The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-08-11
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (27,838 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
This session of the Portland City Life Committee took place on Tuesday, August 11 (2026, per the stored record), with all members present per roll call. Following the statement of conduct and one public testimony on the Moda Center matter, an agenda item on PFAS chemicals in firefighter suits was moved to a future meeting by unanimous consent. The committee then resumed discussion of Resolution 2026-270 concerning a proposed Broadway-capable performing arts venue at Portland State University and the future of the Keller Auditorium, hearing from city staff, PSU representatives, and committee members regarding financial commitments, capital funding strategy, and the Keller's future role. Several amendments were introduced, discussed, and voted on, adjusting language around "commitment" versus "support," financial guardrails, and coordination between the PSU project and Keller planning; votes occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. The committee then discussed Resolution 2026-285, directing the city administrator to pursue a development partnership with Albina Vision Trust for city-owned parcels near the Moda Center, including historical context about displacement in Albina, followed by amendments addressing exclusivity, timelines, and council approval processes; votes occurred, with outcomes recorded in the vote ledger. A final agenda item was postponed due to time constraints, and the meeting was adjourned.
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 I just met with amanda.
1 Good afternoon. It is 202 on Tuesday, August 11th. I am calling to order this meeting of the city life committee. Wendy, could you please call the roll?
2 Morillo here.
3 Zimmerman here.
4 Avalos present.
5 Brian. Here.
6 Pirtle-guiney here. And christopher, could you please read the statement of conduct?
7 Welcome to the meeting of the city life committee. To testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance in the committee agenda at www.Portland.gov/agenda/city-lie or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In person. Testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over, the chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption results in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. State your name for the record. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifier should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
8 Thank you, christopher. Colleagues, we have five items on our agenda today. After our regular public input slot, we will return to the conversation that we were having at our last meeting about performing arts venues. Then, after a short break, we will have three new items. Item number four was submitted by councilor, zimmermann and councilor. I believe your office has requested that we reorder the agenda to move that item to a future meeting, that there were some pieces that weren't ready yet today. Is that correct?
9 Thanks. This is about the pfas chemicals and firefighter suits. And frankly, we're just tapped out from everything going on with centennial mills. And the ability to really pull this together and present today would have been irresponsible. So if we can just bump to a future date, that would be very welcomed.
10 Great. And I think our next meeting agenda, we probably won't have time to give it the full time it needs. But the agenda after that, we could likely put it on so that.
11 That's great. We just didn't want to send it back to office. It is. It is ready. It just I need the city staff to help with it when at a future date. So thank you.
12 So colleagues, do I have unanimous consent to move agenda item four to a future committee meeting? Okay. I'm not seeing any concerns. So let's go ahead and move that item. And for folks who are listening who are prepared to speak to that item, I would expect that to come back in late September. With that, why don't we move to our first agenda item? Wendy, could you please call that for us?
13 Yes. Thank you. Item number one public input on city committee topics. Document number 2026 284. We have one individual who signed up, caleb l.
14 Welcome. Thank you for being here with us today.
15 Thank you.
16 This was actually intended for tomorrow during the big show. But they give you one of these a month. So I used that last week. So I'm going to speak on the motor center deal. And good afternoon. My name is caleb. I'm domiciled in district four. And what I am speaking on to me is a subject that I believe is an egregious taxation of your governance resources. Just to let you know that I've been here and I've spoken a lot, but there's not a lot that's known about me personally. I grew up in la county, near the great western forum, born in 1982, magic johnson showtime. Pat riley, lifelong laker fan. What can I do about it? Sorry. As a laker fan in the 80s, though, I learned to enjoy gritty, tough, hard nosed basketball. Fast forward a decade, 1213 years old, and I'm watching elden campbell and nick van exel get murdered by clyde, the clyde drexler and rod strickland. I swear this guy could jump out the building. I did not know he had a ceiling. So after all this, we have our bonus. We get damon stoudamire, we get rasheed wallace. You know, there were a lot of memories that I have specifically as a laker fan that are Portland highlights. They might highlight the lakers, but I can tell for Portland they were highlights too, because they caused me some heartache. I could continue to go on speaking on them, but then I'd be speaking about a motor motor center deal for hours without actually speaking about the motor center deal. So what I've done is I submitted a document to the city clerk, I mean, to the council clerk, and it's got a set of economical values and some. Ideas or concepts that might have been overlooked. I'm not sure, because I haven't seen what's going on with all the talks, but I think some of the things that I put in there might not have been considered by mr. Duncan. And there's also a letter to mr. Duncan explaining to him what happens, potentially from the idea of moving a Portland trail blazer team out of Portland. I don't even know where you what other city has a trailblazer. And that thing appealed to the one sense that I think that man really does have. Because if you get 99 more of those, then you got a dollar and he has another dollar. So. I'm not sure if he's going to look at this submission or if this testimony is going to matter to him. But I do know this much about the situation. I cannot personally fathom a Portland trailblazer lacking in the nba. I cannot see that I have been born with it. I want to die with it. No matter what happens, the moda center is going to still be there. We'll still be here. And I love you all unconditionally. Thank you.
17 Thank you for being here and sharing those memories.
18 That concludes public input.
19 Thank you. Wendy, could you go ahead and call agenda item two?
20 Yes. Thank you. Agenda item two accept the future of large scale performing arts recommendations to advance a new broadway capable venue as part of the proposed performing arts and culture center at Portland state university, and initiate planning for the future of the keller auditorium. Resolution document number 2026-270.
21 Great. Thank you very much. So, colleagues, as you may remember, we had a presentation and a number of folks testify at our last meeting presentation, both on our publicly owned performing arts venues broadly, and then also on the possibility of a new performing arts venue to take on our large scale productions and the future of the keller in a situation like that, to become a to to fill a different gap in our performing arts ecosystem, we were not able to jump into discussion at our last meeting. We prioritized public testimony. Today we will be able to have that conversation. The city is really looking at two big decisions on this topic. We're navigating the transfer of our venues, something we're not voting on today, but that we know is sitting in the background as we have these conversations and then contemplating the future of our large, large scale, broadway capable performing arts spaces. And again, with that transfer, the future of keller and how it fits into our system and a very important way moving forward as well. The resolution before us affirms the city's commitment to a new city owned, broadway capable venue as part of the performing arts and culture center at Portland state university. It allows our staff, our administrative staff to move forward with conversations around that venue and around what it would take to get there. It also acknowledges the role that the keller will need to continue to play, both through that construction process as our broadway capable venue, and after that construction process as an important part of our ecosystem moving forward. The resolution received extensive testimony not only in person but also written testimony, which I hope everybody has had an opportunity to look through. We have folks from the invited testimony panels here. I don't think we have quite everybody, but most folks who were here on invited panels, in case there are questions for them that we weren't able to get to at the last meeting. We also have our administrative staff here, I believe, to answer questions that come up around what the future of those conversations with PSU would be moving forward. So we should have everybody we need to answer questions, and I know that we have a number of amendments that have been posted, plus an additional that I didn't see posted, but I have heard may be coming as well. So we'll have an opportunity to discuss all of those. So what we've done is reopen the resolution. We'll get right into our deliberation. And I want to note, because I have heard some questions about the follow up to the first part of our discussion last two weeks ago, that there will need to be more conversation about the p5 transfer and the future of management of our venues. That's something that I am happy to have this committee take up in the future. If this is the right venue, and I'll work with the council president to see if that's something better taken up by the full council or by a small group of liaisons, and how he wants to deal with that. But we will make sure that the presentation we received isn't the end of that conversation. So today, let's focus on the resolution before us and make sure we can get through the discussion that we need to have on the various pieces and amendments. And with that, I'll look to the q to see if there's anybody who'd like to start us out. Counselor Avalos go right ahead.
22 All right. Thank you. I'm going to approach this in a few ways. I'm going to say a couple of points to frame what I am trying to do. I'm going to explain the three amendments that I have proposed, which you should have in your inbox. And I haven't looked online, I assume are online. Great. And then I do have some follow up questions that I want to get some answers to. After I do those three things, then I will formally move each amendment and we can go into each. Does that sound okay?
23 Chair that works.
24 Yes. So. Woolhouse, thanks for being here, everybody. I want to start by first thanking everyone who has put years of work into this. I recognize the need to address the future of the keller, its seismic vulnerabilities and deferred maintenance, and the importance of maintaining a broadway capable venue without a prolonged closure that would have a significant, significant economic and cultural impact. I also see the potential in the partnership with PSU. The state has already made a significant investment, and the analysis before us suggests that a new venue at PSU could increase attendance, operating revenue, and economic impact. But I want to distinguish today between supporting that direction and financially committing the city to it. I do not believe those are the same decision, and that is what I'm trying to address with some of my amendments and have a discussion with this committee. The materials that we received themselves tell us that there is significant work to do. We don't yet have a fully defined capital stack. We don't know the city's ultimate contribution. We don't know all of our ongoing operating and maintenance obligations. And we're simultaneously beginning a separate process to determine the future and eventual cost of the keller. We've had a lot of conversations recently about major city owned cultural and entertainment assets, and one lesson I'm taking from those conversations is that council needs to establish its guardrails at the beginning of these processes, not after expectations and commitments have already been established. I don't want us to create a situation where council makes the policy commitment today and then, months from now, is presented with a financial package that we're effectively expected to approve, because we've already said, the way that this is currently written, in my opinion, that the project must happen. My three amendments are therefore not intended to stop the PSU work. They're intended to let that work continue while being precise about what council is and is not deciding today. So let me explain the three amendments. The first one, this changes the city's language. It says commitment, end quote, commitment to building the venue into support for advancing planning and pre-development for a potential venue. I'm understanding that part of this resolution is about responding to the work that was done by the work group. I don't remember what they're called. Committee work group that is proposing recommendations, but the way that those recommendations, in my opinion, are coming in this resolution are very rigid. They are very must will have to. And I'm trying to say may could you know, we'll see. That's what I'm trying to do with my amendments because again, I have to look at the entire budget and I'm looking at I'm staring down another conversation we're going to have tomorrow about more money. There's a lot of other budget constraints, and this is my attempt to make sure we're not making commitments that I don't know where they're coming from yet. When I have to protect core services that east portlanders need. That is my interest in the first one. The second amendment creates the financial guardrail, so it makes explicit that this resolution does not authorize, appropriate, or commit additional city funds for development or construction. And before the city enters an agreement that financially obligates, us council must receive the total project cost. The fully defined capital stack. The proposed city contribution commitments from other partners, ongoing operating and maintenance obligations, return on investment analysis and material financial risks. Again, I believe these are basic things that any legislator would ask before committing millions of dollars. If we're eventually going to ask portlanders to make this significant investment on the project, I think that is the minimum that we should be receiving before we say yes. The third amendment addresses the project commitment agreement with PSU. I support developing that agreement so that the partners can establish the scope, the schedule, governance and continue developing the financial strategy. But I do not think that an administrative agreement should commit the city to implementing a capital funding strategy that council hasn't seen or approved. So this amendment changes that to developing a proposed capital funding strategy and explicitly preserves council approval before that agreement can financially commit the city to development or construction. So collectively, I am trying to protect the council from making too many early agreements because, again, I have to protect the whole budget, I support you. I worked at PSU for eight years. Go, vikes. I see the vision, I see the intent. I also want to address and hear the many hundreds of people who have emailed me about the keller and how important that is, and how this two venue solution. It's complicated, I hear that. I hear that in the testimony. What I'm trying to provide here is a path that sets us forward to get this information, to assure that the work that has been done to this point, all the analysis that we can honor and acknowledge that and say, before I approve as written, because as written, if these amendments do not pass, I cannot support. So I'm going to say that up front. So you're not surprised I won't support leaving committee if I feel like it's leaving committee with extreme conditions, that I don't think we are prepared to back up. And so just so you know, that's my intent. And so as far as is my questions here. And I guess you said that there are people in the room. I don't I apologize, I wasn't here last time, so I don't know who those people are. So are they here?
25 What? Why don't you ask your question and we'll figure out if it's best answered by the administration, by PSU, by some of the folks who we had folks who were supporting a different approach. Mostly focused around the keller folks from labor. A few other panels last time. But why don't you ask the question?
26 Sounds good. I have like a million of them, so let me pick one. Let's start here because based on what I've described, on what my intent is, I want to just make sure that the public understands the distinction that we're discussing today. And that, again, without my amendments, what does it mean legally, financially and practically for counsel, to, quote, affirm the city's commitment? That's how it's written to this venue. So what would the city be committing itself to today and what remains undecided if passed, as is?
27 So, city administrator lee, I'm going to let you start with that one. And if we need to turn to an attorney, maybe we can call somebody into the room, because I don't think we have the attorneys here right now.
28 Yeah, I would lean towards attorney answer part of that question. My understanding is us still being a partner in it. Nothing. Committing ourselves financially as a city to anything at this point in time. That's something that we've been pretty adamant about as we continue to have conversations as it relates to the support, we know there will potentially be infrastructure, things that will potentially have to be done in the area to accommodate a new facility. But that's the only thing that we have evaluated as a city is looking at what would infrastructure look like in that area.
29 Thank you. That is an answer does not satisfy my question, but thank you for the answer. I do think that it would be preferable to get some legal direction, because, again, I'm trying to understand what does this resolution mean. Right. Resolutions are guidance. They are direction. But as written there are some pretty strong in my opinion, words that are like, we'll commit to funding this. And again, I'm not going to commit to funding anything that I don't have specs for or information on. And that's what concerns me as is. So I'll leave that at that. If we can get an attorney here, I would appreciate that, counselor.
30 We have our fantastic staff from counsel operations working on trying to see if any of the attorneys who work in this area of our city's business are available right now. Okay.
31 Sounds good. Let's talk about city exposure and off ramps for this. So what are the city's potential ongoing obligations after construction? Like, do we have any of that that we're able to digest right now? Not just the capital contribution, but operations maintenance? I'm also hearing this info about the p five and how it fits in all that. Can you just tell me more about what that potentially looks like?
32 Nothing at this time. This venue is not part of the p five, which we're still going through conversation right now of long term operations and maintenance of it. That's something that we would have to talk through as this building is coming online. Ultimately, who would be the operator of the facility and who would be responsible for those improvements or maintenance items that have to be done? That will have to be a contractual agreement that we'd have to work through.
33 And right now, as it's written, do you believe that if the updated cost is substantially higher than expected or fundraising falls short, or the city's contribution is more than we can afford, we can we stop or substantially change course without creating additional financial liability.
34 My intent would be to have all that up front to council for consideration and decision point before we move forward. I would never want to bring anything to the council where we're finding out midstream that this project could potentially cost us more than what we were intending for it to cost. We would build in certain contingencies as it relates to any project, as it relates to doing a cost analysis or feasibility analysis of the project itself. But we would not be trying to come back to council midstream of a project and say, hey, we need additional money associated to get this across the finish line.
35 Thank you. When we're talking about the project community agreement that is due per this on December 1st, is there anything that staff believes needs to be in that agreement that would financially obligate the city before council has reviewed the completed financial plan?
36 Not to my knowledge. I don't know if we have staff that have looked through it through the detail, but nothing has been brought to my attention as it relates to anything that would cause a red flag or second consideration.
37 Okay, I'll ask one more question. And which is as it relates to keller. So I appreciate that we're not abandoning keller while pursuing PSU. That seems to be the intent here, but we are potentially talking about two significant capital projects over time. So when will council have enough information to understand the combined financial exposure of the PSU venue and whatever investment we ultimately decide to make at keller.
38 Councilor, I would say, let me follow up with you, because this has been conversations we've been having internally of looking at if council did move forward with the PSU project, what is the capital investment that we need to make in keller? Because we can't afford to let keller just sit idle. And I think part of this conversation as well, too, is what would be the use of keller in this new framework. We know we've had conversations as it relates to it being a smaller venue to attract different types of acts for our arts community, but I think that's still conversations that we're having internally to kind of figure out what does that look like and what is that capital investment that we need to make to make that truly something that can be reality for us. But I will ensure that we follow up with council with those different options and funding plans as we come towards a final decision on this.
39 Thank you for answering my questions. So I'll start moving towards the amendments that I'll formally move, but I just want to reiterate that I do see real opportunity here, and I understand why PSU emerged as the preferred location, and I absolutely understand why avoiding a prolonged keller closure matters for our arts organizations and workers. I've been hearing about that for several months or even prior to being on council, so it's been something I've had my finger on the pulse of. I also care deeply about the future of the keller. I think there is clearly enormous public attachment to that building for lots of reasons and that site. And I want the next phase of community engagement to genuinely shape what happens there. But ultimately, you know, why I'm bringing these amendments is because these are major public assets and potentially major public investments. And I just want to I don't think we can reasonably separate those decisions from the city's overall financial capacity when we're looking at all of them as a bulk, in addition to the millions of other things that we're looking at. And so these are just asking us to preserve the distinction between planning a project and paying for a project. That's what my amendments do. I want to advance the work. I wanted to develop the capital stack, and I want to bring a complete financial picture back to the elected council before we're committing Portland taxpayers to any bill. So with that, I will go ahead and start by moving Avalos one. Which again, is about changing commitment to support for advancing planning and predevelopment. That's kind of the core of Avalos one. So I ask for a second on Avalos. One second.
40 Okay. Moved by Avalos, seconded by Morillo and councilor Avalos. You've spoken to this in your broader remarks. Do you want to say anything specific to this amendment?
41 So I will say where the changes. So there is a. In the second, be it resolved clause. Currently it says the city council affirm. Be it further resolved that the city council affirmed the city's commitment to a new city owned approximately 3000 seat, broadway capable venue, blah blah blah. Instead, I say the city council support advancing planning and predevelopment for a potential new city owned, approximately 3000 seat broadway capable venue. And then at the end, I add, subject to future city council review and approval of the project's financial plan, capital funding strategy and city financial obligations. So that is the entirety of atlas one. Thanks.
42 Thank you, councilor Avalos. Councilor Morillo, are you in the queue to speak to this amendment? Go right ahead.
43 Yeah. Thank you, everyone, so much for being here today. And as I'm sure you've seen in the news, we have a lot of big investment projects that are being asked of us as city councilors. We are also in the biggest budget deficit we've seen in a long time. We just cut around $160 million, cut core services and jobs. So if we're approaching these projects with scrutiny, I just want to say, as a PSU alum who studied political science and legal studies there. It is not because we don't think these projects are wonderful and could be a great investment for the community. It's because we have to do our due diligence during a very difficult financial time. So I just wanted to start there. I appreciate this amendment for sort of clarifying that language and making it a little bit clearer what's happening here. Because while we are constantly told that resolutions and term sheets are non-binding, we know that politically they are binding, whether it is a legal change or not. We are making a commitment, and I don't I'm not in the business of making commitments that I can't follow through on, so I, I, I will be supporting this amendment. And a thing that I had a question as well about is that same language about shared commitment. Further down, we have one part that says, be it further resolved, the deputy city administrator is directed to develop a project commitment agreement with PSU by December 1st of this year that establishes the scope, schedule and governance framework for the project and a shared commitment between city and Portland state university to develop and implement the full capital funding strategy. So I just want to get the full scope, maybe from you, city administrator, about in that clause, what exactly does shared commitment for the city mean? If we sign off and, you know, push this forward now and it sounds like maybe we have an attorney in the room now? No, no. Just kidding.
44 We will momentarily. She got delayed on the way down. No worries.
45 Thank you. Probably just be appropriate if you're part of the staff who presented on this, I would go ahead and plant yourself at the table here. We're going to be here a bit.
46 All right. Thank you. Counselor, can you just the questions related to what that December 1st target would be included in that that capital stack?
47 Yeah. It says that the framework for the project is a shared commitment between the city and Portland state to develop and implement the full capital funding strategy. So I think I'm just wanting to clarify here on the record what full commitment means. Does it mean that we're going to say, yes, we like the idea of this project, but later people are going to come to us and ask for $100 million. We don't have. What is that exactly look like?
48 Thank you for the question. Councilor donnie oliveira for the record, take one step back just to acknowledge that where we're at today with PSU is sort of in this holding pattern where there's a lot of details for that whole project that need to be shared with us. And likewise, we need to lean in with our staff capacity to see how the city would show up. So some of the details I'm going to share are vague, because we haven't really begun that work together. But in theory, what you're asking for is something that looks like clarity from us, from staff to say, if there would be a potential financial contribution from the city, if there would be an idea that would be on the table. Like many that will contemplate from the private sector, philanthropy, etc. That we would come to you all in advance with. So there's no surprises, but what that might look like. And in order for us to do that is we'll have to lean in with the with the university to understand what their existing capital is, where the gaps are, what makes most sense from us from an operating perspective. This also is informed by the future of the p5, which we're working on as well, because there could be some leverage there. So there's a lot of unknowns. I'm naming this to say that we have work to do, and which is why this December 1st date is so important, because we have to answer those questions. I do think it's not the intent. I'll speak for myself here. Has never been the intent for the administration to come to you with a price tag for you to vote on in December for a, for for a new venue. Arena is on my mind.
49 Okay. That's that's clarifying and I think helpful as far as what they're looking into here. I think.
50 I just want to pause and let you know, we do have an attorney in the room. Now, if you had questions that needed an attorney's perspective.
51 Hi, heidi. Take your time. I have more to rant about. You know, I think, yeah, the, the commitment part that's, that's helpful clarity because I think I'm sort of losing my train of thought. I think we have a lot of big projects, like, for example, I don't know what our different options are for funding this if we're going to do bonding, for example, there's only so much bonding that we can do. We already have bonding for the sidewalk improvement plan, cip that I know a lot of councilors really care about. It's going to create sidewalks in districts one and four. There's a limit to how much money is flowing in our economy and what we can do. So I think it's just hard with the the limited information of where all these different things are coming forward. But from what I'm hearing from you, this is an affirmation that we are going to look into it and plan together, not a commitment in any other way.
52 Correct, councilor, and thank you for naming the the broader infrastructure needs of our city. And I'll just speak for my own service area for a moment. It's not just keller and PSU, but we also have other p5 venues that are sorely in need of investment. We're also contemplating other investments across the city that are going to have to pick some. You know, there's winners and losers in this, right? We don't have an infinite number of options. So that's going to be one of your responsibilities with the power of the purse to make those calls. And we can deliver on those commitments.
53 Okay. I think that's helpful. I, again, am in favor of your amendment. Thanks for bringing it forward. I'll be supporting that and just removing language that can give anyone false impressions if we pass this. But I think that we keep passing these resolutions that say, don't worry, we're not holding you to it, but we're going to also signal that we're moving ahead with this thing without having clear commitments. And I think that that puts us in a really dangerous position as a council from a legislative perspective, and I think can give false impressions to the community about what's happening. So I will just leave it at that, that it's not my favorite practice that this council has gotten into. Thanks.
54 Thank you, councilor Councilor Zimmerman.
55 Thanks, danny. I don't know if you or others want to come up here, but my question is for all of these amendments will be kind of similar in terms of the language on its face seems in my mind quite simple in terms of changing the affirm to support, but it's probably because of you and our work in another organization right now that I'm like being very careful on words matter and there is intent. And so I just continually, as we go through these, if there's any red flags, I guess it's my invite to you all as the administration to say, we think that significantly changes the intent. And I and I am inviting you. I don't know that we've always invited that, and I am inviting it as part of my decision making. If you think that about any of the amendments today to please raise that flag. And so we can discuss that part, because I don't want to support what seems like a. A rather mundane change that actually has third order effects. And so I'm looking to you, I'm not seeing that in this Avalos one currently.
56 Yeah. Councilor, the most important thing for staff, and I'll just speak on behalf of us candidly, is to be given clarity of direction so we can actually roll up our sleeves and get to work on this. I feel like we've been in a lot of paralysis on what are we going to do. And at some point, we just need to put the staff time in to actually answering the questions that councilor Morillo just asked and answering the questions that councilor Avalos amendments are contemplating. Those are fair questions. We just haven't had the the Green light to go do it. And so amendments. Great. The underlying. Thank you. Let's go. So we can come back to you all with some some clarity.
57 Okay. Thanks for that. I'll have as we get into, I'm sure the movement of the second and the third will be a very similar question. So there's your forewarning.
58 Thank you, councilor Councilor Ryan. Thank you. I can go if you're not ready. I just was going to give you the courtesy of going no it's fine.
59 It was surprising because you know how order changes. Good afternoon everyone. It's great to see you. I've been in this meeting, unlike my colleagues, for several years. And it's really been a similar meeting now for several years. So I understand what dca oliveira means when it's time for us to provide some clarity. And unlike any other item I've dealt with in my six years on council, it's by far the most awkward. And here's why. I worked at PSU for nine years. I was the development director for the first capital campaign about four presidents ago. Dan daniel bernstein was the president then. Rest in peace. And I worked at the Oregon ballet theater as the head of development. These are my people. I see people with. I don't know what your buttons say. I can't see them. I know some are red, some are white, and they say different things. And all of you are usually on the same side of doing everything you can to make Portland a better city, your civic record, your love for this city, your, your support to do things that are big and difficult. You're usually all aligned to come together to do that. So, so that's why it's also awkward. Yeah, truly. It's, it's really bizarre to see people that went to your wedding and they're on different sides of the aisle on this, this issue. And I also think that we've been challenged to get the reality of what this vote is today. And I do think councilor Zimmerman, the the amendments that are being floated have some similar themes. And so I actually just have a couple questions I'd like to ask to get some things level set a little bit further. And one is, is the state's commitment of 137 million only for the PSU student performing arts center?
60 Why don't we have somebody from PSU come up to make sure everyone's precise answer on that? That's PSU, okay.
61 Hello, president. Thank you for your time.
62 And if you two can go ahead and introduce yourselves, we'd appreciate it.
63 Yeah, for the record, I'm an I'm the president of Portland state university.
64 And I'm jason franklin. I'm associate vice president for planning, construction and real estate at Portland state university.
65 And I'm going to let jason answer the question because he will have the exact dollar number for the parking.
66 Yes. So the $137 million is the state's commitment to PSU to construct performing arts venue at the location, and that money would primarily be used for constructing the education component and the parking component of the facility. So obviously the parking would be used by everybody at the facility. So that is a shared use. And then because the education component and the city's owned city owned component would be developed together, there is some overlap. So this was seen in the recently constructed vanport building that we built in conjunction with the city of Portland, OHSU and pcc. Each of us brought our own color of money, as it were, to the project, but it all went into the same pot and all went together to build that building. So including the foundation, the mechanical system, electrical system, all those things that you need to construct a new facility. So yes, it does go towards the PSU portion of it, but it also goes towards the overall project of building this.
67 Infrastructure of the project. Yes. Okay. Is there any funding for the broadway venue from the state?
68 Currently, there is no funding for the broadway capable venue from the state.
69 Okay, so the 137 is for the PSU student performing arts center and infrastructure surrounding it. Mostly the parking lot, correct? Okay.
70 Jason.
71 Can you provide councilor?
72 Sorry, may I just add one just other editorial on that. The value proposition of those dollars being in is that it increases our likelihood to, to complete the capital stack. Investors like to see money in, especially public dollars in early. And this just enhances our ability. So I would say it's not just 135, it's 135 with a booster and that we. Seven yeah. 137 with the booster that we lead in with that. And we're in a much stronger position, including this, the city venue specifically.
73 Okay. Can you, can you provide a budget for the 44 million that the city is committing to fund? That that's probably for you, donnie, or you city administrator. That's the number everyone's floating around.
74 Councilor is the question what that 44 million would be used for?
75 I yeah, could someone just verify that this is hearsay or is it real?
76 Where, where.
77 What's the identified sources for the 44 million councilor.
78 We're aware of the the request from from the university. But I think that's one of those questions we don't unpack with them once we, you know, activated the tech, the tech being.
79 Asked to vote today, but we can't verify. We can't verify that the university wants 44 million from the city.
80 But we are not asking for the city to vote for 44 million today. What we were doing was, I think, offering an estimate of what would be needed to instill enough confidence to move forward and to do the design, the initial design. And so and that would be a design of the the broadway capable venue as well as the rest of the project.
81 Yeah. So just to be clear, that 44 million is president said is for the city owned facility and it would fund design cost estimating all the way through the project. So at some point in these large projects, you need to hire architects and construction folks and others, and you need to move, move through the project and to councilor Avalos point, that isn't an open checkbook or open checkbook, just to say whatever it costs. It is at the beginning to say, here's what our budget is and to give that to folks to say, all right, here's the budget, here's how we're going to deliver the project and the program for that budget. So but that work does cost money. And to begin to move the project forward, as donnie was mentioning, it does require that initial investment to, to move forward. So that is entirely up to the council's purview of allocating funding. Of course, we're here today, and we have been for the last three years, as your partners in this project and ready to roll up our sleeves and move forward. So.
82 Okay. But since it's really clear that this money will be desired and it sounds like it could be more than 44 million, what kind of conversations does the city having about where that source will be of those millions?
83 We have not begun that conversation has just committed to councilor Aye, Morillo. We wouldn't have that until we understood what the needs were. And, and jason outlined fairly what it could look like. We have not begun that that work in earnest. It'd be premature for.
84 Us to clear that there'll be a big ask for money. So I think that was established just now. If the project were to abandon at some point prior to construction, are any of the predevelopment costs paid by the city going to be reimbursed?
85 That would be something that would have to be worked out in a development agreement if we move forward.
86 Councilor these are these are important questions, and I want to be sincere about that, that we'd love to get back to you with them, but we're essentially asking to do what this resolution is to give the city of Portland staff the Green light, to sit down with the university, to contemplate those questions and put it on paper. And that's the type of work we've been talking about, that pre dev work that needs to happen, including a development agreement that would outline the types of terms. So these are totally appropriate questions. We just need the time to answer them.
87 Thank you for having for giving me that that they're appropriate questions. And I think listening to the other councilors, that's what made me want to ask those questions, because I felt like there was some stuff that we weren't getting out into the transparency of this conversation at a really critical time. So I think that's where you've seen cold feet right now, is that we're having so many conversations right now about trying to find money for big things that matter, and adding more to that list in this lovely week in August is a little. It's overwhelming. And so I think it's okay to just look each other in the eye and say, yes, there will be an ask of the city. Yes, it will be a number that's at least this much. And how would we move forward without it? So I just want to get that out on the table. Thank you.
88 Thank you, councilor Councilor Avalos. I do have a few questions, but before I jump in, did you have questions for the attorney? Heidi's here now. Okay. So I want to start with the question. Similar to councilor Zimmerman's. If we move this amendment. Avalos one dca oliveira are you still able to do all of the work that the administration needs to set you up to be able to do to answer the questions that are being asked today?
89 That is a completely reasonable question to ask in a moment when we this particular team that's working on venues is pretty over leveraged.
90 I think I'm looking at Avalos one versus the underlying. Without it, if we change the language from affirming the city's commitment to supporting, advancing planning and predevelopment does that new language still allow you the ability to do all of the work that would get the answers to the questions that we're asking today?
91 I think the answer to that is yes, but I obviously want to make sure we have the staff capacity to do that. Well.
92 Certainly, and I think that applies to the underlying as well. Yes. I want to make sure that in doing this, we're protecting the city's interests and not holding back our ability to get the answers to the questions that are being asked. Councilor Avalos I think. There are clearly a lot of questions, and I think concerns that we all share around not committing too much too quickly, and also wanting to move forward and be able to get the answers to these questions. And I've been hearing you and councilor Morillo and councilor Ryan, ask a lot of questions that are the steps that I'm hoping we get to. If we pass the underlying. I think your amendment. Avalos one, if it still allows the administration to get all of those answers for us, ensures that we're being clear with the public about what this step really means. My read on this has been that what this step means is that we're saying, get these answers and this is the direction we think we want to go, but let's make sure this is the direction we want to go. And I think your language provides clarity there. So assuming that we don't hear as we move through the rest of the questions, that there are some concerns with this language being broad enough to allow the administration to track down all of those answers, I'm happy to support that added clarity today. Councilor Avalos, you're back in the queue. Did you have more before we vote on this?
93 Okay. Yeah. Just to say thank you for this discussion. Just to clarify, again, my intent it is to keep this moving forward. I just felt that the way that it's currently written, it's like affirm that we will commit. That's way too strong for me to say yes to right now. I cannot affirm to you right now that I'm going to commit to money, that I don't know how much it is. I don't know what this 44 million is. I don't know how much is eventually going to be. I don't know what the keller versus psg. There's a lot of unknowns, and the way it's written is too strong for me to put my support behind. So I wrote it in a way where it's like, we support you moving forward. We support getting the information and then having that discussion. I'm just trying to ease my stress that if we pass it without these amendments and it says affirm the city's commitment, then people are going to say, you passed that resolution. You already said you're going to do it even though you didn't have the price tag. Now you're committed to it. That's what I'm trying to avoid. So I'm trying to find the legislative way to protect us from being able to just later have that checkpoint that I'm hearing is the intent, right? The intent is to bring us that information so that we can make those decisions. I don't think that that intent is reflected in the language, and that's how I'm trying to change the language. Thanks.
94 Thank you. Councilor. Councilor Ryan, did you have something additional before we before we vote?
95 I know we're not discussing the operational model, but I appreciate that the chair brought it up last week or two weeks ago so we could discuss it, and also was brought up again today. I was the person two years ago that said we can't move forward with any capital stack without clarity about a new operational model. The current operational model is flawed. I've known that for 20 years, and every artistic director that moves here from another market is just ready to leave after about a year, because they realize how difficult it is to make ends meet. As an arts administrator with the current operational model. So I want to remind us that we cannot kick that can down the road and also have ambiguous capital stack numbers all at the same time, which is where we are today. So today, how can I, in good consciousness, make decisions that say yes to this? That's all.
96 Thank you councilor. Seeing no one else in the queue, wendy, can you please call the roll on Avalos one which replaces affirm the city's commitment with support, advancing planning and some other language. In that same. Be it further resolved.
97 Yes to Avalos. One move by Avalos, seconded by Morillo. Morillo. Aye, Morillo Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Ryan.
98 Yeah. This will make whatever this is better.
99 I pirtle-guiney. I the amendment is approved with five votes.
100 Thank you, councilor Avalos. I believe you have two more amendments to move. And I'll just flag that. I believe councilor Zimmerman has an amendment or two as well. So, yeah, go right ahead.
101 Okay. All right. So Avalos two, let me remind you what that is. So this is about creating the financial guardrail. It makes explicit that this resolution does not authorize, appropriate or commit additional city funds. Again, combined with the rest of the language is just another protection to ensure that we're not saying this is giving you full permission. And you being the administration who's executing this to approve that unless we get all this information and we it comes back to council. So the way that it's written, it is as a as two additional be it further resolved clauses. So it says be it further resolved that adoption of this resolution does not authorize, appropriate or commit city funds for for development or construction of the proposed Portland state university venue beyond funding previously authorized by the city council. So I put that carve out of whatever we already did. It's not retroactive, it's just moving forward. And then the second one is, be it further resolved that prior to execution of any agreement that financially obligates the city to development or construction of the proposed PSU venue, the dca shall return to city council with the detailed financial plan described in this resolution, including I won't read the whole thing. It's all the financial legalese stuff, just making sure that it's in there, that that's what I'm expecting to get back. And that because these are the kinds of. This is the kind of information that's going to help inform my ultimate decision. So I want to confirm and lock it in this resolution that we're going to get that. So I will move Avalos to.
102 Thank you, counselor counselor Zimmerman, to the amendment.
103 I would like to give you a second. And the reason I am going to. Before I hold that, I want to ask you one thing, because it's a crux, and I would like to see if you're amenable to it. You have in the second part, councilor a return on invested capital, capital analysis. It's almost like the very last sentence. I would ask you to actually remove that before we second. And here's why I think quantifying return on investment in the arts and education is almost an impossible task. And it's actually not one of the measuring sticks that I'll use for. Was it successful or was it not? I think it's well intended, but I think it's probably poorly applied in this situation. If you would reintroduce that without the return on invested capital analysis. So strike that. I would be happy to second. And then I would encourage us to move forward.
104 Okay. I agree, I'm happy to for for folks and reintroduce Avalos to a. And it's going to be everything it has except for the sentence return on invested capital analysis or the part of that sentence, everything else as is. So Avalos two a is that fair?
105 Second.
106 Can the clerk take that as two a or do we need to call it Avalos for.
107 Just two? A is fine. Can you clarify one more time which part is being removed?
108 So on the second paragraph of her amendment toward the very bottom, there is a comma return on invested capital analysis comma. Third to last of that sentence. If we could remove those five words, that would be two.
109 A two a is moved by Avalos and seconded by Zimmerman.
110 Yes.
111 Okay. Thank you.
112 Counselor Zimmerman, are you.
113 In the queue to that?
114 Then the question, donny, any significant change or concerns from the staff perspective on your intent for this resolution?
115 No, counselor.
116 Thank you.
117 Okay. I am in the queue and I'm actually not sure how to do this when I'm chairing, but I'd like to divide the amendment. I am very supportive of the first part with one question that I'm going to be asking dca oliveira in just a moment. The second, be it resolved though, reads to me like we are last dollar in, and I am concerned that we're giving the direction that we need to know what other funding sources are already in the door before we approve dollars in. And often in projects like this, public dollars can't be the last dollar in. Especially if this is a project that we are going to own and be a part of. And so I'm uncomfortable setting up a condition that's going to be nearly impossible to meet. I think the first part of that, be it further resolved, the second, be it further resolved, getting information back about the development, the construction, things like that. The estimated project costs make sense to me. But when you get down past total estimated project cost, that's where it starts to feel to me like last dollar in dependent on the answer that dca oliveira has. To my question, I'd like to support the first part. I think that's really important, but I can't support the second. So dca oliveira, if we pass that first resolved, which says that we don't authorize or appropriate city funds for the development or construction, does that still allow you to use funds for staff time to do the work that we are asking you to do elsewhere in the resolution?
118 Councilor, I read that that's talking about the future state, and that would not hinder our ability to do the work in the present.
119 Perfect. So with that, I would like to divide the question. Like I said, I've chaired other people doing that. It's a little awkward to do it as chair, but to our clerk and council, do you need anything other than me to say that? And then to declare which part I'd like us to vote on first? That should be good. Okay. Councilor Avalos do you have a preference on which we vote on first?
120 I don't, but I have a question.
121 Okay.
122 So as far as the second clause, I heard you say that after. Tell me again. You said after this point I'm concerned.
123 I'm going to read it out loud to make sure I catch the right point. So be it. Further resolved that prior to execution of any agreement that financially obligates the city to development or construction of the proposed PSU venue, the dca shall return to city council with the detailed financial plan described in this resolution, including a fully defined capital stack I. I read that to mean the types of areas we expect to get the money from, not the exact dollar amount from each particular donor by fully defined. Total estimated project cost. Proposed city contribution. I would end it at and estimated project cost. Proposed city contribution and funding sources. I think we sometimes want to weigh in on the funding sources. So there's a bit of a pickle of which comes first there. Confirmed an anticipated funding from other public and private partners starts to sound like we're last dollar in, which I think holds back the ability to get those dollars. Anticipated, an ongoing operating and maintenance obligations. I'd be happy to take out the lines before that and move that up. So I guess what I would do if you wanted to amend this to have my support on all of it, is, I would say, read through, including a fully defined capital stack, total estimated project cost, and anticipated ongoing city operations and maintenance obligations for city council review and approval.
124 I've been in sandstorms that are clear in that. So I'm having real tough time understanding both the intent and where you're trying to cut. So can you first start with your intent here? Councilor. I think that would help us.
125 There are pieces of this paragraph, including saying that we need to be told what the funding sources are before we can move forward. When I know that this council likes to have an opportunity to weigh in on the funding sources. So I think we're setting up a future. Which comes first. We are saying that we won't do anything until we know the confirmed and anticipated funding from other public and private partners, but we know that often if we are, I won't even say often if this is a building that the city will own, and we set up that we have to be last dollar in because we need to know. The other confirmed funding sources, including private contributions already. We're not going to get those private contributions, because they need to see that the owner of the building is putting dollars in. So I think that, again, sets us up for failure. There are a few other clauses like that that I can't support, because I think they set us up to not actually be able to meet the end goal. So I am happy to either divide, which is the motion that I had made, or if councilor Avalos prefers to amend this and I'm happy to read what I would move forward to get this to a place where I can support at least the first part, and maybe all of it, but I can't support it, as that second part is currently written because I don't think it sets us up to be able to actually meet the goal. Got it. Does that provide a little more clarity, or at least sandy water.
126 Now.
127 And the guy sitting on the side of this conversation, if you guys are able to amend it, I think you probably get the same outcome rather than splitting, splitting it out.
128 I.
129 I guess I would love to hear what other folks think about that. I don't, I'm not married to it, but, and I don't, I'm kind of understand your logic. I don't agree that it exactly does that, but I hear where you're coming from. But yeah, maybe before I make a decision on if I want to do that, I'd love to know where everyone else is on that.
130 Councilor Morillo go right ahead.
131 If do you think it would be possible to just draft the edits so we could read through it? I think it's kind of hard to follow.
132 I am happy to do that right now.
133 Can we have a unanimous consent to move to three while that work happens?
134 Okay.
135 I was going to say I was going to share it right now so I could show you guys. Is that okay? Three no.
136 No, she has Avalos two up. Councilor Avalos let's try it this way. And if it's too complicated, we're going to move to Avalos three and I'll send it out to everybody. So this would say be it further resolved that prior to execution of any agreement that financially obligates the city to development or construction of the proposed PSU venue, the dca shall return to city council with the detailed financial plan described in this section. And including a fully defined capital stack. Total estimated project cost or taking out the highlighted part. And saying and anticipated ongoing city operating and maintenance obligations and material financial risks for city council review and approval. So the highlighted part here would be removed.
137 I not a hill I'll die on. I think the meat of what I'm looking for is in the rest of it. So I'm okay taking that out unless there's any argument people have for we should keep it in. Okay. If not, then okay. So to be.
138 Clear, I am going to withdraw my motion to divide. And I believe councilor Avalos is going to withdraw the motion to move to a.
139 And now I will move to b, which is what we just described and what we have on the screen.
140 For the clerk and council operations. We are happy to get you a clean copy of this so that you have that for files and for folks watching. Hopefully seeing it on the screen helped us get there. And I'm happy to. Second Avalos to be, unless councilor Zimmerman still wants to hold that second.
141 Rock and roll.
142 Okay, great. So moved by Avalos, seconded by pirtle-guiney. Councilor Morillo. Are you still in the queue?
143 No.
144 Okay. Councilor Avalos, are you in the queue?
145 Can you tell me more? Councilor Ryan?
146 Yeah.
147 I just think it got worse and confusing. And so I'm going from a yes on that amendment to a no. And a lot of it, you know, the screen just went away. Oh, let me dig in my hard copy here. I like the clarity about the funding. I thought that was really smart. And especially what we're all arguing about lately. It just seems odd that we would take that out. We're not negotiating with, you know, sophisticated nba people on this one. We're talking to ourselves. And so let's just be honest with each other, okay?
148 But I'm lolling because I was like, no, but I just asked and you all were like, it's fine. And now you're not.
149 I didn't say it was fine.
150 Okay?
151 I was over here trying.
152 To get my old. Eyes to figure out what the hell was happening. So yeah.
153 Well, then my bad. We moved too quickly. I don't know what to do.
154 You've got a councilor Avalos.
155 You've. So I think you need to decide if you want to go back to two a. I will divide it. I will vote no on the second half. You may have the votes without me, or if you want to go to b, which is what's on the table now and move forward. This is your amendment.
156 So, councilor Ryan, I'm hearing you say you preferred having that section because why certainty.
157 Clarity.
158 Okay.
159 Councilor. Morillo. What do you think about that?
160 I agree with councilor Ryan. I think it's good for it to just be clear as is. Let's just vote on the original.
161 Okay? Sorry to jostle everybody. Sorry. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. I'm just going to bring it back because that's what I originally wanted.
162 To.
163 A bring it back to two. A it's divided. Let's vote on each of them individually. And then we're.
164 Going to reverse a little bit. We're at two a moved by Avalos, seconded by Zimmerman. Zimmerman. I'm going to move to divide the question. I will have us vote on the first, be it resolved first, and I don't. Councilor Morillo are you in the queue, councilor Ryan, are you in the queue?
165 No.
166 Okay. Seeing no one in the queue, wendy, could you please call the roll on the first half of Avalos two a the be it resolved that begins the adoption of this resolution does not authorize appropriate or commit city funds.
167 Move by Avalos. Seconded by Zimmerman.
168 Correct.
169 Morillo.
170 Aye, Morillo.
171 Zimmerman. Avalos.
172 Hi.
173 Ryan. I pirtle-guiney.
174 I and now could you please call the roll on the second half of Avalos to a be it further resolved that prior to execution of any agreement that financially obligates the city. Et cetera.
175 In the original language.
176 Two a, which is the language that was seconded by councilor Zimmerman. So it removed return on invested capital analysis.
177 About that part. Yeah.
178 On the second half of Avalos two, a aye, Morillo. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Ryan. I pirtle-guiney. No motion is approved with four votes and one vote.
179 Okay, okay.
180 Last one.
181 Councilor Zimmerman, are you.
182 In.
183 The queue.
184 Before to talk about.
185 Okay, great. Councilor Avalos Avalos three.
186 All right. The last one is this is about the project commitment agreement with PSU. So again, I support developing that agreement so that they can establish the scope. Et-cetera. I just don't think that an administrative agreement should commit the city to implementing a capital funding strategy that council hasn't seen or approved. So I believe what I'm doing here is changing it. The amendment changes that to developing a proposed capital funding strategy and preserves council approval. Again, before we commit. More specifically, I am adding a section. I'm striking. I'm under. Be it further resolved that the deputy city administrator is directed to develop a project agreement. Project commitment agreement with PSU by December 1st, 2026 that establishes the scope, schedule and governance framework for the project and what it originally said, and a shared commitment between the city and Portland state university to develop and implement a full capital funding strategy I took. I struck that out and instead will say a shared commitment between the city and Portland state to develop a proposed full capital funding strategy, provided that the project commitment agreement shall not obligate the city to provide a capital funding to to provide capital funding or otherwise financially commit the city to development or construction of the project without subsequent city council approval. So again, just another layer of protection. Sorry, I was going to share so that you could see. So there it is and I will. And this addresses what councilor Morillo was asking earlier, I think at least. So yeah, there it is. I asked for a second.
187 Second.
188 Councilor Zimmerman.
189 Mr. Oliveras, from your perspective and your team's perspective for this resolution, does it change substantively change or cause any consternation for implementation from your professional perspective?
190 Thank you for the question, councilor. No, it doesn't, with the caveat that I think what I'd like to do with our colleagues at PSU is come back with a a clear plan of what the different milestones are going to be because we, you know, we're talking about a project commitment agreement, which makes total sense. But there's also development agreements. We're going to have some some financing agreements. So I want to sequence those out because I think a lot of this is, is reasonable and fair to come back to you all that will probably be in stages and not all at once. So the answer is yes, with the caveat that we'll probably work together with a project plan for you all to take a look at.
191 Thank you. Every development project I've been a part of in government for many years now has been in stages. None of it's been all at once. So that sounds normal to me. Thank you colleagues, I will support this. Thanks.
192 Any other discussion on Avalos three? Seeing none. Wendy, can you please call the roll?
193 Avalos three move by Avalos. Seconded by Morillo Morillo. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Ryan. I pirtle-guiney I. The amendment is approved.
194 Thank you colleagues, I will stop torturing you. I appreciate the discussion. I feel a lot better about this with these amendments. So thank you.
195 Thank you. Councilor councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue?
196 Thank you. I'm in the queue as a courtesy to councilor Clark from district four, who has asked me to submit Clark one as an amendment to this document. I see councilor Clark in the audience. So for instead of me trying to butcher her intent, I would invite councilor Clark up to.
197 Counselor Clark. Would you like to join us?
198 Thank you.
199 I believe all committee members have received this now via their email. If you want to pull it up as I. What I see is I think 3 or 4. Be it resolved paragraphs that have some adjustment.
200 Councilor Clark.
201 I'll note for folks who are in the audience or watching online that this is not posted yet, but it has been submitted to the clerk, and we will have it up for records as soon as possible. And christopher, are you able to screen share this? Okay, we'll get it up on the screen so that people can follow along. Go right ahead. Councilor.
202 Thank you. For the record. This is Olivia Clark. I'm a councilor from district four. First, I just want to say thank you to councilor Avalos for those amendments. I really appreciate all that work that you did and the committee support for those. I think it makes this a much better resolution. And thank you. I'm here because. This amendment, Clark one, it adds some phrasing around, including operations and maintenance responsibilities as a part of the predevelopment function that's in in the amendment to be considered for the financial plan. But it also. Most importantly for me, it links the keller with the PSU, and it requires that they be a part of the overall package, that they be developed in tandem. What's going to happen with the keller? You know, the keller needs to stay open the whole time anyway. If we do proceed, if we get the information that we need and we make a decision that we're going to raise the money to actually implement the PSU conceptual plan, at this point, the keller has to stay open. We don't know exactly what the future will be, but I think we need to plan that in tandem with this, with this resolution. So I brought that forward and I brought that forward partly because some of the things I've heard from you, committee members on the dais about the importance of the keller and how people feel about it. But, you know, from day one when I was elected, I'm concerned about how we care for what we own, all the assets that we have. And keller is an important city asset that's been neglected over the years. And, you know, we've made comments about all the things that need to be improved and which is what led us to this point here. But now we're going to keep the keller open for how many more years with all those problems. So it's kind of an interesting conundrum here. But we do need to keep the keller open. This resolution addresses that, but we need to plan for the future in tandem with PSU. And that's what this language does. If you look at the be there be it resolved. I've added two that if and when the PSU, the city and PSU seek funding sources that they'll be done in tandem and that the future of the keller to be considered in tandem with the PSU 3000 seat venue. So I'm hoping that you'll support that to keep. Keep our eye on the. Keller along with the PSU proposal. And I would note for councilor Zimmerman that earlier in the resolution, it does refer to roi. There is another piece that refers to roi. Also, if you want to take that out, I don't know.
203 No, I just didn't want to add more bad.
204 Okay. More bad. Okay. So I know there are representatives of the keller in the audience. And I, when I brought this up to dc, a oliveira that I was making this, I know he has some concerns about just staff time that he may want to address, but my, my bottom line goal here is to really keep our eye on the keller and do this in tandem. If we're going to approve this resolution.
205 So there you have it, folks. I would so move.
206 I'll second that. Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue for anything additional on this?
207 I'm not okay.
208 Councilor. Morillo.
209 Christopher, I know you were trying to share a screen. Was that the right item or was that? I'm just trying to make sure we're looking at the same language.
210 It was I.
211 Oh, okay. No worries. I think I have it in front of me. So we're looking at Clark one oh, thank you, councilor Zimmerman. This is the be it further resolved that if and when the city and PSU seek funding sources for the new broadway theater, those efforts must also include funding for the renovation of the keller into a smaller theater. This includes money sought from city council and the state legislature, metro, the federal government, philanthropic communities and voters, etc. I am just a little bit concerned about this based on the same sort of discussion that we've had before. And I just want to understand, because I think the must also include part of it feels very binding. I'm very noncommittal today. I'm going to need to understand some of that just. Yeah, I think that that just gives me pause.
212 Is that something that you want to change in coordination with what councilor Avalos had done earlier to change the language there? So take out the must or.
213 Well, I think you sent two different amendments, Clark one and Clark two. I know we haven't talked about Clark two yet, but when I compared them, I preferred Clark two over them. But I don't like either. But if I had to choose, I would probably choose Clark two because I think it gives us a bit more wiggle room to work with. So. But obviously we haven't discussed that one yet.
214 Just for clarity, Clark two decouples the funding aspect away from the PSU proposal.
215 Yeah.
216 Clark.
217 Clark two from what I've read and I'm sorry, I'm not trying to open up a different discussion, but it says where feasible. And I think that that gives us the appropriate wiggle room based on not having some of this information yet to make a decision. So that's sort of my analysis on those. But I understand we're veering off. I'm just flagging that the must also include for funding in Clark. One gives me. I'm not sure I would support that right now.
218 Councilor anything further? Okay. Councilor Zimmerman, did you have something.
219 Further I'd like.
220 To go after? Okay. Great question.
221 I'll note before I ask my
222 Questions. Councilor Morillo. I do hear your concerns at the top of that. Be it resolved, it says that the city will. Identify funding sources where feasible. And that, I think, gave me some sense that we were saying where we can do this.
223 That was in Clark two.
224 I apologize in Clark one. There was also a caveat there. Let me pull it up. If and when the city and PSU seek funding sources. There we go. That it was that if we seek funding sources, it should be done in tandem.
225 I think my understanding of if and when we seek funding sources is less about the feasibility and more about the inevitability that we will. That's how I read that. But maybe I'm not reading that intention correctly.
226 So, councilor Clark, I'm not sure if the right person to answer this is in the administration or if you've had conversations about this, but we're looking in your Clark one amendment at making sure that we continue to upgrade the keller that the city continue to invest in the keller doesn't give me any pause at all that we seek funding simultaneously doesn't give me any pause at all. But this says that we'll continue to upgrade the facility even as we move forward through the planning process. And I want to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up to make upgrades before we have made the plan for what the future is that our city wants and that our performing arts ecosystem needs for the keller, so that any upgrades we make are in line with that. Have you had any conversations about what that what that word means and what that looks like as we move forward?
227 Thank you, council councilor. I think there are some immediate needs at the keller. We've talked about potentially restroom upgrading. Nothing that would interfere with the future redevelopment of the keller. But I fear that there are things that may may need to be taken care of. They may be 80 ADA issues that we have to deal with. I don't know how long the keller is going to be open, how many years it's going to take for us to get to this PSU redevelopment project. So there along those lines, there may be things that need to be done. I'm not recommending that we do anything in particular, just saying that something might need to happen to keep it open.
228 Okay.
229 Thank you.
230 That's my intent.
231 Thank you. And see, a lee, is that the way that the administration is reading the implementation here?
232 Yes.
233 Okay. Thank you. I want to just note, because this focuses on tying the future of a new broadway capable venue at PSU with the future of a redevelopment of keller, that there are a lot of other venues in our performing arts portfolio that also need upgrades and improvements. And so while I am happy to support this, because I do think it's important to be clear that we see a critical role for keller in our performing arts ecosystem moving forward, that we're doing this not at the expense of our other venues, and that as we move through the next few years, where dollars are very tight and hopefully get to a place where we can think about how we maintain our assets in a more comprehensive and better way, that the conversation will eventually broaden to include all of those, all of those venues.
234 Can I make a comment to that point? I think that we just sort of mentioned that in the future, they'll need to be a capital campaign around the PSU development. And you're right, there are lots of other needs, not just in our performing arts venues, but in lots of other venues. And when our asset management plan comes forward, we're going to need to look at all the assets that we have that are at risk and weigh all of those against each other. So you're absolutely right in throwing in consideration of the other p5, the other venues that we own. But I would even broaden that to say that we have other needs all over the city, fire stations, whatever it is that we're going to be learning about which ones are really at risk of failure.
235 Absolutely. And thank you for broadening it even more. I have a couple of folks flagging that they have concerns about version control and councilor Zimmerman, did you want to address the version that we have up and in front.
236 Of us?
237 I would propose actually that we take a five minute break. I think, councilor Clark, I can see some folks fluttering behind you. And so I think we might be able to make a more sound decision if we ensure what we're looking at is your intended language with all the eaches. But after that, I would like to speak to them.
238 Is that all right? Madam chair.
239 So the next.
240 Question, just a quick question or request, maybe because I wonder if you could explain. I guess I don't understand our one and two supposed to go together or are they options like we choose one of them.
241 I think that that's part of the version control concerns that are being raised right now. We generally, toward the middle of our meeting, take a 15 minute break. I was going to do that at the close of this item, but what I'm going to do is have us take our 15 minute break now instead, so we can work out the version control while everybody gets a moment to stretch their legs. When we come back, we'll finish this item and move directly into the next item on the agenda. So why don't we all make sure we're back here at 337?
242 Thank you. I just got about.
243 Okay. Okay, let's do it.
244 Oblivious to.
245 Me.
246 So.
247 I am calling us back to order. Thank you all. I think we are more clear on where we're going now, and I am going to turn it over to councilor Zimmerman, who I believe is going to change his motion.
248 I'm going to do whatever councilor Clark tells me to do. I actually am not sure what.
249 I think. We are withdrawing the motion.
250 Okay, council, do you want me to withdraw the motion on your behalf? Okay, colleagues, I withdraw the motion on her behalf.
251 Council to.
252 Move the next one. Okay. I would like to move Clark Zimmerman to and ask councilor Clark to speak to it.
253 Thank you.
254 I'll second that so that we can go ahead and introduce it.
255 Thank you. Slight change between the two amendments between the Clark one and the Clark two. The Clark two basically decouples the funding aspect of PSU and the keller. That's the. So the new new and improved be it therefore resolved is basically it's up to the city to identify and pursue funding sources where feasible to support implementation of adopted plan for the future of keller auditorium, including potential funding from the city, the state, the legislature, metro, federal government and other appropriate sources. So it just decouples the search for funding from PSU and keller. That's all. And the rest of it is the same or slightly slightly different. There was a scrivener's error in the last, be it therefore resolved. But it's fine.
256 Thank you. Councilors. Councilor Zimmerman, are you in the queue?
257 Yeah. So I'll use this opportunity to speak to it. This is why I was supportive of both. And I appreciate councilor Clark. I think, leading the way for us in district four on this. The keller is a foundational building for the community. I think that we have been at times concerned about what is new. Does it also reflect what is our history? And I think that this is trying to send that message that the future, whatever it may be, with with a new PSU, performing arts and education center, is not intended to leave the keller in the dust, so to speak, and I that's why I'm going to support this. And I think that that was an important signal that councilor Clark has worked with the community on. And to councilor Ryan's point, this is one of those where it's been difficult, as we've watched, usually folks who are on the same side of different topics, it's quite split, frankly. And so I spoke just this morning to members of the downtown neighborhood association, who again reiterated some, some concerns. And, and I have just appreciated that. So I'll be supportive of this. I appreciate you, councilor Clark, and I appreciate the support of the rest of the committee so that we can send this paragraph eventually on if it does so pass. Thank you.
258 Thank you, councilor. Seeing no one else in the queue, wendy, can you please call the roll on Clark Zimmerman two or is it Zimmerman? Clark two.
259 Sorry, I just jumped into the queue.
260 I'm sorry. Councilor Avalos go right ahead.
261 Just to clarify. So what I'm looking at on screen, there's nothing else in the scroll. It's just what I see right here. Okay, I just want.
262 Well, no, if you scroll up, there is the addition of the language and operations and maintenance responsibilities. That's.
263 Thank you.
264 Oops, sorry. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Okay.
265 Seeing no one else in the queue for real this time. Wendy, could you please call the roll on Clark Zimmerman?
266 Two Morillo.
267 No.
268 Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Ryan. I pirtle-guiney. I. The amendment is approved with four I votes and one vote.
269 Thank you, thank you.
270 Thank you, councilor Clark, for bringing that forward. Councilor Zimmerman.
271 We are on.
272 To the overall resolution.
273 We are on the underlying. And I don't believe there are any more amendments coming. So go right ahead.
274 Okay.
275 Thank you, chair, and thank you to everybody who's presented and helped us work through this. I think what I would call is a difficult topic. Many, many months ago, I've asked, I'll just say the arts community to try and speak with one voice on this, because this experience is the sum total of my experience other than being an audience member with with the arts and planning and arts venue and planning the future of a venue, it's been difficult. You come to office with some skill sets. This is not a skill set or an experience level that I came with. And so learning a lot has been this process for me. Councilor Clark has helped us, I think, carve out and send a message that the future of wsu's performing arts center doesn't mean the end of keller's future. And I think that that is incredibly important. I looked up and I took a look at just some of the types of things that were built by somebody I admire, and I think they probably built them a little bit, maybe in the less planned, but also needed given the times. And I just want to articulate this because this is how I'm going to vote yes today. So I believe that when your economy is not hitting on all cylinders, government has a role. I believe that we missed a great opportunity during the great recession that occurred right after I graduated from college, that we missed the mark, so to speak, in developing of housing, and we are paying for it this many years later, almost 20 years later, I would have loved an fdr style approach in 2008 that would have allowed us to develop housing in the communities. I would have loved an fdr approach that would have done more than just and I don't disagree, but more than just bail out some of the big auto and banks and others, because build baby build is something I've said a lot throughout my time in office. It's something I say a lot because I believe that to its core, even though it comes with some connotations and some mistakes along the way, that you have to be a growing city to be a successful city. And so Portland is in its micro recession right now. It's hyper localized to Portland. It is our own problem. It is not the united states's problem necessarily. It might not even be the state of oregon's problem. But when the city of Portland is in recession, it becomes the state of oregon's problem. And so fdr didn't know if timberline lodge was going to be a good idea. He didn't know if the bonneville dam was going to be a good idea. Didn't know if the crater lake national park, the Portland airport, Burnside tunnel, and even some of the other projects. But the wpa got to work when the economy was frozen. And I don't know a lot about the arts, and I don't know if we need to. Broadway's. I don't know if we need 3000 1800 or 800, but I do know that we need cranes in the air. And those of you who have worked on this, I've been clear with you where I have reservations and for. For that, I have deeply appreciated that you have worked out some of the details to help me get there. I appreciate that we have set a commitment that as a new project, if it does go forward, that that keller stays open so that that workforce doesn't get shut down the way that they did before that. As we move forward, a future envisioning for what the future of keller can be and an expanded workforce at the education at the PSU and education site is something that is, I think, achievable. So for those reasons, getting cranes in the air build, baby build. And I am looking to those of you who really have your fingerprints on this document to deliver on the aspirational whereases in this document about costs, about shared, about capital stacks, about about the way in which the city is going to be asked to commit. But I'm not going to turn down the opportunity to leverage state dollars to get the Portland economy cranes in the air. And so this has been challenging, but I just wanted to be right in the first to just set it here. I do no longer need to be convinced I'm an fdr kind of democrat. And today is the day for Portland to help others start spending in our economy. And that's why I'll be supportive. So thank you.
276 Thank you, councilor Councilor Avalos.
277 Yeah, thank you to my colleagues for helping to get those amendments passed. Like I said at the beginning, those were very contingent on my support. As you also heard from my questions, I still have a lot of questions, and I reserve the right to continue asking those as it comes to the council. And as we continue deciding further action, I know that the resolution is one step leading to the December 1st. So those are two separate council actions that need to be taken. I'm willing to move this step forward out of committee so that we can get that in motion. So I can hear from my other colleagues on the rest of the council how they're feeling. I think these questions will likely come up as well. And as you have heard, there are reservations because we do have very real financial constraints. But I do also agree that there is a point where government has to do their part. And so, you know, not to relitigate councilor Zimmerman's wonderful speech there, mister fdr democrat, I hear the spirit of what you're saying, and I do agree. And so I'm looking forward to seeing how this goes. And I do want to protect the arts. At the end of the day, that is why I'm showing my support. And again, thank you to all the many hundreds that emailed about keller. I hear you, I see you, I want to protect artists and workers. I want to build great venues that portlanders can enjoy. And I'm hoping that with the changes, I will support this so that we can take those next few steps. Thank you.
278 Thank you, councilor Councilor Morillo.
279 Thank you, chair. I'll be brief because I know we have a lot of important items to get to today. Thank you so much, members of the audience who are here today to talk about this. I, like councilor Avalos, appreciate the amendments that you brought forward today to clarify some of that language, and I am going to continue to have questions when it goes to full council, so I don't feel fully settled on this issue yet, but I'm going to vote it out of committee to hear the rest of my colleagues and their concerns. Since it does impact so many, it impacts the entire city. All of the districts are impacted by what happens with PSU and with the keller. So for that, I will be voting it out of committee for further discussion at full council. And thank you, everyone for your time.
280 Thank you, councilor Councilor Ryan.
281 I can see where this is going and I, I understand, I hope I'm wrong, and I really mean that sincerely. I'm rooting for both PSU. I'm always rooting for the arts. I don't need to continue to pound my chest about how important that is. I've done that my whole life. And I do think the amendments made this better. But the conversation that we had earlier when when I couldn't get any clarity on, on the financing. I'm just really concerned, I'm really concerned that we're once again, moving something forward without any clarity on how we're going to pay for it. I feel like we have a lot of risk. I care about urban planning, and I've always loved my hometown. In terms of that. I think that we did a lot of work to make south downtown an attractive place to to live. Psu has been a part of that continues to be a part of that. The whole development around keller going south to all the housing developments, the halprin fountains. Thank you to the people that have been working their tails off for years to bring those back, and I don't want to take the risk of seeing more blight in downtown Portland. And there's a big risk here that if we put money towards something that still doesn't have a clarity and how it's going to pencil out, then we're just solidifying that ambiguity, coupled with the ambiguity about having keller go dark someday. And I don't want to be advanced from the years I'm in now, walking downtown and seeing a dark keller across from the the most iconic piece of public art our city has. What great city would do that risk? Take that risk to take that beautiful piece of public art and not make that front and center of that part of town. Like, how would we give up on that? And so I I'm the old Portland up here. Old Portland fights to keep its basketball team in its hometown. It fights to make sure we don't add more blight to an area that we put tons and tons of sweat and tears into years ago that we've coveted. And I so want to be that person that gets excited about this wonderful new state of the art performing arts center with new high quality sound, which I do complain about in keller. So I want all of it, but it's just not realistic. And so I think today, again, I hope I'm wrong, but today I can't get on the bandwagon to abandon the keller to support something that is not on our balance sheet. It's that simple to me at the end of the day. So I think I think I'm in the minority on this. I'm getting used to that now and then, but I wanted to make sure that I had that voice of dissent into this conversation, because this will continue to be the conversation, especially since I couldn't get any clarity on the answers around the proposed 44 million that's been floated around. That was my opportunity to be swayed, and it didn't sway me. Thanks.
282 Thank you. Councilor. You know, I get asked a lot why I'm optimistic about portland's future and why I'm optimistic about Portland and where I see people who have a vision for our city's future. And we don't know, as we pointed out during the questions, where the funding for this project is going to come, and we have a performing arts ecosystem that needs a lot of work. But here's what I do know. I do know that performing arts is a space where thriving large organizations, accessible shows that bring people out, fund the base, the core of a workforce, who can then go and bring their talents to small productions. They bring people into the arts who can then support our local homegrown arts organizations and those local organizations that tell stories that aren't told on the larger stages, help to connect people to the arts who might not be connected, who then discover the rest of our arts ecosystem. I know that although I desperately want us to have arts ecosystem downtown more centralized so that we have a true theater district, and this moves us, unfortunately, in a different direction, that the arts in Portland are spread throughout our city, and that a healthy arts ecosystem in Portland has major players downtown, but also has theaters and theater companies spread across every district of our city, connecting people across Portland to this thing we call art. And I know that if we don't take this step, we're not going to continue to provide the arts ecosystem to provide our theater companies, both local and the touring companies that come through with the spaces that they need. And I know that if we take this step, there are a lot more questions to answer. There is a lot more work to be done, but we can start to build that vision for what the future is in our city, for our arts, and we can have the conversations with all of our companies, our theater companies, about what spaces they need and what that looks like that might be different from today and how not only a new PSU venue, but the opportunity that that affords us within the keller building, which is such a critical part of that ecosystem for us, could be, and how it can make sure that we have better access to the arts, both for patrons, for viewers, better access for portlanders who don't always go see the arts now, but also for the stage companies, the theater companies, the performers, the directors, the storytellers in our community to find the right spaces to tell their stories. There is a lot of information I need before we approve funding for these projects, but taking this step today says we are in on the vision. It says we are in on the future. It says we want those answers so that we can build what our arts ecosystem looks like for the future of our city. And I'm excited that we get to take that step today, and that we get to start to learn more about the opportunity and engage our city in what I hope will be a collective funding process to get this done so that it's not all on the capital city of Portland, so that we can invest in our smaller stages as well, and make sure that we're bringing all of our arts up together and doing this. Colleagues, I don't see anybody else in the queue. So with that, I'm going to ask wendy to call for a vote. And this is on the underlying resolution.
283 May I get a motion, please?
284 Oh I'm sorry, we need a motion on this out of committee, don't we?
285 I would move that. We send it to council.
286 Is that neutral or with a due pass recommendation.
287 With a due pass recommendation.
288 Thank you. I'll second that.
289 Motion to refer the resolution as amended. Document number 2026-270 to council with the recommendation be adopted. Moved by Zimmerman, seconded by pirtle-guiney Morillo.
290 Knowing that this is not committing us to anything but opening us up for further discussion, I.
291 Zimmerman I. Avalos I Ryan.
292 Yeah, I've been in this meeting a long time, so it's time to make decisions. I vote no.
293 Pirtle-guiney I.
294 Motion is approved with four votes and no and one nay vote.
295 Thank you colleagues. That moves us to item three on our agenda. Wendy, could you please call item three?
296 Yes. Thank you. Item number three, document number 2026-285. Direct the city administrator to advance a process to identify a development partner for city owned properties adjacent to the moda center resolution.
297 Thank you colleagues. This is an item brought forward by councilors Ryan Kanal and myself. I'd like to invite councilor Kanal. If he's in the room up to the table, I'll give a few remarks and then turn it over to my co carriers and district two colleagues, and we may need to stall for a minute while he comes in from another meeting. So, colleagues, as you each know, sitting in your districts, there's often space between each of us and our district colleagues on on many issues that come before us. And because of that, when I see three people from the same district lean in on a project and bring something together, I think that's really meaningful. When I see three people come together and lean in on a project in their district, I think it reflects that there is something special going on there that is so important to the future of that district that it crosses what can sometimes lead to other divides. So today you have before you a resolution brought by your district two colleagues, councilors Ryan Kanal and myself. It's a resolution that asks the city to begin a process of identifying and negotiating with the development partner for city owned parcels surrounding the moda center and veterans memorial coliseum. This is within our district, and we're bringing it forward because we have a unique opportunity in front of us as we work through what the whole city has watched in a drawn out process to figure out if we can come to terms on a long term lease agreement with the moda center. We also have to be thinking seriously about what is happening around that space and how the broader area and the development there contributes both to the future of the rose quarter and the moda center, and to the future of lower albina, just next door. The city owns several of the parcels that are directly around the moda center, and although we lack the funds or a specific vision for the future of these parcels, there are organizations within our city who have both. The resolution before us establishes a clear set of expectations for what we need in a development partner, a group that has a community oriented mission that has already demonstrated development and financial experience and expertise, that has the ability to bring significant outside investment to the table. And that has a track record of working in the public interest. These are things that align with our values as a city, and this resolution critically acknowledges that there is an organization which fits our criteria, who is already working with the city on development in this part of town. Albina vision trust has come to the city with interest in these parcels and a vision to move forward development on them. Albina vision trust has spent years developing a comprehensive vision not just for these three parcels, but for the restoration of lower albina. Broadly, they've built relationships, partnerships and an investment strategy necessary to turn that vision into a future. The restorative redevelopment of lower albina is one of the most transformative projects underway, not just in our city, but across the state and the country, bringing that work that they are already doing to the doorstep of the moda center creates an opportunity to connect two major investments in this part of Portland and to make sure, frankly, that the two developments support each other and strengthen each other rather than standing apart. This is good for community development. It's good for portland's economy. It's good for our work to advance racial justice and make up for the harms of the past. It is good for the core values that our city stands for. The construction of I-5 and decades of urban renewal displaced thousands of black portlanders, black homeowners, black businesses from lower albina, and the consequences of those decisions are still lived today. We can't undo that history, but as we have discussed on many other occasions, the actions that we take now can set forward a better future. And this resolution is one step toward ensuring that, alongside the important decisions that we will be making around moda, the sister city is advancing restorative development and creating opportunities for community wealth building and supporting a more vibrant and connected lower albina. Importantly, the city does not. The resolution, I apologize, does not commit the city to a particular development project or to appropriating public dollars, but it starts the work of determining what is possible. What is this land worth? What could development rights generate? What outside investment could a development partner bring in? What public investment might ultimately be necessary? And how should a partnership between the city and albina vision trust be structured to make this project work? Those questions will come back to council. What we're doing today is providing our direction that we want to see these city owned parcels developed by a community centered organization. We set our criteria for that development partner, and we acknowledge that we have a partner ready to go who meets those criteria in albina vision trust, and that we should begin negotiating in earnest with albina vision trust to make this partnership happen. Those negotiations will lead to the answers to many questions that I'm sure we have about the details, but we can't get there until we sit down at the table together. I believe this is the right path forward for our city. It honors the history of the neighborhood. It creates the conditions for people who live here to benefit from its future, and it ensures that this part of our city is moving forward in a way that connects the many projects around it together. I'd like to turn it over to my fellow co-sponsors, councilor, Ryan, and councilor Kanal, to add their voices to this conversation as well. Councilor Ryan, would you like to go next? While councilor Kanal comes up to the table?
298 I'm sure actually.
299 I'll let councilor Kanal go next.
300 Okay.
301 Councilor Kanal.
302 Thank you chair.
303 Let me get the mic going here. For the record, my name is Sameer Kanal. I am a city councilor in district two, north and northeast Portland and a co-sponsor of this resolution. Thank you, chair pirtle-guiney for the chance to briefly address the committee. I'm pleased to be a co-sponsor with my two colleagues in district two. I'm grateful for the partnership of both you, madam chair, as well as councilor Ryan, and working to make our district better for everyone. Obviously, we all know that we must build an equitable, community centered future for this part of our city. This includes not only the broader discussion on the moda center and whether to renovate, how to renovate, etc. It also includes a conversation about the rose quarter broadly and development rights. This area is part of the long history of community building, but also of community displacement, as well as development in Portland and discussions around the future of lower albina. Historically, black part of Portland must recognize that we have, as a city council must also continue to reckon with it. This resolution represents a city commitment to restorative development and much needed neighborhood activation in the rose quarter. It also represents meaningful community partnership to shape what we want our city to be. Albina vision trust has been a leader in this work and in this community for years, and is exactly the kind of partner that the city would benefit from working with to realize the area's full potential in a way that works for all of us. This represents this resolution represents the start of a process that includes all the normal checks and balances in terms of fiscal responsibility, but also commits us from the start to building a future that reconnects and strengthens communities. I'm excited to get started on this partnership, and I hope that you conclude your discussion today by referring this resolution to the full council. Thank you.
304 Thank you, councilor Kanal, and you're welcome to stay if you'd like for the rest of the discussion. But we understand if you have other meetings to get to.
305 Appreciate it. Thank you.
306 Councilor Ryan.
307 Yes, thank you. Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Kanal, it's great to work with you on this for was it five of my six years on council? I've been listening to, learning from and working with alpine division trust. It's good to see you. I went to miss shirley. I asked for and connected dots actually, when I could. Between the rose quarter leaders back in 2021 and alpine division trust to make sure that you were at the same table. And I'm proud of that. At first, it didn't seem like you were. So it's really awesome to see that progress. Renovating the moda center is a piece of a larger piece of a larger area of public and private partnerships connecting, not buying it to the lloyd district. We need to move in tandem with albina vision trust and the lloyd district. We, we and continue to work on the adopted. Adopted by the council in 2024. That's when we adopted the vision for the albina plan. The city now has a chance to make sure. This remains a successful partnership by renovating moda center and inviting new investment into albina. There's a lot of synergy here. It makes sense that we're approaching this at this moment in time. We can add up to ten parcels as a welcoming part of the a b, t 94 acre plan to restore the area and bring economic opportunity to both the albanian community. First and foremost, ave not only affirms city objectives, but it also emphasizes supporting youth and children. It's very family focused. Generational success and wealth are so important for this city, and focusing on children is such a vital part of a successful community. Restoring justice in that neighborhood is so vital. And so this is just a really smart, strategic step as we move forward as partners and as we move forward with some prosperity for that area at a much needed time in our city's history, we're really down councilors. Everyone was right. There was a lot of special economic conditions that are really haunting Portland, and it's time for government to really work closer with partners to get some movements going, development going. So I think the the meetings that you've had with us of late did turn up the urgency, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that the three of us in one hour could get on the same page about something. You were being really gentle with that, but that doesn't happen very often. But we do see the big picture here, and I'm grateful that we're taking a breath right now in the middle of the other big conversation that will finalize tomorrow to get moving on some guidelines to make sure that we're connecting the dots at this time, I appreciate you. Thanks.
308 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Colleagues, before we move into public testimony and discussion, I believe we have a brief bit of information from dc a oliveira, and we will follow that with an opportunity for our representatives from albina vision trust to provide some information as well.
309 Thank you, chair donnie oliveira. For the record, the councilors did such a great job outlining the value proposition of this partnership. So what I thought I would do is offer up just a little background for your awareness and the public's about the history of our partnership with abt and some of the work that is ongoing and continues to be a priority for our our bureaus. One second here. Okay. Come on. All right. So this is a real high level overview of just some of the activities that are happening in lower albina. I'll note that this covers quite a few different bureaus, and we're not touching everything we do, but some material projects that I think are relevant to this conversation. So we're going to talk about some of those, those project backgrounds, the current status and some of the issues we're grappling with. But the councilor said it best, this is not a one off or just a moment in time. This is building on a history of work and partnership and is the right time to to contemplate what's next in the phase of building back the lower albina area. So here's a snapshot overhead view of of the area we're talking about, just to name it, because it's come up earlier. The Green is the rose quarter campus, which includes the moda center and the vmc and the parking garages. But really, when we talk about albina, we're talking about our broader area. But even beyond that, even before that, the north northeast quadrant plan was really the first time that the city contemplated designing with this area in mind, thinking about entertainment, recreation, a lot of different opportunities. This area, if you think about the moda center towards lloyd and all the way down, ultimately down towards the the convention center. But there's a lot of key projects that are happening here that we're going to talk about. But first, some of the background, beyond just the Portland plan and the comprehensive plan, every time the city is contemplated, discussions around this area, whether it be central city or that northeast northeast quadrant plan, we've been talking about general themes. How do we reconnect this neighborhood? How do we ensure that it's inclusive? How do we ensure that economic development is just how do we elevate communities that have been burdened, displaced, but also create opportunities that are not just transactional, but are are ongoing? One of the things that we're really excited about working with albina vision on is they have a really clear goal and vision process that we were councilor Ryan mentioned it being adopted in July 2024, but we've been grateful to be partners with them. On contemplating what comes next, including the discussion before you. One example of a project that we've been partnering with abt on has had several bureaus involved PBOT, bts, prosper, name a few is part of the reconnecting communities grant, which was a federal grant that we got from u.s. Department of transportation. This was aligned with the work that was happening with the rose quarter project, but really got us to start thinking about how we would use these dollars in this this rose quarter project to reconnect the the thruways and the framework of the streets in that area, including at the moda center. Another example of this work started thinking about how people would move through the area. As you can see that while these are, you know, high level plans, there's a lot of thought given to a future state where this neighborhood is connected and thriving and has a variety of key areas. One example is looking at that western hub onto the left side of the project. This would be like a major hub for entertainment. This would be the place where people would access the waterfront and really connect these, these areas. And in order to do that, we need a stronger street and transportation network, which PBOT is leading on. Another example of the work that we're doing is really contemplating the future of the rose quarter campus. So although this is a concept and should not be considered in any way or form, the way we're going to go with this, this parcel, the idea before you in this resolution you're contemplating is, is not the first time we've thought about how we might incorporate the rose
310 Quarter campus. The moda center operations, vmc operations with a broader neighborhood. As you can see here, we start looking at different ways that people can enter and exit the campus, how those those localized garage become something different and how this connected to the waterfront. Again, this is conceptual and in no way suggests this is what we're doing, but it just shows you that there's a lot of work being done to contemplate how we might design this area in a different way. And here's some more renderings of the perspective from the waterfront. Again, not to say that this is what's happening or what the plan is, but again, this tells you the opportunity potential of working with somebody like albina vision trust on this area. It's not just going to be because we have an nba arena. It's going to be because we have local developers and community partners who have a vision for what this neighborhood is going to look like and how we're going to thread all those working parts together. Again. Councilor Ryan mentioned the 2024 resolution that really focused on a couple of the catalyst sites in the area. That would be the the matthew proffitt site, which is the purple box just north of north of the moda center and the waterfront. We did studies, we've done engagement work with av. T, really bringing in community to answer the question of what could this neighborhood do if we had the resources and were willing to partner to, to activate this property? And last but not least, just because it's coming up in a couple of weeks, there is a significant, you know, opportunity with the I-5 rose corridor improvement project, especially if the federal funding comes back in to cap those, the interstate to really reconnect this neighborhood and, and really change fundamentally how we interact with both Elana, but also the potential to have that nexus with the moda center and vmc, to have a walkable neighborhood that people can get to on good transit or to bike would really change the dynamic of that neighborhood and really be a vibrant place for entertainment and sports activities, etc. And that's the end of my presentation. Again, I wanted to briefly, mainly just to give you all a context that this isn't coming out of left field, mixing my sports metaphors there, but was really to show you that this is building on an incredible amount of work, both from city, but from our community partners, obviously led by a v t to really think about this neighborhood in a very different way. This resolution is an important next step as we contemplate the future of the moda center, we also should be thinking about how we're going to activate those parcels around it. And thank you for your time.
311 Thank you. Councilor Morillo do you have a brief question for the for dca oliveira before we bring up our other guests?
312 No, I can wait for the other presentations.
313 Okay.
314 I would like to have one to johannes, the executive director of albina vision trust and miss sharon, gary Smith, who is on the board of directors, come up and just offer you to the opportunity to speak to this for a few minutes before we move to council discussion.
315 Excellent. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and councilors. My name is wendy harness. I serve as executive director of albina vision trust. Of course, I want to begin by thanking councilors Kanal Ryan and pirtle-guiney for bringing this resolution forward. It's a significant step forward in our collaborative work together. Albina vision trust was formed in 2017 for a simple reason. The city played a significant role in destroying a neighborhood and then spent decades studying it. Albina, as you know, was home to four out of every four out of five black Portland families. We know that its destruction cost black portlanders more than $1 billion in stolen wealth. We exist because the community decided that the next chapter of lower albina would not be written about us. It would be written by us for the good of all portlanders. We are interested in expressing our values for how we will care for one another, and having that reflected in an important central city neighborhood. For over a decade, we have done exactly what we have said we would do. We have built albina one opened last summer, welcoming families home to the district for the first time in 40 years. These are homes where residents don't pay any utilities bills, where units that were set at 60% ami we were able to offer at 40 to 45%, knowing that that's the average ami of black portlanders. This is a building where we had a bipoc apprenticeship rate of 70 of 22% was our goal, but we achieved 75% when we hired our general contractor for that building. The. When they put the crane in the sky. That was only the second time in Oregon state history that that was true. I share this to say that this is what it looks like when an organization is committed to the outcomes. Over this time, we have also acquired the only residential building that was left in the district, the historic paramount apartments, which housed 66 units of naturally occurring affordable housing. We were able to braid together both public and private funding to make sure that this building would retain permanent affordability for the next hundred years. And on top of that, we actually lowered the rent for residents in the building and are offering rents at 50 to 60% ami. We then purchased an office building, which was a vacant storefront that had been on williams for many years and have converted this into an active gallery, where half a dozen artists get to showcase their work and where we house our office, as well as a gathering space that has served many over the last year that it's been open, we have secured significant dollars, including federal investments for transportation, to rebuild the infrastructure network in the neighborhood. We have made progress with Portland public school to free up ten and a half acre site so that, as councilor Ryan was speaking to, we can build a neighborhood centered around the lives of children. We have planned for over a decade, and we have produced the community investment plan, which has won international awards for its excellence in design and ambition. We have created durable partnerships with Portland trailblazers through the albina rose alliance with lewis and Clark college to provide an anchor educational hub in the district with and with many other partners. Knowing that the neighborhood will be built together. All of this together has culminated in the nation's largest restorative redevelopment effort. I share this context with you to say that not only are we capable, we are committed, and our track record shows you that it has been our singular focus in making sure that piece by piece, we pull together the partnerships necessary to not only dream about the future, but to build it. Today is why this resolution is important. And as councilor Pirtle-guiney already made clear, what's in front of you today is not a land transfer. It is a resolution to begin the negotiation process. We are confident that in partnership with the city, we can come to terms that help us stop thinking about the district and fragmented terms, and instead take this from a place that people primarily drive through and where people drive home from to make it a district that is both world class and working class. This is the whole idea and driving purpose of the albina vision trust. We want abundant, affordable and diverse housing. We want children to be able to walk to the river. We want small and medium sized businesses. And when we. While we recognize that we have inherited a legacy of destruction. Part of the joy of this work is that the albina vision, at its core, is one of portland's greatest civic projects. This is where we get to move from talking about our values to expressing them through action. And so I hope that this council will provide support for moving this resolution forward to the full body. Thank you.
316 It's a pleasure to be before the city life committee. I'm sharon gary Smith. I'm the eldest daughter of the late frederick douglas, gary jr and bobby lou mosley. Gary, who were adamant and advocates of social justice and racial justice and stood up against your former predecessors. I'll say, to talk about the city of portland's dreams and aspirations and its reality, particularly as it pertained to the harsh punishment and disregard for many black American residents and others of color. My family's home was one of those that was taken by the use of eminent domain and removed from the city in displacement efforts. In fact, my front door is now the driveway entrance to Portland public schools. Matthew profit center I'm here today because I'm so pleased that at this time, the council has considered the opportunity and the necessity for allowing community based development to lead and be an important priority in its considerations and deliberations, particularly in the neighborhood that was pulled asunder by a city council many, many years ago. You can't change the narrative, but we can certainly drive forward with a better one, a more inclusive one. My response to the resolution recommending that the city form a development partnership with albina vision trust, is based on the level of dedication and movement that ave has demonstrated over the past ten plus years in cultivating widespread community engagement in its focused, forward thinking that recaptures will restore, rebuild and reroute the home of the majority of portland's black community in lower albina. I believe that ave has proven it has the cultural knowledge and professional skills necessary to successfully navigate and negotiate a path forward with its vision that matches the city's. It has repeatedly demonstrated it is well versed and capable in critical community outreach, property development, real estate acquisition and stewardship, and even determining and going forward, to gather together all the partners who should have a vested interest in the best Portland we can create. This is certainly demonstrated as went. Johannes just said, in the development of the 94 unit albina one on flint avenue and broadway, the first significant development in that community that was mine and is yours as well in over 40 years. It was nationally lauded. It has received numerous awards and even a significant amount of financial contribution in the last administration that was taken back in the current administration. It has intimate knowledge and local community investment. It has dedicated itself to creating and stewarding land reclamation, rebuilding cultural excitement and engagements, and restoring presence and pride in what is possible for our once thriving black community. I don't believe that the city administrator, this council would have to look far or further, or create a long time process to identify a development partner who brings this these significant attributes to the next phase of your work. Albina motor center. It's all the same territory, and it should be thought of in concert with each other and not separately, as was done when the motor center was promised as a gathering space in lower albina, a place of joy and activity throughout the year, not just when the blazers were in town. That didn't happen. I've seen the work of ave as you have. I've been one of the many, many community members, business government reps who have come together across differences to find ways of negotiating together a path that will better lower albina, contribute, contribute economically to the city and allow us all to have joy and cultural opportunity, as well as wealth building and financial security in lower albina. I believe in buying back land that was taken. I believe in rebuilding community and I certainly believe in rerouting the values and the cultural significance of lower albina. In partnership with the city of Portland. Thank you.
317 Thank you both very much. Wendy, do we have any public testimony signed up?
318 No one signed up.
319 Okay, colleagues, we're going to move into discussion. I know there is an amendment filed, and we are going to try to use our words efficiently so we can get to the presentation. That is also on our agenda today. Councilor Avalos go right ahead.
320 Okay. Thank you. Let's see. All right. Let's start with thanking my two colleagues for bringing this proposal forward. So throughout all of our discussions about moda, I get that this is intended to go alongside it. I have been thinking, of course, not just about the arena, but also the city owned properties adjacent to it and the enormous, in my opinion, responsibility that we have as stewards of those public assets. I also think that we can't talk about development in this area without acknowledging its history. So thank you for sharing that context. Laura. Albina was once the heart of portland's black community, and that has to be said on the record, because that is the subtext that is encompassing this conversation. And government led development decisions, displaced families and businesses. And I really want to speak to that and just say that repairing that harm is important to me. Ave has spent years developing a restorative vision for albina, grounded in repairing those historic harms and creating a new model of what development can look like. And so I want to be clear that the amendment I'm about to propose is not about questioning ave as a development partner. And in fact, I want to thank you, winta from ave for helping and working directly with me on this amendment. We spent all morning scrambling, trying to get it right, trying to get to a place where both of our needs could be met. And so I'm very grateful to you that those concerns that I raised, we were able to put into language that I feel good about. And I'll I will be putting forward. So what the amendment does is three primary things. First, it makes it clear that the city administrator will negotiate in earnest and exclusively with ave for the opportunity to serve as the city's development partner. So we're not telling ave that they have the first opportunity while simultaneously negotiating it with someone else. This is something that we discussed, and I agree that that we should give ave a real opportunity to make this ask. Second, the amendment makes clear that the opportunity cannot be assigned or transferred to another entity without subsequent approval. Essentially, I that doesn't prevent ave from bringing together the development and financing and other partnerships necessary to do the work. But it does simply mean that the opportunity council is providing cannot itself be transferred without coming back to council. So I just want to secure council's rights that we are, you know, if we if we decide to make you a partner, that any change in that partnership needs to be approved by council. So I want that guardrail. And then third, we establish a 12 month limit on the negotiation period. Again, I was concerned about, you know, this kind of indefinite nature of how it was written. And I wanted to talk through what it would look like to put some kind of a time limit. Again, we discussed this together. And that doesn't mean that the negotiations also have to take 12 months. So it also it's the ceiling. So if the city and ave reach mutually acceptable, acceptable terms sooner, great. But it also speaks to if we reach that point without an agreement or if the city administrator determines sooner that mutually acceptable terms can't be reasonably reached, then the administration has to come back to council before either continuing negotiations with ave or beginning a process to select an alternative development partner. I think that it was important that we had an off ramp and protection for everyone involved. I think that ave getting a genuine and exclusive opportunity to negotiate is important. The city getting a clear process and timeline and a viable agreement. And if a viable agreement can't be reached, then neither party is locked into an indefinite process. That was my main concern. So I want council to be able to decide what's next. And I also want to make one thing clear, because I think it's important for the public to understand what we're doing today. Today, this resolution, we are not transferring the development rights today. So just to be clear, we are establishing the process through which the city will negotiate a potential development partnership, and any binding agreements will have to return to council for consideration. So that means that council is going to have another opportunity to evaluate this agreement, including the value of the city's development rights, the disposition strategy for these public properties, any proposed public financial support, the responsibilities of all the parties involved and whether the final agreement is in the public's interest, which is ultimately our responsibility as legislators. So I think that that strikes an appropriate balance. And ultimately, laura bina is a powerful example to me of what can happen when government makes consequential development decisions without the people most affected having power in those decisions. And so I'm hoping that we can write this next chapter differently. I do want restorative development. I want community partnership and public accountability. And again, thank you so much for working with me to put together language that I think can accomplish those goals. So with that, I will move Avalos amendment one.
321 Thank you. Councilor, is there a second?
322 Second.
323 Okay.
324 Councilor Morillo, you're in the queue.
325 Yeah. Councilor Avalos, thanks for bringing this forward. I was curious if we could get more rationale behind using the word exclusively in your amendment.
326 Yeah, we discussed this, and ultimately it was about giving them the true first right to refusal and ensuring that they are able to not have to compete with other interests. So we're just being really explicit that we're giving them a year, essentially to work with our team, make a proposal again, still has to be approved, but just gives them the security that they can actually make a true first bid. So extra protection for them. I can see both sides of, you know, if that's good or not, but I decided to go with it. Feeling like the rest of the protections protected the city's interests.
327 Okay. Is donny or sorry, dca oliveira or any legal people here to help us today?
328 We have both an attorney and our dca in the room. Yes.
329 Attorney is the word I was looking for.
330 Thank you. Why don't we have you both come up so that we're prepared? No matter where this question heads?
331 And maybe this is also a question for the city administrator too. So anyone who wants to take a stab at it. I think my my question is. So I'll give you a preamble. We are doing what I think is similar to the term sheet, where we are coming up with a. We are saying, this is not a commitment. This is just a list of things we're looking at. But there absolutely is a political commitment. And this is the first that I'm seeing. This resolution. We were not necessarily briefed on it or the full potential for the items and what is possible here. So bear with me as I ask these questions. It is to wrap my head around it and really try to get to a yes, is what I'm getting to. What does it look like? Because a, b, t is not the only community developer here in the city, what does it look like for the city to negotiate with anyone else, or to even have a process where we've had processes in the past where the city includes additional points for community led organizations or affected folks who are bidding for different projects. So what would it look like to negotiate with other people, or what has that looked like for similar projects? Maybe that's a better question for donnie.
332 Yeah.
333 So thanks for the question, councilor. Taking away from this project, if I may, typically, if we were going to be looking at a disposition of property, we would have we have a process. The city has a process for that, right? You've experienced it as council to take action on that. So typically we would send out a notification and work with a potential developer on a variety of different, you know, elements depending on what we're looking for. Are they going to develop housing on it? Are we just selling the property at market value to get it off our books, whatever the case may be, in this particular case, what the resolution is, is essentially framing is that as we're parallel negotiating lease terms for the related to the moda center, once those which currently are in the current bridge agreement belong as first right of refusal to the blazers, we would pick up the what would happen on day one after that bridge agreement ends. We think that the. At least the base language of the resolution was pretty clear that we would still work with, in this case, a v t, to ensure they met all the requirements that we think are practical, ultimately to come back to council for final vote. That's really important to really get on the record. This isn't you all handing them the keys to the lots. There's still a process they would have to go through, and that's outlined in the resolution. The difference here is that you're just giving us a direction which happens in housing projects. By the way, there's when we have property that we work with our nonprofit partners on, we typically do an RFP or an rfq. We're sort of using this process instead of that in this particular case.
334 Okay, that makes sense. So with property disposition, in other cases, do we have an open process or do we sole source regularly?
335 Typically it's more open.
336 So it would be abnormal for us to do sole sourcing right now for this.
337 This I don't think this is giving them the parcels to be really clear that you're essentially giving the administration, you know, guidance to work with a partner in this case, a v t to contemplate the transition because we don't have the rights technically to hand over. So what you're basically saying is, hey, negotiate in good faith with a v t and come back to us for that formal process that we would go through, still have to go through council to actualize that, that disposition.
338 Gotcha. And what is the criteria that we normally look for to say that a developer is capable of building out a parcel as large as this?
339 It depends on the project. Councilor. It could range from experience. Sort of commitment in the community, values based, you know, elements that we would do, the project team, who's their project team, all those sorts of things. Pretty standard stuff for development. And in this case, we, you know, we would trust that we would work with a v t to outline those those parameters.
340 Okay. I think I, I'm comfortable with this amendment and I feel like maybe just stay up here because we might have more questions for you. Sorry. I think I'm comfortable with this amendment. If we can remove exclusivity out of it, because I think that's too binding. This is already, I think, making a pretty large commitment to a v t and saying that we are going to look at them first. But this is not the only community developer that exists that focuses specifically on albina and displaced folks in that neighborhood. So I think. This resolution, to me is already written as sole source. Am I wrong about that, donnie? I mean, sorry, dca oliveira I should stop doing that. It's too casual.
341 That's all right.
342 The word exclusivity does cause us a little pause. We want to remain as open and flexible as possible to the process, and we'd want to send a signal broadly that while we are absolutely working with v t, we are not bound until we do the process.
343 Okay.
344 Our normal disposition process.
345 Yeah, I would just, I just it's, it's not even about a v t honestly, I think we've just been told to make a lot of commitments over the past few weeks for a lot of things that we don't have information on. And it's hard for me as a councilor to do that. So if you're okay with removing exclusivity out of it, then I would be okay with this amendment.
346 I am totally okay with that. And so procedurally wise, what did we do last time? Is it.
347 Remove it.
348 Draw Avalos one. You would resubmit as Avalos one a with that word removed.
349 Thank you. Yeah. So you're going to specifically you're going to remove and exclusively both of those words. Everything else stays the same. Thank you.
350 And I.
351 Want a second.
352 Yes. Second to the amendment. I like it and I have follow up questions after we vote on this amendment. Thanks.
353 Okay.
354 Thank you. That actually addresses the question that I had here. Colleagues. I don't see anybody else in the queue. I do see our colleague councilor Smith here and councilor Smith. I wasn't sure if you wanted to speak at all today and if so, if you wanted to speak to the amendment or to the underlying.
355 You stay here.
356 I was going to go hang out over there.
357 Okay.
358 It just seems so weird.
359 Could you introduce.
360 This for the record? Yes, sir.
361 Thank you.
362 My name is Loretta Smith. I'm a councilor for district one. And thank you all for giving me the honor to be able to speak to this. I was good with either the the amendment or the underlying, because what I do know is that albina vision trust, they have been a leader in community based redevelopment. I was in dc two weeks ago and I ran into christopher kohls. He was the undersecretary under biden, and he was singing abt's praise in Washington, dc, and he talked about it in one of his in one of his workshops. So this is not a project that they have forgotten and that they're still trying to push. So I really appreciate christopher for letting the nation know about this project. I do believe that it's exclusivity. It makes it very clear what and who we are talking to. Being in government for over 20 years, I have seen government use organizations and put their names on things, and then they double deal and they're talking to other folks. So the exclusivity really makes sense in terms of making sure that ave is getting a fair shot at being able to develop the property that's identified. So I just want to say thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. I wholeheartedly support this project and do support you all supporting this project. Go forward.
363 Thank you.
364 Councilor. Mr. City administrator, did you have something you wanted to add?
365 Yes. Just a clarification on the amendment as well. Just to give the committee a full picture, typically on any type of development opportunity like this, we wouldn't necessarily come back to council as it relates to if this deal doesn't work, bring another deal, another developer to it. Typically, we would run a process in this to get a full spectrum of developers. And if this does not necessarily work. So I just want to caveat that for council, we wouldn't just keep coming back to you developer after developer in this just to bring in front of council as it relates to who may potentially develop the land.
366 Mr. City administrator, does that mean that under the underlying you would be directed to negotiate with albina vision trust? And if that doesn't work, if a deal can't be reached, you would then fall back on the list of criteria and continue moving forward. Under the amendment, however, you are explicitly directed to come back to council to get any new potential developers approved. So that would be outside of the the normal process process. Is that correct? Thank you. Councilor Morillo, are you back in the queue on this amendment?
367 This is after the amendment.
368 Okay, councilor Avalos.
369 All right. I'm just hearing the discussion you're having. I guess I want to understand like agree and thank you. I think the way that I wrote it was just saying, just trying to the intent is just saying like, make sure that once the clock runs out, you're coming back. Because again, my interest is the clock. And there being one, you know how you come back after I'm indifferent to. But so is there something based on what I heard, that I should change in order to address that intent that I'm trying to go for?
370 I have your intent. So we'll we can follow still follow through on that.
371 Okay? Okay.
372 I'm sorry colleagues, I'm putting myself in the queue because I'm a little concerned now because I read this as very different from that intent. Be it further resolved, this opportunity may not be assigned or transferred to another entity without subsequent approval by the Portland city council. Leads me to believe that you can't follow that intent.
373 That is for a v t. So that's a v t can't. So maybe it should say a v t specifically there.
374 I read this as saying the city could not negotiate with anybody else. If your intent is really the clock, I think that's simply the line on the last. Be it further resolved in the underlying that says. And for a period not to exceed 12 months from when negotiations begin. The rest of it, I think, binds the city administration to come back to us before they could move forward if things were to not work with albina vision trust.
375 All right. So as is, and we already took and exclusively out. So just fyi, that's what a new draft we're working from. So this be it further resolved, the opportunity may not be assigned or transferred. There's heartburn. I'm hearing about that because you feel it restricts the city administrator from doing what. Now say it again.
376 It's just outside of our normal process. If we were doing any type of development process, we would not be coming back to council with new developers each time. What typically would happen is we would make a recommendation to council as it relates to a development process, or even have a conversation with council as it relates to if we're running through a process, which developer got selected, that's typically how a process would have run.
377 Okay, so is there interest from colleagues then? I mean, I'm trying to workshop it in real time here. So I guess is there a desire to remove that section? I said my intent. That's what I'm trying to get at.
378 Let me.
379 Go to councilor Morillo. And then I might have a suggestion as well, depending on what she puts forward.
380 Yeah, I my main concern was the exclusively part. And it's a lot because of what you said, city administrator, because I, I'm sort of confused as to why we wouldn't have an open process with specific qualifications that say you get additional points if you are an organization that focuses on the community has met this criteria, you know, that does that is going to give preference without locking us in, without having seen any. I know the history of the work that's being done, but I don't know anything about this project. Like, I would love commitments on social housing. I would love to know what, what type of housing is going to be built, what these are the types of things that I think I would want to be stated on the record in order to feel more comfortable with it. But I just.
381 I think in this type of situation, what this resolution is saying is, is that we're going to work in good faith effort with a v. T is not locking the city in from the standpoint of saying you're obligated to have a v t develop this land, but it's saying that the city will make a good faith effort in working with a v t, in giving them the first opportunity to bring about a plan for the development of these parcels of land.
382 And so what you're saying, though, is say that there is this timeline, and for some reason they cannot fulfill this timeline. Then the administration gets to pick a developer without us, which may not have the community interest in that way.
383 No, we would go through a process at that point in time, public process, RFP process to find developer or people to submit proposals for the development of those parcels.
384 Okay. And so if this is a supposedly non-binding, what are the city's plans to look at any other competitive proposals?
385 You know, anytime we go through any of this type of development and it can kind of give a history of what has happened with this land, this is pretty difficult land to develop overall. And I know there's been options as it relates to people developing the land. But you got to keep in mind too, this some of this land is being used currently by the trailblazers now as a as part of their operations for the motor center. So a lot of these considerations have to be taken into when we're looking at potential developers or who may be interested in developing that site because of the restrictions that are on this site. But I'll let danny kind of talk through kind of history of development in that area.
386 Yeah. Thank you, city administrator. So councilor, if if I'm hearing you just want to repeat back so I can you're asking what process would we normally run and or what sort of commitments would we get from agreed upon partner? Is that sort of the general theme?
387 I think you've already answered that, which is that this is an abnormal process, which is fine, because we may be when you're trying to address historic harms, you're going to do something different. Right? But I think my question is based on some of the language written in the amendment of these are some things that have to be fulfilled in order to move forward or to not have clawbacks then what is the city? How is the city planning on engaging anybody else should that fall through? Is there any plan for that? Who are we doing outreach to? Is it going to be 1803 ci? Other folks who have done development projects, like what does that look like?
388 Great question. Councilor. I think the moment I'm just going to name it, because we're right in the middle of it, is we're in the midst of a pretty interesting process around the lease agreement to the moda center with the blazers. The albina rose alliance is an existing partnership between the blazers and a v t, putting them in prime position to even contemplate, as kelly mentioned already, very complex development scenarios for those parcels. So right out of the gate, why this timeline is is meaningful right now is as we negotiate with the blazers and with a v t, those are going to be cross-pollinated at some point when we come back in December for the definitive documents for the final lease, the non relocation, the development rights in there will probably be on the table as well. Best case scenario. And because of that those conversations are going to they're linked in that place. And a v t is in prime position to have those conversations. Now if we were to contemplate another viable option that that you're alluding to. Yes. But the timeline to get that done won't fit into our, our, our reality right now, which is we're trying to get to December and given a bts work with the city and the blazers to date. They're pretty practical option right now, frankly.
389 Gotcha. Okay. And I just want to reaffirm for anyone who's listening or watching, I this is my first time seeing this resolution. We didn't I haven't had a briefing on this project. I think we learned about it happening a week ago, things that you guys were working on. And there's also quorum issues. So this is our only venue to have this discussion with all the partners and the administration here. So I'm asking questions because I'm just trying to understand what the process is and what our options are moving forward. But I'll leave it there.
390 Thank you, councilor, and thank you for acknowledging the quorum issues, because two of us on this committee were co-sponsoring it through a little limited.
391 Let's be clear.
392 Quorum does not require that we cannot talk to one another. I would love it if folks would still take the opportunity to share things. It doesn't mean you cannot talk to your colleagues. This crutch is being used to, I think. Well, I'll just stop there.
393 Thank you, councilor Councilor Avalos. I put myself in the queue. You had asked for suggestions here. I think if what you're trying to do is ensure that we don't exceed that 12 month period, that there's some time boundness here in what is moving forward, but that you do want the administration to be able to move through the normal process, wherein if we can't reach a deal with av in that amount of time, they would go through that that regular process with the parameters that are laid out here. I might suggest that you strip back the amendment to just the single line at the end of the current, be it further resolved, and move a new amendment that simply adds to the underlying at the very end, and for a period not to exceed 12 months from when negotiations begin, which would give you the time boundness and also that process that says, here's what we want, because this is what we want. We're starting with this group that we know can give us that. And if that doesn't work, within this period of time, the administration would use those parameters.
394 I'm open to that with one caveat. I'm curious how you feel about the first thing that I changed, not the exclusively one where I say for the opportunity to serve as the city's instead of as the new development partners, because that's another layer for me of like, again, this is an opportunity. It's not guaranteeing that they will be that. And then having the, the 12 month, I would be fine with those two things. So for the opportunity to serve and the 12 month and striking everything else, I would be okay with moving that. And then I will continue to think and work with you all. If there are things that I feel it's still not doing, I can bring that to the council, so I'd be willing to move it forward with that.
395 I'm looking to my co-sponsor to see if that would be amenable to him or not. I don't mean to put you on the spot.
396 Yes you do. That's that's just fine.
397 Okay. I mean, to put you on the spot because I don't want to move forward without my co-sponsor.
398 How about that?
399 I'm proud to help sponsor and support this resolution. It's just going to have such a lasting impact on district two and the entire city. So I want to get this right. And the amendment has been thoughtful and it's it's caused some confusion. So I really appreciated your line of questioning, councilor Morillo, about the exclusivity that was satisfying to me, and I appreciate that. That seemed to be a friendly amendment with you. Okay. And so I can live with this version. I want to make sure we move this forward. And I think. That what's that?
400 The version we just described or the one.
401 It's the one where we add the 12 month thing to give us a safeguard. I can go with that. Okay. I want to make sure that we align this up with our conversations about moda. And I don't want us to risk losing that opportunity to keep knitting that together. And, and I think when we bring this to the full council will probably have some more dialog, obviously, because we'll add seven curious folks and we'll see where it goes from there. But I do think this is evolving quite well, and I really appreciate that we've been in dialog frequently about it with with you. And I thought we were going to be able to talk to you all much sooner, but there were just more edits that were flying around. So I apologize for my part for not bringing it to you earlier. I, I was waiting for the ink to dry with with you and councilor. Kanal. Yeah. Yeah, I can live with this.
402 Okay.
403 The one that you added on, right. You were friendly to that too.
404 Yeah. So let's clean this up.
405 Yeah.
406 How about I introduce Avalos two? Okay, Avalos two is simply going to do two things and I will share my screen so you can see. Avalos two is going to add this section here that says for the opportunity to serve as the city's development partner instead of as the new. That's part one. And then part two is we will have this. And for a period not to exceed 12 months from negotiations begin. And then I guess I take this last hand out because I'm also going to take this out. So as it stands, it would say those two things. So I'm cleaning it up here so you can see it. So you've got part one. Sorry. Let me clear this off as well.
407 If that works.
408 Yep. Part one right here. And part two right here. So that is Avalos two.
409 I love cuts.
410 So I will move Avalos two. Do I have a second for that second.
411 Okay.
412 Okay. Councilor Morillo. Are you in the queue on Avalos two. And I recognize that we're at 501. You're not councilor Morillo. I'm not okay seeing no one in the queue on Avalos two wendy, can you please call the roll?
413 Morillo I.
414 Zimmerman I Avalos. Ryan I. Pirtle-guiney I.
415 Avalos two is adopted.
416 Okay. Thank you. And councilor Morillo are you in the queue on the underlying.
417 Yeah. If if people are going to try to rush this through today when it's clear that there are more questions than I have more questions that I need answered before we leave the committee, because I need to know what the timeline is on, getting more information on how this work is going to be financed, and how that timeline is going to align with the decision we have to make to approve the development partner.
418 So councilor, there is not this specifically directs us in these negotiations to figure out many of the answers to those questions. What we have before us is a resolution saying, go work with a partner who meets these criteria. Here's one ready to work with us to see if there's a deal to be had here. And that deal would encompass who is funding what and what that looks like. There is no commitment for city money here. In fact, specifically, this points out the opportunity to bring in other dollars. It doesn't say we wouldn't at some point approve money for this, but there is not a financing plan here because we don't even know yet what the there is there. We're asking for negotiations to happen.
419 Yeah.
420 And the term sheet is doing the same thing for the deal. And we're seeing how everyone's being pressured into a decision there too. City administrator, I see you have something to say.
421 No.
422 I was just going to concur that at this point in time, we don't know any costs associated with any potential development deal with ave on this. I think part of the conversation in which we would be coming back to the city council to provide that level of detail to, as we have conversations in negotiations with ave of what that potentially will look like no matter what. Anytime you're looking at development of this size and scale, there will be some infrastructure costs associated with a project that ave or any developer may ask the city to contribute towards that development. And that's a strong thing that the city has to take under consideration. As we look at any potential development on these sites.
423 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Last word.
424 Really last word.
425 I don't have anything else to say.
426 I was going to table it. I'll tell you. I mean, I think committees are designed to work things out. And my next item that's up that will not be heard is designed to work things out. And so. I, I think this is I can't wait to vote for this. And I think committees are designed to work things out. And so I think that tabling it, adjourning this meeting, apologizing to the invited guests for the next item, I am deeply sorry that you have been here for as many hours as you have would be the most appropriate thing at this point. I'd move to adjourn this meeting.
427 I'm not sure that that's something that a councilor Who's not chair can do. You could move to table an item.
428 And is it table or continue to the next meeting.
429 Either move.
430 To it. Then I'd like to call the vote.
431 Oh, okay.
432 Well, he had.
433 The floor.
434 So councilor Zimmerman.
435 I will.
436 I will drop you guys want to vote.
437 For okay.
438 Councilor Ryan.
439 Calling the vote.
440 Okay. Is that a motion that needs a second?
441 You want to vote for it now?
442 Yeah.
443 I don't know.
444 Okay.
445 Why don't we just.
446 Councilor Ryan has moved that we call the vote. I am going to ask wendy to do so.
447 You can't second it.
448 I can second it. That moves us there.
449 Yeah.
450 We do need a motion. And a second.
451 Councilor Ryan has moved. I'll second.
452 Morillo. This is on the underlying resolution as amended.
453 Your amendment. So we're on the underlying. Yes.
454 We can just have a harder discussion at full council, because this committee is unwilling to do some of the hard work here. So I.
455 Zimmerman, absent Avalos.
456 Yeah, not my preferred method, but I do have more things to bring. And so I'll bring them to full council. I'll vote I for now.
457 Ryan. I pirtle-guiney.
458 I thank you, I want oh, go ahead, wendy.
459 Just to clarify. Oh. Aye, Morillo if you put something on the table, then you have to vote to take it off again. Otherwise you can just continue it.
460 This is.
461 A vote to pass. Yes.
462 Okay. Sorry. I was one step behind y'all.
463 It's interesting.
464 Okay. And councilor Zimmerman just added an I before you called the final vote tally. So I think we're at final vote tally now.
465 The motion to refer the resolution as amended, document number 2026-285 to city council with the recommendation to be adopted, is approved with five votes.
466 Thank you. Colleagues, I want to apologize to our guests who are in the room who's item we didn't get to, and councilor Zimmerman, who brought that item forward. We had a number of last minute amendments that popped less than an hour before this committee meeting, and things went a little longer. Because of that, we will make sure to look at our schedules for the next two meetings to ensure that within the next month, we can get all of these things on the calendar. With that, I will adjourn our meeting.