The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-04-15

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (22,629 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Testing audio here.

We can hear you.

Great.

All right. Good afternoon. I'm going to call this meeting of the Portland city council committee of the whole to order. It is Wednesday, April 15th at 2 p.m. And I'll ask one of my vice chairs to please physically tap the gavel. Keelan. Could you please call the roll?

Good afternoon. Pirtle-guiney.

Yes.

Is that me? Hi. I'm here. We're getting feedback.

Okay. Ryan.

Here.

Thank you. Koyama Lane here. Aye, Morillo here. Novick here. CClark here. Green. Here. Zimmerman. Avalos.

Present here.

Smith.

Kanal here.

Thank you. And I believe it's christopher, though the camera won't show it. Can you please read the statement of conduct?

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

Thank you. At today's meeting will be considering four items. As it's fairly obvious, I am remote right now. Most of the items will be shared by either vice chair Koyama Lane or vice chair Ryan. We'll start with a brief chair's update. We'll then move into consideration of appointments to the noise review board, and the design commission will then move into continuing the conversation of the transportation utility fee proposal. And finally, if time permits, we'll have a brief opportunity for people to discuss any upcoming legislation related to federal or other emergency response. Keelan could you please call the first item.

Item one committee chair updates.

Thank you so much. There is a written item that's been attached to this agenda item very recently, so you may not have seen it. This chair's update item will be at the beginning of every committee of the whole meeting, and I'll be an opportunity to give a little preview of what's coming up, the next meeting of the committee. The whole will be 9:30 a.m. Next Thursday, April 23rd, and will be the previously scheduled oversight hearing on the $20.7 million of housing dollars. And there's been a couple of emails that have gone out about it. More information will be added to the agenda very shortly for next week. Following that, there are no confirmed filed items, but there are several items we anticipate coming up that are just not yet scheduled because they haven't been filed by the administration. One of them is appointments and reappointments to the urban forestry commission. One is youth appointments to the sustainability and climate commission. There'll be a phase two report on the appointed boards and commissions project, a budget note report on Morillo 11. And finally, vision zero quarter one and two updates. That one is the one we have some anticipation of the date for. We expect it to be in July. And as we go on and iterate this, there'll be more clarity each and every time going forward. With that, I'm going to end this item and pass it over to vice chair Koyama Lane to continue. Thanks.

Thank you. Chair. Kanal keelan, will you please read the next item?

Item two document 2020 6-137. Appoint members to the noise review board.

Thank you. This item has been introduced by the mayor. We're joined today by Portland permitting and development director Eric couch and noise review board liaison beth benton. Thank you everyone for being here. And we can move into a presentation.

One moment please. Everything slow?

And when each person speaks, just make sure to state your name for the record, please.

Okay.

Should we go ahead and introduce ourselves? Good afternoon. Council. My name is Eric couch and I'm the director of Portland permitting and development.

Hi, I'm beth benton. I am the property compliance division manager with pmd. And I oversee the noise review program. And I'm just glad to be here today. We have two seats to fill on the noise review board.

Sorry.

Can you hear me? Okay. Very good. All right. The noise review board was established back in 1987. As a committee to work with the noise review program, and I want to share some high level information just about this program and the noise board for this committee. If I can. The role of the noise board, they're appointed by council and their role is to advise on noise related issues with the city and to issue variances, the work that they do improves neighborhood livability. It strikes a balance between sound generating activities related to large scale construction projects and special events, and the desire to ensure we have a livable community. It's also one of the only few quasi judicial bodies for the city of Portland, so their ruling stands when they issue a variance for large project. The board is actually comprised of five members, three community at large, one professional construction and one professional in acoustics. The members serve three year terms, and they also can serve two consecutive terms if needed. Today we are asking to appoint for two positions that are coming available. Both are community at large. Jeremy maxwell. He's an automotive industry professional. He has ten years of continuous volunteer service in various non-profits in the area, including newsletter, public communications, special events, and facilitation of space science education. Jeremy has a demonstrated dedication to equitable access to science education, particularly for the youth, and it aligns with inclusion and equity values that the board shares. His residency both in southwest Portland and east Portland, have provided him a firsthand understanding of neighborhood level disparities and the real world impacts of local issues, including noise on our daily lives. The second candidate or appointee is martin lima. Unfortunately, he couldn't be here today, but martin is a retired high tech professional with extensive experience working in diverse, international and multidisciplinary environments. He holds a b.s. And m.s. In electrical engineering with a solid technical knowledge base in ip telephony, including acoustics, noise reduction, and echo cancellation. Martin has worked with people across a wide range of ages, ethnic backgrounds, gender identities and with professionals from more than two dozen countries. If appointed, jeremy maxwell's term will run from may 1st through April of 2029 and if appointed, martin lima's term will run from June 1st through may 31st of 2029. And with these two appointments, we will continue to have a quorum. All of our vacant seats will be filled, which will be advantageous to having a quorum for these meetings. We appreciate your support in recommending these appointments move forward. And this concludes my presentation at this time. Jeremy is here, and I'd like to give him a moment to make a statement.

Thank you. Beth, I think you said you said very, very nice summary. That was very flattering, I appreciate it. My name is jeremy maxwell. I'm very happy to be here today. It's my first time in the council chambers here in the city hall. I'm very excited to be here, observing the workings of government and seeking to play a very small role in it through service. On the noise review board. I'm an east portlander who wants to continue making a difference in my community and better understand how our city works. I believe that noise and its balance and its management are as critical, critical to a community community well-being as many other measurable aspects of city life. As beth mentioned, I've lived in southwest. I spent the pandemic in a nice, quiet, peaceful neighborhood. And then after the pandemic, I moved and bought a house in district three, out in the out in a very high traffic area. And so, you know, a very happy to see my counselors here today, but living in that community out east has really gotten me more involved in my community and certainly made me more aware of the balance between noise and productivity and livability and the, you know, the disparate nature of noise across different places in the city. And it's made me aware of that kind of balance that the noise review board seeks to to maintain. So what's essential to the Portland that we want to live in is also going to bring noise, you know, new sidewalks in my neighborhood, new accessibility for cyclists, new housing, live music, and, you know, just portlanders getting together to celebrate or to protest. So over a decade of work with nonprofit and with omsi over there, I've, I've really gotten a chance to see a lot of local activity and local engagement. And I've seen that small groups can really have an outsized impact on livability in their community, you know, by listening to their neighbors and approaching local challenges with fairness and empathy. And I believe that that's exactly what this board does. And it makes a huge impact on portlanders behind the scenes, working to improve everybody's quality of life. So I'm very grateful for the opportunity to join the noise review board today, and I appreciate your time.

Martin lima could not be here today, but he provided a statement he liked for me to read. Dear council members, while I'm disappointed that I cannot appear before you in person today, I'm very excited to have been selected to the noise portland's noise review board. I am a relatively new resident of Portland, having moved here in 2021 from the san francisco bay area. My relocation coincided with my retirement from a career developing data and voice communication equipment. My work included voice telephony products, ip phones, which required an understanding of audible sound and its impact on the human experience. Sound and noise in particular, is a fascinating and important issue in a community like Portland, because we live in close proximity to one another, we must find a balance between one one person's freedom to make noise and another's right to peace and quiet. Achieving that balance requires mutual consideration and compromise. With my background in both the technical and human aspects of sound and my desire to be actively involved in my community, I see the noise review board as a meaningful way to contribute alongside my volunteer work with meals on wheels. This role allows me to give back to the city I now proudly call home. And I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. Thanks, jeremy. You're welcome. Thank you. Director couch, board liaison. Benton, before we move into public testimony, councilors, does anyone have any technical questions clarifying something from the presentation? Councilor Dunphy. Councilor Clark all right. Keelan. Has anyone signed up to provide public testimony?

We have one person signed up, mary Smith.

Good afternoon everyone. My name is mary sipe, and I will complete my second and final three year term on the noise review board at the end of may. I encourage you to approve these appointments to the noise review board and refer this item to the city council for their approval. Mr. Maxwell and mr. Lima will bring vital professional and personal experience to the board, and I want to thank them for their willingness to volunteer their time to this very important citizen advisory board. We tend to think of noise as nothing more than a nuisance. However, noise pollution is a serious problem impacting human health. The world health organization finds that noise is the second largest environmental cause of health problems, just after the impact of air pollution. Exposure to excessive noise in the environment can not only cause noise induced hearing loss, but it can cause impaired learning and concentration. Sleep disruption, increased heart rate, cardiovascular disease, and other serious negative physical and psychological health effects. Our underserved communities are often the most impacted by environmental noise. The American public health association reported in their 2021 policy statement that low income and minority communities are more likely to be exposed to environmental health hazards like noise pollution, placing them at high risk for poor health and performance outcomes. The noise report review board not only offers support support to the noise program, but it also offers a unique opportunity for community members to have their voices heard regarding the negative impacts they experience with environmental noise. In my six years on the noise review board and my 12 years working with the noise program as a community advocate, I've heard from hundreds of community members describing their suffering from exposure to unnecessary and excessive noise in their environment. Around 50 years ago, at the inception of the noise control program, there were three full time field staff. Currently, the noise control office operates with one field staff person and two internal office staff. During fiscal year 2023 and 24, these three individuals received over 2200 noise complaints and processed over 600 noise variance applications. This inadequate the inadequate funding and staffing levels at the noise office presents a major challenge to monitoring. I just have two more sentences enforcement of the code. So I want to take this opportunity to once again encourage you all to preserve and, if possible, increase funding and staffing for this vital program. Finally, I just want to thank beth benton, paul van orden, juliet lopez, nicolas karol, and my fellow noise review board members for their hard work and support. It's been a real honor to work with such a dedicated team of professionals. Thank you.

Thank you for being with us today. Colleagues, let's move into committee deliberation. Councilor dunfee.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you, mr. Maxwell, for volunteering to step up for this role. I have a lot of I have a lot of faith in this board. I think a lot of this has been, in many ways, a board that has not gotten the level of public notoriety and or even knowledge, you know, from this body. But with the help of the noise review board, we've already done some great things in this city since this new form of government came in. So I'm really glad for your your willingness to step up right now. I'm interested. You know, it says you were in the automotive industry professionally. Was that a part of the what the why you what your motivation was for this? I know specifically that the Portland international raceway has the noise levels around. There has been a major subject for this board. Is that something that drew you to this. Or do you think that that is something that will help with those sort of issues?

Not really. That's ancillary. I work for a large german auto parts manufacturer and I work remotely. So, you know, I'm usually traveling a couple of weeks out of the month, but when I'm home, I focus on, you know, my, my community more, you know, with my volunteering and that sort of thing that really doesn't have anything to do with it. But it is, it is interesting. The last couple of meetings I've attended just kind of learning about, you know, the, the whole situation with the with the raceway and everything. It's fascinating to me. And I guess I guess I'm in a good position to talk about automotive and racing if it comes to it. So hopefully I can serve the board in whatever regard they need. And, you know, as a citizen at large, I don't think the automotive thing is my, my primary thing here, it's mostly about it's mostly about equitable, you know, I guess distribution of noise throughout the city. I think, you know, as we look at which parts of the city are loudest. And as mary mentioned, you know, how those high levels of noise affect people's health. You know, I'm really most concerned about some equity in everybody's day to day lives.

Yeah. Awesome. Well, I look forward to working with you all in the coming months around. I know that there's some major title 18 improvements that are coming. I look forward to helping champion those and get them across the finish line for you all. And I urge us all to support these two candidates. I just want to very last say, mary sipe, I'm so thankful for your six years of service at the top of this committee. I've had the pleasure of testifying before mary at least 4 or 5 times as a private citizen and working together on our repeal of 14, a 30 000010 and 020. You've done a fantastic job of professionalizing and. Modernizing this the way this program is working and continuing to be a driving force in this. So thank you for your service over the last six years and all your service to the community before that. So thanks for for sticking in there.

With us, councilor Dunphy, and thank you for your support. It was it's been much appreciated. And you haven't seen the last of me. I'll continue to work on on issues, especially the pr issues as a private citizen with with the community.

So thank you.

Councilor Clark.

Olivia Clark: Thank you. Interestingly enough, I have a car related question as well for not just for mr. Maxwell, but for anybody who wants to answer it. I live not too far from the Sellwood bridge, and there's a lot of street racing on the Sellwood bridge, as there is street racing in other parts of district three that I'm aware of and district four and throughout the city. And I'm just wondering, it wakes me up at night. I can hear it from where I live, and that's a noise issue. But what does a citizen do about street racing? As far as the noise board is concerned?

I guess I'll take that one. We are really unable to regulate that from the noise office because it's a moving target. It's also on. I'm not sure what the Sellwood bridge is that state property or is that local?

It's county.

County. It may fall out of our jurisdiction. A lot of the freeways and highways fall under either federal or state regulation, and street racing itself is illegal. So really, it's a police matter. If we can curb that illegal racing and speeding behavior, that the noise kind of goes with it. But we have no way. I mean, if you called and complained, but we wouldn't even be able to send someone out till the next day. So it would, it wouldn't. They'd be done.

Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. I appreciate your answer and thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your future service. Mr. Maxwell, I really appreciate what you're doing for us as a city. Thank you.

Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Thank you, madam chair. I have two questions, one of which is and this probably does not really fall into your purview at all, but some years back, I heard a concern about an area in which the absence of noise is a problem, that being that people who are sight impaired, if they're walking across the street, tend to depend on hearing the approaching car. And with electric cars, often they don't make enough noise. Now, I don't know what we could do that we can't order detroit or to or toyota to build different cars. But I just wanted to raise that and see if anybody any thoughts about how big an issue that is, and is there anything we could do about it?

If I may? I realize I'm not, you know, approved yet, but being an automotive industry person, I can tell you there are laws requiring electric and hybrid vehicles to make noise at below 35 miles an hour. I believe you can hear it. It's kind of like a little humming, singing noise. The thought there is that over 35 miles an hour, the tires make more noise than the actual vehicle. So the tire contact with the road. So generally speaking, you know, you've got a little bit of that's considered to be sufficient by the feds.

Thank you. I'm really glad I asked. My other question is, like many people of my generation, my thoughts on noise were largely shaped by a chapter in the book the phantom tollbooth called the valley of sound. And mr. Maxwell, I was just wondering if you think that you'll have the time or the inclination in this role to seek out the advice of diverse experts on noise such as doctor discord, the awful din and the sound keeper.

Absolutely. I'm already really impressed with the amount of knowledge that's available at the noise review board here. With everybody's background and experience, I'm looking to learn. I'm looking to learn a lot more about this from every angle. So I'm I'm very excited about that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor.

Thanks. Councilor. Novick. And I can give you a ride in my ev. A little noise it makes. Councilor. Ryan vice chair Ryan.

Thank you. Vice chair. Thank you, mary so much. It's really nice to see you and thank you for your service. When I think of noise boards and consciousness about being sensitive to noise, I actually think of you like when I see you and I forget your name's mary. I'm like, oh, there's the woman that advocates for how we need to be more conscientious about the impact of noise. So I'm happy to hear that you'll be hanging out, hanging around because we need you. So thank you so much for your service.

You know, it's funny, my, my sister was laughing at me the other day and she said, you know, mom and dad always used to just tell you to be quiet and here you are, here you are. Your focus is on noise.

Okay. That was a great story. Welcome, jeremy. Your interest and it seems so earnest. And the fact that you could answer councilor Novick question with something that we all need to hear about was really helpful. So I'm glad you're interested and thank you for your service in advance. Beth. Good to see you, paul, wherever you are. Thank you for being that public servant that's been hanging in there to provide staffing to people like mary, who acknowledged it earlier. I look forward to supporting both of them. Thanks.

Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thanks. My first question is really to beth. Love your work, by the way, big fan of you. So I'm, you know, I get an email, I don't know, we probably all get an email. There's a person in town who really wants me to change the, the flight paths at pdx while we're on the record, I'm never going to do it. I'm not interested in it. And frankly, the airport was there before your neighborhood was. So. But from that perspective, I just it opens up and I wonder how you coach our noise board on those situations where we get complaints when the person moved next to the nightclub or when the house was built next to the nightclub. The home was built in the path of the airport. I'm not particularly sensitive to those complaints and also trying to understand how it all fits together. And so from a, from a an explaining it from a staff perspective, how do you tackle or at least how does, how do you encourage the board members to approach those types of situations? And then my question to the applicant would be like, what kind of philosophy are you bringing to those areas of a growing up city is going to bump into itself occasionally, and how best do we tackle that challenge? But beth, I'll start with you.

Okay. I'll try to unpack that. For starters, we refer airplane noise.

I was using it as a joking kind of matter, but.

Well, part of it is educating the public. So we've got a new complaint portal. So if you're trying to complain about something we can't regulate, we give you the information you need so you can contact the right authority. So if you complain about airplane noise, you get all of the contact information for faa. Same thing with trains. As we're working on the title 18 changes, I see it as an opportunity. The disclosure piece for when folks are moving into a location next door to something that's existing. I see that as a real estate law kind of disclosure requirement, and that's kind of come up in our discussions with the advisory work group, with the noise board, with our team. And I'm all for moving forward and trying to reach out at the state level and seeing if we can get something, if another box on that property disclosure sheet that's now probably 2 or 3 pages long. Yeah, that ensures that that is disclosed because depending on the time of the day or the day of the week, you look at property, you may not experience what's going on, especially with a nightclub. It might be very silent that day. You move in on a Friday and Saturday night, you're like, what's going on? Right? So I think that would be a really good first step to try to have that disclosure up front. So people are making informed decisions.

Yeah. Because making the informed decision is to say we're not going if they're following the law and they've been there a long time, we're not going to then start enforcing against them because you moved in and decided to be cranky about it, right?

I mean, there's levels everyone has to meet the levels that are established in the code. And if they're not, I mean, we will take that up through enforcement.

But so for you joining this board, how do you approach that? What's your philosophy? And it's interesting, you just talked about going from southwest, kind of a sleepy, quieter time to somewhere in town. It sounds a little bit louder. So. So how are you approaching that?

That's a great question. And I'm very happy to speak on that. And I can give you an example here of first off, I believe that from my experience already sitting in a couple of board meetings, I think communication is the key. I think a lot of those neighbors, as long as somebody hears their complaint and somebody talks to them and somebody doesn't just poo poo their issue, then that goes a long way. And I'll give you an example there. I've been they've been tearing up my street on halsey for six months now, and the only thing that's made it bearable when my house is literally shaking is the fact that PBOT has done such a wonderful job of just sending out communication and saying, look, we know it's going to be noisy. We appreciate your patience. You know, they'll send out a mailer says, you know, hey, we realize that this construction is still going on and it's still noisy. But thank you for your patience. I think communication and a lot of people just being able to contact somebody at the city who can hear them out and explain to them that, you know, yes or no, there's something that can be done here or that there's not. I think that's the key right there. And in a lot of cases, that's probably all you can do is just communicate with your, your neighbors and let them know that their concern is heard. And it's probably shared by other residents as well. And that's kind of where I sit.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Can I add something to that?

Sure.

So it's called the noise control program, not the noise elimination program. And I want to make that point because there are many ways to mitigate noise. And so the what the board tries to do is we try to implement any thing that can mitigate the noise to a reasonable level. There are some some things that you can't, it's just going to be as loud as it is. But sometimes you can put up noise barriers. There's a lot of things that can be done. And so it's finding that balance. So it's noise control.

I really appreciate that point. And this is why I have so much faith in beth's team too, because as you apply code, code compliance, code enforcement, these types of things require a holistic look, right? It's one of those where if you're the hammer and all you see is nails, you probably aren't going to do this job very well. And I appreciate you have we've I've actually had your code books in my office. You let me see them and it's a lot. And you are bringing a holistic approach to everything. And so I appreciate that. Thank you.

Councilor Kanal thank you. First, thank you, mary, for your service. I really appreciated the comment you made, and I'm going to circle back to it in the context of the appointments around p, I, r, and jeremy and martin. I'm looking forward to seeing your work and thank you for stepping up. My question is around these well-known high profile, long term kinds of situations. Pr is one of them where we are seeing something that is beyond a singular instance or a singular impact, but are seeing those long term health overlays where you can see on a map the the noise centralized on a specific area, and also see the impacts in that area. As a resident of Kenton, I wanted to make sure I was asking about this. And how do you see the noise review board's role engaging in these conversations? And where do you think we can plug in with you as councilors?

Do you want me to? Okay, well, I think that the noise review board, especially over the last six years, we have really taken an active role in trying to put together like work plans where we identify the most complained about issues in the city and the locations, and then do our research, listen to the community and do the research to determine what are the opportunities to mitigate the noise. Sometimes it's it's just a simple matter of reducing the time that it's not just how loud the the noise is, it's the duration, the frequency and the tone that is a problem. And so we try to focus on identifying when we can take steps to implement, like with noise variances, conditions under which we've. We've found that balance to, you know, encourage the construction and things like that, but to also put parameters around the hours of operation, certain equipment and things like that. And the board really has done a lot of work in the last six years. We put together a, a work plan three years ago, and a lot of those items on that work plan have been incorporated into the revisions to title 18, but it's mostly education is, is one of the things on the work plan, educating the community, educating noise makers. And so that's, that's a big part of it. Education and communication.

Thank you. All right, colleagues, I do I don't see any other hands in the queue for deliberation. Could I get a motion to refer this item to council with a recommendation that appointments be accepted.

So moved.

Okay.

Second.

Who wants it? I think I heard Smith the item has been motioned by councilor Smith and seconded by councilor Dunphy. Keelan. Can we please call the roll.

Pirtle-guiney. Hi Ryan. I Koyama Lane. I Morillo I Novick.

Thank you so much for your willingness to serve.

I Clark. I Green Zimmerman I Avalos, I Dunphy, I Smith. I Kanal.

Thank you for.

Stepping up.

I motion to refer the report document number 2020 6-137 to city council with the recommendation it be accepted. Thank you.

Thanks everybody.

Thank you.

So much.

Thank you mayor.

Thank you. It's nice to have you. Nice to meet you too.

Ellen, can you please read the next item?

Item three document 2020 6-1 38. Appoint members to the design commission.

Great. This item has been also introduced by the mayor, so we will be welcoming back Portland permitting and development director Eric couch. Again, I understand that you are joined here by tim herron, design commission liaison, and erik frederiksen from the office of arts and culture. Thank you for all being here today and introduce your name for the record when you speak, and we are excited to hear your presentation.

Sure. Good afternoon again. Council. My name is Eric couch and I'm the director of permitting and development.

Hi everyone. Tim herron, design commission liaison. And I'll go ahead and introduce others and then get right into the presentation. To my left is tomi solomon. He's one of our design commission candidates. To my right, erik frederiksen. He's with the office of arts and culture. He's our our public arts administrator. Excuse me. And then hanifa beato who is our other design commission candidate. So thanks for your time today. And if I don't have a tech hiccup for a minute, should be able to do this. Sorry. Oh, there it was. It was slow. My bad, I think I think I was impatient. No. Okay, cool. Thank you. Okay. Well, thanks. We found our introductions. Let me. Great. So. Introduction to design commission. Some of you may already be aware of what the design commission does. The design commission provides leadership and expertise on urban design and architecture and advances the purpose of the design overlay zone design overlay zone ensures that Portland is both a city designed for people and a city in harmony with nature design. Overlay zone supports the city's evolution within current and emerging centers of civic life. The overlay zone promotes design excellence and the built environment through the application of additional design standards and design guidelines. The design commission hears both voluntary and required design advice, request meetings and land use applications for proposals within design districts. Those are also called type three and type two appeals of staff decisions. So we went through our interview process and I have two really cool humans here today. And I'll read some of their highlights and they're certainly here to speak for themselves as well. Hanifa, in my far right, could be sitting in the public arts position. She's an artist, a civic practitioner working at the intersection of public art curation and community based design processes. She co-runs the studio and arts production and studio based in Portland. She supports community based organizations through creative strategy, grant administration, and funding, distribution and engagement across Portland neighborhoods, a public realm focused perspective on how design and public art shape perception, accessibility, belonging, and long term public benefit. Tomi solomon, who is our other candidate, who's landscape architect, is principal and founder of ground workshop, a Portland based landscape architecture firm focused on community centered placemaking. A licensed landscape architect and with experience leading interdisciplinary teams on civic, educational and cultural projects across the region. He brings a practitioners perspective on how landscape and site design could enhance resiliency, equity, and a strong sense of place across portland's communities.

And. There we go.

So next steps, if appointed, hanifa, whose term will start after the current public art members term ends at the end of this month, starting may 1st, if possible, if appointed. Sami excuse me, tomi solomon's term will start with after the current landscape architects member's term ends later this year on December 1st, and that will run the next four years with these two appointments, design commission will maintain its required seven member appointments through 2026. We appreciate your support referring these appointments to city council for approval, and that's the end of my presentation. I know that tomi and hanifa are are here to speak for themselves, but I'll leave it to you all.

You can go ahead and say a bit. If you if you had something prepared or we can move into testimony and.

I'll be happy to go first. For the record, I'm tommy solomon. Nice to meet you all and it's great to be here. As a practicing landscape architect, I have the great privilege to help shape our communities through design. Called Portland home for seven no. 11 years now, district four. And it's been such a privilege to contribute professionally to places that affect our communities. I think, you know, for the past seven years, I've led ground workshop, my design practice where I've had the opportunity to work on projects that strengthen our community, including projects that underwent the design review and benefited from it. I hold deep respect for the Portland design commission. I feel that responsibility carries a good mission, and I'm just elated to be here today and have the opportunity to be on that panel.

Thank you for being here.

Oh, hi. I'm hanifah, I'm an artist. I moved to Portland in 2010, and so I've been here through a lot of the city's changes and really seeing the intersections of inclusion and discrimination and art and development, all of these things coexisting at all times and seeing how, well, for me, art is a, an avenue of perception shifting and understanding. And so public realm perception as a collective being able to feel ourselves into a new realm and space with each other through art. That's really where my deep interest lies here. Yeah, that's, that's it so far. Unless you all have questions. Yeah.

That's great. Thank you. Keelan has anyone signed up to provide testimony?

No one signed up.

Colleagues, let's move into committee deliberation, councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thank you. You both will be representing, I think, really important seats and perspectives on there. And so I appreciate that you might be aware that we're currently going through a design review reform package right now. And in fact, later this week, we're going to get kind of the initial update. Councilor. Aye, Morillo. And I will in terms of some specifics, I guess my real question to you both is if you're committed to working with the department, working with the council to, you know, transform design review to make it something that is, you know, user friendly, respectful of the different roles that exist across the community and ownership make it more nimble, more reasonable, and ultimately responsive in terms of what we're trying to do when it comes to changing design. Review can be one of those great gripes of Portland, but I'd like it to be one of the great bragging points of Portland. And that's where the intent is. And you both represent really important seats where you will represent really important seats. So I'm looking to see if you think you've got it in you because we're looking to you. Also, when you identify fixes that you bring those fixes forward. This thing doesn't work. When we keep seeing this thing come up that is adding deep delay or whatever that is, because you're much closer to that work. And I'm trying to get a sense for if you're willing to engage in that reform package. And are you a bring fixes forward kind of person, either one of you can stab at it first?

Well. I feel like I want to be a little cheeky here, but I think that's what that's what this work is, is to be engaging thoughtfully and respectfully with people in different spaces, with different regulatory reasonings, to bring something that actually builds us a, a city that allows for these voices to come through. I'm very much a fix this person that comes through my creativity as an artist to want to see these things through. And I talked I've talked to him about this a few times, but I grew up in a lawyer's household. So, you know, it's, you know, this is not legal, this is this. And, you know, it's very you're, you're running on a way of changing, a way of thinking, a way of being and impacting, but you're doing it through regulation, you're doing it through writing, you're doing it through engaging with the people. Like we're, we're all sitting here. We do it that way. So that's my answer to that. Yeah.

Yeah, I'd follow on hanifa's comments as well. I mean, I my vocation brings me into a lot of collaborative environments. And I think that's something that, you know, as a practitioner and somebody who has the ability to, to help not only inform our communities through design, but help craft that process. I think that's critically important. You know, my approach personally has always been like really humble, come open minded, try and find consensus. And I'm always that's always part of my personal ethos and what I bring into my firm and what I bring to the commission as well.

Thanks.

Appreciate really both both of your answers and in this process that councilor Aye, Morillo and I have engaged in, I've. Admittedly learned like some people go through design review because they want that help to get through that. And I think that was a big learning point for me. And at the same time, I endeavor for us to never hear the the phrase again. We submitted what we knew could get through design review, right? Because for me, that sends a lot of signals about where we failed as a, as a system, not one entity or another, but what can get through design review shouldn't be what we strive to, because that tells me the coin tower would never get built in 2026. Right. And I, and I think those kinds of things can be iconic for us. And so I don't know what the magic wand is. I doubt it exists. But I do think that as we move forward, we're going to see a lot of little levers we can pull and things where we can identify. And I'm looking forward to working with both of you on that as we move forward. Thanks for coming today.

Thank you.

Without seeing any other hands in the queue, could I get a motion to refer this item to council with a recommendation that appointments be accepted?

So moved.

Second. Second.

Item has been moved by councilor Zimmerman and seconded by councilor Morillo keelan. Can we please call the roll pirtle-guiney.

Thank you both for being willing to serve.

I Ryan. I Koyama Lane I Morillo I Novick. I cclark I Green I Zimmerman I.

Carlos thank you for your service.

I Smith.

Know thanks for stepping up.

Motion to refer the report document 2020 6-138 to city council with the recommendation it be accepted as approved with 12 yes votes.

Thank you so much everyone.

Thank you.

Dan Ryan: Now I'm going to pass things to vice chair Ryan for the next item.

Thank you vice chair keelan please call the next item. Please read the next item.

Item four document 2020 6-113. Establish a new transportation utility fee to help fund basic maintenance and safety of the city's transportation system. Add code. Chapter 17.20.

Thank you, colleagues. At the previous committee of the whole. We discussed this item along with the associated resolution regarding street opening permits. The resolution was sent to the full council where we will discuss it again this evening. This ordinance before us now was discussed and no action was taken. I'd like to open up for further discussions on any potential amendments, but before we do the amendment dance, why don't we? I'd like to pass it over to the primary sponsor, vice chair, vice president Olivia Clark.

Thank you. Thank you so much, colleagues. I'm glad that we have here today the continuation of our work on this critical problem and urgent problem, I would say, of transportation funding. It's all about taking care of what we have, what we all own, and what we experience every day. I. I think that if we don't move with urgency, the problem's only going to get worse in our community. We cannot effectively serve the public who expects to have paved streets, working street lights and safe crossings. This is a core function of our government. So we've been working since, I think, July of last year on this proposal, and I appreciate the work that all of us have done, especially my my co-sponsors, the transportation infrastructure committee members. And in the old committee. And I especially want to thank the staff who've been with us all through this process, helping us and all the portlanders who came forward to testify in person, who submitted written testimony. It's been very helpful in us massaging the original ordinance. So I'm pleased that we do have a set of amendments before us today that will substantially improve the original ordinance. To reflect all that feedback that we received from different constituencies in the public. So and I'm also very encouraged by the collaboration, I think that you'll see that has occurred in forming some of these amendments, which is very encouraging to me. So I want to just quickly share some thoughts about three of the collaborative amendments that are going to be here before us today, and I would like to respect, respectfully request, mr. Chair or co-chair, that maybe we take them in a certain order as well, if that's okay, with a amendment. Sponsors. So first is councilor Koyama Lane and councilor Zimmerman have an amendment that would ensure the city invest meaningfully into vision zero. These investments will help save lives. Their joint amendment also dedicates funds to the cip, the sidewalk improvement pavement program, which also supports our vision zero goals and addresses critical infrastructure needs. So I'm going to continue with this list, but I would like to have them go first if that's okay with the two amendment co-sponsors. Second is councilor Avalos and Kanal have an amendment that pushes the city to provide more relief for low income portlanders living in multifamily households, which don't adequately reach their existing, which we don't reach their existing system. This is a long standing issue for Portland and is exciting that actually this transportation ordinance, this conversation is helping to move it forward to address those inequities. And I would like, if they're amenable to go second with their amendment third. Councilor Green and I have an amendment that will set clear parameters and a faster timeline for staff to develop a rate structure for non residential accounts. It will provide the necessary time to work with stakeholders and other experts to develop a rate structure that is effective and sensible, particularly for small business. And in the meantime, this amendment also adds something we didn't have before, which is an appeals process, and I greatly appreciate my colleague councilor Green and his staff for their leadership and collaboration on this issue. The last thing I would like to say is that I commit to ensuring that our new public works committee will remain vigilant, closely involved with the implementation of the transportation utility fee should the council decide to adopt this funding tool. So again, thank you to all of you for helping helping us get to this point and all the collaboration that has taken place among our our body. So councilor Ryan, with your approval, and I would like to ask the, the co-sponsors of Koyama Lane and Zimmerman, one to present their amendment.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: Thank you. I'm excited about the Koyama Lane Zimmerman amendment and see it as an opportunity to create safer transportation systems and to continue to advance vision zero goals, the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious traffic injuries. I'm happy to have collaborated with councilor Zimmerman and finding a way to support cip, the sidewalk improvement and paving program, as that program leads to infrastructure that creates safer and livable communities. And I moved to consider Koyama Lane slash Zimmerman one second.

Okay, that was moved by Lane and seconded by Zimmerman and on to the next amendment. We'll discuss these after we get them all on the table.

It's Avalos, Avalos and Kanal.

Yeah, I misunderstood the assignment. I was going to talk to this amendment, but I'll wait.

I think it's better if we get them all out for the public to hear. And and then we'll get seconds because some might not get those. And then we'll go into discussion for each one.

So Avalos, would you like to present your amendment.

Point of information? If we've moved an ordinance, moved an amendment and seconded. Does that mean we are now on the motion?

It means we're on the amendment, but where I you can also introduce all the amendments and then have them seconded so the public knows what the real amendment is. And then usually we'd have public testimony if desired. I think if anyone wants to walk in for that, I think it was just they didn't know about all these.

The formal motion of it, rather than introducing it, like reading it aloud into the record so that people can respond versus.

That's something that's changed. It used to be that we wouldn't. It's a nuance, but we used to never even have them. We'd always make sure there was a second before we went into further deliberations. So we knew it was real. But I'll go with the flow. So if you guys want to pause everything and just do this one first, we can do that.

Well, point of order or information. Are we wanting to get to the public first? Because if we pause and start doing this, then we're going to get into discussion. So is our goal to try to hear from the public after we hear all the amendments?

The goal would be to just transparently have all of the amendments that are legit on the table, and then I will stop because keelan is going like this. What would you like to say?

Keelan no one is signed up for this item. It was not open to public testimony since we heard testimony.

But it's for the public to know when we're deliberating what the big what all of the amendments are.

Just point of information. I support this approach, and partly because when we conceived of the committee, the whole. I think one of the things that we said is this could be a place where we're slightly less formal than we are at the big body. So I know that this is a slight deviation from our typical rules of order. But I think as you're proposing it, vice chair makes it work more fluidly. We can just get them out and then we can.

And I apologize. I'm going to some older rules of order. So anyway. So thanks. Why don't we just do the next one? Okay. That's Kanal.

Okay. Yeah. So colleagues, I'm bringing this amendment forward in partnership with councilor Kanal to strengthen the equity and implementation of this proposal. I want to start by acknowledging that I support the goal of creating a stable and long term funding source for our transportation system. We know that the need is real, and we've heard clearly from the community about safety concerns and basic maintenance gaps across the city. At the same time, I've consistently heard concerns, especially from renters and low income households, about affordability and whether they will be able to access the same level of assistance as homeowners. This amendment is intended to address that gap. First, it makes clear that income qualified residents and multi-family housing are eligible for the same level of financial relief as single family households, even when they are not directly billed for utilities. That's an important equity issue and one we need to get right. Second, it directs public works in consultation with the city data and privacy office and community partners to come back to council with recommendations for a more comprehensive and equitable financial assistance and discount program. That includes looking at how assistance is structured, how it's delivered, and how we ensure it works for renters and historically underserved communities. Third, it ensures that there is a clear, accessible application process along with outreach, so that eligible residents are actually able to access the support that's available. This amendment also builds in accountability by requiring a report back to council by the end of 2026, so that we can evaluate what's working and make improvements as needed. Overall, this is about making sure that as we implement this new fee, we're doing so in a way that is fair, accessible, and reflects the realities of people most impacted. And with that, I'll pass it on to jack.

Good afternoon, councilors. For the record, my name is jack jaden. She pronouns senior policy adviser to councilor Kanal. I've been an employee at the city of Portland for 12 years, including in public works. Thank you for the opportunity to collaborate. Councilor Avalos. This amendment addresses affordability as one of the few renters on this council. Councilor Kanal is worried about cost burden tenants. 35% of Portland households are cost burdened. If we use the water sewer bill model, households without a direct bill due to a shared water meter are at a structural disadvantage without bill transparency nor equitable access to support. These households are effectively excluded from the various assistance programs designed to ease utility burdens despite facing equal or greater financial strain. We also know that there are ways that we can drive behavior change and lessen the impacts on our roads, the same way we mitigate stormwater management by providing discounts for tree planting and downspout disconnects. Councilor Kanal would like to see public works get creative about a program that offers either one time or ongoing discounts for behaviors we're trying to drive to reduce climate impacts, no matter the income. This amendment requires public works to study and report back. Alternate bill discount delivery models, methods and models, and puts it on a timeline to complete it in time to aid with implementation without slowing it down. There should be broad engagement on this amendment with new voices at the table, particularly communities of color, immigrant communities, and renters. There are organizations like the Portland utility board and groups that focus on affordable utilities. This ordinance also asks public works to make sure the new office of data privacy and experts in that field help weigh the benefits and burdens. We are urgently needing to fund our critical infrastructure. This legislation is a start. The goal is to make sure we're not disproportionately harming vulnerable communities in the process of fixing our budget. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so that will. It's on the table. Who would move this? I assume it's u councilor.

I second.

All right. Done. Okay, so we have two amendments now that have been moved and seconded. The third one that was mentioned is Clark and Green.

Thank you, vice chair Ryan. Thank you, councilor Clark, for the opportunity to work with you on this. I think our reactions to the testimony were similar, and understanding that it's really important that we get this moved today, and it's important that we pass it tough this year. We did recognize that there were gaps and opportunities for improvement, and it's better to have one amendment than two amendments. So I'll just say broadly what it does and then we will riff back and forth. But it it addresses I think it does three things. One, it it clarifies and puts a little more meat around this engagement with the business community and the stakeholders writ large on particularly the non residential and commercial aspect of this to ensure that we are developing recommendations for an impact based methodology. It puts some dates around this that are discrete. The other thing that it does is it actually says explicitly that PBOT will hold rate design hearings by February 15th for discussion of feedback on different approaches altogether. So as we're learning, as we're engaging, as we're testing models, which is something, as I said last time, you really can't do on the fly would be highly irresponsible to try to do on the fly. We're basically putting a commitment in directive j to do that and take a step down this journey as a city where we do more formal rate setting, like like a utility would elsewhere. And then finally, it puts into place an appeals process prior to the transportation utility fee going into effect, which I think is also another recognition that that there's some potentially unintended consequences, some equity distribution issues that that are important to catch. But we can't really do that on this timeline. So maybe I'll pause there and see if there's an area where you want to clarify and and add to that.

I just think you did a great job, partner. I would just give a shout out to the work that was done with small businesses to make sure that we consider the impacts on them. That's part of the reason we have also the appeals process built into this. We're looking at potentially a tiered process, but we need to do a lot more work on that and there's time to do that work. And like I said earlier, our public works committee is really committed to working through this process with with the bureau.

Thank you. And also, we worked with PBOT on this amendment. Oh yeah.

Thank you. And who's moving and who's seconding?

I'll move it.

I'll second it.

Great. I hear there's other amendments. And could you. The floor is open and no one's hands up.

Oh, before before we do that, we have a hard copy. I wasn't sure if this got posted. The Green clerk one is it okay? Does anybody want a hard copy? We have our copies. Okay.

Floor is open. Are there any amendments to this ordinance? Those were all rumors. Okay. That's it. Okay, so let's go back to the first one and the floor is open for discussion on amendment one from Koyama Lane and Zimmerman. Keelan, could you please read it again just so everyone hears it one more time?

Koyama Lane and Zimmerman one is a proposed amendment to the ordinance to add a finding eight, finding ten. And if I get any of this wrong, councilors, please correct me. And.

Let me throw you a.

Lifeline there. Keelan. Yeah. You recognize me, chair, and I'll speak to it. I put my hand in the air.

Okay, great.

I'm happy to because there are multiple areas. If you're looking at it colleagues, you'll see. As was mentioned, section eight in the you know, I'll put it in the soft language, the fines part we added there. In terms of making sure that vision zero and that sidewalk improvement plan are both in those fines. But the meat of the changes here, and this is what I'm happy that councilor Koyama Lane highlighted is really about that that last 25%, right? We've heard a lot last briefing about the 75% pavement improvement and maintenance. That's the pothole side. And I think that councilor Koyama Lane and I both liked what we saw in the 25%, but wanted to ensure that it had ultimate accountability. So words like may and shall mean different things. And what you're really seeing

Here is that half of that remaining 25% shall go to vision zero, which is about reducing deaths on our streets and shall go to cip. What's I think very good about these is they are deeply complementary. Where you have sidewalks, you have people who are not on streets. And so I think that these are quite complementary, but it allows a fledgling program to gain some traction inside the bureau for planning, for spending, for leveraging of funds. And I'm speaking about cip there. Vision zero is something that is ingrained in our culture, in the bureau and throughout the community, and cip is still, still learning to crawl. So this dedicates funding half of it, you know, regardless of whatever the future looks like in the tough half of that remaining part is going to go to each of those dedicated pieces. I also want to highlight that in the overall part we highlighted, and we added bike Lane sweeping and cleaning. One of the great things that's gone on in our community is that our bike lanes have gotten more protected, more offset from from cars, but they are also more difficult and more challenging to clean when that happens, right? It's not the traditional street sweeper situation. And I think all of us continually hear about we like the improvement and it doesn't get addressed the same way other parts of the street do. So I'm happy to to co-sponsor this. Councilor Koyama Lane and I both had, I think, very complimentary amendments and we've blended them here for ease of reading for all of you. I think that it puts us in a position where. We can advance projects. On a whole host of the different areas that transportation touches, and that's I'm really happy about that. I think that the staff with PBOT, the staff in both of our offices, worked hard to put together a good amendment for you all to consider. So thank you, chair.

Thank you councilors. Everyone, before we go to the hands are up co-sponsor. Would you like to say a couple words?

The only thing I wanted to add, I think councilor Zimmerman covered it all is thanking our staff and also thanking shoshanah and director williams for your leadership and your support. As we were workshopping this and really appreciate it. It was a great coming together and really good work and appreciate your support. Thank you.

Great.

And next up is councilor Green to this amendment.

Mitch Green: It is to the amendment. Vice chair, thank you so much for introducing this. I thank you both for kind of coming together. I was sort of anxious about these two things that I liked a lot of what yours did, and I liked a lot of what yours did. And I was like, I hope that we're not going to get into a situation where we create sausage and make them both worse through like an amendment process. So really appreciate that. I also appreciate that I could have those conversations not break quorum because we're a committee of the whole. I think that's a nice little feature. It helps us do better policy. I want to say that I'm supporting this today because my primary worry when we were considering new amendments to this last 25% was whether we were going to close the door on ourselves, on the ability to issue bonds that finance it, because the other part of its maintenance. And so this this would be the capital part. And so what I see in here is a clear indication that we can do that so that we can we can take advantage of favorable financial conditions as we have them take advantage of, of, of opportunity to get this work going in the summer and we start deliver. I mean, if we can start to deliver the benefits of this tough pretty early, then I think that's good for the public. And they get to they get to enjoy the benefits. So thank you for working on that. I'm a strong. Yes.

Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.

Thank you, vice chair Ryan, and thank you to all of my colleagues who have worked on this proposal. You know, the tough is an important step forward for our city for creating a reliable and stable funding source to ensure that our roads are safe and well maintained, and that the safety and health of our city is kept up through basic road maintenance and cleanliness. There are some medium term backdrops to this conversation that I have been thinking about, and that I don't think have gotten a lot of air space up here in just a few years. Portland's gas tax is set to expire, and I don't know what my colleagues who have championed this work are thinking about in terms of renewing that funding source or not. But as we have the hard conversations about affordability and long term maintenance, I am thinking about what happens if tuff is going to be our primary funding source and we don't renew the gas tax. And if that happens, I want us to be clear eyed about three things, one of which is directly related to this amendment. Tuff revenue needs to keep pace with our system needs. And in the near term, while we have a short period of time with funding from both sources, we need to make sure we don't create ongoing obligations that we can't sustain. But as it relates to this amendment, there is a key piece that I'm looking at, which is that we may in the future not have the flexibility of the gas tax. And need to ensure that we can meet all of our system's needs under the tough. We do not know what our transportation system will need in the future. We may have years where we want to spend more than 75% of these funds on maintenance to complete a major project. We may have years with different needs that we cannot foresee yet, and all of us have been stopped short trying to find a funding source for a policy that is critical and time sensitive, only to find that we have restricted our funds so much that we have to clear hurdles that we ourselves created just to do the work that this city needs to do. I don't want to sit here a few years from now and wonder how we can meet an imminent need in our transportation system, because today we identified the buckets that 100% of the tough can be used to fund. And while these are broad buckets, we again don't know what our system will need in the future. For that reason, I cannot today support any amendments that fully allocate the tough to specific program buckets. I strongly support continuing vision zero work. That's something this council has committed to. I strongly support following through on our cip commitments, and I do think that tough, especially in the next few years when we have both of these funding sources on the table, must be used to advance the work in these spaces. The work that we can do with cip because of tough will be transformational for communities in our city. I support everything in this amendment except for those changes in age, because those changes in h fully allocate 100% of these funds to pre-identified buckets, and I'm just not willing to tie our hands in the future colleagues by doing so today. Thank you for letting me get that on the record, vice chair Ryan.

Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you.

And I have a maybe a question for the sponsors before coming into this. And here, I mean, vice president clarke and former members of the transportation infrastructure committee about how the 75% number came to be. And then I have a separate question based on councilor Pirtle-guiney comments around whether or not the idea is to sunset this around the time that the gas tax may or may not expire, or you're just opposed to the idea that it adds up to 100% at all, even for the next three years or yeah, two and a half years. But I'd love to start with councilor Vice president clarke and just try to understand that a little bit.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal I appreciate the question. I think we went back and forth on that percentage. Those of us that have worked on this behind the scenes, and I think due to the public demand for the removal of potholes and the preservation of our streets, that is the primary need is maintenance. So we stuck with 75%. That's where the need is as far as the gas tax goes. I think from my perspective, we'll cross that bridge, so to speak. When we get there, we don't know where we're going to be in another two years. At the gas tax that we passed previously, thanks to councilor, councilor, Novick and others, does sunset in 2028? You probably already know that. So if it's going to continue, there has to be a concerted effort to make that happen. But I think that's something that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I hope that answers your questions.

It does. And I just I think while I have the floor, I should note, I don't know where the idea was that this is necessarily incompatible with the renewal of the gas tax came from. But the gas tax does send a price signal in a way that a lot of the other potential revenue sources for PBOT, including tuff, does not about, you know, mode. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. If you if you could speak to that other side of.

It.

May I respond. Vice chair councilor If we today were saying in this first year, it is critical that we get a proposal from PBOT that directs the remaining 25% of the funds to some combination of cip and vision zero. I would wholly support that for year one. I'm not willing to put something forward that binds our hands in the future where we don't know what critical needs might come our way.

Thank you.

And thank you, vice chair Ryan.

Sure.

Let's go to councilor Novick next, because that would be your second chance. Okay, now, I know you keep tally council president's.

Thank you, mr. Chair. I was actually planning to save this for after public testimony. But in response to councilor Pirtle-guiney comments, I share your concerns. I also think it's important for us to tell people that nothing we do here is going to meet all of our legitimate transportation needs. The bureau of transportation tells us that we need 45 to $50 million extra per year simply to keep the most important streets, the streets of citywide concern in their current mediocre condition keep them from further deteriorating. The proposed transportation utility fee, plus the street damage restoration fee, may raise about $70 million each year, but some of that may be needed to backfill reductions and other sources of revenue, including state funding. Some of it will be needed for maintenance work and other transportation assets like traffic signals, and I suspect that this council is going to allocate 25% of the tough to investments like sidewalks and flashing beacons, to make life safer and easier for pedestrians and bicyclists and councilors from districts one and four in particular, point out the large parts of the districts lack these amenities. So we need to be honest with the voters that probably the best we can hope for. And this kind of assumes the state legislature does something good in transportation. Is it adopting these fees simply keeps conditions on the major streets from getting even worse? That's not an inspiring message, but the alternative is to let the city die, because that is what will happen if we continue to allow our major streets to degrade into gravel. I ten years ago, councilor Clarke talked about behind the scenes negotiations. I sat in amanda fritz's office and I said 60% for for pavement. And she and she said 50%. And I said 58. And we wound up with 56, 44. And that reflected the reality that a lot of the people who care about transportation and who will support this package are people who are largely focused on inequities in our system and safety concerns. And although part of me wants to say we should allocate all the money to pavement until we at least get that 45 to 50 million, I don't feel comfortable saying to my colleagues who represent underserved areas and to the people in those areas saying, we will make no commitment on those vision zero investments. So I actually councilor Pirtle-guiney, I congratulate you on your courage and principle in raising these issues, but I, having gone through this before, would be worried about not making some specific commitments on money that is going to the vision zero projects. So that's, those are just my, my $0.02, as it were.

Thank you. Councilor. Novick. And it was mentioned about public testimony. We don't have any public testimony for this item. Correct. Okay. And so why don't we go to councilor. Koyama Lane.

Thank you, vice chair. Thank you for being honest about your concerns. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Because councilor Zimmerman and I did bring in folks from. Pbot, I am wondering if it's okay with you, vice chair, if we were to hear a bit from them because they were able to talk to us about this 25% number and wonder, in your professional opinion, if you see this amendment tying our hands too tightly, are there concerns around restricting our funds too much? That's not. Something that was clear when we were working on this, but would love to hear your thoughts.

If someone from PBOT come up 2 to 3 minutes. No more please.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Millicent williams, director of the Portland bureau of transportation. I appreciate this conversation and the questions that have come up to address your question specifically. Councilor. Koyama Lane. As I think this body knows, we have a number of restrictions on the current funding that the bureau has that does tie our hands to doing specifically what's articulated in the guidance from the funding source that we work with. So does this restrict our ability to be effective in the implementation of the programing that's proposed? No it doesn't. It does. However, if we are saying that out of the funding that we will anticipate receiving through the tough, we know that there would be no other activities that this funding could go to. And some of those activities may be things that are also important, not to suggest that maintenance is not because we know that that is. We have talked about that ad nauseam, not to suggest that vision zero is not, and certainly not to suggest that cip is not. But there are probably 100 other things that the bureau does that would need to be supported in some way. Now, that said, we have other funding sources. We do have general transportation revenue that comes in not just from the fixing our streets gas tax, but also the state gas tax, as well as funding from parking revenues. Yes. Funding from parking revenues, the tnc revenues, and another one that I'm forgetting. But yeah, state dmv, dmv fees. That's it. So that is an opportunity for us to look at that funding source to do some of the things that would need for that would necessitate greater flexibility. So on one hand, would we like to have greater flexibility to do the things that we think are important? Perhaps, but we are here to serve at the pleasure of this body. And so we recognize the need to ensure that we're providing the levels of support and service to the community in the ways that have been prescribed. Also recognizing that your constituencies have shared with you their priorities, and you're sharing that with us, and it's important that we're responsive to that. And so we appreciate the guidance and the direction, and we anticipate that over the course of the next several months, we'll have the opportunity to better articulate how we intend to do both those things that are required through the ordinance and any attending resolutions and amendments, but also the funding that we already have coming into the bureau. So we see this as an exciting opportunity, do not want for the need for us to have some flexibility to get in the way of us doing what's really most important for community.

Satisfied?

That's helpful. Thank you so much. And I think that for me, even though I represent district three, sip is important to the whole city, and I think it should be to all of us. And same with vision zero and working on lessening our traffic deaths, which we have seen, we're headed in the right direction. And still, there were 39 traffic deaths in Portland last year. Majority of those in district two, 44% of those. And these percentages, you know, 18% in district three, 28 in district one, 10% in district four. Those aren't just numbers. Those are people. Those are members of our community.

I'm pleased that this body came together, that you and councilor Zimmerman worked together to devise a strategy, a conversation and a focus for the bureau. I think it is important for us to be able to look at either end of the spectrum of need and find ways to meet in the middle, in service to the whole of community. So as I mentioned, even last week or the week before when we talked about this, the allocation of the funding does not keep us from serving well. It helps us to it helps to inform the direction in which that service gets implemented. And so I'm excited about that opportunity.

Can I maybe just add one more piece that. Sorry. Shoshana cohen, PBOT chief of staff this the sort of maintenance and safety priorities very well reflect what we heard from the community during the community outreach piece and also reflect not the exact same percentages, but reflect how we are allocating the current fixing our streets, the local ten cent gas tax. So that is a conversation for the future. But it is also sort of mirrored that we have some buckets around maintenance and safety there. And as the director said, then there are additional flexible, more flexible, completely unrestricted sources from the state gas tax and parking fees.

Okay. Thank you. You've been patient, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you, councilor Ryan. You know, I think you posed an interesting question. Councilor pirtle-guiney, I have said elsewhere on the record that I do think that we hyper prescribe our revenue sources to specific funds. It can get us in a situation where we lack flexibility. But I, I'm, I'm moved and sort of I follow in with what councilor Novick had made the remark that like, this is just to keep us from continuing to deteriorate at an escalating pace. And I am actually not confident that we're going to keep the gas tax as it stands as like whether or not voters choose to renew it or whether it just dissipates on its own because people stop driving because they can't afford $6, $7 per gallon gas, because that's coming our way. That's going to do the work for that on its own. And so we have to be preparing now for what comes after that. And it's a it would be a devastating loss of revenue. And so I think the work of this body between now and then is to make sure that we've got our legislative agenda iron tight on making sure the state does not let us down again and make sure that we can adopt at the local level and also influence state level policy that actually recovers the cost on the margin to the impacts to our roads. I mean, we need weight based fees and taxes, we need congestion pricing and the like. Those are things that we need partnership with other jurisdictions on. That's the real work. And so and lastly, I'll just say council can never adopt an action that binds itself from future action. Like voters can do that with a ballot measure. We can always revise ordinances as we see fit. So I'm still a yes on this.

Thank you. And with no one else in the queue, we are ready to vote on this amendment. Please call the roll.

Tiffany Koyama Lane: So this is the vote on councilor, Koyama Lane and Zimmerman one. Pirtle-guiney.

No.

Ryan I.

Koyama Lane I aye, Morillo.

Thank you both for bringing this.

I Novick.

Thank you for working together on this.

I cclark. Aye, Morillo Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos.

I understand the concerns, but I'm going to vote.

Dunphy I.

Smith I.

Kanal I.

The motion to amend the ordinance is approved with 11 yes votes and one no vote.

Thank you. Now we will discuss and vote on Avalos and Kanal one. The floor is open.

I don't have my hand up, but I'll speak. I just really appreciate the work of both councilor, Kanal and Avalos that they've done on this to address equity. This is a long standing problem that we have with other programs as well. So this this ordinance actually gives us an opportunity to start working on that. So I am going to vote yes, and I appreciate your work.

Thank you. Councilor Clark councilor Pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Yeah, thank you both, councilor Kanal and councilor Avalos, for bringing this forward. We heard from the bureau that they had planned to do this work in the future, but I think many of us were uncomfortable that that that work wasn't going to align with the passage of tough and that we needed to make sure we were moving in this direction as soon as we started moving forward. On tef, I appreciate that you've brought us forward language to ensure that that happens. I look forward to supporting.

Okay. Next up, councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thanks. I'm just clarifying. I know that there was a proposed Kanal amendment one, and it looks like that entirely is contained now in this Avalos Kanal one as number two. Is that accurate? And ir1i can't remember what actually happened last session on Kanal one if that was voted up or down or what. But this has all been encompassed now into one document.

I don't think Kanal one was introduced last time and mine was not created last time either. What happened was I we were essentially trying to accomplish the same goal, and the frame of Kanal one was good, but what mine added was some more accountability and some more, just some other fluff to it to ensure that we are holding people accountable to proposing that. And we did work with PBOT on the language. It went through a couple iterations.

The other part I was going to say is that I've been looking to see if Multnomah county still has their common application, because initially the common application allowed members of our community to apply for the Portland water bureau discount. And so in your piece here about an applicable process, I think there's some great opportunities. The trouble is, I'm speaking at a little loosely because every time I've hit the Multnomah county website for that, I've hit a 404 webpage not found. So perhaps it expired with the commissioner who brought it forward during the last term, but I think it must still exist out there. And it was designed for this exact type of situation where we don't have to reinvent the wheel, is that those who are applying for snap or other types of benefits who likely are eligible for other Portland based and Multnomah county based, or that this common application serves them. So I highlight that for you, hopefully as a point of ease as implementation comes forward, because I think that would be quite helpful because these are a lot of the same shared population who would qualify. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor. Morillo.

Thank you. Thank you both so much for this amendment. I think this is great and I really appreciate how quickly people have pivoted with the community feedback. I think this is absolutely essential. And then people took that feedback and are making improvements on it with the help of our bureau experts. So I just feel like this shows really great efforts from everybody involved. And I also just wanted to shout out and thank the the mention of the data privacy office and the importance in this work too, because as we're talking about ai and data gathering for water rates and the decisions that are made and calculated in that way, the data privacy office would be using data governance principles to go through that and make sure that it's well done and equitable. So just appreciate all of the thoughtfulness in this and tying it back to all the work that we've been doing as a council body.

Thank you. Where are we? Councilor Avalos. Is that a legacy?

No it isn't. I was just Kanal just did the thing he always does where I'm in the queue and then he gets in after me. Okay, we're all nodding. So I wasn't prepared. Okay. Yes. Well, I just wanted to speak a little bit to councilor Zimmermann's comments to give you context, because I agree that we wanted to have some originally my intent of my amendment and why we ended up blending it with Kanal is that mine was just trying to tap into existing programs so that we could reduce that burden. But what made it unique and when we talked with PBOT is the fact that because multifamily people and multi-family buildings don't pay a direct water bill, it made it those typical utility rebate programs weren't going to easily apply. So that's why we blended Kanal language, realizing that we were we were actually going to have to build something different because my intent was to try not to reinvent the wheel. But then when we talked about it, we realized, actually, we do need to create a new method because of the way that this is applied. So that is the outcome that came out of that. Just to give you context of the why and, and the original goal around it being easy, building on existing systems.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Yeah.

Thank you. And just to clarify to councilor Zimmerman's other point. Yeah, the the what is just Kanal one was offered first at doesn't need to be moved at this point. If should this one pass? Right. So that's why I didn't introduce it a moment ago when we were kind of floating amendments. And I want to just kind of reiterate here that that there's a significant quantity of portlanders who are in this situation of being renters. As we know, 47% of portlanders are renters. But within that, there's a significant chunk of folks who are in apartment buildings. And those apartment buildings which get a singular bill is sort of who we're we're talking about here. And I want to make sure that the legislative intent is on the record of ensuring that these folks are able to access equivalent relief from the burden. And that's I think that's written into the text as well, but that the idea is there's sort of a normative frame here of people in this situation getting to have the exact same level of recourse and relief as people who live in units with their own bill or in single family residences. Thanks.

Thank you. I put myself in the queue to just ask if the sponsors discuss this with people at PBOT about the infrastructure and how to add this new task, if you will. You're all nodding that they did.

Yeah.

And then you're also, I'm assuming by your enthusiastic head nodding out there in the audience that perhaps it won't be that difficult to implement. That changed the head. Nodding. My point is, I don't want to add more expenses to the bureau when we're trying to do some efficiency in terms of collections and and getting very concrete work done. Yes, pun intended with that word.

Good afternoon. Quisha light public works customer service. No, we don't see this as something that would be difficult to implement. We've been in some conversations. This is research and work that we've been doing for years. Started with that common app, no longer available, but it is definitely something we can implement.

Okay, that was helpful.

Thank you. Thanks.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay. I think we're ready to vote on item amendment. This amendment, amendment one from pavlo's and Kanal.

Pirtle-guiney I.

I Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I cclark I Green. I Zimmerman I Avalos. I Dunphy. I Smith. I Kanal. I motion to amend. The ordinance is approved with 12 I votes.

Colleagues, we will take a break before this meeting ends. And so I'd like to get through the next amendment and then take the break after the amendments before the full discussion. Does that make sense? Okay, so you're up councilors Clark and Green.

Colleagues. Thank you. We've moved Clark and Green, which amends directive j and adds a new directive. K. You should have a paper copy in front of you. The only thing that's different from the paper copy you have in front of you. And I think we've had to file another thing that's on the website yet, but there's a scrivener's error under section k. It describes the. It says the appeals process will be developed to provide relief for nonresidential users, where the water bill is disproportionate. That should read the water sewer stormwater bill because this is a a tough on top of a combined bill. So we got this sort of from shoshanna in very real time. Thank you for catching that. And so if if you'll allow us to just amend this in place, my co-sponsor agrees. She's the seconder. So or I'm the seconder. Is is that permissible? Do we need to move a new thing.

It's asking for a friendly amendment. Correct.

Friendly.

Yeah.

I think I've worked it out.

Great.

So that's that really should just read water sewer stormwater. And I just want to reiterate, I think what this really does colleagues, is provide the avenue of relief for a lot of the concern we've heard in the community about locking into a specific rate design from a lot of different areas of the city. We hear it from the business community, who might face a pretty disproportionate water bill. We're hearing it from some of our broader kind of urbanists and active transportation community. And so this provides a pathway to say, we're putting a stake in the ground. I think that we need to move to a more formal rate setting process as a policy just across all of our rate setting institutions in the city of Portland. But this this puts us in that in that direction right now in the tough. So happy to take any questions or if you want to jump in here and add any more that I've missed.

You haven't missed anything. I just want to add that I appreciate councilor Morillo comment that we really have tried to be responsive to all the different voices that we heard, particularly small business, and that's where part of this comes from is, particularly in the restaurant industry, this this will be very important. So thank you for your consideration.

And Clark, the language is all updated.

We're getting an updated right now.

Okay, okay. We're now discussing the Clark and Green amendment. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you, vice chair Ryan, and thank you, colleagues, for putting this forward. I, I had a question around the dates. I support everything else in here and my questions are around why it's so late and whether or not there's, I mean, what I'm seeing the dates do, and maybe I'm wrong about it, is create a situation where on January 1st, 2027, the rates as currently designed would be implemented, and then there'd be a structure of, of conversation around potentially changing that over the several next months with the intention of year two being better. Is that an accurate read and kind of how did we get to that point?

Yeah, I'm happy to direct respond. That is an accurate point. I think my first stab at this when I was working independently was to get like a rate process concluded by October 1st. And in conversation with PBOT. That's not feasible. That is not it's not practical to do a rate design process in that timeline. It is feasible to do that by February, February 15th. And the argument that was given to us by the bureau, which I'm inclined to to support, is that, you know, there's going to be a learning curve anyway on the first year of collections. And so we go through a first year collection was as tough as it is, and that will give us time to update our systems and approach this with with a fresh rate structure, if that's what we determine that year later, it's it's certainly not as good as being able to kind of create something over the summer and get it in effect before January. But we need to be realistic about what our rate setting process is. To note, bonneville rate setting process is 18 months. So, you know, it'd be and we don't already we really don't do things like this now. So this is we're spinning up a new capability and also asking a lot. The other piece though, is there's this appeals process that does have the potential to provide relief before the rate does kick in. And so I think that's that's councilor Clark's innovation on this. We're trying to kind of hit it at two different angles. And then if you combine that with the amendment we just passed by, you, councilor Avalos and councilor Kanal, there's multiple avenues to provide an equity based relief, kind of even the first year while we wait for a better rate design. So that's your interpretation is correct. That's the motivation on how we got to this place.

Thanks. I appreciate those answers. Thank you, vice chairman.

Thank you. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Thank you, mr. Chair. I just want to note for the record that whatever rate structure PBOT or we come up with, there's going to be a whole mess of people that think it's unfair. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give it the old college try.

Thank you. Councilor Novick. I have a similar question to the last amendment. This was discussed with the PBOT and they it's an adaptable strategy that they can implement. Head nodding. Okay, great. Thanks. Anyone else in the queue I see none. Okay, let's go ahead and call the vote.

Okay. This is the vote on the motion to amend from councilors Clark and Green pirtle-guiney. I Ryan. I Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos I Dunphy. I Smith. I Kanal. I. The motion to amend the ordinance is approved with 12 votes.

Okay, colleagues, we have successfully approved three amendments to the ordinance and it is 344. Let's be back here at 355. So you get a ten minute break. Thanks. Councilor Kanal. Oh, good. We can get going.

Okay. I'm here.

Hello. It is now 359. I gave you four extra minutes and we have a quorum. We have seven people. We have eight kids councilor Kanal remote. So we have passed three amendments and we are now in the discussion phase of the ordinance. So councilors, please feel free to raise your hand and tell us what you really think. And for those of you that are still out in the hallway, get in here. You might miss a vote. Okay, hands are up, councilor Clark.

Olivia Clark: Thank you. Co-chair. Co-chair. Ryan.

It doesn't matter.

Does it matter? I just want to, again say that we're collaborating here on an incredibly urgent issue in our community. We have to stop going backwards. We've got to deal with our streets, with our potholes, with our safety issues and transportation. So I so appreciate the work that we've all done together. And I also want to give a huge shout out to all of us that have been working with the PBOT staff on these amendments and the whole process since last July or even before last July. We've been working on this. They did an incredible report. The report came forward with options. We're now pursuing those options. We had a lot of public engagement throughout the city, and I just so much appreciate all the work that you've done to massage every single amendment that we've looked at here today to help us through this process. On behalf of the entire city. So I do feel like if we pass this and we are able to implement this and do all the work that all these amendments are requiring, that we're going to move forward in our city, that we're actually we are doing the right thing. This is like the primo asset management that we're always talking about. So I'm just kind of stalling for time here, hoping that our colleagues come back in the room so that we can take a vote. I see we do have some more hands up. So that's terrific. But thank you, everybody from PBOT and all of my colleagues.

Thank you, councilor Clarke. And don't you worry, there are two other hands up and I'm sure they're on their way. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Thank you, mr. Chair. My remarks are not primarily addressed to my fellow councilors here, but to the people of Portland at large. I realized that paying any new fee will be a hardship for portlanders struggling with issues of affordability. So I think it is imperative that the council explain to portlanders that unless we make major investments in street maintenance, it is not an exaggeration to say that the city will die. Right now, we are quite literally on a path to being a city where most of our major streets will have to revert to gravel. People will leave Portland. It will not move to Portland. If that happens. It is also important to explain that our streets are falling apart because of decades of responsibility by prior city elected leaders. Other jurisdictions around us, such as Oregon city, lake oswego, tigard, Washington county figured out many years ago that the money they were getting from the state and federal gas taxes was not enough to maintain their streets, and they adopted local revenue measures, such as street utility fees, to make up the difference. Portland city leaders knew by the late 80s that our streets were at risk. But under bud Clark bureaucrats tom potter and sam adams, city leaders simply let the streets rot. They were able to get away with it politically because it takes a long time for the deterioration of a street to become visible to the public. And every year they delayed the problem, got much, much worse, and much, much more expensive to fix. Streets are like teeth. If you don't do regular brushing, flossing, and cleaning, you wind up having to do more expensive root canals, extractions and implants. If you don't do regular repaving of streets, you wind up having to rebuild those streets at huge expense. Under mayor hales, he and I pushed hard to address transportation funding and ultimately went to the voters who approved a ten cent per gallon gas tax. That was the best that we thought we could do. Given the political climate and the positions of our council colleagues, we made it clear that all that gas tax could do was slow the bleeding. It simply wasn't enough to stop the stop the deterioration of our streets. All it could do and has done was slow the rate of deterioration. Under ted wheeler, the council went back to the voters to seek renewal of the gas tax, but didn't take further steps to address the ongoing deterioration of our streets. This council is showing a level of responsibility that no council in the past 40 years has. I think it's important for us to recognize that, and I think a large part of the reason is the new form of government. Under the old form, there was only one transportation commissioner at a time, and other commissioners didn't necessarily think that it was their job to do anything about transportation. Even mayors didn't. I think that one feature of this new form of government is we all feel collective responsibility for all aspects of the city, and that's what you, my colleagues, are demonstrating today. So thank you. As I said before. It is this the street utility fee is not going to solve all of our problems. I think the best we can hope for is we can keep the most important streets, the streets of citywide concern from deteriorating even further. But that's a big deal because again, on the path we are now, the city will die. This is a matter of saving the city.

Thank you. Councilor Novick councilor Dunphy, president Dunphy.

Thank you. First. Absolutely. Ditto to everything councilor Novick just said. I he said it far more eloquently than I can. I look forward to PBOT coming and flossing in my street soon, but I also want to just give councilor Novick additional kudos because as we know, this is councilor Novick second tour of duty in this building. But honestly, the the trying to solve this question cost him his election in many ways. And I'm glad that he's back at this dais helping us see this through. And your leadership is still here. I also want to thank vice president Clark for the herculean effort of trying to bring this forward and and force it over the finish line. We're going to get it there. And I'm really thankful for your leadership on this as as councilor Novick said, this is a demonstration of the new council meeting, the moment in a way that we simply could not in the past. And the reality was even worse about only having one commissioner in charge of the bureau of transportation. In many ways, I. I actually saw as mayors used the PBOT assignment as a punishment for their political adversaries, leaving the bureau struggling to try and actually have the kind of consistent leadership that they needed. And so really thankful for the leadership that has gone at this point and the right sizing of all of our systems, we are truly fixing the mistakes of the past. It's extremely expensive to fix the mistakes of the past at this point, but it will be more expensive tomorrow and we have to do this. I don't look forward to to passing any new fees. I fully recognize that. And despite my other inclinations towards being a pretty good liberal who wants to spend other people's money, I recognize the moment we're in right now is is really tough, but this is the right solution for right now. We have to do this and I'm eager to vote yes. So thank you to everybody who's put in work on this. And let's get this over the finish line.

Thank you, president Dunphy. Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you. I just wanted to take a moment to ditto, ditto, ditto. All the sort of good investment arguments that are being made here. But I also want to give some special acknowledgment to mark and PBOT. I know you've been working on this for a really long time. It's a labor of love. It's hard work, and it's hard to work on something and then see the politics work against you when you know it's really it really matters. You were our dentist all these years and then you didn't have a paying client until you have one now. So I want to I want to thank you for that.

Thank you. Councilor Green councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Thank you to everyone who put this proposal together. I think that, you know, I just want to share on the record that this is a really difficult vote. I just got to be honest, I really do get constituents that sign up for my constituent meetings and they bring their bills with them and they say, if these bills keep going up, the water bill keeps going up, I will be homeless. So I think it's important to elevate that. It's why I proposed the amendment I did with councilor Kanal. I understand the problems that we're facing and that this is a an opportunity that I agree we should take, especially in this moment. But I just want to share with portlanders who are concerned about their increased cost of living and their the affordability crisis that we continue to face that isn't necessarily all within Portland city council's control. But I want to acknowledge that that might feel harsh to get something that on their bill is going to look like a Portland decision that we're making at the end of the day. And so I just wanted to make sure that that was elevated at this time. Again, I know that we're all feeling, really feeling like we're meeting a moment that is critical. And so that's what you're hearing on the dais. So I just wanted to elevate the voice of frustration for the portlanders, who are going to struggle with any kind of increase at this moment. And I want to share my commitment as a councilor to continue to find ways to find other levers for progressive revenue opportunities so that we aren't putting all of these financial burdens on the backs of working class people. There are a lot of people in this city that are sitting pretty in the 200 to 500 k range, and I want you to know that we need to talk. We need to talk about what people's responsibility is to participate in funding the infrastructure that everyone enjoys. But for so long, and especially for east portlanders, we have been paying our taxes and we haven't been reaping those benefits. And now we're piling more things onto our bills. So I'm grateful for the efforts. I'm reluctant about my vote. I understand the responsibility I have as a legislator looking at a large structural financial deficit in a bureau that does hurt my district by having unsafe streets. There is a material impact of unsafe streets on people's lives in east Portland. And so I recognize that too. And it's a conversation I also have with east portlanders as we talk about implementing new infrastructure. And, you know, whether they feel that it's inconvenient or annoying. And I have to remind them that good public safety and public transportation infrastructure literally saves lives in our district. And when I share that, I think people do understand the gravity of the situation and yet the burdens that they're feeling, I want to make sure that they know that at least coming from me, that I hear that, and it is my intent to find other ways to continue to protect the services that you deserve. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Avalos. Councilor zimmermann.

Thank you, chair. Just first to colleagues, this amendment process has been one of our better ones. And so I want to appreciate that with everybody. I have a couple of questions. You know, the methodology is an area that has kind of given me some hang up. And I want to give an opportunity for for some discussion on this. The $12 per door versus and then to remind folks $12 per door. But if you're a business, then it's a percentage of your use on the system of, of your water sewer combined bill that councilor Green referenced is, was there deliberate thought about making this a percentage on all accounts instead of just on business accounts, so that the fee was somewhat tied to the usage or the size of the household, you could deduce that more people in a single house will use more water than a single person in a single house. And so, but but right now, with the single flat fee, $12 a door every month. A five person home and a one person home will pay the same. I'm just wondering if that percentage that was applied to businesses was considered and what the reasoning, if there was any, about moving away from that use based system. Thank you.

I'm not sure if.

Come on up.

I think councilor Green also wants to come on, come on up. But I think also councilor Green wants to address this.

Mitch Green: Sure. You know mark earlier PBOT when we set up the transportation utility fee, it was really based on the model that's used in 31 other cities, and they've used the trip generation estimates for types of properties. So for example, a multifamily property has about ten trips per day, you know, coming or going counts as two trips multi-family, about seven. So that's why we get the 70% of the multifamily of multifamily properties paying 70% of single family. That's pretty, you know, that's kind of a one size fits all for those multifamily and single family, for those other 31 cities where they have the most adjustment based on what you're paying is really related to those conversations we're going to be having with the amendment that we passed related to the types of businesses and the trips they generate based on square feet. So at least that that's the methodology that the other 31 cities have used as far as how they do that trip generation. There's also an estimate of the total trips generated by commercial nonresidential properties and residential, and that also drives some of those numbers. But that's that was the thinking that we used in putting together the proposal. Would you add anything to that, shoshana?

Just yeah, we are going sort of with the methodology that's used in many places and sort of there's a balance between the direct user fees and the base rate. And that's what we've seen across Oregon, all of the other discretionary funding that we have, the existing, you know, both the local gas tax, the state gas tax, the parking fees, the tnc fees are all the sort of the direct user fees. And regardless of how you use the system, we are still all benefiting. Even if I'm, you know, if I'm staying at home and but my groceries get to the grocery store on a truck, I'm still benefiting from the system. So there's sort of the high level trip generation between single family multifamily, commercial. And that's, again, on the commercial side where we're actually going to dig into more. But then this is sort of taking the place a little bit more of the base fee for the for the, the part that we all benefit from.

I'll just add, maybe say it in a slightly different way. My understanding of the methodology is like, look, this is an imperfect approach. You can't really. It's difficult to track and capture true trip generation. The water bill for the nonresidential commercial. The thinking is if you use more water, you're doing more economic activity, you're going to have more visitors, you have more trips. And so that's true whether you're a brewer or it's true whether you're a sports bar. It's, it's not, it's not a great proxy. It's but it's a proxy. And so I think that's why we created the space in there to do that. I think it was it'd be inappropriate to extend that water based piece to every other type of dwelling, because now you're back in a world, it's like, well, now we're doing another water bill. And that's that's definitely what they didn't want to do here. So I struggle with that too. And I think what got me comfortable was building in that space for us to say, this is the start. Let's open up the space for like a broader methodological approach. It's a good question.

Thanks. Yeah, it's an area. So I think about just my own daily use. Like I drive to city hall every single day and. Then I walk to drip, drop coffee. Right. And so is drip drop coffee because their water use is what's going to be the thing that that gets their bill increasing in this case. But I didn't actually drive there. Right. And actually, if you spend any time there, I don't think most people actually drive there. We've driven to other places. This is a challenge for me. This this part in terms of the the water bill as well in that application. But I also acknowledge that I, I believe there is no perfect solution here. I, I, I'm struggling with that. The other question and I don't see any attorneys in the room, but perhaps our finance folks. But I guess I. The testimony that came in last time got me thinking on something I had not considered before. But a fee is something you can generally avoid by not doing a thing. So is this not a tax and should it not be referred to voters, is a question that. Frankly, since last week I have been wrestling with deeply on. Because I think these changes that we've made in this document are, are great changes and are good accountability measures, but it does very much feel like a tax to me in one that seems like it would be appropriate for voter input versus, you know, a council's unilateral action like we do with a parking fee. Help me out a little bit with that or just explain your thoughts there.

Yeah. One of the first people that we met with when we were developing this concept and the option of using the water and sewer stormwater fee as a proxy for trips was ken maguire from the city attorney's office, and he felt like we were on pretty firm ground. I would recommend probably that if you had additional questions on that, we should follow up with him or you can ask those questions.

I was kind of hoping there'd be an attorney at a work session, but maybe not.

Yeah, that was the first question that we asked with ken, and he let us know that he felt like we were on pretty firm ground. I would prefer to have him follow up on those specifics of the question.

Perfectly understandable. Thanks. I think. Thank you. Again. I just want to say, I think I am I'm really happy with what has how this has been adjusted today. I think we've made a better document. Those are just kind of those two like underlying how do we get there moments. And I'm and I'm thinking through what your amendment councilor Green and Clark does. And does that help us in the out months? So I'm looking forward to kind of listening to the rest of this here today. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Kanal.

Sameer Kanal: Thank you, vice chair. Ryan, I first want to say I will be voting yes on this today. And I, I wanted to really thank councilor Novick for your comments at the beginning here. I thought that was really well stated and I appreciate it a lot. I also want to acknowledge that there are a lot of reasons for pause. And the two colleagues who spoke right before me, I think both laid out some of those those reasons for pause. So I wanted to just kind of acknowledge that there are a few things left to figure out with this, how it's implemented, of course, but the discount programs, the rate structures, and I think we've built in guardrails to do that through the amendments of not only this meeting, but the previous one as well. I think councilor Green's amendment as well in the previous meeting had the opportunity for revisitation, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how that works. We today have added in two different additional steps along the way, one for the discount program in the later stages of this year, and the second for the commercial rates over the course of the next year and a half or so. I also recognize from my time doing community engagement that when the city has historically said, don't worry, we're going to come back to it, we're going to come and revisit this in the future. It hasn't always lived up to that. And I really want to to acknowledge that and also say that if you look at our track record we have in this council in the last 15.5 months done a better job of that, especially when we've built it in, in writing. And so I'm very optimistic about that process happening because it's been written in so specifically. And I, I also want to acknowledge that for renters, this is going to be particularly challenging, and we're going to keep fighting to ensure that there's more progress there. A quick process note on this. When something comes out of the committee, the whole it's not done yet. It does go to the full council and if referred with a due pass recommendation, council president Dunphy said it will go to the consent agenda. So that does leave open the opportunity for for further change. If there's anything new. I don't want to pursue that necessarily. I don't want to encourage that necessarily, when I'm just saying is, is that this process continues on from here, and I'm excited to vote yes to let it go on to that next stage.

Thank you. Councilor Kanal chair Kanal councilor Clark.

Olivia Clark: Thank you. I just wanted to respond to councilor. Kanal. I really appreciate what you're saying. And now you're a new member of the public works committee, so you'll be with us as we provide oversight to the implementation of everything that we're agreeing to here today with with PBOT. So I welcome I welcome your oversight on the committee.

Thank you, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you. I just wanted to get back in and just make a plug that we that when we do adopt and make a motion here it is for a due pass recommendation to the full body. I think that I think we've had a pretty robust conversation here. We've considered a lot of amendments. I also I want to make sure that, you know, councilor Zimmer, you left open the floor. So to say, I want to see how this conversation evolves as we talk through. And I think one of the last things you said was a really important thing for us to level set on a little bit, which is the fee versus the tax and whether, you know, whether or not we think about it in terms of a fee is something you can avoid. I think of this as more like a utility rate. It's a transportation utility fee. We're calling it a fee, but this is a rate setting process. And I guess I could technically not have pg electricity at my house, but that's not I mean, I live in a society here. And so by having an electricity bill at all, I am going to pay a fixed charge of that rate that recognizes I'm part of a system. And so I think the way that I've been thinking about this, this approach as we've got it situated today, is us saying, look, our transportation network is a is a utility that delivers services to our community. Utilities should be regulated. Utilities should have oversight. We should be very careful in how we construct our rates for these utilities, and then find ourselves in a situation where we're not causing undue burden on other communities, right? Like, and that's the iterative process. So I think that there's, I think about it differently than a normal fee. I think of it more like a utility rate. And so that's why I'm pretty comfortable with, with this approach. And I just thought I would, I'd leave that on the table for us to consider. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor Green. Anyone? I'll put myself in the queue. Okay. Director williams, where are you? You don't have to come up, but you can take a bow. Your deputies, you and your deputies. Shoshanah and mark, I just want to thank you for all your hard work. And I really appreciate the meeting we had earlier this week. I'm clear. You know that we need to keep looking at adaptive solutions. And I think, you know that what I got from that meeting is this a continuous improvement process. And this is a step in the direction towards that. But it's a pretty much a baby step. There's a lot more work to be done. And I really want to thank you, vice president Clark. Your collaborative leadership is why we experienced an additive amendment process. I really thought that was smooth. And it really made this ordinance much better. And there was collaboration with people that sometimes don't work together to get to those yeses. And I also really respect the words that councilor Novick delivered. You gave context in a way that only you could have given on this body. So this is tough. I think the name that has come out of this says a lot about what we're dealing with. You probably aren't surprised. I'm really hesitant to increase fees for our taxpayers. It's Elana as another invoice. I don't care what we call it. And it's another inflationary increase. And I'm also concerned that we'll add this fee and then come back again in the budget process and will add increased fees to water and sewer rates. I, listening to so many portlanders are having an affordability crisis that our renters, but also are people who own homes, working class people who are don't have a lot of money to spend after they spend their money on their mortgage and their other utility costs. And then maybe with elders, especially on fixed income that have increased medical costs, and they don't all fall into the relief valve, if you will, of getting the discounts. So maybe that's one thing we have to look at. Is there another way to look at the program that waives fees? Because I think that needs to have a relook at this time. I also don't see any specific ways to address the evs here. And I get that people that are driving with gas, fossil fuel, should pay a syntax and pay proportionally more. But the heaviness of the ev unit's vehicles is a thing. And I keep hearing, well, the state's working on that. Let that sink in. So how many times have I heard the state's working on something? And then it's a year later and we're still saying the state's working on that. And so increasingly we have to make decisions locally and not wait for the state. And so I'm just concerned that we didn't crosswalk that at this time. The bottom line is I can't support the fee structure as it exists. I would prefer that we send this type of action to the voters. Finally, I also think that we didn't go deep enough to understand how we got here from an infrastructure standpoint. I know that PBOT has to work on that, and you have to look inside on how the system can improve to deliver what portlanders expect. On how they roll around the city today, which is much different than how I think the system was designed whenever that was. And I think we've added some things onto it, but we haven't done the the real scrub so that things flow better in the unit. I trust that that city administrator lee is on that with all the leadership. But so my, my vote today is inspired that we're moving in the right direction, but I'm, I'm going to be in dissent to keep pressure on for this to keep improving. And also because I have to be a voice for the hard working class people of Portland that are really in pain right now, and they're scratching their head on how this can be added on top of all the other increases they're experiencing. And so I know we can't control all the utility fees that are outside of our jurisdiction that have just gone up. But it's really mounting. And so I haven't I've heard so much animated, painful dialog in all the places where people come at you in an unsolicited manner. This is really portlanders care about our streets and our pathways being improved. They just want us to get it right. And I think that we're stepping in the right direction if we have more work to do. So please know with a lot of respect, I will be voting no thanks. Councilor. Novick.

Thank you, mr. Chair. I put myself back in the queue because there are people I forgot to thank, but I also want to respond to some of what you just said, which is I want to 14 years ago, when I was running for city commission, I went in to talk to the PBOT folks and they told me about the huge maintenance deficit. And I said, yes, but when we get everybody out of their cars, biking and walking, taking transit, then we won't need maintenance anymore. Right? And they said, actually, no, the primary enemies of pavement are whether trucks and busses. Passenger cars aren't really that big a big a deal. So even if we got all the passenger cars off, we'd still need to pay for maintenance. And I think my understanding is the distinction between the weight of electric vehicles and other passenger cars isn't really significant enough to make that big a difference. It's still whether trucks and busses that are the enemies of pavement. I put myself in the queue originally, however, because when I was thanking the council as a whole and this form of government, I neglected to thank councilor Clarke for her brilliant, courageous leadership. I neglected to thank PBOT staff, and I particularly want to single out shoshanna to tell her that I am on the verge of rewriting the knack's my sharona to r shoshanna and I want and I want to thank mark lear, who ran up this hill with me ten years ago. And it occurs to me that he might feel a bit like sisyphus, but like albert camus, I prefer to imagine sisyphus happy. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Novick. Councilor pirtle-guiney.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, vice chair. Ryan. I don't know why I decided I should say something after councilor Novick today. You know, we've heard from a number of people, this is a hard vote, that this is an important vote, that this must happen even if it is hard. And there are two things that I hold when I think about any of the challenging votes that come before us. It is how we are doing the work to make Portland a great place for families and how we are building the future of our city, and making sure that our decisions today make Portland stronger in the future and don't hold us back. We know that portlanders are struggling. We know the Portland families are struggling. And we also know, as our colleague councilor Novick said previously, that the can has been kicked on this one for far too long. Portlanders have asked all of us to make sure that the services in our city live up to what a city should be offering to our constituents. And right now, when it comes to the quality of our roads, which is directly tied to safety, not just for our cars, but for our bicyclists, for pedestrians, for our children, we're not living up to it. And we know that that leads to not only safety concerns, but cost concerns for individuals as they. As we see more crashes, as we see popped tires, as we see people getting hurt. So as I hold those two values, how do we address the fact that this is an expensive city for families to live in? And how do we address the fact that we need to invest in our future? Because the can has been kicked for far too long. I think about those other costs that people are paying now. I think about those safety risks that are before us today, and the fact that the tef will help us in those cases. And that, to me, tilts the scale dramatically to the side of needing to move forward. I know that there are portlanders for whom hearing about this will be a surprise, and the work of outreach is never enough. It is never enough. And I know that in the past, our city has not always done its best at outreach. But I saw the process for this work through PBOT look a lot broader than much of the other work that I've seen our city do, and I just want to appreciate that, because I know that a lot of effort was put into making sure that we heard from portlanders about what they want our roads to look like, whether they think an investment is necessary and achievable right now, and at what level that investment should be. And I know that the results were, in some cases surprising. And I saw both our committee here and our bureau take those responses seriously. So I want to thank you all for that outreach work. And colleagues, thank everybody who has taken the bold step of thinking about how we respond to portlanders calling for us to deliver the types of services that they rightfully expect in our city so that we can build a stronger future for all of our families. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney. There's no one else in the queue. Keelan. Please call the vote.

All right. This is the vote on the ordinance.

Do we need a motion? It's a motion. And second, and that's why we're here.

No motion and second is required. Yeah.

Pirtle-guiney I.

Ryan. No Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman.

No. Avalos I.

Dunphy. I Smith. I Kanal. I. The ordinance, as amended, passes with. Oh, no. Sorry. This is a motion to refer the ordinance to full council. So motion to refer the ordinance document 2020 6-113 to city council is approved with ten yes votes and two no votes.

Good catch.

Because it does look like for the entire council. Sorry my mic on. I was just saying that was a good catch because this is one of our first committee of the whole big vote. So this will go to council next week. Something tells me we'll be pulled off the consent agenda, but we'll see. And so our final item councilor Kanal, there you are. Your connectivity is fine. You're moving. All right. Take it away.

Yeah. Thank you. This is a very, very brief item, colleagues, but I wanted to give an opportunity and I'll be doing this more broadly in the future. But I wanted to give an opportunity for anyone who wanted to mention any items that they have coming up in the emergency response space. I'll be offering, like I said, a broader version. But just today, if there's anyone who wanted to talk about anything coming up in the emergency response space, and then I'll have an update on on something as well. And feel free to jump in the queue, but I'm not seeing anyone right now, so I will continue on with my part. I wanted to just give an update on next steps on the masking identification, verification and documentation ordinance, ensure colleagues were aware of it and knew what was coming up. I also wanted people to know that an ordinance to ban tear gas citywide in the in the city of Portland is in the works as well. The process on the masking, identification, verification and documentation ordinance has changed slightly for. Councilors did request a release of the document from committee to the full council. As a result, it is now going to be heard at the full council at 2 p.m. On Thursday, April 30th. And thank you to councilor Dunphy's team for the clarification on that council, president duffy's team and then I. There is no timeline yet for the tear gas ordinance as it's not yet been filed, but I did want to say it will probably be filed later in this quarter. Nothing else on that. And I'm not seeing anyone else in the queue right now. So with that, I think we can adjourn this meeting of the committee of the whole at 4:37 p.m. On the 15th, Wednesday the 15th. Thanks.

Oh.