The record · Transcript
Council session — 2026-03-09
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (16,072 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.
Yes. He's in his room. He's in his room. You can do it. Okay. Good morning everyone. Adam. Good morning. I call the meeting of the transportation and infrastructure committee to order. It is Monday, March the 8th at 9:32 a.m. Diego, can you please call the roll?
Good morning.
Smith here.
Koyama Lane here.
Morillo here.
Green here.
Clark here. And, claire, can you please read the statement of conduct?
Good morning and welcome to the meeting of the transportation and infrastructure committee to testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at Portland.gov/council agenda, slash transportation and infrastructure committee. Or by calling 311. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In-person testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, please state your name for the record. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. And finally, virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
Thank you claire. Just to note that this is the last time that this committee will meet in this configuration, I believe, and I just want to express great appreciation to all my colleagues for having a terrific year together, year plus, how much I appreciate you and the progress that we've made and we will continue to make today. But I know we'll have a different configuration after the spring break. Today we have three items on our agenda and colleagues without any objection. But I would like to do is to move our agenda around a little bit and move the street vacation item to the end of the agenda, so that we can start right out with the local transportation, funding the community and survey results today. And then at the end of the session, I'm hoping that government relations shows up and we can have a short, very short recap of what happened this session, particularly with regards to transportation. So we'll have we'll end oh, I'm sorry, we'll end with the street vacation ordinance. Anybody object to that? Is that okay with you all? Okay. Super great. So, diego, would you please read the local transportation funding project item.
Document number 2026 098, local transportation funding project update.
Thank you. Today we have our fantastic PBOT team here to discuss the outcomes from our recent community and virtual open houses around the transportation funding priorities. I was able to attend three of those. I think the mayor made every single one. It was great to see the turnout. And all the all the participation of people with the, you know, the exercises at the different stations. It was really excellent. So we'll turn it over now to dca and PBOT director millicent williams and staff to begin the presentation on the public engagement report. And then I'd like to follow up with questions and then a discussion of where we want to go from here. So thank you. Welcome, all of you.
Thank you. Council vice president Clark, good morning. For the record, my name is deputy city administrator for the public works service area. I want to thank mayor wilson, vice president Clark and every councilor in this committee for your leadership and partnership in advancing this conversation about the future of transportation funding in Portland. I'm pleased to be here today with our PBOT team to report back on what we heard during the public engagement phase of the alternative transportation funding project. Portland's transportation system is one of the most visible and widely used infrastructure the city manages. Every day. Portlanders rely on it to get to work, school, parks, businesses and community spaces across the country. And as council knows, the Portland transportation transportation system is facing longstanding structural funding challenge. Over many years, the transportation revenues of the local, state and federal levels have not kept pace with the cost of maintaining and operating a safe and reliable system. The result is a growing gap between community expectations and the ability to maintain the streets, sidewalks, bridges and transportation infrastructure that Portland is rely on every day. This is why this council direction from the council to explore alternative funding approaches is so important. This work is identifying sustainable ways to maintain and protect the transportation system that supports the economy, safety and quality of life. Over the past several weeks, PBOT staff have conducted robust outreach across all four districts, including open houses and online survey and engagement with community organizations. And I want to acknowledge the significant effort from the PBOT team and our partners in the revenue division who worked quickly to provide meaningful opportunities for community input. I also want to thank many of you for helping spread the word and participate in the engagement process, including joining the open houses. What you will hear today reflects what portlanders told us about their transportation priorities and how they viewed potential funding options. This conversation is also particularly timely. Later this week, during the public works service area budget work session, you will hear that PBOT is facing at least a $25 million shortfall this year. Without additional revenue sources, the city will. Increasingly, the city will increasingly be forced to scale back basic maintenance, safety improvements and transportation services. That makes this work critical to stabilizing the system and ensuring we can continue to deliver the level of service portlanders expect. And with that, I'll turn it over to director millicent williams to walk through the engagement results and what we heard from the community.
Welcome.
Good morning. Thank you. Paul. Good morning, vice council president Clark and councilors from the tni committee. For the record, my name is millicent williams, and I'm the director of the Portland bureau of transportation. Next slide please. As you can see, we've been working on this project under council direction since last July. We've engaged with this committee twice, and now we're back to report on the public engagement that we've completed in the last month. Next slide. Here's the agenda for our presentation. We'll be sharing the feedback that we received in in at our in-person open houses through an online survey and from some organizational meetings. And we'll end with time for discussion. We have quite a few slides to share. We will move through those quickly so that we can allow for as much time as possible for discussion at the end. Next slide. First, I'd like to acknowledge the team, as the dca has already mentioned, that's been involved in this work. This project has been a great example of working across bureaus with our partners in the revenue division and frankly, with other bureaus within the service area, as we've talked about affordability and other items of concern, it's also taken a multidisciplinary team at PBOT to quickly complete all of the research, prepare materials, and to do broad outreach and engagement in a quick time frame. And I want to express my appreciation for everyone who is listed on the slide. I also want to thank all of you for your support in helping spread the word about this effort. Vice president Clark, thank you for your leadership and for joining us at three of the open houses. We recognize you were sick for one of them. And thanks to many of you for sending your staff as well. It was greatly appreciated. And we felt your presence and your support. The mayor also joined us, has been mentioned at all four of the open houses, and we certainly appreciate his support. I also want to reiterate just how critically important this project is. I know that you all understand our funding constraints. We've talked about it often. I also know that you hear from your constituents on a regular basis about their concerns and requests for the transportation system, whether it's filling potholes, adding traffic calming or cleaning up our streets. We hear from people all of the time as well. We want to do more and we can do more, but not without sufficient resources. On Wednesday, we'll be before you again and the entire council for the public works service area budget work session. As has been mentioned previously by Elana paul, you will hear that we are facing at least another $25 million shortfall this year. That means we will not be doing more. We will do much. Excuse me. That means we will not be doing more. We will be doing much less unless we can find another way to stabilize funding. So again, I want to thank you for the foresight you all had to ask us to do this work. It couldn't come at a more important time. And now I will pass it over to shoshana cohen to talk about our engagement activities.
Thank you. Director. Good morning. Council vice president Clark and members of the committee. For the record, I'm shoshana cohen, PBOT chief of staff. Next slide please. So as you all know, we've been hard at work getting the word out and talking with people around the city about transportation and funding challenges and these potential revenue approaches. We held four in-person open houses, one in each district. We also posted the same information and ran a parallel survey online. Next slide please. The open houses were drop in style, where people could go around the room and learn from the information boards, as well as talk to staff were posted at each station. We asked people to provide feedback through a series of interactive exercises and as you can see from the pictures, it was really exciting to see that so many people turned out to engage with us on this topic, and people really did engage. There was lots of thoughtful questions and discussion. Next slide please, and you can sorry. On the last slide, you can also see the breakdown of folks who attended in each open house. And then on this slide you can see the breakdown by district of our online survey which was also open for two weeks. And we received a total of 477 responses. Again, here's the breakdown. Next slide please. In addition to these open houses and online survey, we've been reaching out to a variety of organizations and committees. As you'll see on the screen. For some of them, we just shared information about getting to help get the word out about the open houses. And we've also been offering to meet and have met with many of them. This work is still ongoing. We met with many of them. We're still working on scheduling meetings and offering to meet. And one thing I want to call out that's not on here is the utilities we're also offering to meet with and will be meeting with. And as we go through the next slides where we're sharing some some sort of themes of feedback, the feedback that we've been hearing from these organizations is worked into those themes as well. Next slide please. So really just the next slide. Now we're going to move into sharing with you the feedback that we've been receiving. Next slide. So at the open we're going to walk this walk you through this sort of in the order that we asked people about it in the open houses. And we started out, we shared some information about our transportation funding challenges and about the different types of sort of basic nuts and bolts transportation investments that we use with some of this sort of discretionary funding. And then we asked people to describe what is most important to them. So we offered up this menu, and then we also had some open ended feedback and asked people to to add things if they weren't on here. And you'll notice there's a couple of overall categories which were included to sort of let people say, well, overall, I really care about maintenance, I really care about safety. And also let people who said, you know, it's it's the potholes is the thing. So they could sort of give us feedback on two different levels. Next slide please. And then there's a lot of graphs here. We're going to try to pretty quickly go through again to give more time for discussion. But and the way we're showing this is by district, both the in-person open house and the online survey. And just a quick note before we dive in, is that these it's important to note this was not scientific polling. It was surveys to get people's impressions. So in district one you'll see maintenance, paving and filling potholes stood out as really important. We also see support for sidewalks safety. And then the one interesting thing in the online survey from district one is we see the importance, we see the importance of some bridge repair and some weather response, which is something that didn't rise to the top in the other districts. Next slide please. So in district two we saw pretty balanced support for both maintenance and safety in both the in-person and online open houses. And then at the at sort of rounding out the top five priorities, we saw bike Lane improvements called out again as one of the top five, but sort of be pretty, pretty balanced here. Maintenance and safety. Next slide please. In district three, the in-person feedback was strongly in support of safety improvements, sidewalk infill and traffic calming near schools, with filling potholes rounding out the top five priority area and online. We saw potholes and maintenance rise to the top, with also support for safety and paving. Next slide please. And then in district four we saw fixing potholes clearly at the top of the priority both in-person and online. And then again we saw a mix of support for sidewalks, other small safety interventions and overall maintenance and paving items all showing up in the top five. Next slide please. So this is the collective feedback across all of the surveys in-person and online. It's probably not a surprise to any of you. Certainly wasn't a surprise to us that we heard that fixing potholes is a high priority. And I, I want to note that our maintenance staff would really want us to share that we would really much be in a in prefer to be in a situation where the roads are well maintained enough that we don't have to fix the potholes. And it's the paving, the preventive paving work that, you know, we need to invest in so that we don't even have potholes, whereas fixing potholes is sort of the patchwork after the fact. And then, you know, overall what we're seeing is just really important. The importance of maintenance and overall safety. And then we did also get a lot of support for small intersection safety improvements and filling gaps in in the sidewalk network. Next slide please. So then as I mentioned, we also invited people to provide more open ended comments. And I want to note here this is really not comprehensive. We got a lot of comments and there was just a pretty wide variety of things. So we pulled out just a couple of the things that showed up really repeatedly. We heard support for daylighting, intersections, pedestrian lighting, trails, sidewalk repair, and then using volunteer labor, which we know we've all heard some interest in in the past as well. And now I'm going to hand it over to mark lear to talk about the feedback that we received specific to the street damage restoration fee and the transportation utility fee.
Thank you, shoshana, for the record, my name is mark clear. I'm PBOT policy partnership and resources manager. Next slide. This slide shows how we described the street damage restoration fee at open houses. This fee is designed to capture the cost of the structural damage done to roads with utility cuts. It's also meant to induce better coordination of utility cuts with existing paving work. We shared this information with you the last time we were here. Next slide. We also shared information about how potential street, how the potential street damage restoration fee rates compared to the four other cities on the west coast coast currently using this approach. This slide indicates that scenario a and b are below the rate charged in the four other cities, and that our scenario c is in the middle of the rates charged by other cities. Next slide. At the online open house, an in-person district open houses participants were provided with a summary of three scenarios set at 25%, 50% and 75% damage recovery levels. We heard a lot of interest about giving discounts or exemptions for better coordination, which could reduce costs, but we want to be clear that would only occur if we had a lot of pavement work. Next slide. We then asked participants at what level they would support a street damage, restoration and restoration fee included none of the above as an option as well. You will see a trend throughout the online answers. They tend to be more. The in-person tends to be more supportive than the online answers. We don't know exactly why that is. It may be associated with who chooses to come to in-person versus who responds online, or because people came in person were able to get questions answered and learn more from staff directly, leading to less negative impressions or something else entirely. Even so, across both in-person and online open houses, more people were supportive of this idea than not. At the district one open house, 95% of participants expressed support for street damage restoration fee online. The street damage restoration fee received 79% support in district one, and the 50% damage recovery scenario received the most support in both in-person and online. Next slide at the district two open house, 97% of participants expressed support for street damage restoration fee at some level, while online overall support was 88% both in-person and online. The highest level of support was at the 75% damage recovery fee, and in-person people wrote that they would actually like to see the rate set at at 100% damage recovery fee number of people identified. That next slide at the district three open house, 100% of participants expressed support for this proposal online. 83% of people expressed support for the fee. At some level, like district two, the highest level of support, both in-person and online, was for the 75% damage recovery fee. Next slide at the district four open house, 96% of participants expressed support at some level, while 83% expressed support online. Once again, the highest level of support was for the 75% damage recovery fee, while 75% of people supported the 70, with the 79% of people supporting the 75% damage recovery fee option in person and 40% supporting it online. Next slide. This slide provides a summary of the combined feedback from the online, open house and in-person events for the street damage restoration fee. In total, 87% of the people supported this proposal. The most popular scenario was the 75% damage recovery scenario with 51% support. It is estimated that a 75% damage recovery scenario would generate about $22 million annually. Next slide. Both online and in person. We also asked people for more general feedback that they had about each of the funding mechanisms. These are some of the themes that we heard related to the street damage restoration fee. We heard about dissatisfaction with the quality of patching on current trenching work, some concern with how this fee could impact housing development, concerns with how this fee could impact other bureaus, and support for higher levels of coordination, and questions about how much of the increase in fees would be passed down to customers. Next slide. The next revenue mechanism we asked about is the transportation utility fee. This slide shows how we summarized the transportation utility fee at the open houses. We highlighted that the transportation utility fee is currently being used in 31 other cities in Oregon, and that it would show up on your existing water and sewer bill. Next slide. We also shared this information on the monthly rates at the single family and multi-family levels for the nine other cities in the metro area, and we highlighted that the current regional average for a single family home is $12.08 per month, and regional average for multi-family is $9.49 per unit. Next slide per month. These are the three potential scenarios we shared with people. They are based on 50%, 75% and 100% of the regional average for a single family home. It's worth noting that the multi-family rate is a little lower than the regional multi-family, because we set our rate at 70% of the single family rate, based on studies that indicate multifamily properties generate about 70% as many trips as single family properties. We also highlighted that in each scenario, nonresidential commercial properties would pay 30% of the total based on an increase in the existing water and sewer bill. Finally, we provided information on existing low income discount program that could be utilized with a transportation utility fee. Next slide. Like with the street damage restoration fee, we asked people which scenario, if any, did they prefer. At the district one open house, 96% of participants expressed support for a transportation utility fee. At some level online, we saw an even higher percentage of people saying they preferred no transportation utility fee, but there was still 63% of people who were supportive in person. 50% of people were supportive of fee at 100% of the regional average online 50% average scenario was the most popular with 29% support. Next slide at the district two open house, 100% of participants expressed support for this proposal. The district two total online support was 79%. This, the scenario based on 100% of the regional average, was the most popular in both in-person and online, with 78% support in person and 43% support online. Next slide at the district three open house, 96% of participants expressed support for a transportation utility fee online, 3,434% of people were not supportive, but 60% were supportive of the proposal. At some level, 83% of people in person were supportive of the proposal, at 100% of the regional average, and 33% of the online district respondents were supportive of this proposal at the 100% of the regional average. Next slide. In district four, we again saw very high overall levels of support in person, with 98% of participants supporting the proposal and 75% supporting the proposal at 100% of the regional average online, 32% of people were not supportive, while 68% did support it, and the highest level of support was 100% of the regional average proposal, with 36% people supporting at that level. Next slide. This slide provides a summary of the combined feedback from the online, open house and in-person events for the transportation utility fee. In total, 78% of people supported this proposal. The most popular scenario was the scenario based on 100% of the regional average. This scenario, which equals $12 per single family home per month, received 48% support. Next slide. Again, we also asked for more open ended feedback about the idea. And these are some of the themes that we heard. There was support because the fee is already being used in other cities. In Oregon, there was some concern about the cumulative cost of utility bills and questions about the reach of the existing low income discount program. There was also some support for exemptions or discounts for minority and women owned businesses, or for people who do not own cars. Next slide. Now I'll turn it back over to shoshana cohen to share feedback we received about the two delivery fee concepts.
Thank you mark. So this again was the overview of the retail delivery fee concept that we shared at the open houses. And this is a fee that would be visible and paid by customers at the point of sale when they purchase something online for delivery. And it would be remitted to the city by the retailers. This is something that two states, colorado and minnesota, are doing, but there are no cities in the country who are doing this yet. The retail delivery fee idea not only came up during our research phase of this project, but we received a separate budget note, which you all voted on as part of the budget process from councilor Kanal to consider the retail delivery fee. And I want to acknowledge and thank councilor Kanal for that budget note. Next slide please. So we did share the information with the public about two potential scenarios at the 25 cent fee level and the 50 cent fee level. However, since this idea is still more conceptual with a lot more to figure out before we could consider implementation, we asked people more for their general comments and didn't ask them to weigh in on the specific, specific scenarios yet. Next slide please. In addition to the open houses, we held a meeting with industry representatives. And so we've incorporated their comments as well. Many comments at the open houses and online really were generally supportive. While the industry meeting we heard more concerns. Some of the themes that we heard across the different places and meetings were that since the pandemic, deliveries represent a growing portion of industry business. There was concern in both places. The implementation may be too complex and expensive to make the fee worthwhile, and we would need to consider the cost to administer the fee. There was support for exemptions for food, medicine and even things like bicycle deliveries. A desire to mitigate cost burden for local small businesses, minority and women owned businesses, concern about impact on low income and vulnerable populations. And then we heard a lot of support for companies to pay the fee or some kind of tax and fee rather than the consumer. And a lot of good discussion at the open houses about doubt around the delivery. That delivery does more harm than a customer driving to the store and sort of questioning the premise, I think. Next slide please. As part of councilor Kanal budget note response, there was a separate report that was sent recently by cfo biery to councilor Kanal. And I believe to all of you as well, at the end of February, some of the information that was in that report is similar to what we've already shared in our alternative transportation funding report with you as part of this project. In addition, cfo biery office provided some information about other implementation considerations for this type of fee, which you'll see here. On this slide. It was called out the implementation would require more than a year, pretty significant cost coordination. And, you know, potential design and expense with that work. As we know, Portland lacks an existing point of sale mechanism sales tax. But there. So we would have to consider other pathways for existing for implementing this tax. It also was called out that it seems like targeted discounts for low income or disabled individuals is unlikely to be feasible with this one. However, categorical exemptions such as groceries and medicine are very much possible. And then we could also consider exemptions for small businesses to help reduce administrative burden. Reporting from some of the smaller businesses and retailers. So this again highlights just why we consider this one sort of second phase and needing some more work. Next slide please. The final idea that we presented to the public is the third party or prepared food delivery concept. And I also want to be clear that this one was not part of councilor Kanal budget. Note this fee would be charged at the point of sale to the end consumer, who is ordering food through a third party delivery system. It could probably be designed to exempt groceries and just be prepared for prepared food, and would not apply to restaurants that hire their own delivery staff. We. This 1st may be a little simpler to implement because it could be done simple. Similarly to how we collect the existing transportation network company fee. That said, this idea again has also not yet been implemented by any city, and we consider this idea still to be at the conceptual level as well. Next slide please. Once again, we shared these early concept scenarios with the public at $0.25 and 50 cent fees. And then we asked for general feedback rather than specifics about which scenario they liked. Next slide please. Many comments were fairly supportive with again, the industry representatives more opposed, and the comments in general fell into pretty similar themes as the retail delivery fee concept in representatives expressed how delivery was a bigger part of their business than before the pandemic. There was support for various types of exemptions and concern for people on low incomes and people living with disabilities. There was also concern about impacts on delivery drivers and restaurants, and concerns that implementation could be too complex. There was somewhat of a split on this one, some people expressing a desire for the delivery companies themselves to be the ones to pay, while others expressed an interest in having the customer pay the fee as a way of influencing behavior. And like the retail fee, there was some doubt about the impact of deliveries and if it is more harmful than people driving to a restaurant. Next slide please. The final question we asked people at the open house was about accountability. We shared information about the model that we use with our fixing our streets ten cent local gas tax program, where we have a community oversight committee that meets quarterly. We program the funding into specific categories and report out on our spending publicly and also have an external audit. And then we asked for feedback on these types of accountability mechanisms. Not surprisingly, overall, people were very supportive. They would like us to be accountable. It was interesting to us that one out of the four ideas, the one with the least robust support, still 54% support, but the least robust support was the oversight committee. And we heard some comments about committees not being an efficient use of time and money. Again, still, 54% of people supported this idea, and there was even higher support for the other accountability ideas. Next slide please. So we will wrap up with just a few summary slides related to the two ideas that have the potential for shorter term implementation. Here. We've broken down the street damage restoration fee results by all of the results from the in-person open houses, and all of the results from the online survey. Again, you'll see the trend of online responses being a little bit more negative, but still a large amount of overall support for the idea. There's the most support for the highest rates that we suggested at a 75% damage recovery amount at the in-person open houses, people also put up stickers indicating support for higher rates, and we included those in the 75% category. Next slide please. The overall support for the transportation utility fee is even more divided between the online and in-person open houses. Online, 30% of people chose none of the above, but 70% still were supportive of the proposal. And we still see the highest support for the fee at the 100% regional average amount. And in person, there was very robust support for the 100% regional average amount. Next slide please. Finally, here are the combined results for both ideas, which again highlights quite high overall support for both ideas. And we'll leave you here and hand it back to director williams to close our presentation.
Thank you so much shoshana. I simply want to end by once again thanking all of you for your time and interest in this project and more broadly, thanking you for your support of the bureau of transportation and the city's transportation system. I don't know that we've felt this level of support interest conversation in many, many years and cannot underscore how grateful we are to be a part of a meaningful conversation about what we will be able to do in the future. Solving the transportation funding crisis will not be easy, and we appreciate the opportunity to share this information with you about some of the next steps that could be taken to begin to chart a path towards more sustainable funding. And this concludes our presentation.
Well.
Thank you so very much to all of you on the panel, but also to the people in the audience who I see were here. We're at the evening sessions. I just so appreciate all of you being there, giving up four evenings and all the intense work that you've done to bring us to this point. I know we've pushed you pretty hard and pretty fast, so I appreciate your work. So thank you so much. I'd like to open up the conversation amongst ourselves here on the dais or my colleagues. And what I'd like to do is narrow in on a direction that we'd like to proceed for a funding proposal to bring to the entire council at a future date, hopefully in April, based on what we've heard from the community, I have to say that I am very moved by what I've heard. I did not start out at this point that I'm going to recommend, but given all the community feedback, I know this is not scientific, but there has been polling in the past. I think we've come to a very critical juncture and we have a desperate need, a desperate need to fix what we all own. We all own these streets. Every person in Portland owns these streets, and they use them every day, whether they're driving on them or not. They benefit from this infrastructure. So, colleagues, I'm going to take a risk here and I'm going to open up with a funding proposal for you to discuss. And I know I have questions too, but I just want to put this right out there that based on what we've heard, that we include a transportation utility fee at 100% of the regional average. I am absolutely appalled that our neighbors are raising more money than we are, and their streets are in better condition than ours are, and there are 20 years ahead of us in this region, which is just blows me away. And I'd also like to propose that we increase or we create a street damage restoration fee that would represent 75% of the damage recovery, clearly with caveats. And we will discuss those caveats. But, colleagues, I hope you don't mind my putting that right out there. I'm hopeful that we can move forward and that we can come up with a proposal that we all agree on so that we can have a committee proposal, not my proposal, but all of us together. Yeah, I appreciate that. And so let me open up the discussion on what I put forward, as well as all the caveats that we may have to this proposal, and any other ideas that you'd like to bring forward. So councilor Morillo, your hand is up first.
Yeah. Thank you so much. I never know if I should call you vice chair or chair or all the titles, all the things transportation asset management, queen. But thank you PBOT. You guys are just such an amazing team. I got to visit to do a tour on Friday and meet with frontline staff, and the folks there are doing just unbelievable work with zero resources, and they have been for so long and getting to just meet with them firsthand and see the work that they're doing made me even more strident in my belief that we, as a council, need to do everything we can to support having more funding so that these folks are supported in their work. And so I'm I'm definitely in favor of going going all the way and making sure we get as much funding as possible. I did have a clarifying question. I was not able to attend the district three event, but my staff were there. And I know that the mayor brought up that if we increase the tough, he was considering eliminating the gas tax to sort of offset that. And I'm curious if that's going to be the proposal put forward and what folks think about that. Where I'm leaning right now is that we should just have both. I know that the gas tax is becoming obsolete over time as people move away from using gas, but that doesn't mean that those precious dollars aren't helpful. But I'm just curious if that's going to be part of the proposal.
Councilor Clark, do you want to answer that question or should we answer that?
Well, I can take a stab at it. I appreciate what you're saying. I had not intended for that to be written into any ordinance or resolution. At this point, the current ten cent gas tax that the city of Portland has will expire in 2028. So I just relying on that at this point. I don't want to write anything into the ordinance.
Okay. That's helpful. Well, I'm fully supportive of the work that PBOT does and want to make sure that we can do everything we can to get them more dollars. And shout out to district three for having the highest attendance and participation and wanting a lot of infrastructure dollars. I love district three. Had to flex. Okay, I'm done now.
Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Green.
Angelita Morillo: Thank you, madam chair. Thanks for your leadership on this item. Nobody likes to go into their term of elected office raising fees, but also all of us ran on this idea that we have to leave something for our grandchildren, for our for their children. And it's become abundantly clear to me, as we've had these conversations, that we are in a state where we don't have the resources to even keep up with the basic level of maintenance, and. It's it feels like hyperbole to say that, you know, in 25 years, our streets will be nothing but rubble, but that's probably not far off if we don't do anything about this. And so I don't want to be having conversations 25 years from now. And, and have to account for my unwillingness to meet the moment and say, I prevent I, I tried to I want to be known as someone who tried to prevent that state of calamitous decline, and I think we have an obligation to do it. I think the survey results, you know, we've we've had the caveats here that they're not scientific. I think it's interesting that the in-person distribution tends to favor going pretty big, with the exception of maybe district one being a little bit of an outlier there. And then the online is like no fees. You know, there's there's a lot of people, you know, who are going the other direction. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which gives me a lot of comfort. And I just know that when I talk to thousands of Portland, or portlanders in district four, when I was on the campaign trail, the thing that resonated with them across any other issue was this idea that it's time to get sidewalks in our district and we can't get those sidewalks unless we do something like this. So I'm going to be strongly in favor of the 100% of regional average approach. It's not where I started when we had this conversation, I'll be honest with you, but I think it's the right thing to do. I do have a question from staff why we're not considering a 100% street damage fee scenario. Is that something that was analyzed but not presented forward? I'd be very curious to know what the revenue and cost differential is there.
The. I think the short answer was it was a new idea that we were discussing with the public. We had, you know, one of the evaluation matrixes that we looked at was the affordability both to individuals and businesses. So I think that was the main reason that we started. We didn't go to the full 100% was just being kind of thoughtful to affordability.
I can appreciate that, but I think I'd like to make an appeal that we should do that analysis and think about being able to present that to city council, because, you know, just my napkin math, if you're raising a $25 million or so with a 75% proposal that's going to spread out between all of our utilities, that's going to be a very it's a very small percentage of any given utility's operating expenses, and the rate impact will be de minimis.
Yeah. I think just to answer that second part of your question, the 75% generates 22.2 million. It's going to 100% generates would generate about 29 okay.
So we do we do run into sort of maybe some diminishing returns going from 75 to 100%. It doesn't scale like it does going from 50 to 75. I would still encourage us to think about that as an option, because I think if we do it right, we won't raise any revenue from it. My hope is that we get out of the practice of utilities coming in behind PBOT to tear up a perfectly good new. I know this is an issue that you care a lot about. It's it's painful to watch the good work of your crew be be marred by a by by a new cut. So I'm so I'm going to support the the package that you're putting forward here the 75. But if there's a if there's an option for me to to support 100%, I'm putting my stake in the ground for that. And I think that's the right package at this time. I think the other fees that are being contemplated need a little more work. Just like with the street damage fee, I think our retail or our prepared food delivery fee and our our other delivery fees need to have a more aggressive fee structure, because again, it's a price signal that you're trying to send. So you're trying to change some behavior in some sense to to mitigate the kind of unintended consequences of, of, of that traffic. That's how I think about it. But we're not ready to, I think, propose something like that. So for me, I'm with you, chair Clark, I'm prepared to to have a unified committee approach on this. And I really appreciate that. And I think the last thing I'd I hope we can, as we go into the next phase of, of this committee, the public works committee, I'd really love to see an update on the transportation system plan in the in the current year, because I think if we're going to raise these fees and we're going to contemplate the asset management work, I want to know how those two pieces of work influence our broader long term planning, which I know is good work underway. We've got some excellent planners on that. And so I just really love to have an opportunity to to hear what some of the visioning is on that. Aside from that, I don't have any fun quips. I'm not here to channel my Novick today, so I'll close it out there. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Green. I really appreciate your support for this proposal and understand your interest in the 100%. And we can certainly talk about that. Councilor Smith, you have your hand up next.
Thank you, madam chair. And I just want to go on the record. I do support your plan in us putting forward a committee bill so that everyone can look at this. This is so important. And I want to thank you all for doing the work. You've been pretty busy this winter, and I know with all the new changes and doing this on top, this is this is a lot of work and it's it's recognized. Mark, I have a question for you. When they were talking about the low income opportunities to help folks who who couldn't afford to pay. And I know there were probably be a lot of folks from our district, and I was really pleased to see that it was in the top five of sidewalks and pavement, and understanding that this is not scientific. At what level do you consider low income?
I let me that some numbers that we were using from a flier that is, was provided to us by water and bts. I think these numbers are accurate at the single person. The 30% discount that where you pay 30% of your bill, and the water and sewer bill, I think is about $2,200. It's around $2,200 a month for an individual. The 60% discount if I have these numbers right in my head, was a little bit over $4,000 a month, gets you the 60% discount on the water and sewer bill. I'll have to. I'll send send an email back to the committee to make.
Qualifies as low income. Are you at the 30 percentile rate of.
You get the 30%.
The $33,000 per year.
Per year? If you're under that.
Correct.
You qualify for the low income benefits. And so that's baked. That's already baked into the system.
That's right okay.
Mitch Green: That's that's great. And I'm with you, councilor Green, in regards to the 100% of the restoration fee, I think that that is going to be important. And I am not. I think we need to just let the gas tax, if it fades out, it fades out. I don't want to put anything dealing with the gas tax in this particular language or ordinance going forward. I want to be clear. And. As councilor Green was saying before, I know it's not scientific, but all I heard about was potholes and sidewalks. When I was running in 2020 for potholes and sidewalks. And it is not lost on me that we had the lowest participation rate of all the the four districts. But I was so proud to see that the folks who did come in person, that 54% of those folks from district one said that this was important. And it it gives me gratification from having sit be the first policy initiative that that I embarked on from our office. The sidewalk improvement and paving program. I think if we can get this done, we might have an opportunity to to get resources to even fund cip so that we can get all this work started. It was really, really amazing. I was looking at this over the weekend, your presentation, and I thought they really did some work. They they went in there and I looked at the pictures and everybody, they looked very happy and they looked like they were engaged. It was it was amazing. So I want to thank you for the work that you've done. It's not easy with, you know, doing this kind of work and being in the public works arena, but this is the kind of work that I think that when people think about the city services, this is the work that people know. They have to take a bath in the morning, they have to use their toilet, they have to water their grass, and they have to walk their kids to school, whether it's on the sidewalks or drive them to daycare in the morning. And if they're hitting potholes, they this is this is the kind of thing that they're thinking about every single day. So I think that this is god's work. It really is. And it's the infrastructure that I think that we need to highlight and we need to start paying for. And so I am with you 1,000% on this. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you so much for those comments. Councilor Smith. I really appreciate that what you said. Thank you. I'm just going to call out, see if councilor Koyama Lane wants to make any comments. I don't see her hand up. I believe she's online. Just want to give you an opportunity. If you're and we can come back to you as well before we conclude.
Yeah. Thank you. Chair I can. Do one more. I apologize for not being with you all in person. I'm bouncing a sick kiddo and a lot of in district meetings today. But thank you so much for the opportunity. Thank you to the public works service area to PBOT staff. You know, our cfo, cfo biery, for all the work on this project, it's been very helpful to see what the different community priorities are here, how these outreach events went, and they also really do match what I'm also hearing from constituents, you know, about overall safety, traffic calming, a real need for infrastructure improvements. And I plan to be supportive chair and vice chair of this. And and also agree that as we I, we all know, there's a big need for raising revenue. And so I am also down for however much we're willing to push, push things to that 100%. You know, I feel confident that PBOT understands that we have to ensure we're not burdening some of our most vulnerable community members, make sure we're doing outreach to make so people have access to relief when needed, and that we're we're really making sure that we're picking options that are going to create safe and sustainable systems for all portlanders across all, all wages, stages, ages with that, whatever that, that slogan is there. So I'm supportive of the transportation utility fee that you outlined. I love the idea of us being united as the committee as it is right now, and also just see how things are different in this new form of government, and how healthy it is that we can all see transportation infrastructure issues as important to all of our districts. It's not one commissioner, just kind of protecting or begging. And also what councilor Green said about making sure we're thinking about generations down the line. It's not always the most popular, as you're a sitting elected to do that, to to make certain choices where people are going to see increases on their bills. But if we know that this is what the experts have been saying is desperately needed, that's very important. I hear that the retail delivery fee, that concept needs to be fleshed out more. Would love to see us continue to to look into that at some point. And and I'm not sure. Oh, I also want to highlight some of the comments from the January pedestrian advisory committee that that really align with, I think, what a lot of us care about. So those committee co-chairs reminded us that any new fee structure has to be grounded in portland's goals for safety, climate action, supporting active modes, walking, biking, using transit, and that sustainable alternative funding streams are are really like this is going to be needed in order to keep advancing vision zero goals to reduce deaths and serious injuries and hopefully eliminate them at some point. And I'm not sure when the right timing in this meeting will be to say this. So I'm just going to say it right now. But I do very strongly believe that chair Clark and vice chair Morillo, you two have done a beautiful job leading this committee, balancing different perspectives at different portlanders have also modeling just how to work well together. And share responsibilities and hear one another. We can feel that as as a member of the committee, I can feel that. I think the public can see that your leadership has been really important and the way you two have modeled, leading together has been, has really made this committee enjoyable to be on. So thank you to both of you.
Thank you so much. Councilor Koyama Lane. I appreciate that feedback. Now, colleagues, I know we have more hands up, but I want to take a moment here and bring this down a notch. We've been talking, you know, cupcakes and and unicorns here, but much of the public has a very jaundiced view of PBOT priorities. And, you know, having lived with potholes and crumbling streets for so long. So I wanted to ask our panelists, you know, what kind of guarantee do we have that the bulk of this money is going to go to the highest priority potholes and maintenance? Can you talk about that to some degree?
Absolutely. So I if if I may, I'd like to step up just a couple of levels as we talk about our overall budget and the restrictions that we have on it, you speak to the frustration that people have about the work that we do, and their perception that we are investing a great deal in certain gold plated facilities while leaving others without any investment. Some of that is borne out of the fact that much of our work, especially the capital work, is done through fundraising. We have grants that restrict what we can do and where we can do it, based on how we have written for the funding. So roughly $250 million goes to capital work that is funded by others. The general transportation revenue, which we have, it's funded through gas taxes as well as parking revenues, is a smaller number. And of that, roughly 50% of that is already obligated to some obligations that we have as a bureau that we are not able. They're restricted as well. So we're not able to spend that funding. So that leaves a very small portion of our general transportation revenue that's allocated to the work of basic maintenance and safety and operations for the bureau, in order to be able to ensure that the public can see what they're investing in, which is what I hear all the time. I don't see it in the places that I need it. We can work to make sure that we prioritize the investment in maintenance. That requires a coordination and collaboration with this council to ensure that we're hearing your priorities, and that we align our budgets to support that effort. Again, we have a number of funding sources coming in to the bureau, some of those things that were previously funded by general transportation revenue, some of that has been picked up even by excuse me, by PCEF. So we are able to now see more clearly how we prioritize the the work of the maintenance crews and the safety teams that are engaging. We can make sure that we do that. We can speak to the pavement investment, we can speak to base repair, all of those things. As a part of the program. We can speak to lighting also as a part of that program and prioritize accordingly. There will be some needs that don't look like direct work on the street that will need to be able to ensure that the work on the street happens. So there's a lot that happens behind the scenes that people don't see the engineering, the design and the planning and the engagement. So some of that would need to be a part of what we invest in to ensure that we can get to where we need to be, but we can guarantee that based on the priorities that we hear from this council, based on our understanding of what the overall needs are, which we've expressed multiple times before, this committee and this council, we can devise a strategy that ensures that we meet those needs in the ways that people are expecting.
Well, thank you for that response, colleagues. I believe that we may need to put language into our ordinance on the tof that focuses on maintenance. And I'm I intend to work with director williams and as well as our ca raymond lee to see what is appropriate there. I don't want to necessarily shackle them. I want flexibility, but I want to I want to make sure that maintenance is our is our priority. This with this going this far, going as far as we're going. And if my math is correct, if we do, if we are able to move forward on a $12 tof and a 75% street restoration fee, that gives us approximately an in a whole year, $68 million, I suspect that that will go down on the street restoration fee over time. If it's working. It's a disincentive for wrecking our streets. But that is over the $25 million shortfall, so that leaves a significant amount of money to be going to maintenance. And I think that I've heard I think that is our our intention here. So I just want to get that on the record. And we will also be working to put that into the ordinance. The second thing I wanted to bring up is accountability. And, you know, we have talked repeatedly about our function, our oversight function. And I think that's really important that we continue that should we should this be successful, we take it to the full council and should it be implemented by PBOT that we do get regular reports on how this goes and the future committee and that, you know, we're we're watching it, that we do have an oversight responsibility. And I think that's a great concern for the public when it comes to that portion of the population that's very jaundiced, about about PBOT and street maintenance.
May I speak to that? Councilor?
Absolutely.
Thank you very much. With a few weeks ago, when we came before the labor and workforce development committee, we talked about the dashboard system that we would use for cip. There was there were inquiries regarding the funding for cip, but ultimately it was about also how we would ensure that people could see where the investments were happening. We would engage in that same type of system for this funding source. We have a great deal of experience in accounting for projects according to funding source. That is a requirement that we have, but we recognize the sensitivity of this, and we recognize the importance of people being able to have visibility into what we're doing, really on a daily basis. And so there would be an opportunity for the public, for councilors as well, of course, to be able to click a few buttons and see where we are, see what the progress is, see how much has been spent, understand what the schedule is for the work that's happening. We're really excited about the way that the team back at PBOT has moved forward in ensuring that we have the accountability measures in place, that we have the practice in place. It's not just a bunch of excel spreadsheets, but it really is a system that's nimble and responsive and requires full cooperation from our full team to be able to ensure that the information is available. But it also has the opportunity to provide as a push pull, you can ask a specific question. You can get the answer. If you don't see the answer that you're looking for. We can work to make sure that you have that answer. We don't want to take away the opportunity for us to engage in the conversations that are necessary, nor to provide probably monthly or quarterly reports. We will certainly be able to do that. But I'm excited about the tools that we have in place that will create the opportunity for full visibility, full transparency into the way that we're doing our work and create a greater level of understanding about what it takes to do the work. I think that there is also an underestimation about what's required for us to move from a to b or a to z, and we look forward to being able to continue to provide the public with the information that's necessary for them to feel comfortable with the investment that they're making. I know that it's important. I've heard since I've been in this role, a number of people say, we'll help you, we'll pay for it, but we need to see it. And we're excited about being able to provide that.
Thank you for that. Director williams. I think that perhaps this committee, when we do the tsp update, that we might also just have a public demonstration of the dashboard and how people can access it so that we really get our head around that and understand how it works. So I appreciate that. I just one other comment, and then I'm going to turn the mic over to my colleagues. But I really believe that we have an opportunity at this point to turn things around, that if we don't move forward, we're just going to move backward. And I think this is part of what maybe the mayor likes to call the Portland renaissance. But I think it's really important for everything that we intend to do as a council for our other priorities, that we show results on the streets, that people can see the benefit that what their what their dollars are going to, what their government is doing for them. That is so critical to everything else that we do or want to do in this city. So, councilor Green, you have your hand up again. Great.
Thank you. I've gotten the q again for a different reason, but I'll just I want to flag or I guess, make a comment briefly on the maintenance question language, because I think it's important to consider that we prioritize that in the ordinance. But I also want to make sure and maybe this is a question for the staff, that in doing so, we're not preventing our ability to issue bonds. That would then also do maintenance because of the capital investments. I mean, the thing is, is like we want to move away from repaving. I'm sorry, just filling potholes. And if we can issue bonds to accelerate and take advantage of potentially a less costly environment today than maybe would exist tomorrow, and do that full fledged grind and repave that putting that kind of language in doesn't restrict us from using the incremental revenues to to take advantage of that. So I'm curious if you guys have any type of response to that.
I think that we could we would probably want to work with cfo biery office. There's probably a way to both indicate maintenance related activities and keep the flexibility that we need to do things like bonding in the future. But I think, yeah, we can work with cfo biery office and the city attorney's to try to get it, get at both of those things.
Thank you. That's that's really important to me. I'm glad we I'm glad you could address it that way. And then the other piece, just just on the fixing our streets gas tax, I think colleagues, I think in some respects the trump administration has solved that question for us by engaging in a hot war in the middle east. That's going to probably create the conditions that some of us in the room may remember from the 1970s, where you wait in a long line for gasoline at any price, that there's going to be probably rationing at any price. And so I think that the work that we have before us at city council is to make sure that we shape a transportation system that gives people options to not drive their car. And, and so if, if, if we're good at that and if we take that seriously, that will lower costs for drivers and motorists. But it'll also set us up. So in some sense that revenue stream becomes a moot point. Right. So I think that's or they switch to evs or whatever. But I think our climate values embodied in all of our work need to carry that forward. And I think that we've been it's kind of like to think about it, but we've been given an opportunity here to use that geopolitical crisis as an opportunity for us to lead a city forward, that that is not exposed to that kind of energy shock, among other things. So just wanted to put that out there.
I really appreciate that observation. Councilor Green. Councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith: Thank you. I do remember that that was during the carter administration. I remember being a little kid in my mother's car in in a long line to get gas. So as a kid, it's fun because everything is is an adventure. But it wasn't fun for my mom. Question director williams curious how much do we get from the gas tax right now?
Approximately $70 million is what we anticipate collecting from the gas tax for over four years.
So it's 70 million over four years, not every year. Okay. Math. 13.
18.
17 to 18.
18 million a year.
Okay okay. Thank you. That is that is good. I know I do want to reaffirm my my prior comments. We don't want to get rid of the gas tax right now okay. Mark. This money is it is it restricted or is it going to come in with the tough. Is it going to come in as general fund money or restricted general fund.
Yeah, I think as the vice president Clark was mentioning, there could be language in the ordinance that provides some more direction on this. Otherwise I think it would come into our budget as general transportation revenue.
Okay. And so this money and as we were talking about cip, this money could be used because I like councilor Green would like to see some of this money bonded like we have it identified in cip, maybe the first 100 million for the first two years, the second 100 million. And this money could actually pay for the debt service, which instead of trying to pay for a full project out of out of the the 68 million that we may get, it would be better and more beneficial to us by paying a 5 or $6 million debt service and being able to do a wider range of projects on top of the additional money. So that's what I'm thinking right now. So councilor. Clark, madam chair, I would like to talk to you about that when we when it's time to do that language, to make sure that we I mean, we can restrict those funds so that we know those funds will be used specifically for the transportation projects. That's what my my sense is, if you all have any ideas, I am going to dc on Friday for the national league of cities, and if there are things that you want me to do while I am there with the labor department or transportation department that you think we can be helpful on in this environment, let me know, because I'll try to get some appointments. Probably can't meet with the transportation secretary, but definitely see if there are some things. And I and I believe that you have to talk to everybody. It doesn't matter. You know what end of the spectrum you're at. You still have to have conversations with folks. And I see our government relations director here. So he's he's writing stuff down. So I'm hoping that he's going to make a note to our to our federal lobbyist, Dan bates. But this is something that's that's really important to me. And I want to be helpful. I was able to get bring in $30 million at Multnomah county for for the promise neighborhood. And that turned out to be one of the largest federal funding for at risk youth that we have ever received $6 million a year for five years. And actually, we got an extra year because of COVID. So for me, it is I don't mind, as the mayor says, to fundraising, but I call it partnering because as a partner, you feel invested when you're fundraising. It's it's a one and done. And so I think it's important to to build those relationships along the way. And I'm just excited. But I also I want to end with this. I see this as an opportunity to I see this as an opportunity to get our women and small contractors, subcontractors doing this kind of work. This is the kind of work that can get them, that they can go and get their journeyman's license for this. And I really, I'm really excited about. So I'm trying to contain my excitement because I think that it's the work that we talk about, but it's also the work that is most scrutinized as well. And so if we do this thing right, and with the leadership that we have up here, I'm confident that we'll be able to get additional small businesses and women and minority owned businesses into the paving and sidewalk business, because it's going to be here for years to come. That's right. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Smith. And I agree with you on partnership using that term. I haven't done anything in my career that wasn't in a partnership. Yeah, building a coalition, working with other people. One person can't do it all. It's definitely a partnership. So thank you for that. Colleagues. Let's talk about next steps then really briefly. And thank you again for being here. Excellent. Such incredibly good work. Everybody in the audience who was there every night for four nights appreciate you. I know we pushed you really hard and we appreciate it. So with that, let's just chat briefly about next steps and we can move on. So colleagues, what my intention is, is that I will get a committee bill drafted, a committee ordinance drafted. I believe that the tough should be in an ordinance, but I think that the street restoration fee can actually be a resolution, because I believe that the PBOT or the administration has the authority to do that without us, but haven't done it waiting for us. So I, I will I believe we'll have one of each and I'll certainly check with, you know, legal and and with jonas biery. Absolutely. So my intention is that to get you something maybe next week that you can chew on and give me feedback and that we hopefully we resolve this as much as we possibly can before the spring break. And then we will. My intention is that we bring that to the committee of the whole on April the 2nd, and I know that's tough for some people, and that my goal would be that we as a committee, as currently constituted, will present that to our colleagues on the second as a group. And then I know this is a very aggressive calendar, but then hopefully if we achieve our goal in the committee of the whole and we will invite some testimony, we will have testimony, public testimony that we can take that to the full council, possibly on April 8th, and we can do this before we really launch into the budget process. When the mayor's budget comes out on the second, I'd like to get this resolved and not have it, you know, smooshed into the budget. The budget conversation. So that's my plan. I hope you all are comfortable with that plan, and hopefully we get something in your hands next week. And certainly it'll be an iterative, iterative process. So there aren't any other questions. Let's let's move on. Thank you so much. This is an important moment in Portland history.
Oh thank.
You thank you thank you thank you thank you.
Diego, can you please read the next item.
Document number 2026 099 2026 legislative session. Transportation update.
Welcome, sam. I know we have a very brief report to give us because it wasn't a lot that happened. Oh.
Well, there was certainly a sam chase director for the office of government relations. Thank you for having me. I would like to just start with thank thanking the committee here and council and PBOT for working through this short session. And it's really been a journey that's been much longer than that. If we go back to the, the, the, the long session last year and trying to put forward a transportation package. So I'll talk a little bit about about that and some of the other updates. I think the, the. The there are short sessions are typically times to adjust for budget. And this was one that really went much further than that in many ways. Thank you. And so I'll start with the ODOT budget process and the cuts that were part of this short session. The legislature was charged with identifying $288 million in cuts with ODOT that, you know, we are pleased that the 50 3020 split was was not affected in this decision making. And, of course, we're continually working to make sure that that that funding is protected. And we've done that to end a long session. We we've done that in the special session in September, and we certainly had to step up and make sure that was protected in this short session. The the package involved a number of different elements. There were some shifts in funding ODOT, there are some vacancies that are going to continue at ODOT to help mitigate the budget. There were some funding cuts to safe routes to school, which is a very important program for the city, and that those funds were cut in half by 17 million. The connect Oregon was cut entirely. That's 42 million that that is funding for trains, planes and. Oh, what's the third? Trains, planes and marine. And so those are. You know, funds that we could otherwise maybe be accessing for things like union station. So there are there there are not cuts to existing funds that we have right now. But those are our opportunities lost potentially the they are not intended to be long term. They are intended to be temporary cuts that would be restored with a package. There was also a community pass program that was cut $8 million from that. And that's for things like trails. So there are opportunities lost there that could be, you know, impactful. But we don't see any dollars that are direct cuts coming to the city from the package. The the other element of this work moving forward was the transportation package referral around the the gas tax and fees was moved to may, and the legislature did 15 senate bill 1599 did did shift that referral date to may. A lawsuit was filed very quickly afterwards. And so the the future of that is uncertain, though I think it's it's pretty well accepted that that has a whether it's in may or November has a tremendous uphill battle to to surviving that that vote. And so we really expect to be engaged in the deliberations around another transportation package in the 2027 long session. And so we expect to be very engaged in that work as quickly and as robustly as we can over the next nine months. And so, you know, as we end these short sessions, we are on a continual annual cycle of doing our legislative agenda work with you. And so it feels like we got over a big hurdle getting through this short session. But really the work is just beginning. And the importance of that work is is can't be underestimated. Other updates include the oh, and the last thing you know, I think some of the effects that we may see from the ODOT cuts is, you know, in the shorter term, our longer dmv wait times are slower response times to filling potholes and and to moving snow, things like that. So there will be some impacts that will be felt in the community because of these cuts. The other other issues that were addressed or or not addressed during the session was the autonomous vehicles. And so we were successful in getting that work pushed out so that we can have some really thoughtful deliberation with legislators around what, you know, what is the work that needs to happen. And so waymo is going to continue to be representing the autonomous vehicle kind of perspective from the private sector. Representative mcclain is going to be very engaged in, in, in helping make sure that that conversation is happening and that we're addressing a number of the issues that have been addressed and brought forward to you for awareness from PBOT. The transportation other transportation bills included micro mobility devices. And so there are some regulations that were put forward on micro mobility. So things like, you know, lime scooters and micro transportation devices that are here, there were age restrictions put on those, and then also helmet rules that are now will be required for those devices. And then there was a effort to have a transit funding task force put forward. And that bill did not move forward to really identify what the transit. Opportunities to really sustain and and develop a robust transit system that will the intention is that they didn't want to be duplicative, and that would be really tied into a larger package of preparing for the long session. It you know, I think it has been an uphill battle trying to get a transportation package for move moving forward. It is the mountain is probably a bit higher now in terms of getting over that mountain, but I think there's a tremendous understanding and and assessment that we need to address these issues. And that crosses all sides of the aisle. So I think there are still opportunities to really address these big challenges that Oregon together with our jurisdictions face. And, you know, we will always need to continue and make sure that local jurisdictions are seen as part of that big statewide transportation transportation structure. That is the way that the state's transportation structure was created, was to recognize that counties and cities are a part of a critical part of that. The economy and the infrastructure of the state to to make sure goods are able to move and people back and forth. So there are tremendous other number of items from the short session that are maybe loosely related or unrelated to transportation. We will be providing fairly extensive report shortly, as soon as today, on a whole bunch, a whole host of other big issues that and and how those either move forward or didn't. But we will be continuing to give you a lot of information about the session.
Thank you so much. Sam. Did I hear you say that connect Oregon went away or still.
It didn't go away. The funding for it went away. And the the legislature intends to continue those programs. But they the the funds in the short term are are gone for connect Oregon and half as much for safe routes.
Okay. I was here for its birth so I care about it. We have councilor Morillo has her hand up.
Angelita Morillo: Thank you so much to you and the ogre team for fighting to get us some of those dollars for transportation. And I am really devastated to hear that some things, like safe routes to schools didn't get funding. I think it's absolutely absurd and frustrating that at this time where driving is going to become more expensive, the cost of gas is going to go up and people desperately need public transit options. They need safe routes to schools. They need things like that, that it feels like our legislators who are in a higher office than us, where the money ends up impacting us at the local level, are not meeting the moment in that way. So for any legislators that are listening, we will hold you to making sure that you are going to invest in public infrastructure. We desperately need it. I will personally be naming the folks that are fighting for those things who did care about those things, and the folks who let let those things fall through the cracks. Because at the local level, we are struggling very much because the federal government and then our state legislator, legislators are choosing not to invest in these things. And there's only so much we can do at the city level. And I so I'm grateful for your work. Not at all. Just expressing frustration to any legislators that are listening, that I demand that we have public infrastructure funded. And as someone who relies on transit as well, because I can't drive, it's just immensely frustrating to see key things, especially in my district, that are very precious to them, that are being cut, and I will leave it at that. But thanks for the update.
Well, I appreciate that. And I was here for the tail end of your last discussion. And I think that, you know, despite the vociferous opposition to a six cent gas tax decisions are being made or have been made that will have a tremendous impact at the federal level around gas prices. And as those increases are happening, I think the the messaging and the communication about the importance of giving people alternatives to having to consume gas and and folks can't, won't be able to afford that, that that I think is a really important and meaningful kind of message to make sure that folks are understanding around safe routes.
Great. Thank you. Councilor councilor Smith.
Loretta Smith: Thank you, madam chair. Thank you. Thank you for the work that you and your team did in Salem. Thank you for the transportation, the no cuts and those kinds of things. But and this is kind of transportation ish. I really support what you all did in the mayor's office to get the rose garden monies. And it's not direct transportation money, it's bonding, but it's going to have a huge impact. We could not afford not to have a package, and I think it was 385 million. 365 365 oh, I gave them an extra 20 million. Just take it off our tab. But no, that was great. I mean, there were some big heavy lifts and we had to make some choices and some decisions like councilor Morillo. I would have like to see some money stayed in in the safe routes to school because that's so important. Counties get those dollars as well. And we we put them out on, on our city streets. And so for me that that was disheartening. But overall I think this is probably as good as it gets. In a short session we had a little bit more money to play with, but it didn't do the harm that I thought it was going to do to cities. So keep up the good work and I look forward to working with your staff next week in dc, and make sure that you do the follow up with bates about transportation. Send me wherever.
I will. I will talk to the team. Absolutely. And I appreciate you going to dc and having our council represented in the national league of cities discussions. And, you know, it's not just an opportunity to help move the ball forward with our partnerships in at the federal level. It's also an opportunity to help bring a this larger partnership, coalition of cities together to have that shared messaging. And, and and I think our contributing to that discussion conversation at those conferences really is meaningful in helping move the country in the right direction.
My staff kind of hates it because every time I go, I come back with ideas of things that I want us to do. So I love it. Thank you so much, sam.
Appreciate you. I mean, it's also a great peer to peer place for folks to share ideas and bring back those ideas.
Thank you, councilor Smith. You are the ever ready rabbit of of this council. And we appreciate you going to dc to represent us. And just I just want to riff on your comment about the moda center. I just want to give a shout out to my own, my very own personal senator, who is also the senate president, rob wagner, for all the leadership he offered, as well as senator leber, who did a lot of the heavy lifting on the moda. And we really, really appreciate them. And everybody that helped get it past the goalpost. So thank you, sam. Thank you to your staff. They do amazing work. I know it's hard. They're all probably recuperating now from an intense month, but we'll look forward to getting your more thorough report. But thanks for just highlighting transportation today. We appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you. I need to kind of force, I think, the staff to take some time off because some of them were online on Saturday, you know, catching up on other stuff. You know, they work hard. We appreciate that.
That's I think that's common among all of us actually working on saturdays and especially PBOT staff too. So thank you, sam. We colleagues, we have just enough time for our last item. Diego, can you please read the next item.
Document number 2026 097. Vacate northeast couch street and northeast davis street west of northeast 97th avenue, subject to certain conditions and reservations. Parentheses. Hearing vac-10140.
Thank you diego, and welcome. Is it lance?
It is. Yes.
Hi. Hi. Thank you. Coming to us from the right of way, the PBOT. So this is a street vacation. It shouldn't be very complicated. It's. I think it's an effort to consolidate some properties in order to facilitate some public.
That is absolutely correct. Yes.
So why don't we just rip through these this presentation. Thanks, lance.
Thank you. So again my name is lance lindahl PBOT real property services. And before you today is a proposal to vacate two short segments of public right of way. These are northeast couch street between the I-205 freeway and northeast 97th avenue, and also northeast davis street between I-205 and northeast 97th avenue. And here's a recent aerial photo showing the area in question. I-205 and the max light rail tracks can be seen on the left hand side of the photo, and the two yellow stars mark the area that is to be vacated. Pbot recently reconstructed the adjacent portion of northeast 97th avenue, and also PBOT acquired and constructed two new segments of northeast davis street and northeast couch street, just to the east of 97th avenue, and all of this work was done through the local improvement district led process. The exhibit map shown here shows the areas to be vacated. The total size is 7450ft■!s. Pbot transportation planning is determined that all approval criteria have been met, and the Portland planning commission voted on April 8th of last year to recommend approval by city council. Upon completion of the street vacation process, the properties will revert back to the abutting property parcels, which are owned by joe westerman, and that's per the standard property reversion process for street vacations. And I'll move on to some photos here. Here you can see what 97th avenue looked like both before and after construction this past year. And these this work has made 97th avenue much more attractive for bicyclists and pedestrians. And also, the newly constructed portions of couch and davis are now open, and they provide much needed east west connections in this neighborhood. Last slide here. Photos of the areas to be vacated. The recent photos show the that the areas are currently unimproved as public rights of way, and they are used at this time by parking for local residents. Free on street parking is allowed along the adjacent portion of 97th avenue, and bike pedestrian access to the I-205 multi-use path will remain one block to the north and also one block to the south. Upon the completion of the vacation process. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time.
Well thank you. Lance, that was quick. There were beautiful photos, nice improvements. I'd like to see that happen all over the city. Not just there. If there aren't any questions, colleagues, I would like to entertain a motion to send ordinance document number 2026 097 to the full council with a recommendation to pass.
So moved second.
Thank you. Councilor Morillo has moved the ordinance document number 2026 097 to full council with a recommendation to pass. And councilor Smith has given us a second. Is there any discussion? All right. Well, the clerk, please call the roll.
If I may chair Smith briefly this or. Sorry, chair Clark, this item did allow for verbal testimony, but no one signed up.
Sorry, I skipped right over that.
No problem. We have a motion from Morillo, second from Smith. Smith?
Yes.
Koyama Lane I.
Morillo I.
Green. I Clark I with five eyes. The motion carries and the ordinance document number 2026 097 will move to the full council with a recommendation to pass.
Thank you colleagues. Thank you. Very efficient. Really appreciate that. Great great photos of wonderful work. I know that we have a couple of minutes left here on on our committee, and I know this is our last committee meeting, and I believe that dca wanted to address us in our current configuration. And I also can't see councilor Murillo's hand up. Do you want to go first?
I'll be very brief because I would much rather hear dca talk, but I just I'm feeling a little sentimental. Today is my last day on the transportation committee meeting, and it's just been such a pleasure working with you, councilor Clark. You've been a great partner in this, and getting to hear all of people's different ideas. And I'm very excited for the transportation committee to now have representation from district two. It does hurt my heart. As someone who is a transit rider, who brought that perspective here, to not be in this space anymore, but I also know the committee will be in good hands. I have zero questions about that. And to anyone watching, even though I'm not going to be on the committee, I plan to still continue championing championing bike and pedestrian infrastructure projects and making sure that all of our infrastructure is maintained to. So thanks for your time. Thanks for letting me say a little goodbye. I'm very sad about this, but I'm excited to keep seeing what you guys do moving forward.
Well, thank you councilor Morillo and my my vice chair. It's been such a pleasure to work with you. We've we've made good progress and we're not letting go of you that easily. You will be with us as we move the results of today's work to forward. We're definitely going to include you in all of that. We're not letting go of you just quite that easily. So thank you so much. Dca, would you like to say something?
Thank you, chair Clark, for the record, this is dca for public work service area. And I want to acknowledge that today is the final meeting of the transportation infrastructure committee. In its current form, it feels like an end of an era for me. Over the past year, it has been an absolute privilege working with for the public works team to work with all of you on some of the city's most influential and important infrastructure conversations. From utility discussions and major capital investments like the boulder infiltration to the vision zero safety efforts, asset management and the committee also taken up a number of important community focused items, like the plaza program and the Sellwood community center disposition, as well as the southwest jackson street renaming and chair Clark. You also have guided conversations on regional issues like the transit funding challenges and the interstate bridge project as well. And of course, cip. How can I forget cip? We are closing this chapter of this committee's work with one of the most consequential issues facing our city ensuring sustainable transportation funding for portland's future, which will include potentially funding for cip as well. I thank all of you from the bottom of my heart. Councilor Clark and vice chair Morillo and all the members of this committee for your partnership, for your thoughtful questions and continued commitment to strengthening portland's infrastructure system. And I know the committee will reconvene in April as the public works committee, and we at public works look forward to continuing this work together. We look forward to welcoming councilor Kanal and having district two representation. As he joins the committee. We will miss vice chair mario's contributions very much. But like chair Clark said, we will not let go of you so easily. We will definitely look forward to partnering with you and looking forward to your feedback overall. I also want to say the past year what I hear from staff and what I've experienced myself is this has been such a hopeful moment for portland's infrastructure, and you all in this committee have had such a huge hand to play in that and I and for that I'm grateful and thankful. We feel strong support from council for infrastructure and also from the community, and our public works teams are eager to continue delivering and doing the good work. As councilor Smith said, that keeps the city moving forward and functioning every, every day. Thank you so much for your collaboration over the past year. It's been an absolute pleasure working in the in this form of the committee. Thank you.
Thank you so much, dca. We appreciate working with you. It's been a great year. Team. Team t and I really appreciate you and lots more ahead. A lot of work to go, but thank you all very much I guess I guess it's time to adjourn. I will adjourn the meeting of the tni committee. Can I get a picture?