The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-03-10

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (19,495 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Under, like, really stressed out.

Okay. Do we have we have counselor Ryan on.

Yes, yes.

Good morning. I call the meeting of the arts and economy committee to order. It is Tuesday, March 10th at 9:30 a.m. Diana, will you please call the roll?

Good morning.

Dunphy here.

Smith. Ryan.

I'm here. Sorry, I'm not in person. Who's over there? I just have an eye infection that I have to quarantine myself. Thanks, Clark. Here.

Green here. Ashley, will you please read the statement of conduct?

Welcome to the meeting of the arts and economy committee to testify before. Before this committee, in person or virtually. You must sign up in. Committee agenda at w.w.w. Portland.gov cancel agenda slash arts and economy or by calling 311. Information on engaging with this 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. Deliberation cannot be allowed. If you cause disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject for for arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee might take a recess or reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying and state your name. For the record, if you're a lobbyist identified the organization you represent, virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls out the names. Thank you.

Thank you so much, ashley. Colleagues, today is the last meeting of the arts and economy committee before this council. So, you know, it's been an absolute pleasure sharing this gavel with councilor Co-chair Ryan and the rest of you. We've got a big, you know, one agenda item today of of theme, multiple items on the agenda actually to that theme, which is to sort of bring back to this committee the current state of play on the the analysis behind the future of large scale performing arts venues in regards to the market feasibility study. And so I just want to offer some framing comments before we get into this. What we're going to hear today from the from the bureau staff is not a decision document. It is a presentation on the results of the market feasibility study that the council directed to be done when it set us on this path, I think almost a couple years ago now. So we're going to hear from the bureau staff what the ex officio table had heard, and that there's been some reporting on, and that'll give us some space to also talk as a community. But we also we'll hear from folks. I think there's a number of people signed up in public comments for the general topic, as well as specific to the presentation itself, as well as I've invited some folks from the downtown neighborhood association to give some comments as well. And I want to be clear that that invitation is not because I sort of am signaling a preference one way or the other on where we go on this. It's it's coming from a recognition that I hear a lot from our neighborhood associations, this feeling of disconnectedness with city council and our council committees. And so I thought this might be an opportunity to model some of that neighborhood association to council committee type of interaction, which we don't do often enough. And the downtown neighborhood association has been very engaged in this question. So before we get into it, I think, you know, council not to put you on the spot, co-chair Ryan, but I thought I'd offer you some space to provide some framing remarks, if you'd like, because you have been in the trenches on this issue for a long time, and it's the last meeting. So I want to make sure you have due due course to say what you want to say today.

Thank you. Co-chair Green. I wasn't planning on saying anything. To be brief. I will say that I've been in this conversation with similar agenda multiple times, going back to, I think, 2022, 2023. And yet today there's a lot of new information. And I think what I'm looking for today is to be fresh, to synthesize what I listened to. And I will, and I thank you, co-chair Green, for organizing this with councilor Clark. And I think what's good about today is that we'll demonstrate a lot of transparency on what the current thinking is on our large performing arts venues. So with that, I will hunker down and listen. Well, thank you.

Thank you so much for that perspective and framing remark. Diana, will you please read item number one.

Item number one public comment on arts and economy issues. We currently have five people signed up. I'll call you in groups of two, and you can come to the table and begin your testimony when you hear your name. So first we have blake schell and evan lewis.

Hi. Am I good to go? Do I start okay? I'm blake schell, the director of Oregon contemporary, and I'm here testifying in support of the funding request emailed to the full council on Monday. This request represents 50 arts and culture organizations from across the city of Portland, spanning all disciplines and operating at every scale, from organizations with annual budgets exceeding 15 million to those under 75,000. While many of our organizations currently receive city funding, a number have lost funding due to the restructuring of the equity investments and fiscal year 25, or the elimination of those funds in fiscal year 26. Still others, despite meeting eligibility requirements, have not yet received funding from the office of arts and culture. We bring this request forward at a moment of significant strain for the arts. Alongside the recent discovery of approximately 8.5 million in unanticipated and likely unauthorized reserve funds at a historic low point for arts funding, this reserve presents a critical opportunity to stabilize portland's arts ecosystem. As for Oregon contemporary, our next exhibition is our 2026 biennial, and it's the show that the current federal administration doesn't want you to see. It's focused on the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence, and specifically, voices of those who have never been included in we the people. We will present months of programs in our galleries, as well as partnering programs across the city at over half a dozen venues, from exhibitions and galleries to theater performances, art and schools, walking, race talks and programs at the central library. The exhibition will conclude with an event on July 4th, with a reading of the declaration of independence and community responses in the fall, the national endowment for the arts denied our already approved grant for the biennial, based solely on the names and bios of the Oregon artists included. Courts have ruled that nea's previous grant cancellations violated the first amendment, but any litigation would likely take months to years well beyond the time frame of our exhibition. In addition to legal fees we cannot afford, this is just one example amongst many of why it's even harder to adjust to large losses of funding from the city of Portland at this time. We cannot count on federal funding to provide arts and culture to our city. We have to make and support portland's creative future and well-being here at the city level together. Thank you.

Thank you blake. We'll look for those emails. Go ahead and begin when you're ready. Please introduce yourself for the record. Thank you.

Yeah. My name is evan lewis, and I am the executive director of third angle new music. We are a modern music ensemble based in Portland and proud to be celebrating our 40th anniversary season this year. We are also grateful to be recipients of general operating support from the city as part of this coalition of arts organizations of all sizes that cosigned a letter requesting an immediate release of some of the newly discovered funds from art tax collection. I'm speaking as the leader of a mid-sized organization that is working hard to continue to produce art in the city during a challenging time when arts funding is in dire straits. We are a city of artists and arts lovers, and as someone born and raised here, I've always been proud of how creativity and self-expression are encouraged in this city. Keep Portland weird is a sentiment that resonates with all of us. We are a city that shows up to support art. We are engaged, we are enthusiastic, and we are passionate. We all want a robust arts community and to support the artists and organizations that are doing the work in our communities. But when funding is cut, the arts suffer less, art is created, artists have a harder time being able to support themselves, and arts programs get cut, arts organizations shut down. And as we are seeing all over the country, over and over again, once arts programs cease and organizations close their doors, this art does not come back. When it is gone, it is gone for good, and we are all the poorer for it in so many ways. By immediately releasing a portion of these taxpayer funds that are earmarked specifically for supporting the arts, you can help keep organizations stable, you can help fund stability for artists, and you can make a tangible difference in the arts ecosystem of this city. At a time when we all need art more than ever. Please release the funds. Thank you for your time.

Next up we have charlene, hannibal, samuel hobbs, and jack dickinson.

Okay.

Please begin when you're ready and introduce yourself for the record.

Okay. Good morning. Councilors. My name is charlene hannibal, and I am the executive director and co-founder of open space, a professional contemporary dance company and school located in the Kenton neighborhood of north Portland. And today, I'm offering feedback on the draft grant guidelines for operating support for arts organizations, specifically, the requirement that organizations must have three years of filed 1990s to qualify for operating support. Open space incorporated in 2020 during the height of the pandemic, like many newer arts entities in Portland, we took a major risk launching a performing arts organization at a time when theaters were closed and the future of the arts was uncertain. In just five and a half years, through grassroots support and under the fiscal sponsorship from an established Portland arts nonprofit, open space has grown into a thriving community arts organization. Today, we operate with an annual budget of over $700,000. We present four professional productions each year, including performances at portland's newmark theater. We serve over 250 dance students ages 2 to 25, and we provide scholarships, discounted tickets, and free outreach performances throughout the year. We have built all of this without government funding, relying instead on community support and the dedication of homegrown Portland artists. I trained in dance professionally with Oregon ballet theater, and my co-founder danced for a decade with northwest dance project. Our story is not unique. Many of portland's emerging arts organizations grow out of the talent pipelines of our larger institutions. However, the proposed guideline requiring three full years of 990 filings would make organizations such as open space ineligible for operating support until fiscal year 20 2829. Despite the fact that we are already producing professional work, employing artists, serving hundreds of students, and contributing to portland's cultural economy, in reality, becoming a nonprofit takes well over a year, and many organizations offer quality arts programing as llcs whilst awaiting federal approval. Organizations often do not file their first 990 until a full fiscal year has passed. This means many groups are actively producing work for five or more years before they meet this requirement. I respectfully ask that the council reconsider or modify this requirement so that younger organizations that demonstrate artistic excellence, community service, and fiscal competence are not automatically excluded. New organizations are what keep a city's arts ecosystem alive, evolving, and innovative. They attract new artists, expand access to communities previously underserved, and help ensure that Portland remains a place where creative risk and artistic excellence can flourish. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, charlene, for raising that up today. Please introduce yourself. For the record.

Yeah, my name is samuel hobbs. My pronouns are any that are respectfully used or arts advocate. And for the sake of transparency, I am wearing white skin with an olive tone over biracial mexican body. I'm here today representing a layer of portland's arts ecosystems. Whose future will this policy will determine? I'm the artistic director of the Portland dance company push fold and the pdx festival of contemporary dance. I also serve as a member of the pdx dance coalition, Portland arts leaders, the Multnomah county cultural coalition, and several national affinity groups to uplift marginalized voices. And I previously served on the p5 venues workgroup, so I'm speaking today not from opinion, but from direct experience inside the ecosystem. I was also born and raised here. Right now, the draft operating support guidelines raise the eligibility floor to a 200 k three year budget average, up from 75 k, require full time administrative staffing and assume permanent office space by banning po boxes. Those rules exclude many small and mid-sized organizations doing year round community work, often without permanent offices, and frequently offering programing that is free to the public. These are not emergent organizations. Many have served Portland for 8 to 15 years, so I would like to understand if an organization has served Portland for 8 to 15 years, but averages $150,000, where exactly in the system are they supposed to exist? Presenting this policy is expanded support while quietly narrowing eligibility is catfishing the public about what this actually does. This is not a proposal redesign. It is a cut. It is trickle down economics. Let me make this real. We are roughly a $275,000 organization serving thousands each year. We spent three years building to qualify for the $75,000 benchmark through COVID. Under this proposal, we do not qualify because more than 40% of our budget is in-kind. Our two full time administrators are volunteers. I don't get paid. Less than 4% of our budget goes to administrative expenses and everything else is programing. Cities do not lose their cultural ecosystems all at once. They lose them one small organization at a time, increasing the budgetary benchmark 266% and closing access this year entirely. This proposal is a bomb for the arts in our city. So here are solutions. Keep the $75,000 benchmark open access this year and keep the program annual with multi-year support. Allow in-kind support and evaluate organizations based on expenses, not revenue. Scale compliance with reporting requirements, and remove data arts reporting for small organizations. We need to be transparent about what this policy draft is actually paying for, and audit for a mid-sized org cost 15 to $30,000, data arts 3 to 7 k in time and labor. And for reference, the minimum operating support grant being discussed is roughly $25,000. 25 k is about one sixth of the salary of a single executive at a large arts institution. Based on public filings, one sixth for one person. For small organizations, 25 k goes almost entirely into artists programing and community access, and can ensure a company exists for one more year, not one sixth of a person. A full company for a full year. Small arts organizations are the infrastructure of portland's cultural ecosystem. Collectively, we employ more artists and industry professionals. We reach more neighborhoods. We activate the community spaces that bring people out into the city at night. We are the pipeline for new audiences into the arts, which drives millions in the economy across Oregon. We are how larger institutions exist. We are how we revitalize this city. This policy will shrink portland's cultural ecosystem instead of strengthen it. We need more voices in the ecosystem, not just the same few. Thank you.

Thank you samuel. And if you haven't already, will you please email those comments to the clerk or our offices? Thanks.

Final call for jack. If not with that testimony closes.

Thank you diana, and thank you for everyone who provided testimony in the general kind of comment period. That was very helpful. I see some hands up from some of my colleagues. Councilor Clark.

Olivia Clark: Thank you, mr. Chair. I just wanted to echo that remark. I really appreciate the people coming forward and informing us. I always learn a lot from what I hear from the public. I don't know if it's appropriate right now, but it seems like at some point we need to talk about this draft operating grant, what people are talking about, because I wasn't aware of it and I really appreciate them bringing it forward.

I'm going to say it's appropriate right now. We can take a little space. I think we have terrific time for that.

Is there someone who can actually address it in the room or. I know.

I see charities coming forward. Can I maybe give us a little bit of context on that and how we can engage? Thanks.

Good morning. My name is charity montez. I'm the director of the office of arts and culture. Testimony this morning was about draft guidelines for the operating support program that the office of arts and culture published a few months ago. We have been actively receiving input, community feedback on the guidelines. We are still receiving feedback until April 1st. The long story is that when our office formed, we took over the general operating support grant program directly from the regional arts and culture council. We ported over the guidelines exactly the way rac had been managing them, and when this council adopted the outgoing city wide grants policy, it was clear that we needed to bring that operating support program into alignment with our outgoing grants policy. So we have spent the last year researching national best practices and operating support and drafting new guidelines. And we've been, like I said, receiving feedback on them for months. And we will we plan to bring the draft guidelines to one of your chiefs of staff meetings so that you can provide input as well.

Thank you. Charity, I know that kind of puts you on the spot. That's not why you came here today, but I appreciate your expertise. Does that conclude your your comments? Okay. Councilor Ryan.

Dan Ryan: Thank you, coach Green. Actually, I was going to ask for someone from the administration to come up and give perspective. I didn't know what the council, what the testimony was referring to without having that moment. So thank you, councilor Clark, for asking basically the same question. And in organizing that, I've been talking to both the mayor and to the city administrator, how important it would be to have someone from the administration in that box. Of course, it doesn't have to be the mayor and ca lee every time, but I feel like that's the balance we're lacking in these meetings sometimes. So we have better understanding in our roles as community facing legislators. I appreciate the context. I look forward to reading your emails as well. Charity. So I get better. 360 on what we just listened to. It was hard to swallow when we did when we did have that context. Thank you.

Thank you, co-chair Ryan. Councilor Dunphy.

Jamie Dunphy: Yeah, you know, I want to I want to jump in and fully and full throatedly defend charity in her operation. This council has historically underfunded the arts. End of sentence. We don't give enough money, and the pot of money that we are paying for the arts is increasingly diminishing. And we are now actively pitting teachers against large organizations, against small organizations. That's a reality. I want to give councilor Ryan and vicariously also darian and charity a lot of credit about the work that has done to professionalize and rightsize the way that the city does arts. When I worked for commissioner Nick fish, I started the work of beginning an audit of rac, of rac, and it was absolutely the correct decision to take all of that administrative work back in-house. Rac did their best, but without guidance from city council for over 30 years, the program went awry and there was almost no accountability. This is a process of trying to right size it, and obviously an arts organization cannot have the same level of requirements as a construction firm. But there are still some basic things that we should ask for from our our contracts, from our grantees. If we haven't nailed it yet, then we will adjust. But so far, the office of arts and culture has been doing a fantastic job of modernizing, professionalizing, and standardizing how we give dollars. I also want to be directly responsive to some of the testimony we heard about the arts tax reserve that has been sitting here. It is my intention and I will, in the coming hopefully weeks, be filing an ordinance to distribute some of those dollars. My intention is to get 3 million additional dollars out over the next two years. So a million and a half to try and backfill the amount of cuts that we had to take this year. That's not a permanent solution. And I look forward to working with this council on a permanent reforms to the arts tax and to how we fund the arts, but as a as a interim backfill measure, I'm trying to get those dollars out as quickly as possible. So I look forward to working with anybody on this committee or any of my colleagues. And again, I just want to give my thanks to the office of arts and culture for trying to, in the middle of a pandemic, rightsize how we support the arts for the long term. Still a lot of work to do, but they are. Honestly, they take a lot of the the heat that is actually supposed to come to us. It is our decisions and they are implementing. So please come yell at me. Don't yell at darren and charity anymore, okay? Thank you.

Thank you, councilor.

Dunphy so much, president Dunphy, for that acknowledgment. It was a very difficult process, and I think charity and darian both have just been so professional in keyword professional, in right sizing this and making it so it's objective, data driven and way more transparent than ever before. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. And I just this kind of dialog with the public is what I was hoping we, we would use these public comment periods for. So thanks for daylighting your intention to bring that ordinance forward. My office would be happy to help you as you see fit. Thank you, councilor Clarke.

I just want to say I really appreciate the context that you provided. And so that's all kind of new to me. You get bits and pieces in the news and you don't really know what's going on. So I really, really appreciate that. And your forward thinking, I hope to be able to support everything that you're trying to do in the arts tax. So thank you for that.

Thank you, colleagues. At this moment, let's move forward on the agenda. Diana, will you please read item number two.

Item two, future of large scale performing arts market feasibility study.

Welcome. Today. Please get settled and introduce yourselves for the record. All right. Thank you chair. Good morning everyone. Donnie oliveira deputy city administrator, administrator for the community and economic development service area. As the team gets the deck teed up, I just wanted to use this moment to set the stage for the content that we're going to be presenting this morning. The city of portland's performing arts venues are in the middle of a significant sea change. I think as we contemplate the future of operations, as we look at our our venues as assets, as spaces where we enhance culture, appreciation for arts and performance, we also have to take care of the houses. And we've embarked on this perilous, at times but significant journey of contemplating the future of performing arts. In our largest venue, the keller auditorium, the city owned asset, as well as looking at other options as we contemplate the future of that space, a couple of things I want to share as we as we tee up this conversation. First, we are in the middle of a continuation of a process where we're gathering feedback, insight from subject matter experts, key stakeholders to ultimately provide the city council with the the data points and the information you will need to help guide the next decision points on this. On this decision of what becomes of the keller and potentially a new performing arts venue. But this is not a decision that's happening in a vacuum. As the city takes on the operations and contemplates the future of operations for the five venues, we also have aging assets that need investments. So not to sound like this is a doomed scenario. Hardly. This is actually an opportunity for us to contemplate strategically how we approach all these decisions, because to approach each one in a vacuum would be doing disservice to the other venues, our resident companies, but frankly, to our communities who cherish these spaces for activity, art and culture. The last thing I just want to offer is there's a lot of information that came out after the market feasibility study was released. That was just a single data point, an important one. I don't want to minimize it, but no decisions have been made. Ultimately, this body, the full body, will be playing a significant role in determining the future of our venues. And so with that, I'll turn it over to charity and to to kick off the deck.

Thank you. Dca oliveira. Good morning again for the record for this item. My name is charity montez and I'm the director of the office of arts and culture. I am joined by my colleague.

Darian jones, and I'm the assistant director of the office of arts and culture.

Darian will be helping me with the slides. Next slide please. So for this morning's presentation, I want to share some background on our reimagining downtown performing arts project and the two related workflows, future of Portland five and future of large scale performing arts. I will share information about the future of large scale performing arts steering committee, their work and timeline, and I'll share information about the mayor's future of large scale performing arts. Ex officio table. The timeline for that body. Then I will present the findings of the market feasibility study conducted by our consultants and partners, and I will end with some next steps on our work. Next slide please. You can go to the next slide. Thank you. So reimagining downtown performing arts is our umbrella for two separate but related projects. The future of Portland five is to determine a new operating and management model for all Portland five venues, which includes keller arlene schnitzer concert hall and antoinette hatfield hall, which houses three theaters newmark, winningstad and brunish. The future of large scale performing arts is a project to determine the future of keller auditorium. Considering a major renovation, a new build at the PSU site, or both, and each workstream has a number of tasks that I want to share our project updates on. Next slide. On the future of Portland five side of things. In 2025, the city and metro jointly convened excuse me, a performing arts venues workgroup, to make recommendations regarding Portland five's governance and management model. The workgroup recommended the dissolution of the iga between the city and metro. The group also recommended that the city, as owners of the assets, take responsibility for determining a new operating model. On December 31st December 31st, 2025, metro notified the city of its intent to withdraw its role as operator of Portland five on June 30th, 2027. This means that Portland five management transfers from metro to a new operator, either the city or a third party operator, or some combination on July 1st, 2027, which is in 16 months. In January, the city launched a request for information for Portland five venue operations, with the goal to gather interest in operating model ideas and to understand the availability of operators in the marketplace. Deadline for submittals or responses to that request for information is this Monday, March 16th. The facility condition assessments of the venues are in progress. Metro is leading that work, and they did publish high level executive summaries at the end of February, but we expect to receive the detailed final reports in April and then by not on the slide, but by December of this year, we plan to have an operating model identified so that we're ready for that transition in 2027. Next slide please. In the future of large scale performing arts work stream, we have a number of completed tasks and works in progress. First, we do have a 2024 study outlining outlining the economic impacts of a closure at the keller auditorium. And that was identified as $50 million in lost output each year that it's closed. That impact was the impetus for the 2024 ordinance to consider a two broadway capable venue strategy, in which a new keller is first built at the PSU campus, followed by a major renovation of keller auditorium, thus avoiding prolonged closure of the keller and ensuring the continuous operations of broadway shows and other performances. The 2024 ordinance called for a number of additional tasks called for traffic studies. A preliminary transportation study was completed last year as early due diligence. It found no fatal flaws with either the location of the new build at PSU or the proposed renovation of the keller auditorium, or or both at the same time. The ordinance also called for a steering committee as needed, which we launched in November last year, called the future of large scale performing arts steering committee. The mayor's ex-officio table launched in January. And what we're here to talk about today, the market feasibility study that is work that we started in August of 2025, and the final report was published in January of this year. Next up is an economic impact study narrowing in on two options major renovation at the keller site or a new build at PSU. And we're also working on a budget note for council. For council vice president Clark that will be ready at the end of April. Next slide please. So the future of large scale performing arts steering committee is made up of a seven professionals with technical expertise in fields relevant to the project, including architecture, construction, finance, fundraising, performing arts, public private partnerships, real estate development, urban planning and venue operations. And folks on this steering committee applied and they were appointed by dca oliveira. Next slide please. Topics for review and discussion by the steering committee include recommendations from the performing arts venues, workgroup results from the transportation study, findings from this market, feasibility study, potential funding and or partnership opportunities, and other emergent topics. Their timeline is that the steering committee will meet at least six times between November 2025 and June 2026, and the steering committee will make recommendations on next steps and future direction for the future of Portland. Five or sorry future of large scale performing arts project to dca oliveira in June 2026. Next slide. In parallel to the steering committee, the mayor's ex officio table is made up of 16 key stakeholders in portland's performing arts ecosystem. Stakeholders were invited by mayor wilson and include elected officials from the city of Portland, Multnomah county and metro business interests. Labor representatives and users of the keller auditorium, including touring, broadway and nonprofit arts organizations. Next slide. Similarly, the topics that this table is considering are include earlier project developments and milestones, recommendations from the work group, results from the transportation study, findings from the market feasibility study, and the timeline is that the ex-officio table will meet four times between January and April 2026. The table will make culminating recommendations on the best course of action, as the city considers the future of keller auditorium and the potential new venue at Portland state university to mayor wilson in April 2026. Next slide. With that, I'd like to shift to the market feasibility study, which was completed by honda and partners. They are experts in destination real estate development, tourism and placemaking. The full report is 180 pages long. It was shared with you and published in January, and it's available online on our dedicated project page. And the next 27 slides that I'm going to go through were taken directly from the executive summary. And I will do my best to represent herndon's work. Next slide. Hunden was tasked with answering three key questions. Is there sufficient demand for two broadway capable venues operating concurrently in Portland? What are the optimal user types, event types, and programing strategies? And what are the ideal seating capacities and technical capabilities to meet current and future marketing needs? To answer those questions. Scope of work included. Review and analysis of existing reports and background information. An overview of market trends and case studies in comparison markets. Sizing and scoping the needs and interests of venue, renters and arts presenters and their potential audiences, and assessing the supply of current and planned venues in the Portland region. Next slide. Hunden looked at the proposal for a renovated keller auditorium, which was put forth by halprin landscape conservancy. You'll see the cost on that. The city's cost estimation to handle just the seismic deficiencies at the keller auditorium is approximately $119 million, and the city's cost estimation was approximately $290 million for halprin's proposed major renovation. Next slide. Hunden also looked at su's proposed performing arts and culture center, which comprises two performance venues and a conference hotel on campus. Cost estimates. There are 115 million for the 1200 seat academic theater, and 350 million to 425 million for a new 3000 seat, broadway capable venue. Next slide please. Hunden analyzed the sites. The keller is the orange block on the map. On the right at the top, and you can see that the PSU site is in Green below. It's about a half a mile to the southwest from the current keller site. The two sites are connected by the open space sequence, a series of walkways and urban parks that you can see represented in those Green dashed lines, and both locations are within walking distance of hotels, a range of dining options, and public transportation. Next slide. Hunden also looked at the two new commercial, concert and live entertainment venues that are proposed in Portland. The aeg monkey presents venue at lloyd center has a proposed capacity of 4250 people, and is slated to open in 2027, and the live nation Portland music hall is also slated to open in 2027. That has will have a capacity of about 3500 people. These venues are expected to pull some concert demand from keller auditorium and arlene schnitzer concert hall, diminishing the need for another large venue that can host the commercial content. So the non broadway commercial content next slide please. Hunden conducted interviews with key stakeholders and found that an extended closure of keller auditorium would impair local arts organizations and push away broadway across America for years. A surplus of available venue space could cause widespread financial shortcomings at local venues, and portland's existing large scale performing spaces are severely lacking modern capabilities, and that was true for both the keller auditorium and the arlington concert hall. Next slide please. Hunden held numerous interviews with leadership at broadway across America, the presenter of touring broadway shows at the keller auditorium. Key takeaways from those conversations include that the keller is fully functional as a venue for touring broadway, but would benefit from accessibility improvements and updated amenities. A multi year closure of keller risks eroding portland's broadway audience and forcing skilled labor to relocate away from Portland. New commercial venues could siphon concerts and events from the keller, creating additional commercial demand reduction. Portland is a strong one week market between san francisco and seattle, but it's not able to sustain two week runs consistently of broadway shows, doubling the broadway type venue. Inventory risks diluted demand across the venues, and a weaker weekday attendance. New venues in other markets have resulted in sustained audience and subscription growth and improved production capability, and broadway does not recommend two broadway capable venues in Portland, rather maxing out the broadway potential at a single, larger capacity venue of 3200 to 3400 seats with a one week subscription would maximize venue returns. Next slide please. Hunden conducted a survey of Portland five attendees and received more than 5000 responses. This is something people care about. Key takeaways there include that nearly all survey respondents come from Oregon, and more than 70% of respondents are aged 50 or above. Concerns about safety downtown and the rising costs of tickets and fees are major attendance barriers. Facility issues at the keller auditorium are a consistent pain point, reinforcing the strong desire for modernization or significant upgrades, and respondents showed strong interest in a wider range of performances, including more broadway plays, concerts, comedy, dance, cultural programing and film with orchestra events. There's also clear demand for more intimate and mid-sized venues. Next slide. Hunden surveyed arts presenters that use Portland five theaters. They they actually surveyed commercial and nonprofit presenters, and a small number of our local nonprofit organizations responded. So key takeaways from those surveys include that responses pointed to gaps in the 300 to 600, 500 to 1000 and 1200 to 1400 seat venues, which highlights the need for flexible, mid-sized venues that better match audience demand and production needs. Users reported that rising rent, labor, security and parking costs are major barriers to access. Users reported that limiting factors at both the keller and the schnitz were venue costs, technical capabilities, data availability, and audience experience and amenities. But even if these issues were resolved, most respondents would only add 1 or 2 additional dates a year at those large venues. Users noted that factors like additional city financial support, cooperative marketing, and a stronger downtown environment are just as important to their long term market viability as the venues themselves. Next slide please. Hunden looked at Portland five utilization and visitation and found that in fiscal year 24, 84% of Portland five visitors came from within a 25 mile radius, drawing from the nine counties around Portland. Hunden considers those local visits, even though we might think of them as regional. In fiscal year 24, Portland five hosted nearly 800 events, and 25% of those were from broadway and commercial content. The the majority of events come from resident companies and nonprofit arts presenters. Keller attendance has stayed steady, mainly due to broadway shows, but overall attendance at Portland five remains below pre-pandemic levels due to lower nonprofit attendance, and the keller is the only profitable Portland five venue subsidizing losses at other venues. Next slide. Hunden analyzed visitation for seattle and its two broadway theaters in comparison to Portland and the keller auditorium. In that graphic, you'll see that if it's blue dot, that means it goes to the keller. And if it's a red dot, it means it goes to one of the venues in seattle. So with the two venues, seattle generates more visitation compared to Portland, largely because seattle's designated market area is 2.1 million people more than Portland. Seattle theaters pull heavily from Portland and nearby markets, while the keller has a much less significant pull from the seattle market. While seattle's two venues drew in more overall, more visitation. If you look at broadway type attendance and not the other commercial, the two venues combined only generated 12% higher attendance than Portland. And when excluding blockbusters like hamilton, lion king and wicked, seattle's two venues generated 24% higher attendance compared to Portland. That really points at having multiple venues often does not equate to a level of increased supply of show or demand to justify a capital investment in multiple new or renovated venues. Next slide. Hunden looked at keller's core audience and found that its composition has remained consistent since 2019. Keller's primary audience aligns with the majority of the benchmark market's top segments, with Portland overindexing across these core audiences during broadway production runs. That means that keller already captures a strong share of these audience segments, demonstrating limited growth opportunity within those core groups. Next slide. These next three sides analyze keller's broadway performance in comparison to other markets. So first, hunden analyzed six competitive single venue, single week subscription cities with comparable designated market area populations. So that's the closest to portland's situation, where we have one venue and a single week subscription broadway shows at keller had an average occupancy of 94% in fiscal year 24, and that is slightly higher than the average occupancy of the other venues. This led to higher average attendance, but lower sales due to lower average ticket prices. At the keller in fiscal year 24, all but one of the comparison venues hosted more performances than keller, and overall the keller has had fewer performances versus the comparable comparable markets with single venues, but the keller performances have been sold at a higher occupancy rate. Next slide. Next hunden excluded those blockbuster shows like hamilton, lion king and wicked to establish a baseline comparison. They found that without blockbuster shows, keller's fiscal year 24 performances, attendance and sales decline was more pronounced than its peers pre-pandemic. However, the keller outperformed comparable venues in attendance and sales. Portland performed better than comparable markets when looking at average occupancy, weekly attendance and sales, and broadway shows in Portland perform well, but with limited ability to ability to expand the number of performances sufficient to support multiple venues. Overall, keller's larger seating capacity offers more seats per designated market area population, and that suggests that the existing supply meets the demand. Next slide. Finally, many multi-venue markets have multiple subscription weeks, so it skews the comparisons. Portland remains a single week subscription market due to our current demand. So in this slide, hunden looked at multi-venue markets with only one subscription week. They found that in fiscal year 24, Portland had higher attendance and similar sales to those markets. Average occupancy and weekly attendance in Portland was higher than those multi-venue markets, but keller had lower average weekly sales due to lower average ticket prices. Pre-pandemic, Portland generated less sales than those markets, and on average, portland's single venue, the keller, outperformed individual venues in multi-venue markets. So overall results suggest that adding a second venue would not significantly boost demand or performances and dilutes demand across multiple venues. Next slide. Hunden looked at the current utilization rates for the keller auditorium. They found that the keller is not in use 42% of all days. The keller is not in use 35% of days between September and June, which is what we would consider like the regular season. And keller is not in use 36% of fridays, saturdays and sundays, which are the prime days for big shows. Based on the current utilization, the keller has the ability to increase broadway and other commercial content without the addition of a second venue. Next slide. Implications so far, honden does not recommend that Portland develop two broadway capable venues due to the following multi-venue markets with similar designated market area populations do not perform at a level that supports the capital investment required at a redeveloped keller and new PSU venue. Average performance of individual venues in multi-use single week subscription markets is lower than where the keller currently performs. Other single venue markets show these venues have the capacity to increase broadway content as at a single venue. The supply of current broadway content at keller is lower than comparable markets. The proposed new aeg monkey presents and live nation venues will capture unaccommodated and new commercial demand in Portland, and potentially pull from existing commercial content at keller and arlene schnitzer concert hall. There is not a need for an additional venue for hosting commercial content that can offset any sharing of broadway productions between two venues. Next slide please. Honden looked at broadway shows in specific cities compared to Portland and found that despite having one venue, Portland captures over 60% of the average visitation of peer markets, with two venues highlighting reduced efficiency. Within two venues, a single venue captures most of the total combined visitation in these markets. Despite similar designated market area population, Portland draws a lower share of visitors from more than 25 miles away, indicating a more locally concentrated audience demand compared to these other markets, and the analysis of total broadway performances in attendance per venue indicates that, with the exception of cleveland and saint louis, these venues underperform Portland. On average, there is not sufficient demand to fill two venues. Next slide. Overall, hunden found that across two venue markets, broadway activity largely centers around a single primary theater, while secondary venues typically host smaller broadway productions or limited run tours. Underscoring that a second venue rarely expands the overall broadway capacity demonstrated by markets like cleveland and columbus. Major annual public and private contributions, often between 10 and $20 million, are vital for sustainability and civic and philanthropic investment, not venue count. Drive stability. Finally, on a per venue basis, only multiple subscription weeks in cities like cleveland and saint louis exceed Portland in total broadway shows and attendance, while other two venue markets fall behind, illustrating the efficiency and strength of portland's single venue model and sustaining strong demand and maximizing performance output. Next slide. A new trend in entertainment venues that honden let us know about are temporary and semi-permanent venues. These venues are purpose built for one show. They are low cost, designed to be deconstructed so you can move them to another location and ultimately operable for up to ten or, excuse me, 15 years, maybe more. Example examples like current actively happening examples include the abba voyage arena in london that has a seating capacity of 1650 people in standing room for 1350 people in like a dance floor in an immersive holographic abba show. The cost for that venue alone is estimated at 65 million, and the other cost was for the rest of the production. Canary wharf in london has 1200 seats for the hunger games, and the cost for just that venue is $24 million, and wembley park theater in london has 1000 seats for the starlight express. Next slide. Honden shared some advantages and disadvantages for Portland when considering temporary venues. Advantages include that the cost can be as low as 5 to 10% of the cost of a traditional large scale venue. Broadway content could continue during a keller renovation at a temporary venue. These venues are amenity rich. They have onsite restaurants and premium areas boosting economic development, and these venues are often in up and coming mixed use areas. Disadvantages for Portland when considering a temporary venue would include that a city controlled site would need to be identified to accommodate a venue and associated parking demand. A temporary venue dedicated to large scale, rotating or touring broadway content has not been proven anywhere. Those other examples on the previous page were all just one show. You have the same show every single day for years, constructing and dismantling the for a short period of time so the venues could last for about 15 years. But if we're considering just two years during a renovation, it has notable environmental impacts and cost recovery is difficult with a limited lifespan given the significant upfront investment needed to build, operate and then remove the facility. All that honden wanted to note that a temporary venue during a keller renovation has an end result of a keller that still does not have optimal seating capacity, attendee amenities, and production support. Next slide. Honden looked at content demand for touring broadway shows, commercial content, and resident company and nonprofit arts organizations. They found that there is insufficient market support for two broadway capable venues in Portland. The two proposed concert venues on the east side will compete for concerts and other live entertainment, and a new venue would allow resident companies and local nonprofit organizations continuity and production content, and maintain financial support from the keller during construction of a new venue. Honden feels this is pointing towards a single, new broadway capable venue in Portland. Next slide. So, as a reminder, honden set out to answer three key questions with this market feasibility study one. Is there sufficient demand for two broadway capable venues operable operating concurrently in Portland? The answer is there is insufficient market demand or comparable market supply to justify two broadway capable venues in Portland. Two what are the optimal user types, event types, and programing strategies? The answer there, a new venue should focus on maximizing broadway content and maintaining theater style commercial content, while also being an accessible home to resident and nonprofit companies. Third question what are the ideal seating capacities and technical capabilities to meet current and future market needs? The ideal seating capacity of a new venue is 3200 seats. This capacity would allow for maximum visitation and revenue potential, while also maintaining high occupancy at events. The venue should include amenities that maximize customer experience, as well as production capabilities that align with broadway production standards. Next slide. So hunden partners recommendation is to develop a new broadway capable venue at Portland state university. Reasons for this recommendation include lack of market support for two venues, limitations on achieving the optimal capacity and overall physical program, and amenities at a renovated keller full performing art campus, and support amenities achievable at the PSU site. No downtime in hosting broadway, commercial and local content, helping to maintain the subscriber base. Broadway presence and ongoing Portland five venue support and a new venue can result in sustained audience and subscription growth. Since the market feasibility study was published, some of us some have asked us why 100 partners made a recommendation at all and expressed that concern that it was out of scope. We do not believe it was out of scope, and it was a question that we were getting from many stakeholders and interested parties. If the market feasibility study said there was only sufficient market demand and supply for one venue, which venue would hunt and recommend? So we directed hunted to answer the question, and they provided their professional opinion based on the market forces and their extensive experience in the field of venue development. But as dca oliveira said, that's not a no decision has been made. I have a couple more slides from the report. So next slide please. Honden partnered with otj architects on this study, and otj provided additional information on the technical requirements of modern performing arts facilities in the face of rapidly changing cultural and technological landscape. Requirements include large ADA compliant proscenium hall with flexible seating, unobstructed sightlines and tunable acoustics. Broadway standard stage dimensions with full fly tower, orchestra pit traps, ample wing space, robust power lighting, audio and fiber based digital infrastructure. Comprehensive artist support spaces. Multiple loading docks for 53 foot trailers with direct stage access, and rehearsal studios with acoustical separation from the main venue, spacious lobbies, restrooms, concessions, vip lounges, and exclusive features such as step free routes, assisted listening captioning, and efficient elevators, and leed gold or equivalent efficient hvac and electrification, seismic readiness, renewable materials, and strong urban integration with transit connectivity. Next slide please. Finally, hundred projected demand for a new 3200 seat capacity broadway capable venue at PSU. So that's what you see in that chart on the right table on the right hand, and found that a new venue is expected to generate increased broadway demand, while the new commercial venues are expected to decrease commercial demand slightly, they found that the resident and nonprofit demand is expected to remain stable and without a blockbuster run. Total annual attendance is projected at approximately 425,000 people, with a blockbuster run in any given year. Total events are projected at 200 and generating nearly 500,000 in annual attendance. Next slide. So that concludes my presentation on the market feasibility study. Executive summary. Again, the whole study is 180 pages and we've shared that. Happy to send the link again. But I wanted to quickly or briefly speak about next steps on the overall work. Next slide. So market feasibility study presentation. We are here today. We still have the ex officio table meetings in March and April. Recommendations are will be due to the mayor in April, but we may add an additional meeting per request of the of the table. We have steering committee meetings continuing March through June. Recommendations will go to dca oliveira in June. Next we will publish those facility condition assessments. That full report that's tentatively scheduled for April 10th. But again, that's metro's contractor. So that's a tentative schedule. We will publish the economic impact study. We're also looking at April for that. And then the fiscal year 2526 budget. Note on the keller renovation response is due by April 30th. After we have completed all of this work, we believe we will have provided all the data reports, stakeholder input and technical expertise that have been requested by city leadership to inform decision making. We hope that these work projects products provide you with all you need to make sound decision for the future of large scale performing arts in Portland, and we would be happy to come back and present again when we've got all of the inputs for you. I think that's.

Thank you. Thank you so much, charity. And you'll be coming back to present to a different committee because this one is done after dave. But I really appreciate the willingness to kind of lay all this out. Colleagues, I think at this time, let's take a couple quick technical questions if you have them, because I'd really love to get through our blocks of testimony so we can get into kind of a rich discussion. Are you taking your hand down because you're in a wait? Okay, great. Councilor Ryan, I see your hand went up.

Yeah. Thank you, co-chair Green I went up because it is a technical question. I couldn't see if those making this decision, this assessment factored in the fact that the keller auditorium is on the city of portland's general ledger. Was that a factor in the assessments of this?

Yeah.

Thank you for the question, councilor. Yes.

It was was there anywhere that it was mentioned and I just missed it?

Maybe. I don't understand your question. I'm sorry.

So keller auditorium, as you know, charity is on the city of portland's general ledger. It's an asset or a liability, however you want to look at it. We own it. We have to deal with it. It's part of our deferred maintenance, if you will. Yes. Was that factored in? Since the PSU site is not.

Was that factored into the market feasibility study?

Was it factored into some of their recommendations because they make recommendations and they lean towards saying that focusing on the PSU site is better for the city of Portland and the city of Portland must factor in financial factors such as what's a part of our general ledger and what is not.

Okay, I thank you for clarifying. I believe I understand your question. London partners provided their recommendation based on market demand and supply, and the cost to renovate the keller auditorium versus the cost to build a new venue, whether it is on the city of portland's ledger or not is not it is not part of their market feasibility study, because the city would be responsible for paying for the renovated keller, or the city would be responsible for paying for the new 3000 seat venue at PSU.

Got it. So, colleagues, the reason I brought up this technical question, because it's a factor that we as city councilors who oversee our budget, have to factor into our decision making. It's a lens that they didn't use that we must utilize. Why we're making decisions. I'm not tipping my hand as much as asking a technical question to make sure that was daylighted. That wasn't part of that of their assessment. And I do appreciate that we had a chance to just stay like that as a technical concern. Thank you.

Thank you, co-chair Ryan. And thank you so much, charity and donnie, for kind of giving us the presentation in the context at this time, please stay in the room. But at this time, I'd like to invite up the folks from the downtown neighborhood association to provide about ten minutes of, of comment to, to the question, and then we'll open up item three, and then we'll go into public testimony, and then we'll we'll take stock of it all and engage in a committee discussion. So please welcome and please introduce yourselves for the record and then go in whichever order you choose. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm lynn thorsen, president of the Portland downtown neighborhood association. Thanks for this opportunity to share our concerns about the hundred report and the reasons we believe keeping the keller is best for Portland and for our downtown neighborhood. The dna has followed the process of selecting a site for the broadway capable auditorium. From the time there were multiple sites proposed, then down to three and now down to two. Over several years, we have had presentations from both PSU and the halprin landscape conservancy at dna meetings, and we have attended several presentations at PSU. We have done our research, and we have concluded that the current keller site is best for Portland. The newly redesigned keller auditorium corrects all the shortcomings, the sightlines, sound, back of house loading and unloading, restrooms, pitch of the aisles both on the floor and in the balconies. A much needed new 200 seat performance space, as well as practice spaces, are added. A new kitchen, bar and restaurant will feature a great view of the keller fountain. The keller will be open even when broadway and the ballet are not performing. There are many reasons for our support of the keller, but probably the two most important ones are one. The financial comparisons of the two sites, both in terms of construction cost and the revenue the keller generates to support all of p5. That revenue must continue to go to our p5 performing arts, and two, the revitalization of our neighborhood downtown and the businesses that have grown up around keller to support the keller in which are dependent upon the keller. Thank you.

Good morning. Councilors. My name is xavier de stickler. I'm the vice president of the of the dna, as well as a student of urban planning and architecture at Portland state university. I'm here today to represent the dna's thoughts on relocating broadway's or portland's broadway capable auditorium away from the keller. Our concern with this proposal is one born out of a deep commitment to see our downtown revitalized and its economy stabilized. Moving the keller out of the downtown core works against both these aims. This report leaves several major questions, not only unanswered, but unasked. If we move the keller, what becomes the current site? One idea floated would be to repurpose the keller into a 12 to 1800 seat auditorium. However, that cost would essentially be the same as the renovation of the 3000 seat auditorium. Even with fewer seats, you'd still need to invest 110 million to do the seismic upgrades. At least another 50 million on elevators, electrical, plumbing, etc. Who would pay for that? Transforming the keller into a reduced capacity venue would also mean it would no longer host broadway and be profitable like it currently is, and thus would require a subsidy like the other five theaters. Who would pay for the ongoing subsidy to operate it. Any otheher purpose for this site would require the current structure to be razed. Theaters cannot be repurposed. Would the city pay for those demolition costs? Would it pay for the construction of the succeeding structure? This report does not account for these mitigation repurposing costs, which would widen the already nearly $200 million cost disparity between these two proposals. Currently, the keller brings 400,000 visitors annually to the heart of downtown. There's already a well-established economic ecosystem that has grown up around and is dependent on, the keller. From family owned restaurants to existing hotels, the keller even benefits from and contributes to the existing parking structure surrounding it, with office workers using them during the day and then arts patient arts patrons excuse me using them during evenings and weekends, making efficient use of this very carbon intensive infrastructure. To be clear, the dna strenuously objects to any lesser usage on the keller site, and as far as the dna is seen, there is no alternate use for this site that wouldn't result in a decrease in the number of visitors, and a negative effect on the neighborhood ecosystem that we have spent the last 100 years building. Downtown is in a fragile state. It cannot withstand the body blow that will come from taking away this chairs, or taking this cherished institution away from the heart of downtown and our beloved keller fountain. Let me be clear the vitality and economic viability of the downtown is not some detail to be ironed out later. It's the central question. It should be your guiding star and the scale on which this decision is weighed. It's tempting to look at this decision as being between two buildings, but let me assure you, this is not the case. This is not an exercise in architecture. This is an endeavor in urban planning. You must look at the neighborhood scale, the city scale. This report has given you a data, a data point based on a very narrow criteria and consideration instead of considerations. But a final decision must come from looking at this holistically. What is best for the downtown? What can the city of Portland actually afford? What has the least negative impacts on the existing ecosystem? Those are the questions you must answer. Councilors.

Mitch Green: Good morning. Councilors. My name is diana stewart. I'm a dna board member. Again, chair Green, thank you for this opportunity to share with the committee the dna's concerns about the flawed, incomplete and misleading hunden report I've provided to each of you and have filed my testimony and the documents which form the basis of the dna's concerns. Much of this information has already been provided to the mayor's ex officio committee, but also needs to be shared with the performing arts center expert steering committee, as well as the city bureau members who are preparing a financial feasibility report for you. We will provide co-chair Green an electronic copy this afternoon and would appreciate co-chair Green, if you would ask miss montez to provide to your office email access to each of the members of each of these groups, and could forward it on as a document coming from council for their consideration. First, you'll see in the packet the colored slide deck presented by the halprin landscape conservancy hlc to city council in 2020 for the design work, remains current and shows what the that this iconic placemaking is at its best, coupling both the world renowned fountain and a world class performance venue design. Next is the city's 2025 RFP for the market feasibility study. The hunden report exceeds the study scope of that RFP, as well as the city directed scope of a feasibility study that came out in 2024, and it did so without critical information necessary for a valid recommendation. Much of the hunden report ignores the years of keller study, including keller's own feasibility study, work with hanbury architects, structural and civil engineers, theater production system experts, av designers and construction management. Cost estimates by hoffman construction, which resulted in a 384 page proposal which included increased usage opportunities from the restaurant bar, the 200 space performance center. The hunden report mischaracterizes much of this detailed work or ignores it. In contrast, hunden relies upon a vague PSU proposal wholly lacking the specificity and design work presented by the keller. The city acknowledges that without detail, it cannot determine specifically construction costs, infrastructure costs, traffic impact, and the the specifics of the management structure and costs that PSU would require and whether there'd be any spillover money available for p5. Further, hunden is wrong in concluding that the keller cannot be upgraded to a 21st century venue. The 96 page structural evaluation by cromwell engineering establishes that the renovated keller can be just as seismically safe as a new build, and can be upgraded to 21st century venue standards. See the hanbury architects report that's in the packet, refuting all the alleged keller deficiencies relied upon by hunden. The projection for a need for a33 thousand 200 seat venue is conjured out of thin air. See economist joe cartwright's report, which is included in the packet, which challenges the appropriateness and necessity of over 3000 seat available venue cost estimates provided to you in the report are also flawed. Projections for PSU are all over the place as far as the costs, so I refer you in the packet to the photo, which was the 2024 PSU cost slide that was provided to city council, where they projected the 2027 cost to be 449 million. It is now clear that that cost does not include infrastructure costs. Street and light rail reconstruction, water, sewer, etc. And is only a guess due to the plan's lack of specificity. The 2027 projected keller costs of 236 million are based on hoffman construction's cost projection. Taken into consideration, all of hlc's advance work. This is over 200 million less than the minimum PSU cost, but likely much more than 300 million less when these additional costs, which have not been factored in, are included, as identified by xavier, the report does not take into consideration the financial impact on the keller community. From a lesser usage or closure. It is only concerned about the fiscal impact of temporary closure of the keller, but fails to balance the economic benefits of the construction work and the additional economic benefit that that will bring. See the econ northwest report, which refutes the crossroads report and establishes that there will be economic costs to the neighborhood in Portland from renovation. Absolutely. Unless we find an alternative venue, but closure or a lesser usage of the keller will have major negative long term impacts on this community not considered by hunden. Eco northwest's report is an important report, and I urge you to take a look at it. And it's not part of the city's assessment of fiscal feasibility. So when you get the fiscal feasibility report, please be aware that all of these additional fiscal impacts to the community are not included.

I would like to make some comments about the impact of traffic at the PSU site. And then I have some concluding remarks. Lincoln street has great public transit, which works well now because there is very little car traffic on lincoln, but lincoln has only one traffic Lane in each direction and is very constricted with existing buildings on the north side and the max platform in the middle. Busses stop in the traffic lanes with no pullout lanes, which will back up traffic, with 500 cars all arriving and leaving at the same time. There will be congestion and delays, their intersections that will need to be rebuilt to accommodate trucks, both at substantial expense. We recommend you consult TriMet and PBOT to verify these problems can be solved before determining a site. The estimated cost of these solutions should be considered in the decision, and I have a longer written testimony about traffic concerns that I've already submitted. In conclusion, we want you to know that downtown and PSU, we know they are interdependent. Both must succeed together. The dna is working with PSU on several fronts. Renaming southwest jackson on the PSU campus, redeveloping two parcels to become community garden and a dog park for the benefit of the neighborhood as well as students. We want to work with PSU. We want PSU to be successful as a high quality educational institution in an urban setting. But if wsu's long range financial plan is to subsidize their educational programs with money generated by broadway performances, we cannot support that. Thank you. Thank you for inviting us.

Thank you, thank you diana. Thank you. Xavier.

Do you have any questions for us? Should we.

Stay stay, stay put because we need to move into committee q&a. We're going to hear from we're going to move now to public testimony. And then after that, the committee is going to engage in a dialog. And so committee members may ask you. Thank you. We got some democracy happening outside this building. So thank you for your your attention at this time. Diana, will you please read item number three into the record.

Item number three, market feasibility study. Public comment. We currently have eight people signed up. I'll call you up in groups of three. And if you'll just come to the testimony table, if you're in the room or I'll indicate when to unmute if you're online and you can begin your testimony, whoever gets there first. So first we have janet weiss, jason franklin, and sarah schwartz.

For the record, it's van west. Good morning, I'm janet van west, theater artist, producer, educator, and a union worker here in Portland. From where I sit, the debate over keller auditorium is starting to feel less like civic planning and more like an expensive piece of fiction. Fiction is personal. It's false, yes, but it carries the writer's truth. So maybe it's no surprise that PSU alumni two on this committee, one already weighing in, quoting councilor Dunphy quote there is no scenario where the keller is the right option, unquote. Really, what's been working all these years? Broadway across America. I won't repeat all the cultural arguments for preserving the keller portlanders, and you already know them. This is an economic committee, so let's talk labor. It took no time at all for the city and state to fund the moda center. Why should performing arts, our employees, our audiences, be treated any less respectfully? Sure, moda is only 30 years old, but lincoln hall at PSU and salem's elsinore theater were successfully renovated at their centennials. And now the big scare closing keller would threaten union jobs. As a union worker myself, I take that seriously. But the proposal relies heavily on Portland state university, an institution currently laying off union employees and in arbitration over those layoffs. And let's be clear, PSU expects to run the venue. Psu does not have the institutional programing courses or professors in performing arts management. Psu has rounded up the funding for one 1200 seat auditorium, which will serve their world renowned chamber choir a few times a year. It doesn't have the student population or designed coursework to run a major event center or even a hotel, especially when the current PSU hotel is operating at 15% occupancy and its restaurant has closed for the third time since I've lived downtown. Union workers should not be bargaining chips in a planning debate. Our jobs deserve real solutions, not hypotheticals. Portland five already has venues for major productions. We can keep shows running during a renovation, even broadway across America, keeping stagehands, technicians and craftspeople employed. Portland doesn't lack stages. What we lack is the will to use them creatively. Consider naming opportunities like the moda center or a potential bank of America. Keller memorial auditorium could provide private support without demolishing a community treasure. Portlanders deserve answers. Portlanders support renovation. The design is ready. Structural and seismic concerns already solved. So I'll ask again why pursue demolition and an unfunded alternative? It's time for planning rooted in reality, not fiction. Portlanders and our workers deserve better. Thank you.

Thank you janet.

Good morning councilors. My name is jason franklin. I'm the associate vice president for planning, construction and real estate at Portland state university. First of all, I just want to say a big thank you to staff and all the work they've been doing on this project. We've been involved with them over 32 months now. And I think the the work that they've done is been fantastic. And really looking at what is a very difficult issue, as you've heard here this morning, with lots of heated exchange on both sides, lots of folks very emotional about the project and about the future of downtown, the future of performing arts in Portland. And as representative Portland state, we're super excited about this project to be part of this discussion, to really figure out what is the best way to move forward for the city and for our region and for Portland state. It is this is the arts and economy committee. And so it is important to note that new construction, this facility would be 2000 construction jobs, 400 plus new permanent jobs working at the venue. It's also very important to note that we've had very successful discussions so far with hotel developers, which is kind of amazing when you think about it, when you think about the current hotel ecosystem here in Portland, what's happening to have folks come from outside of Portland to bring new money, potentially into the city, to build a hotel as part of this venue is super exciting. And to think about what that signals for downtown and where we've been, I think is, is needs to be part of this calculus. And what can a project like this really do for the city, for our reputation? And while I totally agree that this is more than an architectural discussion, it is an urban planning discussion. It's also a discussion about vision. It's a discussion about what the vision for the city should be, what the vision for downtown should be, and how we can move that forward. How can Portland take bold steps like we've done in the past, and really be a leader in performing arts and, and develop a a new venue that really sets the standard not only for performing, but also for education in the arts. And so Portland state, we're super excited again about having this discussion with you all being your partner in this, in this project, it's important to note that this would be a city owned facility on PSU property, which we provide free to the city. We are not there to make money off this project. We are not there to siphon off money for PSU programs. We're here as a partner with the city to do the right thing for the city and for downtown and for our region. So with that, I just want to close to say that we are always willing to work with both the hlc and the neighborhood association to come to kind of the best solution for this and what we can do, both at PSU site and at the keller site. So thank you again for your consideration.

Thank you. Jason.

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

I'm sorry, can you hear me now? It said that I was muted again. Am I in?

We can hear you now. Go for it.

Okay, perfect. For the record, my name is sarah schwartz and I'm president of the PSU foundation. Portland state remains excited about working with the city and partners to build an arts and culture vision for portland's next 100 years. The issue is not where the broadway capable theater should be. That's been asked and answered by the report. The issue before us is how to make two incredible opportunities the performing arts and culture center and the keller reconstruction work in tandem to benefit our arts ecosystem, serve artists and patrons, inspire students, protect jobs, and activate downtown all year. Councilor Clark, you have asked us all to consider a middle ground. Let me walk through one idea for what that could look like a broadway capable theater on the larger PSU site. A mid-size theater that meets the need for a 1500 to 1800 seat venue at the keller site, and a community theater at PSU with 800 to 1200 seats. Let me be clear we will reduce the scale of the smaller theater planned for the center to better accommodate a medium sized venue on the keller site, we want to serve a larger collaborative vision. After all, PSU is an equal stakeholder in the future of the keller. Funding is obviously the key. We have done years of homework on possible sources and are eager to problem solve. A larger vision and funding pathways with you and relevant partners. We must be cognizant that opportunities will slip away if the performing arts and culture center isn't officially greenlit very soon. Psu is secured 137.5 million in state bond funding. To secure it, 50 million must be matched by PSU by February of 2027, so bonds can be sold in spring of 2027. These are true deadlines. The PSU match will not be a problem, however, philanthropists need a sign from the city that this project is a go. The same is true of private hotel developers and private equity investors. Without decisive action, soon you will be leaving hundreds of millions of public, private and philanthropic dollars on the table. I'd like to speak briefly to yesterday's announcement that PSU will cut its operating budget over the next two years. Those careful decisions are about the university ensuring a sustainable financial future and meeting the workforce needs of today's city and region, operating funds and visionary capital investments that leverage additional funds are two different things. The center will draw visitors from around the region to performances, and the academic programing will support will draw students who will have the unique opportunities to thrive in Portland. Our future, portland's and PSU deserves bold action and we stand ready to take it together. Thank you.

Thank you sarah.

Next we have bob nadeau, julie vigeland, and christine verner.

Welcome bob. Please state your name for the record.

Should be ladies first, but.

Go however you like. Whoever goes first, state your name for the record.

Sure. My name is bob nadeau. I'm the chair of the halprin landscape conservancy. And listening to the testimony, I'm reminded of of something my father, bill nadeau, used to do. He kept a box of books behind his desk, and it didn't matter if it was a city councilor, the mayor, city staff member, whoever was in talking to me would give him a copy of this book, and I'm willing to bet that councilor Smith and councilor Ryan probably have a book collecting dust. It was called the death of common sense. It's a very small little red book, but I want to use a little of my father's common sense here today. I want to focus not on the recommendation of choosing either keller or PSU that the hutton report came to. I want to focus on the data that they actually collected in their report. That hasn't really been put to use that I've seen by either the mayor's committee or the council so far. And I'd like to start with the last page of the 100 report, which is the stabilized demand projection for the PSU theater. And the problem with what you see is it's kind of in a vacuum, as joe cartwright said, it's unsupported by any evidence and pure speculation. So I've tried to find the evidence, and I've gone back through the report and disassembled, disassembled their chart to figure out what it really said. And they never in this report tell you when PSU stabilized projections are for. And normally when we do financial projections for a hotel project, we get a ramp. And the ramp is the period from when you open hotel until it's stabilized. And that's normally a number of years. And we focus on that because that's the operational deficit that you have to fund with your construction money at the beginning, so that you still own the hotel and the bank doesn't at the end when it's stabilized. So I don't know when that period is. It's sometime after 2030 when the PSU theater opens. And so what's also missing? Is what that increase represents. And so I took the time to figure out what's going on. And that projection is a 49% increase in broadway theater attendance. And the other only place I could find in the report is and I'll give you the page, it's page 74, honda insights. The population growth of the market from 2025, which is last year to 2035 years. The population in the us is going to grow 2.1%, Oregon will grow 2.1%. The Portland Vancouver hillsboro msa, which is the market within 25 miles of the theater, grows 2.6%. So you've got a 50% increase in attendance and a 2.5% increase in the number of potential customers, and no support for that increase.

Bob, we're at time, so.

Okay, I'll let it go. I have lots of other comments, but I'll let the ladies take over. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is christine vernier. My husband and I have lived in Portland for over 50 years. In fact, we walked here today. We've donated to several downtown projects, including the james beard farmer's market and the PSU vernier science center. And we care deeply about our city. The stakes are high for Portland right now. Our city and its one vibrant downtown are in need of rejuvenation. Interestingly, our city's challenges are creating a clarity of vision and a bias toward action that Portland hasn't seen in years. That's the good news today in this city, we are talking about a host of future forward projects, things like the james beard public market, the broadway corridor development, the Green loop, albina vision district, the Portland fire, and the reimagined moda center. The renovation of keller auditorium, and the performing arts and culture center. They all reflect a compelling central vision that education, arts, culture, entertainment and culinary experiences will be the cultural and economic spark to reignite Portland. This committee is charged with thinking about the arts and the economy, and to considering projects that will attract multiple partners and funders to realize that larger vision. This is important and really exciting work. I believe today's conversation underscores the power of Portland state university as a civic force for good, with their expertise as educators, arts promoters, fundraisers, developers, and economic drivers, the university is truly a downtown anchor institution for our city. We need PSU strength and we should not take for granted everything they bring to the table. Psu always shows up to serve our city. Now is the time for all of us to show up for PSU as well. It's certainly true that moving ahead decisively with the performing arts and culture center will help transform the arts and the arts economy for Portland and Oregon, but it will also enhance one of our region's highest impact organizations as well. Portland state. We must count that as a critical benefit of this work. I know that david, my husband and I do. We are all in on the performing arts and culture center. It makes both visionary and practical sense for our region. That is why the Oregon legislature invested so early and decisively. We all look forward to seeing all of you at the 2030 opening night.

Thank you. Christine.

Co-chairs Ryan Green and members of the arts and economy committee. For the record, my name is julie vigeland. I'm a south waterfront resident. I'm also a lifelong patron and advocate for arts and culture in Portland. I've served on a number of arts boards and most specifically chaired the Portland center stage board and the campaign for the armory. I served as chair of the Oregon arts commission. I chaired the Portland parks board, and I am deeply committed to this city. I believe we have before us the opportunity to spark our entire arts and culture ecosystem, to ensure a bright future for the performing arts in Portland, to offer a lifeline to arts groups, large and small. Struggling since COVID to support and inspire students and patrons of all ages, and to bind people together as we gather in person to share meaningful cultural experiences together. That is the work of this council and this committee, and it could not be more important. I deeply believe this conversation has gone sideways publicly. The choice is not between seizing a once in a generation opportunity on the PSU campus and then abandoning or destroying keller auditorium as owners of the keller auditorium block, city officers need to make clear, as clear as possible to the public that that is the case. It is vital no one is advocating for the keller's demise. We are all invested in something wonderful happening at the keller. I am thrilled to hear that PSU stakeholders, the city and the community could work together on a cohesive and collaborative future that involves both the keller and the performing arts and culture center. We are looking at the next 100 years. Let's not restrict ourselves. I particularly commend PSU for stepping up for the last two years with expertise, with resources and positive actions, and with a consistent attitude of collaboration and service. That is the kind of mission focus that serves our city. Psu has a track record of being a willing partner. I'll end by saying that the boxes we build, whatever their size and scope, are one thing. It is what happens inside them that truly matters. It's all about art, music, dance, theater. Inside. We need to be working from the inside out with concern for our artists and the art they create. Form follows function. If we seize this moment together, we can spark the arts for Portland and Oregon and will renew our civic pride and raise the bottom line for arts, economy and bottom and downtown businesses. That's what we all care about at the end of the day. Thank you, committee for your work. I truly believe it is now the time for the city to step up and make decisions that will move this work forward productively and collaboratively. You can provide a win win opportunity for arts organizations and their audiences. Thank you.

Thank you julie.

Next.

Next up we have dave rainier and rose. Etta venitucci. You can go ahead rose.

Thank you. Good morning councilors I'm here today representing iatse, the international alliance.

Can you read your name for the record?

Sorry, rosetta, venitucci start the clock again. My name takes half my time. A lot of our my coworkers are working today loading in a broadway show at the keller auditorium, and they asked me to come speak for them. I'm with its. We have been in Portland since 1895. We have been here longer than any of the venues you are all talking about. We work at the moda center. We've worked there since it was built. The coliseum, lincoln hall, the keller, the schnitz, which used to be the paramount. Et cetera, et cetera. I opened the new theater building, which you all call the or the antoinette hatfield hall. So we have a little chat for you today. We're hoping to entertain you. It's been awfully dramatic the last week. I want to also say that we believe in diversity, and we don't believe. We don't believe in being bullied by some organizations. So here's what I have for you. I saw a sign at the keller fountain. It said, don't be wicked to the keller. I agree, and my fellow coworkers agree. Please don't be wicked to the keller. In wicked. Elphaba is repeatedly treated unfairly based on propaganda, often by the public, because they have been misled in order to push forward a specific agenda. And they believe this misinformation because they have not personally witnessed the truth. Workers who work at the keller agree. Let's not be wicked to the keller, the workers, or the ecosystem. Let's be curious and not judgmental. Let's look at the actual facts and not the propaganda, as we all consider all of the ecosystem. What helps the most of all the residents of Portland? What is going to help most of the residents of Oregon? What is going to help and ensure future for all of the arts in the pacific northwest? Let's not be wicked. Let's be curious. Let's ask who is proposing, what changes for the live events ecosystem and why. Let's ask why. So many do see a new performance center up near PSU, which is also downtown Portland. Thank you is the answer. Ask how this allows for a smooth transition to a better fitting, smaller, modern keller as a reduced seat venue that is ideal for opera, ballet and more. Let's not be wicked to the keller and as well, let's not be wicked to our future. Thank you.

Thank you rosetta.

And that completes public testimony.

It looks like. Are you dave?

Oh are you?

Well, I didn't know I was going to be signed up, but since I had the chance, I'll just take a couple minutes. My name is dave vernier, and I guess I'd just make two points. I'm supporting the Portland state idea, but but I it's not it's not Portland state versus the keller. It's it's doing good things for downtown. Good points I would like to make I think the the location of the PSU site near the max and streetcar is a huge deal. And if you can get to the keller by streetcar and max, but it's a bit of a walk. So I think that's a factor. The other point I would make is I think the size of the property is a big deal. A modern theater needs more space than the keller has. It will be very difficult to arrange for the huge trucks that come in and for all the the equipment and huge venue like that, because you're squeezing that into a space that was fine 100 years ago. But I think the space and the public transit access are important things. Thank you.

Thank you dave.

And now that completes public testimony.

Thank you diana. Colleagues, thanks for your patience. I think it was really important to hear that volume of testimony. This is a big issue not only for folks who live downtown, work downtown, but the entire city. And so thanks for sitting with that. There's a tension here. The tension might be uncomfortable, but it's really crucial that we we engage with it directly. So at this point, for the remainder of the committee meeting, I'd love to engage in some dialog and questions and answer. I think, you know, put your hand in the queue if you have questions for staff, but if you'd just like to use this as an opportunity to to communicate your, your ideas, that's fine too. So go ahead and kick us off, councilor Dunphy.

Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. I will have a couple questions for charity in a moment. Colleagues, I come to this conversation not only as you know, as a former semiprofessional musician, but also as a professionally trained technical theater technician. I worked in tech theater all through high school, but then I was trained to be a lighting designer and and lighting tech through pcc's technical theater program. So I think I have a bit of a relatively unique perspective on this issue. First, I'm really thankful for the report from hunden partners. It's 180 plus page detailed document that actually has a lot of footnotes that support all of its assertions with data. So I'm a little surprised to see members of the ex officio table formally rebutting and attempting to undermine the credibility of this document. We heard testimony today that described the keller as a cherished institution, but I don't really think that's true. It's a beautiful building, but neither the city of Portland nor the neighbors in proximity around the keller have ever treated this institution as cherished. The city has allowed the keller to rot away, and it's a policy failure by this body to allow 30 to 40% of the nights to remain dark. And the district surrounding the theater pales in comparison to districts, to theater districts surrounding any major broadway theater in any other city in the world. It's a dead district, and it has been dead for for decades, and we've dedicated this venue to ira keller, who was the architect of some of portland's most shameful urban renewal periods. So I look forward to removing his name from this building someday. I'll repeat my assertion that I believe there's no future in which it makes any sense for the existing keller to be home of future broadway productions in Portland. I am fully in support of the proposal to bring a new performance venue to wsu's campus, which is just a short walk down the beautiful but vacant and deeply neglected halprin sequence to keller, and I agree with the testimony that noted that we aren't talking about demolishing the existing keller. It's not PSU versus the keller. That's a straw man argument to get an emotional response. So I reject the premise and all the doom and gloom that comes with it. So now my specific technical questions for staff, the report says that the city still has somehow has a gap in the venue, service to the market and its venue service to the market. And I believe it's calling for a seated hall in the 1800 to 2000 range. Putting aside financing in that market at this moment, if we do move broadway shows to a new performing arts center, we're all wondering what could inherit the keller site. As absolutely everybody knows, I always want more music venues, unless they're owned by live nation. But charity, could you tell me a bit more about the ongoing gap in the market and whether the keller site might be able to fill that gap if we were to move forward with a new venue?

Thank you for the question, council president. I can say that there are multiple gaps that are still that still exist in our sort of venues ecosystem. There's small to midsize facilities that are 300 to 600 seat capacity, 500 to 1000, 12 to 1400 seat. And then when you get to that mid-size, it is it sort of depends on which kind of promoter you're talking to. But there is a we generally hear sort of 1800 to maybe 2200 seat capacity for seated that is missing. And that's really not going to be accounted for. That's that's not going to be impacted by the new rock boxes that are being built on the east side. Those are flat floor mostly. They're much larger. They would not accommodate the sort of size for a seated venue that is missing in the in the market. And this is not new information. Portland has had missing small and mid-sized venues for a long time. There was a study about 20 years ago that identified similar needs. So that's what this is pointing to based on interviews with event promoters and and users venue users. And I would your other question is if the keller could be renovated to a smaller theater to fit that sort of 18 to 22, based on initial conversations that I have heard, architects who create venues say that would be yes, but I have not personally done any study on that, so I don't think I could fully answer that question.

Appreciate that. Colleagues, I have two more quick questions. I apologize. So I think very clearly this body and the previous body identified that if we were to simply close the keller for two years, renovate it and reopen it, that that would essentially bottom out our broadway show market and the labor market, specifically of union stagehands across the city. And one proposal on the table that we heard in here was about a temporary pop up theater somewhere else in town during the renovation. As we said, these kinds of theaters have been purpose built for particular shows, but as I understand it, that's not yet been done for a repertory theater where that can take many different shows. The closest I think we heard is there's one, possibly somewhere in the uk or maybe broadly in the eu. Whether or not this is a real identity is partially an engineering question of whether we can do it, and partially a question for our broadway partners whether they're willing to try. Is this a real idea? Like, do we have a clear stance from broadway across America on whether they believe a temporary venue would be feasible?

So the first thing that I could say is that there there has not yet been built a a large temporary venue that can do that touring broadway and has the capability for the the changeover, like every week that you would bring in a new a new show and moving out a show. But they are considering it. So the there is my understanding, a proposal as of November 2025 that is being considered in new york. So it's early stages for that not proven yet. And then I would ask if there is anyone here from broadway across America, sometimes there is. A show, okay. And that is a no. Okay.

Well, I will follow up directly also with broadway across America, because I have heard them express some skepticism in the future or in the past, but I will follow up directly. You know, the last question I have is the, you know, the biggest issue with our downtown venues, maybe not the biggest, but one of the biggest issues is that they're too expensive to operate. The reasons for that vary. We have a very expensive ground lease under hatfield hall. Maintenance issues are raising operating operations, expenses, marketing and sales approach that really hasn't been able to drive enough commercial activity activation to subsidize the smaller arts organizations. These are issues with the operator as well as with the building. P5 recently started releasing the executive summaries of the condition assessments of the current spaces. We know you said the formal one will be in April, but and we know that new operations models are being contemplated through the rfi process that ends on Monday. In any situation with a new or renovated building, the way we approach the whole ecosystem will be needed in order to grow the arts, to make the arts to thrive downtown. So we all want a vibrant arts district in in the southwest downtown core. So could you tell me a little bit what is the highest level? What were some of the early reports from the condition assessment and any some of the early results from the rfi process? I know it's not closed yet, but are we seeing responses from people and broadly, how is your office thinking about the role of these efforts as part of a a path to a greater outcome for the city?

Thank you for the question, council president. I would say first, the conversation around a renovation of the keller auditorium and then the two broadway venue capable strategy all came about before the city understood that there would be a transition in the operations of Portland, five centers for the arts. So those are sort of two separate paths that are going to merge in the near future. But they were definitely that wasn't a conversation on the table as far as the request for information goes. We have been we have done a we did a info session that was very well attended. We had about 30 people from 14 different organizations attend our info session. We hosted a site tour of all of the buildings that had about 25 or 30 people, again from multiple venues, not all local. So there's some local and regional and national interest, and we received dozens of questions. I think it's safe to say dozens. So our right now, we know folks are interested and we're having we get an understanding of what kind of additional information they are needing. So we've been providing additional information, including the executive summaries of the facility condition assessments, but we have not yet received any responses. And I think that's because there's still a week. And if I were them, I'd take all the time I needed to to put together a response. So that's thing one. As far as operations go, we do. That's part of why we want to see what's out there with the request for information, we know that we are in a unique situation in the country where one government owns these venues, and another government operates the venues. 90% of performing arts centers are managed by a nonprofit, even if they are run by, even if they are owned by a government. And because we are government owned and operated, there are some things that we don't have access to. So we are not able to do philanthropy in the same kind of way. We're not able to do fundraising in the same way that a nonprofit operator might be able to do so, and some capital operator or excuse me, commercial operators might have access to capital that we don't have. So we're very interested in understanding what the entire sort of options are out there to be able to address the operations question. But our request for information was very clear that we are not asking for operators for a potential site at PSU.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Dunphy, for your comprehensive set of comments and questions. This is clearly something in your bailiwick. Councilor Clark.

Olivia Clark: Thank you, mr. Chair. I don't have a comprehensive presentation to make here today, unfortunately, but I do. I have all kinds of thoughts about this, and I think it's been an excellent conversation today. I appreciate all the testimony that was offered today. And particularly I want to start with where our dca donnie oliveira started today with the overall context and putting this in a in a larger context for us because we are facing a sea change, as we were just talking about in the management of our facilities, in the upgrade of all of our facilities. And so no decisions are made in a vacuum. So I do one thing that donnie did not mention is that we have a budget deficit. And where where are we going to find the funds to do any of these things mystifies me, and it seems to me that the soonest we can even get to talking about making a contribution to whatever we decide as a group is really is going to wait probably until 2028, until we have an opportunity to go to the bond market, because I just don't see any pile of money sitting around here anywhere to do either of these options. So I think we're going to be living with a killer, as it is for quite a while, until we get to to that time. But everybody knows that my interest in the keller has started from day one, and I did introduce the budget note to come back to us in April with a better understanding of how we could phase the keller. I'm waiting for that. I'm sorry. It's going to be at the very end of April because we have all these different timing things, studies, reports that aren't really coordinated. And and I do hope that the ex-officio group, if we're expected to have a decision that we do get some extra time because some of these things were not become available. I did read the the transportation survey that was done. I thought it was incredibly inadequate, having worked on those very light rail lines, I can tell you that it's kind of a gordian knot over there, and I don't know how that's managed. And I do think there are other external costs that will come with, with traffic management there that somebody's going to have to pay for. And just just a note about PSU. And obviously I'm a keller advocate and and actually somebody I don't know about demolition, but somebody did say at one of these meetings turned it into a museum, which just, you know, made my skin crawl. My one comment about PSU that I'm having, I guess cognitive dissonance around is the decline in enrollment by 23% since 2019. The fiscal shortfall, despite what sarah schwartz said to us, it's really causing me some cognitive dissonance around this. And yes, we cannot. And a whole nother area. We cannot disinvest in higher education. And I think there's a lot of efforts to do that from the federal government on down. But I, I don't know how how we're going to do this. I don't know exactly what this represents to PSU when we're struggling with budget issues and a year after year failure on their budget, the same kinds of things that we're going to be confronting or that we are confronting. So that's a that's a thing I have a problem with. One. One last comment. I beg to differ with council president, my good friend at the other end of the dais here is that I think it is important that we question the report. I think we do have local technical expertise that should be brought to bear on really looking a little more closely at the results of this study, if you will. But I do appreciate the expertise that's brought forward by bob nadeau and other people who have actually done development, who know it from start to finish and have raised some very good questions. So with that, I'll just those are just some general comments. I don't I'm, I'm all over the place given the kinds of things that came up today. But rest assured, I am an advocate for keeping the keller open and keeping it as a performing arts venue.

Thank you, councilor Clark. We're running thin on minutes, but I would like to give the remaining members of the stack just some time to, you know, close us out here. Councilor co-chair. Ryan.

Yeah. Thank you. Co-chair Green. We are running low. It's 1129. Did we get an approval to go to 1140 or.

Yeah, we got like three. We've got a three minute overage. So I took myself out of the stack for that reason.

Yeah. First of all I just want to thank everyone who showed up today. I happen to know an inordinate amount of the people who testified today rather well. I've worked with you on former big ideas and you're all on the same team. So there's this fact that we have a lot of good people that are that want, I think, the same thing, but are seeing this study very differently. And that makes me have more questions that I won't get to. Today. I told my staff I didn't need any notes. I've been briefing on this for some time, and yet today's presentation has me spinning a bit. I want to thank councilor Clark for, I think, rootedness in reality about the fact of our current financial house. I want to compliment PSU for securing funds from the state for your student facility and classrooms. I think that's wonderful. And I'll just end with this. Because of time, I cannot fathom the thought of the keller fountain. You can talk about a name change later. Councilor Dunphy, but that fountain is a precious piece of public art that is very well known to many people who have come and gone from the city, and I don't want what is across from it to be dark. I always just vision that street being closed and a renovated keller. Kind of like think the, you know, lincoln. Just think of it as our performing arts jewel. And then the pathway going into the fountains to be secured and then something lovely at the end, which would be great if it was two venues. But it's really clear in the current conditions that's not the case. I continue to struggle on the theater, the broadway, performing arts, traveling shows to. They have a lot of weight in this, I understand that, but I do think there's the fear of keller being closed has continued, I think, to slow this down. And every time there's been a an adaptive thought about how to mitigate that, it's been shut down. I understand, as someone who used to work at the opera how important the nutcracker was to our finances every year, and I understand for Portland opera, the broadway traveling shows are very important to Portland opera so that they are financially secure. I want that to remain stable. So again, we have all these balls in the air, but I will not be okay with living in a Portland. Where next to the keller fountain, we have a dark space and that is part of central downtown. And I want to make sure that we preserve that. And so I don't think we've made it clear decision here. And I think that today's testimony was smart, because I think it opened up the complexity of what we must decide upon. And I know I asked a boring question earlier, but it was one that I hoped that my colleagues understand. Our general ledger has our assets, our our on it. And I would like to see the keller as an asset that we take care of. And right now, it's just another deferred maintenance item that's growing and growing. And if we take on the site at PSU, then we're adding another responsibility to that general ledger at a time that everyone in this body says we have to take care of our deferred maintenance. So we're in a very fiscally challenging reality right now in that cannot be dismissed as we make these decisions. Thanks.

Thank you, co-chair Ryan councilor Smith. Why don't you give us our last comment here?

Thank you so much, co-chair. I want to thank all of you for coming today. I've been sitting here listening to this and listening to conversations about this for the past year, and I was very shocked at what I just heard from our council president and diana stewart. I want to from the downtown neighborhood association. I want to thank you for your comments. Thank you for being so succinct about what's happening. And, mr. Nadeau, thank you so much to you, because you really put a a nail on this about the range and how much and, you know, people can exaggerate. They can exaggerate data. But the real deal is the keller is an important asset to the city. And I do agree with councilor. Councilor Clark that we I don't want to see a Portland without the keller. And if I was a PSU alumni, I would be concerned that our PSU foundation is more concerned about building a facility than it is sustaining and increasing a student body that's that's shrinking. And here are some of the the important things that I think are so important about the keller auditorium. We understand where we're at right now. And an enhanced audience experience is is important. Remodeling, I believe, can improve seating comfort, sightlines, make performances more enjoyable, upgraded acoustics can enhance sound quality for concerts and plays and other events. And yes, modern amenities. It will incorporate a facility that is updated with restrooms, concessions, restaurants, accessibility improvements can make the auditorium more inclusive for for patrons with disabilities, and it can also increase cultural engagement. A revamped keller auditorium can attract more high profile performances and events, boosting community interest that look like the community that I come from in district one. And to be on notice that it needs to be a venue that serves a wider variety of cultural events and increasing community engagement. I think they've heard that loud and clear and the economic benefits you've heard. We don't have the dollars to do both. Renovations can lead to increased ticket sales, patronage benefiting local businesses. A modern venue can attract larger audiences, and I don't believe that necessarily. There are a lot of hotels and restaurants by the keller. New hotels and restaurants, new affordable. Midsize apartments that are built by the keller and historical preservation is is is very important. Remodeling allows for the preservation of the building's historical significance while updating it for a modern use. And I have heard so much from this new council about getting rid of old stuff and bringing in new stuff, and getting rid of old people and bringing in young people. And I'm tired of it, and I will fight you to the bitter end. Council president, if you try to change that name of keller, I want you to know that.

All right, council, we are. Over time, I'll leave you on a fighting word.

No, no, I have one more thing. Implementing energy efficient technologies can reduce operational costs and promote environmental responsibility. And we may have an opportunity through PCEF to possibly help with the keller. So sustainable design elements can contribute to the longevity and the resilience of the keller auditorium. And I don't know about when we take this vote or when we're going to talk about it. I'm not going to be on this committee anymore. But when it comes to the bid committee, I want the supporters to know I will not support getting rid of the keller. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Smith. Colleagues, apologies to the clerk. We're over time. I didn't manage the last part of this very well, but that's on me. Thank you so much for the discussion today. It's been an absolute pleasure to serve with you as a co-chair, councilor Ryan. And with that, I close out the last committee of the arts and economy committee.

To talk about it.