The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2025-04-03
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (11,161 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 convened on April 3, 2025 at 3:31 p.m. as a continuation of the previous day's meeting, with roll call confirming attendance of council members. The session addressed Agenda Item 17, a proposed amendment to the affordable housing code prohibiting anti-competitive rental pricing practices, including algorithmic pricing devices. Discussion covered a proposed amendment establishing a tiered damages system based on landlord unit count, with questions raised about its application to small landlords and collusion definitions. Procedural discussion occurred regarding whether to debate the amendment before or after public testimony, including input from the city attorney on council's discretion in handling amendment timing; votes occurred on this and other procedural matters, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. Extensive public testimony followed from residents, business owners, landlords, tenant advocates, and organizational representatives, expressing both support for and opposition to the ordinance, citing concerns about housing supply, small landlord impacts, algorithmic pricing tools, and rent affordability. A further amendment clarifying the definition of "public data" was introduced, discussed, and voted on, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The item was noted as a first reading, with further testimony and discussion scheduled for April 16.
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.
0 Good afternoon. I am going to call us into session for this is a continuation of yesterday's council meeting. It is April 3rd at 3:31 p.m. We are continuing the agenda item that we started yesterday. I have different notes in front of me, but I believe it was agenda item 16. And rebecca, can you please call the roll?
1 Here?
2 Ryan Koyama Lane here. Morillo. Novick here. Clerk. Here. Green. Here. Thank you. Zimmerman.
3 Here.
4 Avalos.
5 Present.
6 Dunphy here.
7 Smith.
8 Here.
9 Pirtle-guiney here. And I want to start by thanking everybody who showed up today again after being here yesterday to testify. And I'd like to thank all of my fellow councilors who rearranged their afternoons to be here to make sure to hear from you. It's important for as many of us as possible to hear where you all are at, so that we can make informed decisions, share information with our colleagues who aren't able to join us. And I appreciate everybody making space for that. Rebecca, could you please call the agenda item?
10 Agenda item 17 amend affordable housing code to add prohibition of anti-competitive rental prices, including the sale and use of algorithmic devices.
11 Thank you. And I just want to flag for councilors and anybody who is in the room or watching online that since yesterday, there is a proposed amendment to exhibit a, which has been added to the online record of this agenda item. I believe right now we're going to move straight into public testimony, but I want to make sure folks know that that is there because as we have discussion later, I'm sure that will come into effect.
12 Whose amendment was it?
13 So it was my amendment. And it's to. Oh, I'm so sorry, I didn't know. That's okay. Sorry I got excited.
14 It is. Councilor murillo's amendment and councilor Zimmermann, are you wanting to hear just a minute about it before we go into public testimony? Is that helpful? Okay. Councilor Morillo, can you just quickly let folks know what that is?
15 Thank you. Apologize so much for just jumping on a little bit late. The amendment is to address the concerns that some councilors had about how this might impact small landlords. So we've actually created a tiered system so that small landlords aren't impacted by this policy or addresses the perception that they might be. We worked with the city attorney on the amendment aspect of it, and he actually recommended that we read and go through the amendment first so that we can get public testimony on it, and people can adjust their testimony according to the amendment. Curious if that's an option.
16 So, councilor, I appreciate that. I also know that folks in the audience have not had time to read this over since it went up, and we're trying to get in as much public testimony as possible. I'm hoping that anybody who showed up today doesn't get turned away.
17 I it was posted already today. I also have printed copies for everyone. I think it's a I think a lot of the testimony that we're going to hear is going to have some of these concerns addressed by our amendment. So I think that it would be more beneficial for the public testimony if we could address the amendment first. According to the city attorney's recommendation.
18 Councilor, I appreciate that. And you and I discussed the order for today and the fact that we were trying to prioritize public testimony. So I appreciate that this is posted, and I think it's important to have you speak like you have for a minute as to what it does so that folks understand that. But if we take the time to have councilor Debate over this, we are not going to be able to hear from everybody who has come back now for a second day to testify.
19 Can we hear an opinion from the city attorney on that?
20 I don't believe that this is a legal opinion. I think that this is a process question. But if the city attorney would like to weigh in, he's welcome to do so.
21 Hello. Robert taylor, city attorney. The. It's entirely up to council how you would like to proceed with the amendment. It's been posted. People can see it. There's been a description of it. So if folks want to testify about it, they can look at it online and testify about it. The council in the past has handled amendments in a variety of different ways. Sometimes they will move. And second, the amendment at the beginning of the meeting so that the amendment is on the table for people to consider and people can testify on it at other times, council waits and hears the testimony, and then we'll offer the amendment to address the testimony that's received. So it's entirely in council's prerogative on how they'd like to handle it.
22 Thank you, mister taylor.
23 I, I guess the reason I'm pushing for this is not to be frustrating about process, but because I think a lot of the testimony that we're going to hear today is going to be from small landlords who are concerned that this ordinance impacts them. And this amendment was an attempt to reconcile that and ensure that they are not impacted by that issue. And that's why I think it's important for them to hear it so that their testimony can be adjusted. Or maybe, you know, they feel like they don't have to be here anymore, which I think would cut down on testimony time. Could I motion to discuss the amendment?
24 That would be a motion that we could take.
25 Does anyone want to second that?
26 Second.
27 Second. Yeah.
28 Is there. Can I we are at discussion to discuss the amendment. Is your comment on discussion about the vote at hand?
29 Yes.
30 Go right ahead.
31 Nobody second to the amendment yet. I want to do that.
32 I believe that the amendment was seconded by councilor Novick.
33 Okay. I thought she was seconded.
34 To discuss the amendment.
35 That was to discuss the amendment. The motion on the table is to move to discussion.
36 Got it then. I have nothing else to add.
37 Rebecca.
38 Canal. Yes. Ryan Koyama Lane.
39 What's happening right now?
40 Would you like to move to discussion of the amendment before we take further public testimony?
41 No.
42 I'm because it is. We're doing it officially and there's someone has moved to do this. Then I feel comfortable. Yes.
43 I believe you just had an I vote from councilor. Koyama Lane.
44 Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
45 Morillo I. Novick I.
46 Clark. I mean. I.
47 Zimmerman. I Avalos. Apologies. Thank you.
48 Dunphy I. Smith I.
49 Pirtle-guiney.
50 No. Though this clearly passes. So we will move into discussion. And for folks who are here to testify, we will need to wait to start taking testimony. As anybody in the queue to discuss the amendment.
51 I don't know, sorry.
52 Councilor. Morillo.
53 Thank you. I have some printed copies here if anyone needs to see them in printed form. It was posted earlier today, but so you should have it in your online documents. But we wanted to address the concern about small landlords being impacted. So we have an amendment that says that has a tiered system of fees, so that if you're a small landlord, you're not going to face the same $10,000 fee that a very large corporation would. So for a landlord with fewer than five units, damages are just actual damages. So for example, if you price fixed with your five units or less $100 per tenancy, then it would just be actually that $100 for a landlord with 5 to 15 units. Damages are treble damages, so if you increase someone's fee by $100, you would pay $300. And for a landlord with 16 or more units, damages include either treble damages or statutory damages of $10,000 for each lease period within which there is a violation of this title. So we got the official definitions for small landlords from. From its official landlord definitions. And we want to ensure that this is basically just impacting big corporations and not the mom and pop landlords that do so much for our city. So I can take any questions at this time.
54 Councilor Zimmerman.
55 Thank you councilor. I appreciate having this. Looking on the screen is very helpful. Using your language. I want to make sure I totally understand. So I'm looking in paragraph c or section c, subparagraph b for landlord with fewer than five units. Damages are actual damages. That's the amendment. You said if you only price fix with your own five units. And I think I understand the spirit there, but I'm trying to understand how a person who owns five units and, you know, they have knowledge of those five, how that knowledge of those five doesn't fall into being a violation, because I know I know the history of those units. I know how they're going to be rented in the future, or how they have been rented in the past, because I wouldn't want just the knowledge of their rental history or future to be a violation of this. And I'm trying to understand this a little bit. I think I understand the spirit, but it's not quite coming off the way you described it.
56 Councilor would you like to respond?
57 So in order to price fix, you would have to collude with people that are not yourself. So if it's your own five units or less, that would not count as collusion. That would be your own knowledge.
58 Okay. Thank you.
59 Councilors. Is there anybody else who would like to discuss ask questions, make comments.
60 Okay.
61 Could we move to vote on the amendment if there's no further discussion?
62 Yes, we could.
63 I have further discussion. If there's no other questions.
64 Go right ahead. Councilor.
65 Sorry, I was just trying to give a space. I know I've created a lot with you, councilor, so I appreciate the tiered approach. I think that is the right step in the right direction. The. I don't know that this amendment in and of itself. Alleviates the concern for a small quote unquote mom and pop owner, because they can still, of course, violate, I think, the tenets of antitrust and of collusion, etc, like that. I want to make sure we understand this still applies, but we're definitely changing the it looks like this amendment is definitely changing the enforcement mechanism and the fines mechanism. So I appreciate that I'll be supportive of this amendment. But I also for the public's case, it the ordinance would still apply overall to a smaller landlord who engaged in this prohibited activity.
66 Yes, we live in a society where there should be some enforcement. Even if you are a small landlord, when you are violating the rights of your tenants.
67 It was a complimentary comment. Councilor take the win.
68 Councilor Green.
69 Thank you councilor. Yeah, I think that this this is a straightforward, I think, response to the testimony that and a lot of the opposition that councilor Maria heard on our first reading or on yesterday, I would propose for just the rest of the council to consider just voting to adopt. I'm going to support this voting to adopt this amendment and then proceed into the public testimony to keep this sort of a clean up process, where folks who showed up today to give this testimony can do it. And then if there are any other subsequent amendments that people want to introduce, we could do that after the testimony. I think that's my suggestion.
70 Thank you. Councilor, is there anybody else who is waiting to get in the queue for discussion? So, councilors, we have an amendment before us. I don't know if folks feel prepared to vote on it or not. We could take councilor Ryan.
71 Yeah. I think it's fair that we. I was worried we were going to discuss this for too long, and I was really didn't want to be rude to the people that showed up for two days in a row. That's why I voted no. I don't think we should vote on it until after we hear the testimony. We still are here to listen today to the testimony. It's transparent. They know that we will be voting on this. They might even speak to if they like the amendment or not. So can we just move forward? And I just saw the amendment so I'm not ready to vote on it.
72 Councilor.
73 Green councilor, there's a motion on the floor and we need to vote on it. Or another motion needs to be yeah.
74 Do we have.
75 I don't believe that we have a motion. And a second, actually, at this time we had somebody say, should we.
76 There was no second.
77 But there has.
78 You can motion and second. So it's in the public record that we are going to discuss and vote on the amendment. But you don't have to vote on it before you listen to the testimony. Okay? I don't know where that rule came from.
79 I that's.
80 A it's a practice of the past council, and it's something that is allowed in some rules and not in others.
81 So but isn't the scenario isn't the scenario that the vote that we did was for the just to discuss? But we have not made a motion or a second for the actual amendment yet.
82 This there has not been a second. I don't know that there was even an official motion. Councilor Morillo said. Could we now motion.
83 I would like to motion to vote on this, because if we do not vote on this today, the reality is that justice is also required to be expedient, in my opinion. And if we don't get through the amendment today, it will not go through to be heard on the 16th for a vote. That's really what is the behind the scenes that we're discussing about here. And this is directly I'm sorry, it was short notice. It is directly responsive to the concerns and feedback that we received. This is my attempt to be good in the policy and make sure that we're addressing the concerns of people who would otherwise not be supportive of this. So my guess is we're going to go through public testimony. Many advocates and other community members who took time to be here yesterday and who took time off work to be here, aren't here. The people who are mostly able to be here are going to be paid lobbyists. That is the reality of how this works when you switch testimony time. So I would motion that we vote on this today.
84 Okay.
85 Councilors. Councilor Smith.
86 I'd like to put a motion on the floor.
87 I believe that we have a motion on the floor.
88 I second.
89 It, okay.
90 We have a motion and a second to vote on the amendment that has been presented. Is there any further discussion?
91 Canal on the motion to end discussion on the amendment.
92 Or is this is a motion and a second to adopt the amendment? That is what is on the table. We are voting on the amendment.
93 Thank you. I.
94 Ryan.
95 Tiny step in the right direction.
96 I Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark.
97 Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Dunphy. I Smith.
98 I.
99 Pirtle-guiney I.
100 With 11 eyes. It's passed. It's accepted.
101 Councilor Smith are you in the queue?
102 Okay.
103 Rebecca, I'd like us to get back to public testimony. Now, could you call up the first folks who are on the list? And for anybody who is online or in the room, we will have two minutes per person for public testimony. We'll call folks up in groups of three, as we did yesterday. We'll run through the list in order. There will probably be a number of folks who aren't here, so we'll just move quickly through those names. If you are online or in the room and are not able to get off, mute or get into the right place and we miss you, please let our clerk know and we'll make sure that we do get to you today. If folks are arriving late, if you know somebody who is planning to testify today and is arriving a little bit late because they weren't sure about the timing, make sure our clerk knows. And again, we can run through at the end, folks who we missed going through the list. Rebecca, go right ahead.
104 Jenna knoblauch, amy walsh and christine orlandi. Sarah fisher, brian orndorf, henry miller.
105 Welcome. Thank you for coming back.
106 Thank you for being here. Good afternoon. Councilors.
107 My name is brian orndorf. I'm a business owner and resident in district four. I'm here today to express my deep concerns regarding the rushed and poorly considered proposal to amend the affordable code, particularly code section 30.01 .88, prohibiting anti-competitive rental practices. With over 30 years of experience leading teams in commercial real estate and the completion of $3.5 billion of development, including 2000 apartment units in Oregon and 1000 units within a five block radius of this building. I'm an expert in housing policy financing and the detrimental effect of poorly crafted government regulations. Lobbying from swift public affairs wrote to the homeless committee last Friday that the ordinance before the committee yesterday wasn't the one members of the public had been previously able to testify on. This policy, and its significant revisions require appropriate public review and comment in full compliance with the city's public involvement laws. Councilor Avalos efforts to expedite this process disregards these requirements and undermines the intent of transparent and thorough public input. It is imperative that a policy affecting rental practices such as this one be postponed until the housing bureau study on the failed policies has been released. This study should inform future decisions and should not be ignored in favor of rushed political agendas. Furthermore, the proposed ordinances allowing tenants to sue based on suspicion of unfair practices is both impractical and unjust. While concerns about anti-competitive practices and rental software may be valid, the regulation such technology and its application should be handled at the federal level, not through local ordinances. The developers and landlords have been accessing both public and private information software for decades, as it is a way of understanding market to set competitive rates for both newly constructed and older apartments. Portland landlords aren't illegally price fixing, and the city council should refocus on removing barriers to building at a time when construction is at a decade low. Despite the clear sign of deepening supply shortage, some elected officials have shifted the focus on this algorithmic rent pricing tool, portraying this as leading cause of affordability crisis. It is not. This is a misdiagnosis and a harmful one. The true driver of rising rents is not technology. It's the chronic, worsening shortage of housing. I strongly disagree with this proposal. It's not going to bring rents down. It's going to make rents.
108 Go up.
109 Thank you.
110 Thank you. I believe we had somebody online from that.
111 Group.
112 Jessica greenlee.
113 Hi, council. My name is jessica greenlee. I have worked in the multifamily housing field for 20 years, and nobody is paying me to be here today. I my responsibilities included designing and implementing policy changes to ensure compliance with laws. And I here because I do believe in making good public policy. I listen to all of the committee meetings discussed in the discussion yesterday and quite honestly, very offended. By the way, councilor Morillo just outlined the public's input on this. So I apologize for sounding kind of emotional, but the way the redraft of this ordinance is, it's vastly different from the original. You need to fundamentally understand one fact here. There is no obtainable insurance coverage for an accidental mistake, and someone who's possibly 4 or 5 levels removed from the decision makers and the situation, and that will shape how companies must respond to this, the intention of the ordinance and the reality of how this will work in practice are vastly different. I've not had a chance to thoroughly review the information that you just drafted in the amendment, so I don't know if that addresses those concerns, but the way this is written is vastly different than the state's ordinance that are being looked at in california and Oregon and Washington and 17 other states, and is making this far more complex than it needs to be because of the way the ordinance is written. Does any lawsuit would fall under ill gotten gains provisions, and it's an insurance exclusion where any requirements these practices went just by being accused would be facing a bankruptcy level event. You really need to look at the language here. Every company would need airtight procedures. Essentially any person, no market research could be done, no surveys, no viewing of other property written websites because just inferring from conduct could potentially put you in a situation where you were being sued and you could lose everything. It's about six years behind on the technology scale here. Really, for anybody who has more than 40 units, there are tools available for them that already exclude all of that and just look at the company's kpis. But you're disadvantaging small landlords in this scenario by taking away all of those tools and making them very vulnerable.
114 Thank you for being here with us today. I'm sorry that we're running short on time. We appreciate having you and having your comments.
115 Michael parker spencer from Eric högstedt. Saurav pala cerave's online.
116 Go right ahead, mr. Pella.
117 Good morning. Council president pirtle-guiney, city councilors and members of staff. My name is sara paula and I'm a resident of the goose hollow neighborhood and a member of Portland neighbors welcome, a Portland based pro housing volunteer run group here to testify in support of the proposed ordinance. Algorithmic pricing tools have been thrust into the national spotlight as cities grappling with the housing crisis have seen rapid adoption of these software tools, although although these are not harmful by nature of being, we've seen how these products have been used to engage in uncompetitive and borderline cartel like behavior. Several states attorney generals have already filed lawsuits against some of the most prominent players, alleging that their actions are illegal and have exacerbated local pressures on the rental market. Access to information is essential for a fairly priced and responsive housing market. However, these tools and companies are incentivized to silently collude on pricing. With that in mind, I'd recommend that the council progress this item. I'd also like to recommend that the council support the recent amendment proposed. These changes address the concerns of small landlords, while still ensuring that consequences are enforced for violations. However, we shouldn't soften this bill any further. While small landlords are essential to ensuring competition in the housing market, tenants should have adequate recourse to ensure their rights are respected regardless of who they rent from. I'd like to conclude my testimony by mentioning that although this is a small piece of tackling the overall housing crisis in our city, this isn't by far the greatest obstacle to ensuring that every portlander has an affordable, safe, and healthful place to call home. We've seen how decades of under-building have left every Portland neighborhood desperately in need, in more housing at every income level, and the only real solution to that is housing abundance. Thank you for your time.
118 Thank you for being here.
119 Marion drake. Angela bonilla angela is online.
120 Go right ahead, miss bonilla.
121 Hello. My name is angela bonilla. I use the l.a. Pronouns, and I'm the president of the Portland association of teachers. I'm here speaking on behalf of almost 4000 members who work in this city. Our largest democratic body has signed on to the pdx renters bill of rights, because we know that a strong city needs a strong school district, and neither of those can happen without updating our laws and ordinances to protect renters against new threats like algorithmic price fixing tools that use ai. These price fixing tools that use ai will only make the problem of unaffordable housing worse. It will inflate rates by allowing companies to coordinate price setting and reduce fair market competition. That feels more reminiscent of the trust that we fought in the early 1900s to eliminate, rather than just good business. This price fixing also displaces workers and families. It is not possible to rent a one bedroom apartment apartment in Portland with the current minimum wage. I price fixing will further exacerbate the housing crisis we have in our city. So when we went on strike in the fall of 2023, we made it clear Portland is no longer an affordable city, even for those who work in unionized positions that require advanced degrees and training in 2023, according to research from the nonprofit national council of teacher on teacher quality, Portland was the second least affordable city in the country for new teachers looking to rent a one bedroom apartment, and not much has changed, except for our winning of a cola that barely keeps us above water. We need to make sure that we curb predatory pricing tactics. Let's follow san francisco's lead and avoid becoming a childless city. We can't have a strong city if working families can't afford to live here. I've lived here in Portland since 2009, renting the entire time, and it is likely that I will be a renter my entire life. And I'm not alone. Don't forget about workers and families who want to continue to love and learn and live in Portland. Please make sure that we pass this ordinance with the proposed amendment. Thank you.
122 Thank you for being with us today.
123 Clay. Clay is online.
124 Go right ahead, clay.
125 Good afternoon, council members. My name is clay and I live in Portland. This algorithmic pricing ban rests on weak evidence, misunderstands basic economics, and most importantly, distracts from real housing solutions. The evidence involves studies linking software like realpage to rent hikes averaging $53 a month. But correlation is not causation. Is this collusive cartel pricing which creates deadweight loss or merely accurate measurement of the market, which reduces deadweight loss? The data is ambiguous, and pretending otherwise is irresponsible, and frankly, any impact either way is likely trivial compared to the structural barriers we maintain. We could abolish the racist practice practice of zoning tomorrow, as well as arbitrary setbacks and floor area ratio limits. We could transition from construction, punishing property taxes to land value taxes, which have no deadweight loss. In so doing, we could chart a course toward barcelona level density, a true abundance agenda. Millions more people who want to call Portland home could do so, and they could get around via bikes and public transit and run over fewer kids and emit less carbon dioxide in the midst of our climate emergency. Stop wasting political capital on this performative software sideshow. Focus on what works. Abolish restrictive zoning. Eliminate arbitrary building constraints. Transition aggressively to land value taxes, and deal with equity effects separately through a universal income that doesn't restrict how our most vulnerable neighbors can spend their social safety net. That is how you unleash supply and genuinely improve efficiency and equity. Check this distraction. Thank you.
126 Thank you for being here.
127 Greg frick, keely cook, leah belton. Lilly hogue, lilly's online.
128 Hi. Good afternoon, city council. My name is lilly hogue. I rent out a home in district four and I live in district here today. I'm in support of this ordinance and the amendment. And I want to say first that I heard something yesterday from the first person who testified that said they were a housing provider. And I just want to say, as a landlord, I am not a housing provider, just like an insurance company is not a doctor or a health care provider. I am a middle person between someone and their housing, and I am privileged to profit off of that. I absolutely support this amendment, and I'm also here as someone who grew up extremely poor in rental housing in Oregon. So as a landlord, I have immense power over the lives of the people who rent for me. And it's not a responsibility I take lightly. There is no way to describe the stress and horror and trauma that comes from not being able to afford a place to live, and I experienced this as a child, and somehow it has literally gotten ten times worse since all those years ago. So I just want to be clear that this is a no nonsense, uncomplicated piece of legislation that literally enforces something that already exists. Not only is a landlord that I can't and would never coordinate on something like price fixing with large corporations, but I want to be really clear that if we want to ensure that people have more places to live, they need affordable places to live and they need to be protected proactively from over inflated and predatory price gouging by nameless and faceless companies whose sole goal is to extract money from our local economy. For shareholders, that money could be used to shop at local places, to stay in Portland to increase our tax base, and instead is being extracted by these property management companies and by these developers pretending to be housing providers. So passing this is not a huge controversial step. The way that some corporate folks are saying it is. It's simple. I hope that city council will pass this ordinance to make a change in support of the people who live, work and hopefully someday can thrive here. Thank you.
129 Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony.
130 Michael abrams.
131 Welcome, mr. Abrams.
132 Thank you. Council president pirtle-guiney. Vice council vice president Koyama Lane city councilors, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the American civil liberties union of Oregon. My name is michael abrams, and I serve as policy counsel. I'm also a portlander. The aclu of Oregon is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and advancing civil liberties and civil rights. With more than 44,000 members and donor supporters statewide, we strongly support the ordinance under consideration. It creates a bright line rule and provides clarity to landlords and renters. Landlords would remain free to use a wide variety of alternatives to set rents, whether it be as simple as an excel spreadsheet or as complex as algorithmic software that only utilizes the company's internal data. Landlords are also fully protected, and their ability to share data between multiple properties that they own. This measure is highly unlikely to generate a flood of litigation against landlords. Proving a violation will not be easy and will generally require discovery. It is likely that groups of tenants pooling pooling resources and information where the city attorney, through its administrative subpoena authority granted by the ordinance, will be needed to successfully maintain actions. This creates a reasonable limit on the frequency and scale of lawsuits that landlords are likely to likely to face, especially with the recent amendment just adopted. And fundamentally, it is very easy for landlords to comply with this provision. Landlords simply need to cease use of these algorithms and use a fair, competitive means of setting rent and deciding unit vacancies instead. None of this is likely to deter housing development in Portland. This measure addresses a technical aspect of rent setting conducted after construction is complete. Factors like financing, rental, demand, permitting and others are much more important than whether rents can be set by a certain algorithm. After development, it has become clear that current antitrust law has not been updated to reflect the realities of the internet age, including the advent of ai powered algorithms that facilitate price fixing. Fortunately, Portland, through its city council, can modernize the landlord tenant law and redress this grave injustice against oregon's renters without delay. Please vote aye. Thank you.
133 Thank you so much for being here and for your testimony.
134 Colin. Font. Lorena guyot, thad fisco.
135 Come on up. Thank you for being here. Go ahead and introduce yourself and then we'll take your testimony.
136 All right. Thad fiscal d4, resident, local business guy.
137 So I'm going to be real brief. I'm on the ground.
138 I think what happens when.
139 You.
140 Do something like this is you create a tremendous amount of confusion in the business sector, had coffee with a local broker yesterday who said that he's withdrawing, offering prices on anything that he knows about to the market right now. What does that mean? How do banks assess the value of properties if they can't tell what what the rental income streams are on those? How do people that are thinking about coming to Portland to invest and add apartments, add commercial space, or simply be a tenant and understand what the value of their proposition on the street is going to be as they move forward and try to put together a business plan for coming into our city. Those are big, enormous questions that truly concern me greatly as we fall off a cliff here in Portland, I, I think that that needs to be considered and deeply thought about before you move forward on this piece of action. Secondly, and I think more importantly. I'm really concerned that the first piece of legislation that has come out of city council is anti-business. This isn't what our city needs today. We really need you guys to stand up and move us forward. Please, as a group, get some foundation under us and let us go. This isn't it. Thank you, thank you, appreciate it.
141 Thank you for coming back and sharing that with us.
142 Natalie hutchinson. Oh, nguyen. Mary emerson.
143 Thank you both for taking the time to come back downtown.
144 Thank you, madam president and councilors, my name is nguyen. I live in district three and I support the ban on I rent fixing. Besides the obvious anti-trust issue, there is another faulty assumption about setting rents using proprietary data and an algorithm. Proponents of this method say this is how the free market works, and that what is good for the market is good for everybody. But that's not true. The market is not a natural phenomenon that just grows organically out of thin air. It is a set of rules to facilitate the fair and orderly conduct of business in our daily lives. In a democratic society, the rules are set by government for the common good. In an oligarchy, they are set by the rich and the powerful to maximize their profits at the expense of everything else. We have all seen what happens when the rules of the market are rigged to benefit the elites. Prices go up, quality go down. Just think of airline deregulation. How many have been caught in airline chaos when big landlords collude to do price fixing, housing becomes unaffordable and the less fortunate among us will end up on the streets. The rules of the market are a vital tool to make sure the economy works for everyone, not just the top 1%. Your job as elected officials is to set the rules for the common good. Please put an end to ai rent fixing. Thank you to councilor Morillo, vice president, Koyama Lane and councilor Green for leading this effort I yield.
145 Thank you. Go right ahead.
146 My name is mary emerson and I live in district three. I support banning the use of algorithmic devices to facilitate price fixing of rents. I would have thought this was a no brainer as price fixing has long been illegal and counter to any concept of a free market. But even if you think it is appropriate to throw out our basic tenets of fair competition within the regulatory framework established by governments, it is important to look at some of the real world implications of what is being proposed. Portland has a housing affordability crisis, with the fact that many people in our community are housing insecure. When people can no longer make the rent, they join the ranks of the homeless and the impacts of a large unhoused population affects everyone in our city. I've heard that outlawing algorithmic assisted price fixing will stifle investment in new housing units. I would argue that if the unit is not affordable to the many unhoused and housing insecure people in our fair city, that the units will remain empty and we will still have a housing affordability crisis. Using software to maximize profits is the antithesis of providing homes that are affordable to the very people we want to ensure are housed. Last time, this city jumped through hoops in the interest of overpriced housing, we ended up with block 216. It's a 35 story behemoth, which has sold fewer than 10% of its units, leaving about 120 units empty. To add insult to injury, with their forthcoming bankruptcy, we will likely never receive the affordable units that were promised in exchange for permitting this white elephant. I'm really excited that with this council, we have an opportunity to do better. Please vote yes to encourage creation of housing that is truly affordable, rather than just lining the pockets of corporations interested only in their bottom line. Thank you.
147 Thank you, thank you both for coming back today to speak with us.
148 Zach voss, tessa cole, meg bender, stefanski. J j m riley martz, haley nissen. Will spalding, heather riggs, hanna. Brooks. Olsen. John. Isaacs, jeremy. Baird, rohan. Spillman. Michael. Shanks, richard. Boscovich, brant. Hoffman. Jordan. Lewis, tyler. Fellini, adam. Shippey. Cody. Thurman, cody is online.
149 Welcome, mr. Thurman, please go right ahead.
150 All right. We're we're trying to unmute cody.
151 I believe I'm on.
152 Hi, cody. We can hear you.
153 Hi. Thank you, miss thurman. I know you can't. I'm not sure if you can see me or not, but thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is cody thurman and I have worked in residential property management for the past 25 years. Currently, I oversee 400 single rentals here in Portland and to be honest, I've learned a lot in these last few days about ai tools and how they fall under antitrust laws. In the light of realpage lawsuit, I am already seeing competitor software companies pivot their offerings. Just a few days ago. The software that I use, which is not real page, changed its cost comparison tool to include only information on advertised units. So I'm feeling really confident that the message has been received. So my proposal let's just focus. Keep the focus on the laws, on the software companies who have the power and the data to generate national databases with our information. Today's amendment is in the right direction, but stacking another Portland landlord law onto a pile with such high fines is going to continue to feed this narrative that Portland is an impossible place to be a landlord. As a representative of small landlords, I'm here to share that portland's reputation doesn't just impact the big landlords. Like I think we believe what it's intended. The reputation trickles down to mom and pops. I've lost 37% of my single family portfolio in two years. It's getting really hard to keep my local landlords and my local investors in Multnomah county. We're leading the charge in tenant protections, and it feels naive to adopt every landlord restriction. You'll expect folks to want to play in our sandbox. We want real affordability. We need real supply. That means creating an environment where investors, big and small, feel welcome. Let's be strategic and continue to enforce the current rules to protect tenants from bad actors. And if there's confidence that there is antitrust here, the rules will change in. Portland does not need to be at the forefront of the anti landlord parade once again. More importantly, let's just make room for people like me who just want to do this job really well. Thank you.
154 We're going to return to john isaacs john john has joined online.
155 Hello. Thank you, president pirtle-guiney and city councilors. My name is john isaacs and I am the executive vice president of public affairs for the Portland metro chamber chamber. I prefer he him pronouns, and I am a resident of district three in southeast Portland. Quote unquote. Price fixing is illegal under state and federal law, as currently using technology or any other means to engage in, quote unquote, price fixing. They are currently breaking the law. And it goes without saying that the Portland metro chamber supports any and all legitimate legal processes and remedies based on legitimate evidence to hold individual bad actors accountable who may be engaged in illegal, uncompetitive practices. The ostensible purpose of this bill, while generally supported, is to ban something that has already banned making it, on its face, questionably necessary. And while I can argue that this ordinance is unnecessary, it would be fair to ask us the chamber of commerce, why do you have so many problems with something that doesn't do anything new? Well, that's the problem since this ordinance ordinance doesn't have a new problem to solve as currently written, it will only potentially harm the local small and medium sized businesses that are critical to a healthy rental market. This ordinance, unfortunately, has all of the predictable problems of any ordinance throughout history that is hastily drafted without any impact analysis, any legitimate public stakeholder process, and legitimate fiscal impact based on a questionable emergency. We wish that we would see the same level of urgent action on our real crises of dead in the water, housing production, record, unsheltered homelessness and historic housing supply shortage, which is the foundation of our accelerating economic weakness. While the chamber appreciates that an amendment was just adopted with the stated intention of mitigating the impacts on small business, it's simply not possible to provide any feedback when, like this entire process, it has all been developed at the last minute without any understanding of how it will actually impact small businesses or our local economy as a whole. We ask you, this is it. Shouldn't it be just as important to the council to prevent bad actions by multinational bad actors? We would also ask that you would see it as equally important to be certain that this ordinance doesn't have significant negative impacts on our small businesses.
156 Thank you, mr. Isaacs. Unfortunately, we're just giving everybody two minutes. I appreciate you being here with us today.
157 Lee shelton, claire knudsen, jesse dillon. Benjamin gilbert benjamin's online.
158 Welcome. Benjamin. Thank you for being here.
159 Benjamin, if you can hear us, you're. It's your turn.
160 Thank you.
161 Okay. Good afternoon, council members. My name is ben, and I'm a member of the Portland democratic socialists of America and a tenant in district four. I have spoken to other tenants in my building, and many are concerned about algorithmic price fixing. At the previous meeting. And in this meeting, there's been talk about leaving this issue to the federal government. We all know that we cannot rely on donald trump's justice department to solve this problem. The deck is already stacked against tenants in Portland. Working families and young people struggle to afford living in our city and are being forced to leave our city in great numbers. Well, this is just a small step toward solving our housing crisis. It is essential to take this small step and pass this ordinance. Thank you to the council members who led the way on this. Yeah, I yield my time.
162 Thank you for offering those comments. We appreciate you being here today.
163 Christina dirks, mike simko, colin brown. Joe hovey, lawson dambrosio lawson is online.
164 Hello. Am I coming through?
165 You are. Thank you for being here.
166 Yeah. Of course. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you all to city council. I appreciate the time. I just wanted to voice my opinion in support of this. I am a fortunate to be a homeowner here in district three in rose city park. But for most of my decade living in Portland, I was a renter. When I first moved here, it was into a 480 square foot studio that was renting for $1,100 a month, and that same studio is now renting for $1,800 a month. After that, we moved into a single family house that was renting for $1,900 a month, and in the three years we were there, that rent increase from 2019 until 2022 to $2300 a month, I think that we should, on the side of ensuring that housing remains affordable and accessible. I think we are witnessing some of the effects of the combination of algorithmic price fixing and other factors keeping housing inaccessible to our community. To echo some of what other folks have stated as well, this is not a singular solution to a very multifaceted issue. However, I would love to see additional. Ordinances passed that make it both easier and more accessible for those who are doing the house building and developing, whether that's streamlining of the permitting process or other things to make that more amenable, as well as things to protect those who have housing and enjoy living here in Portland and want to be a part of this community. Thank you again to city council. I appreciate you taking the time and I yield the rest of my.
167 Thank you very much.
168 Rajesh venkatachalapathy. Lina pool, amanda haynes.
169 Thank you for being here. Please introduce yourself and go right ahead.
170 Sorry, I was very ready and then I now I'm not.
171 That's okay. Take your time.
172 Hello, councilors. My name is amanda fam haynes, and I'm the statewide housing justice manager at unite Oregon. I'm here in strong support of the proposed ordinance to ban rent, setting software, a common sense and targeted step to protect renters from algorithm driven price coordination, fueling displacement throughout our city. We keep hearing that the ordinance would harm mom and pop landlords, but where do we have credible evidence that small landlords are even price fixing? More importantly, why are they being used as the face of opposition to a policy clearly aimed at billion dollar corporate landlords and tech firms? The narrative is doing the heavy lifting for the real bad actors firms profiting from opaque, coordinated rent increases. These companies demand massive data to justify any regulation while offering no transparency in return. And let's be clear this ordinance does not ban rent increases or interfere with daily operations. It targets a specific pricing tool already facing antitrust lawsuits in over 20 cases and from over eight states. Some argue existing antitrust laws are sufficient. But if they were working, we wouldn't be here. Oregon introduced a bill earlier this year to address price fixing software, and then quietly backed away from it under pressure. That tells us something about our opposition. Either they are afraid that scrutiny will reveal illegal behavior, or they are protecting business models that cannot survive public accountability. If we truly want to support small landlords, then let us stop using them as a rhetorical shield for corporate misconduct. Let us pass policies that make the distinction between small, community rooted landlords and large, profit driven actors real and enforceable. Councilor Smith alluded to this yesterday. I also want to recognize that councilor, Smith, Zimmerman, and Dunphy have all shared that you are landlords yourselves. I appreciate the transparency. I think it matters, and I bring it up not to call you out, but to ground this conversation in reality, because I doubt any of you are using ai softwares to maximize profits by setting rents based on competitor data. I imagine your decisions are rooted in something else relationships with tenants, with neighborhoods, and with values. And that's my point. We need policy that reflects those values and puts people before profits. Thank you.
173 Thank you for being here with us.
174 Holly hamilton. Antonia januzzi thomas. Jordan byers, catherine king, kirk foster, alicia morseth.
175 Hello.
176 My name is kirk foster and I.
177 Live in district two. Good afternoon. Council president and members of the council. Affordable housing should be considered a human right. I understand this in my opinion. You may not agree, but you cannot deny that affordable housing is necessary for a healthy and livable city. There's no denying that housing prices are part of our housing problem. Price fixing is a crime. I spent years owning and running a medical transportation business in this city. During most of those years, TriMet controlled 90% of the market in every single contract meeting I ever had with them. They threatened me and my colleagues with termination of our contracts if we were thought to be price fixing, and that most certainly would have meant bankruptcy. I would like to see this county council protect renters with as much zeal as TriMet protected those medicaid dollars. Price fixing is a crime that steals from every renter, and may make the renter choose between health care and rent, between food and rent, and even force them onto the street. When the representative for multifamily northwest and I'm paraphrasing, said yesterday that this ordinance could potentially bankrupt housing providers that were caught price fixing, I say good, let those properties be liquidated in bankruptcy court and bought by housing provider that choose to not to commit crimes against portlanders when the representative and I'm paraphrasing from northwest, said that property managers may have insider information about the markets that they would need to put and that we need to put blinders on, and it would be impossible not to commit crimes. If you can't run a business without committing crimes, then you aren't the kind of business owner we need in this city. Even if you don't agree that housing, affordable housing should be a right. And even if you don't agree that affordable housing is necessary for a healthy city, price fixing is still a crime. And if you agree that we should use free markets, free market solutions wherever possible, as I do, then you know that price fixing is synonymous with a failed free market. Whether you support affordable housing or healthy cities or free markets or all three or any of the three, please support this amendment.
178 Thank you.
179 We appreciate your testimony.
180 Sandra comstock.
181 Welcome.
182 Thank you. I'm sandra comstock, representing district four. And as a landlord myself, I urge you to ban price fixing technology in our rental market. Currently, half portlanders pay more than 30% of their income in rent and a quarter pay more than 50%. Meanwhile, realpage alone controls 15%, 15%, or 54,000 rental units here in the metro region, where it pushes users to use auto accept on its rent pricing recommendations and requires landlords to state a business reason for every floor plan in each building if they offer a lower rental price. The national council of economic advisers finds realpage use has increased monthly average rents across the nation by $70, or 4% nationally, while the American economic liberties project estimates that up to a quarter of rental inflation across the us between 2020 and 2024 is due to price fixing software. Worse, realpage users have high vacancy rates, higher eviction rates and profit margins 3 to 7% above regional market rates. Overall, that's what they brag. In fact, comparing two similar seattle neighborhoods in 2023 one where 70% of rental units used algorithms, and one where algorithms were not dominant, the area monopolized by algorithms saw rent increases of 42% over ten years, while rents increased by 33% in non the non algorithm area. Prohibiting the use of algorithms is one of the few immediate tools we have to mitigate out-of-control rental prices plaguing our region. We must halt inflationary algorithms before it's too late. Thank you.
183 Thank you so much.
184 For being here with us today.
185 Next we have andy Smith. Andy is online.
186 Welcome, andy. Go ahead and introduce yourself.
187 Hello. Thank you. Members of the council. For the record my name is andy Smith and I'm a housing provider within the city of Portland and serve in a volunteer role as board president of multifamily northwest. I've been in the industry for over 15 years. I currently oversee 160 units in district four, and I'm here today in opposition of this ordinance as written, and ask that we work collaboratively together on solutions. For the record, I am against price fixing and collusion. I'm concerned with how the ordinance is written and the confusion this could cause in operations in the potential penalties. Additionally, I specifically have concerns with section b, subsection one, as it relates to real estate investment, sales and the due diligence process involved. I appreciate the amendment, though, to remove subsection five and seven. I recently gave an interview to k2 news regarding the decline in new construction in multifamily units within city of Portland, and how it is directly related to the legislative landscape. At a time when we are at a housing crisis, we are seeing the largest decline in new construction in Portland in over a decade, and we need to be concerned about how COVID investment assesses the risks and opportunities in Portland. This effect is clear with the decline in new construction in Portland compared to other cities across the country, according according to costar analytics, austin, texas market had a record 31,000 units delivered in 2024, leading the us market in supply growth at over 11%. The entire Portland metro delivered just over 7000 units. This increase in supply in austin has directly impacted rents, with asking rents dropping -4.3% over the past 12 months, which is the largest decline in the country. This proves that lowered rents are directly related to increased supply. As written, this ordinance will not achieve the goals it intends, and I ask you not to approve this ordinance as written. Thank you for your time.
188 Thank you for being here today.
189 Amin rutherford, ayanda allen. That completes testimony.
190 If there's anybody in the room or online who missed their name being called, please let us know now so we can make sure to excuse me, hear from you while you're here today. Okay. Rebecca, are you able to share with us how many people have signed up that haven't yet had the opportunity to testify, who we might hear from on the 16th? Or do you not have that number offhand?
191 I don't have it. I can get it in just two minutes.
192 Okay, perfect. I want to thank everybody who came back today. I know that we ask a lot of you to be here during the work day. Two days in a row. I really appreciate it. It. We have folks who are for and against this, folks who are renters and rental owners from multiple districts across the city who made time out of their days to be here. And I just want to say how grateful I am, and I think we all are for you taking that time, sharing your messages with us, and making sure that even though we had a tight agenda yesterday, we were still able to hear from you. Councilors. We will continue public testimony on the 16th, but we do have about a half an hour left today. We have one amendment that was proposed, and if there is any other discussion that folks want to have, we could do that now. Councilor Novick.
193 Thank you, madam president. I have a small amendment I would like to offer to the definition of public data.
194 Please tell us more.
195 Currently, the definition reads information on a rental units asking price, parentheses including publicly offered rental price, concessions and parentheses that is readily accessible to the general public on the property's website, physical building brochures or an internet listing service. I think that the list of ways in which items can be accessible was meant to be examples rather than exclusive, but I want to make that explicit. So I'm proposing to add between the words general public and on the property's website comma including comma, but not limited to comma.
196 So councilors, in the amended version of the resolution in the public data section, which is, if you look at the redlined version that councilor Morillo shared at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page, that's where we're looking, correct. Councilor.
197 Yes.
198 Okay.
199 Actually, I need more instruction. Where where am I looking?
200 If you look at the amended.
201 Bottom of.
202 The amended version of the ordinance, I believe councilor Morillo is putting the paper copy in front of you at the bottom of the first page. In the top of the second page is a new section that was added in the amendment that reads public data and then has a definition of public data and councilor. Can you share with us again where you would like this amendment to go and what it would say, so that we can make sure everybody is looking at it together?
203 Yes, I would have it say information on a rental units asking price, parentheses including publicly offered rental price concessions that is readily accessible to the general public. And then the language I would want to add is after the word public comma, including comma, but not limited to comma.
204 Okay, I see.
205 A city attorney is coming up.
206 We have a motion on the floor.
207 I'll second it.
208 Yeah okay. We have a motion and a second councilor Green, are you. Actually, before we go there, councilor Novick, would you like to say anything else to your proposed amendment?
209 No.
210 Okay. Councilor Green, are you in the queue to discuss the amendment on the table?
211 Yes.
212 Go right ahead.
213 To the amendment on the table. That seems like a really elegant clarification that does not limit the sort of contextual intent of those examples. Therefore, I'm prepared to support this amendment. I think it's a good one.
214 Councilor Morillo.
215 I agree. I think this is a good amendment. Do we need to say including but not limited to information, just to add the word information in that, to make it as technical as possible?
216 I will look to the proposer and seconder of the amendment to see if they would accept that as a friendly amendment to their amendment.
217 I, I accept that as a friendly amendment to my friendly amendment.
218 Okay, so we now have an amendment. The friendliest.
219 Which reads that is readily accessible to the general public, comma.
220 Including but not limited to comma information perfect.
221 And then continues on on the property's website, physical building brochures, or on an internet listing service. Any other discussion about the amendment?
222 I just have a problem with all the commas. Does it need all those commas?
223 Yes.
224 I can switch some to semicolons if you like.
225 I believe that when this amendment goes through the official editing process, when we make amendments like this from the dais, they still have to be formally written and edited in. And I believe that there is an editing process to make sure that it is consistent with the rest of code. So I'm going to look to our clerk and our attorneys to include the correct number of commas. Covid-19 any other discussion of the amendment? Okay. Rebecca, could you please call the roll. Canal councilors, we are voting on councilor Novick's proposed amendment as seconded by councilor Canal and further amended by councilor Morillo.
226 Canal I.
227 Ryan I.
228 Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.
229 Novick I.
230 Clark I.
231 Green I.
232 Zimmerman I. Avalos I. Dunphy I. Smith I. Pirtle-guiney I.
233 12 eyes. The amendment is accepted.
234 Okay councilors. This is a first reading of this agenda item. So we don't vote on the final agenda item today. We do have an additional 20 minutes. If there are other amendment proposals or discussion. I know that we had blocked this time for public testimony. So it may be that there are people who didn't come ready for a full discussion on the underlying ordinance yet, and we'll make sure that we have time for that at a future date as well, if needed. Councilor Avalos.
235 Yeah, just a question about so, you know, it doesn't require a vote at the next meeting, it will be heard as a second hearing. What happens if people introduce new things in between now and the next meeting?
236 We'll have the opportunity for motions, discussions, potential votes, and if additional amendments are adopted. We do have language in our code that requires that we have five days between the adoption of an amendment and the final passage of an ordinance, unless it is an emergency ordinance. So if additional amendments are brought forward at that meeting and are voted in, we would then either. At the conclusion of that discussion, wait to vote on the ordinance at the next meeting. Or add an emergency clause to the ordinance to vote on it at that meeting. Those would be our two options. It could, of course, be voted on without further amendments at the next meeting as well. But I assume that what you're getting at is questions around discussion and amendments in the future. I'm looking to the attorney to make sure that they're nodding yes, councilor Green.
237 Thank you, madam president. Just wanted to share some broad thoughts as we put our thinking caps on between now and the second time that we hear this and vote on it, that there are there's a couple of themes from the opposition of this, this ordinance that I'd like to just speak to. One of them is on the idea that, you know, our urgent task in Portland right now is to do everything we can to make it easy and safe for business to operate in this city. And this may surprise some people, but I agree, I really do. This ordinance doesn't penalize business. In fact, this gets at the heart of frictions and imperfections in a market that prevents the due course of the free, competitive market system to come up with rents that reflect supply and demand. We have a 30% vacancy rate in the downtown core in commercial properties. That's hurting business. The failure for that to adjust hurts business. The period of growth in our markets is associated with a much higher rate of price growth than it is on the other side. On the downside, and when that happens, our small business owners get penalized with that rent growth. Rent is also a cost to business owners. And so I think when we think about impacts on business, we need to think about which business owners we're thinking about, because our mom and pop business owners are not all landlords, most of them are actually proprietors and business enterprise. So that is one strand. And I think it's important to remember that. The other piece is that it is illegal to engage in price fixing, irrespective of whichever method you choose. And so I think a lot of people are getting hung up on this idea that, well, it's always been the case that people can come together at a golf course or a dinner or a social club and discuss relevant business sensitive information to sort of engage in quote unquote, price discovery. But folks, that's illegal too. And just because we had some informal practices in the past that were illegal in a market doesn't mean we should ignore a technical fix to a new technology that makes it even easier. And so that's that's why I support this broadly. It does not get in the way of improving the rate of production of housing in the city of Portland. Let's not forget that the main impediment is the macroeconomic conditions that we have. That is our that is our issue. The city must contend with that like every other city. So that's all I want to say today.
238 Thank you. Councilor, councilors, any other comments or discussion or questions? Councilor Morillo.
239 I just wanted to take a second to say, while we still have time, that I really appreciate the leadership of folks, especially you, council president, because this has been a really difficult process to figure out as a new council how we navigate this system, how we create policy within committees and then bring it forward to full council. And I know that I have been sort of intense about pushing this forward. I feel like I was elected to do a certain thing, and I feel intensely about moving quickly for my constituents and getting those wins for them. But I just want to say how much I appreciate your leadership at this time, navigating all of these changes as we're learning how this new process works together. And so I just wanted to put on the record that I'm very grateful for the work that you're doing.
240 Thank you. Councilor. Any other questions or discussion? Okay. Councilors, we will have this back on the agenda on the 16th. There are 48 people who had signed up to testify and did not have the ability to be here today to testify. My guess is that many of those people have submitted written testimony. In the meantime, I know we've had additional written testimony come in, but we could have a significant number of additional people testify on the 16th. We have a number of other things on that agenda, but we will have time set aside to make sure that we can hear testimony. And then if time allows, after that, continue our discussion and move toward a vote with that. This was the only item on our agenda today. So I will close today's council meeting and give everybody 15 minutes back. Thank you.