The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-06-03
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (18,016 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council's June 3, 2026 morning session opened with roll call and public communications on autonomous-vehicle taxi operations, the siting of a bottle-redemption facility on SE Brooklyn, a request to dedicate cannabis tax revenue to community health, the size of the city budget, and rental-assistance administration. The monthly City Administrator and CFO report covered the financial stabilization work group, litigation over the ICE facility notice of violation, Revenue Division system improvements, emergency-volunteer program expansion, and restroom access in Old Town. After the consent agenda, the council took second-reading votes on a home-ownership assistance grant appropriation of up to $667,230, a $100,000 mass-timber feasibility study, and a $2.5 million Construction Excise Tax appropriation for home-ownership development in District 2 — the last drawing debate over selecting projects outside a competitive process. First readings moved forward on sewer revenue bonds of up to roughly $238.5 million in principal, with discussion of deferred maintenance and refinancing savings, and on permit-fee schedule updates with typical increases of 5 to 9 percent. Vote outcomes are recorded in the vote ledger. The council recessed at the close of the agenda.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
Procedural episode · turns 0–8
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
0 Good morning friends. I am calling to meet to order this meeting of the Portland city council. It is Wednesday, June 3rd. Welcome to June, everybody. Keelan, can we please call the roll?
1 Good morning. Kanal. Pirtle-guiney. Ryan Koyama Lane here. Morillo. Here. Novick. Here. Clark. Here. Rain. Here. Zimmerman. Here. Avalos.
2 Smith here.
3 Dunphy.
4 Here. And can we please read the rules of decorum?
5 Thank you, council president. Welcome to 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 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. Virtual testimony. Testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls their name. Thank you.
6 Thank you very much. Colleagues, our first item is agenda approval. Are there any requests to amend the agenda to reorder items or reschedule an item to a future meeting date? Looking at my colleagues, pausing for dramatic effect, seeing no one are up. Do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? Seeing happy nods, the agenda is approved. Keelan can we please move to public communication?
7 First up, we have david gwyther.
8 Welcome and good morning. Introduce yourself for the record. And you have three minutes all your time.
9 My name is david gwyther. I am a constituent of district two, a radio cab driver and a retired teamster. My topic of conversation is the waymo taxis. They're starting doing the mapping now, from my understanding with drivers. Unfortunately, some of the drivers are not teaching the taxis or the cars how to drive properly. But that's just my observation, and I want to make sure that the council realizes that should they be allowed to actually operate their driverless taxi company, they'll be taking incredible amounts of money out of Portland. They will not be spending very little money. Technicians plug in for the electrics, but they will be taking money with them out to mountain view, california, and their owners are, of course, google and other people, including the hailing service uber. There's over 12,000 small businesses being affected. That's. Those are the people who are currently drivers, excuse me, private for hire permit holders, so that if anybody accuses somebody of upsetting business or being anti-business, we're actually pro-small business. And if you decide not to allow waymo in Portland, you'll be anti giant, huge business. They've raised over $30 billion. They could lose money indefinitely until I'm a very, very old and dead man and still be operating now. New york city went through this process. They did the mapping and the testing, but then the administration changes, and they decided not to allow waymo in new york city. Chicago will probably be end up being the same thing. From what I understand now, one of the things that if they are successful, you'll see a drop in TriMet ridership and hence a drop in TriMet workers. And I'm going to be in this next month trying to include the amalgamated transit workers union in our coalition to. Please postpone any consideration of a permit to allow waymo until there's at least a state law. And you folks could write a state law, and we could get it accepted by the state so that you have some enforcement powers right now, you don't have there's no law. There's no enforcement powers. Thank you.
10 Thank you very much for being here this morning.
11 Okay. We've had a request to switch two and three. So don jones jr, if you don't mind going next.
12 Good morning.
13 Good morning. Good morning, mayor and councilors. My name is don jones jr. I'm a resident and housing provider in abernathy and a member of the inner powell alliance. I want to start with a special shout out to our district three councilors, particularly councilor Novick, for finding the resources to repair the TriMet elevator directly across from the clinton triangle. It's been a repeat target for drug use and vandalism in recent years, placing bottle drop two blocks away will make that matter worse, not better. Context matters from what I'm about to say. Willamette week recently named the intersection of southeast 11th milwaukee the worst intersection in Portland due to frequent rail blockages. Two people died in nearby rail crossings in 2025, and this is where hundreds of canners on foot, bike and scooter are going to be directed daily, with no committed safety improvements from PBOT, ODOT or TriMet. I want to bring your attention to a letter mayor wilson sent to the Oregon beverage recycling cooperative on may 20th outlining city expectations for the people's depot at 1109 southeast brooklyn. I encourage every council member to read it. The mayor's direct brc is a primary funder, holds responsibility for safe and well-run facilities. The city will not be a party to a good neighbor agreement, but the mayor strongly recommends that brc sign one and states that persistent or unresolved issues will be referred to ground score association, or brc for remediation. The letter addresses fencing, security cameras, lighting, behavioral health funding, litter cleanup and live complaint hotline. The mayor also expresses concern that gsa's cashless payment timeline falls short of what this location will require. These are not issues associated with low impact use, and the funding picture makes it worse. We've learned that the northwest grocers association, which was required under sb 992 to co-fund this facility has withdrawn approximately $300,000 in committed funding. That money is gone before the door is open. A well written good neighbor agreement signed by responsible parties is the minimum the neighborhood deserves, but brc is refusing to sign. It concerns us to concern every council member. This facility is a good addition to the neighborhood. Why not sign. If operations will not create problems, why not sign? If obk is confident in its ability to manage impacts, why not sign? Refusal answers its own question. Until that question is resolved, the inner powell alliance is calling upon city council to take one clear step to not issue an occupancy occupancy permit for 1109 southeast brooklyn to a good neighbor. Agreement has been executed by brc drown score and property owners. The mayor set expectations. Council has the authority to make them binding. We're asking you to use this authority. Thank you.
14 Thank you very much.
15 Next up, we have karen cruz.
16 Good morning. Welcome.
17 Good morning. Good morning. Hello. Well, the mayor's not here. And council. My name is karen cruz. I'm a Portland educator, community member, entrepreneur. I'm here and co-founder of Green muse, formerly Green hop, the first hip hop dispensary, first black owned dispensary in Portland, Oregon. I'm here today to ask council to consider an amendment in on to put on the floor to dedicate a portion of the Portland cannabis revenue to fund our new community health based program. We became the first community health certified program in the state in the in the country. And we're asking for you all to use the cannabis tax to help fund this program to invest back into the cannabis industry. You guys have been using a lot of cannabis revenue funds and tax funds. As we're on the ground, taking the risks and collecting all of the tax funds for you all to use, we're just asking you guys to reinvest back into the cannabis industry in particular, to invest into this particular program. It aligns also to the new federal new classification of cannabis, us being a certified health program. And we're just asking you guys to consider that and possibly put it on the floor and use some of those cannabis tax funds to support our program. So that's pretty much it in a nutshell. And just asking you guys to consider that, especially the people that's in my district, which I represent district two. So that's it. Thank you.
18 Thank you so much.
19 Next up we have adi Smith. Adi you're muted. Adi, can you hear us?
20 I can hear you. Can you come back to me? Keelan. Can you go to the next person and then come back to me? I'm trying to get my printer to stop with this update so we can print.
21 Yeah, sure. We'll come back to adi.
22 Thank you so much.
23 Next up we have marshall mcfarland.
24 Good morning.
25 Good morning councilors. My name is marshall mcfarland. I am ghalib bin imhotep l and let me begin by saying the finger of blame is not a solution oriented tool. When I first spoke to this hall, I expressed the necessity for refining and replacing our tools. To that end, I genuinely congratulate this council for successfully restructuring the for successfully executing the structural and organizational overhaul of the city governance. That was a massive, necessary step in the right direction. However, a critical, egregious error remains unaddressed. You renovated the gubernatorial body, but you left the financial body frozen in the fitocracy numbers tell the best truths. Portland currently has a population of just 635,000. That's 28th in the country, yet currently runs under an $8.6 billion budget that's seventh highest in the country, 28 to 7. It's not a very competitive football game. Boston has a larger population and runs on just $4.8 billion. This is the result of fitocracy. Portland's accounting labyrinth intentionally shuffles the same dollars in circles, inflating our top line ledger while people starve. The budget falls short, and $120 million just plays hide and seek. As councilor Zimmerman rightly warned the administration about non-performing bureaus. When we find out that millions of dollars are not being told to the council, we will use that blunt instrument. I am here today to implore this council to use that blunt instrument, look directly at the inequity embedded in the within the current codification and statutes designed by by city leaders in direct contradiction of the rules governing their positions in office, human resources administrative rules 11.01 explicitly demands a higher standard that every city employee treat their office as a public trust. I will never present issues without offering a solution. The document that I submitted to the city council's clerk today is a start. Just the beginning to tearing away all of the confusion intentionally implemented by politicians who were, in fact, criminals parading as leaders. City council. Portland can no longer survive this fitocracy it doesn't matter who broke it, it is up to us to fix it as a community. Thank you and I love you all unconditionally.
26 Thank you so much.
27 Adi.
28 Keelan. Can you go to the next person? Then come back to me. I'm so sorry. Thank you.
29 Hey, adi. You're the last one.
30 Okay? It just printed. Just give me one second. I'm so sorry. And thank you for your time. One second.
31 Adi, how much more time do you need?
32 I'm getting it off the printer now. I apologize, thank you. Hello. My name is adi Smith. Today is Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026. I'm speaking before the Portland city council by a show of hands. I'd like to know if the city council members know that this is an elected office, or if they think that these are just jobs that they can retire from. Last month, I emailed the city council members regarding rental assistance. I asked them 11 questions regarding rental assistance. When I didn't hear back from any of them. I emailed every week of the month of may. In that final week of may, I received an email from someone at the Portland housing bureau informing me that the organization had received $5 million from the city's spring towel. I emailed Portland city Portland housing bureau's interim director and president of good in the hood quisha light. Her organization just collaborated with albina vision trust. I asked director light and the deputy director, landon gonzalez, several additional questions regarding the $5 million Portland housing bureau received. When I didn't hear back from either of them, I called director light. She didn't return my call. I also emailed city administrator lee regarding the $106 million in quote unquote, unspent and unbudgeted housing funds. I did not receive a response from city administrator lee, the Portland housing bureau and Oregon housing and community services both require that tenants have an eviction slash court case with a court number and hearing date in order to receive rental assistance. As black women. Quisha light and andrea bell both know that this requirement is detrimental to the black community, it also creates a record that will show on background checks. It also creates a public record that is available on the internet for people experiencing unemployment for any reason. But in this time, due to the trump administration's dei initiative, it creates another difficult barrier that black people must hurdle in order to obtain career opportunities. Additionally, in these evictions, attorneys and landlords
33 Are circumventing house bill 2001 in order to get them, and these democrat appointed judges are more than happy to oblige. The attorneys and landlords are legally returning rental assistance payments from these organizations. When the termination notice, the amount provided. It appears to me that there are a lot of people involved in making it appear that they are helping, when in reality they are burning the candle from both ends, or making it appear that they support ending homelessness while still ensuring that evictions occur. My grandmother used to call it talking out of both sides of your mouth. Rental assistance must cover arrears and current at an amount up to $10,000 for six months of rent. By only covering up to three months of rent, it creates the problem for both the landlord and the tenant. Oregon's black unemployment is 9% and black homelessness is over 17%. 211 needs an upgrade. And I don't believe the current director and deputy director are capable of it. 211 representatives also can't answer any of the 11 questions I've asked these elected city council members. Thank you.
34 Thank you very much for being here today.
35 That completes communications.
36 Okay. Thank you colleagues. Our next item is our June and city administrator report. Surprise cfo biery. Oh.
37 Council president.
38 Oh, hi. Councilor Avalos.
39 Apologies. I just wanted to say I am here. I didn't hear the roll call because my sound wasn't working, apparently, and I didn't realize the meeting had started. So I am present. Thank you.
40 Thank you councilor Avalos apologies for that. Item. Three colleagues. Cfo biery is sitting in for city administrator lee today. Hi, jonas. Welcome and good luck. Cfo biery will be able to give us a high level summary of the monthly cfo or c a update. We'll then move to discussion and questions. Cfo biery will answer what he can, but please anticipate that most of our questions this week will be taken back to the shop for a later written response. I also do understand that we have an update on the federal response situation, and that city attorney robert taylor is going to be giving us a higher degree of detail on that issue. Cfo biery take it away.
41 Great. Thank you, council president. Good morning, councilors. Yeah, for the record, jonas biery chief financial officer here this morning on behalf of city administrator raymond lee, to share information on the monthly report, I'll go through a few key items and then obviously can can attempt to answer questions along with the leadership team here in the room. The theme of this month's report is the foundational work of the city, and I'd like to highlight a few key items on this theme. First, Portland permitting and development celebrated may as building safety month by highlighting many of the professionals who work every day to ensure that portland's buildings are safe. Thanks to everyone citywide for the continued important efforts to ensure safe buildings across Portland. Second, the Portland clean energy community benefits fund, or pcf, has entered the fifth and final year of the cooling Portland program. That program is on track to meet its community goal of 25000 units, and doing so ahead of schedule. That effort is now shifting focus from standalone units towards more comprehensive home improvement programs. Next, highlight parks and recreation staff joined partners and volunteers for the greening wilkes stewardship event at wilkes creek headwaters in east Portland. Natural area restoration and maintenance in support of watershed health and neighborhood resilience is a core bureau function, and working in partnership with volunteers helps us do even more. And shout out to council president Dunphy for joining that event. The Portland bureau of emergency management graduated 104 new neighborhood emergency team, or net volunteers, bringing us to 1543 active and trained nets available to provide immediate disaster assistance in their neighborhoods. Until professional, professional responders can arrive on scene. Thanks to everyone involved in this critical safety program, which now exists across 81 neighborhoods citywide. And then the last couple of highlights and reminders from the front section of the report, the office of government relations, ogr, is soliciting issue proposals to inform developments of the city's 2027 state legislative agenda, with proposals due to ogr by Friday, July 17th. And thank you in advance for any and all input to that effort. And then lastly, I wanted to highlight that recruitment for the director of the office of community based police accountability ocpa that recruitment is live and open, and please consider sharing that with your network. I'd like to, before we get to an update from robert taylor, just shift momentarily and put my cfo hat back on for a quick second. There's one item that I was not able to get into the report, but wanted to make sure and use this opportunity to provide a brief update. And that's a quick update on the ongoing work for the financial stabilization and recovery plan, of which you've heard reference, I think a few times during budget conversations and in other forums. When originally visioned and discussed with council in January, I think I'd referred to as sort of an impossible dream of being able to get that work to you in may in advance of budget deliberations. And that did not happen for a variety of reasons, but happy to share that we now have a really diverse and committed group, including four representatives from the city administration side, two city councilors. Thank you to councilors Green and Zimmerman and nine citizen members of of different backgrounds and experience. We've met three times so far. A fourth meeting coming up here this week. We'll have 3 or 4 meetings throughout the summer to get that work done. I am amazed at the commitment of the community members in particular, and have been deeply inspired by sort of the shared passion of everybody in that room to drive collectively towards a financially stable and prosperous Portland, and the diversity of inputs that are coming into that, I think, will really lead to a positive outcome in that document. It was important to commit to those first few meetings, adequate time to share perspectives, to align to financial and economic realities, and review current city systems, policies and best practices. We are now shifting this week towards moving towards developing a framework around how potential recommendations might be identified, evaluated and ultimately moved forward for council. I also want to acknowledge that that work group specifically is is going to be putting in 25 to 30 hours or more by the time this work is done, and that's not the only input to the conversation. We're working with a team of interagency partners, including sort of expanded representatives around the city and around interagency partners in the region, sort of an advisory body. We're scheduling opportunities in July to work with city wide equity practitioners, and we're looking for opportunities over the summer to receive prioritized feedback from labor partners and other community representatives who aren't in that room, pushing to be ready for a formal output to council in the next few months. Likely that will be September, I think is the most reasonable time frame, which I think still is manageable, and that that can support both the mid-year budget adjustments and the fall tau technical adjustment ordinance and kind of preliminary discussions, thinking about fiscal 2728 budget development. So we'll look forward to working with council president to get on on an agenda there. We can take questions on that maybe when we're done here. But I wanted to to make that note, since we weren't able to get that update into the into the written document. And robert, if it's okay, I'll hand to city attorney for, for an update.
42 Thank you. Jonas. Robert taylor, city attorney, as you will recall, the hearings office held a two day hearing on the notice of violation at the ice facility. We were anticipating a decision by the hearings officer by June 5th. We understand the hearings officer was prepared to issue the decision by that date without notice to the city. The building owners lawyer sought and received a stay from Multnomah county circuit court. The hearings officers decision will not be issued until that stay is lifted. We believe strongly that that stay was improperly obtained and we have objected. We are working to get an expedited hearing set with the Multnomah county circuit court as soon as possible to challenge that stay, and in short, we want that stay lifted so the hearings officer can issue its decision. We'll keep you posted as this continues to evolve. And we are again trying to get in front of the Multnomah county circuit court as soon as possible to explain our position on this day.
43 And before we get to questions, just a couple more final logistical notes. Council president on the on the report. Thank you, robert, for that. I'm sure. I'm sure there's some questions, but I just wanted to finally note that new this month in the report, appendix a, which is the budget note tracker, adds brief notes about the plans for reporting on each of those budget notes from the current fiscal year 2526. As we approach fiscal year end, the closed claims excel sheet and appendix b reflects the most up to date information, including two unusually large recent settlements, which is why that number has gone up relative to last month. And in appendix f, which lists the active contracts, you'll notice a slight decrease due to being near the end of the fiscal year, when many contracts expire. Lastly, just on behalf of city administrator, proud of the work that the city does, the people of the city do this month and every month. Pleased to share the report and again, happy to answer questions if we can, or collect for follow up when celia is back. Thank you.
44 Thank you. Cfo biery vice president.
45 Clerk thank you, council president robert, can you shed a little more light or give us some insight on the nature of that? Stay? On what grounds did the property owner make that request?
46 Yeah. Thank you. Good question. They. They have asserted previously that they do not believe they would get a fair hearing in front of the hearings officer. They, I believe, wanted to file a writ in Multnomah county circuit court to preserve that issue on appeal. They went in to Multnomah county circuit court, ex parte meaning alone without us present, seeking to file that writ. As part of that process, they also sought a stay to stay. The hearings officer from even issuing an opinion that was done without our knowledge or consent. And that is the issue that we are going to contest in front of the Multnomah county circuit court.
47 Can you give us some sense of timeline?
48 We're currently as as we speak, working to get an expedited hearing scheduled in front of the court. We're hoping to get that scheduled as soon as next week.
49 And that's a question of withholding. Holding up the stay.
50 That's the question of holding up the stay. And we we're happy to litigate whatever issues the building owner wants to to raise. And they have every right to preserve their arguments for appeal. But we do not believe it's appropriate to stay the hearing officer from doing their job and issuing a decision.
51 Thank you.
52 Thank you, vice president Clark. Colleagues, any further questions for our team here?
53 Councilor Kanal thank you, council president. Thank you, everyone for being here. And thank you to cully for preparing the report. Just a couple notes for things that we might want more info on later. Would love to learn more about the lean system migration that's mentioned in there. One of the things that I get in constituent emails is how difficult the process is to, to pay bills from the revenue division, and so wanted to understand what those improvements might be so we can communicate that out to the public about what they may be experiencing. You mentioned a couple of these things, but I did want to just highlight and shout out judith mallory for winning the betsy ames leadership award this year. I appreciate the shout out to quisha light and I, the housing bureau in general, as well as as director light on her help for the amendment to the ordinance we're going to be voting on later today on williams and russell I. One of the new neighborhoods in for the net is hayden island and wanted to make sure that that folks who are will be putting this in our newsletter to. But people in hayden island are able to join that. That's been a conversation as well. And then one other thing just to say for later is because I imagine they're not necessarily here, but wanted to get more information to sort of. There's, there's a good shout out in here about the work of the human trafficking unit at pbb and wanted to understand a little bit more, maybe in a public safety committee meeting as to what the the factors were that led to the increased activity on behalf of pbb and what we can do to be supportive of that. Continuing. But I had one question that I would like to. Two for today. One is there's been reporting about the removal of a Portland loo in old town. And one of the things that we've. We've started to have a conversation, I think, around the accessibility of public bathrooms in the city and in a general sense, as well as specific to the Portland loo. But I wanted to understand kind of where that decision was made. If that was an administrative decision, mayoral decision, what exactly happened to cause us to create a sort of restroom desert in that in that area? I don't know if you happen to have any information.
54 Yeah. Councilor. Thank you for those those questions and highlights. We'll certainly get back to you. Thank you for highlighting the lean migration system. As a finance person. That's something that I care about. So I'm happy to get more information about that, as well as maybe some additional background on the human trafficking. I am not aware of any background on the loo situation. I'm not sure if a dc in the room has any intel. I don't see anyone moving, so we'll we'll just make sure we get back to you as soon as possible.
55 Great. Thanks. And then the last thing I really appreciate the addition of the notes on the budget notes, the new column on appendix a, and it was helpful for most of the notes that I've been tracking. I will note I still do not have anything on the package delivery fee, which is Kanal 13. And it's just the additional note mirrors the second to last column. They both just say the word complete. What happened there is it got rolled into a conversation at PBOT that ultimately ended up being a recommendation for the sd and the tough and. Rolling it in and then saying this was the outcome of. It doesn't give me any information on the actual thing that I was asking about, which is the package delivery fee. So I think might be worth a second glance. I don't know if there are any other notes that other folks are experiencing the same way or the same thing on where it's marked as complete, but it's, it's not, but just wanted to flag that. And I am also really interested in hearing more on Green 12 next time, which is the anti-displacement task force. I think there's some. I appreciate the way in which there's been conversation with sponsors. I also know that from the budget process, there were other councilors involved in a lot of these notes, or just other councilors, or maybe didn't work on it, but are very interested in the outcome of it because they saw, well, one of my colleagues is putting it up. I'm going to vote for it. And it passed. That doesn't mean I need my name on it, but I still want to know what's going on with it. So thank you.
56 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor.
57 Ryan thank you, president Dunphy. Good to see you. Jonas. A couple things. One is a little micro, so I apologize for that. But I see that the there's a July 17th is scheduled to go to grand ronde, a visit between government to government. And I don't know how anyone from the council could attend that since it's on a Wednesday. So that that made me disappointed. And I did that a couple times in her two years ago, I think, or three years ago was very helpful. So it's so much about building relationships. And I do see why the mayor's prioritized. I'm not making a comment against that. I just hope that we could consider a different date so more of us could attend, or we reschedule the 17th so some of us could attend. But it's very important that we lift the government to government relations. That goes beyond the mayor when it comes to working with our native American community. The second one, I appreciate what councilor Kanal said. I, I got there halfway while you were presenting. It was the first thing you mentioned, but it was about the interstate bridge. Oh, was it okay? I'm just going to say how important it is that we include hayden island and the neighbors, the neighbors, and the north reach of our city. Anytime we have dialog about the interstate bridge, I feel like that's they've been they've been short changed for a long time in that part of town. And so it's really important in this process that we make sure that we advocate stronger for them. I want to give a shout out and a thanks to the granting reports, I think the federal grant information is so much easier to digest now, and I appreciate that. I think that I hope that the outgoing grants program can get that same level of information so that we can have a better understanding of that. I have always been on broken record about having more of our granting being results based, and we need to know what, in fact, what data they're choosing to move, what they're measuring. And I just want to stop the practice of having less accountability for the money that goes out from taxpayers. And then at our local philanthropic institutions that do giving. So I've always said, you know, meyer memorial trust has a better accountability system than much of the granting that we do at the city. I, of course, want to acknowledge the Portland children's levy. And now staff who have systems in place that have that type of accountability. And I appreciate that. Thank you.
58 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, you are also always welcome to send additional questions either to the city administrator or directly to cfo biery right now. Councilor Kanal last word.
59 Just just had a question that the info that you were saying we were going to get more from earlier on, is that going to be in a public setting for you mentioned there's some more information coming, or is that going to be something that we're going to get in a council briefing?
60 The information that I was saying was going to come later was what? What city attorney?
61 Oh, you meant immediately. Yeah. Great. Awesome. Thank you so much.
62 Yeah. All right. Keelan, can we please move to the consent agenda?
63 No items have been pulled from consent today, and I'll call the roll call to approve the consent agenda. Kanal. I pirtle-guiney I Ryan. I Koyama Lane I Morillo I Novick I Clark I Green Zimmerman I pavlos. I Smith. I Dunphy. I the consent agenda is approved with a vote of 12 eyes.
64 All right, colleagues, we have fun for the next couple of minutes here. We have three second readings in a row. Can we please move to item number eight?
65 Document 2026-180. Appropriate grant award for home ownership assistance program. Veterans restore health and safety and down payment assistance for up to $667,230.
66 Colleagues. This is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. We had a presentation on this last, I guess it was last week. Is there any discussion? For seeing no one in the queue? Keelan can we please call the roll on item number eight?
67 Kanal I.
68 Pirtle-guiney I.
69 Ryan I.
70 Koyama Lane I Morillo I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. Councilor Smith.
71 I I. Dunphy can you hear me? Okay.
72 Thank you. Councilor I.
73 The ordinance passes with a vote of 12 ayes.
74 Can we please read the next item?
75 Item nine document 2026-181 appropriate grant for pilot mass timber feasibility study for $100,000.
76 Colleagues. This is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Is there any discussion? Thank you. And to my colleagues online ask as we do the roll call vote. Please turn your cameras on so our clerk knows you're here. Keelan, can we please call the roll?
77 Kanal I.
78 Pirtle-guiney I.
79 Ryan I.
80 Koyama Lane I Morillo I Novick.
81 I.
82 Clark. I Green. A Zimmerman I Avalos I Smith. I Dunphy. I the ordinance passes with a vote of 12 ayes.
83 Thank you. And can we please read item number ten?
84 Document 2026-182. Appropriate $2,500,000 from the construction excise tax sub fund 225020 for home ownership development in district two.
85 This is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Colleagues, is there further discussion? Counselor Avalos.
86 Thank you for this opportunity. I didn't say anything last time, so I wanted to take a few moments, moments now to do that. I know that there has been some confusion about where I stand on this ordinance, and so I want to take a minute to explain where I'm coming from. From the beginning, my concern was never whether communities of color deserve investments or not. They do. My concern was always about how we make these decisions. As housing chair, I've spent the last year trying to build systems that are transparent, scalable and equitable systems where organizations know how to access resources, and where counsel is not put in the position of selecting individual projects for funding outside of established processes. That concern has not changed. I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that versions of these project allocations appeared in broader housing conversations earlier this year, including in keep Portland housed, and the reality is that those discussions reflected compromises among competing viewpoints as we work to build a larger housing package. But my preference has always been the same creating fair pathways to investments rather than making project by project funding decisions at council. Over the course of this debate, I've heard from many community members who deeply care about these projects, and I've also heard from many others organizations and community leaders asking why their project wasn't included. People doing important work who never knew these dollars were even available, people wondering why some projects were selected while others never even had the opportunity to be considered. And that is exactly why process matters to me. Not because these projects lack merit, not because the organizations involved aren't doing important work, but because I don't have a fair way to evaluate them against the many other worthy projects that never had the same opportunity. I also want to acknowledge something that has been very difficult about this conversation. At times. This debate moved beyond the merits of the proposal itself, and people's commitment to communities of color was questioned. Identity became part of the debate. Relationships were damaged, and I really think that's unfortunate. I am proud to be black. I am proud to be latina. I have spent my career fighting for communities that have historically been excluded from power, investment and opportunity. And nothing about this debate changes that. And what has been hardest for me is not disagreement. Disagreement is part of this job. What has been hardest is watching communities getting pitted against one another, watching questions about governance become questions about identity, and watching people conclude that if someone disagrees with a process, they must be opposed to the community that benefits from it. And I reject that. My disagreement was never with the community members who showed up to advocate. It was with the process. I also want to acknowledge something that has made this conversation particularly difficult for me at this point. I know there are people who already have decided what my vote means even before I've cast it. If I vote no, some people are going to conclude that I don't support investment in black communities and communities of color. If I vote yes, some people will conclude that I'm endorsing the process that got us here. The reality is that neither of those things is true. I have spent my entire career fighting for communities that have been excluded from power, investment and opportunity. And that work didn't start when I was elected to council, and it will not end here. At the same time, I have been spending the last year working to build systems that are more transparent, more equitable, and more accountable than the ones that we inherited, because I don't believe our community should have to choose between investment and good governance. I don't believe communities should have to choose between equity and transparency. And I do not believe that raising concerns about process should be treated as opposition to the people who would benefit. Our communities deserve better than that. We fought hard to create a government where more voices could be represented. We fought hard to move beyond a system where a handful of people made decisions behind closed doors, and we fought hard so that people like me, and many others who have historically been left out of these conversations could have a seat at the table. And so with that representation comes responsibility. And my responsibility is not just to advocate for communities that have been overlooked. It's also to help build systems that will continue serving those communities long after any individual councilor is gone. One of my major concerns throughout this discussion was the funding source. And last week, council adopted an amendment that addressed that concern and move these dollars away from a funding source of social housing that I did not believe should be used for this purpose. And so I appreciate that change. But the broader concerns I've raised about the process remain, and that's what makes this decision difficult for me, because because I can recognize that the value that the supporters see in these investments, while also believing that the way we arrived here is not a model I want council to repeat. And so what I hope that we take away from this debate is that Portland needs better systems, because the work in front of us is much bigger than these individual allocations. Just yesterday in housing committee, we were talking about building our unified housing strategy. We're discussing renter protections and home ownership. We're discussing preservation, housing production, social housing anti-displacement strategies, and we're talking about millions and millions of dollars in future housing investments and thousands of portlanders who need housing stability and opportunity. And so that is the work that I'm focused on. Lastly, I want to the organizations that supported this ordinance to know something. I hear you, I hear your frustration with the existing systems. I hear the lack of trust, and I hear the desire for investment. And I'm committed to continuing the work of building systems that create more opportunities, not fewer systems that are bringing more communities, more organizations. Apologies to the table, not fewer. And systems that don't require communities to fight each other for exceptions because the pathway to investment is clear, transparent and accessible. That is the housing system I came here to build, and that's the work I intend to continue, regardless of what happens with the vote today. Thanks for your time.
87 Thank you, councilor Avalos. Councilor Morillo.
88 Thank you, president Dunphy. I had a lot to say on this, but honestly, I think that councilor Avalos covered all of it. And I want to thank you, councilor Avalos, for speaking on this, because I know that you have taken the brunt of the pain of this discussion in extremely unfair ways, and had your integrity questioned in ways that it shouldn't have been, because we know that you have been here fighting for for portlanders, and to make sure that there is equity across the board. So I just wanted to say that up front. Last year, our city council showed that we were ready to make a historic vote with an $8.6 million settlement for descendants of albina. And we have commitments here to do restorative justice work and to repair the harms that city councils have done that past governments have done, and that we are going to continue to do until we change and repair these systems. And there are no easy answers for how we go about doing this work. That's the reality of it. So when there were projects that came to us to fund developments with little to no information, with no pro forma, I voted no across the board, whether it was for the broadway corridor or hacienda or any other organization, because I think that we need to do our due diligence to look into how and when we are granting these dollars. If council is going to act as a grant making body, we need to have all the same information that a grant giving body would have. And the housing bureau getting to see the pro forma after we vote doesn't change that, because at the end of the day, it's going to be our names and our votes attached to things. So if it turns out that the pro forma, there's something wrong with it, we have already voted publicly to support something. And that puts us in a very strange and politicized position. Without an established process for how these grant dollars go out to community organizations, we are leaving out other organizations that wanted these dollars as well. A question I've honestly been wrestling with is if a different black led organization came to me with concerns and said, why were we passed over while this organization wasn't, I would not be able to tell them why one organization got funding over the other, because we had no transparent or competitive process. And without an established process, there is no guarantee that these dollars are going to be getting into hands of community members in the future. It is going to be based on the whims of whoever is sitting in these seats. That is not a process. We need to have one that actually centers both equity and equality. And if there are issues with how grant dollars are given out at the city of Portland, because historically those have not gone to these communities, then we need to make sure that we address that through a policy process that includes these community members. I am also this was very difficult because things like social housing were pitted against these housing development projects, and they did not have to be. We had numerous councilors bring not one, but two different options to change the funding source of this. And I'm very grateful that the city council chose not to pit social housing against black development because it was completely unnecessary. And now the city is going to get to keep both, and both are going to help black, latino and indigenous community members who can't afford to live in the city of Portland. So I am grateful to my colleagues for making that change. I have been clear and consistent in all of my votes about what I need in order to give out grant dollars, and I am committed to working with community members who are impacted by this to change our grant making process, to update it. If there are issues with equity and equality in how we are giving out those dollars. So this is a very difficult vote, and I am grateful to councilor Avalos for the work that she has done with community, and we have discussed this at length, and we're dedicated to working with people to make sure that these processes are actually settled in the future, so that communities aren't pitted against one another, organizations aren't pitted against one another, and that the important work of getting housing to portlanders gets done. So thank you.
89 Thank you, councilor Morillo councilor Smith.
90 Thank you. Thank you.
91 Council president. I would just like to urge all of of my colleagues to support this underlying. Ordinance. I've tried to get this through every since January, and I was cut off in February, and it was permanently tabled indefinitely. And that's why I fought so hard. I joined the slow the flow as a co-sponsor, because I thought it really meant that it was going to give folks housing who were being evicted, people who would be able to develop housing. Those dollars would go to them, and that effort was cut short because the same councilors who say they want to process, they said they would refuse to support broadway corridor. They have not spoken about broadway corridor to the length that they have spoken about these black developers. And that's the problem I have. I have a problem when these black developers were put in the underlying. In councilor, Novick dropped an amendment to take them out. That was wrong. And he apologized for that, and I accepted his apology. So if you look at the charter, we're not granters. I wouldn't minimize my work. We are appropriators and policy makers. I am very proud of this ordinance. I will support it and stand on this hill about what we did to not support our community based development organizations. I don't have to give you a long speech about who I am. I'm a black woman. I'm a single parent. I'm a grandparent. But most of all, I'm looking at a 300 zero foot level look at these issues. And it is a shame because we don't have one project I can fight for in district one. We are the most vulnerable district as it relates to housing than any other district. So I thank you. I thank councilor Kanal for coming up with a funding source that would be helpful to get this passed, and I'm thankful. I am proud of this project. I will stand ten toes down supporting this project, and I urge all of my councilors to do the same. Thank you.
92 Thank you, councilor Smith.
93 Councilor Kanal thank you, council president. I appreciate everyone's comments today. I'll be supporting this ordinance today. I've come to realize in other issue areas that although sometimes we don't partner on proposals that are in the same issue, areas where they pass with different coalitions, the way portlanders experience the outcomes of these decisions is, as a package, is that hears all of what the city is doing, hears all of what the council is doing. And although people disagree about parts of it, the way in which we've handled this round of housing decisions are going to be experienced by the public and the staff as one package of activity. And so I want to start by obviously thanking those who are involved in this ordinance, but also everyone who's really helped shape the conversations we've been having on this since, I guess, the just after the discovery of these dollars back in November. And so for this ordinance, that's councilor Smith, that's co-sponsors Clark pirtle-guiney Ryan and Zimmerman on the amendment. That's councilors murillo and council president Dunphy, and obviously councilor Avalos as chair of the housing committee and the lead sponsor of this resolution and all of that conversation that has kind of contextualized a lot of this. And that's really important to remember, that there's going to be different parts of this, and often we experience each part of that differently. So for this ordinance, as we've heard many times from many of my colleagues, black homeownership is a critical part of narrowing the racial wealth gap. The data we saw and have heard already from 2020, the gap in homeownership between black and white Americans was 29%, which is higher, the highest that the census ever recorded, higher than in 1960, higher than in 1900. We know that this reflects a system and set of decisions made in many cities and many states, and nationally, exclusionary policies that are working exactly as they're designed to do. And as a result, we have to take intentional action to combat those and make a more equitable system here. And so I believe that this policy choice will join with other policy choices we've made in the past at the city, like the north and northeast preference policy, to remedy past harms, as well as expand homeownership opportunities. And so I'll be proud to support it today. And I think that we can continue to prevent further displacement and expand more equitable access to homeownership by not only producing more affordable housing, but producing more permanently affordable housing, which is why this amended ordinance preserves the city's planned investments in social housing. And so for those, especially the editorial boards out there who think we can't compromise this legislation represents how council can listen to community and to each other, and to work towards compromises, instead of getting mired in false binaries like social housing or investment in black communities. Portlanders deserve both. We can have both. And the primary limitation to us doing so has always been the scarcity mindset that it can only be one or the other. The financial limitations are real, but they are hurdles, not walls. And so we're going to need to both create the 87,000 additional units we're expected to need by 2045, while simultaneously growing a more equitable housing ecosystem. And I think that this is a good step towards that. And I'm looking forward to continued collaboration with my colleagues to restore, restore, sorry, to pursue restorative policy approaches, remove barriers that have shut portlanders, in particular black portlanders, out from opportunities and make affordable, high quality housing a reality for every portlander. Thank you.
94 Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Pirtle-guiney.
95 Thank you, council president and councilor Kanal. Thank you for saying so clearly that this was not a binary, that these two issues should not be pit against each other. The projects we are hopefully going to approve today were in a draft of some of our earlier housing work. They came out to create a broader fund, and that fund was not a social housing fund that anybody tried to dig these into. Out of nowhere, there was a fund created so that we had a revolving loan opportunity for future projects. And the language actually specifically talks about social housing and other critical projects. It is not just social housing, it is for projects in the future where we need a revolving loan fund. But when we did that, we were taking the money away from a number of projects that the committee had previously considered funding. So this idea that these two things were artificially pit against each other, no, we're not we're not buying that, folks. And we need to be honest about the conversation here. I appreciate that, councilor Smith, you stayed at the table to get these proposals back. They were taken out. We got them back because they are critical for community. I appreciate councilor Kanal that you stepped up to find a compromise. That's the type of work that we need to do more of around this dais. So thank you to the two of you, and I am proud to have been a partner on this work from the start. We should be doing everything we can to make sure that homeownership is a choice for every black portlander in district two. But councilor Smith, your point about your district is well taken across the city, and today is a step getting there. I look forward to voting yes. Thank you, council president.
96 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Green.
97 Thank you, council president. I'll just start by saying I. I plan to support this today and I look forward to taking that vote. I appreciate the. The amendment that brought the compromise that was that was a good step forward, I think, for this body. I just want to clarify something for the record on broadway corridor in particular, because we did hear a lot of testimony, and I think it's right for the community to wonder, okay, why did we fund broadway corridor with this package and not this other thing? I just want to make it very clear I had opposed broadway corridor. It's in my own district, and I had opposed it when it was part of the broad, fungible set of money. And I said, I don't think I can support a project whose pro forma I have not seen, which I cannot confirm what the volume of developer profits are as part of that stack. It seemed to be almost entirely public money to a private firm. That's a problem for me. And so when we got to the place of like, how do we get this thing moving along this body as a whole to get us towards something that could be passed and appropriated? I had identified the west side tif district fund as being an appropriate fund that is restricted to that geographic location, to be the source of funding for this project, and not the money that would go towards rent assistance, not the money that would go towards these other things that led to the revolving loan fund and so on and so forth. And so I just want to be clear that I was only supportive of the broadway corridor project, because there was existing tif district resources that could be devoted towards that project. It's still I still have open questions about how much the public sector is going to foot the bill for private profits on that project, and I think that's something that this body must always look at, but I'll leave it there. I I'm ready to close the chapter on this, this saga and, and move to a vote on this.
98 Thank you. Thank you, councilor Green, councilor Smith, last word.
99 Thank you, council president, for giving me the last word. And I would be remiss in not mentioning this, but I want to say thank you to councilor Eric Zimmerman, because you actually put this in first in December. And you thought enough about communities across the city, particularly black communities, who have a very low home ownership rate, and thought that that would be important because you actually put it in first, and we added it to slow the flow to to bring some continuity. But I want to thank you. It is not lost on me that you were not able to have your ordinance heard, but I thank you for supporting the ordinance. And I thank you for black Portland and those future homeowners like myself. I know the biggest thing that got me out of poverty, raising a young son was my first purchase of a home. And that's, that's where it starts. And if I can give others who look like me, who are in underserved communities, the same opportunity that I had. So thank you for for doing that.
100 Thank you. Councilor Smith. Seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we please call the roll?
101 Kanal I.
102 Pirtle-guiney I.
103 Ryan I.
104 Koyama Lane I Morillo no. Novick I Clark I Green. I Zimmerman I Avalos.
105 No.
106 Smith I.
107 Dunphy aye.
108 The ordinance passes, as amended, with a vote of ten ayes and two nos.
109 Thank you very much. Keelan can we please call item number 11?
110 Document 2026-165 authorized sewer revenue bonds to finance sewer system capital improvements for an amount sufficient to produce net proceeds of up to $235 million and to refund outstanding sewer revenue bonds.
111 This is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. We have claire adamzik here from council operations to give us a committee staff summary report.
112 Thank you, council president and councilors for the record. Claire adams, council policy analyst and staff to the public works committee. The ordinance, before you document number 2026-165, was heard in the public works committee on may 26th, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass the ordinance authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds pursuant to ors two. 87, a point 150, in an amount sufficient to provide net proceeds of up to $235 million to pay for system improvements to the city sewer system, plus additional amounts required to fund bond reserves to pay capitalized interest and cost related to the financings. The total principal amount of revenue bonds required for these services is not estimated to exceed. Is estimated to not exceed 238.5 million. Bonds authorized by the ordinance are special obligations of the city, payable solely from the city sewer system revenues. The ordinance also authorizes the issuance of refunding bonds pursuant to applicable Oregon statutes, to refinance any revenue bonds issued in accordance with the ordinance, provisions to provide interim financing and if conditions warrant to refinance any of the city's outstanding sewer revenue bonds to obtain debt service savings or achieve a favorable reorganization of outstanding bonds. Finally, the ordinance describes the actions that may be taken upon passage and the effective date of the ordinance by the authorized officer on behalf of the city and without further council action. The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement. No verbal or written testimony was submitted on this item prior to committee action on the 26th, and that concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
113 Thank you very much, claire. Vice president Clark, this came out of your committee. Any comments?
114 Thank you. Council president, I would just like to take this opportunity to remind people that we've got a $6.7 billion backlog in maintenance in our sewer and stormwater system, and about 2.7 billion of that and the sewer system are are facilities in poor or very poor condition. I just want to put that out there. So this is a relatively small amount. When you look at what our backlog is. This is a relatively small sale. It's a normal process that we do this on a regular basis and, and including refinancing old bonds. So I just want to put that out there because, you know, I care about asset management and this is just a drop in the stormwater sewer bucket.
115 Thank you. Vice president Clark keelan. Has anyone signed up for this item?
116 No one signed up.
117 Okay, colleagues, we are in technical or clarifying questions, and we have staff here from our public works service area. And we're also here for council discussion. So. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
118 Thank you, council president. I actually have some questions on the fiscal side, and I'm not sure if those should go to our cfo, perhaps. I want to understand if this is a sale on a regular cadence. If we have other bonds that are expiring at the same time and get a picture of whether this is adding to our total debt, replacing other debt that is coming off the books. It just kind of how this fits with our larger debt service picture, the amount of money we spend every year on debt service, and how this fits within our broader debt capacity picture, how much room we have for bonding. And I know we're. Not at full capacity, but definitely have to be aware of the limitations to our bonding capacity. Can you help me understand both of those sides?
119 Yeah. Thank you, councilor, for the question. For the record, cfo jonas biery. Also in the room is debt manager, who can help me out if I if I need to phone a friend. But so. I'll attempt to answer all your questions. Let me know if I if I miss any. But yes, this is a regular kind of cadence of borrowing for the utility systems. You know, typically in the absence of sort of extremely large projects, as we've experienced in the water water system, those utility systems are on sort of a case of every couple of years doing a borrowing to meet the capital needs capital expectations for that next couple of years. And so this is consistent with that, with that typical cadence we do. We do, of course, pay bonds off every every year. We have annual payments that so so we have outstanding bonds. And as those new bonds come on, sometimes they create a little spike. But over time, you know, we're paying off other series of bonds that are outstanding. I'm looking at the presentation that's attached to the item. And you can see a little bit of that on page ten of the presentation, where you can see the tailing off of that debt service as that as that bar chart goes down is the ongoing payments. We will, over time, of course, issue new bonds that will start to fill, fill some of that up. And the goal is to keep it somewhat somewhat level. And then the last question on debt capacity, just a reminder that the sewer system and the water system are sort of closed systems from a borrowing perspective. And so the borrowings that we incur related to the utilities are not completely isolated from sort of general fund credit, right. The general fund, for example, moody's credit assessment looks at all city wide debt. And so it does have some impact into that, into that calculus. But generally, from a security perspective, those are closed systems. And so the capacity we have is based upon sort of the revenue that's generated. And because we are paying things off as we're issuing new things, we essentially keep that manageable.
120 So this stays within that keep us even essentially place. And can you remind me, I was trying to find it within the. Within the text of the ordinance itself. And I'm just missing it right now. What is the bond period for these bonds.
121 For the record, matt manager it's a 30 year term, which is standard industry standard for sewer systems.
122 Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, council president.
123 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Ryan.
124 Yes, thank you, president Dunphy. I think I know the answer to these questions, but I think they're good ones to daylight. And you've given us a lot of caution lately for the right reason on a lot of our reserves being going below the floor of 15%. I recall the number correct. But since water and sewers are restricted account, which I do think to earlier testimony, that is one reason our city looks odd in terms of our budget, because some cities have separate utilities such as water and sewer, and don't count them in their city budget. But my point is, will this have an impact on our bond rating?
125 I can answer that. So the.
126 Equation that connects these restricted accounts to the bond rating you spoke to last week.
127 So there's no direct linkage to the bond rating. The sewer system has its own bond ratings. And I believe it was an impact statement that we're still penciling out to be within the credit rating range that we are currently in with these bonds.
128 And so councilor, I might just also add, because it's a good observation that there are, you know, reserves systems that are within those utility systems as well. Right? And so the same type of calculus we do, the 15% that we've talked about before relative to the general fund, there's sort of a similar calculus. The math and, and benchmarks are a little bit different because they're different systems, but within the utility systems, they also have expectations around reserves and fund balance that are important to keep an eye on as we issue these bonds as well.
129 And we're. Not borrowing to go below 15% anywhere within that system.
130 I don't recall. It's a different it's a different calculus. The 15% general fund limit is a different, you know, risk matrix than it is for the utilities. And so I believe the utility system is actually a little bit higher expectation.
131 It's measured on a matter of days, cash on hand. So if you look at the daily operating expenses, you divide the reserves by that number and that gives you a ratio. And that's what the rating agencies look at is like a financial ratio of days cash on hand. So we're within the normal range for the aye, Morillo double a middle double a credit rating of the sewer system.
132 Glad I hung in there for the close. Yeah. Thank you. That was very comforting. Appreciate it.
133 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Councilor Avalos.
134 Yes, thank you. Just first wanted to say, you know, reliable sewer and stormwater infrastructure, as we know, is really essential to our public infrastructure, and delaying maintenance only increases costs in the future. So I am aware of that. That's weighing on me. I understand the need to invest in critical sewer system upgrades and maintain compliance with environmental and regulatory requirements. At the same time, whenever we take on additional debt that will ultimately be paid through utility rates, I just want us to understand the affordability impacts on Portland households, especially considering the bond council recently passed for the water filtration plant. So as we continue discussing utility rates across these multiple bureaus, I just want to make sure we're balancing infrastructure needs with the financial pressures that residents are facing. So I have a couple of questions, starting with how much of this borrowing is addressing deferred maintenance versus new infrastructure?
135 Thank you so much for the question. For the record, I'm ting lu, public utilities director. I want to say that most of this are really addressing our aging infrastructure, this borrowing, including carolina trunk sewer, that is happening right away. And then we also have a blower project in the treatment plant that is really addressing the aging, the treatment plant capacity there. So most of them are really about aging infrastructure. We don't have any new investment like a big regulatory drivers like water utility have.
136 Thank you for that answer. Also, could you tell me the ordinance mentions potential refinancing savings? So if those savings are realized, how will that benefit ratepayers?
137 I don't have the exact details of the rate impact on the sewer stormwater rates, but the total savings over. I can check my notes, but the total savings is around $16 million of interest savings total over the bond term. Of what? The series of bonds that we're targeting. So I think it's around a bit over $1 million per year of savings during that bond term.
138 So is there a plan to return those savings back, or is that just if we get savings, we just put it in some pot and keep using it kind of thing. Like is there any opportunity that savings will result in lowering rates for ratepayers?
139 Yeah. Councilor, this is cfo biery. It's a great question. So typically what happens is that, you know, as the bureau and this would be true for the water bureau as well as they formulate their rate forecast that after a refunding occurs. And we know that in this example, $1 million less of debt service is required to be paid that flows into that forecast. So if nothing else changed in the forecast, and we only reduced our future payments by $1 million, then those rate requirements would be reduced by $1 million as well. For for the subsequent subsequent year rate increases.
140 Okay. And then lastly, what impact would you all believe there would be if, well, like, will this borrowing have on future suing sewer rate increases beyond those already anticipated? Like is do you have a sense of what that impact would look like?
141 We I can take this on first. It's a. We already built into this. The borrowings as part of the future rate for the next ten years. So there is this. And incorporations into the projections. And then we also model this. So we are also looking to the future rate study too. So I want to say for the next few years we already projected. But we are committed to continue looking to how to reduce rates for the future.
142 Thank you. And director, you know, we had this conversation a few months ago that it's just been really I've heard from my constituents. It's just been really challenging for folks to get the savings to navigate the systems. I know that the bureau has been working on making those things accessible. I would like to see us put more emphasis to on increasing language access. Many of my constituents who do not speak english as a first language, have reached out for their concern of accessing resources at the city, and especially as costs are rising, and especially for immigrant communities who are being squeezed even further due to federal, you know, cutting off of resources to them. I just think it's more important that we emphasize and and put some more effort into our efforts to reach those communities. So I just wanted to put that on the record that we really need to do more on that. And, you know, I think we're obviously discussing as a as a council over the last couple of weeks, just all of these different rates and how they're impacting taxpayers. And it's very concerning. I know that we're put in this bind, but I think also, as we're ending this budget, we're getting close to ending this budget process. I want to see us as a council think immediately, once the ink dries on this budget, what it looks like to start piecing it apart and really, truly finding savings so that we can reduce costs to portlanders. So just wanted to put that on the record. But I appreciate this effort. I understand the responsibility before us to make these changes, and I just want to voice those concerns of portlanders.
143 Thank you.
144 Thank you, thank you, councilor Avalos. Councilor Green.
145 Thank you, mr. President. I'm going to be supportive of the bond issuance today. And I just thought I'd take a second to explain why I'm supportive of these and maybe not why I was like initially, actually, I don't think I voted yes on the bull run five, 25 million series, but I just wanted to make it clear to my colleagues, if you look at page ten of the presentation that's included as part of the item we talked through in the committee. It's got the projected sewer system, revenue bonds. Maybe I'll just share my screen and make it easier. Yeah. Here we go. Yeah. So that's that just shows. So the blue bars are the it's a little small. Maybe try to help that out. The blue bars are the impact of the bonds under consideration. And the black bars are the existing bonds. And so the big takeaway here is that this bond issuance will allow us to make the necessary investments that we need to in the carolina trunk system, as well as the broader wastewater system. And what you'll see is, yes, there's a slight uptick over the next few years, but generally speaking, we're retiring these bonds over the next few decades with a projected sewer stormwater rate increase as a result of this at 4.3%, I think annualized that is just slightly higher than the sort of generally accepted long run rate of inflation. But for infrastructure, that's, I would argue, pretty low as a cost pressure rate of return. And so I think, councilor Ryan, you've raised a couple of times is like my north star is are we raising our costs greater or less or even with the rate of inflation? I think that's a good metric. This is in line with the rate of inflation for infrastructure projects. But generally speaking, this will help us build out the densification that we need in the city of Portland to support a growing population, which is the thing that will allow us to lower our combined water and sewer rates over time. If we can build more densely, we can support the infrastructure of that density. That's the only way we're going to be able to lower the the general cost of our infrastructure without directly subsidizing it from other sort of less restricted funds. And so I felt an obligation to articulate that, because I have been very splashy in opposing certain bonds on one part of the system and, and others here. I just want to be fair and consistent there. And so this is going to be a good issuance. We're going to be able to take advantage of favorable interest terms relative to the existing series. This will save ratepayers money. I, I echo the broader concerns about, you know, making sure that we are always asking the question, how are we doing cost control. I have a lot of confidence in director liu. I have a lot of confidence in dca that they're taking that cost control frame very seriously. And for that reason, I'm going to support these bonds here today. Thank you.
146 Thank you, councilor Green colleagues seeing no one else in the queue, this is the first reading of a non emergency ordinance. This item now moves to second reading. Keelan can we please call item number 12.
147 Document 2026-152. Amend Portland permitting and development fee schedules to improve cost recovery to ensure an adequate level of service.
148 Joining us again is claire adamczyk with council operations with a committee staff summary report. Take it away, claire.
149 Thank you, council president and councilors again for the record. Claire adamson, council policy analyst and staff to the housing permitting committee. The ordinance before you document number 2026-152, was heard in the housing and permitting committee on may 5th, where it was referred to full council with recommendation to pass. It amends the Portland permitting and development or pa fee schedules as shown in exhibits a through q. The fee schedule reflect increases to fiscal year 2020 627 fees as follows 9% to building mechanical environmental review, urban forestry review and water review fees 5% to electrical field issuance remodel land use services, neighborhood inspections, plumbing sign site development and zoning enforcement fees 26% to accessory short term rental fees, 41% to noise variance fees and 34% to transportation review fees. The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts, economic and real estate development impacts and analysis, and community impacts, and community involvement. No verbal or written testimony was submitted on this item prior to committee action on may 5th. And that concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
150 Thank you very much, claire. Councilor Avalos, this came out of your committee.
151 Yeah. Thank you. So the proposed fee adjustments are intended to support the bureau's cost recovery model and ensure that pa can continue providing permitting inspection and development review services. Fee increases. Increases vary by program area, with most fees increasing between 5 and 9%. While some specialized services such as accessory, short term rental permits, noise variances and transportation reviews would see larger adjustments at. Committee members had a robust discussion about how permit costs and processing times affect portland's competitiveness. As a place to build housing and invest in development. We also discussed the bureau's fee waiver programs, staffing impacts, and the proposed budget, restrictions on how fee revenues
152 Is can be used, and the ongoing transition of the tree permitting program into pnd. Committee members asked questions about impacts on projects of different sizes, affordability for applicants, and how these changes fit within broader efforts to improve permitting performance and customer service. After discussion, the committee voted unanimously to recommend this ordinance to the full. That's my report.
153 Thank you.
154 Thank you. Councilor Avalos vice president Clark.
155 Thank you, council president. I just have a question about the accessory short term rental fees. I assume that's airbnb and I don't know who all the others are, but I don't know if this is a question to staff or to who this goes to. But I know in the past I seem to recall that there were issues around compliance in airbnb, and I'm wondering if these fees are going to allow us to provide more oversight in this program. Could you address that? Possibly. Thank you.
156 Good morning council. For the record, my name is Eric couch. I'm the director of pnd and I'm sorry, councilor, can you repeat the question, please?
157 Sure. I was just asking about the 26% to accessory short term rental fees. I assume that's airbnb and other short term rentals. And I was just wondering because I, I just seem to recall in the past that there's been some controversy over our lack of oversight on those permits or those, those businesses. And I just wondered if this fee increase is going to allow us to have more oversight on, on these programs, these short term rentals.
158 So these fee increases are about are about maintaining our current level of service. However, specifically with accessory short term rentals, we are looking at improving that program to provide more oversight. And that's something that we are actively working on now.
159 So does that mean that means that you would attribute some of this increase to providing that additional oversight? Okay. That's really all I wanted to know. Thank you.
160 You're welcome.
161 Thank you, vice president Clark. Hold. Sorry, colleagues, before I get to full discussion, has anyone signed up to testify on this item?
162 No one signed up.
163 Okay, great. We are in full discussion, then. Colleagues. Counselor Zimmerman.
164 Thanks. So it was noted that some demand has gone down right as a fee based structure, right? That's how you make your revenue. So with that, what things? I guess from a supply and demand perspective, what where have we reduced the level of service in order to meet the level of demand? Because given that you are a fee based service, the risk here is that you have a number you always have to meet in order to keep the bureau alive and operating, but without the we're not going to do this anymore because it's not a thing that's that's required or in demand by the public. So how where have you reduced staff or reduced programs so that this is not about keeping a certain number of folks on the payroll, but it is about those who are necessary to do the work that we're keeping up with what it takes to just do that. So I'm just wondering about where we've given.
165 Right. So what's interesting about the market conditions right now is we're seeing less larger high value commercial projects, but we're seeing relatively the same amount of permit volume. And actually, we're seeing an increase in smaller residential projects like alterations, additions, remodels, things like that. And what's what's really interesting is a lot of folks think that the time it takes to review those smaller projects is a lot less than the larger commercial projects. And that's actually not always the case. Those smaller residential projects, typically those are customers that don't have design professionals assisting them. So it, you know, it requires more staff time to assist those customers. So where I'm going with this is that we're actually seeing roughly the same volume of work coming in. So work staying the same. It's just our revenue. The revenue that's coming in is much less.
166 Because me as a guy who knows just about jack, what it takes to put together a bathroom remodel, if I were to come in to you, you're going to have to handhold me all the way through, basically, is what you're saying. Whereas if I hire x, y, z construction company who's been in your office a thousand times over the last ten years, they, they know a lot about a bathroom remodel.
167 And exactly.
168 Basically you can look at their thing and be like, this is professionally written, whereas zimmerman's came in and crayon and glue sticks, right? Is that kind of what we're getting at here? Okay, so it takes longer. So and the cost for my permit is small, but the cost for a major development, a big thing, that's where a lot of permit fees come in. I want to make sure we're understanding that we're that's what we're getting at here.
169 Yes.
170 Because this is a challenge, right? These are these are significant increases in some spots for basic stuff and to do basic stuff at home. I mean, I think the larger question is about the permitting review and or reform packages about what actually has to come through you guys versus others. But 26%, 41%, 34 I mean, these are these are big numbers. So in terms of did or is Portland permitting and development looking at any reductions in the upcoming budget relative to this body of work, or is this a fully maintained staff moving forward?
171 Yeah, this will allow us to maintain our current service levels and the staffing that we have.
172 Okay. Thanks.
173 Thank you.
174 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Ryan.
175 Yeah, thank you, president duffy. Good to see you, Eric. Councilor Clark, you answered one of my questions. Thank you. Could you please validate if the new fee structure is reflected in the mayor's proposed budget?
176 It is okay.
177 I'm so glad I asked. It's it's a I think it's something that we should consider sequencing wise to make sure that's. Maybe that was repeated soon and often at the committee level, I don't know. But when you're not on the committee and then you need to ask that question, it's a little startling. So we were basing it on assumptions that we haven't approved yet. That's all. Yes. I think we should relook at that sequencing next year and consider doing this dialog earlier than we than what we're doing it. Is there a reason why there must be some reason that I can't explain? You want to explain?
178 For the record, kyle o'brien, the finance manager at Portland permitting and development. One of the big constraints that we have at pnd is that we have state notification timelines, meaning that we have to notify the state of our fee changes 45 days before council first reading today. So while I think it would have made a lot of sense for us to present our fee changes along with other bureaus at the proposed budget hearings two weeks ago, the timing of when decisions were made on fee changes didn't line up with that timeline. So that's why we're here today on June 3rd, rather than aligned with the budget proceedings.
179 That that makes sense. And you had a proposal though, into the state. So the proposal could be made in a very transparent way to all of us. So in the mayor's budget that we just see that. So two things can still be true.
180 Absolutely.
181 All right. Thanks. Can you provide some specific examples of when a noise ordinance variance would be needed for construction event? Like, for example, what percentage of new builds need a permit?
182 That is a excellent question. To be honest with you. I'd have to talk with my team and get back with you. I'm not sure what kind of event would constitute a variance. So typically in houston we would we would have variances. Whenever construction companies are doing work outside of normal hours. However, again, let me just go and check with my team.
183 Tell everybody what normal hours are.
184 I'm sorry.
185 What our normal hours, normal hours, what are they.
186 Yeah. For? For construction in Portland. Let me I'll get back with you and I'll, I'll get back with you and provide an answer to that question.
187 Okay. Is there an example of a high noise impact event? I don't temporary permits for like a concert or.
188 To be honest with you, I'd have to talk to my team and get back with you on.
189 Okay. Clearly, I went into a rabbit hole on a noise ordinance.
190 I can tell you that some of those are the concerts at providence park, and some of it is pile driving.
191 Good old pile driving. Okay, that is rather noisy. Smells like a little earthquake. Also, I think because there's some very wild variations of these, I noticed that we're doing a bundle here for the vote. Some of. And again, some of the increases are extreme. What was the justification in the committee? Why this was all bundled together and not separate? Perhaps the chair can answer that. Chair Avalos.
192 Can you repeat the question? Apologies.
193 Yeah, we're. Those of us on the committee are experiencing quite a, you know, a few votes with some extreme rates. And so I question why it was why there was a decision made to bundle all of these and not separate them out.
194 I guess it didn't come up the I think partly because we were presented this, as you know, it all kind of fits in with the budget too. And that was part of the discussion that we had, that these rates were assumed in the budget that the mayor built. And so I think that made it probably more complicated for us to feel like we could consider them individually. And, you know, at least from my perspective, we got a presentation that I felt made sense why they were bundled. So if any other committee members can speak to that. But that was my take. And that's how I interpreted what I heard in committee.
195 Okay, maybe someone else from the committee will is in the queue and they'll address it as well. In general, colleagues, I just have some concerns. I remain concerned that our bureaus have still not fully committed to unifying the permitting functions, including both staffing process and cost recovery. I want us to go simply beyond moving deck chairs and really complete the needed work from two years ago of integration, just passing the cost directly to the permitting customers without doing the hard internal work. And I know it's hard. I'm well aware of that. I have a lot of knowledge about how difficult it is, but it is going rather slow, I think, to some who are watching. And it's it's not fair, I think, to just take all that slow internal work and pass that on to the customer service. That's not customer service. So I just hope that we can remember this is about customer service and passing on such large increases just isn't a good optics test at this time. That's all. So I'll be contemplating this. I may think about separating some of them, but as we get closer to the vote next week. Thanks.
196 Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Ryan councilor Koyama Lane.
197 Thank you, council president. So in this ordinance, I understand that there's a 26% increase to accessory short term rental fees. And while I know that we need to amend our fee schedules, I also know that in March, there was a report from the city ombudsman on accessory short term rentals. And so I just wanted to share with my colleagues that my office is interested in addressing some of those concerns raised and possibly reevaluating enforcement rules regarding short term rentals. So if any of you are interested in collaborating on this, let me know.
198 Thank you. Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane councilor Kanal. I am.
199 Thank you, council president. Yeah, I had a couple questions here. First, I want to say I agree with everything that councilor Ryan said about timing with no notes there. I really do think that the idea of getting a a proposal that is based on, in the terms of the budget, a proposal that is based on increased revenue that we haven't even thought about, or at least seven of us haven't even thought about yet, puts us in a position of not having sufficient information to fully evaluate it. And also the idea that if we want to adjust anything, it's it's us effectively making a decision to lay off ppe and staff, which is not actually what would happen. And that's not an accurate read of what would be occurring in that scenario. I had a question just kind of in terms of, because I imagine that this is something you have the, the places where you choose to measure can dictate what the measurement will look like, especially in the context of slides seven and eight of the presentation you gave. This is you compare various costs and various cities using a 275,000 new single family residence. So first off is that's the the proposed what is the 275 k in that?
200 Yeah. So to compare fees between permitting bureaus, the easiest way to do it is to use like an example project. So for the example we use was just a standard new single family residential build that had a valuation of $275,000. And then we compared based on that scope.
201 So my question is, is in any of the cities listed, is that a real project that even exists anymore as.
202 Far as that valuation amount?
203 Yeah, yeah.
204 We probably need to look at raising that fee next time. That's something that definitely came up.
205 That sorry.
206 Cost to build.
207 Or value. Yeah, that that's what I'm, that's what I, the first question was, so we're talking about cost, not cost to build. We're talking about valuation after.
208 The of the project. That's not like what the house is going to sell for afterwards. It's the valuation of the project itself.
209 Okay. Even then. So probably don't need to double that one, but probably do need to increase it.
210 That's a fair assessment.
211 So just, and I also, I bring this up not to be pedantic, but to ask like that, I imagine that there are different fee structures in other cities. And so potentially a different dollar amount for the valuation. If it was significantly different from 275 k, might lead to a different outcome in one of those other cities. That might change how we compare. So not really worth getting super down the the rabbit hole on it. I just wanted to flag that. I also would ask that we start having this conversation broken up a little bit more. And that's really not a question so much for you as a decision for next year because of not only the timing impacts, but the idea of trying to spend, you know, an hour going through, I think, 18 exhibits. And in the context of how we're going to make adjustments, I will end there, but I may follow up via email with a couple other things that are maybe a little bit more specific. Thanks.
212 Council president, just if I can follow up on a couple of items, because it's come up a couple of times and I don't want to let it just hang out there. I do think that there's, there's certainly value in having more dialog and so happy to support that we'll be as we complete this year's budget, we'll be looking to do some after action conversations. And so just encourage this to come back up. Also want to acknowledge that that also takes work so separate. Often these are packaged and just as the utility rates are packaged, that's because it's difficult to get multiple items sometimes through through the process. So I'm happy to entertain other ideas. I just want to acknowledge that that fact that that is there's value to that. And there's also some some trade offs and that it takes some additional time and effort here in this room. But but certainly happy to support it. And then the last kind of just, just for clarity, I absolutely appreciate upstreaming the conversation and the value in that. There will always be a little bit of tension between when our rates proposed and what expenses do they support, and those will never align perfectly. Right. I can envision a scenario where we upstream this conversation, approve rates earlier in the process, and then come back in the budget and say, we want to actually add some things. And now we've we've limited our ability. We haven't experienced that in the last couple of years of budget austerity. So I just want to acknowledge that tension will always exist between the sort of timing. And so that's just a consideration that we have to kind of think about as we develop sort of better ways of having these conversations going forward. Thanks.
213 Thank you very much. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
214 Thank you, council president. I sit on the committee that this came out of and had some of the same questions that some of our colleagues have raised. So I thought I just might provide a little bit of information about why I was comfortable moving this forward as a package, in case that's helpful to some of my colleagues. I was concerned with the scale of some of the increases and asked a lot of questions about why the increases were at the levels. They are the most, I want to call it egregious, but the largest increases, what I was told are generally based on the need to get to cost recovery. So those larger increases. I don't know which one in particular you're looking at, but the ones that I had asked about that were particularly large were generally based on needing to get to cost recovery. And what was the actual cost of doing the reviews. So that was part of the answer that I got. That helped me feel a little bit more comfortable.
215 34% increase.
216 Okay. I'm not going to speak to the reason for any specific one, but I had gone through many of the exhibits and had some specific examples that I was most concerned about. I also asked a lot of questions about the impact on the individual with a small project. And as we look at the need to keep up with costs, I was really appreciative that we're doing the percent increases so that the amount more that an individual is paying on a small project. Is far less than the amount more somebody will pay on a much larger project to try to limit the impact on those small projects that, as we heard to councilor Zimmerman's question, are unfortunately, right now a a large portion of the work that there is to do and don't bring in as much revenue, but we also don't want to increase those drastically because we have individuals trying to do bathroom additions and remodels and things like that, that we need to keep this affordable for. The other thing that was helpful for me was looking at the average increase is 5 to 9%. And with the where do we fall with comparable cities? If you do a 9% increase, we are still right about equivalent with fees at the city of Gresham, far less than the city of Beaverton, slightly more than the city of wilsonville. So if you look at our neighboring communities, those costs still keep us in line there, which was another piece that was important for me to hear, and feeling comfortable moving these all forward as a package and not pulling out specific individual increases. Like I said, I'll let the bureau speak to any specifics that you're concerned with. But as I asked about specifics, those were some of the things that we talked through in committee that moved me from wanting to pull items out, or possibly even vote against the increases to being comfortable moving it forward as is.
217 Can I just ask a quick clarification? So I think it was smart that thank you that you're giving us information on local market comparisons, since there's a lot more development going on in the surrounding counties than in Multnomah. And so are you saying 9% was the mean?
218 So what we were told, what we were told in the committee is that most fees and you're right, you pointed out a couple that are much higher, but that most fees were going up 34% between 5 and 9%. And so I did the math with our comparable cities. And at a 5% increase, we would still be less for that build that our director talked about than the city of wilsonville. At a 9% increase, we would be about equivalent with Gresham. So wilsonville, Gresham, Beaverton, in terms of cost, all cost more than us now. And that's where we would fall with those increases compared to our neighbors.
219 The apples and apples with Clark county is more challenging because it's a different state. Was that also included in that study?
220 Vancouver was much higher than both of the city of Vancouver. I don't think other cities were on the list, but the city of Vancouver was much higher still than we would be. Thank you, council president.
221 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Green.
222 Thank you. I wanted to as the vice chair of this committee, and I was in this discussion, I wanted to kind of weigh in as well. Ditto echo everything councilor Pirtle-guiney just said. I just wanted to quote specifically page ten of the page seven of the presentation that's attached to this item. We did have a really robust conversation around comps, as you were just noted. I remember flagging specifically the Vancouver, Washington comp is listed as the current building permit and plan review fees for the city of Vancouver, on average, for a $275,000 new single family residence is $3,978. And our current city of Portland cost for the same type of project is 3211, so that's about $700 to the less expensive to Vancouver. And that's a really important one because we hear a lot about development, sort of fleeing to Vancouver and Clark county in particular. We also had a pretty robust conversation around a shared recognition that we need a different fee model, one that's sort of cross subsidizes a little bit and decouples a little bit from the business cycle. We understand that it provides reserves during years of flush times, but we've basically drawn down our permitting reserves. And so it's really necessary to do this, this adjustment. I think dca oliveira has acknowledged that several times that that's that's work that that the bureau will be taking up. You've acknowledged this as well. So we did have that discussion. I want to also just reaffirm support for this idea of, along with utility rates, establishing our rates and fees on a sort of almost maybe independent cycle as, as the annual budget process, I've kind of talked about a biennial process. Cfo biery has, has, you know, recognized that that does tie our hands a little bit if we need to make mid-year adjustments. But I think if you want to provide certainty, cost certainty, and provide maybe some level of discipline to the budgeting process, that might be something that this body would contemplate, but I think it needs to be done after we've already talked about what our revenue model looks like for permitting. So for all those reasons, I was comfortable with this package as a whole, recognizing that you start to peel off different pieces of it and disentangle it, then you're going to shift costs to other parts of the permitting activity that then gets you into non cost recovery territory. And so those are trade offs that we would need to make. And I would be very reluctant to do so at this time because that creates a ripple effect of consequences that we need to think through in a more holistic way. Also, when we think about percentage increase, I'll just note that base effects matter. And so looking at the dollars of the cost increase is probably more important than the percent, the relative percentile. The largest fee increase in this schedule is the noise. It's the specifically, it's the construction noise event that lasts from 1 to 2 days. That's a $144 increase. That's going to be a very small cost assessment relative to the overall project that would produce that noise event. So I just note that. But the but the materials we've been provided provide both the rate change and also the dollar change. So that's a good thing. So I would urge my colleagues to look at both of those pieces of information. I do think, though, my ideal state, as we move away from specific cost recovery of individual permit activities, and I think just finally, maybe director couch, you can give us a little bit of indication on what would trigger a transportation review for a single family residence. Is that a large change of use of a of a lot? That's not a small remodel on a bathroom, but, but sort of a pretty significant project on a single family residence. Is, is that correct?
223 So to my understanding, the transportation review would be triggered by like, for example, if you're going to be building a neighborhood to do a traffic study to make sure the flow of traffic is going to be. You know, per code. So that's, that's typically what would trigger the transportation review.
224 But this is not like suppose I suppose I wanted to add a, a bathroom in my basement.
225 Yeah. You would not need to do a transportation review.
226 So this is going to be a developer that's doing sort of a multi dwelling project, maybe residential infill projects.
227 Typically a ground up build. Councilor.
228 Yeah. So $144 of an increase. Well, is worse than a zero increase is pretty de minimis relative to the overall project cost.
229 I'm sorry, can you repeat that.
230 It's $144 increase on that permit for a transportation review is pretty de minimis relative to the scale of the overall project cost. Correct? Fair.
231 Yeah. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the overall project cost.
232 Thank you.
233 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Ryan.
234 Yeah. One more question on this topic. When you look at the comparison of p, p and d fees to other jurisdictions, does that include all the fees like the system development charges are a part of this comparison.
235 I don't believe that we use sdc fees.
236 No. Councilor. That comparison that we provided is only the building permit and plan review fee. And the reason for that is very specific. It's that other jurisdictions commonly subsidize work. Other parts of the work in the development review process with general fund or other revenue sources. So if you want to compare the actual cost of a permit, looking at the cost that's actually fee based is an apt comparison. Whereas if you started include things like land use work or planning work or zoning work, the other jurisdictions may be able to keep the fee lower, but only because they're subsidizing that with other revenue.
237 Okay. Thank you kyle.
238 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues seeing no one else in the queue, this is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. And this now moves to second reading. Councilor Ryan.
239 Yeah thank you, council president. I just want to apologize. Earlier, I scolded basically the mayor of organizing this with grand ronde on the 17th of July. And I looked on my calendar and I looked on June 17th. So I apologize for being in the wrong j month, which are both for letters trying to make an excuse for my mistake. But anyway, I just apologize and hopefully I will though ask that if council is included in that visit on July 17th. We'll follow up on that. Thanks.
240 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, we have reached the end of our meeting agenda. We are going to recess until tomorrow at 2:00. A reminder to my colleagues. We have a 2:00 work session this afternoon. Until then, we are in recess.