The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-02-09

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (18,574 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

Hey, colleagues, I'm just doing a microphone check.

We hear you.

Thank you. I'm going to have our vice chair take control today. Since I'm under the weather and going to sign in virtually. So if councilor Pirtle-guiney can go ahead and run the meeting, that would be most helpful. Thank you.

Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you. Councilor. And I will actually with that call, the meeting of the finance committee to order. It is Monday, February 9th at 12 p.m. Diana, can you please call the roll?

Good morning actually. Good afternoon. Avalos. Present Novick here.

Green here. Zimmerman here.

Pirtle-guiney here. Thank you. And, christopher, can you please read the statement of conduct?

Welcome to the meeting of the finance committee to testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance in the committee agenda at ww. Agenda finance 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 christopher. Colleagues, we have five items on the agenda today. All of them are pretty short. I think the longest one is actually my fault, so I apologize for that. Diana, could you please read the first item?

Item number one December 8th, 2025 finance committee minutes.

Great colleagues, this is approval of our committee minutes. These minutes are available online as part of the meeting agenda. If there is no objection, we can approve the minutes unanimously by unanimous consent. I am seeing thumbs ups both online and around the dais, so I think we are set to go there. Diana, could you please read the next item on the agenda?

Authorize limited tax revenue. Bonding. Sorry, revenue fund refunding bonds through December 31st, 2028.

Thank you. And I believe we have jonas biery and matt garrick here to give us a presentation. Go right ahead.

Great. Thank you. Chair and co-chair and committee for the record. Jonas biery, the city's chief financial officer. From time to time, the city has the opportunity to refinance. Or the parlance we use is refund outstanding bonds to lower interest rates, which will reduce annual payment requirements on outstanding bonds. That work is managed by our debt manager, who is within the public finance, treasury division, public finance and treasury division. But that action does require council authorization so that that work may proceed. And with that, I'll hand off to the debt manager. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Finance committee chair Zimmerman, vice chair, pirtle-guiney and committee members. For the record, I'm matt gierok, debt manager in the public finance division. I'm going to walk through the limited tax revenue refunding bond ordinance this afternoon. And I'll start off with some background information for the finance committee and the public. First, what is a bond? A bond is a loan from investors that the city repays with interest. The city periodically chooses to finance new capital projects with bonds. When costs exceed the available cash resources of the city's various funds and operations, the city issues various types of bonds depending on the type of project and repayment source. Typically, for conventional government purpose projects, the city issues limited tax revenue bonds. These include a full faith and credit pledge of the general fund and other legally available funds to repay the bonds. However, the bonds are often repaid by the associated fund of the project. The full faith and credit pledge of the city's general fund provides greater assurance of repayment to investors, compared to a pledge of a single revenue stream, and this greater assurance results in a lower interest rate on the project's financing costs. This is not loading. See here. Sorry about that. Presentation is not. Cooperating. One second.

I'll hang for just a minute here while you get this going. I think the presentation is probably pretty important.

Okay, let me try to share the screen.

And I'll just note if we're not not able to get it up, I believe the presentation is posted on online so folks can see it attached to the agenda item. If we can't get it up here shortly.

We're not able to get it up there. Are you able to share the presentation for the public from the posting online, or. Christopher. Okay. So colleagues, we have this posted online where we can all pull it up and anybody who is watching on their own computer can pull that up. And we'll work on getting it up separately here if.

Okay, I think oh christopher's sharing now okay. Okay. All right. Go to slide. There we go. So next I'll go into more detail about municipal bonds of the city issues and why we are looking for the authority to issue refunding bonds. So municipal bonds in general include a ten year prepayment option that allows borrowers like the city to refinance its bonds with new refunding bonds for interest savings. This is. Looks like it's. See it down there. It looks like it's sharing. All right okay. This is similar to refinancing a mortgage on a home with a new loan. When interest rates drop because of investor preferences, municipal bonds are typically issued with premium coupon interest rates. By definition, premium coupon rates are usually higher than the borrowing yield on taxes and bonds, which increases the likelihood that the municipalities refinance its bonds for savings at some point prior to maturity. The public finance division, under the office of the cfo, monitors the city's existing bonds that will become payable. And then we create a work plan to issue refunding bonds and obtain interest savings when possible. By enacting this ordinance, it will provide additional flexibility to refund the city's limited tax revenue bonds as opportunities arise through December 2028. Next slide please. Finally, this last slide provides a timeline of the bond issuances that will become prepaid between now and December 2028. Also, to provide a sense of the total interest savings for each bond series, an estimate is shown based on today's interest rates. However, because interest rates change on a daily basis, actual savings won't be known until the actual date the refunding bonds are sold to investors first. The series 2017 a bonds were originally issued for the Sellwood bridge project, with 19.7 million bonds payable on January 1st, 2027. Based on today's rates, the city could potentially realize 1.3 million of total interest savings by refunding these bonds. I'll note that these bonds are repaid from PBOT resources next. The series 2018 b bonds were originally issued for the Portland building reconstruction project, with 73.2 million payable on March 17th, 2028. Based on today's rates, the city could potentially realize $11.4 million of interest savings, and these bonds are repaid from facilities fund internal service charges to city bureaus. And then finally, the series 2019 a bonds were originally issued for the vanport building project, with 9.1 million payable on November 3rd, 2028. And based on today's rates, the city would realize $1.2 million of interest savings total by refunding those bonds. And these bonds are also paid from the facilities fund, internal service charges. And that concludes the remarks on the presentation. Happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. And, diana, do we have anybody.

Signed up for public testimony on this agenda item?

No one signed up.

Okay. We do have a couple of questions for you, councilor Green. Go right ahead.

Thank you. Matt, thank you for bringing this today. I just have a quick question on the the total savings slides. I you don't need to bring them back up, but are those total lifetime savings of the portfolio or was that like an annual figure? Can you give me a sense of what I'm looking at?

That was a total amount for that particular bond series. So that would be broken down annually for about ten years per for bond series.

Okay. And so some of those like the savings is, you know, $1 million. Of course every million dollars helps. But that's not going to be like people who are watching along at home. And maybe other councilors who are not on this committee should not interpret this to say, oh, we're going to have another 1 to $11 million of headroom that we can then spend in a different way. That's correct. Right?

Correct.

Okay. Yeah. And if I can add just that's a great question, councilor. Thank you for flagging that. Right. So as matt indicated, generally we issue 20 year bonds. They're callable in year ten. So this sets us up. So we're able to take advantage of that and capture that savings. In your example the scenario that was 1.3 million in total savings. Generally we restructure those to have the same amount of annual savings. So roughly roughly that's about 130,000 in savings each of those next ten years. Also just important to note that call date is still, you know, many months or a year out. So even when those savings do materialize, therefore those future subsequent years, not for the current year that we're talking about here in the next few months.

Thanks. Thank you for clarifying that. It's really important that folks know that. And thanks for the work you guys are doing. This is another one of those examples of the kind of routine day to day stuff that doesn't really it's not very public, but is like saving our city considerable resources and helps expand the value of our public dollars. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilor councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Thank you. So since interest rates aren't known yet, what criteria are you all planning to use to decide when refinancing makes sense?

We will typically if there's any savings that are material. So the policy is that if there's at least $100,000 of savings, then we pursue the refunding. But so that's pretty much the criteria that we will do it as soon as possible as of the prepayment date, because otherwise you're essentially losing out on potential savings. So as soon as we can essentially.

And councilor That to the other reason it's important to have this authorization. I think this is referenced in the in the information is to be able to move timely. So often we'll have we will have other borrowings that are in the queue. And so having this authorization allows us to take advantage of this authorization so we can get some cost efficiencies by adding it, perhaps adding it to another issue and doing them both at the same time. And so it really is. Yeah. As matt said, both getting being able to capture that as soon as the opportunity presents itself and or being able to navigate to get those sort of emphasized cost efficiencies by combining them with other debt related actions.

Great. So then to confirm, the minimum savings amount threshold is the 100 k, is that kind of your trigger? Is that.

That's the policy? I tend to use some professional judgment on that as well, because doing issuing a bond is a ton of work. And so we also have to manage it from that perspective as well.

Thank you. And in what ways will council receive summaries of these savings and and or budget impacts after issuance? Like what is it look like for us to get that information in real time?

Yeah, great. Great question. So there's a couple of things. Couple of ways that you'll find out. So I'll say first traditionally how you might find out. And let's say pre 2025 is in that subsequent budget that those debt service payment requirements would be reduced by that amount. We recognize there's a different alignment in the organization to do that, to provide that communication differently. I've been talking with matt and the city treasurer about having some sort of regular debt related communication that comes to council that talks both about actions that have occurred or actions that are upcoming. I think we're getting the first one of those queued up to come to council this month or maybe early next, so anticipate that there will be some level of regular reporting directly from myself and the debt management office. And then the other thing I'd note is we do also know have have the monthly reporting cadence for the city administrator report. And so that would also be something I'd expect to be highlighted in that report.

So 100 k being kind of the one of those amounts that you're using to make that decision, I guess feels kind of low. I mean, is it really low and aka what is the cost of refinancing? Are you taking that into consideration? Like how does that all work?

That's a great question, councilor. That that would be inclusive of any cost. So we would take that all those costs into consideration when making that decision.

And just emphasize to, you know, well, that's the policy limit. It's pretty rare, I think, that we would execute a financing that would that would go through the effort to have that limited, limited amount of savings. We also don't have bond issues that are really that small. I mean, if it was a very, very small bond issue, I think that policy limit is more around. If we had $1 million outstanding, $100,000 is a lot compared to that million dollars outstanding. Most of our bond issues are much larger than that. But also emphasize, as matt said, you know, there is professional discretion and judgment that's used. So if we, for example, are in an environment where we said, hey, we can capture that savings right now, but there's market transitioning that suggests that maybe interest rates will go down a lot in the next three months. We might want to hold our gunpowder and wait for that to materialize. So it's a it's not as binary as, gee, we can hit that minimum threshold. Let's go. It really is being judicious and strategic about how do we balance capturing that savings as soon as we can for the city, but also make sure we're not, you know, going through the effort unnecessarily.

And since this is this a new thing like this whole, oh, give us three years to authorize it, or is this a new practice that we're doing or.

We've done it for the last six years. So this is essentially a re-up of one that expired already.

And I do acknowledge that this is these are general fund credits. So in matt correct me if I'm wrong, but there are other water bonds, sewer bonds that could still potentially come up as refundable. That could also come back to council as separate actions. So I don't want to suggest that this is the only time for the next three years, you might hear about a refunding opportunity, to the extent that more opportunities outside of these three start to materialize than we would come back to council for those as well.

But that would require. So you're saying those are fall outside of this ordinance and therefore you would have to come separately? That's correct. You're describing okay. Doesn't that okay. I'm just like, well, doesn't that make it harder for you if you don't have the pre-authorization for those? Why not those?

We typically have a refunding authorization embedded with each new borrowing. So those both of those bureaus have periodic borrowings that occur like every, you know, 1 to 3 years. And within each ordinance we usually have that, that refunding authority that's kind of piggybacked into the new money portion of those ordinances. So we typically will have outstanding authority to to do those things, but we'll always bring it up to council. And we do a new ordinance for any new borrowing. We'll kind of refresh them and brief them on any sort of refunding opportunity that we're anticipating as part of the financing.

Great. Thank you for answering my questions.

Thank you. Councilor, just two questions. Are we issuing the refunding bonds when we do this within the same bonding period that the original bonds were within, or are we extending the life of payment for these projects when we issue the refunding bonds?

That's a great question, councilor. We it's a best practice is to not extend the term. So we always do a matching term. That's kind of generally the policy. And that's what the rating agencies prefer that municipal entities do.

And I know you said that, but I think what I didn't understand was when you say a matching term that's matching the amount of time left under the current bond, that's not matching the original bond length. Is that correct?

The the remaining maturity of the original bond will match that same maturity of refunding bonds. So we end up getting about equal annual interest savings over the remaining term.

That was the piece I hadn't caught before. Thank you. And then for these three projects that we are looking to approve the refunding bonds for, is there another step when these would need to come back to council for more deliberation when you issue those? Or once we have given you this pre-authorization, the next we will hear about this is when it comes up in a city administrator report or in a budget. Looking at the the lowered, the lowered costs, things like that.

Yeah. Councilor it's the latter. So this provides the authorization to to execute the process at when the numbers work to execute that sale. So this is the touch point to provide that authorization. The one point I will make, and I think council will be receiving an email about this soon, is there is a step in the issuance process. Typically we have to do as this council has experienced at least once or twice before, very large disclosure documents called preliminary official statement. And there is a step in the process where council sees that document prior to publication. So you will see and have awareness that this is coming to market prior to it happening. But there isn't an additional council action authorization action that's required.

So as we talk to our colleagues about this work and this preauthorization, what we need to make sure they know is we don't have another opportunity where we get a presentation and vote on this. We will have a heads up for most of these before it happens.

Correct? That's correct.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you both for being here.

Thank you.

This is an ordinance that I am hoping we pass today. I do need a motion for us to be able to take a vote though.

So moved.

Second.

Okay. We had a motion from councilor Green, and I think councilor Avalos was the first. On the second there. Is there any discussion seeing none. Diana, can you please call the roll?

Avalos I Novick. I Green. I Zimmerman.

Pirtle-guiney I.

With five eyes. The motion to refer the ordinance document number 2026 0023050 to city council with a recommendation it be passed has been approved.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Diana, could you please read the next item on the agenda?

Item three declare properties located near the intersection of north lewis avenue and north loring street, and north albina avenue and north river street as surplus property, and authorize the bureau of transportation to dispose of the property for fair market value.

Okay. And we have kevin boec from the bureau of transportation here to tell us a little bit more about this today. Please go right ahead.

Thank you for introducing and thank you, committee chair, vice chair, for introducing this ordinance to the committee. Good afternoon, city councilors. For the record, my name is kevin boec. I am a supervisor PBOT real property services group, here to discuss two parcels of land. Let me pull up my slide here. I'm here to discuss two parcels of land to be declared surplus and disposed of for fair market value. Before you today, PBOT is requesting this committee recommended council to declare the parcel bounded by north loring and north lewis are 102697 and parcel bounded by north albina. North river are 532607. A surplus as seen on the aerial map highlighted in red. The larger parcel is 12,385ft■!s, and the smaller parcel is 4459ft■!s. These parcs are located in the elliott neighborhood and zoned igg1 or general industrial one. To understand how these parcels came into existence, here's a short background. In 2000, the city acquired block 83 for the construction of the lower albina overcrossing project to eliminate five at grade railroad crossings. Upon construction completion in 2002, PBOT converted the overpass structure and area beneath it into public right of way and left two remnant parcels on each side. Pbot then paved the site to keep contaminants from previous industrial uses. To get here, PBOT went through the city's surplus property process. In 2025, the property was declared to be excess to PBOT needs and was then formally submitted for citywide review. Having received no interest from other bureaus except for the bureau of environmental services requiring reservations of two easements over its existing pipes, the parcels went through a 60 day public comment period. Pbot received only four comments, which expressed a desire to keep the property as is for those wanting to use parcels as a skate park in accordance with adam 13.0 22c, these parcels are eligible as a category three determination to be sold on the open market. The proposed action before you today is to recommend to the full city council the city's parcels as surplus, and authorize PBOT to dispose by sale on the open market for fair market value, to realize one time revenue and return the parcels to the tax rolls. If council approves these parcels of surplus, PBOT intends to lease out the right of way under the overpass. Structure per ors 271 .430. A long term lease provides more favorable sales terms when selling the two parcels together, and allows PBOT to maintain and access a critical piece of infrastructure that links this industrial section of the elliott neighborhood. If the structure were ever to fail, this neighborhood would be cut off from emergency services. Thank you for considering this ordinance to the full council. I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Colleagues. Are there any questions about this? Councilor Avalos?

Candace Avalos: Yeah, I might have missed this. Did you say what the estimated fair market value of these parcels would be?

We don't have an estimated fair market value. When we go to the market, we'll have a range of probably in this area, probably 30 to $40 per square foot, again, depending on the users. Most likely going to be an industrial user again, maybe a contractor, maybe build like a one story building. Again, based on the size and the shape of the parcel itself. So I mean, at the time we put it to market, again, we don't have to take the first offer that comes in. We can again wait to see if there's something that would be comparable for that particular neighborhood.

And how will the revenue from the sale be used, go back into the PBOT general fund kind of thing?

Correct.

Okay. You know, looking at the parcel, I mean, it's a pretty, you know, weirdly shaped kind of thing, but I feel like it's good practice to just ask when we have land for sale, if we considered land banking it or if there were any, you know, thoughts about what we could continue to use it for. So just pose that to you.

Yeah. I think over the last few years it's been a lot of houseless has been set up at that location. We've had to constantly remove it. Again. When the skateboarders have come in, they've actually did some damage to the the existing bent structures. And so the idea is to have have a secure sale to somebody that's going to be kind of on site as well as if we if we lease it to somebody, you know, who's, who's buying the property, we can have access to maintain those that structure itself. And so when we have eyes and ears on the property, it allows us to have that maintenance over, over time. Again, it'll be a long term lease for for PBOT in the city.

Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean? I thought we were selling it.

Sorry. The two parcels are for sale on either side of the overpass structure. We would do a long term lease for the area underneath it, and so that that area could be used again for parking and storage, but not a building. But it allows PBOT to get in there and maintain and access, but allows the, the, the user who would be the buyer of the properties on either side to still be able to to use the the kind of the the street at street level essentially.

Thank you.

Yep.

Colleagues any further questions? Okay I'll ask just a couple. It sounds like there's not a potential buyer who the city is already working with for this property. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And you said the four comments were just about building a skate park there. Okay. The potential for a long term lease for the parking space underneath is PBOT conceiving of that as a revenue generating lease or a lease that would really just be about free use for somebody in the private sector.

It would be. It wouldn't be. No, it wouldn't be free. And again, I think the the idea is to allow PBOT in the city to go in there and maintain. If there was, you know, they do we would do annual inspections of the overpass structure. If there was any something had to be fixed, we would have the ability to go in there and maintain it. We would have it as more of like a more of a minimal type of, of lease structure. Again, it allows for favorable sales to each of those two parcels. And again, the idea is to sell it to one buyer for those two parcels.

I appreciate the answer there. I actually had hoped that you had said that we would be leasing for profit and taking advantage of the public lands that we have for the benefit of the public as a whole, through revenue that can help provide other services that PBOT provides.

Correct.

So as we move forward, we may want to think about how we can optimize use of our spaces. It sounds like that's not the plan here, and I just will note that I've asked a lot of questions in the past about the selling off of city owned assets. I am concerned that we are too quick to deem them deem things surplus because nobody needs them now. Instead of thinking about how they fit into the longer term plan for our city, this is very clearly an industrial area. I don't think this would be housing land. It's capped over contamination. It's not good parkland. I am interested in the interests for a skate park there. I know that's something that the parks and recreation bureau is trying to invest more in. And the fact that we didn't take that request seriously is disappointing to me. I'll support this today moving forward, because I continue to try to take these concerns upstream and address these issues before things are brought to council, but I'll support it today with the note that I do hope that PBOT reconsider the income generating potential of a lease for the space underneath, so that we are at least optimizing the benefit for portlanders of the land that we do retain in a sale like this.

Absolutely. Thank you. Councilor.

Okay. And diana, did we have anybody signed up for public testimony?

Let me just double check, okay. No one signed up.

Okay, then, colleagues, I would like to move this forward to full council today if everyone is willing. And I would entertain a motion to do so.

So moved.

Thank you. Chair.

Second.

Thank you, councilor Novick. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Diana, could you please call the roll?

Avalos. Aye, Morillo Novick. Aye, Morillo Green. Aye, Morillo Zimmerman.

Hi, pirtle-guiney.

Hi. With a vote of five eyes, the motion to refer the ordinance document number 2026 051 to the city council with a recommendation it be passed, has passed.

Thank you colleagues. We'll see that at full council. Thank you very much for being here today with us. Okay. We do have two items left on our agenda, I believe. Diana, could you please call the next item.

Item number four, authorize bureau of transportation to acquire certain permanent and temporary property rights necessary for construction of the northeast martin luther king boulevard safety and access to transit project through the exercise of the city's eminent domain authority.

Thank you very much. And we have two representatives from PBOT here to share some information on this project with us today. It looks like we still have the prior presentation up, but if you both want to get your presentation going and maybe introduce yourselves while we get there, that would be great.

Sure. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is liz rickles. I'm a capital project manager at the Portland bureau of transportation.

I'm heather byers. I'm a right of way agent with Portland bureau of transportation.

Great. Thank you both very much for being here with us today.

Do we have a do we have a cord to or.

It's been submitted in advance, I think as well.

A charge cord for the computer.

Yeah. Or the connection.

I'm looking to our bts folks to see if we happen to have an extra cord laying around that fits city issued computers. It looks like we may.

Thank you.

Sorry about that. Thank you.

I don't know if that connects me to.

If you if you log in to the meeting, you should be able to then share your screen. If that's not working for you, we can look to council operations to get it pulled up. Also, I got it.

While we're getting that pulled up, I'll share kind of about the reason that we're here. For the past two years, we've been working on a safety and access to transit project on northeast martin luther king junior boulevard for short. All will refer to the street as mlk. We're nearing the final design of the project, and PBOT is seeking authority to acquire property rights that are necessary for building both accessible curb ramps and signal poles at five mlk intersections.

We're almost there. Okay, we've got it. Good.

Yep.

Purpose of this project is to improve the safety and comfort of people walking along and crossing mlk, which is one of portland's high crash corridors. The project aims to improve access to multiple TriMet bus routes and improve access to schools, businesses, homes and services. Roughly half of this project is competitive grant funded with federal funds through the regional flexible funding allocation administered through metro and the Oregon department of transportation. The grant application for this project was developed in partnership with the school district business association. There are no plans for the project to need any changes to vehicle turning movements. No plans to impact street parking, no objections to the project so far, aside from frustration that we're not able to update more crossings. So the new enhanced crossings with push button activation and flashing red lights are planned at northeast buffalo and northeast mason streets. New, safer traffic signals will also be installed at northeast killingsworth and northeast fremont streets. So right now, the team is interested in beginning the right of way acquisition process. This project has a few corners that will be receiving Americans with disabilities act certified corner ramps or ADA ramps, and sometimes the ADA ramps are the signal poles in the project have specific dimensions and slope requirements that can only be achieved by working on sections of private property. So an example is this picture of mlk at northeast buffalo. So to perform the sidewalk panel here, right up against that property, we want a temporary construction easement so that we have clear permission to be there. And there can be compensation as needed. Regarding outreach, previous engagement has included meetings with the school district, business association, school partners, event tabling, the sole business sole district business association represents over 500 diverse businesses in the north northeast Portland community for this right of way topic. Specifically, letters have been sent to impacted property addresses and property owners explaining upcoming right of way needs and more. Outreach will take place once we have a council date confirmed. More outreach in advance of construction, which will take should is planned to take begin next year. Plan to begin next year. Early next year will take place through tabling mailers and signs and during construction. We will work particularly closely with businesses next to the construction to minimize business disruptions.

And for the right of way portion. We're seeking authority to initiate negotiations and extend offer offers of just compensation to owners for acquisition of necessary easements. If negotiations are unsuccessful, the city may proceed with condemnation to to obtain the easements. We're looking for easements from 12 property owners, which include five permanent easements and 12 temporary construction easements. Permanent easements are needed to facilitate construction of ADA compliant sidewalk improvements, signal infrastructure, and safe pedestrian walkways. The temporary easements will be used to support support construction activities. All affected owners will be notified via certified mail and follow up phone calls of the city's intent to acquire the required property rights. Ahead of the council hearing. That's all we have.

Thank you and colleagues. I do believe we have public testimony signed up. Councilor Novick is your question technical or should we move to testimony first?

I'm not sure if it counts as technical or not. I was just curious if you could if we could know how much impact an individual property will these easements have?

So I have quite.

It's let's see. So there's about 216ft■!s total of permanet easements out of the between five properties and about 1400ft■!s total in temporary construction easements over 12 properties.

So their average. Go ahead. Sorry.

Can you say what the biggest square footage impact is on any one property?

Sure. The largest permanent easement is 90 square foot, and the largest temporary easement is 235ft■!s.

Thank you.

Yes, colleagues.

Any other questions?

Thanks.

I'll ask just one thing or mention one thing while you're here. And I do want to say thank you for pointing out that you have received testimony about community members wanting more crossings included. This is in my district. I know many of these crossings well. One of my kids best friends crosses northeast fremont at that intersection alone every day, and it is one of the more dangerous intersections on northeast mlk. So I think anything we can do to make sure that cook, which I know is a potential inclusion, stays on the list would be helpful. I do have one question about the property owner engagement. I know it's hard when we haven't been through this process at council yet, but making sure we have direct engagement with those property owners, not just a notification, but the opportunity for a conversation and the assurance for full council. By the time this gets to full council, that contact has not just been attempted but has been made is really important. I think this project is really critical, but when we're talking especially about permanent easements, even if they're small, making sure that that conversation has been had before you come back to full council would be really helpful.

Okay.

Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: You all mentioned that you know, you're working with business owners to minimize, I don't know, loss I guess, to their business. So I guess I want to just want to ask, are there any risks of displacement. What what could those risks look like if there are any? Sounds like no, but not just for the small businesses, but also for residents along that corridor.

No risk of displacement. Temporary. Travel impacts. When we are working on sidewalks, we'll have to move pedestrians around the construction area. Temporary vehicle travel impacts. We might have mlk for some hours at a time, down to one travel Lane in each direction.

Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.

Okay.

Seeing no other questions, I think we'll move to public testimony. Thank you both so much for being here with the presentation today.

Thank you.

We have one person signed up, keith edwards. You're welcome to come to the testimony table and begin your testimony anytime.

Welcome. Mr. Edwards. Thank you for being here with us today.

Thank you very much. I'd like to first acknowledge good afternoon to the chair and to the vice chair as well, and to the committee members. I'm here from the community. I've been in Portland since 1958, since I was a child, and lived in mostly northeast Portland. I'm a little concerned today because the crosswalks that are being considered are at buffalo, mason and cook street and granted that they are important. That's only 15% of the 20 crosswalks that exist on mlk between lombard and broadway. The community assumes that those crosswalks are safe because they've been constructed by the city, and so they walk at their own peril. However, they don't have any amber warning lights on any one of them. Not one has amber warning lights. There is a traffic signal constructed a couple of years ago at northeast goin street on mlk. I'm sure the finances, the amount of dollars that went into that are immense compared to what it would cost to put amber warning lights, and even an audible warning for pedestrians when they cross on mlk at those other 20 crossings. My other concern is that the traffic signal that was installed at northeast goias street is not predominantly used by citizens that look like me, and so there's been. And then also there's at northeast prescott street. There's been a traffic signal for years. And I know that it makes sense to have that crossing there, because those folks travel to work on their bicycles. However, at northeast klickitat and 33rd avenue, there is also a crosswalk there. It's only two lanes, though not four lanes like it is on mlk, and they have six amber lights. They have four audible buttons that you could push to warn you when traffic does not always stop. And there are also six photocell panels there at that location. Most of those people that cross there do not look like me. What I'm saying is that the african American community here in the city pays no less taxes than anyone else. There are no less valuable than anyone else in this community. And so I would hope that the finance committee would also share and encourage the general council, the city council, to go out into the community, because it's not only mlk, there's other areas in this community that have crosswalks where people feel safe, and yet and still they are not safe. But don't go out there on a sunny day. Go out there on a rainy evening where the visibility is not what it should be, and there are no amber lights to protect the pedestrians. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I know you and I have had many conversations about this, and I appreciate you being here today to share with my colleagues as well some of the concerns there.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Further discussion, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Yeah, thank you, mr. Edwards, for your testimony. And thanks to the bureau for bringing forward this proposal. I think I just want to daylight another conversation that's been happening in transportation infrastructure back into this space. We're going to reconfigure our committee soon. There has been a pretty clear call to have making making sure that each of our committees have someone from every district. I think we missed the mark, and I'm not blaming you for that. I'm blaming all of us by not having any district two councilors on the transportation and infrastructure committee for the first year, but I'll note that, you know, councilor Kanal, when we were talking about cip, said over and over and over again, like we have high crash corridors in district two. This reminds me of that. And so I think when we have that conversation, whether it's in finance committee or the broader council about funding that, then we recognize that. I think that there's some discretion to accelerate some of the investments for just the basic safety improvements, just eliminating those. I mean, I don't I don't know that you need to have a fully fledged, you know, rebuild of a, of an intersection just to put some lights in place to make sure that when one Lane of travel sees that pedestrian, that doesn't mean another Lane of travel sees it. So you have this setup where someone starts crossing or one car is blocking it, but you can't see that other car ripping down at 40 miles an hour. So that's a very real thing. And I hear you.

And if I could, there are other dangerous intersections on mlk where the there's a bus stop for public transportation. It also creates a dangerous event occur intersections as well.

Thank you. Councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Yeah, just getting in the queue to appreciate you, mr. Edwards, for what you're sharing and just kind of echo a little bit of what councilor Green is saying. Definitely a big issue in my district of east Portland as well. We have a lot of the high crash corridors, in fact, almost all of them. And so I think what this also speaks to and what I'm hearing in your commentary, is the ways that people on the ground really need to be part of these discussions, because what often happens and it happens a lot in east Portland, PBOT comes in and they do a bunch of upgrades, but then the people that live there like, well, if you would have asked me, I could have told you what is a more dangerous street, or I could have directed you to some more, just some more context for what would make the whole neighborhood safer, not just this one area that you're improving. So I just want to appreciate what you're saying and elevate this so that people in PBOT can hear that we really, desperately need this kind of engagement because we can't expect, you know, a bureaucrat behind a desk to really understand the lived experience of how you're walking those streets every day and the ways that we could make our investments more smartly by choosing areas that have, you know, more wear and tear or that, you know, you all, as community members are identifying, have the highest risk. So I just want to appreciate that and say that we have a lot of work to do as a city to make these decisions when we're funding these kinds of investments, because, yeah, unfortunately, we'll dump a lot of money into areas that maybe don't need it as much. And we continue to deprive the areas where folks are at huge peril as you as you noted. So thank you. Definitely is my commitment as a district one councilor to continue to elevate that, because we need to spread our investments more wisely. So thanks for your testimony.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thank you, vice chair. My questions are for the staff who presented today.

Let's bring them back up. I think you can go ahead and ask your question while they're heading up. Councilor.

Thanks. So you know the picture that was used in this presentation today is one of those examples of that I've made for the last year. Plus, when it comes to PBOT projects, a perfectly fine sidewalk, certainly not an a plus or the term I used last year was the taj mahal of on ramps and off ramps of sidewalks, but a functional sidewalk nonetheless. And we are once again going to invest in bumping it out and making it look like we did fourth avenue. And those are all very well and good, and I appreciate the work and the outreach that sounds like has happened with seoul district and others along this, this, this avenue. I certainly hear from the testimony, but I've seen no work by PBOT with respect to the cip program. That was about where projects can exist that don't have a sidewalk. And so what I'm trying to understand when I'm looking at this presentation is the funding that is used. And if we can, what wasn't clear to me in the presentation was where these crosswalks are happening. And those are incredibly important for the for the pedestrian walk, which is an area that I continue to try and push, is pedestrian safety. Those are incredibly important. But the connective tissue for me is a little lost in this presentation to what looks like is work for the curb bump outs or curb redos along the way. So is the staff able to articulate a little bit more about the actual crosswalk part versus crosswalk? And I'll just say new, new, larger curbs where the sidewalks already exist. Because I say that again with the lens of cip was about trying to get concrete down in districts that don't even have sidewalks yet, and we're going to redo some sidewalks. So I'm trying to understand that this is this rub where I don't feel like cip has landed with PBOT yet, and I'd like to get a sense before I authorize this, because from finance, we only have a couple of widgets to be able to exercise some influence here. Thanks.

Grant funding. The source of this was from an application submitted and that we were awarded in 2022. And it is through a metro regional flexible funds grant. And so they we put forward this project because of the really demonstrated there's a big need for crossings to get people safely across mlk. And so this was a pretty major project that got awarded that funding. And we're being awarded another round of this type of funding for mlk as well. So yeah, I think the connection to transit to schools in the area all made it a really great application applicant.

That makes sense. And thank you for clarifying from that. Grant, can you talk a little bit about if we're going to be enhancing those crosswalks which are desperately needed? Can we talk a little bit about why that requires work to happen on sidewalks that already exist versus, you know, I think the testimony about the flashing beacons. And as a person who hasn't walked mlk a lot but has certainly done some walks along that especially with the cleanups that have happened, I do get it. But why? It seems like with these, with these eminent domains and these these acquisitions of properties, it looks to me like we're going to see significantly new sidewalk work done connected to the crosswalk. And I'm trying to center the crosswalk because I consider that most important. But I'm not understanding the sidewalk part here.

Sure. So when we install a signal, a signalized any like a signal pole, rectangular rapid flashing beacon, any type of that infrastructure, we're also required to update the ADA ramps. So this project will be updating the ADA ramps at the corners of where where these five intersections where we're doing the signal enhancements. It's it's not a sidewalk. We'll do one panel on either side of a of an ADA ramp.

Great. So when you say required, who requires it? Because our ADA staff have presented to us some discrepancies here in terms of how PBOT interprets that and what's actually required versus our own standards. Because I'll remind you, cip is about places where there's literally just gravel or mud. So we have no ADA standards. So I'm trying to understand how this makes common sense.

We can't I think it's a federal requirement. When we make enhancements to our streets, we can't just make enhancements for the people, for the, you know, 80% that don't use a. Mobility device. We must enhance that ADA, that the ramp when we're doing all this other work in the area. The same thing goes for when we're doing paving projects. We're required to to update the the ADA ramps. It's a federal requirement.

And that that is if if current accessibility does not exist. And according to a briefing that this council received from its ADA employees sometime last year in and I'm just using simply the picture that was used in your presentation, where we have a curb that has a ramp, sure. Versus a curb that has no ramp. In that case, it makes a lot of sense to me that you need at least a basic update. Or in my discussion with director williams, that the ramp that exists, it could be corrected, else say, in small fashion versus in large fashion, which seems to be the PBOT way these days. We can't do anything in a more smaller sense in terms of directly on and directly off ramps versus the angled ramps, which I think is the the thing in question here.

Well, it's in my sorry.

Please go ahead.

It's in my interest and the whole team's interest to deliver this project as affordably as possible. And if there was a way to not construct an entire ramp to make it meet the standards, that this is a federal project. So we're required to update these ramps. If there was a way to get to sort of cost cut in that space, I would we would be doing it. We are not able to do that on this this project.

I am challenged by that. Given my conversation with the director of PBOT and given the situation that happened with the ADA ramp program and the replacement of certain staff members because of the I'll just say approach that was used not to be coining a term there, but. This I want to be I want to be ultra supportive of these crosswalks, but I am looking for a way to get any acknowledgment that PBOT recognizes that they are able to make improvements without always completely tearing down and replacing, and I can't seem to get that indication. And so it seems like the ask is always, please authorize us to do the highest and best quality work when the essence of the cip program is looking for us to take things that are subpar, just barely over par, right? Just trying to bring incremental improvement. And a project like this is one of those where I wonder is, are are we competing in any way, dollar for dollar, competing at all for areas of the city who have no sidewalk or no ramps whatsoever? And in that case, ADA could be applied more equitably than in the areas where we have some ramps on the site, or where a ramp exists on a sidewalk. And just I. The reason I'm picking my words so carefully is that I am supportive of these crosswalks. I just I'm not sure that I have full faith in credit to the PBOT way of implementing the crosswalks and everything that seems to go along when PBOT does what should be a basic crosswalk improvement, and that this is coming directly from my conversations with with the director, looking at some programs in my own district and saying, yeah, that didn't have to be that big. So is that how do I know if that's not the case here? And I recognize this is not the transportation and infrastructure committee, I'm well aware. So I'm using finance as a means to. Look to PBOT to be a little bit more deliberate here in how they smaller scale projects allow us to do more projects across the city, is what I'm hoping for. So I'm I'm troubled about authorizing this today.

Sure. I think you'll find a lot of great illustrations throughout PBOT right now of staff working very hard to get more money to deliver more infrastructure in areas that have no sidewalks, no safe places to street to cross the street, no safe places to get to school. That is absolutely a priority of PBOT. It's happening in another part of the conversation. This part of the conversation is delivering a grant that we got from the federal government to really make an impact on people that are walking across a high crash corridor with some of the highest bus like volume of bus service in the city. So they're they can happen at the same time. There's there's different tracks of types of projects happening every day that people, people are working on.

Yeah, I, I'm well aware of the reason for the crosswalks. I don't please don't get me wrong here. I spent a lot of time there but I and that's not what I'm questioning. And I and you've mentioned a few times the grants are there. If the grant is somebody else's money. I guess there's a point here where we authorize to, you know, spending other people's money is always a great day. Are there any general fund? City of Portland. Dollars that will go to the curb in particular? Not the crosswalks that I'm supportive of, but the curb in particular aspect of of these projects as you've put them forward.

I think. So you're there's specific questions about what grants are, what projects we're fulfilling right now, not mlk. We can absolutely prepare that for you. And no mlk. What are other what are other sources of funds for the project?

No, no no no. You have mentioned that this is a grant funded project. I'm hearing that loud and clear. And for that reason, perhaps I'll be supportive of it, because I'm not sure that changing it on a grant funded project is something that that I want to split hairs about, but I'm trying to get a sense of. Is it just that metro bond that you talked? Excuse me, metro grant you talked about? Or are there also Portland general fund dollars going into this project as it relates to the curbs of this project and not the not the crosswalks?

I think the question here is whether there are other funding sources going to the sidewalk side of the work, or whether this is just funded 100% by that grant. Is that correct, councilor?

Yes. Thank you. Sorry for not being in.

The room. Yes, yes.

There. I'm trying. Let's see.

And councilor.

The this project has fixing our streets. Portland clean energy fund system development charges, Portland public schools funds and some ADA ramp funds.

Okay. And then out of the out of the scope of the project, do you have any indication for how much of the project is the crosswalk infrastructure and how much is new curbs on existing curbs, infrastructure.

Probably less than five, 2%, five, maybe 5%. It's a $5 million project and it's probably $20,000 to build a ramp. And there's five intersections.

Okay.

I don't have an engineering background, but would it be helpful if when we come back, if we provide kind of the rationale for why we would do a ramp versus why we wouldn't do a ramp, and what the standards are that PBOT is addressing when we say we need to build a whole new ramp.

That is certainly helpful. And I think in light of the changes that happened in the ADA ramp program and director williams direction last year, I think it would be helpful because what we, you know, in terms of the way projects, projects come about a year is not a lot of time in the what has been planned until what we see is actually hitting the streets. And so there may be changes that have been implemented so that that program can be better rolled out that we haven't yet seen hit the ground. I recognize that you're all planning for a project takes a long time, and I don't know when this one was necessarily planned. And if it reflects those changes and that change in philosophy, that would certainly be helpful. Thank you.

Thank you counselor. Anything further?

Yeah. So just a just a comment I these these projects are great. These the outreach that you all have done is great. The the eminent domain for these for these pieces of property, these easements are important. So please don't take my criticism of the way we roll out ramps as a criticism overall of the way in which you've approached the outreach with with everybody. And going through these projects certainly needed crosswalks. Very supportive of those I am using today as an opportunity to kind of foot stomp the cip program. That doesn't seem to exactly get our attention, and I have used existing sidewalks and ramps as the example of the thing. Portland always redo redoes without building new, where we've got gravel and mud in district one and district four in particular. So I only get a few stabs at transportation related things being on finance. And so I'm taking that. Thank you very much for your comments and your thoroughness and explaining that some of the reasons there, and I look forward to when it comes to full council hearing about some of that philosophy on what ramps get redone and what has changed in that program, given the attention that the ADA ramp replacement program got over the last year? Appreciate everybody's work. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, counselor, I do have one other question before you go too far, but I want to note for anybody listening who's curious about some of those requirements, that there are federal code requirements, that if you do anything other than maintenance that triggers a need for ADA compliant ramps. And I think the ramp we're looking at in the picture here only has or the sidewalk only has an ADA ramp on one side, not both. So that may be part of the reason that we need to do the the upgrades on the sidewalk side. I just want to make a note while you're here about the project itself and the testimony that we heard from one of my constituents who is in this area a lot. We're only making upgrades to five intersections, and I've heard loud and clear from mr. Edwards and from others in, in my district that there's about 20 intersections on mlk that need some work. I am wondering on the three intersections that are getting new signalized crossings. Is that a new? Red yellow Green light, or is that the flashing yellow lights when somebody presses the signal to cross the street.

It's kind of a it's similar. It will look the experience will be similar to the one at going in mlk.

So it's a red, yellow, Green light that is only triggered if somebody pushes the button at the intersection.

Correct.

Okay. And I noticed going is on this list and going has had huge enhancements already for the bike crossing there that have also enabled safer pedestrian crossings. Is there more work that will be happening that didn't happen during the past project?

No, this is like a corridor.

Okay. So the going work is complete. What we're talking about today is work for buffalo, killingsworth, mason, fremont and potentially cook. Yes okay. That's helpful. And knowing that these aren't full fledged, always running red, yellow, Green lights, but this is really about allowing pedestrians to trigger a safe crossing that includes not just flashing yellow lights, but a red light to stop cars is. That's heartening to me. I think that's.

Just a red. Yeah, okay.

And it'll be a clear red light, not just flashing yellow lights to stop cars as pedestrians are crossing. Are there plans on this corridor to have those red lights for pedestrians, pedestrian triggered red lights in other areas? Or is this the extent of the project that you're currently looking at?

There's going to be a second phase with additional crossings on mlk. We've gotten another round of funding from metro.

Okay.

We'll be selecting the scope of that project in the upcoming year.

So the intersections for that work have not been selected yet.

Correct.

Okay. It would be great to make sure that the councilors in district two, not just me, but my colleagues as well, know when those when that public engagement process is out so that we can make sure that folks who we've been hearing from are able to engage.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much. Councilor. Novick.

Yeah, I wanted to follow up on the public engagement thought. I mean, I don't think that PBOT makes these decisions when PBOT makes the decision. It's just a matter of bureaucrats sitting behind desks deciding without doing outreach. But for these projects, you you said in your presentation that you met with a sole business district association to develop priorities. But is this project the product only of conversations with the sole business district folks? Is it also the product of additional outreach to other people in the community? And could you tell us a little bit about what the sole district business association is, and why you felt that they were, you know, reasonable representatives of people in the community?

We've done a lot of outreach through the planning phase of this project, and the sole district business association has been a great partner. They represent over 500 businesses. We've also been. Working closely with Portland public schools. And this the woodlawn school district really wants to see a crossing of buffalo. And so we're working to make that happen.

And we know that there's been a lot of work put into this. And we do really appreciate that. We just need to make sure that we can go back to our colleagues with answers to these questions. And if you need to take a minute, that's perfectly fine.

And I just want to underscore my my assumption was that there was a reason to work with the sole business district, and there was outreach beyond that. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to say that.

Thank you. Yes. There's been outreach. In addition, a lot of tabling has taken place at, at at events. So it does extend beyond the sole district business.

Thank you.

Councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Yeah, I want to thank you so much for bringing this forward today. It's very informative for me. You know, I think I regret just mentioning cip at all when I was talking about how to blend other opportunities, because I think my colleague got focused on cip aspect of this and not the thing that you're actually presenting, which is that you have a grant opportunity to spend some money that you've done some really good engagement around, and we're doing the ADA work on those ramps because we're required by law to do that. In 2018, we entered into a 12 year agreement with creek, which averted a class action lawsuit to the city. And the terms of that is that we have to we have to build certifiable design, certifiable 1500 curb compliance, ADA compliant curb ramps annually. That's a lot. And if we don't pair that work with work happening, we'll never be able to afford it and do it on schedule. And so I think that's what I'm seeing from you guys is look at the fiscal challenge that we have ahead of the city and look at our legal liabilities that we have ahead of the city and trying to bring us that forward. So, you know, I apologize on behalf of this committee if, if you're if your motives were impugned today, I think that's really unfair. And we just need to keep it focused on the thing that's being presented. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor councilor Zimmerman.

Eric Zimmerman: Thanks. I'm not sure why we're talking about motives being impugned here.

As you did.

That the project is an important project. We get very few opportunities to take a look at how the Portland way of delivering projects occurs. And I mean it very sincerely that these are necessary crosswalk projects, that the outreach along the whole district is important, and I'm very appreciative of that. The. Comparison and the importance of keeping cip front of mind is is important, and it is important for a person who represents a district who I have many major thoroughfares in my in my community that have been redone and redone and redone over the years. So they are always at what I would call class a thoroughfares in terms of their infrastructure. And it's important for me to articulate that there are places in our community who don't necessarily have class a because they don't even necessarily have class c, meaning they're still dirt and they're still gravel. So those are fair questions. And the the way in which we have applied, ADA has been brought up even by our own staff and our own director. So certainly recognize the effort that goes into delivering a project, the work that goes into a community based engagement. Those are incredibly important. They are consuming in your time and in your effort. So to the team that's working on this, I appreciate what councilor Elana pirtle-guiney said is that this helps us take back as we answer, ask questions and you answer them. It helps us take back information to our colleagues when this comes to full council. So please, you know, continue forward. I think we've got a few pieces of due out information that are certainly no impugning of the project here, particularly when we're given grant funds and when you're given a task to come forward as a person delivering on behalf of PBOT, the decisions that we have to make are always as we weigh, you know, some neighborhoods get something and some others don't. And this is always a tough call to make. And so you've identified a good project. I appreciate that and I look forward to the larger discussion at council. Thank you.

Thank you councilor. Thank you both for being here. I know we grilled you a lot for something that was supposed to be a 10 or 15 minute agenda item, and I really appreciate all of the additional information you were willing to share with us. Hearing that there is a phase two coming, I think for anybody in my district, listening is going to be really heartening. Appreciate all of your time and work on this, and thank you for being here with us today. I would entertain a motion to move this forward with a due pass recommendation to full council.

So moved.

Thank you, councilor Avalos.

Candace Avalos: Second.

Thank you, councilor Novick. Diana, could you please call the roll?

Avalos I Novick.

Councilor Novick Novick.

Steve Novick: I think you're muted. Councilor Novick I believe you're muted, but I can see your mouth moving. Oh.

Are we able to take a vote with that thumbs up. Thumbs down from him.

I can I think we can accept that. Thank you. Thumbs up. Thank you Green.

Hi, Zimmerman.

Hi pirtle-guiney. I with five eyes the motion to refer the ordinance document number 2026 052 to city council with the recommendation it be passed, has passed.

Thank you very much. And we have one item left with a number of folks signed up to testify on it. Diana, could you please call the agenda item.

Item number five? Amend the fiscal year 2025 dash 2026 appropriation schedule to reallocate $150,000 from the legal priorities reserve fund to support refugees and immigration legal services.

Thank you and colleagues. This is an agenda item or a budget adjustment that I am bringing forward to us today. So I will give a little bit of an overview and then invite two commissioners from the new portlanders policy commission to share some information, along with the director of the saw immigration legal services program. And then we have a few people signed up to testify. You should have all received a memo with background information. When was that? Thursday or Friday of last week, which I believe is also posted on the agenda for any members of the public who are curious about the background here. It's listed under supplemental materials memo and I'm excited to bring this forward. This is an appropriation ordinance, a budget adjustment that makes a critical and time sensitive investment in immigration legal services for portlanders who are facing immediate and destabilizing changes under federal immigration policies. Since January of last year, the federal administration, as we know, has issued a series of executive orders that dramatically alter immigration enforcement priorities and dismantle some of the long standing humanitarian protections that have been part of our immigration system. These actions have created profound uncertainty, and in many cases, led to much of the terror in our immigrant and refugee communities in Portland. Right now, several of the executive orders terminate humanitarian parole and temporary protected status for large groups of people, including afghan allies evacuated during operation allies welcome ukrainians fleeing the russian invasion and individuals from cuba, haiti, nicaragua and venezuela under the parole program nationwide, we know that more than half a million people have been pushed into legal limbo and are looking for additional legal services that communities had not expected to need funding for, nor budgeted for. This is not a hypothetical concern, and we need to make sure that we are addressing it in our community. And looking over some notes here about timing to make sure folks have the full background, I apologize. Under city code 3.131, the new portlanders policy commission is charged with elevating immigrant and refugee refugee voices in city policy making. And after a meeting, I believe during the summer with the new portlanders policy commission, I asked them to evaluate what some practical, low cost ways were that the city could meaningfully respond to the needs of community members who they were hearing from to be our experts in the field. Like we ask our commissions and boards to be and bring us recommendations. They brought forward a recommendation to the full council. Actually, they testified in some of our public communications slots a few months ago with three things that they thought could be meaningful, all of which involved funding to expand our partnership with saw immigration legal services. We have an agreement through pcc to fund psas to provide services for members of our community to meet some of the increased need that we have because of those changes that I mentioned at the federal level to many of our community members immigration statuses, we approached a few folks my office did within city government, asking where we might be able to find some funding to meet this need. And after a number of conversations with the city budget office and the city attorney's office identified a fund that is supported by discretionary resources that could be used for this purpose. The fund in the city attorney's office funds unexpected legal events, the need for outside counsel, and has somewhere upwards of $800,000 currently in it. The city attorney is here if there are questions about this, but what I have been told is that while any depletion of this fund creates some level of risk, the middle tier in what the new portlanders policy commission brought forward, which is a $150,000 budget adjustment or allocation from this fund towards saw legal services, was a reasonable amount of risk for us to take on in order to meet the extensive need in the community. This is a modest investment that I believe will have high returns, stabilizing families and presenting preventing unnecessary detention and deportation of many families in our community. I want to thank the new portlanders policy commission for responding to my ask, that they bring us forward some concrete ideas of how we can help to saw immigration legal services for their decades of service in our community, and to the staff from the budget and the attorney's office for working with us to find a solution that meets the need that our commission brought forward to us at this moment. With that, I would like to invite up carrie babin, and I believe mary karam is online and caroline van der harten to provide a little bit more background before we move to discussion questions and public testimony, and I'll give my thanks now to our chair, councilor Zimmerman, for allowing me to have a panel of invited testimony today. I appreciate that allowance. Thank you. Chair. Come right. Go right ahead. Come on up. Why don't we start online? Unless you've already determined an order.

That's actually our plan. So it's great. Perfect.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for having us. My name is mary karam, and I'm a member of the new portlanders policy commission. I'm also a domestic relations attorney in the area and a syrian immigrant. I come before you wearing all of those identities at once, because in this conversation, they're truly inseparable. As stated by the vice chair, the npcc is requesting an allocation of funding for urgent immigration legal needs. This is a matter of sound public policy, fiscal responsibility and community safety. Our commission commission is specifically requesting that funds be allocated to saw immigration legal services and pcc. The need for immigration legal support is very prevalent today. I know from my own community what it means to build a life in the shadow of displacement and uncertainty, and I also know professionally what happens to families when legal systems intervene too late. In my work with the legal community, I see the consequences of this often parents separated from children, survivors of domestic violence, afraid to seek help, and families pushed into crisis not because they lack merit, but because they lack access to legal counsel. At a moment, it matters most. The buck doesn't stop at immigration legal services. Unfortunately, when someone is detained or deported, it bleeds into the entire family system. And I'm seeing that a lot in the domestic relations field as well. When someone the the ripple effects are immediate and costly, children are at risk of entering the foster care system. Survivors of abuse lose their primary source of stability. Tenants lose income and face eviction. Services such as child welfare, emergency housing, public health. They're all forced to step in and after the damage is already done. This is the definition of being reactive. In comparison, access to legal services allows us to be proactive. It allows individuals to apply for relief they are legally entitled to, to understand their rights and to stabilize families before they are in crisis mode. Every dollar spent on proactive legal support saves multiple dollars in emergency services, court costs, and long term social disruption. More importantly, it prevents harm that cannot be undone once a family is torn apart. Legal counsel is not a loophole, it is due process. Many immigrants, such as myself, came to Portland because the city made a promise, explicitly and implicitly, that it values dignity, fairness and inclusion. Funding immigration legal services is one concrete way to keep that promise, especially at a time when federal immigration enforcement actions have created instability far beyond their stated goals. Portland has an opportunity to lead not by reacting to immigration enforcement actions after the fact, but by investing now in legal infrastructure that keeps families together and communities stable. Carrie and caroline will also be discussing more concrete ideas, but I thank you for your time and your commitment to the people who call Portland home.

Thank you very much. Go right ahead.

Okay. Good afternoon. My name is carrie babin, and I am also a member of the new portlanders policy commission and here to speak as a representative of that commission today. In December, I provided testimony on the urgent and increasing risks facing our immigrant communities and our city's responsibility, and the opportunity that we have to take action to protect these communities through access to immigration legal services. I am honored to be here today to provide further testimony as you consider reallocating funds to support refugee and immigration legal services. In December, I spoke about the importance of immigration legal support as one of our only avenues to effectively provide some safety and comfort to immigrant communities as they face targeted persecution. To illustrate that point today, I'd like to share a personal story from an event in my life only a few weeks ago. On January 20th, as I prepared to send my kids to school and start my work day, I received a phone call from a friend that filled my heart with panic. This friend, a single mother, survivor of human trafficking, and an immigrant seeking asylum in the united states, said to me, please come take my kids to school. Sister ice came to my house and I am so afraid. I learned that while her kids sorry, while her older son was walking to his car to go to work that morning, he was surrounded by seven armed ice agents. They detained him in the street, made him submit to facial id, scan and background check, and while he was allowed to continue to work as he had no criminal record and no outstanding warrants for his arrest for arrest, my friend was frozen in fear that ice would take her and separate her from her children if she went outside, so I went to her house and I tried to make her kids, ages four, five, and seven, feel safe as I packed them in my car and brought them to school, I assured my friend that I would bring them back at the end of the school day. Thank you dear sister, she said to me, I am so afraid my head is spinning. We also made plans for her to reach out to her immigration lawyer, who had been providing pro bono services as she worked her way through her immigration pathway. That evening, my friend called me again, but her tone had changed. You don't need to come for my kids tomorrow, she said. I talked to my lawyer and she told me I don't have to be afraid. I know the papers that I need to bring with me and I know who to call if ice comes. I am not afraid now, sister. I know that we cannot save everyone, and that ice will continue to bring fear to our neighbors. But my hope with this story is to illustrate how access to immigration legal counsel can empower individuals, and it can calm anxiety in our communities. Through these funds and the increased access to legal services, our city will be able to provide the same comfort and security to many of our families who are currently locked in their homes, not knowing that they have rights and that they don't have to be afraid. Thank you.

Thank you. Go right ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is caroline van der harten, and I'm the director of immigration legal services, a program of ecumenical ministries of Oregon. I'm also an attorney and have been practicing immigration law for almost 18 years. The city of Portland can immediately support immigrants who have lost, or will soon lose humanitarian protections as a result of trump of the trump administration's executive orders by expanding access to immigration legal services by increasing access to immigration legal aid, the city can proactively support humanitarian status holders, those whose legal status is newly at risk and prevent unjust and unnecessary deportations and family separation. Saw legal has been providing culturally competent immigration related legal aid and education since 1992. Each year between our Portland and hillsboro offices, we serve over 3000 low income immigrants from more than 80 different countries. We, me, my staff, we have never seen it this bad. And unfortunately, we know this is also just the beginning. Our office is receiving over 100 calls every single day from community members seeking legal help under the city of portland's iga with Portland community college, saw provides free legal services, but with our current funding level, our services are already booked out into mid-april. The need for expanded services is urgent, especially for humanitarian status holders. As of January 2026, the trump administration has signed 38 executive orders relating to immigration, which account for almost 17% of all executive orders signed during his first year in office. The administration has also enacted hundreds of other actions in internal policy guidance and presidential proclamations that have dramatically changed how immigration enforcement is conducted, what community spaces are safe, what humanitarian programs remain available, and how cases are processed. In addition to creating a climate of fear and uncertainty among mixed status families and the undocumented population, these executive orders are specifically crafted to strip certain categories of immigrants of their lawfully obtained legal protections and work authorization through executive order 14159 protecting the American people against invasion, and executive order 14165 securing our borders. The administration seeks to terminate humanitarian parole programs and temporary protected status, or tps designations. The impact of terminating these humanitarian programs will be to vastly increase the number of undocumented individuals, specifically targeting humanitarian entrants, and those who are truly unable to return to their countries of origin due to ongoing conflict, instability, and or violence. With all of the changes in immigration law and policy, there has been an increase in the number of immigration scammers, notarios and other unscrupulous individuals seeking to take advantage of immigrants who are working hard to navigate our immigration system. Currently, Oregon is home to more than 5600 temporary protected status, or tps holders, and more than 15,000 individuals have entered Oregon with some form of humanitarian parole over the last several years. Many of these individuals whose status has been terminated or whose status is at risk of termination, actually do qualify for a long term path to citizenship, whether it's through a family based option or through asylum or another method, but they have not applied yet, or they may not even be aware that these other remedies exist, or how to apply kind of thinking about humanitarian parole and temporary protected status. I can provide a bit of background. So humanitarian parole is typically used to bring a non-citizen to the united states. In the case of an emergency, it allows for a person to stay temporarily in the united states. But unless that person finds a formal immigration remedy while they're here, they'll become undocumented and must leave the united states. Humanitarian parole is utilized to evacuate more than 84,000 afghan allies, over 100,000 ukrainians fleeing the russian invasion of ukraine, and more than more than 500,000 cubans, nicaraguans and venezuelans through the parole program. There are many other types of humanitarian parole programs which are geared towards service members, expediting family reunification and other humanitarian purposes. The administration has already terminated parole and the cbp one parole program, and has attempted to terminate family parole programs for individuals from colombia, cuba, ecuador, el salvador, guatemala, haiti, and honduras. While the termination is being litigated, some terminations have been paused, allowing people to remain in status while other terminations are in effect. While litigation continues, it's likely that the administration will seek to terminate other parole programs, shifting more individuals from documented to undocumented status regarding temporary protected status. As of March 2025, there are almost 1.3 million immigrants with tps from 17 countries. Tps is a protection that's granted by the department of homeland security to eligible individuals present in the united states who are unable to return to their home country due to armed conflict, environmental disaster, epidemic or other extraordinary circumstances, and whose countries are determined to be unable to adequately handle their return. Tps is not a new program. It's been around for decades. It's temporary, and it's typically authorized for about 18 months. These 18 month increments can be extended by the department of homeland security. Once approved for tps, an individual is protected from the threat of deportation and can also obtain a work permit. Some tps holders have held their status for decades, living and working lawfully in the city of Portland. Since taking office, the trump administration has terminated or announced an intent to terminate tps for over a million of these tps holders. These terminations are being challenged in court, but the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits remains unclear. Of the 17 countries that were designated for tps on January 20th, 2025, little over a year ago, the administration has sought to terminate each of the 13 that have come up for extension as we await decision on the remaining four country designations that will come up for extension this year. It is clear from the executive orders and what we've seen so far, that these individuals, like the tps holders from the other 13 countries, should meet with an immigration attorney as soon as possible in order to explore long term immigration remedies. The clear objective in terminating lawful immigrants humanitarian status is to shift them into an undocumented status and create a sense of hopelessness. But as immigration lawyers, we know, there is still much to be very hopeful about. As long as immigrants have meaningful access to justice through free immigration, legal aid, and education. Many of these humanitarian temporary status holders are qualified for some path to citizenship, and the city of Portland can help by increasing access to free immigration legal services so these families will not be at risk of deportation immediately. The city of Portland can support immigrants who have lost, or will soon lose humanitarian protections by providing access to these services, and as detailed in the proposal endorsed by the new portlanders policy commission, through an investment of $150,000, at least 75 individuals can receive immigration consultation or legal screening, and qualified individuals can receive the critical legal services that they need to attain a path to citizenship, including asylum support, adjustment of status to file for a Green card, visas for victims of crimes and domestic violence, special immigrant juvenile visas, and more. Sore attorneys will also explore the legal options for family members, specifically screening for naturalization or citizenship opportunities. Naturalization protects the individual who applies for who applies from deportation, and it also opens pathways for qualifying family members. I'm available to answer questions about the proposal to increase immigration legal services through the city's partnership with soar. Thank you so much for the work that the city is doing to protect our community and for the opportunity to speak today.

Thank you all so much for being here and for speaking to the need colleagues. As you heard, there is a lot of need, and while the city can't address it all alone, we have the opportunity today to provide a little bit of security for 75 portlanders. We do have a number of people signed up for public testimony, but if there are questions specifically for our presenters, I want to make sure we get those first and then we'll move to testimony. Councilor Avalos, do you have a question for our presenters?

My questions are for the attorney, so I can wait.

Okay, let's do that. After public testimony. I think we are moving to public testimony then. Now thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. First of all, we have I'll call three at a time. And you can come up or unmute if you are online. So first we have oscar mays, then david lipoff and fareed hotak and online natalie. And I'll promote natalie. Okay.

Thank you for being here. As soon as you're seated go ahead and introduce yourself. And then you'll have three minutes for testimony okay.

To begin.

Oh good afternoon. My name is alicia. Demise. I am a Portland resident and I am originally from venezuela. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on behalf of soul immigration legal services. I'm here as a former client of soul. Before I found soul, I was facing some questions about the transition from being a permanent resident card holder to being a citizen. How could this transition affect my son's legal status? So our immigration legal services answer all of my questions with expert knowledge, and I really appreciate it. As an immigrant, we frequently are exposed to hearing information from friends and neighbors who want to help us in the best way. Yet, without appropriate information. It is a big issue for our immigrant community. Since I became a citizen, one of my goals was giving back to my new country and my community. I have been working as a volunteer for Beaverton literacy council. I am co-teacher in an english conversation class. Programs like soar are only possible with community support. Many immigrants cannot afford private attorneys, but the need for legal help is real and urgent. City funding ensures that people like me receive fair access to justice, regardless of income or immigration status. I respectfully urge you to continue and expand funding for immigration legal services. Your support makes a lasting difference in real people's life. Thank you for listening and for investing in a stronger, safer community for all. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is oscar mays. I'm a her husband and I'm from venezuela. Originally I now I live here in Portland and we are here for a reunion, family reunion, family reunification, and my son is a citizen for more than 20 years, maybe. And we are here because he was worried about the conditions that were in venezuela are very difficult to live there. And he asked us, come here and be a citizen. And it's not an easy process, but sure helped us a lot. And we are very happy about all the support that we receive from sewer to become now a citizens. And of course, we are part of the community with the our. Parish member of a committee there, and we are working with people, immigrants that need support. And we always recommended to go to sewer because they have the answers and they support a lot. We are sure that we are here because of source support. And I ask you respectfully that you support this work. Thank you so much.

Hello everyone. My name is faisal hotak. I am a Portland resident and I'm originally from afghanistan. And thank you for giving me the opportunity today to speak on behalf of our immigration legal services. As you all know, I am from afghanistan. My family had a strong military background, but my father and my brother served as a part of the government due to the last revolutions, we were relocated here and I am here today as a former client of a sore. Before I found saw arriving in a completely new environment as president, several significant challenges and specifically I have been navigating the complexities how to work and live here legally and as well as how to contact uscis and other relevant agencies. And I would like to highlight that these are the main challenges that I have encountered. Also, excuse me. And also, it has been very challenging for people like us to get the situation and handle the situations. But today I am here as a former client, a client of soar, and I found soar immigration services and their professional team and their team have been instrumental in. Instrumental in helping us to prepare a true and complete case to help provide comprehensive support for all issues related to our asylum applications and other immigrations issues. So I would like to mention that program like soar are only possible with community support. Many immigrant cannot afford private attorneys. But the need for legal help is real and urgent. Ct funding ensures that people like me receive fair access to justice, regardless of income or immigration status. But.

You still have 30s. That's just a warning.

Okay.

At the end, I respectfully urge you to continue and expand funding for our immigration legal services. Your support support makes less. Excuse me, less than difference in real lives of peoples. Thank you for listening and for investing in a stronger and safer community for all.

Thank you very much to all three of you for being here.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Natalie is online and you can unmute, unmute and begin your testimony.

Good afternoon. My name is natalie. I am a faculty researcher at Portland state university and a resident of Portland. I am a researcher with evicted in Oregon, a project that includes real time data tracking on evictions and in-depth research on the experiences of tenants facing housing instability. I have authored and coauthored six reports on the needs of vulnerable tenants that includes a focus on immigrant households. You can find and read these reports in detail online at evicted Oregon. Com our research shows that many immigrants encounter barriers to accessing legal services due to lack of language access in their income. We found that immigrants are highly anxious about unfamiliar court proceedings and navigating the legal system without services from legal experts, regardless of their status. On top of these barriers, during these times of increased immigration enforcement, immigrants are afraid to leave their homes and experience financial hardship. Our research finds that these immigrant families had better outcomes when they connected with legal services and community programs that are culturally and linguistically specific. Therefore, we established community programs that offer services to low income members play a crucial role in ensuring fair access to justice regardless of an individual's income or immigration status. Current immigration practices underscore the need for best practice programs, such as low barrier legal services that can meet the various needs of immigrants and help low income community members access immigration assistance so that they can stay integrated into our communities. We encourage investments into culturally competent programs that offer these kinds of immigration legal services as a way to achieve fair access to justice. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Anna, can you call up our next panel? And yes, I think can we fit everybody into this last panel who we have left?

I think so, okay. Next we have liz lipoff, Eric and stephanie loewenstein.

Welcome. Thank you for being here with us today. Go right ahead.

Ladies first. You first. Oh. Go ahead. Oh, charming. Good afternoon, dear finance committee, thank you for allowing me to speak to you. My name is stephanie loewenstein. I work in the community works project, which helps people of low income background find jobs or improve their jobs. Specifically, I am an english and ab instructor, so I work with folks that will benefit from this legal advice that we're asking for. For the funds that were asking for. So I am also here today to ask for your vote in favor of the appropriations ordinance for $150,000. That seems like a large amount, but if I might like to, I might lend some perspective. So I currently am working with these with people from these family backgrounds that were described earlier as an english teacher. But I also worked with students at schools with refugee and immigrant backgrounds. So I think of the investment that we're making in schools, and all of my clients are from Portland in schools. And now to help them enter the workplace and stay employed in the workplace, these are all large investments that we're making. And I think this amount of $150,000 is a turnkey investment that will actually serve as a foundation for the investments that we already have committed to that basically, the foundation was ripped from underneath the investments that were already making. So in my mind, what I want to say today on behalf of my clients, many of whom are on humanitarian parole, is to give back the legal foundation for all the investments that, as a Portland society, we are making because we believe that is the right thing to do, and that is how. And I'm going to end here because I want to respect your time. I know time is precious. Thank you very much to the committee, and I look forward to your decision.

Thank you so much. Please go right ahead.

Good afternoon. They're councilors. My name is rustam. I came from ukraine two years ago because of the war. I came to us with my family, with my children and my wife. And we live in Portland. It's amazing place for the life. And it's a new experience for all of us. And. Before I tell you something, I just want to say sorry about my english and accent is my english is terrible. I'm starting to learn in this language. A couple two years ago, so. And I want to tell you, like, really thank you for your financing. The. Law, immigration processing like the for the organization like saw. And I actually ukrainian attorney and I see in us it's a little bit different immigration law here and and I also need to consultation and support with the law process here because a lot of ukrainian people who arrive because of the war, they they like children here to learning language new and everything is new for for them. And of course they need to support law support here because many, many cases already in in the processing and. That's and I just want to tell you thank you for that for the financing this program. And I hope you will refinancing like that's it. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for being here today and for sharing your background with us so that we know how broad the support is, both of you.

And that completes public testimony.

Okay, colleagues, that moves us into discussion. And I'll note it is 157 and I have been given permission to go to 205 councilor. Go right ahead.

Okay. Robert taylor, please come up. I have a couple questions and then I do want to make a couple comments. So when I look at the exhibit, am I reading this correctly that it says this legal. What's it called. Oh hold on. All my notes are all over the place. The legal priorities reserve fund is at the 9.2 million and therefore it. Or am I reading that correctly? What? How much is in the legal priorities reserve fund?

Great question. Robert taylor city attorney the my understanding is we have $820,000. That is the what we would call the legal priorities reserve fund. That that money is within a larger fund of money. I think the citywide opportunities fund. So just in terms of the amount of money that was set aside for the legal priorities, that's the 820,000. And just to give you some background on what those funds were for that that money was set aside. Oh, probably 6 or 7 years ago. And to really address what I would consider to be. Likely expenses that we think we might accrue as a city that were maybe immediate but otherwise not budgeted for. So and examples might include we need to hire an outside law firm to go do an investigation or we've got a judgment all of a sudden for attorney's fees we need to pay. And that's not otherwise accounted for. There's no bureau responsible for it. Another big example that council should be aware of is. If if if a bureau or a bureau employee commits a tort that is defended and funded out of the risk fund. So a lot of the settlements you approve are approved out of the risk fund. Sometimes council will pass a policy. So it's a council decision to pass a policy. That policy gets challenged in court. And depending on if we're successful, the city may have to pay attorney's fees or pay a judgment in that lawsuit. And and we want to be supportive and proactive with council. And if council wants to advance new policies that have some legal risk, we need to have a way to pay for what might be an adverse judgment. So that's part of the reason that money was set aside. And, you know, that said to me, I think this conversation really demonstrates that there's a lot of legal need in the city. And there's and the city attorney's office cannot meet all of those legal needs, both because, you know, we are the lawyers for the city. We don't represent individual community members. And and so I think the city is is grappling with the changes at the federal level. Our individual community members are also grappling with their own kind of legal issues. As a result, we can handle the work that's impacts the city as a municipal government, but we can't handle the work that is impacting individuals. But I do think that together we can get through this. And I think this this is an opportunity to use some of the funds that were set aside for the city's purposes, to help others in our community who are facing their own legal needs.

Okay. Thanks. I think for time. Fine. That's fine. Thank you for that answer. I just want to make a couple of quick comments. Last week I gathered a workshop, a policy workshop of immigrant and refugee protection organizations just to hear directly about what they need and what support is most urgent. And definitely one of the clearest things we heard is funding. And I hear what you're saying, city attorney, that we cannot stretch our dollars as far as all of the need, of course, but particularly they're also talking about how one time support is really tricky and difficult, and they need that ongoing, reliable funding. Providers are sharing the uncertainty of short term funding and how it's hard to plan and retain staff. Also, we're hearing that immigration legal clinics demand is exploding, as we know, in one case, one clinic said they have a 600% increase in their workload and their staffing has stayed the same. And it's what's important about that is that that means that there are people who are legally eligible to get this help, and they're just waiting and waiting. And then that obviously creates more risk for those folks they share to that legal needs aren't existing in isolation, so when people can't access this representation, they're losing their work authorization. They're falling behind on rent. They're facing impossible choices about whether to show up to court or to work or to keep their families safe. And so these services are definitely the difference between stability and crisis. So I appreciate this $150,000 investment. It sounds like that pot of money is about 800 some that you mentioned. I thought I was looking at the number of it being 9 million. So I was going to ask whether we felt comfortable going with the top tier, but I could see how that might be a little more challenging given that it's only 800, not 9 million. But I do see that this could make a big difference, even though we know it's not going to match the scale or urgency, of course. So I see this as an important first step, but I just want to flag and elevate to, you know, my all my colleagues, not just on this committee, that I'm really interested in us having a longer term conversation about how we support immigrant and refugee communities in a more sustainable way, and something I'll be advocating for in this next budget process, but just wanted to elevate some of the things that I heard about how this can be a part of it. And I hear what you're saying to city attorney, but I'll disagree in the sense that I think there are lots of ways that we can help when we talk about eviction prevention, when we talk about all these other services that are a result of people not getting legal services, we can help on those other fronts. So this is one way we can, you know, do that direct legal work. But I think there are lots of other ways that I want to see us build a package that can really wrap around an entire family's needs, but I'll just leave it at that. I definitely am supportive of this. Thanks.

Thank you. Counselor. Counselor Zimmerman.

Thanks, councilor Pirtle-guiney I'm glad you brought this forward, so credit to you. I'm happy to support it. To those who testified, thanks for coming forward. You know, those stories are going to be the stories of our time and. You know, I think about how successful the city of Portland has been resisting really overreach in so many ways against the federal government right now. And we have won in the courts. This is a legal fight. The fight of our time is taking place in the courts. And so I think this is an appropriate investment. I just want to share a story, because there are a lot of groups doing a lot of of legal work, and it is taking quite literally taking a village to to overcome these situations and provide legal assistance. Last fall, I had to go down to the ice facility because somebody in that works for me was detained and I had to, you know, do the approach at the gate and stand outside, you know, hat in hand, trying to get that person out. That was in my circle. The reason I'm telling that story is in that hour or so that I was waiting outside, I think I was approached three times by organizations who just saw me standing there, came up to me and asked, is your family member detained somebody you know, detained? Do you need legal assistance? We have legal assistance. It's over here. Here's your contact information. Here's our contact information. And that is that there are a lot of groups doing a lot of good work. And the this type of investment allows them to go see people out on the street who are, who are involved in a situation and make sure that they are represented. So. So thank you to you, councilor Pirtle-guiney, for bringing this forward to saw to everybody who is in the fight of our time, which is the legal fight of our time, because roaming patrols, warrantless invasions, detaining based on race, these are all things we have to win in the courts. So they stop today. And in the midst of that, individuals and their case to stay in America for reasons America has said are reasonable, reasons to stay have to be defended. So thank you. I will be supportive of this wholeheartedly.

Thank you. Councilor councilor Green 30s.

I'll do it in 15. Thank you so much councilor Pirtle-guiney for bringing this forward. I very much support it. Thanks for answering those questions, robert. I'll have other questions when we get to the next stage about just the fund balance movement. I I'm tracking. We don't need to hold it up here. I just want to say, you know, ice, dhs, the broader federal immigration infrastructure is the single largest great threat to public safety in our community. So this is a this is a way for us to show up and defend our, our neighbors. I'll be supporting this.

Thank you. Councilor. I would entertain a motion to send this to full council with a due pass recommendation.

So moved.

I think we had a motion from councilor Avalos and a second from councilor Zimmerman. Diana, could you please call the roll?

Avalos I.

Novick I.

Green.

Hi, Zimmerman.

Hi pirtle-guiney. I with five eyes. The motion to refer the ordinance document number 2020 6-053 to city council with the recommendation it be passed has passed.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Our next finance committee meeting is on Monday, February 23rd. We will have our chair back with us in person for that meeting. And with that, I will close today's committee meeting.