I've been in the gutter. I've had to sell my just to pay for a motel room. So if you want to get raw and funky in here, I can do that with you. Okay. Look, and another thing. Y'all want to give these money to these agencies that y'all be comfortable with for years, that don't help nobody in the community. One program in specific, specifically, has not housed anybody in the community in a year. They helped their friends and families, but y'all continue to pump money into them because of the color. I'm tired of the color. We passed that. Really? We are. We are humans. It ain't black, white, hispanic, none of that. We are human beings. And you guys are so worried about all the money for the billionaires and this, that and the other. But y'all ain't worried about the hard working people in the community, the less than fortunate people in the community. We voted you in. We gave you a job. Do your job. Stop worrying about all these people that got money because they're leaving. Portland is a show, and they're leaving. The marriott just took a 67% loss and sold that building for $30 million, because they don't want it no more. Come on, you guys. You got to get up. You got to pull your bootstraps and let's get it done. Get the money out today. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Checking to see if anna curnonsky is here. Ryan salas. Next up we have thomas mckelvey. Lauren armony, pastor mark jackson, brooke goldberg.

Good morning, president Dunphy, vice president Clark and members of the council. My name is sam mckelvey, and I'm the director of advocacy and engagement at self enhancement, inc. Ci is here today in strong support of the proposed amendment from councilor Smith, that direct spending of the funds that have been recently discovered and we would also strongly support the pirtle-guiney amendments if the screen. Dunphy Morillo ordinance passes. As you engage in your discussion, there are two primary points that I want to raise this morning. The first is directing of fb dollars to specific agencies. I'm generally in support of ensuring an accessible process that provides public transparency for how funding is distributed. However, if there is a situation that calls for an exception to this practice, then it is a situation that we are in right now and the projects that are under discussion right now. Homeownership opportunities for black portlanders has been systemically suppressed for the entirety of this city's existence. This city has intentionally created policy to ensure a lack of home ownership opportunities for its african American residents, and this has had a predictable impact on the economic realities of black portlanders. John perkins used a baseball analogy to describe this dynamic that I want to highlight. It's like a baseball game where one side is cheating for seven innings and accumulates a 30 to 0 lead in the game. Then after the seventh inning, the cheating side says, we're sorry. We feel bad about our cheating. We're going to play fair for the rest of the game, but they're already up 30 to 0. The losing side has no hope of ever catching up and surely has no chance to win. It's not enough for the cheating side to play fair. It must correct its wrongs and intentionally create a pathway for the other side to catch up. This is the state of homeownership in Portland. The city has cheated black portlanders for decades, and now, when there's an opportunity for us to take a tiny step to catch up with small contributions to two small projects, the city is trying to say that we have to ensure the playing field is fair for all, fair for all has never been fair for us, and it will not be fair for us now. Denying the opportunity for c.I. And williams and russell to receive direct funding for home ownership for black portlanders, is supporting racist systems of oppression that put us in the state that we are in. The second thing I want to address as part of your discussion this morning is the proposed revolving loan fund. It is the height of insanity to put forward an ordinance that funds debt buy downs to stabilize and reduce rent on one hand while simultaneously creating debt. On the other hand, if hb is going to conceptually change from a funder to a bank, then we are stating to our marginalized communities that in terms of your housing, you're going to get what you can afford to pay for. And if you can afford nothing, you're going to get nothing. We can't have aye, Morillo affordability and high livability without corresponding commitment to highly funded public subsidies. Nonprofit developers are nonprofit. What are we supposed to use to pay these loans back? The only mechanism we have is rent from the residents. There are many more thoughts that I have on this, and I'll share those in writing. But in the limited time. I would urge you this morning to approve the proposed Smith amendment. And if you do approve the other amendment, then please support the four pirtle-guiney amendments. Lastly, I want to say that I've given up trying to argue with people who have ignorant and racist mindsets to agree with me. I'm making these arguments because I don't think that is you. I think that you are allies. I think that you have the ability to change your minds. So please change your minds this morning. Support pathways for home ownership and support the institution of mutual partnership with your nonprofit providers so we can serve our communities with excellence together. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Lauren.

Okay.

Aye, Morillo, Portland city council. My name is lauren and I work with welcome home coalition, and I'm here to urge you to pass any of these amendments that will get this funding out of here today, on Wednesday, December 3rd, welcome home coalition presented each of you with a copy of our finding home report, a two and a half year long participatory action research project centering and uplifting the expertise of over 600 people with lived experience of homelessness in the Portland metro area. That same day, we presented each of you with a petition signed by 2000 portlanders demanding you to fund what will truly move the needle for people experiencing homelessness and housing instability in Portland. Based on this research, I also personally presented our research at the December 9th homelessness and housing committee, during which councilor Zimmerman. You did not include our recent research participants under the umbrella of everyday portlanders, suggesting that their answers that are backed by lived experience should not be considered with the same seriousness as the opinions of portlanders who have never experienced homelessness. I know at least a few of you have still never read the report. We have a tableau. It's very easy. It is here that I want to personally thank councilor Avalos and councilor Green for responding to our finding home report directly, and thank councilor, Morillo and Dunphy for moving the keep Portland house package through to this spring ordinance. And thank you, councilor Smith, for supporting eviction prevention and rent assistance. Over 91% of our research respondents said rent cost is their biggest barrier to finding and keeping housing. Why is this so hard to understand? And just as many said, they need rental assistance assistance to stay housed because the rent in Portland is too damn high. The amendment addresses that core needs for our most vulnerable neighbors. Stop jerking us around. How undignified it is to ask us to show up here over five times and threaten to leave this vote to another day. It's infuriating. Everyone on the street knows these funds exist, and every day you do not act on them. They are watching and they are angry as hell. Okay, we do not need more research or discussion on where these funds should go. You've been sitting on this research since October. Our petitions. December, stop holding these Portland housing bureau funds hostage and get them to the portlanders that need it today. Lastly, as important as homeownership is, this is a personal note. Please be prepared to support people in their homeownership because we all know it is anything but stable. Property taxes rise, maintenance costs mount, inflation rises, and layoffs are imminent for so many of us. And I don't know if, you know, foreclosures exist, but they do. And we've almost faced it in my family. So please also support homeowners in staying homeowners. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

For the record, I am pastor mark jackson, and I deeply appreciate the clarity by which councilor Smith articulated the funding on the table today, as a representative of district three, delaying funds to the community is no longer an option. Any other decision reflects a privileged and oppressive posture of thinking. The urgency of now is upon us, and black and brown communities continue to be asked to wait. That manipulative chess game is unjust, and a rebuke from our community elders is more of an appropriate. In times like these, our ancestors call you to accountability, to do what is right by the community that put you in office. We can no longer and will no longer be silenced or portrayed as invisible. Community members in this city. For the past 29 years, oasis of praise has utilized our current rented space to house and to feed the homeless, clothe those who've been in transition, provided behavioral and mental health supports for our most vulnerable community members. Providing family and youth outreach services on our own dime. Because it was not about proselytizing. It was about serving the needs of our community. In addition, oasis of praise has partnered with the city, the county and the state dating back to 2020, providing rental assistance for countless households. We have the opportunity now to acquire and to renovate this property and make it our own. That will include a full service community resource center to increase our capacity to do what we've been doing for 29 years. This request is about serving culturally diverse communities at large with a permanent space that exists in a community that, by law, blacks could not own property. The richmond neighborhood in southeast Portland district three. Again, our ancestors call you to accountability in this moment, this kairos moment, to do what's right for the people you don't even know. I am here to express support of councilor Smith's proposed amendment that supports our project as a council. This is your kairos moment to strengthen the service.net of this community where many people are going unsheltered and unserviced. The wait is over and the time is now. Thank you.

Brook is joining us online.

Welcome, brook.

Thank you. I hope you can hear me. Okay. My name is brook goldberg and I'm the senior director for public affairs at central city concern, a not for profit affordable housing and health care provider. Council president Dunphy, vice president Clark and city council members, thank you for this time and consideration on the technical adjustment ordinance and unallocated dollars. I'm asking for your support for pirtle-guiney one. Yesterday, the housing and permitting committee heard from many members of the community about the various needs for the investments of these dollars, and there are a lot. I want to point out the folks who did not hear from. Because they were not able to come and testify on their own behalf. Unrepresented in the package offered today are the many people struggling with severe substance use disorders and mental illnesses who represent portlanders with high acuity behavioral health diagnoses who are also homeless. They may also be struggling with complex health issues related to aging and suffering from cognitive decline. More than half of the people that c.c.c. Houses each night have health care claims, revealing these severe and destabilizing illnesses that often trap them in a cycle of homelessness. They are the individuals revealed in social media posts and comments, citing fear, concern and anger from the residents of our cities aimed at politicians with the power and responsibility to address these dire needs, cc and a handful of other providers do our best to house the city's most vulnerable and poor members. They are folks who do not do well in shelters, and they are the hardest to house, and neither the behavioral health system nor the permanent supportive housing systems are properly funded to sustainably serve them. The disease is battled by. This population should gain them entry into a hospital setting. Instead, they live in our community, outside in shelters or in deeply affordable housing, which is underfunded. Their untreated illnesses significantly impact the livability of affordable housing communities and non-reimbursed costs are borne by affordable housing providers. These unreimbursed costs include unit repairs, supportive services beyond property management, security costs, staff risk and retention challenges, and unaffordable insurance costs. If you can get it at all. Yesterday, councilor Pirtle-guiney offered an amendment to channel just $3 million of these unspent funds into the deeply affordable housing system to support sustainment of these specific types of units, and her motion did not receive a second. It was not even discussed to deliver on the promise of permanent supportive housing, our region must adopt a clear eyed view of the true cost of what it takes to sustainably provide housing and services to high acuity residents, and I ask this council where these folks will be placed. When providers reduce the number of units that create financial risk to other programs and types of housing, many providers have come to city council members asking for access to these dollars, and much of that is because our system lacks adequate rental subsidies to meet provider cost or a shared long term asset stewardship model, or reliable financial data to guide decision making. Today, you will discuss investments that reflect some of these needs. But I want to make sure that you know who is not represented and facing risk in this proposal. Please pass pirtle-guiney one today. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Checking to see if wayne thomas is here. Next up we have garland woodson, marshall mcfarland, benjamin gilbert, edith. Gillis, emma fox.

Welcome.

Garland is joining councilor. Yep. Sorry, garland. Go ahead.

Okay. Good morning councilors. My name is garland woodson with the Oregon cooperative housing network. My work is also focused on housing across the life course, including aging in place and aging in community, which aligns closely with the city's age friendly and 2024 age and disability inclusive neighborhoods. Action plan for work. You have an opportunity right now to use these funds not just to respond to the housing crisis, but to reshape it. I urge you to prioritize acquiring existing housing and converting it into community ownership, including limited equity co-ops supported by a meaningfully capitalized revolving loan fund. I also want to underscore the importance of how these funds are allocated. This is public money, and it should move through a clear, equitable, and transparent process, prioritizing a fund and a competitive pathway, such as a nofa focused on homeownership models, including limited equity co-ops, ensures these resources support long term community owned outcomes rather than additional rental inventory. A revolving fund allows the city to act quickly on acquisitions, prevent displacement, and create permanently affordable housing that does not require ongoing subsidy. It also creates flexibility. For example, these funds could support office to residential conversions structured as limited equity co-ops, helping to stabilize downtown while creating permanently affordable, community owned housing. More broadly, this approach supports aging in place and long term community stability. If we do not create ownership pathways within multifamily housing, we are locking in a future where most portlanders are renters. Co-ops offer a way to grow up while still creating equitable ownership and long term community stability. This is a rare opportunity to set that direction. I urge you to take it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Whoever wants to jump in first.

Oh, I guess I'll go first. Then. I had a speech prepared. Marshall mcfarland. My name is marshall mcfarland. I'm ghalib bin imhotep. L the speech I had prepared. I heard all the testimony today and realized that speech might as well stay in my pocket. But what I heard tells me that there might be a better solution for all of this found money. And it can actually be an all inclusive solution. And there is an example of it, I believe in san antonio, texas, and it is of a pretty much one stop mall, shopping mall shop type situation where you can go get your housing, your medical help, your behavioral health, your, your drug treatment. It's, it's all in one, not single facility, but in a sort of a business park setting. You could say with $100 million, well, 137 million. And with Loretta smith's councilor Smith's amendment, there is the framework for the ability for something like this to be made. And then all of these people, even those that are of the high acuity type, they would actually have somewhere where they can go and not just receive that specific help, but receive every single piece of help that they need. With all the systems integrated both electronically and physically in one singular area, and then the housing spread out around that, you have the makings for a community that can then flourish and blossom and possibly create something that would would benefit the city of Portland. Instead of it being. I heard a guy use a slogan earlier when I was at safeway. He said, yeah, I've been in Portland for about four years. Look down. I mean, look up. Don't look down. I think we should change that. Portland is beautiful when you look up and I think it should be beautiful when you look down to.

Thank you.

My name is ben gilbert and I'm a tenant in district four. I'm also a volunteer lobbyist for the Portland democratic socialists of America, a mass democratic organization with over 3000 dues paying members in the Portland metro area, many of whom are struggling renters being crushed by the rapidly increasing costs of housing services and consumer goods. The working class desperately needs the government to step up and work for us. Yesterday, I provided oral testimony supportive of the Green aye, Morillo one amendment. Today I want to talk about the big picture, the housing crisis and the affordability crisis in general are the outcome of a class war that the rich have been waging on everyone else for decades. The crisis has been accelerated as of late, but the trends towards immiseration for ordinary people have been consistent. But now things are changing rapidly. From zoran mamdani in new york to the dsa members on the city council, the working class is going to fix the affordability crisis brick by brick. Today's potential commitment of millions of dollars to capitalize a revolving loan fund for social housing represents one major signal change that is happening. Debt buy downs are an innovative approach to lower rents, stabilize affordable housing and fill vacancies. But we need a lot more, including the full implementation of portland's renters bill of rights. We need to pass Avalos Dunphy Green Morillo one today. How can the tower be clean if it leaves money on the table? That will save lives? We will not stop until this body sees its main task as serving the working class and not portland's richest residents and companies. Thank you. Yield my time.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, city council. My name is emma fox and I'm with the commons law center. I'm here today to urge you to release the unspent funds for housing as soon as you possibly can. These investments are critical for keeping portlanders housed, and portlanders can't wait any longer. The amendments proposed include a right to council pilot, and I'd like to highlight that the commons law center already runs a successful and effective in-person legal clinic at the Multnomah county courthouse and county east county courthouse since 2023, providing free legal representation when tenants need it most. With this investment, we are ready to go to scale up today and offer the right to counsel for anyone who needs it. Before our program began, fewer than 5% of tenants in Multnomah county had legal representation in eviction court, while nearly 90% of landlords did, according to. According to evicted in Oregon, rates of representation for tenants have tripled since then, and improvement made by the hard work of legal service providers doing the most with the least. Despite the proven success of on site eviction, defense funding for eviction prevention has been has moved backwards. Last year, Multnomah county cut funding for eviction defense by over half and the state of Oregon reduced eviction prevention funding by 66%. These cuts undermine programs that are demonstrably keeping families housed and reducing the strain on our shelter systems. The investment of these unspent dollars offers a necessary course correction by investing in proven eviction prevention strategies, including expanded rent assistance, tenant education, and ensuring every portlander has a right to counsel. Every eviction prevented is one less family entering homelessness. Please do the right thing and pass the an amendment to fund housing support today. Thank you for your leadership and consideration.

Thank you very much.

Edith is joining us online.

Thank you. Vote yes for the Avalos Dunphy Morillo one today. It's consistent with city declarations of housing emergency and research based best practices to help the economy, the city long term, immediate short term budget, crime prevention, local climate resilience, attracting more and better residents, businesses and investments, and repelling really bad police and bad businesses. It's most humane and pragmatic. It increases the public trust and willingness to cooperate with and pay taxes to the city of Portland. We need to buy even more permanent social housing with tenant management. Have the agendas from now on in your. Impact statements include how it affects housing and the reduction or prevention of homelessness, how it supports public safety and crime prevention, how it supports climate justice, economic resilience, and social justice. Vote yes now and thank you all who are part of this.

Thank you very much.

Next up, we have beth cooke and otis britton.

Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record pronouns. And you have three minutes.

Good afternoon, president Dunphy, vice president Clark and members of the council. For the record, my name is beth cooke, chief advocacy officer. With new narrative, I use she her pronouns. New narrative is a nonprofit community health provider serving adults across the greater Portland region. In 2025, we served more than 2200 individuals across more than 40 service locations with residential treatment, clinical services, peer support and housing. I'm here in support of the pirtle-guiney amendment number one, allocating $3 million for general operating support for deeply affordable, non-market housing. Some of you heard this yesterday, but I want to take a moment to ground it for the full council, because this is about a structural gap in our system right now. We have housing for people who are stable, and we have institutional care for people who meet medical necessity, but we do not have enough in between. As brooke goldberg just highlighted this in between deeply affordable housing with services is what is missing for many people with acute mental health and recovery needs. Without it, these individuals fall through the cracks of our system. These are individuals who have often experienced repeated stays in institutional settings, including the Oregon state hospital, residential treatment and substance use treatment. Our traditional housing system cannot adequately support them, leading them to cycle back through houselessness emergency departments, crisis systems treatment and jail. That is not a failure of individuals. It is a gap in how our behavioral health and housing system is currently designed. The bridgeview community is one example of how this gap can be filled, and why the pirtle-guiney amendment number one is so needed. Bridgeview is a 47 unit housing program in downtown Portland, just down the street serving people, transitioning out of houselessness institutional care treatment settings and jail. It provides 24 over seven support on site case management and daily structure, including three complementary meals a day. Residents hold their own leases, build that history and building, and the building is supported with mission based property management. This is deeply affordable, service rich housing that allows people to remain stable and continue their recovery over time, and to find a place they can finally call home permanently. For some people with complex needs, including severe and persistent mental health issues, this level of deeply affordable housing with ongoing support is the long term solution. It works, but it does not fit cleanly into our funding systems. It's not funded like traditional housing, and it's not funded like institutional care. So it is often sustained through short term funding, underfunding or at risk of being lost altogether. This model works, but without ongoing operating support, we risk losing it. This amendment is about stabilizing that layer of the system, and I urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is otis britton. I'm with welcome home coalition. I understand everything that's going on. But let me tell you something. I have witnessed true homelessness. I've been homeless for 20 years. I went to a shelter and they house me. It's like the city is putting us in housing and then setting us up for failure when we can't pay our rent. My building is is people in their 5560 and they facing going back to stage one the streets. Portland is a beautiful city. I, I love Portland and I love my country. And I fought for my country and for this to see all this going on, it pains my heart. I remember seeing on the news y'all was saying that y'all want to clean up homelessness, but if you set people back out to the streets, how are you going to set an example? It's going to be back to square one. Now, if you get $967 a month and your rent is $850 a month, what are you going to buy your food at? How are you going to pay your electricity? The money that you have? You can make a decision. It can only get better with rental assistance. Now I have went to a treatment facility. And I know that it's better that me and a whole lot of other my friends and colleagues, they are facing homelessness. Jail ain't no help supposed to help each other. And I just pray that y'all can help because it's real. The struggle is real. For reals. It is. And I don't know too much to say, but I just hope that I could come to a decision to pass this amendment to help a whole lot of people and organizations. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That complaints testimony.

Okay, colleagues, we are now moving into discussion and debate around some proposed amendments. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you, council president. I've said here and I've listened to all of the comments, and I'd just like to do something real simple. We got $137 million. Everybody up here can get everything that they want with that 137, we're only talking about -40. The other is 56. 80% of mine is already in in the other. Can we just roll everybody's amendments into one? And get this over with? We all know that the issues we got enough money. Why are we limiting ourselves? We're limiting ourselves. We can still give back the mayor, the 8.6. We can still fund each and every one of these projects that are much needed. Let's just roll them all. I don't feel like arguing with y'all for another two hours.

Second.

I assume that.

Was.

A motion.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Councilor Smith has moved her amendment. Councilor pirtle-guiney has seconded colleagues discussion about the amendment. Councilor Avalos no. Councilor Morillo. No. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you. Council president. Colleagues, in my support of ssmith one, I need to provide a little bit of context, so please indulge me. I will stay within the ten minute mark. We are allotted council president. Don't worry. I was hopeful that yesterday's consideration at the housing and permitting committee of the funds ordinance would be about small changes to truly bring the housing proposal in line with the package, where everyone's top priorities were covered. We have debated these funds for months now. We've held it over meeting after meeting, despite the public consistently, even today, urging us to appropriate these much needed funds. There have been significant disagreements about how to use the funds, and we've needed that time to work through those. That is how this form of government is designed to represent as many voices as possible. It's a good thing. But what I thought would emerge from that process was either one of two things. Either we would lean in on one big thing, put all our money in one bucket so we could do it right, try something big, acknowledge that there would be winners and losers, but adopt a clear vision, or we would find a compromise package. As councilor Smith has just proposed, that encompasses much of what we've heard from community that encompasses the top things we each heard and wanted to make sure we moved forward where we each said our second third tier things. Okay, let's move on. And that second vision is what I consistently heard. Council and committee leadership talk about doing. Indeed, the council president emailed us following the most recent full council work session on this topic and said, quote, councilor Avalos and I have worked to synthesize the priorities and ideas raised during that discussion in our roles as chair and vice chair of the housing committee, and we have prepared a draft ordinance that reflects the range of investments and themes we heard from council during the work session, as well as the feedback and testimony we have received throughout this process. So I apologize, colleagues, if I was way off in thinking that after months, we had collectively decided to move forward with a package where everyone could see the top priorities we had heard from community reflected a package that ten or 11 or 12 of us could feel really good about. But yesterday I saw a significant change in approach with many priorities that had been talked about from the beginning of this process, stripped out in a meeting that ended at 5:30 p.m. And an expectation that we would be ready to react at 930 this morning. I don't know about you, but I did not have time to go back to all of the stakeholders I had talked to in the interim and see how they felt about the new proposal, trust and collaboration break down when we rush changes after what everyone had thought was a robust process, and it cannot go unstated that that happened yesterday. But there's a policy problem before us too. I'm going to name some hard truths. Yesterday we essentially said we want to fund rent assistance and a few other small things. And housing bureau, we're actually going to give you a big chunk of money back to essentially do what we've already asked you to do, what you are already planning to do this from a city council that has spent months criticizing in the press and in person the leadership of this bureau, and that has demanded that council have a more direct say in how the dollars are spent. So I'm a bit confused. And let's be clear, if the main thrust of what we want to do is make sure that we're peeling off some funds from what the housing bureau was already directed to do for rent assistance. We're frankly not doing it terribly well because we've not devoted enough to get everyone in shelter rehoused, nor enough to prevent evictions for more than a couple of months. We didn't stand up a long term program. We've spread it out over years. I'm not saying it's not critical. It is, but we're not solving a problem there. But there is enough total money to do a lot of good. I'm getting to Smith01, I promise. The Avalos Green Morillo Dunphy kokesh amendment stripped this proposal of half of its homeownership opportunities. We stripped bipoc led affordable housing projects, including restoring black homeownership in albina. My proposal to provide general operating support for critical supportive housing units at the lowest ami levels, as you heard, did not even get a second. We have providers in crisis and the opportunity. Not long term, I wish we did. But for now to bridge some time for them to figure out how to get out of those crises. Colleagues Smith01 returns us to a proposal that can address many needs, and it only uses $40 million. So let's use it as a base. And then let's add in the revolving loan fund that was proposed yesterday, which I actually think is a great idea, so that we can acquire publicly owned housing, social housing, mixed income, affordable communities, the creation of limited equity co-ops, all of that let's consider as a body the funding I've proposed in pg1 for deeply affordable, supportive housing as an addition as well. I'll note that amendment doesn't call out providers, it just provides funds to hb to accept applications in that space. We can do all of these things if we use Smith01 as a base. This will be a little bit complicated because not everything lines up perfectly, and I suspect that we will need an hour or two recess to have a few of us go in a room with our budget folks and work out the details, but I don't think we have an afternoon session scheduled. I know I have other things on my calendar, but I'm happy to reschedule them so that we can get this right and do it today. We said we were going to try to meet as many needs as possible, even if we couldn't meet them fully. Of the two comprehensive proposals on the table, ssmith one gives us the best base to do that. Let's add in the things that we put together yesterday. Let's pass ssmith one and build on it from there with those other pieces. Let's do it today. Let's do it in an inclusive way I am in. I hope you will join me. Please support ssmith one and then a comprehensive conversation to get to the right place and meet all of these needs. Thank you, council president.

Thank you.

Councilor councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you, council president. I agree that we need to pass this today, and I think that we can easily do that by just putting things forward and voting them up or down and calling it a day, because that's what needs to happen. I really appreciate that. I think we have good choices before us, regardless of what we choose to do. That being said, I want to lay out my criteria for how I am going to think about the city of Portland giving money out and our long term investments to address our housing and homelessness crisis. I'm going to start off by saying this. There are organizations that did not actually reach out to us for some of these dollars. They were approached by councilors who know them, and then they actually said, we don't need those dollars, but we're not going to say no to that money. And if any of these criticisms do not apply to your organization, then it is not about you. A hit dog will holler, though. So what I'm saying is that there are times where some of these organizations are. If we are not properly vetting, who is getting these dollars and what the outcomes are for low income people of color, then that means that we are helping people of color, including my community, the latino community at the top, and not the people at the bottom. And that, to me is not anti-racist work. That is not anti-racist housing work that is going to keep people housed long term. Those are the criteria that I am going to look at. And frankly, some of these housing organizations, including many of those who are identity based, have some of the worst outcomes as far as eviction rates go, as far as what is happening for the people of color, who are the poorest and most marginalized, who are utilizing these services. So I'm not going to be admonished for looking at those structural issues. Rather than giving more power, more money, and more say to people at the top, because there is a material difference. These proposals were not rushed. The reason we had to have multiple discussions over and over again was because we kept getting new information from the housing bureau about how much money there was missing, which changes our consideration and our calculation for what can be done. If we have a certain amount of dollars being brought forward, and we can do something bigger to address our long term infrastructure problems than I think that we have a responsibility to take a look at that. This proposal was also brought to us during the work session, where we had ample time to discuss it. Councilor Green and I brought a document that everyone was able to review, and it was pretty well received, which is why we even pushed it forward in the first place. And we worked with the housing chairs to make that happen as well. So we need to talk about long term infrastructure changes. We need to talk about the actual metrics and impacts when these dollars are given out. And it is not sustainable for us to go to our friends or people that we know and simply hand dollars out without metrics or without asking for information about how this is impacting the people who are at the very bottom. I'm taking the amount of dollars that we have to give out very, very seriously. And a revolving loan fund creates a structure that actually allows this to be sustainable, rather than just something that we give out once and then it's done. And it doesn't actually save us in the long term. It doesn't help poor, marginalized bipoc people who are at the very bottom of this scale, who suffer the most and the hardest and the longest, any long term relief. So the proposal that we have brought forward does address those things. It was addressed in work session. It was addressed in committee. It has been addressed and pass or fail. Today is okay. I am okay with it. I think that we are. The community is right. We need to take action today regardless of what happens. But again, if these community organizations, regardless of who leads them, get to just get money because they came and testified or they had a meeting with one councilor Without being properly vetted of what they're going to do with those dollars, what the standard metrics are for the success rates of getting a low income people housed long term, then we are doing a disservice to the people that we're saying that we're trying to help. And there are city experts that know how to evaluate these proposals. Councilors as a whole up here. We are not housing experts. We have housing experts at the city, but we are not a grant making body that should be just handing out dollars to people that we know. And to me, it was very disturbing to hear that an organization that could be getting dollars didn't even need those dollars and admitted that and said, we actually don't need these dollars, but we're not going to say no, because of course, who's going to say no to that? And I'm not going to name names because I think a lot of organizations are doing fantastic work, and this is some of the most brutal and difficult time to be doing this work. But I say that as a caution that we should not be doing that without really vetting these dollars. We have an opportunity to take one time dollars and to convert them into long term structural changes that could change what we do for social housing for generations to come. And so I hope that when we talk about debt, buy downs and things like that, that are going to permanently change how much the cost of rent is that we really think about that this is a permanent solution. This is changing the status quo in a way that we have never seen before. And so that's, that's I'll just leave it at that. I will say my piece, but that is the metric that I will be looking at these amendments through. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor. Morillo. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thank you, mr. President. Yeah, I agree that most of what is in ssmith one, as what's on the table could have been passed some months ago at this point. So thank you for bringing it back. Councilor Smith. I want to just highlight because I think it can be hard to understand, if you will, or know what it is we're talking about when we say ssmith one. But here's why I'm going to support ssmith one rent assistance for tenants, 3.9 million rent assistance and rapid rehousing for tenants facing eviction. 2 million rent assistance for individuals experiencing homelessness, 3 million right to council pilot. Right to council pilot. Tenant legal defense 1.9 million. Landlord and tenant education 200,000. Increased hb funding to expand its rent buy down program. 8.1 million united way for the sun schools group 250,000. Eco in the sun school group 250,000. Down payment assistance for tenants ready to purchase $1 million. Hacienda cdc $3.5 million a backfill to the general fund of $5.1 million. Our house housing some of our most vulnerable and health related folks $500,000 for an upgrade to keep that place open. Oasis for praise 2 million williams and russell homeownership project in district two. A million ci, 1.5 million for homeownership project. Urban plaza, 500,000 and broadway corridor. A mixed use affordable housing, 5.6. I don't want it to get lost about the awesomeness that is Smith one right. I really I I'm I'm happy that you have brought this and I will support it with all of my effort because a lot of the things in here I care deeply about, there are a couple of things that I didn't know a ton about until other members of this council told me more about them, and I'm with you on that if you brought it. I think that getting this money out the door is a good compromise between. Do you put all money toward helping people with rent, or do you put some money toward that and put other money toward building new capacity? But what I see here is a mix of both. It's a mix of hundreds of units worth of development. It's a mix of rental, it's a mix of ownership. I appreciate the comments that were talked about helping people once they are in home ownership, because that is still a challenge. I think this this thread's a difficult needle. And yeah, I agree with councilor Morillo. One of the challenges for why maybe this hasn't been able to get out as quickly as it should have been, because the mark continued to change. And I will comment on this because I do believe there is some merit to this idea about whether or not council from this dais should be direct funding. Are we or are we not the housing experts? My comment will be to the city administrator when your bureaus do not perform, we will use the blunt instrument, and I believe this to be the case. Last summer, when I asked the former housing director about those rental landlord tenant fees, I had no idea what. I almost cursed what this was going to turn into. And so I don't believe that the housing bureau was on the ball for the last several years. And that's why we're seeing this. That doesn't mean that these are not good projects, because now I have been able to go through and get some vetting and get an understanding of unit density. And I agree in a longer term path that a longer term path should be a nofa path. A longer term path should be housing experts path. But when you find out that hundreds of millions of dollars are not being told to the council in their previous budgets, this is the reaction. This is a pendulum swing reaction. And I admit it. And I'm fully comfortable swimming in this Lane for this time being. So I want to support you, councilor Smith. I hope this passes today. I hope the whole tao passes today, and I hope it is a signal to our bureaus that we have a desire to get money out the door, particularly in housing projects, and that this type of approach, I think, encompasses a lot. I want to say one thing because I do welcome the revolving loan fund conversation. I really do. Councilor Green and I have talked about that previously from yesterday at 530 to today. I don't know that that that qualifies enough for me to say we've had a good vetted out, like let's do it conversation. But I do welcome it. I don't know that it has to be accomplished in this, and that's why it wasn't listed in ssmith one. But I do welcome that conversation and what it can achieve, because I think there's great promise there in the buy down, the rent buy down. It's for me, it's a it's a stretch. It's needed, but it's needed for an organization who I'm not sure is hitting the mark yet. And we have to put our oversight there to make sure that people who are housed in affordable units are not also neighbors with people who are are predators, which is what we are hearing on almost every floor right now of some of these of these units, we can't have a system that supports six month units vacancy that cannot happen in a in a going forward system, we cannot have publicly subsidized units be in the thousand mark vacancy number. These are criminal type of activities as far as I'm concerned. So sometimes it's not perfect when we pass a capital expansion or when we pass assistance money. But just by passing 8.1 to do a rent buy down, it now gives us leverage to make those affordable housing units better, more livable, safer, healthier, and more. And the ability to look into the future. Because right now, their future is tenable at best if they continue to exist. I think this allows us to pull some levers. So, councilor Smith, you are a laser sometimes, and I appreciate this. If this passes, I won't be angry that my ordinance didn't get a hearing because this will be good. And you've expanded even further. And your dedication to is it 20 million, 40 million, 106,000,137 million has been helpful. And so thank you, councilor Smith. I'm at five minutes and 57 seconds.

Thank you very much, councilor Zimmermann. Councilor. Checking the queue. Councilor Smith, you're in the queue. But you you introduced this item, so I'm trying to see if councilor Kanal, you've not spoken on this item yet.

Thank you. Let me take a step back for a minute and just say for those who might be watching, there were five members on the housing and homelessness committee, one of which overlaps in the housing and permitting committee. So it's a total of nine. Three of us have not really been involved in this conversation in a formal committee sense, although one is councilor Smith, who obviously has been engaged through this amendment that we're discussing right now. And so as a result, it's really hard to start talking about this in the context of an amendment and not in the context of the underlying issue that we've been dealing with here. And I'd like to have a conversation about process at a later time for in two different ways. One is in the context of letting us all maybe have a short period of time to talk about the underlying before we get into amendments, especially in situations where there have been probably 40 different proposals at some point over the life of this agenda item.

Point of order. Are we still on? My amendments. Are okay. I just wanted to make sure that you don't go off topic.

And and secondly, and this also relates to this amendment, but it is it is a process point that we should be starting the conversations where the sponsors want to start. And I think we've had this, this conversation in the context of committee and sponsor amendments versus technical amendments, and I intend to keep that going. I'm kind of surprised that we're not starting this conversation despite the awkwardness of the process, because technically, this is part of the tor, where the housing committee ended it yesterday. And so there's a little bit of confusion, because I think there are a lot of people who might be wondering, well, we just went through this exercise yesterday. Why isn't that where we're starting today? And yes, there's going to be seven more people who weren't there yesterday to talk about it. So there's a little bit of confusion here, and I want to acknowledge that to the merits of this particular point, there's many things that are in both the Avalos Green Dunphy Morillo amendment and are also in. Smith won. And I think councilor Zimmerman rattled off a lot of them. For example, you know, I'm a big believer in the in the money for the the rent buy down program. There's $8.1 million here. There's 8.8 and the other one. So I think there's some conversations there. Similarly, the down payment assistance is, is something I also support. There's a million here, 800,000 there. I want to bring up two concerns I have with this particular amendment. One is the lack of social housing dollars. That's the biggest thing that I think is maybe not about information sharing, but is just a philosophical difference. We need to and I appreciate that from different angles. Many people have brought this up already. We need to start looking at how we don't have to do this again in the future. And one of the core ways we do that is not the only way, but one of them is to get to a place where there's permanently affordable housing, ideally paired with tenant governance. And if you pair those two things together, we're not going to be having this conversation five years out. Whereas a lot of what we're talking about doing right now is maintaining a system. Now that's okay. We have to do some maintenance of the system now because there are people struggling now and we have to support them. But I also want to make sure, given that, as I think it has been pointed out, there's a lot of money here. We can have a portion of that go towards the the solution that gets or a solution that gets us out from this conversation. The other issue relates to the question about whether we should be funding agencies by name. I acknowledge that there's been a really good argument made about this being an exception to a general rule. I stand. I agree with that in principle. I also agree with councilor Zimmerman's point and was joined in on a couple of those conversations in a different context during last year's budget that often what we have at our disposal as a council is the blunt instrument. And I think you saw that with last year in the budget, when we found a very underperforming agency and moved some people around within the system because we had to, that was the only option available to us. The preference would be, of course, that the administration and I want to acknowledge, of course, our administrator was not here for this. It's not nothing to do with the administrator, lee, but could have fixed a lot of those problems before the blunt instrument was used. And the administration broadly. The same thing applies here. And also there are groups in this list and the other list. I think there's a total of ten groups here where I've never seen what the project actually is. There's one I learned about in the last 24 hours. I've been briefed on two of them. And there are others where I still have no idea where. In one case, we don't even know who the money's going to. And so there's a conversation here. We know what the project is. We just don't know which which group, and it's never been written down what that is. So I'm interested in this conversation. I want to to talk about it. I think there's I'm a big believer. There's, you know, williams and russell urban plaza all in district two things that I want to see succeed hacienda as well. And I also want to understand the exact project. And I think that there hasn't been that level of detail provided to this side of the dais. Now, if you're with an agency that said we've asked for something in the past, that's probably true, and it probably went to the other side of this, this government. But if we don't get it on this side, it's kind of difficult to be sitting here and decide whether or not we want to give money to something. Even in the context where a blunt instrument is, I think, appropriate. So I'm trying to understand that element. And I think this is one that the first concern I don't think I can get past on social housing. This one, I think I could, I just trying to understand it a little bit better and get a read on, you know, what exactly is the funding gap? What exactly is the project? What exactly is, you know, the ask because and I've gone through my email looking for, you know, did anybody ask for a meeting, that kind of thing to brief us on it? And a lot of these cases, not so much. And again, I'll say the same thing that councilor Morillo said, if you brief me, I'm obviously not talking about you. A couple groups did and I appreciate that info. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal colleagues, it is 1210. We are scheduled until 1230 and we have not voted on any amendments. It is councilor. Koyama Lane.

Okay, I'll go fast.

In general, as a council, we set policy, establish clear priorities, ensure accountability. I feel like we should be setting the rules of the game, not deciding who wins. I worry that by listing certain winners, we risk turning policy making into pick making. I will say, though, that I found councilor Zimmerman's comment compelling that this situation that we're in right now is a bit unusual, because we're looking at funds from a bureau that were mismanaged. I think we also need to be honest about the broader picture. While some councilors are pushing to have specific orgs projects named and added back into this package, there are other projects and organizations across the community that have directly also asked for support and are and are not included here. So I'm worried about what message that sends about fairness and access. While only some are named. For example, quest center for integrative health is one of the many orgs doing important work that's not included in this ordinance. Has asked for money. If we're only naming a few that doesn't feel fair. It feels selective and selective. Funding without a transparent process can further erode trust. So to me, that reinforces the need for there to be us to be working on a fair, transparent framework where qualified organizations can compete, deliver results, rather than us making those decisions. Process matters. It's going to help build trust. Above all. Passing something today is a really big priority for me. Not something perfect, something real, something actionable. We all come to this with different perspectives and priorities. That's part of the job. And I think governing means that we make decisions even when they're not perfect. Progress over perfection. I kind of think if everyone walks away a little bit unsatisfied with a few things they're happy about, that's that's probably means we did our jobs and I what wouldn't it be okay is if we walk away without making decisions, without passing anything today and leaving these resources still sitting idle while we have folks telling us, please figure this out. Dollar sitting are not just are not going to serve people, but action will.

Thank you. Councilor. Koyama Lane. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mr. President. I first of all wanted to say that one issue I have with ssmith one, as opposed to the proposal that came out of the housing committee, is that my highest priority is to make sure that we allocate all $8.6 million that could legally be used from the transient lodging tax for the general fund, because I want to avoid layoffs. I want to avoid closures of fire stations and getting that using all 8.6 million for that purpose is of paramount importance to me. I also wanted to agree with councilor Morillo that I think that we should not be in the business of picking or n councilor Koyama Lane picking winners and losers. I think that we should be deferring to the expertise of the bureaus, except in extraordinary circumstances. I've been doing some research over the last day. I do think that the hacienda proposal meets the definition of extraordinary circumstances. It was a project that was already was not hacienda's project. It was a project that was underway, and it was foundering at hacienda was asked to come in and save it. There's $17 million in public money committed. They can bring 57 units online. It's a project already partly constructed with our additional help. So I will be supporting pirtle-guiney to. I also wanted to say that, you know, we're not all getting everything we want out of this. I think that too much money in the Avalos Dunphy proposal is going to rent assistance for people who are not yet facing eviction, but I think that I think we can come up with a package that gives everybody something of what they wanted. And I think that we don't have to. I'm going to oppose Smith, too, but I'm going to support some modifications to Avalos. Dunphy. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor. I'm looking sorry. I'm looking to who has spoken. Councilor. CClark.

Thank you, council president. I have to say, I'm pretty mystified by this whole conversation. I, I was not involved in the conversation in the committee. I'm interested in what I learned today about what happened in the committee. I was at one time a housing expert 40 years ago. I'm no longer a housing expert, but I'm very supportive of things like social housing, revolving loan funds, limited equity co-ops. These are things I worked on in the past, including fair housing, lots of things at the state level. But right now I'm mystified why we are so divided. Excuse me, and why we have enough money. As councilor Smith indicated earlier, to do all these things to support all the things that we've heard from excellent, compelling testimony today. So I'm really mystified why we are so divided over this when we can fund everything that's on the table. It's just making me a little bit crazy that we can't we can't do this. It just seems like a common sense approach. And we can, once we pass councilor Smith's amendment, we can we can add things to it. There's nothing that says that we can't. It does seem inappropriate to me that we're doing this as a part of the tao and not a regular process. But be that as it may, I'm going to be supporting councilor Smith's amendment.

Loretta Smith: Thank you, councilor Clark. Councilor Ryan.

Thank you, council president. First, I'm here in support of smith's councilor Smith's thoughtful housing proposal, and I would like to make it a bit friendlier. At yesterday's housing and permitting committee, I testified to raise two of my concerns regarding our funding of affordable housing in Portland. I would like to see a transparent discussion about accountability and identify what success will look like as it relates to safety, living conditions and vacancy rates for projects and organizations that are funded through tax dollars. City funding housing awards should include achievable outcomes for partner organizations providing data driven performance metrics. We need that standard now. It will be hard for me to support funding proposals without measures that integrate accountability and transparency. I'm also supporting programs for home ownership. In fact, councilor Smith, I made that clear when I was housing commissioner in 21 and 22, so that's something I will continue to support. I'm supportive about investments that get to the root cause of the increasing number of chronically homeless people on our streets. In fact, those who are working a recovery program and should be prioritized. And I think that what you were trying to do with your amendment and the other one that you now abandoned to go to this one, I wish we could marry that together. So I don't know how that's going to happen in the time we have left. And as always, family should be always, they should always be prioritized. So if we can add the behavioral health angle from pirtle-guiney one somehow magically into ssmith, that would make this a lot easier. I have so many stories dating back to 2020 on this. I'm just going to. Would you like to comment?

No, no, you're absolutely right. We've. We've heard some of the similar stories and I don't have. I don't have a problem with rolling in pirtle-guiney one to this and and your. Which would satisfy what you're concerned about. I don't have any problem with rolling in the, the social housing piece that councilor Avalos is interested in. I don't have any problem with adding anything. But see, you hit the nail on the head. Councilor zimmermann.

Dan Ryan: Councilor Smith, I'm sorry. This is councilor Ryan's time. I'm coming to you next.

Sorry. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. President.

I'll just say that I've been hearing these concerns about safety for so long. I have a dear friend that moved out of old town four years ago because she was trapped in her apartment, and now she's happily living in housing, affordable housing in hillsboro. So these trends continue and we got to put a stop to it. I also think that I'd like to get behind your proposal with a friendly amendment to target more efficiently. The universally supported all of us support eviction eviction support programs. I think we need to get more specific on who we're targeting. The language change addresses the most common gap of people who miss a chance at receiving housing stability. Who are who are people that receive a notice of eviction for nonpayment of rent but do not have a legally filed eviction with the court system. This amendment would give them priority access to rent assistance and ensures we keep the most vulnerable population housed. The second update specifies that we have a funding category specifically for those who are within the legal eviction process to maintain their housing, and that's under allocation. One, it would be.

Information councilor is this in Ryan one that your staff just sent out?

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I. Got it. Sorry.

That'll help me follow along.

I try to avoid such things, but this is a unique circumstance. So it would target the rent assistance for tenants who have received a notice of eviction at 3,925,000. It would look at rent assistance and rapid rehousing for tenants facing eviction who have a pending court date or active eviction filing, and that's 2 million. I just want to make sure that we target those who we keep mentioning and not have it just be open. And I think I've heard that from a couple other councilors today. I hope you find that friendly.

I do.

And colleagues friendly in this context means not hostile to the sponsor, but not something that we can simply adopt by voice. We need to vote on the process in order to adopt the Ryan. One amendment would be to adopt ssmith one and then have a separate motion to vote on your amendment as an addition.

Understood.

Thank you very much. Councilor Avalos, are you in queue for this? Okay, councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. Councilor zimmermann, you hit the nail on the head. The reason why we're here is because our housing bureau failed us. They put us in a position where we where they cheated the system. And I'm going to go further than that. It was malfeasance. They purposely hid money from us so that we could not identify those resources. And so now this is what you get when that happens. And so because I didn't know about some of these programs on on, no one briefed me on social housing. I don't know the definition of it. I don't know who gets it. Is there going to be an environmental plan? Is there going to be a tenant association? I don't know anything about that, but in theory, I think it's called land banking. If social housing acquisition means land banking, I support that. If it means subsidized housing, I need to understand that that is included as well. So I don't have a problem with putting everyone's thing in. When I listen to you, councilor Green, and you said something about that $8.1 million amendment that you put forward, I listened to you and then I put it in mine, and it is in my $40 million an amendment. And so I don't have a problem with us breaking for an hour and just coming together because there is enough money. We act like we only have $40 million. And we're trying to choose between which projects. We have $137 million, folks, and people are looking mad and pouty for what? This is a good thing, and this is a good problem to have. We can all get our stuff in. And so for me, I either like us to just break for an hour and split this up, mr. President, and let's come together and put something together or just take a vote on it and and figure out if we can go from there. Tell me how to put this motion on the on the floor. Councilor.

Let's just about.

I was next in line to call the question if that is helpful.

Well, if there is, yeah, if there is no further debate on councilor Smith's amendment, Smith won. We can move to a vote.

Of information. Are we not voting on the amendment to the amendment?

Amendment to the amendment will come after. It has to be adopted first, or councilor Smith could withdraw her motion and then submit a new one, but I. According to the city attorney's office, the motion is. You can't adopt. You can't amend an amendment while it's open.

Or make a new amendment.

You can make a new amendment and move that. And then we.

Of information. Is that a new interpretation? Because I believe we have amended amendments in the past.

Several labs.

And if that's outside of the rules and your ruling council president that we should not do that. Understood. We can decide if we want to overrule that decision on your part or not, but this is different from what we've done before. So I want to understand what the baseline is for us.

My understanding is that we cannot amend an amendment that has been moved and debated, moved and seconded in the same motion that we would need to either pass the amendment and then amend it further, or withdraw the amendment, amend and reintroduce. This is from city attorney's.

Office. So we can have one layer of amendment to an amendment. We can't have two layers of amendment to amendment. So there could be an amendment to the pending amendment. You would vote then on that layer amendment before getting to the Smith one amendment. So you could do that. And that's I think that's consistent with information in the chat.

Okay, so then I guess we're not moving to a vote. So I will move I will recognize. Councilor. Morillo.

Okay.

So my recommendation, given that information, is that we vote on councilor Ryan's amendment to councilor Smith's amendment, then regardless of what happens with that, then we vote on the final amendment. And I propose that we move into both of those votes now.

Thank you.

Councilor Ryan, did you move? And second, was there a second on your amendment to the amendment?

It wasn't presented to be seconded, but it was a friendly conversation. Okay. Is there a second?

Second. Okay.

So now as I understand it and I'm just saying these things out loud and slowly, so people tell me if I'm doing things wrong. Councilor ryan's amendment to the amendment has been moved by councilor Ryan, seconded by councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Yes.

We now move to a vote on the amendment to the amendment, and then we can move to a vote on ssmith one. Okay. Can we please call the roll on Ryan one.

Kanal. Pirtle-guiney.

Noting that I wish we had had more time knowing this was coming, because I don't actually know if it changes the intent or not. I think it maintains the intent of the original. So I will vote yes.

Ryan.

Yes.

Koyama Lane.

No.

Aye, Morillo.

No.

Novick.

Yes.

Clark.

Yes.

Green.

No.

Zimmerman.

Yes.

Pavlo's.

No.

Smith.

Yes.

Dunphy.

No.

The amendment fails with six yes votes and six no votes.

Okay.

Can we move to a vote on Smith? One?

No.

Pirtle-guiney.

Yes.

And I will be bringing further amendments to make this more robust. Should it pass, Ryan?

Yes.

Koyama Lane.

No.

Aye, Morillo.

No.

Novick.

No.

Clark.

Yes.

Green.

No.

Zimmerman.

Yes.

No.

Smith.

Yes.

Dunphy.

No.

The amendment fails with five yes votes and seven no votes.

Thank you very much, councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: I move Avalos Dunphy Green Morillo one.

Second, second.

Second to.

Councilor discussed. Enough. Let's just get to a vote.

I have. Some amendments.

You have amendments?

I have an amendment to to her amendment.

Okay. Councilor Avalos, did you have anything further to know? Okay. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. The purpose of this is to define social housing acquisition. That's in the. That's in the amendment to ensure that there's high quality standards in leverage, failed development projects for the public good that we should be taking a look at. And so my first amendment is Smith amendment one, the definition of social housing and operational criteria. I'd like to amend and add that social housing is defined as permanently affordable, non-market, publicly or nonprofit owned housing for the purpose of the $10 million acquisition fund, the Portland housing bureau shall prioritize acquisitions that adhere to the following criteria beyond just a little transfer. Also, there should be some safety and environmental standards. Housing must meet high quality safety standards, including sustainable retrofits and energy efficient upgrades. Two there should be diverse income levels. Acquisitions must target mixed income housing, with a focus on affordability for households earning 0 to 80% of the area median income, ensuring accessibility for low income residents. Three population needs and stability prioritize housing for homeless individuals, family at risk of eviction and include long term lease agreements for. There should be community control and tenants rights. Incorporate platforms for tenant participation in management, tenant protections against eviction and pathways for the right to purchase by tenants. And we also should look at old town acquisition initiative. This would direct and add to this amendment that the Portland housing bureau should partner with prosper Portland to offset acquisition costs by repurposing funds allocated to failed development projects, specifically targeting the defaulted made in old town initiative at 234 northwest fifth avenue. Given the $7 million default on this property, these funds and the associated sites shall be converted into social housing to align with the city's housing goals. We also should have an inclusive zoning in social housing, and that any acquisition funded under this measure that involve rehabilitation or redevelopment must mandate that a minimum percentage of units must be reserved for middle income residents to promote mixed income, inclusive communities, rather than luxury market rate units. There should be a tenants rights and accessibility to this social housing. I'd like to amend and add that all social housing acquired under this program must meet strict accessibility standards for individuals with disabilities and strict, strengthened tenant protection laws, ensuring security of tenure and the right to organize, and that there is a priority right to return for displaced residents. The Portland housing bureau shall establish a priority right to return policy for all social housing acquired under this fund. The eligible eligibility should be direct. Priority must be given to individuals and families who can demonstrate that they were displaced from the surrounding neighborhood due to rising rents or redevelopment. Within the last ten years. The policy will ensure that social housing acquisitions actively combat gentrification by allowing former residents to return to their communities at a deeply affordable, non-market rate, and that there should be transparency in public oversight. Social housing acquisitions need to amend to add to ensure the $10 million in acquisition funds are managed with full public accountability, the city shall establish a social housing oversight board and the composition should be. The board must include at least two seats for current low income renters and one seat for a representative from a local housing justice nonprofit, and the board will review all proposed acquisitions, including the conversion of the made in old town property to ensure they meet the safety, environmental and affordability standards defined in the Smith amendments and immediate use for transitional shelter. Recognizing.

Can you just email this to us rather than reading the entire thing into the record?

No, ma'am. Recognizing the urgency of the homelessness crisis, any property acquired through this fund, including defaulted commercial properties like the made in old town site at 234 northwest fifth avenue, must have a rapid conversion plan if full residential renovation will take longer than 12 months, the ph and prosper Portland must authorize sites for immediate use, offer temporary safe rest villages or transitional shelter services. These services must include the mental health and addiction support resources outlined in the Smith amendment to ensure residents are supported, while permanent social housing units are constructed and almost finished, there should be climate resilience and solar solar readiness for social housing. The Portland housing bureau shall ensure that all social housing acquisitions, particularly older buildings requiring rehabilitation, prioritize climate resilience and energy independence. Projects must include energy efficient retrofits to reduce tenant utility costs and mitigate environmental impact. We must conduct a solar readiness assessment for each acquired site, ensuring that rooftops are structurally prepared for future renewable energy installations to bolster the city's Green housing goals, and that there should be a community land trust that the social housing acquisition acquisition should amend to add to ensure permanent affordability and prevent future speculative resale, the ph shall prioritize the community land trust model for all home ownership opportunities funded by this matter. By this measure, the city or designated nonprofit land trust shall maintain permanent ownership of the land while offering 99 year renewable ground leases to residents. A fixed resale formula must be implemented to allow homeowners to build modest equity, while keeping the home price accessible for the next low to middle income buyer. In my last thing, there needs to be an equitable scoring rubric, the fb shall develop and publish a clear, comprehensive scoring rubric to evaluate potential social housing acquisitions. Before funds are disbursed. Higher scores shall be awarded to projects that deliver more units at a lower per unit price. Broader geographic distributions, specifically in high opportunity areas or transit corridors, and measurable social outcomes such as proximity to grocery stores, parks and essential health care services. Thank you, everyone, for listening to this. The reason why I put this out here and put this amendment forward is because we just have social social housing acquisition. It does not indicate what that means or what the definition. And I tried to put a definition so that we are within those those values that we all care about and we've talked about here. So, mr. President, thank you for allowing me to complete that.

Point of information. Could that come in writing to all of us? Because I heard some things that I liked, some that I'm not sure I liked and some that I didn't fully follow. And I'm not sure if our bureau has seen it yet in writing either.

Nope, nope.

It's one of those things that we have the ability to do is to put the amendment at the time.

I'm not arguing about that.

I just would like to see it. Before a vote. That's not that's not legal to do. We can do this.

Okay.

Colleagues, I will note that we are at 1237. We are past our scheduled time for this meeting, and we have a number of amendments on the floor. We are going to be staying until at least 130. At this point, I am extending our time, and if we need to bump the work session in order to finish this, we're going to do that today. So I hope no one is hungry. We have an linly. Per the previous conversation we had, you had said that an amendment to an amendment would be acceptable. A series of amendments to amendments would not be. Is that correct? Additionally, this is starting. This sounds like a budget note specifically to me, since we are on the tor. Ultimately. Is that accurate? Am I reading these that we can we can have a conversation about this as a amendment to an amendment, but if further amendments to the Avalos Green Morillo one will need to come after.

Correct. We would.

Need to ask me. You can do the first one and and I this was a long amendment, but it dealt with certain sections.

Okay. Councilor are going to move into discussion of this. Both the underlying amendment and the amendment to the amendment. Actually. Councilor was there a second on your amendment?

Second.

Okay. Councilor.

Morillo I move to call the question on the essay that councilor Smith just read for us.

Loretta Smith: Okay.

A motion to call. The question requires a roll call vote.

And it wasn't an essay.

Miss takes precedent over other amendments. So I believe we have to move.

It requires a second as well.

Also requires a second. Is there a second to call the question?

Second.

Councilor Koyama Lane seconds. Please call the roll on the motion to call the question on ssmith one. Smith two to the Avalos one. I think.

That means.

We're voting.

On what?

On what councilor Smith just read.

Loretta Smith: Calling the question. That's fine. Voting to vote.

We have to vote to vote and then we'll vote on vote yea. Correct. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Okay. This is the vote to vote yes. Okay. Call the question. Vote yes. Thank you.

Kanal.

Oh.

Pirtle-guiney too many questions about what was just put out there. No.

Ryan.

No.

Koyama Lane. Yes. Morillo.

Yes.

Novick.

Ditto to what councilor Pirtle-guiney said. No.

Clark.

No.

Green.

Yes.

Zimmerman.

No.

Avalos.

Yes.

Smith.

No.

Dunphy.

No.

The motion to call the question fails with four yes votes and eight no votes.

Okay.

Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.

Council president. I'm still waiting to see this in writing. I assure you, I am not trying to delay, but I'm. I'm going to have to pull myself out of the queue until I can see this.

Sounds good, councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: This body passed the social housing study resolution 12 zero. There is work ongoing. I am literally in meetings every week working on all of this. It's part of the unified housing strategy. We do not need to be making some. I don't even know what that was, but we do not need to be doing that on the dais right now. We have a process for a reason, and the whole point is that we are moving as one body, as one city. And this kind of arbitrary language without that has not been vetted by the housing bureau, and they are already crafting all of these things. It's part of the study. It's part of us. It is deeply inappropriate to be putting this kind of language and parameters before we let our staff finish their project. In fact, we're getting an update on the language at the next housing committee meeting in may, so please vote this down. It is deeply inappropriate and disturbing to me that we are doing this.

Thank you, councilor Avalos. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Legacy. Han sorry.

Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney, are you back in the queue?

Yeah, I think I'll say this, councilor Smith, I liked where you started with this. If this were a narrower amendment to ensure that we had some parameters around what we were asking for here, I could be supportive, but I don't think that I can support something this extensive right now.

Yeah, I realize it's it's very extensive and I apologize for that. I just wanted to give us some parameters of how we're moving. I'm deeply troubled that one of my colleagues is deeply troubled by what I just wrote, because I never say anything about anybody's that they put forward. So we have to make sure we. Excuse me, what did you say?

You spent.

The whole meeting doing that?

It was about ten minutes, colleagues. It was ten minutes. You missed yourself.

Councilor pirtle-guiney is currently the only councilor who has been recognized to speak. Thank you.

Thank you, council president. Again, a more narrow amendment I could have supported. I like the idea of us providing some parameters here. I don't think I can support something this extensive. I understand why it was put forward.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Ryan councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: I'm hungry.

I like actually a lot of what was said, but there is a process already in the works for this. So I'm going to ask my colleagues to reconsider calling the question so that we can vote on this amendment. I think I'm the last person in the queue, so we need to go.

We can. Yes. With that, we can move to a vote on ssmith two. This is an actual vote, not a vote to vote. Please.

No no, no. Okay. Thank you. Pirtle-guiney.

No.

Ryan.

Yes.

Koyama Lane.

No.

Morillo.

No.

Novick.

No.

Clark. Absent. Green.

No.

Zimmerman, I.

No.

Smith I.

Dunphy.

No.

The amendment fails with three yes votes, eight no votes and one absent.

Okay.

Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Move to limit debate and ask for unanimous consent to do so on the amendment.

Councilor Kanal has moved to limit debate to those in queue. And is there a second?

This would be to vote on the.

Underlying Avalos second. Okay. Do we need to vote on the motion to limit debate now? Okay, cool. Oh, and he asked for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to limit debate any. No, there is not a unanimous consent. Can we please call the roll on the motion to limit debate to those in queue?

Kanal I.

Pirtle-guiney I have amendments to move chair, so I'll be voting no.

Ryan.

No.

Koyama Lane. I aye, Morillo. I Novick. No cclark absent Green. No Zimmerman, no.

Avalos apologies. This is to limit debate. Yeah, yeah. Yes.

SSmith.

No.

Dunphy.

Yes.

Knee motion to limit debate. Fails with five yes votes, six no votes and one absent.

Okay.

Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Colleagues, I have a few amendments that I said were relevant to Avalos Dunphy. Green Morillo one at the top of the meeting. It was a no on limiting debate because I was worried that would limit me to just moving one of these amendments. And there's a few I'd like to make sure we consider today. I would like to start with where do I want to start? I think I'd like to start with amendment two. Pg two is 3.5 million in gaap financing for haciendas monaca project. A few people have mentioned today that this feels like a project that brings up exceptional circumstances. There's a significant amount of public dollars invested in this project already. The original developer was not able to complete the project. It is sitting as a completed shell permits done foundation in shell, built just a few blocks from the max line, just a few blocks from the freeway. And with gaap funding by the end of this year, I believe hacienda will be able to bring on over 52 and three bedroom units. Because colleagues, I heard a few people say that this might be an exception to their opposition to named projects. I'd like to start with this amendment. I move pg two.

Councilor pirtle-guiney. Moves pg or pg two, and councilor Smith seconds. Okay, folks in the queue are to the new amendment. The amendment to the amendment. Robert, can you clarify for us? I'm confused about this. I'm sorry. I'm I'm losing the track of of how we are amending amendments and. Linly. I also may have some.

Yeah, I mean. I do you want to. Go for it?

Okay, okay. Thank you.

So we can do one at a time. Two options. We can do one at a time. Vote on each amendment to the package at a time. Or there can be an omnibus. I have five amendments to Avalos. I want them all as one package of an amendment that would have one vote on, but you can only have one on the table to consider at a time.

An amendment. We can have one amendment to an amendment at that time. Yep. Understood. Thank you very much. Okay. Colleagues who are in the queue, I'm going to call on you in this order for discussion of pirtle-guiney pirtle-guiney two councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. I appreciate you putting that forward. Councilor. Because that's so very important. While it is not in district one, it is so important to this community to be able to put this many affordable unions in by the end of December 2026. So I support you wholeheartedly. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: I I've already said this, but I want to reiterate my support for this amendment. I think this is an extraordinary circumstance, and I hope that we can get agreement on it.

Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: I do not support it, not because I don't think it's a good opportunity to move, but I think a revolving loan fund can address this. A revolving loan fund can be structured any which way we choose, including interest only payments for that project. That's $8,700 a year for as many years as we want to carry interest only. That's why I'm going to oppose all of the grant based approaches that are not specifically part of a tif district.

Thank you. Councilor Green councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Ditto to that. That's exactly my line of thought on this as well. Even though I think it was probably a good project, although most of us have not had any information on it, and I would urge my colleagues in the queue to move forward so that we can get this done today. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Kanal.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you. I am a little bit familiar with this particular project. I wasn't aware that this was the ask until very, very recently. So I just want to clarify that to make sure we still have quorum. Okay. Yeah, the, the question that I have is about where the money would be coming from. And if there was a way to fund this out of the nofas, that would have been preferable to me. So but because the and this has nothing to do with the the proposal. But yesterday in committee, those two funds getting combined means I don't know that this will. That this money is going to come from the nofas and not for the from the social housing. So that's that's my concern here. And I'm already pretty concerned. I think this is a comment that a few of us have made. I don't know what the administration is going to do after this happens. And so clarity on ensuring that there's social housing, that that money is protected is really important to me. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Koyama Lane.

I will be supporting this in an effort to show compromise, in a hope that we can really move this forward today.

Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane colleagues seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan. Can we please call the roll on pg2 pirtle-guiney two.

Kanal. I pirtle-guiney.

I I. Koyama Lane I. Morillo know.

Novick I.

Mark absent Green no. Zimmerman absent. Avalos. No. Smith. Yes. Dunphy. I. The amendment is approved with seven yes votes, three no votes and two absent.

Okay. Councilor Kanal. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Councilor. Koyama Lane. Are you still okay? Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.

Thank you, council president. I would move pg one. We heard from multiple providers today that there is a dire need in a portion of our housing continuum that is not addressed in this funding. This is an ongoing need. And these are one time dollars, and that does make me nervous. One of our colleagues asked how I could bring this forward, given that contradiction. I can do so because I have heard from some of the providers in this space that there is a need for a little bit of bridge while they figure out what the long term path is for units like this. I believe we can help to provide that bridge. And so I'm bringing this forward today with the clarity for providers that I cannot assure us that these dollars will continue. This is a one time piece to provide that bridge. We need to make sure we do not lose the housing that supports some of the folks in our community who have the most challenges, the most challenges, staying housed, and who, for housing providers are the hardest to serve. We need to keep those units online. There is work to do over the long term, but I'd like us to consider providing the bridge to that work as part of our conversation today. That is what pg one does. I would ask for a second.

Second.

I'm sorry, council president. I just would like to note that this does not name providers.

Okay. Thank you very much. Councilor pirtle-guiney moves epg1 councilor. Ryan seconds. Colleagues. Any discussion? Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you. I'll be brief. I appreciate the intent and the effort. We talked about this in committee. I'm not going to support this today because I cannot take money from a pot that is for revolving loan and social housing acquisition for this purpose. If everything is true about the other money available that councilor Smith laid out, I haven't had a chance to check her math, but if those. If those are. If that is true, then I look forward to seeing an effort to fund these sorts of projects with that other pot of money at a different meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor. Green. Councilor. Novick.

I would support this if the money was coming out of the rent assistance pot, particularly rent assistance for people not even facing eviction. And that's based on my concern about, as councilor Pirtle-guiney mentioned herself, funding ongoing needs with one time money. I think that the rent assistance also funds ongoing needs with one time money. So be okay with taking it out of that pot. Just not out of this one.

Thank you. Councilor Novick colleagues seeing no one else in the queue for discussion. Keelan can we please call the roll on pg1 pirtle-guiney one. Kanal no.

Pirtle-guiney I.

Ryan I Koyama Lane no aye, Morillo no Novick okay. No cclark I Green no. Zimmerman. Absent. Sorry. Avalos. No. Smith I. Dunphy.

No.

The amendment fails with four yes votes, seven no votes and one absent.

Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, councilor Dunphy. I would like to move pg4 colleagues yesterday, a revolving loan and social housing acquisition fund was created. Despite my frustration with how this came to be, I actually think that having a fund for us as a city to acquire housing, turn it into publicly owned, mixed income, affordable units permanently is a very good thing. I think this should be part of our housing portfolio moving forward. But I also think that we need to have limited equity and cooperative ownership models as part of that portfolio. I think that we need to be looking at how acquisition includes land banking that allows for affordable, permanent homeownership opportunities. I think that we need to be able to look creatively at a more expansive list of models for what socialized housing in Portland could be. I want portlanders in the future to have a choice about whether rental or ownership is right for them, and to be able to find an affordable option, regardless of which path they choose. I think ensuring that this fund can be used for all paths forward within that realm of publicly owned, affordable, mixed income opportunities is important. I offer this amendment to make sure that the whole suite of housing options are available through this work. That I think can make us a far better city in the future. I would ask for a second.

Councilor Novick seconds. Councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: Thank you. I just I appreciate the intention of this. I don't really have an issue with that, but I do have an issue with is diluting an already diluted bucket that is giving us a generational opportunity to create long term social housing. That is why I'm not going to be supporting this. And revolving loan funds are not typically for affordable housing alone. So that is not really how these funds are used in other jurisdictions. So that's why I'm going to be a no on this.

Thank you. Councilor. Morillo. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: You know.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. I'm not quite sure what this exactly is, but I thought your admin was also putting back in williams and russell for home ownership, and it was also putting back in ci for their homeownership pot not to go in to go apply, but they they were going to get funded as they were funded in the original underlying.

I've not yet moved pg three, which does include those named projects.

Okay, so you just jumped over it.

I, I'm going out of order. I went two one for. I'll do three next.

Okay, okay. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Smith colleagues seeing no one else in the queue, can we please vote on call the role on pirtle-guiney for.

Kanal?

No.

I Ryan, no. Koyama Lane. No. Morillo. No. Novick.

No.

Clark. I Green. No. Zimmerman, I pavlo's no. Smith. I Dunphy.

No.

Amendment fails with four yes votes and eight no votes. Thank you.

Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president colleagues, I pre filed a fourth amendment pirtle-guiney three. I would like to move that amendment at this time. I continue to hope that today we can find a proposal that addresses the various priorities that this council has identified and spoken to over the last few months. It is true, as some of my colleagues said, that there are many projects we could have funded, and I don't actually know how this original list came to be, but I know that there are a couple of projects that have been part of the public conversation for a few months now, and I'd like to advocate for keeping those in, because they have been part of the conversation for a few months. Because when we first said there are extenuating circumstances here, money was not spent. What can we do? This was the conversation. This money funds housing opportunities for projects that are led by bipoc developers to serve their communities. It includes both rental and homeownership opportunities. It includes financing in a space where we know there are multiple players, but where we know that putting some funds on the table and asking those players to sit down together to figure it out is the only path to getting that housing back online quickly. If some of the concerns that my colleagues raised previously about whether providers needed funds or not have to do with these three projects, I don't know because I have not heard that before today. If some of the concerns my colleagues raised that other councilors want to providers instead of providers coming to us to identify need, were about these three projects. I don't know because I did not do that, but I know that we have three projects that have been part of this conversation for a very long time, and that were removed yesterday, somewhat unexpectedly to me that we're going into yesterday. Part of what I thought the compromise proposal was that our previous housing and homelessness committee chair and vice chair, our current chair and council president put together. And so rather than reviewing all of the projects, again, I'd ask that those three that were part of the proposal that came to housing yesterday continue to be part of this proposal. And I would ask for a second for pg three.

Councilor pirtle-guiney moves. Pg three. Councilor Smith seconds. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Yes, thank you. Thank you for bringing that up. And I do remember back in December that a couple of these programs contacted your your staffer, devin, and then devin contacted me. That's how I found out about it. So I appreciate devin giving us a call to give us a heads up on it. This is so very important. This goes back to what I was saying before. This particular amendment should not even be right now. It should be a part of the underlying that the chair and the vice chair put forward. And then they cut their own throat and put in an amendment that Steve Novick put forward to take away all projects while he is actually earmarking money to go to parks and public safety. It's the same thing. It doesn't matter. Your your earmarking is no different from pirtle-guiney earmarking. They're still the same. They're earmarks. So for me, if we're going to fund white developers who put affordable and mixed use housing in this community while at the same time cutting our community based developers of color, their programs, period. This body has a problem. Shame on you, housing committee for what you did yesterday. Shame on you. I'm going to be supportive of this and I think we all should support this because this has been on the docket for the last week or so. Everybody had bought into it, and now there's such a big, big change. We have to stop this, this personality thing that we have going on around this diocese. We have to stop doing this. We have enough money. You all are acting like that. We're in the depression years. We got $137 million dollars that we can appropriate. Why don't we put it in an omnibus and just be done with it, you guys. But this has to go. And I'm going to ask you, councilor Kanal, this is your district fight for your district, man. So and I'm urging you to support it. I'm urging you councilor Green support it. You were in the housing committee. I'm urging you, madam chairwoman, support your own stuff and support this, please. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: I'm going to briefly reiterate what I said earlier, which is that, again, the fact that I have heard that there are organizations that were approached to be given dollars who said later that they actually didn't even need those dollars, but they're not going to say no to them means that.

We're talking about.

Councilor Smith. I have the floor right now.

Who are you talking about now? We're hiding.

Councilor Smith, you're out of order, councilor. I'm sorry.

Thank you.

And to be honest, it's not a personality disagreement because I adore councilor Smith. Even though we're fighting about this right now. If I could be clear about that and her outfits, great today. But here's the thing. I think on a principle level, I, for all developers, regardless of who they are who are working on these projects, I need to see metrics that they are going to do a good job and that they are going to fulfill the promises when they get these dollars. So I am really concerned when this body and I have said that for other things before, including issues that really matter to me. There was an immigration vote and I said, that's going to be the last time that I'm going to be giving out dollars without making sure that there are metrics for how and why we are doing those things. And I'm an immigrant. Those issues directly impact me. So it's not about that. It's about the fact that we have a one time opportunity with these dollars, which we shouldn't have. We should have known about these dollars a long time ago to do something that will make a generational difference for people, generations to come. So this is about good governance. This is about making sure that we are delivering for those that have the least among us, not the people at the top of the organizations who are making money off of this, but for the people that are taking these services. So for that reason, I will be no on this, and I hope that we can get this passed today. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor. Morillo. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you. The reason I pointed out earlier that I hadn't been involved in this is that I have not actually said anything either way on these particular things, and I'm trying to get the information necessary. I would love to have been briefed on all three of these, and I have not been on all three. But I do want to ask a question about urban plaza, because this is the one that I was referring to earlier when I asked about the money, and I have two questions about it. Who what organization would this $500,000 go to? Would it be pcr or would it be the urban league?

Council president? May I respond?

Absolutely.

Councilor I've intentionally not named an organization here because there is right now, an ongoing conflict between those two organizations. It is my understanding, through conversations with the administration and with folks who are familiar with this conflict, that there's an opportunity for us to try to get the parties to work out those disagreements. My hope is that knowing that those projects or that that building will need funding to get back online, that it will need funding to get back to a place of housing people. This is a building that exists that has not housed people in affordable housing units for, I think, going on a year and a half, two years now. My hope is that we can put some money on the table, call those two organizations to the table and have some leverage to get to an agreement there, having put some funding on the table. That is why it is specifically earmarked for this property and not for either organization.

Okay. I guess a related question to that would then be this money is not going out the door the day this passes, then right? Like this money is going to going to sit for a little while until and unless something gets resolved there. Is that accurate?

I believe so, and councilor, I'll flag that we did at one point have a version of this amendment with more robust information that I think your team may have seen. The intent here remains the same. That version said that funds will be held by the city until the parties can come to an agreement on a path to bring housing units back onto the market, at which time funds will be released to whichever party presents that viable financial plan. That is something that I believe our partners in the administration looked at and thought was viable.

Okay, I did see that, and I would have loved to have not necessarily that detail, but a little more here, because the third question I have is it's been pointed out that this is this entire ordinance does not address the totality of the $137 million. And so my understanding is that whatever money is not allocated today in this or in the conversation we're having today is going to sit and that that money is going to be unable to be spent because it has not been appropriated by council, except in the context of where some of it has been appropriated for nofas and things like that. But in other words, there's a opportunity to circle back for the rest of that money. And I believe that's and it's not going to get spent by the by the administration. I'm looking at I'm getting a confirmation from from administrator lee. Thank you sir. So I this to me just seems awkward because of the fact that we don't have clarity on even who it's going to. I, I felt pretty uncomfortable with an earlier item today because we didn't even know where we had an amount of interest described qualitatively instead of quantitatively. I think I'd like to I'd like to know who the money's going to. And if the idea is that we're creating leverage to bring parties to the table, that makes a little bit more sense to me. But I want to understand that a little bit more before I vote yes on this. So that's where I'm at at this moment. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: I'm in the underlying.

Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. I am not sure and I don't I'm not. We could actually put that piece into a contingency pot, but I think the other, the other two are actual opportunities to fund. Some home ownership. And I think we need to do that.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Am I the last in the queue?

Councilor Kanal is.

Sameer Kanal: I got I got in the queue to suggest we call the question on this. If I was the last in the queue, I just say let's take a vote. Please be brief. It is 1:11 p.m.

Thank you.

Councilor Kanal is there any other source of money or way to protect social housing from getting cut through this?

Councilor there is a I'm sorry, council president, please respond.

Please.

Councilor as we've heard, there's a significant amount of money that we are not touching today. My intent in how I brought my amendments forward was to work within the confines of Avalos Green Morillo Dunphy. I'm sorry if I got your names out of order. And to amend that that proposal, my assumption is that we could put more money into the pot. This is pulling from or into other projects or into a number of things with more time to do so. But I didn't want to start chasing those, chasing those trails. Coming into this conversation.

Okay, thank you for that. That gives me enough info. I will then have to vote no on this. So and circle back on that because there is money left over. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. Councilor Kanal seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the vote on pg3.

Kanal pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Koyama Lane o aye, Morillo no Novick. No cclark I Green. No Zimmerman. I Avalos no. Smith. I Dunphy.

No.

The amendment fails with five yes votes and seven no votes.

Okay, colleagues, we are now to the underlying Avalos Morillo Green Dunphy amendment. Is there further debate? Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: I'd like to move Zimmerman. One restores the funding as originally discussed the broadway corridor. Thank you.

Councilor second.

Councilor Zimmerman moves. I heard councilor Clarke seconding colleagues discussion about Zimmerman one councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: I think the intellectually.

Consistent thing to do, given what just happened, is to not continue to to put money, especially because I believe there's still $4.8 million for broadway corridor in here as well. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor. Councilor.

Actually, yesterday, the housing committee removed $800,000 from it and turned it into a loan, which is a significant change from the original language. I'd like the city administration to be able to structure this the way that we'd originally talked.

Can I just.

Clarify your other amendment is is changing the other half of that, right. The loan back to a a grant.

I'm considering?

No, they both do that.

Okay. Thank you. Councilor. Kanal. Councilor. Novick.

I'm going to support this. I think that the fact that 4.8 million is tiff dollars rather than dollars, that would come out of the revolving loan fund is important. And I'm willing, for the sake of councilor, pirtle-guiney said. Trying to come up with a package that is somewhat satisfactory to as many of us as possible, willing to bend my principles to add the 800,000 back from php. This is a project that we've heard that the governor is particularly interested in, and we kind of want to keep on the governor's good side. So I'm going to support Zimmerman. One.

Thank you, councilor Novick councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: I. I'll hold off.

Okay. Councilor. Morillo. Thank you, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: I can't support Zimmerman. One because yesterday in the finance committee. I'm sorry, we don't have that anymore. It's dead.

That's why.

When we first talked about this in the finance committee, at one point, some version in the housing committee, I supported removing the line item allocations to other named projects around the city. And I can't hold that position while also giving $800,000 of fungible money to a project that has been billed as offering apartments from 80 to 120% of the area median income. Those are those are not for low income people. Sure, part of the capital stack will support folks at the 60% ami level, and sure, it will help complete a parcel that does have deeply affordable units on site. But I can't. I can't, in good principle, keep the 800,000. And I just refused to accept this proposition that a $140 million project is not going to pencil out because they got $800,000 less in public money than they're already getting. Well over 90% of the capital stack is public money. And so I know that there are requirements for what your maximum developer fee can take under our regulated statutes. That caps out at 15%. So I know that these developers can go up to around 17 to $20 million in developer fees. They've only deferred for. So if they want to complete this capital stack by deferring $800,000 more, that's up to them if they want to pencil this out, but I can't hold it. I can support, however, Zimmerman to.

Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Smith.

Loretta Smith: Thank you. I will be supporting this. And I thought it was ridiculous of the housing committee to put part of this into a loan when we're giving the money out to everybody else. So for me, it makes sense. And I think there's a there's a sentiment up here that that business people are bad people, but it's okay to support the white developers again. And I'm listening to others who are going to do that, but it's not okay to just leave community based organizations and developers on the sideline. I think this project needs to be funded fully. We need to do what we said we were going to do and stop playing games. We've been playing for four months, and the reason why you didn't hear about this councilor Kanal is because council president put something on the on the docket to take my agenda item off. That's why you didn't get a chance to hear it. So I'm sorry that this is the first time you're hearing this today, but had I not put my stuff on there, you wouldn't have heard about that either. So this is another symptom of something that we should try to course correct internally as individual councilors. Again, I'm going to say this again. You all keep not voting for stuff. We have $137 million. Everybody's project can get funded. What is the problem? Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Smith councilor Koyama Lane.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Councilor Zimmerman, can you explain to me the difference between your two amendments?

Yes.

The ask is $5.6 million for broadway corridor. That is a combination of two. So tiff money and 800,000 from the Portland housing bureau. Short term rental. That sub fund that we can use. That's the fungible. As councilor Green mentioned, yesterday's action by the housing committee turned the tiff dollars into a loan, and it removed the 800 so that the broadway corridor overall ask turned from 5.6 to 4.8. Zimmerman one restores it all back to the original 5.6, which is tiff and the housing bureau dollars. Zimmerman two. Restores the 4.8 as. It removes the new language that was in place yesterday as a loan from tiff. It just restores it back to the original discussion of 4.8. I hope that clarifies.

And if this were to pass, can you acknowledge if if that would give you could feel more supportive of the underlying amendment?

Well, at violating at risk of violating, of course, something that I like makes me more palatable to the overall underlying. But I can't obviously commit to voting on things ahead of time. I think I would go to many jails for that.

Okay.

Not just budget.

Not trying. To not trying to do that to you. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thank you for entertaining.

I just I think people can see we're trying to figure this out. We're there's a lot of six six and I do I would like there to be more than 6 or 7 people supporting this underlying amendment, supporting what we put in the tao. I already said I don't love naming certain groups, but I also see that maybe there needs to be some sort of compromise. So I'm considering being if being a seventh, if that is needed.

Thank you. Councilor. Koyama Lane. Councilor. CClark.

Thank you, council president. From my perspective, it certainly makes the underlying amendment more palatable. But what I wanted to say is that this is so much more important than just the housing aspect, this project. I mean, that vacant land has been sitting there for a long time. At one time, it was supposed to be the baseball project, and then that went away. And now we actually are putting in the infrastructure, the streets, the electrical infrastructure. It's going to unite the neighborhood with the train station. It's got so much more going on than just the housing. It's so important. It unites two neighborhoods across Burnside. It has so much value to the downtown. And I think the speakers who were here this morning were talking about the value of supporting downtown. So I'm definitely in support of this, these amendments.

Thank you. Councilor Clark councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Yes, thank you, mr. President. Councilor Zimmerman, I just realized that I had noticed before that one of the funding sources you're using for this is the 2% transient lodging tax, which I support allocating entirely to the general fund. So I can't support this. I want to support this, but I just realized that I can't unless you are willing to strike that language. As to that being one of the funding sources.

Well, do you have an alternative?

Candace Avalos: Councilor well, I think that it can come out of the. Well, for one thing, this is an amendment to Avalos Dunphy. It could come out of the $21 million revolving loan, etc. Pod, which is which is not funded by the transient lodging tax.

I'm going to roll the dice as it is. Councilor. I think I have a better chance as it's currently written.

Okay.

Colleagues.

We got seven minutes. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: I can.

Mitch Green: Support Zimmerman too as well. I'm basically where where councilor Green is at and I want to make sure that we're not only funding one project that's in district four over everything that that affects my vote on the underlying. So I just want to get that clear. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.

Eric Zimmerman: The way that I'm reading Zimmerman, one is that the 800,000 would come from some combination of the short term rental, 60% subfund, 2% transient lodging tax and city inclusionary housing funds. So I don't believe it comes necessarily from the 2% pot, because those pots collectively add up to almost $30 million. I am wondering if there is actually a conflict, as councilor Novick has proposed with the other portions of the underlying amendment that put the 2% transient lodging tax elsewhere, or if there is not, because the funds could easily pull from those other two buckets instead. Council president, I'm not sure if we want to get that answered or just leave that hanging as a possibility and perhaps direction to not take from that fund to the administration. But I'm trying to clear up what I think is not actually a conflict between those two priorities.

If we have folks from the administration here, you're welcome to ask them to come up.

Yeah, she's essentially right. It allows php to execute in the manner in which they most can. I think because of that, that conflict that doesn't exist.

Dca oliveira could you give us some assurance that the funds for this 800,000 would not come from the 2% transient lodging tax bucket?

Thank you for the question, councilor Donnie oliveira, for the record. Councilor when it comes to the makeup of the nofa or any other program that comes out of this resolution, a lot of them just acknowledge the different funding types. So to answer your question, it's the color of money thing. We can strive to achieve that, but we're talking about a blend of different resources. And that's how largely many of our nofas are. So with the intent that the council just described, yes, we will aim to achieve that further for the direction of council.

Thank you. Thank you, council president.

Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Morillo.

Angelita Morillo: I'm just going to note, we have five minutes left and I think we should get this passed today. The reason I can't do the $800,000 giveaway for broadway is because I don't support that happening for any of the projects, similar to what councilor Green said, I am supportive of Zimmerman too, and would like to get a vote on both quickly. It. I think it is outrageous that we ask that we cannot ask a $140 million project to prove that it would be catastrophic if they had to pay a small amount of taxpayer dollars back. That is absurd. These people should be able to prove when they are getting free public dollars, why they should get those free public dollars again. We are running out of time. We have four minutes left. Would love to do this, but I will be supportive of Zimmerman too.

Thank you. Councilor Morillo. Councilor Smith, are you still in the queue? Okay. Thank you colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Zimmerman one.

No, no.

Pirtle-guiney I yes.

Koyama Lane I want this done today.

I aye, Morillo no Novick. No cclark I Green no. Zimmerman.

Yes.

Avalos.

No.

Smith.

Yes.

Dunphy.

Yes.

The amendment is approved with seven yes votes and five. No.

Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: I got nothing further.

Okay.

Councilor Kanal just a question. What's the.

Number of the one that funded the urban plaza and the other two.

I pirtle-guiney three. I believe.

I'm going to move to reconsider. Pirtle-guiney three.

Councilor second.

There we go. I Kanal moves to reconsider.

I don't know if this has. Can I speak to it, please? I'm not sure if this has the votes to pass right now, because I cannot justify funding a project that's not even for affordable housing in d4. This parcel. And after we cut the things out of d2 and I've been saying that from day one. So I feel like, you know, this is a conversation we need to be having here.

Second.

Okay.

Second.

Colleagues discussion on the motion to reconsider the vote. Do we have to vote to reconsider and then go, what's the process? How does that work?

I suppose we could have two votes, or the councilor Could simply move this as his own amendment rather than have one vote.

Can you give me a second, please?

He wasn't moving it. And councilor Zimmerman just verifying, are you moving Zimmerman to. No, because Zimmerman one passed and they're doing the same thing roughly. Gotcha. Okay.

I'm just trying to understand what's occurring.

I also.

I'm out of the queue. I have not made it. I'm just trying to look into the the trying to look into three right now and figure out what to do here. Okay.

Because d4 got something he needs to show.

Okay, so are we. It is 128 and I.

Yes, I'd like to move the portion of pirtle-guiney three that is ten a and ten b. So and exclude the the lower part, the the c.

The urban.

Council president may I make a suggestion. Yes. I believe since this amendment has died, we can't move it. But that councilor Kanal could move to provide move to fund 1.5 million in gap financing for self enhancement inc. And 1 million in gap financing for williams and russell. Coming out of some combination of the short term rental 60%, 11.1 million and city and inclusionary housing funds 10.7 million for.

A total was actually out of the the unallocated portion. Okay. Yeah.

So I think you need to make that as a separate councilor.

So moved the unallocated portion that's not in this.

Okay. So was that a motion? Yes. And okay.

And second.

Any second we have now got Kanal one, I guess, which is a version of pirtle-guiney three.

Council. Council president. Yeah, sorry to interrupt. Just housekeeping. We did have an open motion to reconsider that was moved and seconded. So I'm just looking for a withdrawal.

I will withdraw that.

Okay.

Thank you, thank you.

And now we are into the debate on what is now called Kanal one councilor Avalos. Excuse me. Sorry.

Council Zimmerman. Thank you. Councilor. Kanal. In the. Many ago, many moons ago package, I think that was involved in a few different ordinances, but also one of them that was in councilor Smith's was a $500,000 allocation to our house. It's in district three. And given the changes, I think that you just articulated, I'm wondering if you would be interested in that. Our house was taken over by cascade aids project. It's a a housing, a housing development that is in deep need of, of this money for a repair to keep their clients housed. And I'm wondering if that 500 is palatable to you in place of what I think you just changed with that last c bullet on the previous epg. And I did note it's district three.

Yeah. I think just to clarify, I happen to be more familiar with these two because they're in my district. I have talked so I there were a lot of. That's actually the one that I had that I mentioned earlier. I didn't name it that I had no prior knowledge of until I saw it on here and looked it up myself. So I'm happy to, to look at doing a separate amendment on that. But my intention is, I think the concern that we're dealing with here, and I understand it looks like a district thing. We're all more familiar with things in our district. I get that. And it's it's a question of knowing what the what the metrics are, knowing what the, what will actually do. I don't, I don't have that knowledge prior to this meeting. So I'd be happy to talk about it. Separate.

It's an hvac upgrade. The building's about to get condemned. So that's what it is.

Thank you. Councilor zimmermann. Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Can you clarify which part it's coming from? I did not understand.

My understanding is there's I'm doing the math in my head real quick here, but something in the ballpark of 90 something million dollars that's not being allocated that councilor Smith has been referring to. So my goal is to take it out of those nofas that are not mentioned here.

Can we get that confirmed that that's even possible? The whole point of those, the reason those are not allocated is because we were told they are tied up.

They're not budgeted.

Is there anyone who can answer that? Okay, whatever. I'm just going to vote no.

Okay. Councilor Avalos, thank you, councilor Koyama Lane.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: I want to move to reconsider my vote on Zimmerman. One.

We are in a motion right now.

How do I do that?

Have to be after our consideration of Kanal, one.

Can councilor Kanal withdraw his amendment? If that means that she can reconsider because that squares everyone.

We are at 130.

I need this to be we need this to be done.

So we are at 133. Can we please. All right. I mean, you can move whatever you want to move. So we are in a motion right now. If councilor Kanal wants to withdraw that he can. Otherwise we are moving towards vote on Kanal one.

Just one.

Okay. Okay. So we will come back to you. Councilor. Koyama Lane. Because we need to come back to that motion separately. Can we please move to a vote on Kanal one?

Yes. And councilor Kanal, will you provide that in writing to my office?

Yes.

Thank you. I pirtle-guiney. Aye, Morillo Ryan. I Koyama Lane know. Aye, Morillo. No. Novick.

No.

CClark aye, Morillo.

Green no.

Zimmerman I.

Avalos no. Smith I.

Dunphy.

No.

The amendment fails with six yes votes and six no votes.

Colleagues in the queue. Councilor Zimmerman. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call a vote on the underlying Avalos amendment? The underlying amendment that we are voting on?

Yeah. Sorry. Just a moment. Kanal.

Yes.

Pirtle-guiney.

No.

Ryan.

No.

Koyama Lane.

Yes.

Aye, Morillo.

Yes.

Novick.

Yes.

CClark.

Yes.

Oh.

Yes.

No.

Green.

Yes.

Zimmerman.

No.

Avalos.

Yes.

Smith.

I'm wondering, can.

People change their vote if they want.

To.

If they previously voted before we do this.

Can we just finish?

You are welcome to change your vote.

Okay.

After I vote, though, then it closes.

No.

Dunphy. I the amendment is approved with eight yes votes and four no votes.

Colleagues seeing no one else in the queue, seeing no other amendments present, I unfortunately have to very quickly lay some legislative intent on the record not related to the housing component of this. There are two arts funding restoration requests in the spring tau one initiative targets dollars that were committed to artists and creative activation in our city, but were not spent due to administrative barriers. When we set aside dollars, we have to get them out the door to folks to actually do the work. I'm glad to see this technical adjustment to the use of these activated funds to ensure that they can be used as intended. There is one point. Additionally, it was $1.6 million returned from the arts access fund to arts organizations. Arts orgs saw a 44% cut to their city allocation from the arts access fund last year due to legacy issues with allocation process between revenue and the office of arts and culture, we received 28 pieces of written testimony in favor of funding return from across the spectrum of arts orgs. Thank you to the arts museum, the gay men's choir, chorus, independent publishing resource center, and a dozen others. We also received a group of over 50 information from a group of 50 local arts orgs, including near majority of all of the general operating support recipients who have voiced support for a flat disbursement of these funds to qualified organizations, regardless of their qualifying organizations, regardless of their budget size. So I look forward to the administration moving forward with these dollars. Since the community has suggested it, it's uncommon to have such clear articulation of priorities from arts orgs across the spectrum, and I'm hugely grateful to the collaboration between the Portland office of Portland arts and culture for equity and Portland arts leaders. Your collaboration and clear articulation of shared goals shared goals is what allows me to champion your cause today. Further, I look forward to bringing legislation to the city life committee later this month that will, among other things, allow the arts access fund to grow with inflation in the future, ensuring the fiscal health of the fund going forward, and that organizations will not face sudden shortfalls like this in the future. This is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. This now moves to second reading.