The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-01-28
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (35,461 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council held a Wednesday morning session on January 28, 2026, opening with roll call, adoption of the code of conduct statement, and agenda approval. Public communications included testimony on the Macadam ICE facility, federal immigration enforcement actions, police accountability and PPA contract negotiations, and district-level concerns about city spending and public safety. The council then recognized the 2025 Steve Lowenstein Trust Award recipient, the CLEAR Clinic and its director, for legal services work in the community. The consent agenda was approved by roll call vote, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The council held a first reading on an ordinance to exempt certain code requirements for renaming a portion of Southwest Jackson Street to Southwest Rose Hill Street, with committee testimony and council discussion addressing the history of the current name and the proposed honoree; a second reading occurred on a separate ordinance assessing property for sidewalk, curb, and driveway repair, with a vote occurring and results recorded in the ledger. The remainder of the session was devoted to extended testimony and council debate on a resolution establishing priorities for allocating approximately $20.7 million in unspent Rental Services Office funds, including discussion of competing amendments, legal guidance on permissible fund uses, and public comment on rent assistance, eviction defense, and affordable housing development. Votes occurred on amendments, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger; the item was continued to a future session.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 And there was.
1 Kind of.
2 A.
3 I mean, she's.
4 Yes.
5 Actually. All right. Yes. Okay. That's great. Great. Can never be so great. Guys. For your first investigation. Yeah. So. We just wonder. Yeah. I talked to her. Just. Yeah. Okay. Just one. Yeah. Just. Thank you. So thank you sir. So because I got the first. Councilor the dalles next. Jonas biery. And effectively. Let's go. Thank you. Yeah.
6 Thank you so much.
7 Yeah.
8 We ready to get going? Keelan. Ready.
9 Okay, good.
10 I'm going to turn that up. There we go. Welcome to the Wednesday, January 28th morning session of the Portland city council. Keelan, could you please call the roll?
11 Good morning. Avalos.
12 Present.
13 Smith.
14 I Kanal pirtle-guiney here. Ryan. Commissioner Ryan might be joining online, but okay. Koyama Lane here. Morillo here. Novick here.
15 Clark here.
16 Green here.
17 Zimmerman.
18 Dunphy and I am here. And will the city attorney please read the code of conduct statement?
19 Good morning. Welcome to the Portland city council to testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at w-w-w. Portland agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up or interrupting other others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves from the council. Clerk calls your name. Thank you.
20 Thank you very much, colleagues. Our first item is agenda approval. Or is there any request to amend the agenda or change in any way? I do not see anybody getting excited to change the agenda. So do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? I see some nods. The agenda is approved. Keelan can you please call item number two public communications.
21 Item number two, public communications. First up, we have david pearl.
22 Welcome. Please make sure to introduce yourself for the record. And time is yours.
23 Name for the record, david pearl. District one. What we are witnessing is the stanford prison experiment playing out in real time against our people, providing no accountability or consequence to those with no moral compass and the desire for statism. Ice is shooting our people in broad daylight, brutalizing, gassing and maiming protesters, abducting people from their homes and vehicles, ripping children out of schools, and sending our family and neighbors to foreign detention camps with no due process, whose conditions are so egregious, inhumane seems like a compliment. And yet, our mayor and city council continue to treat this as business as usual, providing susan's collin esque statements of being deeply concerned. Instead of fighting for your community, you have devoted more time to bickering and quarreling over who will be the leader of your chamber. Ironic as not a single one of you has actually shown what it takes to lead. I do not give a what your title is. I do not care what your salary is.
24 Could you please.
25 Yeah.
26 We are broadcasting. We have language to requirements. Please keep it professional to the extent possible. Thank you.
27 What I care about is your ability to stand and safeguard your constituents rights, liberties and well-being in a time of crisis. I was arrested by ice back in June, and not a single agent of any of the seven reports was even from Oregon. The reality is, there is a very good chance that jonathan ross and the other murderers masquerading as ice were in our city. Sorry, we're in our state not too long ago to properly learn how to cull dissent. Let it be known that this is blood on the hands of anyone in a position of power that has refused to actively listen to the warnings and cries of its constituents. Revoking the ice permit should be, without question, a priority. But our mayor, keith wilson, needs to step up, have town halls and start showing that he has the necessary resolve to fight this regime. Rene good. And alex purdy's murders cannot just be a statistic. Their deaths cannot just be a tragedy. This needs to be a call to action to actually step up and fight for your people. Thank you.
28 Next.
29 Next up we have mark horace Portland, copwatch.
30 Good morning. Can you hear me?
31 Yeah. Go ahead.
32 Fantastic. Good morning council. My name is mark poris. I use he him pronouns and I'm a member of the group Portland copwatch. Since 1992, Portland copwatch has been working towards a police bureau that's free of brutality, corruption, and racism. As we are part of a peace group, we believe that when there are interactions with police, everyone should be able to go home safe at night. Civilians and police officers. That's what we wished for. The two officers who were shot and wounded last week, and for the suspect who pbb took into custody on Monday. I'm here to follow up on a letter we sent a couple weeks ago to mayor wilson, the five members of the community and public safety committee and the Portland committee on community-engaged policing. The gist of our letter was that we learned from assistant chief hughes that the last community and public safety committee meeting, that bargaining between the city and ppa began on January 12th. As far as we know, there has been no community engagement around these negotiations. We attached a copy of a January 2020 bureau of human resources report summarizing public input the city received at two listening sessions, one in November and one in December of 2019. Each of the listening sessions was attended by 75 to 100 people, and the community input was then presumably used to inform ppa contract negotiations. We pointed out that the director of independent police review stepped down and his last day was on Friday, January 16th. We stated that the new community board for police accountability, cba is not yet meeting, and the office of community based police accountability ocpa does not yet have a director, since that person is going to be hired by the community members who make up the cba. Since the last ppa contract was fully bargained, the ppa attempted to put forth a ballot measure that would have stripped the vast majority of power from the community based police accountability system. Their effort failed because the language they proposed for the ballot measure was extremely misleading. When a judge ruled that they needed to change the language, the ppa abandoned their effort. This afternoon, you'll have a work session with the folks from the group who recently submitted their ninth report on officer involved shootings and critical incidents. The report covers incidents from 2019 to 2022, but leaves out two shooting deaths of men who were in mental health crisis. Robert delgado and michael townsend. For the first time in 15 years, the city refused to provide cases to oipr that were still being litigated. This is maddening, and I made that clear in their report to tie this back to ppa contract negotiations. Recommendation number eight in the group's 2012 report was that the city should work with ppa and ppc to remove the 48 hour rule restriction on interviewing involved officers and shootings and in-custody deaths. We hope that at least some of you have read the 2020 bhr report. If the city is not planning on providing ample opportunity for the community to share their thoughts on how they want to be policed in order to inform ppa contract negotiations, please at least consider this suggestion from us. Please implement the group's 14 year old recommendation and help the bureau become the learning institution that it claims to be, by ensuring that it has the most timely and important information it can get from officers in order to avoid future loss of life. Their perceptions of what happened as soon as possible after using deadly force 48 hours is too late. Thanks.
33 Thank you mark.
34 Next up we have john hollister.
35 My name is john hollister and I'm from district four. So the couple of things I want to comment on is first, the the breakup of the peacock caucus and, and what that means to me, the what it means to me is that and I'm very happy about it, that you all agree to no longer have secret illegal meetings. And I'm Mitch, you may agree to not be any secret illegal meetings going forward, but the fact that you're part of dsa and everything I've read about that, they control your messaging. A few things that that I'm waiting for is there was a a vacation, a trip with wives to vienna, and $47,000 was spent. And I've seen no report. I've seen nothing. I've written of the the findings of that. But what I did is I did a google search for free and found out that that the key element that makes the vienna social housing, which I'm now a proponent for what makes a successful, is they have two and a half times the police per capita that Portland does. So when I'm hearing you say you're pro social housing, I'm hearing you are pro police. And that makes me excited. And yet the you you've reduced you voted to reduce the police force the before the 2022 cuts, the 911 response time was under seven minutes. Today it is over 20 minutes. When I'm having my worst day in my life, I want to have I want to have quick response and that does not provide quick response. We simply do not have a large enough, safe, large enough safety. Officers. One thing that I also noted on. Was your comment about big pink, that when it sold for $0.10 on the dollar, here's something I saw. Dunphy. It's also potentially makes us less attractive to new development, because these moneyed interests would who would buy new? Who would build our stead instead? Just going to buy old, Green said. I think the sale of big pink at such a discount relative to its previous valuation is a really good thing. I'm not sure what type of economist would think that, and I'm mr. Zimmerman, the I just want you to know that I'm running a pro district four campaign, and for all of you. And it is a it is a Mitch Green out program. Thank you very much.
36 Next up we have sage joyce.
37 Could you.
38 Good morning. Thanks for being here.
39 My name is sage joyce. On January 3rd, 2026, I murdered geraldo campos at a detention camp in texas and lied that it was suicide. On January 7th, 2026, I shot and killed renee good in minneapolis and lied that it was self-defense. On January 8th, 2026, cbp shot luis david, nino mercado, and zambrano contreras here in Portland, claiming self-defense. On January 14th, 2026, victor manuel diaz died at camp east, montana, with ice claiming suicide. On January 20th, 2026, ice agents in minneapolis detained five year old preschooler liam conejo ramos. He is currently being held at the inhumane detention facility in texas. On January 22nd, 2026, ice agents in minneapolis detained two year old two year old chloe renata and flew her out of state. On January 24th, 2026, cbp shot and killed alex purdy in minneapolis and lied that he was armed. These inhumane acts just in the first four weeks of 2026, are not even almost the beginning of isis atrocities. And if you think that ice will not kill people and detain children in Portland, you are a fool. I am an early childhood educator here in Portland, and I have taken unpaid time off work this morning to urge you to pursue the legal avenues that have been presented to you time and time again by your constituents, the people whose constitutional rights you have sworn under oath to protect. To revoke the conditional use permit for the macadam ice facility. Yesterday's letter from councilor Green and councilor Councilor Morillo, urging the mayor to enforce detention facility impact code is a step in the right direction and I am grateful. Having said that, it is not enough. Isis use of chemical weaponry in Portland is a symptom of a much larger problem, which is that there is a federal agency authorized to use full force to kidnap as many people as they can get away with to kill, shoot, mace, gas as many people as it takes to scare the community into silence, to lie, deflect, wrongfully accuse as much as they can in an attempt to justify their inhumanity. Ice doesn't care about the laws. Ice doesn't care how many people they have to kill. They have military weapons and a fascist administration defending them and encouraging them. In the so-called sanctuary state of Oregon, they operate out of their home base in Portland on macadam. Thanks to the city of Portland in 2011, our city is under attack and it will take more than fines to protect it. Portland city council failed its constituents and the entire state of Oregon in 2011. And today, the violence that isis carrying out in Portland constitutes an emergency. But you, city council, are failing us once again. You should be combing through every piece of city code, calling every contact you have, pulling every string you can get your hands on to get ice out of Portland, you should be pounding on permitting and development store demanding the commencement of the reconsideration process. You should be storming into the mayor's office, demanding that he collaborate with city council to pass emergency legislation. Legislation shutting down the facility. You have power. Your hands are not tied. It is your job to protect the city of Portland. Your hands are not tied. You are cowards. You are afraid to stand up to ice. You are afraid to stand up to your community. But the people of Portland are not too afraid to act. We are the ones in the streets. We are the ones getting tear gassed on the weekends and showing up to work on Monday. We are not too afraid to fight for our neighbors to fight for your constituents. We will get Portland. We will not rest until the macadamized facility is shut down and neither should you. How much Portland blood has to be on your hands? How much?
40 Thank you for.
41 Being here this morning.
42 Next up we have deborah hayman.
43 Good morning. Thank you for being here.
44 Good morning councilors. My name is deborah hayman and I'm a resident of district one. I'm here today because I and many others have repeatedly reached out to each of you regarding our serious concerns about the mcadam ice facility. Most of you have not responded, and those who have alleged that you have no authority to influence a process already underway with the Portland permitting and development department and the city administrator. That response is troubling. You are treating this as if it is a private business matter. It is not. When a facility operates through city permits, relies on city infrastructure, and causes documented harm to residents, it becomes a public safety issue. Paddy and the city administrator are not elected officials. There is no clear way for community members to contact them. No transparency around timelines and no opportunity for public accountability. You are the elected representatives of the people of Portland. It is your responsibility to ensure that our voices are heard within city government and to provide clear, timely information about matters that directly affect our safety. Creating a page on the city website does not count as effective action. The mcadam ice facility presents a clear and ongoing danger to our community. This has become even more evident since federal agent shot two portlanders earlier this month. And since we've seen ice's escalation of violent tactics in minneapolis over the past few weeks, federal agents at the mcadam ice facility have consistently violated the 12 hour detainment limit legally set by this body. Ice officers have assaulted people peacefully exercising their first amendment rights, and federal agents have repeatedly deployed tear gas poisoning nearby residents, especially those living in the grays landing affordable housing complex. Portland city charter, chapter two, article one, section two 105, which outlines this council's specific powers, explicitly grants the council, police safety and regulatory powers. These include the authority to protect public health and safety, regulate buildings and land use, prevent and abate nuisances, keep public spaces safe, and regulate dangerous materials and activities that pose risks to residents. According to the council's own governing document. Addressing the dangers posed by the mcadam ice facility is not outside of your authority. It is squarely within your responsibility. I am asking you to stop deflecting responsibility to unelected departments and to act as a representatives you were elected to be. Use your authority to demand transparency and timely and effective action. Do your duty to intervene to protect the health, safety and civil rights of your constituents. This is urgent. Thank you.
45 Thank you for being here this morning.
46 That completes communications.
47 Thank you. Colleagues. Item three on our agenda is committee referral report for colleagues and for folks watching at home. My office has referred several items to committees this last week. They are listed on our agenda on there. Some of these items have already been heard. Those items are listed in the committee referral report, which is available online. Portland.gov dot dash clerk. Slash committee dash referral dash list. Can we please move to the first item for the time certain item? Are we at time for that. Yeah okay.
48 Great item for 2025 Steve loewenstein trust award.
49 Colleagues. This morning we're welcoming representatives from the Steve loewenstein trust to present their annual award for distinguished service to those in the community most in need. Here to present the award are joe hertzberg, board president, and margie harris, margie or margie.
50 Margie.
51 Margie harris, board member of the trust. Joe. Margie, welcome. And I'm sorry. There's a third person whose name I did not call, I apologize. Welcome. Please introduce yourselves.
52 Hi, I'm joe hertzberg. You.
53 Laney tepper.
54 Margie harris. Thank you.
55 And this is the 34th time that we've presented the Steve loewenstein award at a meeting of the Portland city council. I hope that you come to see this as past councils have, as an opportunity to celebrate the spirit of Portland and affirm the true riches of our city. Could we have the first slide? Okay, I'm going to just take a minute to talk about Steve loewenstein, because I don't think any of you knew him personally. Maybe. Steve. Steve packed a remarkable career into 52 years on the planet. He helped create the peace corps, worked with the ford foundation in ethiopia and chile. He was the father of legal services in Oregon, founding both the Oregon law center and the Oregon law foundation. He wrote the definitive history of Jews in Portland in Oregon. But we're here because he spent six years in Portland city hall as mike lindbergh's chief of staff. He was universally liked and respected because he was trusted as a straight shooter, a consensus builder and a passionate champion of social justice. Next slide. When Steve died, he endowed a trust fund to annually recognize, in his words, that person who demonstrated the greatest contribution to assisting the poor and underprivileged in the city of Portland. This year, laney joins a distinguished group of local treasures, many of them unsung. It's been an honor and a privilege to give them just a bit of the recognition they deserve. You certainly recognize some of the names on this list, but you might not have at the time that they received the award. And just interesting little footnote, our 2022 honoree, Eric knox, is featured on the front page of the Oregonian this morning, selecting the honoree is the most humbling and rewarding thing I do all year, along with my fellow trustees. Jamal folsom and destiny magana pablo are here today. Other trustees are art alexander, monica goracci, michelle harper, paul kelly, mark jolin, adrian livingston, shelly romero, and charlie williamson. Adrian and mark are past recipients of the award. Can we get the last slide? Just want to put our web address and claire clinic's web address on there for a moment. And margie harris will introduce lainey tupper, the recipient of the Steve loewenstein award for 2025.
56 Thank you joe. Thank you to the council for hosting us this morning. It is a tradition that we are here to present this award. And this, as joe said, is the 34th award. I am also a member of the board. I think Steve wanted his friends to continue meeting and serving in this capacity. I'm pleased to introduce and to honor lenny tupper, director of the clear clinic. And following my brief remarks, lenny will make her own and share more about the clinic. Prior to this time, we presented lainey with a $10,000 honorarium, which is part of the recognition through the trust. Lainey, as an immigration attorney, you have chosen to use the law as a tool to obtain social and racial justice for others. You and your staff, and the volunteers of clear clinic, many of whom are here today, recognize the inherent inequities and barriers of our legal system, and you work tirelessly to relieve people of their legal burdens, to right historic wrongs, and to facilitate change for the better. Founded in 2020, clear clinic is a nonprofit collective of legal workers and everyday provides legal services to people who need them the most and who otherwise would not be able to access or afford them. This legal assistance gives second chances to our most vulnerable Oregonians and extends a lifetime, a lifeline to them that helps to protect, defend and enable all members of our communities to live safer, more stable and full lives. Clear clinic protects the legal rights of tenants, provides services to the LGBTQ community, and importantly, focuses also on our immigrant neighbors. I feel like the stage was set for that in the prior comments today. As lainey has said to me, clear clinic is focused on protection and defense. It's not just lainey. Your ability to envision what needs to be done. It's also your ability to actually do what needs to be done. I think of you as a person who is compelled and propelled to do good for others. Your nature is humble and your advocacy is tenacious and fearless. One person identified you as the spiritual center of clear clinic. I think that is because of the shared views people have of your generosity, your commitment, and your tireless work on behalf of those who are most vulnerable. You are a person of true character and integrity, a beacon for those who need it the most. That is how you are made and that is how you operate in the world. I want to thank you on behalf of the lowenstein trust, and we hope that our support, which is small in comparison, helps you to continue the work that you do every day.
57 Thank you so much, margie. That was really overly kind and I appreciate it so much. You can rest assured that the honorarium will go straight back to assisting our clients and the residents of Portland in relieving some of the legal barriers that you mentioned. Good morning, counselors and friends. On behalf of the entire team at the clear clinic, I want to express my deepest gratitude to the trustees of the lowenstein trust and to city council for this honor and for hosting us today. We founded the clear clinic in 2020 as a scrappy, all volunteer crew out of Portland community college. Would folks from the clear clinic raise your hand? Many of us, myself included, started as volunteers, and many of the people you see today have been with us since our very beginning in 2020. We began with a simple but radical premise that every single member of our community has inherent value, and we believe that no one deserves to be held back by legal barriers or by the cycles of instability created by criminal records, eviction histories, and the complex immigration system that prevents our neighbors from participating fully in our community. Our work feels especially relevant to today's city council meeting, given, as margie mentioned, the ongoing pressure to protect our our Portland residents from ice and from ice enforcement actions, brutal ice enforcement actions, and the continued discussion of slowing the inflow into homelessness, which I'm also on deck to testify about later. Although I didn't have the pleasure of meeting him, I understand that Steve lowenstein believed that the law should be a tool for the many, not just for the few. At clear. We share that belief, and we therefore prioritize keeping our legal assistance free and open access as a meaningful form of community care to, incidentally, two of our main grants that allowed us to move from an all volunteer crew to what we are now, which is a staff of 30 legal workers, came from the city of Portland, from the cannabis tax funds and from the Portland housing bureau, ARPA, and now rental registry funds. Whether we at the clear clinic are clearing a criminal record, preventing an eviction, or protecting our community from deportation, deportation and ice detention, we aren't just filing paperwork or appearing in court. We're restoring dignity and strengthening our whole community. We believe that our work now is more critical than ever. In recent months, we've seen our mission impeded by cruel federal policies and enforcement actions that seek to dehumanize our neighbors. But they have fundamentally misunderstood the strength of this community and the depth of our resolve. This award goes to our staff, like I mentioned, of over 30 legal workers who are deeply dedicated to showing our community that they are priceless and cherished. This is also for the thousands of clients who trust us with their stories. As we look toward the challenges of 2026, we do so with a determination to continue tearing down the legal barriers created by oppressive systems, including our legal system. We are reminded again and again that to build a strong community, we need each member to be able to shine. Our legal work aims to help achieve that goal, and we are honored to be here in community with all of you. Thank you for believing in our work and for helping us carry Steve lowenstein's legacy forward.
58 Thank you so much for being here this morning and all the incredible contributions you are leading in our community. We need it, and I'm so glad that we're able to recognize you right now. Vice president Clark.
59 Thank you. Council president, I just want to say congratulations to you and appreciation to the board members that are here very much. Thank you so much for your determination. Thanks for everybody for showing up today. It couldn't have been better timed. And I really appreciate what you do. It's vital right now and your determination is so important to us. So thank you so much for being here.
60 Thank you.
61 We have traditionally offered a picture to be taken by the for the council and others. If you're interested in that we can take a few minutes. Otherwise those who are here who are part of the representatives from clear clinic will simply assemble outside and we'll take a photo there.
62 Yeah, we're going to take a three minute recess. Come out here and take a photo. Okay.
63 Thank you. Take a picture.
64 Oh, yeah. Let's go out in the.
65 Okay. Great.
66 Fabulous.
67 Back in three.
68 And we are back. Thank you everybody for that quick break. Welcome, keelan. Can we please move to the consent agenda? Is there anything on the consent agenda that has been pulled?
69 No, nothing. Nothing's been pulled.
70 Okay, colleagues, do I have unanimous consent to adopt the consent agenda?
71 Oh, sorry. Council president, we will need to do a roll call. Vote for consent agenda. Great. Okay, let me pull that up here. Amylose. I Smith. I Kanal. I pirtle-guiney I Ryan. Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green, I Zimmerman.
72 Consent.
73 Yes.
74 Dunphy I.
75 The consent agenda is approved with 11 yes votes and one absent.
76 Can you please read item number seven?
77 Exempt certain code requirements under city code. Chapter 17.93 renaming city streets for the proposed renaming of a portion of southwest jackson street to southwest rose hill street.
78 Thank you. Colleagues, this is the first reading of an ordinance we have claire adamson with council operations to give us a report of the bill that came out of the transportation and infrastructure committee. Claire, please take it away.
79 Council president and councilors for the record. Claire adamson, council policy analyst and staff to the transportation and infrastructure committee. The resolution sorry, the ordinance before you document number 2026 008 was heard in the transportation and infrastructure committee on January 12th, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass. The ordinance waives three requirements in city code. Chapter 17.93, which is renaming city streets as a component of the process to rename a portion of southwest jackson street to southwest rose hill street. The ordinance would exempt the current street renaming proposal from Portland state university from the following code requirements. And there's three that I'll read. Subsection 17.93 .010.83, which requires that the person after which the street will be renamed has been deceased for at least five years. Subsection 17.93 .020. C, which requires that the name of any street must be the same for its entire length and does not permit renaming only a portion of the street, and finally, subsection 17.93 .060. A, which requires that an existing and newly proposed street name, a street name sign be posted for five years. Sorry. The existing and the newly proposed street name sign be posted for five years following the approval of the street, renaming. The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts, as well as community impacts and community involvement. At the committee meeting, no one provided verbal testimony and one person provided written testimony on this item prior to the committee action. I'll also note that six community members were invited to provide verbal testimony at the committee meeting on the 12th. On January 12th, the general themes of the testimony included acknowledging the harms and trauma caused by andrew jackson, after whom the street intersection is currently named, an opportunity for community healing by honoring the contributions and legacy of rose hill, a member of the indigenous community and Portland state university community and concern regarding renaming the noncontiguous portion of southwest jackson street below sixth avenue on one block that is not on wsu's campus. And that concludes the committee. Staff summary. Thanks.
80 Thank you. Claire. Vice president Clark, you were this came out of your committee. Anything to report?
81 Thank you. Council president. I would just like to add that in addition to what claire has offered about the technical side of this, this was a very moving day in the transportation and infrastructure committee, where we were actually able to do something. It seems small, but very meaningful. This is really only three blocks that we're changing the name of, and it was really the native community that requested the name change. I want to also compliment PBOT at this point, because they've had a temporary pause on processing street renaming because of resource constraints. But given the unique circumstances of sue street naming and the tremendous community support which we saw evidenced in our committee meeting, the formal, formal former council had directed staff to process sue's application. And it's a long, arduous process. But since then, PBOT staff have been working with PSU to help them complete the necessary steps to make this change. But it was a very moving day. It was absolutely the right thing to do, and we're very proud to be doing it.
82 Thank you, vice president Clark, colleagues, before we move to testimony, I want to open it to any technical or clarifying questions from councilors. I see that we have PBOT folks in the room. If there's any seeing nobody jumping into the queue. Keelan do we have folks signed up for public testimony?
83 Yes, we have a couple people signed up. Let me pull it up here. Okay. First up, we have modesta minthorn.
84 Thank you so much for being here.
85 And my. Coup in Portland state university. My name is modesta minthorn and I am currently the executive director for tribal relations at Portland state university. Morning council. Council folk. I am here today to strongly support the renaming of the jackson street to rose hill street. Street names are more than just addresses. They are monuments we interact with every day. They tell us and our children who we honor and whose legacy we value. Currently, this street honors former president andrew jackson, whose administration was responsible for policies that caused immense suffering and displacement to native communities and was also known as the indian killer. Continuing to honor this legacy, sends message sends a message that indigenous pain is secondary to tradition. Conversely, rose hill represents the very best of our city as a leader in indian education, rose fought not for oppression of others, but for the elevation of our native students. They spent their life building bridges in Portland. Renaming the street is a small administrative change, but a massive symbolic step towards healing and inclusivity. Let's align our city, map our city's map with our city's morals. I urge you to vote yes on this name change. Thank you.
86 Thank you so much for being here.
87 Folks.
88 I unfortunately do need to note that we don't allow clapping in the chambers if there are less audible versions of showing your appreciation. Absolutely great. Thank you very much. Apologize.
89 Next up, we have an could.
90 Welcome president god.
91 Good morning. Good morning councilors. My name for the record is an cud. And I serve as president of Portland state university. For years, students and elders have had to enter a space designed for indigenous healing and success on a street named after andrew jackson, the architect of the indian removal act of 1830. By finalizing this change, we are not just updating a sign, we are. We are aligning our city's physical geography with its stated values of equity and historical truth. Two of the three blocks we are asking to rename are located within the Portland state university campus, abutting the native American student and community center. The center, which at PSU we call the nasc for short, is a gathering space that celebrates and empowers student success through culturally relevant programing, academic support, and intergenerational community engagement. Preserving and perpetuating intertribal connection for native American alaskan native pacific islander students and our allies through tradition, ceremony, and storytelling. This renaming effort has been a years long advocacy campaign led by indigenous staff, community members, and students. While the city previously paused street renaming applications due to capacity constraints, the council's decision to make an exception for this three block section was the right one. It recognizes the unique significance of this location and the profound impact this change has had on the indigenous community. Renaming southwest jackson street to southwest rose hill street is an important step in making our city a place where everyone can feel that they truly belong. In tribal custom, the word it way is used before the name of someone who has passed as a sign of respect when speaking about them. I had the honor of meeting it way rose hill before she passed, and I was very impressed by her kind and strong presence. Renaming this street after it way, rose hill is a deeply fitting tribute. She was a cultural keeper and a former nasc student coordinator, who served as a vital mentor to generations of native students. She was a driving force behind the vision for the nasc, advocating for its creation from the 1980s until it became a reality in 2003. It way rose hill's life work has been about cultivating a sense of belonging and representation in a city that sits on the traditional homelands of the Multnomah, kathlamet, Clackamas and many other indigenous nations. It's exciting when our public spaces reflect the leaders who have worked to preserve and perpetuate these cultures. Lastly, I want to offer my thanks to PBOT and especially cynthia castro, for working to ensure this renaming proceeds and receives the care and attention it deserves. Thank you, councilors, for your commitment to this historic transition.
92 Thank you.
93 Thank you very much.
94 Next up we have xavier stickler.
95 Welcome, xavier.
96 Good morning, president Dunphy. Vice president, clerk and councilors. My name is xavier de stickler, and I'm the vice president of the downtown neighborhood association, a student at Portland state and a person of mixed race and indigenous heritage. Today, I'm representing the downtown neighborhood associations enthusiastic and ecstatic support for renaming southwest jackson street to southwest rose hill, presently named for president andrew jackson. Jackson street in the downtown, travels east from southwest park avenue to fifth avenue, passing Portland state's native American student community center. It is the opinion of the dna that is unacceptable and improper for our city's cornerstone space. For members of the native community to be on a street, the name of which honors a man who was instrumental in perpetuating systemic violence against first nation people. To be memorialized in a street is a signifier of positive contribution to Portland. For president jackson. Slave owner, white supremacist killer, this is simply not the case for it. Rose hill, an educator, a guide, a creator, a champion of knowledge and community. This is emphatically the case. I can only describe the idea of replacing the name of a man with such a legacy, with that of a woman who embodied love, charity and dutiful advocacy for native people as just, prudent, necessary, and in being in the spirit of what we hold dear as portlanders. This segment of public right of way is only three blocks long, and renaming will affect only a few properties, but will result in a tremendously positive symbolic impact to the downtown area, to PSU, to our native neighbors. The downtown neighborhood association urges city council to approve these ordinances so that staff and the community may continue the work of completing the street renaming application procedure, gather signatures, and finish this process of healing. This is a grassroots, community led effort which has the strong backing of the downtown neighborhood. By moving forward with these ordinances, you help create a place in our city that is for everyone, that honor and that honors the people who have been here since time immemorial and are still here. The Portland of tomorrow is one that elevates the voices and missions of people like rose hill. And with these votes that tomorrow can start now. Thank you very much.
97 Thank you for being here this morning.
98 Next up we have solon herring.
99 Good morning.
100 Thank you for being here. Go ahead.
101 Thank you for having me. Honorable city council members. My name is solon herring, and I'm a student at saint mary's academy, located less than half a mile from the PSU native student, American student and community center. I've lived in Portland my entire life. Growing up, I spent time downtown with my father when he would bring me to work. Today, I travel downtown daily as a student and as a participant in world oregon's young leaders in action program, which is based downtown. Through these experiences, I have witnessed how downtown Portland has changed over time as its populations and needs have shifted. As a person commuting their daily, I experience it with a deeper understanding of both its challenges and its strengths. While downtown Portland has changed over the years, I have consistently seen how community remains the foundation that allows it to endure. Despite these changes, the one constant that has remained is the strength of community downtown neighborhoods, regardless of the challenges they face, are sustained and uplifted by the people who live, work and learn there. Feeling safe and supported in one's environment is essential, especially for students and community members who rely on these spaces every day. I'm fortunate to attend a school where I'm supported by a strong, safe community located within the clean and safe district. This experience has shown me how meaningful, safe, intentional spaces can be and why they should be accessible to all. The PSU native American student community center serves as an important cultural and community hub. It should be a place that is safe, welcoming, and one that reflects belonging. I believe that renaming southwest jackson street to southwest rose hill street would be a meaningful step towards affirming that safety and strengthening the sense of community in downtown Portland. Street names carry history and symbolism, and this change would help affirm the presence, the importance of native presence, culture and community in downtown Portland. I respectfully submit this testimony in support of exempting certain code requirements for the proposed renaming of a portion of southwest jackson, and ask for your consideration. Thank you for your time and your service to our city.
102 Thank you very much.
103 That completes testimony.
104 Thank you. Colleagues, do we have any questions, comments, concerns or short stories? Councilor pirtle-guiney.
105 No short stories. I do have a question for PBOT though.
106 Do we have PBOT folks in the room? Oh, I see a lot of them. Come on up.
107 And while they're coming up, I will just express my gratitude for everybody who was here today to testify and everybody who's worked on this. This is fantastic community building and community organizing work, and I appreciate seeing this before us today. I'm excited to support it. I do have a question about street names, though, and this street name in particular. As I look at the map, I see the three blocks in the downtown area that are southwest jackson, and I see three blocks just on the other side of I-405 that are southwest jackson right now. Is there anywhere other than those six blocks, the three we're looking at renaming, and the three just west of 405 that are jackson street in Portland. And I'll just I'm asking this because one of the things that I love about Portland is how easy it is to way find here, because we do have consistency in our street names. I understand that before us we have three blocks, but I am wondering if this is something where we might want to suggest that folks look more broadly. If there are only three other blocks of jackson street within the city of Portland.
108 Good morning, council president, members of council. For the record, I'm anthony boec, acting city traffic engineer. I think the the two segments you mentioned are the the only two the blocks on the west side of 4 or 5 that you mentioned are the only ones that that would not be renamed.
109 Okay. I look forward to supporting this today. And council president and council vice president, chair of the transportation and infrastructure committee, if it is deemed appropriate by my colleagues to have the conversation at some point in the future, once we do pass that five year mark, I think that in order to both uphold our values as a city and also maintain our ease of wayfinding, we might want to revisit those other three blocks at some point in the future. Thank you.
110 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Green.
111 Yeah, thanks. I, I echo the desire to maybe just purge jackson from the rolls, so to speak. More broadly, I just want to thank the students and the organizers who who fought really hard for this. I want to thank the downtown neighborhood association for engaging these students. I think not every neighborhood association does does the best work they can do to bring in young people into the work, and dna has always done that as far as I've experienced. So just thank you for that. Rose hill was was a visionary leader, and I think this is the bare minimum we can do as a city to to honor the contributions. So thank you, president cudd, for coming in and supporting this. And colleagues, I hope we support this this ordinance. Thanks.
112 Councilor Green councilor Novick.
113 I just wanted to give my heartfelt thanks to everybody responsible for this, for giving me an opportunity to vote, to take andrew jackson's name off of something. When I was running for u.s. Senate in 2008, one of my platform planks was taking andrew jackson off the $20 bill, and I still hope that we will get there someday. But thank you so, so much. And I also think it's particularly important to take jackson's names off thing now, when j.d. Vance has argued that andrew jackson's defiance of the supreme court and sending the cherokee, chickasaw, choctaw, creek, and seminole tribes from the southeastern united states to oklahoma and the trail of tears, vance said that jackson's defiance to the supreme court should be a model for the trump administration and defying court orders, so this is a particularly appropriate time to excise andrew jackson's name off something. And I thoroughly agree with councilor Pirtle-guiney that we should take his name off the remainder of the streets. And if there's some way to expedite that process, I'd be excited about that. But thank you so, so much.
114 Thank you. Councilor Novick councilor Kanal.
115 Thank you, council president. I thank you all for being here. Rose hill was a cherished community leader, and today I'm proud to honor her legacy by in a few minutes casting a vote, I to clip the red tape holding up the process. I want to also praise cynthia castro and everyone who was involved in the community engagement. This is an example of community engagement done right and in the city we don't have a lot of those, so we should praise them when they come. I also want to thank serena sandy altman for almond, sorry for community leadership and advocacy, and thanks to everybody who testified for being here. I want to particularly shout out solon. Always nice to see someone from oregon's young leaders in action come here and be a young leader in action. So that's that's always great too. And I agree with councilor Pirtle-guiney that we should revisit the other three blocks. It's already been said. So I won't go into super a lot of detail about it. But andrew jackson was a despicable president. He enslaved people. He attacked indigenous people, including dozens of policies. Obviously, the indian removal act of 1830. And I think at a time when we're seeing our current president committing violence against immigrants and people of color, violence against indigenous people, continuing both from the federal government and within society at a time when educational funding is being slashed and dei work is being scrutinized, hidden or stopped. And at a time when that current administration praises andrew jackson, as councilor Novick put it, this is an act of solidarity and resistance. That's that's important for indigenous students. Seeing community names and culture is an important signal that you matter, and that we support your academic success as well as your success beyond academics as well. Thanks.
116 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Colleagues. Seeing no one else in the queue. This is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. It will move to second reading at our next hearing. Thank you very much. Keelan. Can we please read item number eight?
117 Assess property for sidewalk, curb and driveway repair for the Portland bureau of transportation.
118 Colleagues, this is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Is there any discussion on the item? Seeing none keelan can you please call the roll?
119 Avalos I.
120 Smith I.
121 Kanal I.
122 Pirtle-guiney I.
123 Ryan I.
124 Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark I Green. I Zimmerman I Dunphy. I the ordinance passes with 12 yes votes.
125 Thank you. Can we please read item number nine?
126 Establish city council's priorities for the allocation of approximately $20,700,000 in unspent rental services office funds, and urge the mayor to reflect these priorities in the proposed budget.
127 Thank you. Keelan colleagues. This is our continuation of our conversation that we had last Wednesday. We are continuing this primarily today in order to be able to hear the remainder of folks who signed up to testify and were unable to on that Wednesday evening hearing. Additionally, it is my hope that we will be able to get to a discussion of amendments today and that the next steps following this will be that we this is our this is our bite of the apple, that this is that we are going to have to have a conversation about the ordinance that will be coming forward to allocate these dollars. But I'd really like this to be the the time that we are having these discussions and we do not. Try and relitigate it in a couple of weeks when we have to approve the funding mechanism of it. To that end, we also have some additional legal advice from our city attorneys about what these dollars can or cannot be used for. First, though, I am going to turn this over to councilor Avalos with regard to her amendment that was introduced last week, and a substitution councilor Avalos.
128 Thank you. So you all have in your inbox a new amendment. And so procedurally, we first need to the sponsors of the last weeks amendment want to retract that, because we're going to replace it with the new one that I'll introduce in a moment. But I believe that requires unanimous consent or a vote, depending on.
129 If my understanding is that to withdraw an amendment that is open, it would require unanimous consent, is that okay? Then we have to move to a vote in order to withdraw the amendment that is on the table. Thank you.
130 Yeah. And to be clear, we are re we are taking off the amendment from last week. I can explain in a moment what the new amendment has and why. But we need to do that. We need to remove the old one in order to talk about the new one.
131 Correct information. Could we please get the information about the difference before we take that vote, so that I understand what I'm voting on?
132 Fair.
133 Absolutely.
134 Yeah. So then all right, I'll go ahead and introduce the new one. Does that.
135 Let's discuss it. And we won't move it yet but let's introduce it okay.
136 And then I'm going to pass around a hard copy of it so folks can have it in front of them if that is desired. All right. So as far as the new amendment goes, first I want to start by acknowledging that this process has not been simple. At our last meeting and again today, we are hearing extensive public testimony, and community members have made it clear how much is at stake. That kind of engagement is democracy at work, even when it's messy. My co-sponsors, council president Dunphy and councilor Smith and I have taken time to consider the feedback raised by colleagues and to work with staff and community partners to bring forward a revised package to the original resolution and to last week's amendment. Now, this amended proposal before you today is a good faith effort to respond to what we heard. It seeks to balance the urgent need for immediate renter supports with housing priorities raised by other council members. It does not include everything that I personally would choose, but it is a package that I believe we can stand behind together. The revised package includes rent, rent assistance, eviction prevention, affordable housing development and down payment assistance priorities. Our community has consistently asked us to address. The proposal responds directly to concerns raised by colleagues, and as far as I'm concerned, compromise is not about abandoning values. It is about finding a path forward that allows us to act with urgency while respecting the range of priorities on this council. I will always, of course, fight for what Portland needs, and right now that means keeping people housed and preventing displacement. So this amended package here reflects listening, collaboration and a commitment to move forward rather than delay. I will just point out the highlights of what are changed. So we are going to the original, slow the inflow resolution and we made the changes from there. It felt untenable to start that negotiation from last week's package, as there were a lot of issues that people had with it. And so we went back and we allocated the dollars from the emergency housing vouchers, which was totaled 9 million. And we reallocated that in a couple of ways. We put 5.6 of it towards the broadway corridor affordable housing project and added an additional stipulation that if matching funds are not secured by the December 31st date, that the funds will be returned back into items one through three, which are rent assistance for tenants, individuals experiencing homelessness, and rapid rehousing. We also added back in funding for 1 million and gap funding for the williams and russell project, and 1.5 million in gap funding for the ci and the ci project, and then with the remaining 900,000 I distributed that we distributed that. Apologies. As we increased the 250,000 for down payment assistance to 750,000, so 500 went there, and then we added 400,000 to the section four, which is about eviction. And we changed the language a little bit. I changed it to model a bit of how councilor Novick amendment was structured that we were going to discuss last week. And so it is now for eviction defense services administered by the housing bureau, for eviction defense contractors, and new funding for to launch the right to counsel pilot. So I increased that from 1.5 million to 1.9 million. Those are the changes. And then I think, councilor Smith, are you going to add some comments on that or.
137 I support that.
138 Okay. Sorry. Then that is the change. Thanks.
139 Thank you. Councilor Avalos and I just will.
140 I have one more thing. Sorry. One last thing on the last page, because last week's amendment included the section where we we combined the two amendments to remove the section about the revolving loan fund. As I described last week. It's just not feasible anymore. And so we have to remove that. So instead of making it a separate amendment, we just bundled it into this new one as well. So that's the change on the last page you'll see that strike out. Thank you.
141 Thank you, councilor Avalos I just I want to reemphasize that this truly is a compromise package based on what we as the the original sponsors heard from both public testimony and from our colleagues. I don't love everything in this at all, but I am eager to get as much help into the community as quickly as possible. And I think the compromise at this moment is a really good thing. Prior to jumping into our testimony, I would like for the purposes to make sure that folks who are testifying understand the facts that we are dealing with. We have adrian delgado from the city attorney's office who has some legal review for us, so we can understand some of the specifics of what these dollars can or cannot be used for, for specific technical questions. So if anybody adrian, I don't know if you are able to give us a very brief overview or if colleagues have any questions prior to hearing testimony.
142 Good morning, adrian delgado, city attorney's office. For the record, I'm just going to give a very broad overview of advice that's been circulated under attorney client privilege to all the council members. So the rental services office is a fee fund, is based on a fee of rental registration fees. So while council can expand through ordinance, what the money has and what the fund has originally been used for, which was rental services office, it's still restricted as its use of a fee. So it all of those expanded uses would need findings in an ordinance to show how the use is connected to rental registration and so like reasonably related. And so we can work on those in a subsequent ordinance. You know, if this amendment passes.
143 Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Novick, is your question for legal counsel?
144 No.
145 Okay. Councilor Smith, is your question for our legal counsel?
146 No.
147 Councilor Clark, no. Okay. Any questions for our legal counsel at this moment, folks? No. Okay. Before I will get to the the three folks in the queue. Thank you, adrian, for being here. In case there are other issues that do come up. Councilor Novick.
148 I just have some questions. I found last week's proposed amendment. I found the dollar figures really easy to follow and I find this proposal harder to follow. So what I'd like to do is sort of go through last week's proposal and ask sort of step by step, how it's been changed. So the first chunk of last week's proposal was affordable housing development. That added up to 7.6 million. Is that still the same or is that been increased or decreased? Same same same. Sorry, I'm.
149 Trying to get the other document in front of me so I can follow along.
150 Okay. And then the next section is rent and financial assistance. A total amount of 8.5 million. Has that been increased, decreased or kept the same.
151 So let me rephrase this because I think the point of this new amendment is that we did not start from that last amendment. We went back to the original, slow the inflow resolution and changed from there. So it's hard for me to make that exact 1 to 1, because that's not how we approach this new one. But in general, we were able to I think it went up maybe just by 500,000, because we kept the 9 million for rent assistance programs. That was in the original, and we didn't touch that. The only thing we touched was the 9 million for the emergency housing vouchers, and that's where we added the affordable housing projects. And then with that extra 900,000, we just dispersed it into defense and homeownership.
152 Okay. And then well, last week you had under additional tenant affordable housing supports and ask about these individually because they're really three separate things. Last week it said 1.9 million to the tenant eviction defense. And then this seems to say it's changing 1.5 to 1.2 million. And this seems to say it's changing 1.5 to 1.9. I wanted to say, how did we get from actually like the idea of raising it at 1.9? But I just want to make sure that that is what we're talking about. An increase from last week of 1.0. Okay. Now I figure I get it. Originally you started at 1.5, then you went down to 1.2. Now you're going up to 1.9.
153 And then the other difference is that originally it was 1.5 just for the right to council pilots. But we added the 400,000 and then we made it both eviction defense contractors so that they have flexibility to offer it to common law to Oregon law center, but also that they will still have money to do the pilot.
154 Okay. Yeah. And then is the 1.4 million for affordable housing portfolio stabilization tactics still there? Has that been altered in some way?
155 That's still there.
156 That's still there. And it's still 1.1 million to down payment assistance loan programs.
157 No, no.
158 Oh that's.
159 Okay 750,000 750,000.
160 Yeah. Because in the original it was 250. And so we added 500 to it and made it 750.
161 Okay.
162 Well, we took money off from the one from the 1 million. We took $250,000 off last week's amendment. And that's where that extra money came from.
163 Okay, I have to say I'm still a little confused because what I see as a 7.6 million that stays the same, and 8.5 million that goes up to 9 million, a 1.2 that goes up to 1.9 and a 1 million that goes down to 750,000. So it looks to me, just looking at last week's document, that we've had like $1 million in increases and to 500,000, 250,000 in decreases.
164 I think the biggest difference is that the original inflow didn't have any of these development projects. And so and then the emergency housing voucher money that was going to go to home for that 9 million was, you know, a point of contention. And so we started from that pot to be able to fill back in some of the projects that we felt were, you know, we wanted to prioritize as well as, you know, once we got those projects down, like I said, there was this extra 900 and then we just put it into down payment and to eviction. So then everything else stayed the same.
165 Okay. Thank you.
166 Thank you, councilor Novick and colleagues. We hopefully just this moment right now we can do some more clarifying questions but not statements, because we do have still over 40 people to testify. So councilor Smith.
167 Thank you. And I just wanted to follow back up. This was a an amendment with sponsored by the district one councilors. And what we thought was that this resolution urges the mayor to allocate approximately 20.7 million in available funds from the rental services offices, and this resolution includes an amendment added by the district one councilors. And so for me, this joint resolution is something that we wanted, that our constituents asked us for in district one, and we understand why we didn't have any specific projects for district one for development. But we understand that affordable housing is very much needed not only in district two and district three, but it is also needed really badly in district one. So for me, the slow, the the inflow for homelessness, the struggle is real for a lot of folks. And we hope that collectively, the resolution and amendment emphasizes upstream evidence based investments designed to prevent displacement, stabilize renters, and respond to the scale of housing instability that everyone is facing here in Portland, particularly amid ongoing uncertainty around the federal funding. So, council president Dunphy and council councilor Avalos, we will continue to stand together on this last amendment, hearing those voices from the community last week and hearing from the voices of our colleagues, we urge you to support this. After this testimony is given, because it is it needs to be urgently put out onto the streets so that people can who are facing eviction right now, that those folks are able to get funding that they need to stay in their homes. Thank you.
168 Thank you, councilor Smith, councilor Clark, vice president Clark.
169 Thank you, thank you, council president. Just two quick questions. This doesn't have anything going into the general fund. Is that right?
170 No it doesn't.
171 And was that was taken out. Correct okay. And can I ask a question about five b this language that makes this appropriation contingent on state action. What's the thinking there.
Procedural episode · turns 172–187
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
172 So when we talked with prosper about what they needed for the broadway corridor one, it couldn't just be any amount. It had to be specifically 5.6 million because we were negotiating whether we could give them 1 million or 2 million, but without the 5.6, they can't use that as leverage to ask for the other 6 million that they are trying to ask the governor for, and also to access the revolving loan fund at the state to complete the rest of the the amount of the gap. Right, because it's like 20 some million is the gap. And so the five plus, the six plus whatever else from revolving loan funds. So but understanding that, you know, the state is broke and we're not really sure if that is going to come through. Right. If the governor is going to keep that part of the deal. And so we wanted to make sure that this wasn't just going to sit in a pot doing nothing if that deal doesn't come through. So we put a contingency of the end of this year. And then if it does not go through, then it goes back into the first three pots, which are rental assistance. Those different three, the rental assistance in those three categories, numbers one through three.
173 Okay. Thank you.
174 Counselor Green.
175 Yeah I want to move to testimony. So I'll just ask my questions and the sponsors can think about it during testimony. And then maybe be prepared to answer the question when we get into discussion. But I'd like to know more about specifically which parcel of the broadway corridor is is proposing to be fund on this? What are the ami levels? Who's it for? Those sorts of things. Some information about the capital stack, because I don't I don't know any of that. So and this is a lot of money. So I would like if y'all could provide that information we get into discussion. That'd be really helpful. Thanks.
176 Point of order. Council president. Excuse me, colonel wesley, the head of prosper Portland, sent you an email this morning, and it identifies where where the moneys are. So if you look at your email, that might help you out a little bit better.
177 I don't see that I did not receive an email from wesley, but if you could forward that to me, that would that would help me out.
178 Thank thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Ryan.
179 Yes, thank you, council president. I just have a basic question, first of all, for the chair Avalos of the housing committee, who was this compromised with?
180 This was a combination of public testimony that we heard y'all's ideas, like 5.6 million for broadway is definitely not my idea. You know, changing the eviction language so it could be more inclusive of how Steve Novick entered it. So it's a combination of all those things, wanting to make sure that district two got got funding for their projects of williams and ci. So this was a combination of the voices that we heard.
181 Okay. And so I see that some of the ideas from last week Novick legal amendment, I'm glad that we're actually back in our wheelhouse, which is building. So I'm, I'm very supportive of of what's going on with the parcel down in northeast, down in the broadway corridor. And of course, down payment assistance is also in our wheelhouse to build generational wealth. I do have a question, but there was no compromise with the mayor's office. On the request for general fund.
182 We did not give him the general fund, but we did keep all of the money he asked for for the shelter people moving out of shelter. Yeah. So that that is the mayor's piece, but no, not to the general fund. And part of that is because of the guidance that we got from the lawyer around the general fund.
183 And point of order.
184 What was that guidance? Maybe that should be it. Was that on the public record at the last meeting? And I don't recall.
185 Broadway in the shelter housing.
186 Sorry, I missed your question. Say it again.
187 Legal advice that you said you listened to about the general fund.
188 Our city, our city attorneys coming up to the dais to.
189 I haven't heard anything about that. So in this meeting, of course, I want to ask that question. I assume others might not know either.
190 Thank you.
191 And it's in your inbox as well. Correct. We sent a memo.
192 Yes, I sent a memo.
193 Yesterday.
194 Yesterday. Councilor Ryan and I can send it to you with detailed analysis.
195 I'll find it. I've had some technical issues. I will I will go back and look at it. And you're. You're the attorney for the housing bureau, correct?
196 Right. Correct. For the record, adrian delgado's attorney for the housing bureau. So are you seeking an answer? Just for clarification right now on general fund.
197 Councilor Avalos made a point that it sounded like it suggested that the reason there's no general fund is because of some legal advice. So I just want to connect those dots based on what I thought I just heard.
198 Yeah, absolutely. It's the reason that the money can't go into the general fund is because the rental registration is a fee, and there are legal limitations on the use of a fee. It needs to be used in a way, if it goes, if we impose a fee as a city and it's used for general purposes that are unrelated to the purpose of the fee, which is rental registration, in this case, it starts to look like a tax, an improper tax. And so we do have some legal parameters on the use. And general fund is one of those parameters.
199 And does this date back then to the original intention of the designation of these funds? Back when we received the ARPA money for rental assistance and for housing in general, and we chose we chose certain buckets and rental assistance was one.
Procedural episode · turns 200–211
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
200 I think it relates back to the original imposition, like when the fee was originally adopted. And so there's this series of, yeah, there's ordinances, a few ordinances where the fee was established and it was limited for rental services office at that time to keep it really narrow. It doesn't mean that there are not other related uses for affordable housing, in this case, the ones that are before council today would be legal with with an ordinance expanding those uses. So some legal findings. But general fund starts to get outside of of those limits.
201 And just to make sure that this is a case, I've been here long enough to know that there's a lot of smart attorneys in the city, and sometimes they don't always agree with each other. I think that's part of going to law school. Correct. Is the city attorney in agreement with with your opinion?
202 I have consulted robert. I believe we're in agreement. Of course. I'd like to let him speak for himself, but we did. I did consult with robert, and his name is also on the memo that went out okay.
203 Just wanted to make sure we didn't have to backtrack on that. So this goes back to decisions that were made. I think it was three years ago. On the designations of these funds at that time. And so I'm just clarifying that. And then I'm hearing officially that the legal advice from the city, as you cannot suggest, to use this money in the way that the mayor outlined in his email to all of us that made it to the media a couple days ago. Okay. Is that that's all. Thank you.
204 Council president. I just have a point of order.
205 Yeah.
206 Given that information that was said, and since the attorneys here that my point of order, I guess is the administrative fee or that was used as the calculus for that general fund from the administration based on this statement, are we to presume that there is no ability for any department to take any administrative processing fee off the top of, in order to run the program? That seems like a major change in the way we budget this city. And if that's the new legal advice that's happening in real time on the dais, I feel like it's an important calculus. I was hoping to expand, since we're in that realm right now.
207 Is that a point of information then? Not a point of order? Because that's a question.
208 Councilor whatever you want.
209 I want to follow the rules. That's all I want. So council president.
210 Adrian, what is your reaction to.
211 Yeah, I don't, I.
212 Don't I mean when we yeah. Thank you robert. I was going to say I don't want to I mean the analysis that we did was just on use of the rental services fee. And I think we did give a path forward for pulling an administrative fee into the general fund. If you want further analysis that really drills down into how much administrative. I mean, it really comes down to like what is the use for administrative? And I think that I need to better understand is it fbs administrative fee? Is it going back to the general fund. And so we could further do that analysis. I don't want to suggest that this should be taken to apply to every fee and every administrative cost in the city.
213 Foundationally based yet.
214 Hello. For the.
215 Record, I'm robert taylor, the city attorney. I heard counselor ryan's question. For the record, miss delgado is an excellent lawyer. She prepared the memo at my direction. I reviewed it and approved it before it went to the full council. And is there anything else I need to say to support you here?
216 No, if you'd like to add anything with the administrative fee, but I.
217 So there is an issue where in the budget office has has talked about this where. You could perhaps swap some of the administrative fee for general fund, and that would allow you to free up some general fund for uses elsewhere. But it would require the budget office to do the analysis of what exactly is available to do that swap. But that is another option that's available to council.
218 Thank you for that clarification, counselor. Pirtle-guiney.
219 Thank you, council president. Just a couple of questions. First, is this the same document that was handed to us that was posted online just before the meeting this morning, correct? Yes. Okay. And am I correct in reading that we have returned different from the amendments one and two that you brought forward to funding over a three year period, that this funding is again stretched over three years instead of used immediately.
220 Correct, as was informed by ruth, that we were able to do.
221 Okay, but the one and two that we had been looking at previously spent all the money immediately.
222 Yeah. And to be clear, this original was put together with the help of the housing bureau, and we added those lengths of time specifically at their direction for what they felt was the way that they could get out the dollars, because by putting it all in one year, they couldn't get it all out. So since we went back to the original, we didn't. The way that the other amendment last week was structured. Yeah. So we just were scrapping that. We're going back to the original and made the changes to that 9 million.
223 Okay. And I understand that you don't want to compare to the one and two, but that's what we all last saw. So that's kind of where my brain is going from. And there was a question about certain fund changes. And I don't think the answer around the stabilization, the portfolio stabilization funds was clear. I heard one of you say that remains the same and one say it doesn't by my reading, compared to, again, the d1 one and two that is cut back in half to 750,000 from the 1.4 or over just under in half from the 1.4 million that we saw last week. Is that correct?
224 That is correct. Yes. That is my mistake. I didn't have it in front of me when I was answering that and I couldn't.
225 Okay.
226 And then just a question on broadway, the funding for broadway expires at the end of the calendar year. Do we expect the legislature to take action on this in their short February session, or is it more likely that they would take action in the long session, and we actually need that to expire at the end of the fiscal year to align with the opportunity for legislative dollars?
227 We expect that it would happen this year, and if it does not, then the money goes back to rental assistance. That is the agreement.
228 Okay, that when you say.
229 That that's what we wrote and that's.
230 When you say we expect that. Have we had conversations with the legislature? Because my concern, and I'm not opining on whether broadway should or shouldn't be in there, but if we think we are putting up the money to try to leverage state money, and we don't think they are having that conversation in February, we are very close to that session already. My concern is that that's not actually a real proposal, and I want to understand what in here is a real proposal and what's not.
231 Well, I think everything is a real proposal. And we talked to cornell and prosper, and that's why we came to that decision, because he said that they were going to push for it in this year. And then therefore I said, okay, if by the end of this year you do not get it done, then it has to go back to rental assistance. So they are looking to do it this year.
232 Okay. Thank you council president I'll have more questions later. But in terms of technical those are my questions. I do just want to reflect on the fact that this is very different than what we had before us last week. And again, I know that for the folks who are bringing the proposals forward, this feels like a return to the original and not that different. But I when we get to the point of voting on, do we pull something off the table and all of that? I'm very interested in having everything open on the table and not pulling things off so that we can have a robust discussion. Thank you.
233 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Kanal. Oh, I'm sorry, councilor Smith. Is that a legacy hand? No. Okay. Councilor Smith.
234 And just to council president councilor Elana pirtle-guiney it is it does revert. We do understand there's there is a ordinance. This is a resolution. So understand that there is an ordinance that will reflect what the what the laws of the land will be. So but this is just to level set our intention that we want. We would like to direct some of those resources and we cannot mandate it, but we want to be able to direct to say this is where we wanted it to go, with the understanding that we can only do one year. And that's the reason why, you know. So no worries. We we do recognize that. We know that we can't appropriate over three years, but we want the intention to be known so that as we're preparing those out years, that the mayor, as he's preparing his his budget, that he understands that these are the ways that we wanted to spend money towards rent assistance and some of those other financial stabilization methods that you were talking about.
235 Thanks for the response, council president. Councilor, thank you for that clarification. I just want to note that my the reason I asked the question is that I actually am very concerned about not spending all the money in the first year. I think we have many opportunities before us, and I actually preferred a proposal that had us spending all the money in one year, not for legal reasons, but for policy reasons. But I appreciate that explanation.
236 And we came to a consensus between us. I mean, there are things that folks didn't want that they wouldn't move on. As as a person who knows how to count that we have to make sure that everybody's at least they get a little something of what, what they want. And I was not happy with with the notation about the broadway corridor. But in order to get this through, they were not happy with the broadway corridor period. But they came to a consensus that we can do this. If there is this note. So, you know, everybody has to come to the table being prepared to give up something. And I would have preferred to appropriate the entire amount in one year. But, you know, that wasn't my call.
237 Thank you. Councilors. Councilor Smith, do you have anything else? Okay. Councilor Kanal.
238 Thanks. Just a I will have questions for the attorneys later, but I want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly. So I have a procedural question. First, we're in the middle of testimony right now. We paused prior to the beginning of testimony. There was an amendment, a sponsor amendment. That's duffy Smith, one and two. There was also councilor Novick, and these were all just floated. They weren't formally made yet. Right now there is a conversation about whether or not to withdraw that in order to allow for subsequent introduction. Again, probably at this moment floating it of it. Is that correct?
239 I'm not clear. Did we actually formally move the first amendments, or were they just introduced for the purposes of discussion? I don't recall.
240 So the first two amendments were moved and seconded last week, but there was no vote called.
241 But we're we're not currently.
242 Discussing those amendments. We're still on the the testimony and the underlying conversation. Is that correct?
243 Yes.
244 And my understanding of robert's rules is that the sponsors can withdraw it without needing unanimous consent. And I wanted to ask that question because we shouldn't have have to vote on it. We can just get to what we're getting to. Right?
245 So, so procedurally, last week, amendments were moved and seconded. Those can be withdrawn by the sponsor at any time before the vote is taken. If you want to.
246 You don't need a vote.
247 You don't need to. You don't need to vote to remove those pending items.
248 Okay. So then maybe just for ease of understanding what we're doing, my suggestion to the council president would be to confirm that the three original sponsors of that amendment, Dunphy, Smith, one and two, are able to withdraw that. And then we can float the amendment and get back to testimony.
249 That sound appropriate, robert? Is that right?
250 The sponsors of those amendments can withdraw them at any time before a vote is taken.
251 That's what we're doing. Then we are withdrawing that amendment.
252 Great.
253 Thanks.
254 I will wait on.
255 The legal questions until we're actually post testimony, because folks have been waiting a week now. Yeah.
256 Last two comments in the q councilor Novick and then councilor Zimmerman.
257 I yeah, I want to get a public testimony, but I just wanted to say that I proposed 4.14 million to the general fund, based on my understanding that the administration was saying that that was legal, and now it's not clear. You seem to be saying, well, it's not unless there could be some swap with. Let's see, what was the language specifically that if we were able to swap out general fund that's currently in the rental services fund, then maybe something could go to the general fund, but no statement about how much money that might be. So for one thing, administrator lee, I just wanted to ask you, is it still the administration's position that some of this money should go to the general fund in one way or another? Or do you think that or is the administration now based on this legal analysis, withdrawing that suggestion?
258 The administration at this current time is not withdrawing that recommendation at this point in time. No. Okay.
259 I couldn't hear you.
260 The administration is not withdrawing that.
261 Okay. I just wanted to get that out on the table, because if the idea of money to the general fund was off the table, then people were testifying. Wouldn't have to think about that. But based on that statement, in my inclination, I want to keep the idea of money, the general fund alive. So I want that to be something that testifiers have in mind and might react to. Thank you.
262 Thank you, counselor Novick. Counselor Zimmerman.
263 Thank you, counselor Novick. I would be supportive of that if you move that amendment. I appreciated the last weeks amendment. I thought it was very clear, and while I wasn't consulted on that, what you all came up with was more clear. This newest version is not something I think is as clear, and I think it does delay implementation of dollars. So at this point I'm going to move. Avalos. Dumpy Smith one and two I'd like a second.
264 Second.
265 Can our own bill that we don't want be moved by somebody else.
266 I'll rename it Zimmerman.
267 One I don't agree to that. So robert.
268 It is a it is appropriate for somebody to take I mean they he can do what he's doing. Yes.
269 Right. Like he did last time. He can copy and paste and write a different thing. Yeah. Thanks. Got it.
270 Okay. With that, let's move to public testimony, please. And we will debate amendments if we have time at the end of this.
271 Thank you. Can we call.
272 Wow buttons? Can we call it five at a time please.
273 Yes.
274 And if you get a second for that, do we need to make sure we got a second for our new one? Because I don't think we did that.
275 We haven't moved them. We just introduced them at this time. We can.
276 You just gave a second to that last one. You want to make sure if both on the table then we need to be on the table.
277 Okay.
278 So could I have a second?
279 Second.
280 Thank you.
281 I'm sorry. Who was the second for Koyama Lane?
282 Okay.
283 Okay. And then council president to confirm it's 90s.
284 Yes. We've reduced the 90s.
285 Thank you. Our first five testifiers are skyler cruz, jonathan greenwood, john hollister, michelle ajami. Lily burnett. Oh go ahead, go ahead. Okay.
286 Council president. Dunphy, city councilors. My name is lily burnett. I am a small business owner from d1. I'm also a parent and community member. I have written and rewritten thoughts on what to give for my testimony multiple times. As the goalposts have moved. But as a small business owner, I think the essence of what I want to say is given. This one time ish influx of funds and given the. Amount of suffering we are likely going to see increase over the next five years or however long it would take to build some of these affordable housing projects, it would be imperative to invest this money now in keeping portlanders who are housed, housed and keeping them in that housing. It is not good for my business to have people entering homelessness faster than they are able to be receiving services from the city, and to put our money elsewhere right now feels like an irresponsible use of limited public dollars. I really hope that the money for broadway corridor gets removed from this ordinance, because that's not what the money is intended for. I think building affordable housing is really important, but I think this money should be spread out across the city, not concentrated into d2 and d4. And once again, d1 gets nothing. So just please stop doing that. Thank you.
287 Thank you lily.
288 Go ahead john.
289 I don't know how to do. I'm going to I want to say something before I say something. And so. And my first testimony, I was traumatized by councilor Lane with kamala Lane, I was I was traumatized by your thumbs down. That was incredibly unprofessional.
290 I'm not leaving the caucus. So I wanted to make sure you knew that.
291 Oh, so that. But no. So so you have no idea of the trauma of my childhood. So doing that as a as a professional up there as supposed to be a leader was very, very unprofessional. And it was very intimidating. And although I'm still here making this, I am shaking now and and you're giving me a smug look and it is so bad I.
292 Get the timer started. Please. This this counts towards testimony.
293 Do you want to take a break and come back?
294 Yeah, I want to take a break and come back. Can I do that?
295 Shall I call the next?
296 Go ahead and call the next, please.
297 Checking to see if skylar, cruz, jonathan greenwood. Michelle al-ajami. Next up we have maddie garrison, michelle hornbeck. Tommy bigos, jay amaechi. Joy jackson. All right. Crystal otero. Sandra de la rosa.
298 I'm sorry.
299 Do I go now?
300 Yeah. Go ahead.
301 Okay. Hi. I'm happy to be here on different circumstances. My name is crystal otero. I'm a resident of Portland. Historically. Funding. Excuse me? Historically, housing system funding for families has been prioritized for rent assistance over building out a family shelter system. In the coming years. I think data indicates we will see an increase in homelessness, likely by 2 to 3% year over year for maybe the next three years. The current wait list for a family shelter spot is six months. The scale of need for rent assistance is illustrated by 211 service data from 2021, which is the central line. Anyone in the city can call and request rent assistance. In 2021, the line received 26,000 calls for rent assistance. That's an average of 71 calls per day. Our economic conditions currently are mirroring. Mirroring. They're the same. They look like the volatility of the pandemic era. So the 2021 call data represents a likely baseline without the pandemic level resources. Historical data reveals a racial divide in how residents interact with our housing system. White residents more frequently use emergency shelter, while bipoc families rely heavily on rent assistance, making up an estimated 65% of recipients in 2024, black renters were more than twice as likely to get an eviction notice than white residents in Oregon. I recommend the entire 20 million be dedicated to establishing a rent assistance sustainability fund, allowing for year over year rollover and interest accumulation.
302 Thank you so much.
303 Joy is joining us online.
304 Welcome, joy.
305 Hi. Thank you for mom. I'm so glad you called. You can now get up to $30,000 in life insurance coverage. This is amazing.
306 All right, so next up. Let's see here emily comey.
307 Welcome.
308 Thank you very much.
309 Good morning. My name is emily and I'm an eviction defense attorney at the law center here in Portland. I'm testifying today in support of the slow inflow resolution, specifically in support of the resolutions proposed right to counsel pilot program. My team at the commons aria runs this type of program here in Multnomah county, where we provide free representation for tenants facing eviction at our legal clinic. For over three years, we've done this. What what this proposition aims to do at both the downtown and east county courthouses. We represent unrepresented tenants facing eviction for free. While some programs are able to assist people before they have to appear at court for a hearing, the reality is a great majority of tenants still go unrepresented. While almost every landlord has a lawyer, very few tenants can afford one. We started this clinic in response to our community's very real unmet need. By far, Multnomah county's rate of residential evictions exceeds any other county in Oregon, and the vast majority of these evictions are filed for nonpayment of rent. We've seen tremendous success through our model, namely, that 75% of our clients are able to retain their housing. Our goal is to be as low barrier as possible when it comes to representation. We meet most of our clients on the morning of their first appearance, and we do not come at the clinic. This allows us to help fill a huge gap in tenant representation, namely that many people are just over the income threshold to qualify for legal aid, but do not make enough money to afford a private attorney. In a typical day at clinic, we inform tenants of their rights, negotiate on their behalf with landlords. Attorneys, help them come up with contingency contingency plans and connect them to various social service programs. Above all, we provide our clients a chance to be heard and advocated for. Most of the tenants that I've met at our clinic are being evicted because of 1 or 2 negative life events that set them back. Maybe their loved one has died. They were laid off from their job, they got into an accident and were in the hospital, and more recently, they could not go to work for fear of abduction by federal agents. The truth is, most of us renters are one. That's okay. Thank you for your time.
310 Thank you.
311 Okay, I'm just going to do a quick last call for maddie garrison, michelle hornbeck, nami bigos j. Sandra dela rosa, crystal magana okay, we'll move on to andy miller, madison moskowitz, tanisha renee.
312 And john, do you want to are you ready to give your testimony at this point?
313 I'm going to give it a try.
314 Okay.
315 I apologize for my my severe reaction to. Your behavior. Kamala. Elaine. And apparently I still have some childhood trauma issues to work on. My mother used to do that same look to me. So? So that's maybe why I just. It just triggered me so hard. The. The city is going to come up, you know, when the mayor puts his budget together about probably $100 million short for next year. So the I feel like you're a bunch of kids that found some money and let's go spend it. And the thought of having money go to the general fund and to be prepared for next year's unbelievable shortfall may be really, really a good thing to look at. So the. Just Koyama Lane just just be aware of what you're as an authoritative figure, how you affect people and the and that type of leadership right there. I can personally blame you for some of the overtake of last.
316 Thank you for being here today.
317 Oh perfect. Good morning. My name is tanisha renee. I'm the chief operations officer at williams and russell, where we are building 20 homes for purchase and 85 apartment homes for rent for displaced residents and their descendants from the albina area, where 171 families and 36 businesses were displaced by emanuel's expansion. That never happened, and that land sat vacant for 50 years. The journey for homeownership can be long and hard for so many of us. My personal journey took me seven years with the support and resources of Portland housing center and the preference policy depot. As an air force veteran, I live by our core values, which are integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do. I particularly resonate with service before self because the kindness of strangers got me here today. I currently live and purchase my home in historical vanport, but more than that, I now dedicate my time on the Portland housing center board and the oversight committee to help others achieve their dream of homeownership, the money for homeowners, or the money that will be allotted for homeownership today, would not only help displaced residents purchase, but return home where they work, they play, and they send their children to school, but they rarely own. I thank you for your time and your consideration on this matter, and I hope you have a wonderful day.
318 Thank you so much for being here.
319 And oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, please.
320 Councilors. Good morning. My name is madison moskowitz, and I'm testifying as government relations manager for reach community development, one of portland's largest housing nonprofits. We help over 2500 portlanders afford homes in all four districts. And I'm testifying in support of slow the inflow with some reservations. The preservation and stabilization proposal is crucial because persistent vacancies, hammer properties, financial stability and imperil the continued existence of affordable homes. It's less expensive to preserve existing than to build new. We hope portfolio stabilization efforts can be expanded in the future. Reach strongly supports rent assistance and eviction prevention. We appreciate councilor Avalos focus on stabilizing renters before an eviction is filed, and we urge you to create a system that to connect affordable housing residents directly with rent resources. We also recommend connecting rent assistance to the mayor's housing strike team. We're working to fill vacant units, but residents need rent assistance and appropriate services to achieve long term stability. You have an opportunity to align assistance here to prevent evictions and reduce vacancies, which stabilizes properties and keeps homes homes affordable in the long term. Finally, it's grossly unfair for councilors to, in a nonpublic process, throw gap financing at specifically named projects, some of which could rent at up to 120% area median income. That's not affordable. As a key part of portland's homelessness prevention and affordable housing system, reach needs an opportunity to advocate for our residents to benefit from public dollars. There ought to be a competitive public application process through Portland housing bureau for those dollars, not backroom deals. Thank you.
321 Thank you, thank you for being here.
322 Go ahead andy.
323 Good morning, chair Dunphy. President, vice president, clerk. Members of the council. Good morning. For the record, my name is andy miller. I'm the executive director of our just future. We work every day to improve housing security in east Portland, where, as you all know, rents are rising, fastest incomes are lowest, and far too many families are hanging on by a thread right now, especially families of color. I'm here in strong support of what was the compromise amendment from councilors Avalos, Dunphy and Smith and may now be councilor Zimmermans amendment council's focus on slowing the inflow into homelessness is exactly right. Investing now makes sense. Eviction prevention, rental assistance, and affordable homeownership support will make an immediate difference for families who are one crisis away from losing their homes. These are the families we serve every day seniors, immigrants, working parents, people with disabilities who want nothing more than stability while the city is staring at competing budget needs. I want to remind the council that these dollars were intended to be restricted housing funds. The rental registration fee is legally required to go into the housing investment fund, and to be used to help low income renters access housing. Using these funds to keep people housed is not optional. It's exactly what they were promised for. We strongly support the increased shelter to housing investment, especially after mid-year cuts destabilize providers like us and residents alike. Housing investments attached to shelter are what end homelessness for real people and free up shelter capacity without having to expand beds. Additionally, the funding to stabilize existing affordable housing is also urgent. We ask council to direct ph to work with affordable housing, affordable housers to structure housing stabilization investment to stabilize the most challenged properties. Thank you.
324 Thank you very much.
325 We're going to go back to joy jackson. Joy you're muted.
326 Sorry about that. Hi everybody. Thank you for having me I would like to touch on the last minute cut to rent assistance. In this resolution are deeply disappointing. Renters living on low income need immediate solutions and support to prevent homelessness. We need the funds to be allocated to eviction, defense, tenant education and empowerment, housing vouchers and other homelessness prevention services. We are identified on original resolution, so I am an employee with community alliance of tenants. I've been there for nine years. I enjoy helping people in educating them on their tenant rights. So just want this to be right. And you know, the last minute cuts on rent assistance is is deeply disappointing. Thank you.
327 Thank you joy. Thank you for being here.
328 Okay. Next up we have liz foster, mitzi king, andrea knight, heather riggs, tanner barlow. Go ahead. Mitzi.
329 Okay. Hi. My name is mitzi king and I live in district four. I own a business in district three, and I'm a landlord. My spouse and I own multiple rental units across Portland. I support the slow the flow resolution. We pay the fee to this fund, and we've had tenants use section eight assistance and know how important it is for people to have support. Every day I drop my kids off at school on my way to work, and it's devastating to see so many people in our community living outside. The fact that this city can do something to help prevent more folks from becoming homeless and help people get into housing, and is considering putting that money somewhere else is inhumane. Anything that our city can do to help people from losing their housing get renaissance, get eviction support and protections should be done. Please, please pass this resolution for direct housing assistance. And I say no for the money going to the general fund. I also have lived in Portland 30 years, and even though affordable housing is an important venue, we know how long it takes to get that built and people need help now. Times are so tough. Op reports that 1400 people enter homelessness a month in this area. It's awful. So please maintain our humanity. Portland. I'm so for this particular resolution, please pass it. Thank you so much and thanks for everyone who shared their stories and the work that they do. So appreciate you.
330 Thank you so much for being here.
331 Go ahead.
332 Good morning, councilors, and thank you for your time. My name is tanner of district three, and I urge you to vote yes on the proposed budget and fund a right to counsel program. For the past 18 months, I've worked as an eviction defense attorney with the commons law center. And I can tell you that our program is the only one of its kind in the state of Oregon that is already providing a right to counsel model. Our clinic working out of the courthouse four days a week, provides free legal services to those facing eviction for nonpayment. We do not screen people out of our program. If you're facing eviction for nonpayment, you qualify for our services regardless of income level or other factors within the span of our clients first appearance, we conduct intake interviews, consult with them on their situations, and help them achieve the best possible outcome. For many, this is just limited scope representation as that's all that's needed to buy them more time or allow them to get out of the apartment and find a new opportunity where resources and capacity allow. We work with clients beyond their first appearance, providing full scope representation. All of this is our program's current operation with very limited funding. The funds in this budget proposal would allow us to dramatically scale up, such that we could cover all first appearance days, help more clients at those days, and help more clients in a full scope capacity. Primarily expanding in east Portland, an area facing the highest eviction rate within the state. Again, I urge you to pass the proposed budget and fund the right to counsel pilot. Thank you.
333 Thank you very much.
334 Andrea is joining us online.
335 Hello. My name is andrea knight. I am a tenant education specialist for community alliance of tenants. I work on the hotline talking with people facing evictions, the last minute cuts to the rent assistance in this resolution are deeply disappointing for many reasons. Renters living on low incomes need immediate solutions and support to prevent homelessness. We need the funds to be allocated to eviction, defense, tenant education and empowerment, housing vouchers and other homelessness prevention services that were identified in the original resolution. As an example, a senior citizen I spoke with recently is in dire need of rent assistance. He fell behind because his social security check came in on the ninth, while rent was due on the fifth. He had trouble getting the late fees paid and the property manager refused to accept partial payment. He was unable to catch up. Over the next couple months, the late rent fees piled up and now over 700, which he cannot afford. He is now facing eviction court and is in dire need of rent assistance to fill the gap. While we are in need of new affordable units, this fund is not the best way to move forward. Please focus on eviction prevention, housing vouchers and tenant education services. The city of Portland absolutely needs help right now.
336 Thank you so much, andrea.
337 Last call for liz foster, heather riggs next up we have sandra comstock, riley gombart, diana rempi, laney tupper, vivian lyon.
338 Welcome. Go right ahead.
339 I wasn't up next.
340 Oh, you're sitting down first. Oh.
341 My name is riley gombart, and I work as an attorney at the commons law center. I'm here today to explain why the courthouse based, limited scope eviction defense model is essential to the success of a right to counsel pilot, and why it has produced outcomes no other model in Oregon has achieved at scale. Before the commons law center began operating its courthouse clinic, eviction representation in Multnomah county was extremely limited. In 2023, only 535 tenants facing eviction had legal representation, about 6% of all cases. After the clinic launched, representation increased to 1875 tenants in 2024, a 250% increase during that same period, default judgments dropped by 25% and eviction judgments dropped by 31%. Those changes didn't happen by accident. They happened because tenants were met in person at the courthouse at first appearance. When representation is most critical, traditional legal aid models generally offer two options brief advice by phone or full scope representation, and is only available for households below 125% of the federal poverty level. That work is important, but it leaves a large number of tenants unserved. In 2025, 30% of tenants assisted by the commons law center had already tried and failed to obtain legal help before their eviction hearing. The courthouse clinic fills that gap. The commons law center provides in-person, limited scope representation to tenants who arrive at court without a lawyer, regardless of income eligibility. If the goal of a right to counsel pilot is to increase representation, reduce evictions, and slow the inflow into homelessness, the courthouse limited scope clinic model is already proving that it works.
342 Thank you. Thank you. And just for the record, you are not me. We look very identical, but.
343 It's close, I get it.
344 Sorry. I'm trying to bring some levity to the room. Appreciate everybody. Thank you guys for being here. Please.
345 Go ahead.
346 Hello, members of council. I'm testifying on behalf of my colleague diana rempi of street books. We are a mobile library working with folks on the outside and on the margins in Portland. They are on a library shift currently, so I'm testifying on their behalf. As I said, with street books, we strongly support the original stop the inflow resolution with its focus on rent assistance and eviction defense. We do not support the proposed amendments to the resolution. Looking at you, councilor Zimmerman, it is critical that this money go into programs that help people stay in housing, which we know our rent assistance and eviction defense and support. At street books, we have spent the last 15 years working out on the streets, and we have watched as a population of people experiencing houselessness has grown exponentially and it is only getting worse. We are out on the streets five days a week in 13 different locations. Every shift we meet people who are newly houseless, people who tell us stories of job loss or sudden, catastrophic health events. We hear stories of people's inability to make rent payments, and their unsuccessful search to find a more affordable place to live. We meet them shocked and confused on the streets. This resolution offers a lifeline for people. We are not here to argue about whether we should build more housing. Of course we should. And the city budget should reflect that commitment. This resolution is about helping people right now, reducing the number of people falling into houselessness. It is imperative that this resolution pass unamended. Thank you.
347 Thank you so much.
348 Go ahead. Hello.
349 My name is julia wynette and I'm an eviction defense attorney at clear clinic. I'm testifying in lainey tupper's place. As you know, lainey was already here receiving an award, but had to go back to running our organization. I was also previously an eviction defense attorney at the commons law center, and I am testifying in support of them as well. Our housing justice team at clear clinic is deeply committed to providing both legal services and financial assistance to our neighbors to keep them housed. We've been doing this for over four years now with with funding from Portland housing bureau. These services are highly effective in keeping folks housed, benefiting the individuals, their families, our community writ large by preventing houselessness and preserving affordability. Accordingly, clear clinic urges the council to support this work to prioritize funding, immediate rent assistance and eviction prevention services which are essential to our clients survival. We are disappointed about the shift of some of these funds away from immediate rent assistance and eviction prevention, but we're testifying today in strong support of specific items in the budget amendment for eviction prevention, rent assistance, and eviction legal defense. We're proud to be housing, Portland housing bureau, eviction legal defense provider. But we know that we and all of our fellow phb providers do excellent work to keep our neighbors housed, and also that people fall through the cracks and end up in court without any legal help. So I want to highlight the important safety net that the commons provides. And that's that's all I've got today.
350 Thank you so much for being here. Thank you.
351 Vivian lyon online. Vivian you're muted. There we go.
352 Can you hear me.
353 Yeah we can hear you.
354 Okay great. My name is vivian lyon I'm in district three I'm the legal services director at clear clinic housing justice eviction defense julia is one of my teammates. I've held this position since March of 2022. I was on the rental services commission from 2020 to 2023. I'm honored to have served with councilor Morillo on that advisory body. I had been planning to recommend that last weeks amendment be largely replaced with a slightly amended version of the original proposal, keeping the funding for the commons law center rather than a right to counsel pilot project. The commons law center has been on the ground at Multnomah county eviction court most weekday mornings for years now. They're already doing the work. We don't need to waste time getting a pilot project off the ground. The kind of fuller scope that we at the clear clinic and those at Oregon law center and mpd do is indispensable. But there's clearly a need for legal professionals at the courthouse to provide legal advice to tenants facing imminent eviction who haven't yet been connected to legal services. The commons has led the way in providing these services on a shoestring. They've done more than their fair share to empower tenants at eviction court in their very hour of greatest need. I urge you to remove I, in addition to recommending that the commons law center be. Prioritized rather than simply a pilot project, I urge you to remove the broadway corridor money and focus on using this money for to keep people housed and to provide eviction defense at all points of intervention, including at the courthouse. Please listen to tenants and those serving them and advocating for them. Thank you.
355 Thank you vivian.
356 Okay, next up we have. Squire squire. Have you. Did you. Okay. Followed by lou church, christian rigsby, jeremiah bullock, edith gillis.
357 Hello again. Members of the council. My name is squire, and I'm a librarian with street books, a mobile library serving people living outside and on the margins of the original slow the inflow resolution prior to the amendments that were made at the cost of low income renters facing imminent evictions. Today, every day we are seeing people lose their housing. Every day we are witnessing the inhumane sweeps of our unhoused neighbors. Every day we are hearing the stories from our patrons of losing everything over and over and over again. These overwhelming losses are absolutely avoidable. Our current system is creating more houselessness than it is preventing. Preventing evictions before they occur is the most effective way to protect low income renters. Rent assistance is so very necessary to support people close to houselessness or leaving houselessness. As living costs continue to rise in, funding for rent assistance continues to be cut, we must redirect funds to eviction prevention and rent assistance. Mayor wilson, we do not need any more temporary shelters. We need permanently affordable housing now. And yet, in the past five years, the city has spent 325 million solely on sweeps and shelters rather than help people stay in their housing. It's disgusting to see you engaging with bootlickers and right wing provocateurs, punching down upon the most marginalized and vulnerable. Housing is a human right. Local funding is an investment in our future and in our reimagining of the future of our city. Everyone is fairly housed. Thank you.
358 I'm lou with Portland gray panthers as a member group with molly hogan's welcome home coalition. Gray panthers absolutely supports council, allocating 21 million approximately to fight evictions. Two points today. Panthers generally and a specific anti-eviction campaign. First, we want to thank council members who've talked with panthers at PSU or on gray panthers talk radio before and after the election thanks to an leda Elana Mitch, Olivia and Portland mayor keith wilson. Some politicians so far Dan Ryan, Eric Zimmerman, Loretta Smith, Steve Novick have been m.I.a. With panthers after getting elected on housing. Stop evictions, stop the sweeps. Panthers absolutely opposed the proposed eviction. February 24th proposed by ivory matthews of emma, a Gresham tenant age 65, by the sketchy landlord outfit home forward, also known as home backward for years, this quintessential sketchy landlord, home forward keeps evicting emma over time to tear down her buildings over and over again. Enough for the current resolution. Panthers oppose efforts by what you might call submarine maneuvers, perhaps by Zimmerman and Novick, to take money away from rental assistance vis a vis sketchy amendments. Stop crypto, stop crypto fascist evictions. Enough.
359 Thank you. Lou.
360 Okay, last call for christian rusby, jeremiah bullock, edith gillis. We'll go back to sandra dela rosa. Sandra here. Oh, here we go. Okay.
361 Good morning.
362 Before I start, may I ask for reasonable accommodation? A little bit of patience and understanding due to neurological.
363 Absolutely.
364 Stuff. Take your time. I came here to to tell you the testimony from last. Council meeting. However, that was traumatizing you guys. You guys were all there. Shoot. So I have a quick version, but I'm going to. I guess I'm asking before I start. I think it's crucial for me to tell you my testimony because I'm speaking to you now from this side of the table instead of that side of the table. And and if I can say the whole thing, you'll you'll understand.
365 Absolutely. Do you do your best? And you're doing great. So.
366 Okay. Thank you. Okay. So what time is it?
367 There's the timer.
368 Oh. Good afternoon, council president Dunphy and councilor Amerman. I'm here specifically to testify in support of section nine regarding the rental assistance allocation. My name is sandra delarosa. I'm a peer support specialist in 97209. That is the pearl. I speak to you as a former board member of central city concern, the national health care for the homeless council and Multnomah county behavioral health advisory council. I worked on the housing is health care with senator merkley in Washington, dc, and I was highly involved in supporting hb 2001. If it weren't for my care team, housing case manager, counselor, and peer support specialist, I would not be here alive today, right now, however, even though the best team cannot overcome a broken system, especially when management prioritizes rigid, outdated rules, this is complete contrast and opposite of their own mission statements. I know why people drink, do drugs, and why they commit suicide. Nobody asked why they are homeless. It is because constant restarting is retraumatizing and it breaks people's spirits. Even as a stroke survivor and suffered a cardiac arrest due to this exact kind of stress. Basically I'm asking it's a solution. Okay? It's it's in the housing bill to to have everybody use the fmr. Updated to 2026. We're not living in 2022. That is why people are on the streets and and. And the fair access to housing. This just happened to me, the providers they ignored, the three year look back for misdemeanors and they create permanent shadow ban on housing. The reality is that trans people in the cycle of homelessness indefinitely, regardless of the recovery or growth, and ignores the protection the city of Portland explicitly put in place for its citizens. I'm I'm here today not as a disabled individual, but as a peer support specialist who sees how these barriers impact anyone trying to survive the housing system. When providers use the 22 rent standards instead of the 26 for grants or vouchers, they aren't just making a mistake, they are creating an impossible hurdle for every person in this city who relies on housing assistance. And also, I'm speaking for the the people that didn't get to make it through the system. And I always I haven't always been in the system. I was over there on that side. And and for those who think that free housing or whatever, I, you know, judge too, but I want I'm literally wanting to get into a swimming pool so I could rehabilitate myself, get on my feet, literally get my on my feet and get out of the system. So I hope. To get you.
369 Last thoughts here. Very good.
370 Oh. Oh, vulnerable people count. They count. And so do I. I am standing here today. Well, sitting here today, for every person who didn't survive the stress of the system, I am their voice. Today I'm asking you to enforce the 2026 fmrs universally. I trust you, the council, on this because it was to the mayor because of his passion on the subject. I trust this committee will ensure these agencies live up to their missions. This will be your success and our success as a community. And if we work together, the city council and the community, then that's unity. And that's what that's when we can truly say community is unity. And thank you.
371 Thank you so much for being here today. Sorry you're doing. You did great.
372 Sorry.
373 Thank you.
374 Next up we have leslie cochran. Azalea, renfield, tj mchugh, lucas, angel atchison.
375 And keelan. How many more folks do we have in the queue after that?
376 Okay.
377 Okay. I'm going to let these folks give our give testimony and we're going to do a quick bio break for everybody. Whoever wants to jump in, please. Middle. You're up.
378 Good morning.
379 Council members. My name is lucas angel atchison and I'm currently in district four. I'm a paralegal at the commons law center, a 503 nonprofit organization that offers assistance with tenant evictions. Our clients unique approach to limited scope and full scope representation enables us to assist numerous households in Multnomah county. Although we primarily help households through eviction clinic, we also represent communities through our eviction clinic hotline. We are unable, if we're unable to take on a community member on as a client, we refer them to other organizations offering eviction, defense or rental assistance, many of which we have built a close relationships or even developed partnerships with. Specifically, we have partnerships with organizations like the cupcake girls, which offers assistance to community members in the sex industry or victims of sex trafficking, as well as organizations that offer eviction defense, such as the underdog law and the clear clinic. We most recently partnered a. We most recently recently partnered with blanche house. We're offering assistance with eviction expungement, and which is a major barrier that keeps our community members from being housed. We strongly believe that creating relationships and partnerships with will help fulfill the necessary gaps that these households face in action and help prevent them from being evicted once evicted. So the social services and aid that many of these households rely on to live and support can become much harder to obtain. This makes it a nearly impossible task for these community members to get back into housing and obtain the social services and aid needed. Keeping and making sure that our community members stay house will not only help the city financially in the long run, but will also help clear up an already congested, overworked court system. I'm advocating for the right to counsel pilot program. Thank you very much for your time.
380 Thank you very much. Also great timing.
381 Hi. Good morning councilors. Thank you for your the work that you're doing during this incredible moment in time. My name is azalea winfield. I'm the ceo of williams and russell. I'm here in support of a resolution to support investments in all housing. It is evident here in this council chambers that housing continues to be remain a matter of contemporary policy. It is here to stay. It is not going anywhere. There's simply not enough dollars to do all the work that we are charged to do, but we're doing it one chip at a time. I also want to encourage us all not to see any type of housing assistance or housing, down payment assistance or housing, homelessness and shelters or rent assistance as competing priorities. It's all one and the same. We're all at various levels of in need of housing. So not only is it a matter of contemporary policy, it's also maslow's hierarchy of needs shelter. Long before we come here, housing still was important. So when we hear people testify through emotions, passion, anger, it's because we're trying to do the best we can. And you all sit with such a large, large charge to make a decision that really impact hundreds, if not thousands of people in this city limit. I stand by the resolution. It's not perfect, but it's getting us somewhere. I thank you all for coming together to help us get where we need to get. You have the dias. Thank you.
382 Thank you, thank you so much.
383 Good morning. Councilors. My name is tj mchugh here on behalf of the Portland metro chamber, representing more than 2300 businesses, over 80% of them small businesses across every industry, we advocate for policies that support economic vitality, community health and shared prosperity prosperity. I want to thank councilor Zimmerman and Smith for refocusing this resolution on building more housing. The chamber strongly supports the Smith amendment, providing gap funding for the broadway corridor. William and russell city's northeast 13th avenue homeownership project, and urban plaza. These investments will put shovels in the ground quickly, delivering housing, jobs and private investment, but more is needed. Portland has been in a housing emergency since 2014, yet our actions do not reflect that urgency. Housing costs are roughly 30% higher than the national average, while new development here has nearly stalled. Housing costs are a primary driver for homelessness and economic instability, and they stem from a decade of underproduction to spur growth. Council must urgently remove barriers to restart housing production at a scale of at least 6000 units per year. That means pausing new rental regulations, review existing regulations, modernizing parking rules, enforcing 120 day permit deadline, restoring the multi program at 120% ami and ensuring inclusionary requirements are fully cost offset. Housing supply is the foundation of affordability. Council must act and act now. Thank you.
384 Thank you tj.
385 Stephen is joining us online.
386 Welcome stephen.
387 Yeah good morning. It is still morning for three more minutes. My name is stephen crawford and I am the legal director at fair housing council of Oregon. We understand we're adding our voice to the chorus of disappointment about directing funds away from direct to tenant assistance that has been frozen this fund. But we're also speaking today to encourage the council to adopt a modest revision to ensure equal access to housing in Portland. So fheo is a statewide nonprofit dedicated to ending discrimination in housing discrimination in Oregon through education investigation outreach. We're already a grantee with the city of Portland. Under that grant, we provide housing, education opportunities and numerous venues throughout the city. We process and investigate allegations of discrimination by housing consumers and community advocates. We provide audit testing of the Portland rental housing market and advocate on behalf of housing consumers, most of whom are facing housing instability in Portland. In 2025, we processed discrimination complaints for 430 complainants, provided direct assistance to over 82 households. That assistance oftentimes results in retaining housing assistance. In 2025, we suffered some major cutbacks to our budgeting. We lost our federal funding for frankly, political reasons. And that is forcing us to make cutting setback staffing cutbacks. We're requesting that as part of this package, the council consider a $200,000 investment fair housing council to ensure that housing stability is provided equitably to portlanders in the city. Thank you.
388 Thank you stephen.
389 That completes testimony for this panel.
390 For this panel, we will be coming right back. But colleagues, I'm going to give us a five minute bathroom break. Let our staff go and stretch their legs for a second and we will be back. Let's call it 1205. Thank you.
391 Yep.
392 We are at 1206.
393 We're coming back in. We got some folks online. We got quorum. We're coming back. We are back, ladies and gentlemen, to get the rest of our testimony done. Keelan, if you could please call up whoever is left or I guess you had seven left. So the next panel.
394 All right. Thanks. Last call for leslie coachman. Cameron. Graham. Okay. Moving on. Oh, sorry.
395 Cameron. Cameron.
396 Thank you.
397 Thank you for being here. Thank you for waiting.
398 Great. Thank you so much. Am I ready to go?
399 Jump on in.
400 Hi. I am cameron graham, executive director and staff attorney for the commons law center. And pronouns are she her hers. Obviously I'm here to support the slow the flow amendments. I was originally here to talk about how we fit into the 1.2 million. I would also like to talk about how we fit into the right of council. Right for council, right to counsel. Excuse me. As my predecessors and colleagues have already said, we are already implementing that model. And when I've met with other people doing this work, there's no need to redo the model. We can hit the ground running. In fact, we again do this every day. As my colleagues have said, you've heard about our model. We are in person, we are free. We are trauma informed, we are on the front line and I think our stats speak for themselves. I know we've had some testimony and also have sent packets to all of the councilors. The commons is dedicated to access to justice and is evidence based. We are dedicated to helping our community and to be flexible and responsive to community needs. Our model is based on community feedback data from the Oregon state bar and the Portland state urban planning department. Both organizations have identified a gap between traditional legal aid services and private bar attorneys, which again, is about 80% of those who need legal assistance. And we are collaborative and dedicated to helping the city of Portland and the people living in it, to be able to maintain housing and to be able to fill their life goals and do that in the least trauma informed way and the most trauma informed way. Thank you.
401 Thank you so much.
402 Next up we have cecilia powers, felicia higgins, sean perry, noah cohn, frida walker.
403 May I go. Wonderful. Yeah. Good afternoon.
404 My name is sean perry of district three. I'm a paralegal with the commons law center working in the tenant eviction defense program. Our mission is to provide access to justice for all. We hope to empower tenants, avoid evictions, and mitigate the long term impact of evictions on a tenant's record. I'm here to advocate for the resolution generally, and specifically for the funding, the right to counsel pilot. What separates our firm from other nonprofits is our in-person clinic. Three days a week, we are at the Multnomah county circuit court house and one day a week at the east county courthouse. We provide limited scope representation for tenants who are required to appear for the first appearance. Hearing. Facing eviction. 75% of our clients retain their housing. Last year, we assisted over 1000 households facing eviction for nonpayment related issues. The work we provide for our clients does not end at clinic. Our team members perform two and four week post clinic follow ups. We believe it's important to remind tenants of their legal rights to to provide more agency resources or, if needed, get them in touch with other legal representations. Unlike the many tenants, our firm helps landlords have more funds available to hire an attorney or agent to represent them and navigate the legal process on their behalf. There needs to be more resources for the people who are facing eviction, whether that is to provide rental assistance, relocation assistance, or to provide legal representation. If we do not allocate these funds properly, there will be more evictions and more tenants will be displaced from their homes and become houseless. I urge you to vote yes on the right to counsel pilot. And thank you very much.
405 Thank you so much.
406 Cecilia. Cecilia. Go ahead.
407 Thank you. Good morning y'all. Good morning I'm a resident of district. Good morning district two I work at fair housing council of Oregon. I'm one of the two statewide enforcement investigators. Hud has gutted our main source of funding. And now I'm on the verge of being laid off. I accepted an offer. I've had a short bout of housing precarity about 15 years ago, and that alone was enough trauma to propel me into working in housing advocacy for the last 15 years. When I got to Portland, I helped launch a ballot measure to initiate a right to counsel movement. It was unsuccessful. Prior to that, a certain law center who is very smart and has their ears to the ground, consulted with me and some of my comrades who had started a tenant union on building a program to help tenants at the courthouse. Fh would be an instrumental part, an important part. Even if we have a right to counsel movement here, we get referrals from all the law offices who have spoken today, including Oregon cat, which is not a law office, but because we occupy a very important and nebulous advocacy within the safety net. I've helped countless tenants avoid eviction by providing discrimination based defenses. I've helped multiple tenants overcome barriers to get into housing. I've even helped many tenants stay on their vouchers. I've also helped homeless tenants seek settlements that have gotten them the funds to get back in housing. I urge this council to support us by providing additional funds so I can keep doing this crucial work, because it's workers like me who make all these plans that are abstract actually work. Thank you.
408 Thank you cecilia.
409 Elisa.
410 Hi. Council chair Dunphy, members of the council. For the record, my name is lisa higgins. I am a registered lobbyist at the city of Portland for seiu Oregon. We represent 85,000 members across the state and many in the Portland metro region. I have prepared some written testimony that I'm happy to send to your offices, so we don't have to take up the time, but I want to just say that I appreciate the difficult position that you, all of you are in, because you have to do all of the things. And I believe that amendment 2025 478 does do all of those things. You have to provide tenants protections through the legal system that we have. You have to give people eviction prevention and make sure that there is eviction prevention, especially given the costs that have both happened at the state level. But as well as the continuous attack at the from the federal government. And you have to invest in building affordable housing and at the same time keeping a functioning shelter system running. I believe that this amendment accomplishes some of those things, not nearly enough in any of these areas. And I know that you're under very tight budget constraints, but we I believe strongly that the money that is set aside for the development is a helpful protection for our future, especially when it comes to workforce housing. And I think that there's been a lot of discussion about the affordable housing capital stack, which we need all of the above. So I would just encourage your support. And again, I'm happy to submit written comments.
411 Thank you felicia.
412 Checking for noah cohen, frieda walker okay, followed by steph ralph, kimberly horner and kurt kreuger. Go ahead steph.
413 Okay, quick.
414 Like a bunny. Good afternoon, president Dunphy and members of council. My name is steph roth and I come before you today as a resident of district one, I urge you to support the slow the inflow resolution as originally proposed by all three of my district one representatives, for which I thank them. It is a thoughtful response to our neighbors immediate needs. I am primarily concerned with the recently proposed amendment to redirect over one quarter of these funds. The largest line item in this resolution to the broadway corridor project downtown. I understand that the prosper funds are contingent on an asset to the legislature based on this morning's conversation, and if that request is not funded, it goes back to rental assistance. At the end of the calendar year. Families receiving eviction notices don't have until the end of the year. And I respectfully submit to you that these funds have been sitting in fallow for long enough. District one is the most diverse district in the city, and our median income is about $30,000 lower than the rest of Portland. That means rental assistance and other supports for low income renters would be equitably distributed to our historically underinvested communities. East of 82nd avenue is also where a strong plurality of portland's school aged children live, and housing instability has profound impacts on educational attainment. So thank you so much. Please pass the resolution with those funds redirected back to the programs that will help low income families housed. Thank you for your time and your service to the city.
415 Thank you steph.
416 Kurt. Kurt you're muted sorry.
417 Hello my name is kurt krieger. Good morning or now. Afternoon council president Dunphy members of the council. My name is kurt krieger and I am speaking for hacienda cdc. A. Community of color based in the cully neighborhood. 6700 killingsworth northeast killingsworth in district two. I wanted to speak briefly about capital financing. There's been a lot of conversation about the broadway corridor, and there are many projects that are of great need in the city, so I don't think it's appropriate to pick winners and losers here today. But I did want to speak on behalf of the of the resolution, as amended, and ask that you consider a project that hacienda is working on, which is a completed but vacant eight story building in northeast Portland, also district two. It's a 5627 north minnesota avenue. The previous developer defaulted. The the bank and the investor have taken it back, and it can be placed into service this year. So instead of putting forth projects that are multiple years away from assisting people, hacienda would very much like consideration for $3 million for what they call monaca, something named for the the monarch butterfly. And I'd like to also support the package of legal defense funds in this resolution as well.
418 Thank you.
419 Thank you. Kurt.
420 Okay, last call for frieda walker and kimberly horner. And with that, testimony is completed.
421 Thank you. I just want to start by thanking everybody who came and testified both last week and this week. It has been required a lot of patience and flexibility from the public as we have figured this out. And and colleagues, I also want to thank you for your patience and your flexibility in this process. Nothing about this is going how it should. We should never find $20 million that is dedicated to serving our people. And I want to let you know that the process around this also wasn't how I would have liked to have seen it go. It is unlikely, but certainly possible, that there is a couch cushion somewhere in the city that has other dollars sitting in it. And if that becomes the case, as we are checking every couch cushion and auditing every fund and determining where every dollar is supposed to be, it is my dedication to you that we will change the process, and it will be different if we do find those funds going forward, but we are doing the best with what we can right now. I think we can all agree, and I think we've heard from both testimony and every amendment and every comment on this dais that we are in multiple crises right now, and there are countless problems that we could be solving with finite dollars. And let me be very clear, this $20.7 million will not solve any of these problems in a meaningful way, and it won't even meet the gap that we saw in budgets cut last year. And it certainly won't meet the gap that is likely to happen next year. But we have to do the maximum good with the minimum dollars that we have here. As we have said, this is a compromise and I have deep concerns about some of the parts of this, but I'm ready to support the compromise package because we need to move this forward and we need to get these dollars out. I agree that there are conversations about getting the dollars out in year one versus year three, and that we are going to need to have those conversations. I also, I just will note that the broadway corridor has units available up to 120%, which is deeply concerning, to call that affordable, because in most of the city, 80% is considered affordable. And in my district of district one, 60% is considered affordable or considered market. I apologize. And lastly, I, I wish that there were was some sort of call out in this for a district one project. But the reality is there's not any construction on this scale happening in district one right now. We got to go where the dollars are, where the projects are. All of these projects should happen. All of them are amazing. All of them meet the different ways we are approaching the homeless and housing crisis. And the situation we are facing is deeply unfortunate. I before we move to councilors debate, I would like to pull up. I had my staff pull together a document that we shared with everybody to try and compare the different amendments that are on the table, because there's a lot of moving parts, and I'm hoping keelan if we could pull that up on the screen for folks to see, we laid it out so that folks can see the original proposal, what is now being called the Zimmerman amendment, the Novick amendment, and the district one councilors amendment, the new one that was addressed today to try and lay out in the buckets, sort of very clearly, where are these dollars going and what? Where have they moved across that with? When we get that up on the screen, I will then turn it over to colleagues for debate. And if folks want to jump in the queue, you're welcome to. I see there are already two. I want to give just a second before we get this up before I call on you. Councilor Koyama Lane if that's okay. And again, patients, thank you for the patience for everybody at home as we have figured out both technology and moving to our first virtual meeting and a whole lot of things through this. It's been a learning experience, friends. I know everybody up here also likes excel. So.
422 As the music guy, I would like some transition music for future meetings please.
423 Working on it.
424 I'm working on it.
425 I was.
Procedural episode · turns 426–434
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
426 Just very quick for the to help frame the conversation. I've asked my my aide, eben hoffer, to come up and walk us through the document that he created just to help everybody make sure we're all on the same page, including everybody at home. Evan, please.
427 Everyone, I'm evan, for the record, evan hoffer, we have. So I've created a very rough rundown of allocations between these different versions. This is not considering some of the granular breakdown of which organizations may be providing rent assistance, and it's not considering the year one versus over year three considerations. It's really trying to just bucket things in a general way so that you can see it visually. So please don't consider this law. It's not and can't be, but hopefully it's an assistance to everyone to see where things are going. We are looking at the original resolution, the amendment now called Zimmerman one, I believe. I'm not sure where we're at procedurally, but the amendment to Zimmerman one called Novick one, which can be considered if Zimmerman one is adopted and the new district one councilor Avalos. Smith. Dunphy three. So the things that clear. Thank you so much.
428 Are we able to share that is it working on it in the interest of time? Councilor Koyama Lane. Oh, here we go. Hey, look. See, that's all I have to do is I have to move on and then it. Technology works. Okay. There we go. So colleagues can see we have, as evan said, we're bundled the different types of funding that we were trying to compare like with like to give everybody a rough sense of where we started, where we went and where we arrived this morning. And I'd like to just leave this up on the screen while we begin council conversation. So councilor Koyama Lane, please kick us off.
429 Thank you, council president. And thank you so much to community. Thank you for showing up. It's not lost on me that many of you have taken time off work, time away from your families to be here. It means a lot. The goal should not be complicated. The goal in using this money should be keeping elders, families, people with disabilities, people at risk of eviction housed right now this winter, full stop. That is what renter paid dollars should do. And honestly, that's what our constituents are asking for. And that's what very importantly evidence tells us works. I want to remind us that these are one time funds. This is an opportunity to stabilize portlanders during a very unstable, scary time. Let me be clear. Something like rent assistance is not a permanent entitlement. It's a short term intervention that gives portlanders breathing room and some dignity. When you give people direct assistance, you allow them to make their own choices, to stay near their kids schools, their doctors, their jobs, their community. That flexibility is not a flaw. It's literally the point. Prevention works because it meets people where they are before the system has to pay far more to respond to the crisis. I want to speak about this broadway corridor project specifically, and as we're hearing some of this testimony now, other projects are reaching out because they too have funding gaps. So it is concerning to me why the broadway corridor project is being prioritized here. Our housing bureau has already committed up to 37.5 million. I think that's right. Plus another 4.5 million in tiff dollars, for a total of about 42 million to this project. So why are we pulling dollars intended to help low and moderate income renters and redirecting redirecting them to a development that is already heavily subsidized? Why are we doing this instead of housing vouchers, rent assistance, rent, buy downs, or other proven interventions that directly support people instead of investors? Councilor Zimmerman. This proposal came out of the finance committee on January 12th. I want to ask directly, how does this prevent people from falling into homelessness right now, and do you have data to support that claim? People clearly are showing up to testify in force. I think, like many of you, I have hundreds of emails in my inbox, my inbox right now asking me to protect low income renters. And overwhelmingly constituents are concerned and very frustrated and angry that once again, it feels like there are backroom deals that are made to benefit developers over everyday portlanders. They're really tired of decisions being shaped behind closed doors and then presented as an accomplishment. I've heard from many constituents that that's what they're saying, and they're saying this doesn't feel transparent. It doesn't feel fair, that frustration is justified. So if this council is going to decide that preventing evictions and keeping people housed is not the priority, then I want my colleagues up here to be honest about that. Put your name on it. Councilors own it publicly. Don't just go to councilor Avalos behind closed doors and pressure her. Don't ask renters to pay the price while pretending it's about balance and compromise.
430 Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane colleagues, I apologize. I clicked on something and my queue went out of order. I'm going to do my best. I believe it's councilor Avalos next. Or is it councilor Green Green Green okay. Thank you, councilor Green please.
431 Thank you, council president. Thank you to the volume of community members who have testified and waited a week and sent hundreds of emails to our offices. I appreciate your input and your fight. I'm speaking today with two two ideas in my mind. The first is I am speaking in support of the newly revised Avalos Smith Dunphy amendments. With the reservation that I really do not like, the sort of grand bargain, so to speak, as as it were, for the money to go to the new affordable housing gap funding proposals. And I'll tell you why. It's not because I don't think that we should do those projects. It's just that I know that with the economics of affordable housing in the city of Portland right now, I struggle. I struggle to think about how we can lease up a set of units that range from 60% ami to 120%, ami when you can't even lease up units at the 60% ami because they're so close to market and in fact, at the range that we're thinking about in the parcel six of broadway corridor, I don't know how it's any different than market. It might be, in fact, be higher than market. And there's still there's still capital stacked to assemble. Meanwhile, we know that there are 1800 units in the community that are in the regulated system that are lying vacant because they carry debts on their balance sheets. That that put a floor on the rents. And so they're stuck in a situation where those units are too close to market. And so with one time money, I don't know why we're not taking that money and just buying down the rent on the existing units that we have, which, by the way, yields benefits for decades. And by my math based, if we expanded with the Portland housing bureau already doing you can you can cut rents for the renters in those units by 18%. One time expenditure, 18% over the life of the regulatory agreement. That to me is the smart economics on this play. I'm going to support this amendment because because I like everything else. And I like how hard y'all fought to assemble this. I think it's really it shows the compromise at play. So if this passes I'm going to move Green one, which I've emailed to all of you. That does just one thing. Actually, I technically two things. It just it it zeros out all of the one off by name gap funding financing of a total of $8.1 million. And it adds it to, I guess in this spreadsheet it would look like affordable housing portfolio stabilization to the dollar with the express purpose that it is rent by downs in any of our affordable housing anywhere in the city. And I think what you'll find is that's going to provide benefits to every single district. And it allows us to show voters in the city of Portland that we're good stewards of our public dollars because we're willing to act right now with the dollars that we have to make people's lives better today. And so that when we ask them for more money in the future, they might be willing to say, yes, thank you.
432 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Avalos.
433 Thank you. So a couple of things, you know, to go back to where we started, I think it's important to remember that when this slow the inflow resolution was first brought to my committee in December. Prior to that, we worked diligently with the housing bureau and other experts around what would be a package that could be feasible, realistic, also done by the housing bureau. So, you know, everyone keeps saying there are things that we don't like in the packages and the amendments. The thing that I don't like is a lot of dollars being redirected outside of the bureau's jurisdiction, that they have able to implement and put directly back into the hands of portlanders in various ways, and how it was originally put together. And importantly, I talked at length with the housing bureau and with the budget office to discuss what it looks like to spread this out over a couple of years. That's why it's like that, and specifically was requested to be that way, because, again, it was not feasible for dollars to be spent out immediately in this year. And now we're in January, we're in February, and now we have even less time than we did back in December for it to go out by the end of this fiscal year, which is June. And so, you know, and michael is prepared to answer those questions about that if he is needed. But I just wanted to flag that. That is the purpose of that. I think, importantly, you know, the things that I was not in support of, I think me compromising was, again, recognizing the entire spectrum, realizing that clearly the first package did not have a lot of buy in for more than one reason, not just about the broadway. There were concerns that I heard from people about naming certain groups. There were concerns about how things were allocated on eviction, on the lack of general fund, all of that. And I think what we did is and I'm also hearing this like, oh, well, I wasn't consulted and I wasn't well, I think we had a public debate. We had the public testimony, and the sponsors of this resolution went back, you know, given our limitations with public meeting law, that we can't just go ask everybody everything that we went back and tried to incorporate what we heard from all of you and put it into another package that we could get to. Yes, on. And so I appreciate the work that councilor Smith and Dunphy did with me to find some kind of way forward. I think also, we started back at the original bill because at the end of the day, that was always the first goal. Right? And I'll just note where you're what you're mentioning. Councilor Green, I agree that I think rent buydown would have been great to have put in this package. I think we were limited because when we were looking at the original package, again, looking at all the amendments or I'm sorry, all the allocations that went to the rent assistance and all the other things that I definitely am advocating for. And because the eehv money for home forward was a big point of contention, that felt like the most logical place to start and look at that. And because it was a big pot of 9 million that we could say, okay, what are the things that we're hearing? Let's reallocate to some of the projects that everybody seems intent on changing the language around eviction prevention. You know, we had this back and forth about is it the right to council? Is it does it go to the common law? We clearly heard from common law and Oregon law center. And honestly, you know, we brought it back to a place where the housing bureau can make those decisions. Right. And we added a little bit more so that there can be contracts that go to all of those groups, as well as continuing the right to council pilot, which was something that I heard people had strong support for last time. And so, you know, just to give you some context as to why I agree that rent buy down could make a big difference right now. We'll see what happens after this amendment package. Obviously, I would encourage folks to pass this new package, given that the sponsors of this resolution are bringing this to you in good faith and trying to accommodate as many needs as possible, knowing that not everyone is happy, including the three sponsors, are not happy about the ultimate outcome. And then I'm, you know, we'll see what happens as far as Green one and whatever else. So I just wanted to put that additional context. And lastly, I'll just end with, you know, we heard a little bit from the testifier steph routh, district one. The reason that we combined our efforts in district one is because we have some of the most vulnerable households, right? $30,000 less in annual income, 40% of the city's children, ten year life expectancy less than the rest of the city. Right. So many statistics that show that the odds are stacked disproportionately against district one. We have 47% of our district is people of color. We have the most immigrant families in our community. So these are the stakes that we're talking about. And we wanted from the beginning to have this lens, especially in this new form of government, that is able to finally give east Portland a voice, a voice that has long been underfunded, under resourced. And while this package is not necessarily all going to district one, it is clearly meeting a need that if we can take care of district one, the rest of the city is going to be taken care of. We can take care of the the ones that have the least among us, the most vulnerable among us. Then all boats are going to rise. And so that is the perspective that we had. I'm happy to answer questions. I'm happy to have michael come up, if that feels if me saying it is not enough, if you want to confirm out of his mouth what I've already told you is the process that we went about for making sure to allocate these dollars in a way that were reasonably. Able to get out from the bureau, and so he's available for that. But ultimately, I hope that we continue to remain focused on the goal of keeping people stable. And and I'm curious to see how the rest of the discussion goes as it relates to those development projects, which clearly sounds like we need to talk more about. And I wasn't for them in the beginning because I wanted all the dollars to go to the bureau so that they could actualize them. Thanks.
434 Thank you, councilor Avalos. Colleagues, very quickly, just a process. Note traditionally, councilor Runs until 1230. We're at 1237. However, you may note the calendar invite on your calendars runs until 130. That is an absolute drop dead deadline. If we are stuck, if we are not able to get to a vote and we are, I will be cutting us off promptly at 130 so that we can have time for our work session and we will be bringing this back. Otherwise, I'm hoping we can move this. And I also am recognizing that we may not get to a vote on this today. Either way, I hope so. I hope we can get to debating the the specific amendments, but if we don't, we will carry this over and keep going until we get it. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
435 Thank you, council president. Colleagues, I'm likely going to have some questions as we move through this, but I just want to make a couple of statements to start. I actually think there are a lot of really good things we could do with these funds, all of which are critically important. When we have one time funds, we have to use them carefully. In this case, we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to do the one time things that could make long term impacts for families, that could create long term stability and address needs. Now, we could do more to provide homeownership as a real opportunity for families to build equity and create more permanent stability. For generations, we could land bank, bank apartments in public ownership that give us opportunities into the future for affordable rentals or homeownership for social housing. For any number of possibilities, we could put more money into the section that recommend of the recommendations before us today to buy down debt in our underwater affordable housing apartments, which would permanently lower the rent at these subsidized, but still not affordable enough apartments for the life of those units. And we could, for folks who prefer rent assistance, address more of those needs today. Colleagues, we are missing an opportunity with this most recent amendment. Yes, there are different goals. There are different goals. And admittedly, some of them address very real imminent needs for rent assistance today and others address very real needs that are not quite as imminent, but still important for stability over the long term. That lasts more than just a few months or a year. We often address the crisis at hand and ignore the opportunity to prevent the next crisis, and I had hoped that with these funds, we'd be able to do both. I prefer personally, we've been talking about compromise and what people would love to see in the ideal proposals that get us closer to permanent solutions. I would prefer that we put more money into projects that create affordable homeownership and down payment assistance. I would prefer that we put more like 5 million into portfolio stabilization to fully buy down debt in some projects and make sure that we can pilot in a few properties, some security need changes. I would prefer that we look at how we can ensure we have enough housing into the future. But what I won't do today is continue the terrible precedent of creating ongoing programs with funds that we know we won't have again. And what I see in the new amendment, by stretching funds over a three year period is that we are entrenching ourselves in ongoing programs that we will not have funds for moving forward. So I want to make a point about rent assistance. I actually think I haven't done the full math that even with the clawback of funds in the broadway corridor, less money is available now for rent assistance in the district one version three amendment than there was now in immediate rent assistance in the district one versions one and two amendment. If we're going to move in the direction of rent assistance colleagues, let's act like it's an emergency. Let's say for one year we're going to do everything we can rent assistance, eviction, defense and do it right. I cannot support a slow trickle over three years if the housing bureau can't spend it all in the next four months. By the time this goes into effect, that's a good problem. Let's give them the carryover, but let's have them spend it like it's an emergency. Colleagues, I think there's something in between the district one, one and two or now Zimmerman one, whatever we want to call it. And the version three, if the issue is with the the length of the funding and maybe not getting the match for broadway corridor, let's talk about that. But in a realistic perspective that looks at the full fiscal year, not just a few months. If the issue is with the urban plaza project in my district that was removed, let's talk about those funds going into eviction defense or into the rent stabilization or the I'm sorry, the portfolio for the affordable housing portfolio stabilization. If the issue was the funding going to specific organizations for rent assistance, let's put it back to the housing bureau. But let's actually go back to amendments one and two that district one brought forward. Let's talk about an immediate need. If we're going to be talking about rent assistance, I'm sorry I cannot sit here while we say rent assistance is the holy grail. We can't put money toward long term solutions, which I wish we were doing, but but not acknowledge that we're actually just trickling it out. This is. I'm sorry. This is ridiculous. So I put that out there as a potential other version. I don't have it drafted because I did not know we were going to see a new version until I sat down at this meeting today. I am happy to draft it if folks would want to move in that direction, but I cannot support the version three before us.
436 Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney councilor Novick.
437 First of all, councilor Koyama Lane. I think the difference between those of us who are full throated about rent assistance and those who want to put some into building more housing is not one of values, but really one of levels of optimism. I think that we're going to be stuck with huge levels of homelessness and huge demand for rent assistance, far beyond what we can meet, until we get to the point where we've actually built more housing in the city. If I thought that we had a one year or three year emergency that could be solved with rent assistance, I'd be all for it. That's just not what I happen to think. And I really appreciate the sponsors trying to respond to what they think. People's concerns are, what our expressed concerns are. But I'll also note that within the confines of the public meetings law, it can sometimes be hard to find out exactly where everybody is. So, mr. President, with your permission, would you mind if I ask for like, a straw poll on a couple of topics which could then sort of help confine what any potential amendments people, including me, might want to offer?
438 Noting that we are at 1245. I'm certainly open to you polling your colleagues for some some guidance. Yeah.
439 Thank you. So one question is how many people would like to spend some money, send somebody to the general fund. Okay. So that is a distinct minority. So I'll forget about that. How many people would be willing to reduce some level of rent assistance in order to invest more in, in housing development and affordable housing stabilization?
440 To answer that, because.
441 The amendment does that too.
Procedural episode · turns 442–472
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
442 So what do you mean?
443 Well, the amendment what what I'm saying is, right now, I think you've got 9 million for rent assistance. So I'm trying to figure out if there would be a majority for saying no. There should be instead, you know, 6 billion for rent assistance and 11 million for for for housing development and stabilization.
444 There's 9 million for rent assistance and then another 9 million that goes to affordable rent.
445 But I'm what I want to find out is if there's any taste for reducing the 9 million for rent assistance and increasing the amount for stabilization and housing development. Okay. That scales things down. A question I have for councilor Green is you're talking about rent buy downs. I thought you've been talking about what councilor Pirtle-guiney was talking about, which is buying down the mortgages, the affordable housing owners, in order to enable them long term to reduce rents. That's the same thing. So it is buying down the mortgages. Okay. So I actually am somewhat torn between the investments in actual affordable housing projects like broadway and the idea of these buy downs in order to maximize the use of our current affordable housing portfolio. And I maybe we should have a debate between councilor Zimmermann and councilor Green. But one thing I was wondering about is, would it be any appetite for ascending that decision to the housing bureau and saying x amount of money, $9 million for building new for investments in new housing or stabilizing existing affordable housing, and let them figure it out.
446 Point of order. Point of order. We have amendments on the floor, and I'm not getting ready to do nuance on the on the on the diocese. Let's call a vote for these for these different ones. And let's see where people are at.
447 Councilor Smith what what what I maybe didn't explain well enough was I want to limit the number of amendments that I or anybody else offers. So as doing this sort of straw poll thing to figure out, you know, okay, I'm not going to offer that amendment because I know it's not going.
448 I understand, but it's not it's not going anywhere. Let's we got we got amendments on the table. Let's, let's go for the amendments we have on the table. And then we'll come back if we need to do something different. Councilor Novick then we'll come back to your nuanced ideas. But right now we have real things on the table.
449 Okay. Just let's go ahead and do that. I just want to clarify that, like I'm given a certain information, I might vote for the current version. Without that information, I might vote against it, just the information. But I will stand down.
450 I appreciate.
451 Any colleagues efforts to try and help us all find clarity. Councilor Smith.
452 Thank you. And I'm going to be very brief because I think I just said what I said. I hear you, former council president pirtle-guiney. That is that is so true. We should spend money on one time things. I am not for the extended three years, but I agree to it because our district one councilors, we came together to unify and everybody gets a little bit of something. So I would like us to call the question for our amendment and let's see where we're at, because a lot, a lot more talk and everybody knows what it is. So more talking is just going to get confusing. It's going to create a lot of nuance that doesn't need to be there. The only thing you can count on is we put we we did the right thing and we put our amendment up. Let's see if y'all y'all want it. If you don't, then we can come back to the drawing board. But I'm not going to sit up here and talk about nuance when we got things on the table.
453 So councilor Are you moving the amendment?
454 I move.
455 To, to put it yet, to call the question which one on the last amendment? Avalos three. Smith jd three.
456 All right. So they both moved or were they introduced? They both have been moved okay. Okay.
457 So are you calling.
458 Calling the vote.
459 Okay. Do we have to take a vote on the call of the question. And then we vote on the amendment.
460 After debate is over?
461 Or are you looking to limit debate as well?
462 Call the question.
463 Okay.
464 Which on the district one. Colleague three. This one. The fourth column in our graphic here we are.
465 Voting about.
466 Limiting debate and calling the question.
467 Yeah we are. There was a. And I love robert's rules. This is fun. We are voting to vote. Is that right?
468 That's correct. So there has been a motion to call the question on the amendment that has been offered. The motion to call the question needs to be seconded. If there is a second, then you will have a vote on that motion to call the question. If that succeeds, then you will vote immediately on the amendment that was offered.
469 We're only talking about calling the question on the almost done through canvas. Excuse me. Smith three three. Got it.
470 Okay. Is there a second on calling the question on that? Okay. Seconded by councilor Avalos, will you please call the vote the role on calling the question.
471 And this is changing it from the original.
472 Yes.
473 This defines this.
474 Yes. This would be amending incrementally.
475 I could go from really bad to kind of better.
476 Sure.
477 Okay.
478 Avalos.
479 This is on calling the question.
480 On calling the question. We will vote again on the substance.
481 Yes. Yeah.
482 Yes.
483 No, no. Pirtle-guiney.
484 No.
485 Ryan.
486 No.
487 Koyama Lane. Yes. Maria. Yes. Novick. No. Mark.
488 No.
Procedural episode · turns 489–497
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
489 Green. Yes. Zimmerman.
490 No.
491 Dunphy.
492 Yes.
493 The motion to call the question fails with six yes votes and six no votes.
494 Councilors. Zimmerman.
495 Thank you, mr. President. So I just am really appreciative to. Miss tanisha from the williams and russell project who came in and testified to previously. We had c.I. Testify and also for those in support of broadway. I, I certainly did not author what's on the screen here. Zimmerman won. But I think that those of you who did author that by abandoning it today was disappointing, because I think it was a reasonable and good compromise that you all introduced last week. And so that's why I've I've taken it up. I think that it is a good mix of the priorities that most folks have talked about today. And I think it's an important mix that doesn't delay in the multi year rollouts. I am in particular glad that you picked up in in the former district one, but now Zimmerman one. I'm glad you picked up the projects and I'm glad that you picked up or increased the affordable housing portfolio stabilization. In my conversations with the housing bureau, I thought that to be quite wise. When I talked to them. And largely that is why I wrote a competing ordinance that passed through finance. And so I offer that as this is just a resolution we're talking about today, but eventually, by our own city code, that ordinance is going to come forward at some point. And it passed finance, and it largely reflects what you see here in Zimmerman won. But Zimmerman won now does have some compromises that I again, I just really I appreciated that going with this most recent amendment that you all have introduced today, which in my conversations, I'm not sure how much of it was all of you versus kind of written by one person, but the reduction in that portfolio stabilization is, is pretty concerning, because I do think that councilor Green makes a very important point on on that. And in theory, I think we agree largely in this point. There was some strange testimony today, and it just reminded me of the rules for thee and not for me. And I am concerned about that. You know, reach cdc testified today. And I just want to note, I'm reading an article from about last year about how reach cdc reached out to the city of Portland for $2 million for their projects. How reach cdc. We've heard previously about their vacancy of their units, and they sent their government relations person in today to say, don't give out money to other people in the other projects. I thought that was very disappointing. Building units is part of the fabric that is going to help us get forward. That is why I am agreeable to these compromise packages. I don't think that the city of Portland should move fully into Multnomah county's line of business, which is rent assistance. I do think that the city of Portland has to keep its eye on developing new units. One of the things that I think is amazing about mixed income neighborhoods is that mixed income neighborhoods are the types of planned development neighborhoods that I think can thrive in the long term, because they have a variety of types of units, a variety of types of residents, a variety of types of ownership and rental, a variety of types of businesses who operate in the retail space, and the really great ones even have other working and employment space for offices. The broadway corridor in in large is our next planned development and the city of Portland and seiu. Excuse me, ci and the urban league and others have funded a deeply affordable block called for a that that portfolio is going to go forward with hundreds of units developed at some of the very affordable levels. The next level of affordability is block six, and that's why I am so dedicated to the 5.6. And I recognize that I think a significant part of the concern for the 5.6 million on broadway has a lot to do with people's concerns about district four or about me. But let me tell you, if you don't like me and you don't like district four, I hope you do like planned communities with mixed income and that we have an opportunity to send an important signal. Portland is not a place people generally will invest in. It is going to take other people's money to invest in block nine a, nine, b nine, c, seven, eight, five, three and one. We are talking about two blocks out of a large development in the old postal office site. If we end up only developing block four, the one that is fully funded, and I think there's been some confusion about how much money has gone into one. Yes. If we only develop block four, I think that sends another bad signal to the larger national market about Portland. If we can build both deeply affordable and middle income affordable, which, by the way, block six, 100% of the units are regulated. And in a world where reach cdc and many of the other cdcs have hundreds of vacancies at the 60%, we do need to expand what we do in the ami categories, both down and up, to make this affordable mixed income neighborhood something that we can realize in the future. And so if we can send both of those properties forward marching, and I believe we've got the support at the state legislature, and I think we have the support in mahonia hall for this, that tells the market especially for nine, seven, eight, five, three and one blocks, that something can happen here. You should get in on it and we can turn what I think can be the great, a great connection between the old town and the pearl district neighborhoods, which right now have this grand void. And anybody who spent time there knows it is a void. We will eliminate that void. It actually increases our connectivity over the over the river, which is an area into district two that I think has a lot of great future coming its direction. It gets better if the broadway corridor starts developing today. The way the Green loop and the extension of the south park blocks go, all of these hinge on $5.6 million. The city can be part of the partnership. So that's why I'm defending it. That's why I think it's important. I. I am disappointed that Multnomah county stopped putting rent assistance dollars toward the city run shelters to get people from shelter to a housing situation. I heard the mayor loud and clear that he wanted $9 million for that. I think there's been large compromise down to a smaller number. And today in Zimmerman one, you see $4 million for that type of transition. It takes money to move from shelter to apartments. I hope you will continue to support that. This most recent amendment by y'all has it at three. I think we'll execute that. I think we can execute 4 million. So that's why I still think Zimmerman one is a better option here. I don't know why, but I am open. Councilor pirtle-guiney mentioned the urban plaza money coming out of both the most recent amendments. I, I thought that that would be a project that needed some assistance. If it can't, then I agree with her and her statements about putting it in that eviction protection piece, that 500,000. So I would just ask that we you had a great compromise amendment last week. I would like to stick to it. That's why I hope to I will vote down at the end. Excuse me, I will vote for at the end the Zimmerman one here because you guys wrote it and I wish it still had your names on it. And I think you should continue to support it. I hope that that helps tell you a little bit about why I think that the development projects are important. I will also say it is. It is. I just want to thank again the development groups. Williams, self-enhancement, urban plaza and broadway corridor who have come forward because you all are creating different types of ownership and rental models that I think if you have a long term lens, you guys are complementary to that. And I very much appreciate appreciate your all work and you've come to many meetings. Thank you, mr. President.
496 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Ryan.
497 Yes. Excuse me. Thank you, council president. Thank you for putting this visual up. And I want to start by saying I agreed with much of the sentiment just expressed by councilor Zimmerman. I want to just focus for a bit on the process. On December 9th, this item was discussed and voted on in the homeless and housing committee. Prior to that vote, we had a great conversation. I thought on the homeless to housing continuum. We looked at what all the options are, the system that was eloquently expressed by some of the testifiers today. We wish we could fund all of it, but we had a good conversation about what lanes, what what Lane is the county, what Lane is the city? And it was a really great dialog. The sentiment that I recall is there was a lot of dialog that suggested that we're more into the building, the long term housing and the county's more on the rental assistance side. And then after that, we moved on on to this item. We listened to some testimony, mostly from the housing first lobby, who delivered their case for rental assistance. Then we had two minutes. Count them two minutes to discuss this item before it went to a rush to vote. In my opinion. That's why we're also in this conundrum today, is that we have to remember that in the committee's, we should take more time to work things out before we rush them to the full council. So anyway, these are tough choices. They're all necessary. So what do we do now? I can see that we're moving towards rental assistance funds. I'm asking for this. From that, we need outcome data on the impact of rental assistance funds. We have income data about where the money goes. But I need to see how people move from dependance to independence by government providing that assistance. I was so moved. I'm sure you all were. By the testimony of sandra de la rosa. How do you get out of being in an assistance mode? How do you move forward when government is offering you that assistance? Most people want to move towards that. I realize that you couldn't see my head nodding. I was in support of money going towards the general fund. I now see that that didn't get very far. I am dedicated to the 5.6 to the broadway corridor. That development needs to get started. As councilor Zimmerman said, we've invested in the infrastructure there. We can't let it sit vacant. We've got to show to investors that this is a place that has it can attract investment again. And I'm also a big fan of the north and northeast strategy, so I'm glad those are in there. I will wait to see where the where the where this all lands. But I wanted to get some of my sentiments out and I hope to god as we go forward, we can spend more time in committees to work these details out before we rush it to council. The full council. Thank you.
498 Thank you, councilor Ryan councilor Koyama Lane.
499 Thank you, council president. Colleagues, I just want to remind us that we're talking about 21 million that came from rental fees, money paid by renters in a city where about half of portlanders rent, about half of all of our voters rent. This isn't an abstract funding. This is money from this is renters money. And I want to speak a little bit to the county versus city lanes, the responsibilities. I want to remind us that the Portland housing bureau, our bureau, has managed the rent relief program. So there's a precedent there. There's capacity for the city to be supporting in this very challenging time. And also, what we're seeing today, I don't think is just one disagreement. I think this is a little peek, an opening into a much bigger, bigger conversations that we're going to be having about who this council believes deserves support. And I predict we'll probably be talking about that in the upcoming budget process. So I do hope we can move forward on this, and we're going to have more opportunities to be discussing this.
500 Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane councilor Novick.
501 So first of all.
502 Again, I think that all of us care about all portlanders, and I care about the portlanders who will be around in 2040. As much as I care frankly about the portlanders today. And so I want to pursue policies which I hope will result in less homelessness and less need for rent assistance in 2040 as much as I do today. I have a question for councilor Green, which is again, I'm like the idea of doing the mortgage buy downs in order to allow the affordable housing providers to reduce rents, which will reduce vacancies, which will mean more people in homes. Can you tell me whether you think that that strategy is more cost effective than simply giving people direct rent assistance?
503 I appreciate the question. I think if you control for only those who are currently in the sort of regulated affordable housing units than rent, rent, buy downs are more cost effective because you rather than eating your seed corn, you plant your corn and you get a benefit that yields over time. But not everyone who receives emergency housing vouchers and rent assistance are in those units. And so I think one of the things I worry about is the complicated interplay between new evictions and then also against the backdrop of us having a hard time placing people in these units. And so if you want my strictly economic economist's answer, I have to hold one thing constant and say, yeah, it's more it's yes, it's more cost effective in the long run. If you have one time money.
504 How many vacancies do you think could be filled with the amount of money that you're proposing for the mortgage buy downs, and as opposed to how many vacancies exist, period, in the affordable housing projects.
505 Yeah. So on on January 12th, michael buonocore gave a presentation on rent downs to the finance committee, and he presented some figures that said they're roughly doing about $6 million, and they've got a little a little over, you know, somewhere around 100 units in play that are reducing rents from 60 to 45%. Ami. So that napkin math is $60,000 per unit. So this would just basically double that roughly. No, actually it'd be a little bit more than that. So I think it's 100 and I think it's 135 units actually.
506 So it would, you would think it would fill 135 units permanently, presumably at a cost of $60,000 a piece.
507 I would say it more appropriately that it would, over the life of the regulatory agreement, lower those units from 60% ami rents to 45% ami rents, which would allow that spread between market to open up. And yeah, I think I think it would create an increase in filled units.
508 And I mean, how many more units could we fill with another $4 million say?
509 I mean, I think that's probably a good question for the director of the Portland housing bureau. But when I was when I was talking to them about this, they said they have the capacity to do something like 1300 units around the city with a combination of existing and things that are in the pipeline right now.
510 Could I invite director to come up and help us? Work through this napkin math? Thanks that I presented at finance committee in two projects that are in the development pipeline and the investments of roughly 3 million in each one, helped sort of buy down the debt in a way that would allow these properties to open when they when they open their doors and have their grand opening with rents reduced than what had originally been projected in the financing. So there is a in in this particular way that we did it. There's there's kind of a period of time. Well either at the, at the front end when financing is being put together for a new development or, you know, sort of a reworking of the finances before it comes online, there are potentially other ways to go about rent buy downs for existing properties where a refinancing is done. We haven't built a lot of muscle around that. So these are these are early strategies that we're, you know, trying to be responsive to the moment when we have resources and the ability to be a little bit flexible. I think, you know, a larger strategy around this is something we would like to develop and be able to sort of say, you know, I mean, our ability to react in the moment to situations is helpful. But, you know, sort of having this larger picture where I could say to you if we sort of used these three interventions and roughly these buckets of money, we think we could get these sorts of outcomes. We're a little bit early days in, in the moment and obviously, you know, sort of lacking a, a dedicated pool to, to deploy.
Procedural episode · turns 511–519
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
511 May I ask the director follow up question, director councilor Green is proposing, I think, increasing the amount of money for stabilization of current affordable housing from 1.4 million to something like 8 million. Is that something that you could put to use? Yes. It is. And I hate to put you on the spot and probably you'll say you can't answer, but if you had your druthers and you had $20 million, would you rather put it into building new housing, stabilizing existing affordable housing or rent assistance?
512 Yeah.
513 That's not fair.
514 He.
515 Point of order.
516 Administrator, shaking his head.
517 Let's not.
518 Put it to the city administrator. Is that more appropriate?
519 No, it's not.
520 Not at this time, no.
521 All right. It's worth a shot.
522 Yeah. Good. Thanks for trying, councilor Kanal.
523 Thank you. I'm going to have questions for the attorneys. Just flagging that. And I just want to know, you know, we this is a long conversation. It's actually my first time speaking on it other than a procedural clarification. So I just want to say thanks to everybody who's been working on this. I know a lot of work has been done here. While the attorneys are coming up. If you could, please. Sorry. I just want to first note that I agree with council president Dunphy that this process has not been ideal, both in terms of we should not find $21 million in the process of competing legislation instead of just amending existing proposals. I also want to say that a lot of this is about district competition, and we have a lack of guardrails related to regional investment, combined with an increased awareness of geography and the public due to the new council districts. And I think that's created some feelings of my district is being underinvested in. And I think in the past we just invested in what is now before it wasn't before then and then every now and then we threw some money at some key project in another district that was deeply unpopular with three fourths of us and our constituents, I should say. And part of why we had charter change in totality and specifically the creation of districts, I think we should have a council wide conversation around what does equity look like in terms of investment by district, including discussion about whether or not we should be investing equally going forward, investing to rectify historic harms, and also not just only looking at districts, because obviously downtown is different from far southwest within d4, among other differences. I'd love to see something that has broad parameters. As an illustrative example, I'm not proposing directly. 15% goes to each district and the remaining 40% goes to areas of priority or greatest need. As a general rule for how we look at spending around the city, I just wanted to flag that getting to this specific thing. And my question for the lawyers. Thanks for coming back. Ordinance 189650 lays out usage for the rental registry fund. In the findings of that, it says that the fund is, quote, responsible for contracting out funding for fair housing and landlord tenant services, developing code and administrative rules associated with local landlord tenant law, processing exemptions to local mandatory relocation assistance, and providing technical assistance and information in person, via email and over the phone to renters and landlords. On landlord tenant law. My understanding is, end quote. My understanding is that we would therefore either have to use this money to backfill for another sub fund, and then use the money in that sub fund. If we wanted to pay for development of affordable housing, or we'd have to amend ordinance 189650 to allow for usage beyond the items I just quoted. So my question is, unless we were to amend that or supersede it with a new ordinance, are we legally able to use this money, any of it, for any of these development projects?
524 So so right now the the resolution before you would state council's intent and expectation for the use of this money. And once you find common ground on that or at least a majority, then it it depending on what you decide, it would take some additional steps. And one additional step you're required to take is having an ordinance actually appropriating the funds. Yes.
525 Councilor Zimmerman mentioned that a little bit ago.
526 As part of that, you could also bring another ordinance to expand the use of the funds.
527 And we would have to do that in order to fund any of these development projects. Is that correct?
528 You would do that. And and in fact, if I can use this as an opportunity because I think this is a something that this council can learn from the from the mistakes of the old council. The, the code, as it's currently written, where it references this fee. It, it was adopted I think in 2018. And so the code on the books says that we're going to have a rental registry and we may impose a fee, then an ordinance came in 2019 that actually imposed the fee. And that ordinance in the body of the directive sets the limitation and says that fee will only be used for the rental services office. So that's the legal limitation. Now, what's interesting to me is the code was never updated to reflect that ordinance. And and so I think this council could learn from that mistake. And if you are going to make decisions about the appropriate uses of the the rental registration fee, rather than just pass another kind of one off ordinance, you should amend the code, put it in the code so future councils can just look there, find it. It's very clear what the limitations are or not. So thank you for that opportunity. I did just think this was an opportunity to use kind of the mistakes of the past to inform better practices in the future.
529 Thanks. And that direct question before that is what I was specifically asking about. But I actually really do appreciate this additional context for how we approach the ordinance that will eventually need to come. But what that means to me is that I am concerned that and obviously this is a resolution that doesn't directly appropriate the money. But if we're indicating an intent to broaden the usage of it, that that kind of contradicts and the sort of underlying principles that councilor Koyama Lane had indicated earlier about what this is supposed to go to. And so I do have concerns about that, especially given that building new units when we have 1900 empty units in a that are regulated right now in the city, absent some sort of context and some sort of policy on that, I'm looking forward to getting the information back February 28th from the administration, including what the market vacancy numbers are, by the way, in the city, as part of the the request for a budget note towards getting a residential vacancy fee, but that that will help, I think inform this conversation as well. I had a couple other questions. Not for the lawyers, so thank you, but for councilor Novick. If you could just briefly let me know what you're I've heard two different things about whether it's just bad to name a specific entity in terms of the common the commons law clinic, or if it was about the specific nature of the program. And can you just speak to why that is what your particular concern was?
530 My concern. My concern was that I think that generally we should appropriate money for programs and then leave it up to the administration to use their normal procurement processes to figure out who administers the programs. So that logic applied to both the commons law center. And actually, although I didn't need to do it because the sponsors changed it, the division of money among some school entities, providers in order to provide rent assistance.
531 Thanks. So for the sponsors, I wanted to say I heard what rich was talking about. I hear the concern about backroom deals. I also wanted to note I hear the other comment on that too, from councilor Zimmerman. I also wanted to know about the project. We got an email from doctor fonseca about that. That project is in d2 for full disclosure, up near interstate and killingsworth. I went to a block party there, and I want to thank the residents who are around the corner for telling me about it back then. So I'm a little more up to date on it. But I'll also note that that some of what we're hearing about in these named projects now are talking about units that will come online and be leasable in 2028. And we're getting communications saying that some of some other projects might be leasable by q1 of 2027, 57 units. In this case, I haven't verified all these assertions, but I assume that the sponsors have looked into some of these, and I just I'm curious what other projects were identified. Why was it broadway corridor specifically? And I'm focusing on that one just because there's $7.1 million going to specific projects, 78% of that is the 5.6 million going to a single project. And so I it's not about anything specific to that project, although I do have questions there too. But I did want to ask that about what how those projects were chosen. And just to save time, I'll ask my other question now to the sponsors, which is without additional context. I'm very sympathetic to the argument that councilor Pirtle-guiney gave about not spreading this over three years, but doing it all at once. I assume there is additional context that I don't know. So could you explain why it was formulated that way?
532 Yeah. Michael, could you come up to help explain? I feel like I've said it a couple different ways. So maybe how about you say it and see if it lands differently?
533 Council president. Oh, I don't think I said michael buonocore. For the record, last time interim director of Portland housing bureau. So. There are a couple of considerations here. One is depending on whatever you all decide to fund, how many of those are are new versus ongoing programs that we already manage. There are, you know, procurement processes that we would have to go through. There's a, you know, contracting review that's happening at the city, and we have to sort of move at that pace. So there's anticipation that we would probably need the last few months of this fiscal year to sort of do some of the administrative work to scope, you know, scope rfps, get them out on the street, evaluate them. So that's one consideration. And then there are, if you take just one example to illustrate the consideration of of doing this over time, the the rent assistance for individuals experiencing homelessness. The assessment that was based on how many folks might be served for how much money was based on providers that Portland solutions work with, who who have assessed that there's a certain portion of folks in the shelter system who, with some support over about an 18 month period of time, would be able to transition into permanent housing. So sometimes, just depending on the information, the intervention you want, you need to cross more than one fiscal year. In terms of it being three fiscal years, I think it really was meant to be, you know, sort of this truncated fiscal year that we're in now and sort of two programmatic years, again, depending on the intervention. And to the extent that it's helpful in this conversation about rent assistance, you know, that is typically tied to the eviction prevention, prevention and legal defense efforts that are happening. So a lot of times that rent assistance looks like paying off, you know, a couple of months where someone was in arrears a maybe the first month's rent not intended to be sort of like what we typically think of as an ongoing long term rent assistance program, if that's helpful for your considerations.
534 And then the last. Thank you, michael. And then the last layer of it as well, is that by being able to adhere to those guidelines of making sure that it's feasible and they can get it out, but also then by baking it in, then we don't have to have a towel fight about it later, because if we just allocated it all right now, they're not going to be able to spend it all. Then it's just going to go to the towel because it's going to have to get rolled over, and then we're going to have to have this fight again. And so this is about creating some stability so that the housing bureau can depend on rolling out those dollars on the timeline. That makes sense to them. And again, I've we talked with ruth about that, that we are able to allocate it in that way so that we don't have to have a towel fight with it later.
535 Thanks. So I know we're not great on time here. So what I will just say is, I imagine that that the housing bureau wants to get this money out the door as quickly as possible. So yeah, I've seen a nod. Just for the record, you can't see it. So that's that's helpful for me. Big picture. I'll just say I am broadly supportive of something in the ballpark of the right two columns in this area. I'm more sympathetic on the whole to Green one, but there are a couple of things I'd like to, you know, williams and russell self enhancement inc. That that's those are things that I think are really important as well. So that's why I've been asking about the legality of it. I don't think we're going to end up voting on this today. So if that happens then you'll see it in the votes. But I will say if this is continued, my suggestion would be to Thursday of next week, the first thing on that agenda, just so that people have predictable time to come see it, because we've had some unpredictability for the public, will still be time for another item after if we need to on Thursday, but that would be my suggestion. Thank you.
536 Thank you councilor Kanal and y'all, I am cutting us off in 5.5 minutes. Councilor Smith last in the queue.
537 Council president, I will defer to you because I think we need to to have a vote on this amendment to see where we're at just before we leave. And I would like to urge all my colleagues, let's get something on the books now, so that understanding that this is a resolution and I think you may have forgotten councilor Kanal you put forward a request that my actual ordinance to this will come on next week. Did you forget that?
538 No.
539 Okay. So there is an ordinance that's going to be attached to this that we can vote on next week. We need to get this resolution out and give the direction. But. We can have a further conversation over the ordinance next week, because that is basically the the law.
540 Okay. Thank you, councilor Smith. With that, I would like to move to a vote on the Avalos Smith Dunphy three amendment, which has been first moved and seconded. Not first. That's not a word. And then moved and seconded.
541 Council president are you going to then move to all of these. Yes. Okay. Thanks.
542 Avalos I. Smith I.
543 Kanal just clear. This is Avalos. Smith. Dunphy three. Yes okay. With the intention of getting to Green one and supporting that I.
544 Pirtle-guiney no.
545 Ryan. No Koyama Lane. I Morillo.
546 With the intention of getting to green's amendment. I vote I now, but I will be supporting green's later.
547 Novick. No Clark. No Green. Zimmerman.
548 I.
549 Dunphy I.
550 The amendment is approved with eight yes votes and four no votes.
551 Thank you colleagues with four minutes left. Procedurally, how do we move to the other amendments that are on the floor that.
552 We have one open amendment right now remaining councilor Zimmerman, amendments seconded by councilor Clark.
553 Okay. Please call the roll on that.
554 Avalos I say one more time.
555 Which one? We're voting on Zimmerman one.
556 No. Smith I.
557 Kanal.
558 More comments on this later, but no.
559 Pirtle-guiney I.
560 Ryan. Councilor Ryan.
561 I mean, where are we? Yeah, I.
562 Okay, thank you. Koyama Lane no. Morillo. No Novick.
563 With the assumption we'll now get to a discussion on the Green amendment.
564 I Clark. I Green no.
565 Zimmerman I.
566 Dunphy.
567 No.
568 The amendment fails with six yes votes and six no votes.
569 With three minutes left. Councilor Green, your amendment needs a.
570 Yeah I move Green one. I also have Green two. If Green one fails, it's in your inboxes.
571 Second second from councilor Morillo. Any discussion? See our folks in the queue for discussion.
572 For Green one.
573 For Green one. Councilor Novick.
574 Councilor. Wonder if you'd accept a intended to be friendly amendment to instead of moving Green one say that $9 million shall be directed to the Portland housing bureau to be spent on developing affordable housing or stabilizing existing affordable housing, and leave it up to them. How to divide it up.
575 I'm not I'm not friendly to that. I appreciate your intent. I really just want to provide clear legislative intent here. And I prefer the rent buy down.
576 Councilor pirtle-guiney. Thank you.
577 May I ask a question to the carrier.
578 Councilor Green? Currently, the language in the resolution before us talks about rent buy downs as one of a few options in a stabilization portfolio package. I can't tell from what you have before us whether that is adding funds to that broader bucket, which could include but isn't limited to buy downs, or whether this is creating a new bucket that is just for buy downs while maintaining the funding there. I'm asking because there are other pieces of that bucket that I also think are really important. I want to wouldn't want us to have no money for that bucket. But I'd like to understand where you're putting this money.
579 Yeah, it's a great question. This is additive to the intent that's already underneath that existing bucket. I felt like that bucket was a little too narrowly confined to north northeast preference. I think based upon what we currently passed, I'm I'm actually quite open for this to be a holistic bucket of money. And as we move, if we were to pass this and move into an ordinance development, I think my intent here is I want to add $8.1 million to the Portland housing bureau to stabilize our affordable housing system writ large, and we already have a north northeast preference policy. We already have some of these other languages in there. And so I think I just want to expand what michael is currently doing. I don't know if that's clear enough for you.
580 So this would maintain what is in the amended version eight affordable housing portfolio stabilization $750,000 and add a new number somewhere in the numbering system that is specifically 8.1 or 5.6, depending on whether it's version 1 or 2 for rent buy down programs. I assume that's the same thing from what you said previously as the the mortgage, buy down the debt, buy down programs for affordable housing providers anywhere across the city.
581 That is accurate.
582 Yes. Okay.
583 Thank you. I will note here, just as we're looking at the difference between these two, I don't want to be district parochial. However, I also do think that it's important to note that some of the projects here are for homeownership opportunities, which we're not doing much for. Elsewhere in the resolution, we did have a testifier say we have to do everything. I take that to heart, and I I'm struggling with cutting some of the only opportunities to create more affordable homeownership opportunities in the city.
584 And colleagues. I said I was going to cut us off at 130. It is 131. I want to thank everybody for today. We will be continuing this item to a, I believe next week we will be. I appreciate everybody keeping this respectful and productive. We will take a week to continue conversations and development, pick it up next week's work. And with that, I am adjourning this meeting of the Portland city council.