The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-08-06
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (29,898 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
The Portland City Council held a recess meeting on Thursday, August 6, 2026, convening at 2:00 p.m. with roll call taken and rules of decorum read. A procedural motion to reorder the agenda, swapping the Moda Center item ahead of a right-turn-on-red item, was put to a vote; outcomes of all votes referenced in this summary are recorded in the vote ledger. The council then took up several land-use and code items, including a comprehensive plan and zoning map amendment for a Northwest 31st Avenue parcel, a regulatory code amendment package, and an ordinance directing the Portland Bureau of Transportation to evaluate and implement no-turn-on-red restrictions at high-crash intersections; testimony and staff summaries were presented, amendments were introduced and voted on, and items advanced to second reading. The remainder of the session focused on a non-binding term sheet with Rip City Management LLC and Trailblazers Holdings LLC concerning Moda Center arena renovation, operations, and lease terms. Staff described recent changes to the term sheet, including provisions on Portland Fire's sublease status, the joint authority's composition, and funding tables. Numerous amendments addressing funding sources, user fees, parking revenue, rent, private capital contributions, naming rights, and return-on-investment language were introduced, discussed at length, and voted on; figures cited for project costs and revenue projections were stated inconsistently among speakers. The meeting concluded with discussion of next steps before adjournment.
AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions, reviewed by an editor — describes the discussion only; recorded votes live in the vote ledger. Captions contain errors.
Procedural markers in this session
Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.
0 Good afternoon. I am calling back to meeting. Back to order this recess meeting of the Portland city council. It is Thursday 2:00 on Thursday, August 6th. Keelan. Please take the roll.
1 Good afternoon. Koyama Lane here. Morillo. Novick. Here. Clerk. Green here. Zimmerman. Here. Avalos.
Procedural episode · turns 2–10
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
2 Present.
3 Smith.
4 Here.
5 Kanal. Here. Pirtle-guiney. Ryan Dunphy here.
6 And can we please read the rules of decorum for the chamber?
7 Good afternoon. Welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.Portland.gov/council/agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states. Otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over, the presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in a ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. State your name for the record. Your address is not necessary if you're a lobbyist, identify your organization, the organization you represent. Virtual testifier should unmute themselves when council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
8 Thank you very much, colleagues. We have four items on our agenda. However, the majority of our time today will be spent discussing the moda center items. Two of our items are relatively quick, but we have already extended this meeting to 6:00. That is a hard out at 6:00. It is my hope we can at least get through the agenda and get first readings done on everything here. Our original agenda placed the return of the moda center item at the end of the of today's agenda, but we were originally anticipating a relatively quick discussion of councilor Smith and Koyama Lane traffic safety item. However, now that amendments have been filed, it looks like we need to do the moda item first before the traffic safety items so that we can be sure to complete that work today. Therefore, I'd like to reorder the agenda swapping items eight and nine. May I have unanimous consent to do so? I see a no.
9 You say it again.
10 Trying to swap items eight and nine. So we would have the moda center item before the right turn on red item. And we are scheduled to go until six today. I'm seeing. Ice please.
11 Well I'm just looking and seeing that we do have someone here to testify and signed up for that. And I am looking at my co-sponsor, councilor Smith, for how you're feeling about this. But I know this is something that we were hoping to make sure is not. Skipped over or bumped today.
12 Council president, can I yeah.
13 Councilor.
14 So are you going to do a hard stop at 4:00 for the moda center?
15 No, my right now my intention is to have a hard stop at 6:00 and.
16 No, I mean, for us to have the appropriate amount of time. How much do you think you need, councilor.
17 Our time requested is 45 minutes.
18 Okay. Will you have a hard stop at 5:00 with the moda center?
19 No matter, I I'm not. It sort of depends on. There are, I think, 18 amendments filed to the moda center item. We must get through the moda center item today in order to make it for the final vote on the 12th. So that is my top concern. But and so I cannot I at this moment have no idea how much dialog our council's want to have.
20 If it was going to be a time certain and we knew we were going to go an hour, I'm okay with the move, but if it's not going to be a time certain at. I don't want to do it because I want to make sure that we get this heard today.
21 Okay, so I have two colleagues who are not who do not give unanimous consent on reordering the agenda. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
22 Council president. Is this something that we could move to a vote?
23 Absolutely it is. Yeah, that is my next move. So I would like to move that. We rearrange our reorder our agenda and hear item nine before item eight. And I would welcome a second, second. Thank you counselor. Colleagues, is there any discussion of this motion?
24 Can you clarify what's mine?
25 Yes. Item nine is the moda center term sheet and item eight is the no right on red item. Seeing no further discussion, can we call the roll on the motion to reorder the agenda?
26 Moved by dunfee. Seconded by pirtle-guiney. Yes. Koyama Lane.
27 No.
28 Morillo.
29 No.
30 Novick.
31 Regretfully, I.
32 Clark no.
33 Green.
34 No. Zimmerman I. No.
35 Smith no no.
36 Regretfully I.
37 Pirtle-guiney I.
Procedural episode · turns 38–46
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
38 Ryan I.
39 Dunphy I.
40 The motion fails with a vote of six ayes and six nays.
41 Okey doke. We are moving forward with our agenda as is. I hope folks will help us get through in a timely manner.
42 Why is it that the point of order. Excuse me.
43 Counsel Zimmerman.
44 Thank you. In this case, would the mayor not cast a vote here?
45 I don't know.
46 What.
47 In this case, since it was a six six. Would the mayor not cast a tie breaking vote?
48 Procedural motion. Not a final right.
49 It's a procedural motion.
50 Okay, okay.
51 There we go. Thank you. Can we please call item number six?
52 Document 2026-242. Amend the comprehensive plan map and zoning map for a vacant lot on northwest 31st avenue. Described as Willamette heights addition block 18, lot 14, at the request of Portland parks and recreation lieu 26-007966cp zc.
53 Colleagues. As you will recall, this item involves a change of a parcel owned by the parks bureau from open space to
54 For residential use to facilitate its sale and development. When we last heard this item, we approved a motion to tentatively approve the application for a comprehensive map plan, map amendment and zone zoning map amendment, and to uphold the recommendation of the hearings officer. And we asked staff to return with revised findings. Those findings have been filed and are before us today. As this is a legislative land use decision, council now considers the filing as an ordinance using our regular legislative process. And therefore, today is the first reading of that ordinance. There is no further presentation, but are there any technical or clarifying questions from councilors? And keelan? Has anyone signed up to testify on this item?
55 No, it wasn't open to testimony. Okay. Thank you. Was closed.
56 Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Technical clarifying or council discussion on this item. Seeing none. This item now moves to second reading. Can we please call item number seven? What did I do?
57 Let me check. I think lauren is online.
58 Oh, hi.
59 Lauren.
60 Here. Hi. Sorry. Council needs to amend. So if you recall, council voted to adopt the hearings officer recommendation and directed staff to go back to write revise findings. And so staff has prepared those revised findings. Those are filed under the item. And so council needs to amend the ordinance to adopt the staff's revised findings and conclusions.
61 Oh, okay. None of that was in my notes. Great. So we need to amend this.
62 Yeah. I think.
63 Item number six. Correct.
64 Yes we are.
65 Okay. Yes. So that is a motion to I will pull up what.
66 Motion to amend.
67 A motion to amend the ordinance to adopt the revised findings, and then it will roll to after and then a roll call vote. And then the item rolls to a second reading.
68 Okay.
69 So moved.
70 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Is there a second?
71 Second.
72 Counselor. Green. Thank you. Is there discussion of the amendment or amended item? Okay. Now can we call roll on this?
73 Yeah. This is a motion to amend the ordinance to include the updated finding to amend the findings. Move by council seconded by Green Koyama Lane. I aye, Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman I loveless. I Smith. I know. I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan.
74 I. Dunphy I.
75 The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
76 Okay. Lauren just verifying. Are we good now to move this to second reading.
77 Need to.
78 Announce a date and time.
79 Certain okay. And we need a date and time. Certain.
80 Yeah, we've got it for August 12th at 9:45 a.m. Time. Certain.
81 Thank you very much.
82 Very quick final vote. Thank you.
83 August 12th. Final vote. Great. Moves to second reading. Can we please call item seven.
84 Document 2026-189, amend city code and improve land use regulations through the regulatory improvement code amendment package 11 amend code titles 32 and 33.
85 Colleagues, this is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. We've had a number of conversations about this. Is there any further council discussion? Seeing none, can we please call the roll.
86 Koyama Lane I. Aye, Morillo I. Novick I Clark I Green.
87 I Zimmerman. I Avalos I.
88 Smith I I. Pirtle-guiney I. Ryan I. Dunphy I.
89 The ordinance passes with a vote of 12 eyes.
90 Thank you very much. Can we please call item number eight?
91 Document 2026-213. Direct the Portland bureau of transportation to evaluate and implement. No turn on red restrictions at signalized intersections within the high crash network.
92 This is the first reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Claire adams from council operations is here with a committee staff summary report. Claire, take it away.
93 Thank you, council president and councilors for the record, mayor adams said. Council policy analyst for the public works committee ordinance, before you document number 2026-213 was heard in the public works committee on June 23rd, where it was referred to full council with the recommendation to pass. The ordinance directs the Portland bureau of transportation PBOT to evaluate and implement no turn on red restrictions and install appropriate signage at signalized intersections within the city's high crash network. The ordinance directs PBOT to develop an initial implementation list of priority intersections within the high crash network, where pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users face elevated safety risks within 90 days of ordinance adoption. Pbot shall deliver to council an implementation plan, including intersections identified, anticipated costs and proposed funding sources, installation timeline, education and outreach plan, and an equity analysis describing how implementation will prioritize communities most impacted by traffic violence. The ordinance directs PBOT to lead a public education and outreach campaign during initial project implementation. It also describes initial and ongoing enforcement measures led by PBOT and the Portland police bureau, for traffic violations of posted no turn on red restrictions. No later than one year after the first implementation phase is completed, PBOT will report to council on the number of intersections where restrictions were installed, related costs available, compliance and safety data, community feedback, and any recommendations for expanding, modifying or continuing the program. The ordinance also clarifies the city administrator will update corresponding procedures and administrative rules to carry out the directives of the ordinance. The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and community impacts and community involvement. No one submitted verbal testimony aside from invited testimony at the committee meeting, and one person submitted written testimony prior to committee action. The themes of that testimony included acknowledging that no turn on red is one tool within a broader system of intersection safety strategies, encouraging council to give PBOT clear direction while preserving the resources and flexibility needed to continue advancing other urgent vision priorities and ensuring that the ordinance implementation considers staff capacity and a full cost assessment that includes all resource needs, including the cost of outreach and education. And that concludes the committee staff summary. Thank you.
94 Thank you. Claire. Vice president Clark, this came out of your committee. Any opening remarks?
95 Sure. Just very, very briefly, because I know we're short on time, is that we had a great discussion. It really falls within our long range goals on vision zero. And I think both the co-sponsors may want to add a word.
96 Thank you. So, councilors Smith or Koyama Lane any further?
97 Thank you. Yeah. We had a great conversation about how to keep people safe who are walking, rolling and, and riding in bikes, particularly in the high crash corridors in, in district one. We know that if we can slow the speed down, we can eliminate some of the safety issues that we have in our district. And I like this as a pilot so that we can we can kind of direct what we're going to do in and if it's working. But we do know that there are majority of the the crashes that we've seen here lately, they've been in the high crash corridor. And we want to use this as as another tool in conjunction with the cameras that we can also put up. Thank you.
98 Thank you. Council president. I wanted to thank vice chair Smith, vice chair of our public works committee, for your care about vision zero and for the safety of all of our constituents. Yeah, we had a good conversation at the committee. And while Oregon state law generally allows drivers to turn right on red lights after stopping. It also gives local jurisdictions the authority to restrict movement where safety conditions dictate. So I really appreciate that this legislation, which PBOT has been incredibly helpful with. Thank you so much, shoshanah and director williams. Thank you to advocates that have spoken up and and been part of the discussion. And we're very collaborative with councilor Smith's office, and I, we have an amendment to change a couple pieces there, and I appreciate that the urgency of the ordinance is. It's really underscored by really stark local data and dire frequent accidents. In some cases, you know, some of the worst still are 122nd avenue and halsey. So I appreciate that it focuses on areas where there's high crash, high crash data. It would prioritize intersections that include pedestrian head starts, bike boxes, heavy where there's a lot of heavy foot bike traffic. And I appreciate that. It's really clear with a rollout plan of 90 days. And so council will be hearing back. There's a piece of education that's part of it and just really appreciate your partnership, councilor Smith, and appreciate the entire entire public works committee for supporting this in committee.
99 Thank you, councilor and councilor, I understand I don't know who's going to understand. There's also an amendment that needs to be moved on this.
100 Yes, we have an amendment titled Koyama Lane Smith one. And you can see there it's redlined in there. And there are some specifications in there. And that explain that this is work as a pilot project. It explains that it focuses on 30 intersections where there's been high injury, high injuries. It specifies that the part of the pilot, the pilot, will happen, and then folks will return from PBOT to council to keep us updated and get some additional guidance. If you have more questions, feel free to let us know. There are just some specifications in there. I believe some of the costs are. Is that from the bureau explaining some of the. Director williams and I. Yeah. So thank you so much for your partnership to make sure that those numbers are accurate and I will should I move that? I'll move it now, or.
101 Why don't we get to technical clarifying questions from councilors, get testimony, and then I'll turn to you for the amendment. Thank you. Okay, colleagues. So technical or clarifying questions at this point. Councilor Novick.
102 Thank you, mr. President. One question I had is how many no right turn on red locations do we have now? I just want to give the public an understanding of whether adding 30 would be tripling the number or adding 1% to the number.
103 Peter kuntz, signals and street lighting division manager. We have approximately 200 locations where we're doing some level of no turn on red currently.
104 Okay. Also, just a little googling. I did suggested that this is not a reason to vote no, but it suggested that the there aren't that many fatal crashes in right turn on red because people are going slowly, but there are crashes, but they tend not to be the fatal variety.
105 Yes, that's a correct statement.
106 Okay. Thank you.
107 Thank you. Councilor Novick vice president Clark.
108 I don't have a question. I was just going to speak to the amendment. Is that okay? Sure. I really appreciate the amendment. I appreciate that you put the words in pilot, because I think it is rather an experiment, and we'll get feedback back from PBOT. So I'm supportive of the amendment.
109 Thank you, vice president Clark councilor Pirtle-guiney.
110 Thank you, council president. I have some questions that I'll ask after public testimony, but I'm seeing both at Koyama Lane one and a Koyama Lane two filed that look like they have some overlap, but some difference. Councilor Koyama Lane referred just to a Koyama Lane one, and I'm wondering if we can get some clarity on whether our colleagues plan to move one or both of these, and what the differences are between them before the public testifies.
111 Thank you. I have a letter from my staff here. Also, we're messaging because we worked with folks at PBOT to make a couple other changes. And so now I'm understanding that Koyama Lane Smith two adds a couple of those. We will just need to move that one.
112 So we should not be looking at Koyama Lane Smith one. We should expect that you'll be moving just. Koyama Lane Smith two is that correct? Correct.
113 Yes, that is correct. Thank you for asking. And if you look, you can also see I think they they tried to use colors in a certain way to show that they had added it on, but we will just be moving. Koyama Lane Smith two you can just look at that. Okay. Thank you so much.
114 For the clarification.
115 Thank you. Councilor pirtle-guiney. Councilor Zimmerman.
116 Thank you. I don't know where the staff went, but what constitutes a high crash corridor. And during the last pilot, when was the last time PBOT ever reversed anything it did in the roadway related to based on the public input.
117 We have staff who can come back on up to the table. Please.
118 Bueller.
119 Sorry. We were trying to decide who was going to answer the question. Wendy cully, PBOT city traffic engineer. The first question was, how do you define a high crash corridor? So about 15 years ago now, we did a mapping exercise and looked at data to see where which corridors in the city had the highest number of crashes. And since then we've refined that. We now have different segments, but the high crash network is still based on data that talks about the number of crashes and more importantly, the severe severity of crashes, number of fatalities, and pedestrians and bicyclists involved. So we have a map on our website that has 30 high crash corridors identified. There typically are four and five Lane roadways in.
120 East Portland. And to assume that the other 200 that you cited just a few minutes ago are all high crash corridor, no turn on writes. No.
121 They are varied. We have a lot of reasons for putting.
122 In answers from here. I'm asking the staff, please. Thank you.
123 Yeah, we have a lot of reasons for why we would put in a no turn on red. We put them in where we have bike boxes. We put them in where there are conflicting movements, different phasing for different signals. So you can't make a right on red. If there's a bike phase signalized there, because it would just conflict with another signalized movement. So we have a variety of reasons why we put them in. They're not always on the high crash network. They're at a variety of intersections depending on what's there.
124 I appreciate that. I think the reason I'm asking questions, I think that this amendment may be what gets me there on the overall right with it being moving from originally was all intersections to 30 and within a high crash or now it says actually now it says high injury network. So that's different. So what's a high injury network?
125 It's basically the same thing. We've changed terminology over the years. And now we have just recently, in the past couple of years, we're looking at tiered injury networks. So instead of maybe including all of outer stark, we're including just segments of stark where we are seeing the highest number of.
126 Any of these 30 in district four.
127 Yes, the original 30. Yes, there are some in district four, there was terwilliger for bike crashes, Beaverton, hillsdale highway, southwest barber.
128 Okay. Thank you. And then the second question I asked earlier was, you mentioned a lot of pilot and public input and yada, yada, yada. So I'm just curious when the last time you reversed anything after you did something, then got public input and said that wasn't working. When it comes to one of these types of experiments.
129 The no right turn on red at third and alder. Okay, we did that recently based on community input. Folks who are most prominently placed in this neighborhood and who were experiencing challenges with people accessing their facilities. And so we made the adjustment. We worked with our partners at TriMet. We ensured that we were not disrupting anything else by undoing that restriction, and opened up the Lane and created a smoother experience for everyone using it. Okay. And that was just six months ago, maybe.
130 Thank you for that. I think those are good examples. You know, I think that.
131 Millicent williams, for the record.
132 Is that, you know.
133 It is just in case you weren't clear.
134 No, I appreciate that. I think that I one of the questions that came in originally with was, since I'm experiencing no right turns all over the district, I don't know what the point of this was. And so it sounds like this is an emphasis for particularly for some outer east Portland areas, but I think the fact that you've moved it to a pilot and just a select 30 is helpful because I've seen a city that's put in 200 no rights already and not for high crash reasons. So this seemed I wasn't exactly sure what we were doing here originally, but I think your amendment is good and I appreciate you bringing it forward, councilor. Thank you.
135 Councilor. Another location where we removed something that we implemented was at fourth and main. After completing the fourth avenue project, again, from stakeholders in the community that were concerned about access to their facilities.
136 Lots of improvements to make on fourth avenue.
137 Well, let's see, we got to start somewhere and we started there.
138 I'm now experiencing dump trucks playing slalom all every single morning and garbage trucks playing slalom with people and bikes and cars because of some of those changes. So I hope that when we say public input for improvements, we mean it.
139 We do mean it.
140 Because yikes.
141 Yeah, it's a lot of opportunities for folks to continue to learn how to best use the system when we make those types of changes. And so we'll continue to do our work to ensure that the system works the way that we intend.
142 Any potential changes?
143 Absolutely. Thank you.
144 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Smith.
145 Thank you. Thank you, council president. Thank you for coming up, director williams. And this was an attempt for me and councilor Koyama Lane to meet some of the vision zero promises that we made, which was making sure that portland's commitment to eliminating traffic deaths cannot just be a policy goal. It requires proactive engineering changes that physically separate people from the vehicles. And I want to go back to what cathy said earlier. The national statistics say that that this no turn on red. It has a 9% decrease in traffic accidents. So I know you said that there was no number to it, but it is, you know, out of every 100, we could possibly save about ten people's lives. Now, those may not be the lives that you want to save, but there are ten lives that we're we're attempting to make sure that we save in the city of Portland because it makes it makes a big difference when we can actually get people to stop and to think. Because we also know that speed kills. And if we could turn down the speed that also that that is another reason for doing the. No turn on red. We have a lot of vulnerable communities out in east Portland. Pedestrians, cyclists and community members in wheelchairs, and they bear the brunt of no turn on red crashes, which result in severe injuries and sometimes tragic deaths. So I want to make sure that. Those those injuries that we have, that we can eliminate those and those fatalities that we have, we can also try to eliminate those as well. But what we don't track is we don't track those near misses of people who are trying to turn red when bikes are coming down. We don't track those, so we don't know how many near misses we're preventing. And I think this will give us an opportunity to collect some of that data to. Thank you.
146 Thank you, councilor Smith. Putting myself in the queue. I have a quick question. You know, I appreciate that this this amendment that is before us narrows it down to a pilot. Sometimes pilots are are driven off of not necessarily the highest need, but the one that makes the most sense for measuring and things like that. And I suspect I know the answer to this. I just want to hear it on the record. Is east Portland going to be well represented in this pilot process?
147 I suspect it will, because we are looking at signalized intersections that have the highest number of crashes, and many of the four Lane arterials out in east Portland are consistently on that high crash intersection list.
148 Absolutely it is. It is a.
149 You know, all three of my. I assumed, since councilor Smith is one of the chief sponsors of this, I assumed that would be the case. I just wanted to hear it on the record officially because east Portland. We are unpaved roads that are connecting freeways. That is truly. The infrastructure we have out there is is nothing in between. So that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I would love to see this.
150 Not much of.
151 One we at least get not, you know, not not a quarter. I'm coming for half. Thank you. That is my only technical question councilor Ryan.
152 Yeah thank you. Council president first on fourth avenue. What I experience is the no left turn. Yeah. Because it goes this direction doesn't it? Yeah. And so when I'm trying to take a left on jefferson, I can't go until the bikes go.
153 Well that's because of the the infrastructure that we have on.
154 I just wanted to say I don't experience right turns much on fourth. Just I'd say that hardware question are these metal signs or the lighted electric ones?
155 I didn't hear the first part of.
156 Your question. They're metal signs.
157 Okay. Yeah.
158 Those are they're high intensity. So when headlights hit them, they pop extra bright.
159 Oh, the ones with the lights around.
160 Them, they don't have lights on them, but it's just a really high intensity reflective sheeting that is on those signs.
161 There are some with the little lights around them, right? Or did someone just do that?
162 We don't we don't do those on.
163 I have some in my neighborhood.
164 We we don't do those on the no turn on red signs. There are some stop signs around town that have some lights on in the borders.
165 Got it. All right. So it's a price seem to go up a lot from the first time I looked at this to second time. Maybe I thought you were going to tell me it was much more expensive hardware.
166 The price went up when we had the opportunity to reengage in the conversation about the actual cost of doing the work, there was some reevaluation of what was necessary and just a leveling setting level setting of expectations.
167 Overarching. It seems like these amendments are the fact that PBOT and the sponsors got together and just cleaned some things up. Right. Okay, thanks.
168 Thank you, councilor Ryan keelan, is there anyone signed up to testify on this item?
169 We have one person signed up.
170 Thank you all.
171 Mike. Dennis.
172 Welcome, mike. Come on up. Introduce yourself for the record.
173 Hello, everyone. Mike dennis with Oregon walks. Thank you. Councilor Dunphy and vice president, council clerk and all members here. I'll be very brief with Oregon walks. We want to support the no right on red and want to lend our support as well to the amendment. And that's amendment number two. Just had a chance to look at that. Really pleased to see this going forward. We'll be back later. I'm happy to answer questions. If any of you have questions, can talk individually, we can share some of the data we have. We know that no right on red is a proven tool. Very pleased that this is going to be in a pilot situation like we talked about. And finally, I just want to acknowledge and thank councilors Koyama Lane and councilor Smith for working together. The teamwork, the collaboration really makes a difference and want to thank elijah and alan as well. So thank you very much.
174 Thank you. Okay, colleagues, we are now into discussion and I'm going to recognize councilor Koyama Lane.
175 Thank you, council president. I would like to move Koyama Lane Smith amendment to this amendment updates the original policy to focus on delivering 30 intersections before PBOT comes back to council for additional direction and amendment. Also updates costs for each intersection and I would appreciate a second.
176 Second.
177 Councilor Koyama Lane moves Koyama Lane Smith two, and councilor Smith seconds colleagues discussion of the amendment. Councilor Novick, is that a legacy?
178 Yes.
179 Okay. And councilor Pirtle-guiney.
180 I noticed that the amendment has significantly increased costs per intersection. Is that because the original estimates of cost were off and this is just updated and more accurate, or is that because we're now looking at a more extensive infrastructure for these specific intersections?
181 I should just.
182 Welcome back up staff. Yeah, there we go. Director williams.
183 Thank you so much for the question. Councilor pirtle-guiney, the estimate that's been provided is based on the team's assessment of what's required. The earlier number that was provided was an estimate based on a different set of data. But when we were able to go back and help the councilors understand what was actually required to do the work, the estimate more appropriately reflects what's necessary to do the work at each intersection. Thank you. Yes.
184 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. Further discussion of the amendment. Seeing no one in the queue. Keelan, can we please call the roll on Koyama Lane Smith two.
185 Moved by Koyama Lane. Seconded by Smith. Koyama Lane I aye, Morillo I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman I Avalos. I Smith.
186 I I.
187 Pirtle-guiney I Ryan I. The amendment is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
188 Colleagues do they now amended underlying amendment ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Councilor Green.
189 I just want to say thanks to the sponsors for identifying this policy as a as an urgent item, I think this is a matter of public safety, and I really appreciate your willingness to continue to say let's let's make forward progress on this issue, even if we can't solve it all at once. I see it across the. I see it across the sort of policies that y'all are taking in this this view. Councilor Smith, this is related to cip in my mind. And so I'm connecting that piece together. So I just want to say thanks and I'm really happy to support it. Thanks.
190 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
191 Thank you, council president, I just have two questions to pull up. Some information that I'm guessing was discussed earlier in the process. And I'm not sure if these are questions for the sponsors or maybe for our experts at the bureau, but I'd love to hear a little bit about how this policy was chosen and what data we have about crashes at intersections like this, and how no turn on red helps to to address some of the data that we see around where fatal or, or very dangerous crashes are most likely to happen.
192 Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Would you like me to answer how I came up with it?
193 Happy to hear from you. And it looks like we have somebody from the bureau as well. Yes. So great.
194 Well, a lot of. The reason why I came up with this was because we, I think district one and district two had more deaths in and had higher crash corridors in our districts. And I was trying to figure out a way how to use vision zero to decrease those numbers. And then when I saw that 9% through the no turn on red, it could cut it down by 9%. No, it's not the silver bullet that you would want of a 50 or 60%. But when you're thinking about that and thinking about and, and I was doing some stuff with midway division midway out there, and I was walking and doing a business tour and I was frightened out there. There is a no turn on red on division in 122nd. But on some of the some of the streets out there on, on 122nd out in in east Portland, they don't have them. And I was like, I need to do something to keep folks from being afraid to walking in the neighborhoods. And we want to. Also, when we work with PBOT is to also identify those areas where it can be safe for kids, safe routes for school, to make sure that it's going to coincide with other things that we have going on to make it safe. As people who are walking, you know, seniors and the the conversations that we had, we talked to a lot of organizations and we talked to folks who work with and who provide senior housing out there. They don't want to they don't want to go outside. And so when you have people speeding down the street and they have have no reason to stop, or they're doing those california right turns and which for some people who don't know what that is, they don't ever stop. They just kind of slow down a little bit and then they turn. This will make folks stop. Hopefully.
195 You know, like the california roll stop councilor.
196 Well, and I've been guilty of it too. So that's how I know. But it's just, it's, it's, it's not safe. I mean, it is really not safe.
197 I'd love to hear some of the data from PBOT as well.
198 Yes. So as councilor Smith mentioned, we do you see a 9% reduction in crashes when no turn on red is installed? And that's based on national studies. We follow a lot of national studies when we look at our safety treatments. And so you'll be hearing a little bit more about this next week with the vision zero action plan PBOT vision zero action plan update. When we dig into different strategies for safety at intersections and how when you you may have one countermeasure like a no turn on red, that's 9%. But when you layer it with other things like reflective back plates for traffic signals, and you start doing that systemically across the city, you start to drive down crashes across the city.
199 So great. Thank you.
200 May I respond? Yes. Another piece of why this is important, the no turn on red, and specifically the way it is in this ordinance is because it does focus on high injury, high crash areas. And we know that in in Portland, I think it's about 8% of the streets account for the vast for the majority of traffic deaths, I think it's about 62%. So that paired with the focusing, the intervention on also making sure it's targeted is important.
201 Thank you all. I was glad to see something come forward for us that wasn't just focused on speed limits, but that was really looking at what are some of the targeted places where we need to have different interventions. And this is an interesting one to me because it sounds like the interplay is so different in different districts. Councilor Smith, you've talked about the the thoroughfare streets, and when I think about the need for this in district two, I first go to thinking about our industrial corridors, where if you're turning on a red, you're trying to jut out amidst a steady flow of traffic, including a lot of trucks and other larger vehicles. And there aren't as many pedestrians. But when there are pedestrians there, I think that that risk factor goes up pretty significantly because of the type of traffic you're interacting with. So I hope that as this is implemented and as pilot locations are chosen, our folks at the bureau are thinking about the way this might be implemented differently in different parts of town and, and how having our representative council can help us think a little bit more and a little bit more of a nuanced way about how we implement these types of interventions across the city. Thank you, council president.
202 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Smith.
203 Thank you.
204 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney, I want is dana here? Dana does a great email. She sends out an email of all the crashes. Do you all look at that email or do you just cross over it?
205 It's so depressing.
206 It can be. So I'm looking at this just to give you all an example. She sent the latest one out on August 3rd. And so she separates the the traffic deaths by by council districts. So for district one traffic deaths calendar from year to date is 11. District two is five, district three is six, district four is six. So we nearly have twice the number of traffic deaths in district one than any other place around the city. And this is one of the reasons why we wanted to make sure that we could get some resources to, to kind of slow that down a bit. And so I just want to thank you, dana, for you give this information and it comes out every week. And I appreciate you and I appreciate you putting this all together, because this gives us a a snapshot of what's happening. Are there any other things that you you want to tell the council about in terms of the. No turn on red.
207 And I would just echo a lot of the things that have been said here, being able to focus on areas where we do have those repeated injuries and fatalities, where we have a history of crashes is really beneficial. And also, echoing what wendy cully said, that being able to layer that with other interventions, I'm excited to see this as a start to be looking at implementing more no turn on red and then seeing where we can go next with it.
208 And you all saw the all the the tv news on Friday, July 31st, when a person on a motorcycle was killed in a crash on eastbound exit ten of I-84 to northeast 122nd and this crash occurred during the nighttime. And so it was a major crash. And it appears that the motorcycle came from eastbound I-84 at a high rate of speed. And like I said, that high rate of speed and that person did not slow down enough to to kind of manage the curve. So the motorcycles applied brakes late and crashed into the, the barrier with speed and likely died on impact. There's a lot going on that there are a lot of chances that people are taking in east Portland that are not. That don't impact some of the places, like in district three and district two. So for me, this is this is really personal and and we have to stop all the, the fatalities that are happening in district one.
209 Yeah.
210 Thank you. And I want to use this just as a tool. It's like I said, it's not the silver bullet, but it is a tool to see if we can curb the speed and what happens out there. And thank you, dana.
211 Thank you.
212 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Koyama Lane.
213 I also want to highlight the folks from the city that have been really helpful. Dana dickman, shoshanna. Director williams, thank you so much. Thank you to folks from families for safe streets, especially sarah reiser, for helping us think about the amendment. Folks from Oregon walks where they different folks from neighborhood associations that played a role in looking at this, giving feedback and engaging in different ways, whether it was kind of more broadly about this or also specifically helping us with the amendment. And I really appreciate that. Mike dennis thanked our staff because, elijah, you have been amazing. You have I know my team throws a lot at you, and we are trying to track you down and also teasing you. And you have been great. And same with alan. And thank you for both of you for working together. And thank you, councilor Smith, for your leadership on this and your focus. I know that when you are focused on something, you you stick with it. And I'm so glad that you are focused on vision zero. And I love your vision zero orange today.
214 Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane colleagues. Seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, this item is now moving to second reading. Can we please call our last item for the day?
215 Item nine document 2026-280. Authorize a non-binding term sheet with rip city management llc and trailblazers holdings, llc outlining the terms for moda center arena renovation, operating, and lease agreements that will keep the Portland trailblazers playing in Portland for at least 20 more years.
216 Thank you colleagues. Yesterday, we heard invited and public testimony on the proposed term sheet. Resolution today is reserved for council discussion on the underlying and to consider amendments, several of which have been filed yesterday and overnight. Before we get into that, I'd like to start by bringing up deputy city administrator olivera. If he's in the room. No. Okay, I'll bring it up. He's probably still coming back from the county's conversation. So I'm going to bring up kristin dennis to give us a to.
217 I'm sorry, I'm not ready to.
218 You're not ready either. Okay, great. Cool. Do we have anybody in any staff in the room to help us with some synopsis of the changes that have been made to the term sheet since our last work session, and to update us on the legislative action by our friends at the county. Anybody here available yet? Sorry.
219 Thank you, council president, I'm wondering if people are coming back from the county now if it might be a smart time to take just a tiny break for the staff to set up? Looks like they're all filtering in. I don't have them in front. Maybe you have them.
220 Let's see.
221 Are you guys.
222 Okay to give me an update or do you want to?
223 Well, ken mcguire, for the record from the city attorney's office, I don't have them in front of me. The changes. But. And donny is still in the county meeting, but essentially we added some references to strengthen the position of the fire as a sublessee Portland fire. As a sublessee, we changed references to the mou to definitive agreements, because we're going to skip that interim step. And the event that the term sheet passes and. We we are moving towards something for the end of the year. We wanted to kind of get into the meat of the negotiation of the actual definitive agreements. We took out a reference in the exhibit, I believe, to or in the term sheet to one of the community partners that was referenced. And I can't remember the other, but they were essentially ministerial things, cleanup that we had heard from most, if not all of you.
224 Okay. One of the ideas that's been raised in some of the pre-filed amendments has to do with the composition and responsibilities of the joint authority. That joint authority is going to be incredibly important to all of our future decision making. As it relates to the moda center, council has clearly expressed some concern about the responsibilities of that body and how the city's legislative branch will be involved moving forward. Could you speak a little bit about the status of the joint authority's development, and to some of the concerns that have been raised in the amendments?
225 Of course. Thank you, councilor. And that is actually one of the other kind of small changes that was made in the in the term sheet was to add a reference that the city council will appoint members to the joint authority. We are in the process of yet another term sheet, with the state for forming the joint authority, kind of the parameters, just like this term sheet that sets the high level parameters of how that's going to function. The current kind of framework, and it changes from day to day, is now adding the county into that joint authority. Speak of the devil, adding the county into the joint authority and also kind of the parameters around how the the joint authority will function, not with not just with regards to oversight of the arena renovation project, but oversight of the ongoing operations after the project is complete, the. The current kind of thinking would be. And donnie can chime in here a three or a seven member joint authority with three members appointed by the state, three members appointed by the city and one member appointed from the county. From that group of seven, the seven would create a chair. The actual constitution of that authority is tbd for the intergovernmental agreement that will be formalizing what the joint authority is, and then from that, the joint authority will figure out who's involved in helping to negotiate with the trailblazers on behalf of the joint authority and how that's going to function in terms of relationship with the joint authority and the city. As you guys all know, the city owns the building, owns the property. So we have a little bit more of a, what I would call first position. The state may not, but that's kind of the way we see it.
226 Thank you. Okay.
227 Everyone. Donnie oliveira for the record. So councilors, I've been in government for a long time, but this is a first. I am concurrently in this meeting with you and also still in the county commission meeting right now.
228 Double government.
229 Yeah. Good work doing double duty right now. Along with what what ken just reviewed. If I say things that duplicate I'm sorry, one of the other more material changes is in the table in exhibit d, we reflected the ongoing contributions to be a maximum contribution versus it being just dependent directly on revenues. So this just clarifies that in those years that the spectator venue fund is making beyond the contribution that was committed, those additional revenues would stay within the city, not just default to to the moda center. So there's that piece. It sounds like you touched a little bit about the wnba standards. So that was a material change that we worked with the fire leadership on. So that's. And then we also, as you know, we have a resolution coming next week through city life, but we were more clear about albino vision's trust's role as a development partner. And that's included in the cba component. And it sounded like you touched on the joint authority pieces as well.
230 Thank you. All right. Colleagues who are jumping into the queue, I just want to check are we questions for donnie or ken or is it amendments, councilor Smith? Okay. Councilor Kanal. Okay. Councilor.
231 Green amendments.
232 Thank you, councilor Avalos.
233 Councilor Morillo. Yes, I have a question for you, ken. I think there was an interview yesterday with k2 that mayor wilson did that talked about some negotiations that happened in March, and maybe some promises that were made to the nba can we get any clarity on what promises were made to the nba in March? And is that in writing anywhere?
234 I don't have any knowledge of any promises that were made to the nbai wasn't involved in things in March, so I'll defer to donnie or anybody from the administration.
235 Are you interested in my response? Councilor okay, I think what happened in March and actually going back a few months before that, is as we were ramping up towards the short session, there was a conversation about how would the various components of a at this point in that range of 500, 600 that you've heard about, renovation with the different components would be. So I think there was a general consensus that the state would have contribute their amount to be about 365 million, and the city would have approximately 120 million. And the state would make up the difference of that. Those were general commitments as a framework. But we continue to acknowledge at that time that there were a lot of steps to be made, both on the city side and the county side, to make those dollars real. That was always communicated to the blazers. It was clear, I think, in sb 1501. So framework, yes, but commitments hard were clearly in the middle of trying to solve that right now.
236 Gotcha. Thanks for that. I do want to sort of level set for my colleagues as we enter this conversation today, that there is the negotiating team, which is the administration and your team that is working on that. But we are the budget authority of this government, and nothing goes through this council without our authority, especially when it comes to commitment of dollars. So as far as I'm aware, the other side has not even made any updates on what they think about our term sheet. So I am living in a world where I get to make a term sheet that I think is good for the public, and then they can negotiate that down later if they want. But we are the stewards of the public dollars, and we need to act like that today. And what we are choosing to bring forward. Thank you.
237 Thank you, councilor Aye, Morillo councilor Pirtle-guiney.
238 Thank you, council president, the overview of the changes was a little disjointed there. So I just want to make sure I've captured the categories correctly. And I think this is important because we were in work session before. We don't have an annotated copy posted for the public to see. So there were provisions added to make sure that the term sheet includes the necessary wnba standards and the work that our Portland fire needs. There were some changes made around the mou step because given the lack of formal response from rip city management, it doesn't make sense to have that interim step right now. There was the removal of one of the parties that was explicitly named in the community benefits agreement section, I believe that was 1803 fund. There were some clarification in exhibit d that that is a maximum amount, which I think originally was stated, but not as clearly as it is now. So not a content change there, but a specification. And then there are the changes to the joint authority. Given the feedback that we've heard from the county, are there any other changes that people should be looking for in this term sheet compared to what we were basing our discussion on last week?
239 I think those are the material changes. There were some smaller nuance, like added context, but the context that existed in the public, for example, things like that. The new ownership group accepted the terms of the current non relocation agreement in March of 26, when they assumed ownership details that just clarify.
240 Things that build the case for why we have the term sheet that we do, not things that change the terms within the term sheet. Correct. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
241 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney. So, colleagues, as we're going to move into some conversations around amendments, I just want to note, I really believe that this this council has done a commendable job under highly unusual circumstances to consider and contribute to a term sheet that will be a clear demonstration of our seriousness at the negotiating table. As you know, we're this is a fragile time in this work. My office had asked councilors to craft amendments in conversation with the professional negotiating team, not as a veto point on council, but because every word and comma matters in this document. And the people who will execute this delicate work need to have a hand in creating the tools that they're being told to use. My my priority remains putting forward a term sheet that sets us up for success and centers the priorities of the people of Portland. This term sheet is not a blank check. I believe that it empowers our negotiators to represent our most urgent priorities as they work towards a deal in December that must also. That will also pass muster with our body before a lease is signed. There are some ideas in these amendments that I really like and some that I want to know more about and some that I disagree with. However, I am not going to be able to support any of them today. I have asked kristin dennis, who has been working with council and my team on this process, to work with the negotiating team, on reviewing the ideas that are raised today and to potentially come back next week with an amendment that considers any final adjustments reflecting council priorities to the resolution language or the term sheet. But that being said, today is our time to introduce these amendments. I am planning on recognizing counselors to introduce their amendments in the order that they were filed, with one exception for two amendments that are very similar. So I'll ask that those be brought up together. And so to start, I would like to recognize councilors Green and Avalos for Green Avalos one.
242 Thank you, mr. President. Colleagues, I've filed Green Avalos one, which does two substantive things, and then it does some adjustments in the impact statements of the underlying resolution that, while I don't think are lacks substance, they're just there. I'm focusing right now on the exhibit a, so I'll speak to the first two adjustments in exhibit a. The first of these is just adding some clarity in the footnotes. On page one. There's a second footnote that. And I think kristen and others have already described that. Some of these adjustments have been made to reflect some of my priorities, which I appreciate, which is just really clarifying the authority of the city council to appoint members to the the joint authority. And what the what first part of the amendment does is, is also add the language and remove members from the joint authority. I think previously I had raised concerns about us moving forward on a funding package with exactly zero information about what our public dollars are buying. Just trust us. And where we're at in this stage is all of the buck will stop with the joint authority. And so it's very important that we have language that clarifies that the joint authority has both a duty and and power to exercise discretion in the public interest. And the accountability is by allowing council to both appoint and remove members so that you'll see that first adjustment in the second footnote on page one, just minor on page two in the body of the clause on the role of joint authority, it adds the sentence as a custodian of public funds, the joint authority will condition approval of funds for use in the renovation based upon open and transparent review of plans, specification, budget and scope to ensure that funds are deployed in the public interest. That's still quite broad. It's probably broader than I would prefer in there, but I think it's fair in this moment. So those are the joint authority related aspects of the amendment. I think the big, meatier part of this amendment you'll find on page five, which is the clause titled funding for post-renovation operations. The amendment strikes that clause entirely. And the reason why is colleagues, we have been talking about this project being in the neighborhood of $600 million. That has been what we have talked to the public about in basically every venue that we have. Officially. More precisely, the number is 573 now, and it is constituted based upon $365 million from the state of Oregon, authorized in sb 1501. The city's commitment verbally of $120 million locally and then $88 million from the county. Okay. That gets you to the 573. So we have been talking to the public that this is a $573 million project. But what this clause does is says this deal is actually an $848 million project, because we are committing basically the entirety of the moda center contribution in the spectator facility fund, which is the are those numbers in exhibit d in the work session on January or June 22nd? I had asked about more detail on the spectator facilities fund and whether or not if I could get a sense of a pro forma of that. And so dca oliveira and his team did send that to all of our offices. And I looked at that spreadsheet. And what that spreadsheet shows you is that the current bridge lease agreement and what has been rolled forward into this term sheet is a commitment that all of the average revenue received from the moda center related ticket fees and the parking garage accumulates to this thing called moda contribution. And that sums up to $267 million over the course of 20 years now. Attachment d, exhibit d is 275, which includes the veterans facility iga. And so just to be conservative, I calculated, well, what if we didn't pre-commit that and kept it in the spectator facilities fund? And I'm going to share my screen. And here's the here are the results. All right. Making me do math here, councilor Smith. I know that that's something you don't like to do at the dais, but I did it off dais. But on the screen you see a spreadsheet and I'm going to zoom in to the right. So for each fiscal year 27 through 28, you get the sum of moda center user fees, blazers, parking, and vmc nop. And that is what we currently allocate to the moda center contribution. And it starts at $8.8 million in fy 27. And it escalates at 3% cumulatively through 2046/20 years. And if we were to issue a bond for the $120 million that I have had a heartache around, okay, I don't want to spend some money on that. I don't want to spend general fund on, on that. And I've been asking how, how else can we finance this? And I've been told there's nothing in the spectators facility fund. And the reason why there's nothing in the spectators utilities fund is because we're committing it to some future $275 million expense. But if we didn't, and we said, let's issue a bond against our our revenue there, not only could we fund the one time $120 million, which would get me over the line and get me to. Yes, on the term sheet, we would also have money accruing and collecting to do other future upgrades as well over the course of this thing. And then. But that would be based upon a needs based assessment that would be based upon someone coming with an actual use case to say, hey, we want to do this upgrade, we think it'll be good for the wnba, or we think it'll be great for this concert, or we think this would be a really timely value add. That's a, that's a, that's a, that's an asset that could be made by council and we could support it with these revenues. But if we give it away now, what we have done is we've said, forget about 573, we're in it for $848 million. And that's before interest. And that is that's not a market deal. That's in fact, the next market deal will be worse for every other city if we go down this road. And so what I'm telling you is if we were to adopt this amendment, then I could get yes on the term sheet. And this is my pathway to getting yes, on the term sheet, which would fund the jobs that fund the project. It unlocked the state money that I have been such a hard case about. So that's my proposal to you. Elsewhere in the amendment, I'm striking parts of the financial impact, the impact analysis, which are unsubstantiated or claims that are just made by impact analyzes that every time I've asked for the underlying data, it's, I'm told, sorry, that's under an nda. You'll just have to trust me. That doesn't belong in a financial and impact analysis. So that's my case. I, I welcome your questions.
243 And are you formally moving?
244 I am formally moving Green Avalos one second.
245 Thank you. And counselor Avalos, as this is a co-sponsored item, would you like to speak to this as well?
246 I think councilor Green laid it out. Thank you so much. I will just add, it's really important that the public understand what the city's true commitment is, because again, we keep saying. 120 we heard a lot of testimony, say, oh, it's 120 divided by 20 years, yada, yada, yada. No, it's really $400, 400 million. And I think this it makes sense for us to not pre-commit, especially given that we're operating blind here with no information. I don't think we should pre-commit another almost 300 million. And that also takes away from other things that we could be paying for, not only moda, but other venues. And so yeah, I, I urge support. Thanks.
247 Thank you, councilor Avalos, colleagues to the Green Avalos one amendment councilor Kanal. I'm just going through the queue.
248 Should we.
Procedural episode · turns 249–257
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
249 All get it? Yeah. Let's hop out of the queue. If you don't want to talk to the amendment, I will.
250 Yeah. So really big picture. Before getting into this specific amendment, I, I think I agree with everything councilor Morillo said earlier about what this conversation is. The way I would describe it is if we're in the video game, we're not at the big boss yet, right? Because we haven't gotten to a point where we're negotiating with the blazers. We are looking at what we're even able to ask for, even able to put on the table. And this conversation is what we've been putting on the table, and it reflects what we've been asking the administration to put into the term sheet. Not everything we've asked for has been put into the term sheet. Even if there may have been majority support, we haven't actually had a chance to express majority support because this is that time. So that's that's been kind of frustrating. And I am surprised and dismayed by the idea that we wouldn't even evaluate amendments now on their merit unless the mayor's team agrees with them. So I have to just express that. And I would ask everyone here to to reconsider that position and look at each of these on their merits, because it's not going to this is what we want to even be discussed, not even what we want the outcome to be, just what we want to be discussed. So I had to express that first because it's context for this amendment. First. I really appreciate councilor Green, the way you articulated why we need to change the impact statement, because it's a lot of vibes. It's a lot of trust me, bro, and we need to move past that and get to where there's data. We've talked about this in so many other contexts, including in the items we talked in this morning's committee, the whole meeting about that we need data before we base decisions off of it. I also very strongly support the in the increase or sorry, the additional text added in the the custodian of funds, the joint authority definition on page two and the footnotes. I have a little heartache about the idea of removing the post renovation operations, but what I appreciate is that there is still money left that can be allocated to it. It's just that it's not a pre-commitment, I appreciate that. Furthermore, I don't know how $75 million of the 120 million can be funded. Right now, we've received absolutely no information showing us another funding source besides the possibility of 4045 million in blt and 5 million in from up to 5 million from prosper, with the rest being theoretically safe, but absolutely no information to show eligibility for funding. And so without creating a possible funding source to bond against, we might be in the position of being asked to commit $120 million that we cannot possibly get from any source other than the general fund. And if we take it from the general fund, there's four big buckets there police, fire, parks, homelessness, services can't see us cutting from police or fire for this. And you can bet that there's going to be issues about cutting parks in the context of the levy. And obviously, the person proposing it would be someone who's a champion for the homelessness services. So where does it come from? And so the reason I'll be supporting this amendment, despite the heartache about that section, is that we have to have an option. And as time has passed, there's nothing given to us. There's just no information given as to where this money can possibly come from. So it's on us the same way that the city is in the position of finding solutions at some places for the blazers because of a lack of communication. Now the city council is in the position of having to come up with solutions because the administration has not proposed a credible funding source yet for anything other than those first $45 million. So this doesn't commit us to doing it this way. It commits us to putting it on the table, and I'll be supporting it for that reason. Thank you, councilors Green and Avalos.
251 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Morillo.
252 Thank you. I am generally supportive of this amendment, so I will be I will be a yes on it. I think it puts us in a better place. I don't think any of this term sheet is my dream whatsoever, but I think that some of these items can put us in a better place. Before we begin that discussion, though, I do have questions for my colleagues with regards to what we're actually here for today, since the other side has not evaluated our term sheet or given us any feedback, I checked to make sure that it didn't come in ten minutes before this meeting. Under what pretenses are people choosing to not approve any amendment on its merits? And that's a question for you, council president and I will have follow up questions for mayor wilson as well.
253 Point of order, mr. President. Are we talking about the Green Avalos amendment right now?
254 We are.
255 So I think the conversation that we're having now is not about this. It's about a general function of what we're going to do. So can you.
256 The reason I.
257 Believe the reason I believe that this is a relevant question to ask is because any discussion of any amendment necessitates that
258 At this question be answered, because if we have not received any feedback from the other side as to the term sheet, then anything and everything is on the table. So we need to be very clear right now with ourselves and with the public, as to why some of us are going to be a hard no on all amendments. I want to know what information was received that made that the condition of your negotiation, because it's very different from the condition of mine.
259 Is that a question specifically for me?
260 You were the one that stated you will be not voting for anything. So yes, but I presume some of our other colleagues may have the same analysis.
261 Yeah. I stated my my position on at this point, I want to make sure we are in the strongest negotiating position, and I don't think that amending the term sheet in this regard, when we haven't had any conversation with our our with the blazers is the right decision for us. That's just how I how I believe.
262 Based on what evidence.
263 It honestly, it it is what I am believing at this moment. I will vote how I see fit ultimately.
264 Yeah, you are allowed to do that. I know. Mayor wilson has the nba at any point told you that that this negotiation is a no go if we ask for some of these amendments or if we ask for private contribution of funds, which is commonplace in every other city that has had this type of deal.
265 There's nothing written down. But we used our discussions with the nba to frame what a market rate deal is currently across the nation. And then we used a third party consultant to verify that we had a market rate deal that was acceptable through the n, b, a and the team at the time.
266 Well, the decision of what is a market rate deal is not really based on the personal opinions of those who would benefit from such a deal. It's based on the evidence of what has happened across the country with all of these stadium deals. And based on the analysis that we got last night from not one but two renowned economist nationwide on this, we are nowhere near a market deal on this. So again, I just want to ask, have they said that they are a no on this? If we I'm not even talking about duncan. I'm talking about the nba. If we ask for private contribution or if any of these amendments move forward today.
Procedural episode · turns 267–292
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
267 I can't speak on behalf of the nba and I can't speak on behalf of the trailblazers. This is just the starting point of our negotiation that was framed through consultation and market research and our experts.
268 Okay.
269 Councilor Green, I will definitely be supporting your amendment. I think this is a valiant effort in a time when we are clearly having a lot of information withheld from us as councilors about how to make this financial decision that is going to impact the city for generations to come. And we owe it to the people of Portland to try, because we just cut $160 million from our budget. We laid off a bunch of employees, we cut core services, and we are still not getting the full details of this. So we owe it to try. So thank you for bringing this forward. Councilors Green and Avalos, I will definitely be supporting this, but I will say right now, it does feel like there are some of us up here who might be getting extorted by the nba on this. And. At the end of the day, you're going to have to look at yourself in the mirror every single day when you wake up and decide if you are okay with doing this to Portland without the appropriate negotiation for our people.
270 Thank you. Councilor.
271 Mr. President, I have a point of order. When councilor Smith raised a point of order, you didn't rule on it. She asserted that councilor Morillo was breaking the rules, right?
272 I, I found councilor Morillo line of questioning. Thank you. Appropriate. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Green.
273 Yeah, I understand that you would like to move us forward, and I'm going to this is my last comment here and then I'll we'll see where the votes go. I just want to reiterate that when adam silver did a press conference and acknowledged that things had, I think, quote, gone off the rails or sideways or something like that, he said he was interested in the framework that was spoken about in March, and that was a $600 million framework. That's what he said. I don't agree with that dollar amount, because I don't think it was ever based on anything except for a. We'd like to have this, please, which is the playbook in stadium deals. But the framework is $600 million. If we don't adopt this amendment, the framework is now $848 million. And I just need everyone to understand that crystal clear. So there's no violating. There's no departing from the framework. There's no inconsistency with the league. There's no departure from good faith negotiations. If we say, you know what, this is way too rich. We're going to back off this piece and we're going to use that headroom. We have to responsibly fund the other side of it. This should be a slam dunk, so I'll just leave it at that.
274 Sure. Mayor wilson.
275 I, I just want to provide a point of clarity in this. There's two parts of the equation. You have the capital expense for the renovation. We still have to operationally and through capital maintain the facility. And I look to you councilor Kanal, because we've spoke to the same mayor around the nation. I've spoke to oklahoma city mayor holt, as well as san antonio mayor ortiz johnson. And those deals require the city to maintain those facilities even after renovation, where the parking fees, ticket fees are all going to the nba owners or the teams. In our case, those funds are going to maintain and make sure capital maintenance on the facility is done for 20 years. Somebody still has to pay for the maintenance of that facility. So I want to make sure that we're talking about a holistic agreement. Those funds are not just fungible, but they do need to be negotiated with rip city management on the amount and the use of which keeps the flexibility as we go through the negotiating process and allow the negotiators the creativity to determine what they're going to be spent for. And that is essentially what you're looking at in the contract that still has to be maintained. And many nba arenas don't even have the expenses or capital covered, and the cities are on the hook to pay on an ad hoc fashion on a year to year. This agreement, the city of Portland isn't going to be required to maintain operationally or through capex, but we still need the negotiators to negotiate what those funds are going to be used for. And that's what you're applying this agreement for right now.
276 But all due respect, mr. Mayor, the term sheet itself describes these funds being for capital expenses, and it's $275 million over 20 years after we've done a $600 million renovation. So how can it possibly be the case that we need that? Like, if we pass this amendment, it doesn't mean we can't spend it on the stadium. It accrues the spectators facility fund, which is an enterprise fund. And this body, under your leadership of a future mayor's leadership, will have to bring forward reasonable proposals to maintain that. So it's it's it's not fair to say that if we pass this amendment, then we will have left ourselves short and unfunded on those future liabilities. It's plainly false.
277 Councilor, I wanted to provide you the context of the reason why that item is in the term sheet.
278 Thank you, councilor Green. Thank you, mayor councilor Pirtle-guiney.
279 Council president. I would like to speak to amendments generally at some point. Would you like to keep the conversation right now germane to this amendment? And I'll get in the queue at another point.
280 I'm fine. Go ahead and have that conversation now.
281 So I want to start by thanking my colleagues who brought amendments forward, truly, because I think it is critical that we're discussing these ideas today. And there are ideas in these amendments that reflect real concerns that we've heard and that, in many cases, are trying to push us toward a much better deal for our city. And I take the amendments seriously, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into them. There are some amendments that may veer us in other courses, but I want to focus right now on the ones that I think could improve this deal's bottom line for Portland.
282 Point of order. We keep jumping.
283 I recognize I recognize councilor She she specifically asked if I was acceptable to talk about the broader conversation.
284 Acceptable to it.
285 I'm I.
286 You have to go look. See if some other.
287 Folks are finding her comments to be germane. Thank you.
288 Point of order, mr. President. Could you please tell me why we are talking about the Green and we're getting confused by other people's grand ideas of how this should go. And we're not talking about that right now. And I think it's confusing and it's messing up the process.
289 Thank you counselor. I find the conversation germane. Continue, please, counselor.
290 To the amendment and two amendments. Broadly, I can't support these amendments today, and I wanted to just take an opportunity at some point early in the process before we get too far in to explain why it connects directly to how I'm approaching where we are in our decision making process. Broadly, this term sheet is not the final deal. It's a framework for negotiation. And I know that some of my colleagues, to the point that that one made just a few minutes ago, see this as the maximum amount that we can ask for. And in many negotiations, that's the case. And that is why I have asked many times through this process if this would be our only bite at the apple, if this would be the most we could put on the table. If there was only down from here. And each time I've been told, no, that's not the case, that this is the type of negotiation that ebbs and flows as different parties put different things on the table. And that's a critical point right now. I'll speak more to that in a minute. That leads me to think that everything in this document is about what signal we send, and whether we send the signal that Portland is serious about getting to a deal that serves our city, because we're at a really fragile moment in this process. So for me, the question before us today is not do any one of the things my colleagues are putting on the table seem like a good idea? Not do any one of those items seem like something that I would like to see in our term sheet, but the question is whether adopting amendments today strengthens or weakens our ability to get to a final deal. That is the best possible deal for Portland. And I believe that making piecemeal changes on the dais today could risk or undermine the work that we've done up to this point. So I trust that what we have in front of us is a reasonable, not the best, but a reasonable draft that demonstrates that the city wants to keep the blazers in Portland while also demonstrating that we want to find a way to maximize benefits for portlanders and make sure that this is a fair deal, not just for folks negotiating on behalf of the team, but for our negotiating team, negotiating on behalf of the city and on behalf of portlanders as a whole. I want to be clear that that doesn't mean I think this term sheet is perfect, or that it has everything in it that I would want to see. And it certainly doesn't mean that I want the amendments presented today to go away again. More on that in a minute. From my perspective, this is not the last opportunity to shape the deal. So I want to thank the council president for asking our negotiating team, not the mayor or the administration, but our folks at the table, to review the concepts raised today and come back with any refinements that could strengthen our position at the table. I think it's really critical to get their perspective on what could strengthen our negotiating position, because what we want is to be in the best position possible for the city and for portlanders as a whole. And I think it's exactly the feedback that we're hearing today in these amendments that they can look at and figure out how to add to our draft in a strategic way that makes our position stronger. And I want to be clear that my priority is setting them up for success, but that what is not included shouldn't go away. And so I want to say to the folks who sit across the table from our negotiating team that I hope you know that what you're hearing today, if it doesn't end up in this draft sheet, shouldn't be new to you. If you see it hit the table as you make big asks that require significant counters. Because I want to be really clear that if we don't end up with a deal, that's good for Portland, if the counter across the table doesn't show real commitments, real partnership and real accountability, I'm more than ready to revisit any ideas put on the table today that don't make it into the term sheet we pass. And potentially more than that, because ultimately we need a final deal, not the draft today, but a final deal that reflects our values, that holds our bottom lines, and that keeps us in a position to actually get a deal done. And I think that this conversation, these ideas put on the table are a part of that. But I don't think that adopting them piecemeal at the dais today puts us in the strongest negotiating position. For that reason, I'll be a no on this amendment and the further amendments. And council president, thank you for allowing me to address them collectively. I think that makes more sense, given where I'm at than trying to address them one by one.
291 Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor Smith.
292 Thank you, council president. I'd like to have jonas or someone from the negotiating team come up. Because as I'm looking at the Green envelopes amendment and the 270 million that they're talking about, that's basically $13 million, $13.5 million a year that would be used for maintenance. Is that what the idea is?
293 Yeah, councilor. The ongoing contribution would be towards things related to the over the 20 years, the upkeep, the investments in the facility to keep it, you know, up to that, you know, first class standard or state of the art, sorry, not first class standard, but the comparable standard, you know, level.
294 And if you have a right now, how much do we spend in that maintenance right now? Is that about ten, 13 million?
295 No. Councilor the current agreement stipulates that the spectator venue fund contributes 50% of eligible upgrades that we approve. So, for example, the most recent contribution was for the new scoreboard that you all have seen. We paid for half of that. That's how the bridge agreement is currently structured. In the new term sheet, the all the contributions that are generated from the revenue would go back into the arena.
296 So this is a better deal for us because we can kind of say what it is upfront, and we don't have any extra expenses other than the 270 in regards to maintenance and keeping it a first class building.
297 I wouldn't describe it as a better deal. Deal. Councilor what I would describe it as as that we're taking money. Revenues generated from the operations of the rose quarter and putting it back into the to.
298 The rose.
299 Quarter.
300 The moda center.
301 Yeah, to the rose quarter because it's not just.
302 Right. Okay. So that's what I wanted. So the numbers that councilor Green put up, jonas, I don't know if they're correct. I'm not saying that they're not. I'm sure you did it correctly, but I would like to see if those numbers, if they make sense, what he's talking about. I don't have a problem with the upfront money, but I just want to make sure that what he's putting up there is correct.
303 Councilor, thank you for the record. Jonas biery chief financial officer and with respect to the councilor, I wasn't able to see the details of those numbers on the screen. And I and I haven't seen them prior to a few minutes ago, so I can't I just can't comment.
304 On that.
305 So it's going to be hard for me because I don't do numbers like that real quick. And that's a lot of zeros. And it's going to be hard for me to vote for something like this because I haven't verified it. I don't know where these numbers came from. And no disrespect, councilor Green, I know you're really good at this, but I would need some more time to study this a little bit longer than we have right now. So that's, that's what I wanted to know. If you all had looked at this and verified if these numbers are correct. Because the way I'm looking at it, it's it's averaging about $13 million a year for.
306 So councilor in real time. I'm just looking at this and just it looks like the table on the left was the original submitted from from carl carlisle. Correct. Okay. We're talking about the right table or does that. Yeah. The right table here. I'll walk you through the formulas. Okay. There you are. Okay. So the right you're actually live in the document. Okay. Got it. Yeah. It's the sum of the first three columns. So I actually took conservative estimate. I didn't take the vfiga. So it's not even the full 275. And then the next formula says subtract the constant payment from a $120 million bond issuance at 20 years and at that interest rate. So I did three different interest rates. So that's the formula. That's the math.
307 Okay.
308 And, and the last question, there was some conversation about we don't know where we can get the money from, but we can bond. We have limited revenue bonds. We do have debt service dropping off there. There are several different pots of money other than p f that we can get these dollars from.
309 And yeah, councilor, I think much of the dialog about the sources is, is accurate. That's been spoken today. I would also just reflect that as is included in the record, there was a memo prepared by myself to the city administrator that's also attached to the document that's posted for discussion today that discusses some of those financing options. That document dated July 10th. So we have had some thinking around that. One of the sources that's contemplated in the document is, in fact the spectator fund. So there's a complicated mix of if we use revenues for that, we can't use them for this. But you're correct contextually that there are pathways, particularly if we issue debt that's paid off over a long period of time to to identify resources to help address that, that commitment.
310 Okay. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you so much.
311 Councilor Smith.
312 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Morillo.
313 Yeah, thank you so much, council president, and I want to. I can literally see councilor Greene's heart and brain breaking in front of me genuinely because of how astounding it is that people are genuinely not looking into these amendments right now. The idea that this term sheet, if we're having a chicken or egg discussion, that later on down the line, it's going to get better when we have barely been able to get our points as a council who represent the districts across in the original term sheet is just, I don't think, accurate in any actual reality. The term sheet that we put out today is the final signal for what we are allowed to do. It doesn't get easier to do analysis and to say that we are going to go to our negotiating partners and ask them. What they want, so that we can better position ourselves in a negotiation. Doesn't make any sense. Genuinely. There is absolutely economic consensus about stadium deals. We talked with two economists who are renowned about this last night in a webinar. It's recorded. It's posted on youtube. We're posting clips on instagram as we speak so that people can watch that. Well over 100 peer reviewed studies since the late 1980s across employment, gdp, taxable receipts, subsidies seem to have little or no impact on all the types of economic variables. And according to jc bradbury, if we're looking at scale comparison, the jacksonville jaguars are basically rebuilding their entire stadium for $725 million. That's a football stadium that is considerably larger and more complicated than this building. So what are we spending this money on? Council has not got any clarity on that. And the median comparable arena renovation is around $340 million. So I say all of that because I am literally begging you to take these amendments seriously moving forward. This is a last opportunity for us to adjust this term sheet. And people can say, oh, later, we'll get to it. Why? Why would we not do it right now while we have the opportunity? I genuinely do not understand. And when we're talking about who it's going to be a risk, a risk for the negotiation, then that means that we are not in a negotiation because that means council's perspective cannot be added based on the feedback of our constituents. Based on the research of national experts, that means that we are not in a negotiation. We are in a hostage situation. How does adding amendments to this term sheet make it worse? This is part of the process that we have all agreed to. Council is the final decision maker on the budget. We have the power of the purse. Nothing goes through this body without us. So why this body is continuously refusing to do our duty? I will not be able to wrap my head around. I councilor Green, could you please walk us through the amendment in a less professor like fashion? If you could do it in simple terms for us non-economists up here because I really need people to understand what you are bringing forward, because I am genuinely terrified that if we don't do something, we're going to be putting something forward that is going to put portlanders in harm's way for generations to come. I just I can't watch this happen.
314 And I'd just like to note, we have been on this item for about 40 minutes. At this point. We have 12 no, I'm sorry, 16 additional amendments to get through. And we have 2.5 hours.
315 Council president, I can do it in 20s.
316 Go on, do it.
317 If we don't do this amendment, then we don't have enough free cash flow in the spectator facility fund. Based upon what I received from donny's team to bond for $120 million to pay for this. We don't have it if we're committing it. And so unless we do that, then we don't have another source to pay for this. Without robin PCEF funds or robin, some blt funds, or making some cuts, or floating an unsecured bond against a general fund. And I don't think we've got capacity left on that. So that's, that's what this does. All this does is says we are going to not pre-commit those that spectator facility funds at that level. So we can actually count on them to bond against them to pay for the $120 million to get the deal done, which is what a lot of people who have been asking us to do. And I didn't even want to do that much, but I'm willing to move on that. So that's what this does. Thanks.
318 Thank you for that explanation, counselor Green, I understand. I am sorry that we're taking so long on these amendments. I economics is hard. Okay. And this is one of the biggest deals that the city of Portland is dealing with. So have some coffee. I don't know, we have a job to do.
319 Thank you. Counselor. Morillo. Councilor Avalos.
320 My. I'm confused. I'm genuinely confused about what this is because if we're going to talk about sending signals, what signal does it send to the public that the councilors they elected don't have an opportunity to voice genuine concerns through amendments? Or at least people are not interested in that because they think that it weakens our position. I do not understand that. I've heard you all explain it. It don't make sense. And this whole the work we've done up until this point, who is we? Who exactly is we? Because the work up until this point has been given to us without our input. They put out a draft term sheet without any kind of signal that that's what we wanted. So it's just continues to be this position where it's like, well, you're going to have a chance later. You're going to have a chance later. This is the chance. This is literally our only chance. I do not agree. I asked the same question to what happens after we pass this? What is what is the box that the negotiating team is working within? And it does feel like it's restricted. And so if we don't have an opportunity to do this, I, you know, it's just like I keep hearing now's not the time. Now's not the time. The time is now. And then it's like, well, now is the time, but it's very narrow. And actually, no, it's not the time. Which time is it? When is the time that I'm going to be able to represent east portlanders and fight for something back for the city? Because the way that it is currently written. Absolutely not. I do not support my amendments are about can we talk about rent? Can we talk about private capital? Can we talk about lots of other ways to secure that this investment actually pays back to the people paying it, which is portlanders reminder three times they're paying it, they're paying it with their county taxes, with their state taxes, and with their city taxes. So I truly am confused because I was told this whole time I've been, I literally had road out sheets of paper with, here's what I want. I brought it to an exec session. It was like, no, no, that's not the time. Okay, the next session, next session. No, no, not the time. This is what I was told is the time. And now I'm being told it's not the time. When is the time? Genuine question. I don't understand how we're going to go from this to next week with no amendments and what we're going to get some package back. We all know how president packages have worked around here. People don't like them. I don't like them. So I really do not understand. And I'm frustrated because I don't even know what the point is of this discussion. If people are not even going to be willing to engage and honestly, it's shameful. I hope your constituents are watching that you are not interested in making any changes. At the time that we were told a million times was going to be the time to make changes. That's all.
321 Thank you, councilor Avalos.
322 Councilor Kanal thank you. Our dca oliveira or kristen dennis able to come up for both. I got a couple questions about process related to this. You know, my understanding from the previous sorry, I know the previous. Conversation. The comments that were made were that from ken is that there's no.
323 Interim step anymore. So there's this and then there's definitive agreements. Is that.
324 Yeah, generally speaking. So just for context, for the public's understanding, we had contemplated doing the term sheet. And then there's, you know, all deals are different. But then there had been an interim mou phase, which would have been more substantive but still not complete. And then definitive documents in the spring, after talking with our partners at the state, just the the need to get real, like high fidelity, high detailed information, the definitive documents made just the most sense. And we're just going to push towards that, which is a much bigger lift in a shorter amount of time. But essentially, yeah, that's where we're going. Is definitive documents in December.
325 If I.
326 Can jump in to there, though, don is correct in terms of when council is going to be voting and the actual vote is again next week. And I think that council president Dunphy discussed having opportunity to have some changes at that point as well. And then one of the things that council has been really clear about is making sure that council has an ongoing role. It might be an informal role. It might not be it won't be votes at at the from the dais, but particularly in executive sessions and small group and other meetings, making sure that council's apprized of the negotiations from the negotiating team to making sure that you all are actually kept apprized.
327 So yeah, that that makes sense in terms of the idea being we have a term sheet, which is a framework. And as that framework becomes closer to a proposal for the real final thing that we would have updates along the way in settings that we are legally not allowed to make votes at, you know, executive sessions, right? When those final documents come back at that time, because there'll be, I assume, an ordinance to accept them. Yeah, that's a legislative item. We are legally allowed to put up amendments at that point legally. But my guess, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that that's a really bad idea at that point, because the negotiation will have been done and any changes at that point would require going back and renegotiating a portion. And maybe the reason that they were okay with this is because we did this thing on this other thing, and so it could open up other items. Is that accurate?
328 Yeah. And councilor Also just acknowledge and remind everyone that along the way, the joint authority will be established and they'll play an outsized role in sort of the renovation details and the approval and oversight of some of those things. So we have this other entity, the city's party to that will have both membership and staffing of.
329 But we don't know. When you say the city, you mean the mayor?
330 No, whoever whoever the council appoints or whoever the process of appointing that will be membership on the joint authority made up of state appointed folks, city appointed folks, and a county appointed person at this point. And they will have, you know, an oversight component of this as well.
331 Right. But but just so I want to just recap what I've heard here. There are going to be two points along this as a term sheet and then definitive documents. Those will be legislative items where we can't make amendments or legally we can. But they're a bad idea to do right. And everything in between is updates without any possibility of having decisions. Because executive sessions, sessions under state law do not allow for decision making, which means and I just want to recap, that means that this resolution, this current legislative item we're discussing is the only place other than up or down votes next week on the resolution and eventually on the definitive documents, where council is taking a vote and the only place where amendments could be made without creating those other problems we just talked about. I'm seeing nods.
332 That's correct.
333 Councilor councilor. I would note that you're in a very challenging position because even with what you all decide to pass next week, the negotiating team still has to figure out if they can even deliver what's there. And they need to have flexibility in order to get as close to what's in that term sheet and potentially have some trade offs in there to get to some of the other things that I think they know that council would like to see, because we have seen there will obviously need to be some trade offs that I think there are things that we've heard and have been brought up as amendments that I think the negotiating team knows about, and that will hopefully be discussed next, today and next week, where there where the negotiating team might need to make a decision about those trade offs. They're going to have to get some input from you informally. That will happen in executive session. Those aren't actual votes because you're not passing any legislation. But we're working within the structure of the of the city of Portland, where you have a the council cannot be at the table negotiating, and it's incumbent on the negotiating team to make sure that whatever they bring, that's actually their responsibility to make sure that they will ultimately be able to have the votes. Because if they bring something that this council can't support, they haven't fulfilled their duty either. And so it's not just on the council. I think this is why this partnership and you all working together is so critical.
334 I mean, at this point, it appears to me that the the angle is to bring something that can't get the votes because nobody's listening to us and then be able to blame it on us at the end. That's how I didn't think that an hour ago. I'm astounded by what has happened up here, to be honest. But let me just ask about the negotiating team and I know you're not on it, kristen. So basically everybody that we're hearing from on this side of the table other than yourself, who do they ultimately report to? None of them report to city council. Is that correct yourself, donnie?
335 That's correct.
336 Yeah. Okay. So thank you. That was the clarification there. I want to ask a clarification question of the two colleagues who've expressed that they're not interested in amending the term sheet, are you is does that apply to the resolution as well, or just to the term sheet? Because there are at least three amendments that affect the text of the resolution as well as a portion, I'll note of of councilor Green and Avalos amendment, which is the relevant place here that affects the the impact statement. So my curiosity is if that is an open conversation, because I took great pains in taking the time at the council presidents request from yesterday to develop amendments that two of them only touch the resolution. So I'd be curious as to if they have thoughts on that.
337 You know, councilor, I had a number of very specific requests to all councilors about how amendments should go. I have been sent that email at least three times to council, to everybody in council and all of our staff. Nobody, to my understanding, reached out to the negotiating team to understand whether or not these were vetted in any capacity, and that was a clear request of mine. In those, nobody is entitled to my vote in any capacity for ever, and not one colleague either followed what I asked in terms of process, in order to get to me, to a position where I would feel comfortable in having any conversation about these amendments, and nobody has talked to me about them other than filing them or sending them via email. So as of that, that's enough for me to simply say I'm not I'm unwilling to engage in any of the amendments as proposed.
338 Okay. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. I'd love to hear your thoughts too.
339 Council president, is it okay if I respond, please? I councilor You know, I hadn't parsed them this way. I had looked at all of it as whether I was comfortable, at the end of the day, having a piecemeal who can gain the votes as opposed to the holistic conversations that we had, for example, through our work sessions around the directions we might we might move this and ultimately landed on the place of feeling uncomfortable with what that piecemeal approach did to our, our bottom line in negotiations without being able to see how the pieces work together. I think that that holds for the resolution language as well, because I think this comes as a package. But I appreciate you bringing it forward in that different way that's in that that kind of bifurcated way that's different from how I had been looking at it.
340 Okay. So I still have the confusion broadly, not to either colleague here about how on earth we're going to be expected to incorporate these ideas in when they're all going to fail. So because that'll be just used later as why we didn't put it in. So and if, if those watching are seeing that that that's based on assumption. I think the lack of trust that you have felt in your city is not limited to people who don't work on the second floor of this building. Many of us have that to. With that said, I don't have anything else to say on this amendment. I'm going to put up my amendments and, you know, make you vote no on them. If you don't agree with them, I'd ask for solely, I think, what is not an entitlement, but the common courtesy of engaging with the content. And I'll do the same with Green Avalos one.
341 Thank you, councilor Kanal councilor Morillo.
342 Yeah, thank you. I just want to be clear about what kristen dennis had said when she was up here, because what she's basically saying is that the blazers can't do their job in negotiating if they don't understand our position as a council. I can't think of a better way to indicate our position as a council and the things that we need in a term sheet in order to get to a yes than to approve amendments. This is not a discussion that can be had vaguely behind closed doors, where we get to vaguely signal, and then hopefully someone takes back our feedback in a room where we're not in and we can't verify. And they cannot incorporate our ideas if they are not discussed on the merits. And right now, we're not discussing ideas based on the merits because people are discussing them based on the impression that if we have any adjustments to this whatsoever, then something terrible is going to happen. That's not a negotiating position. That's not negotiating on amendments. I think at this point, the way I'm approaching this meeting, just having heard what everyone is saying, I'm going to go through the amendments. I'm going to go through the merits of it, support each amendment based on the merits, knowing that it's probably going to not pass just to show portlanders what actually was possible for your negotiations in a term sheet, because you do deserve to see what could have been, because we are setting a precedent with an ask financially from a team that is more than any other stadium deal in the country has been thus far, that should shake you to your core about the precedent that we are setting nationally. This, to me, this is basic good governance actually, to go through our amendments and to do our work and to update things based on the information that we have. So that's how I'm approaching this now, and hopefully we'll get more clarity as to why some people are refusing to engage with the material later on down the line.
343 Thank you councilor. Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Green Avalos one.
344 Move by Green. Seconded by Avalos.
345 Koyama Lane I.
346 Aye, Morillo.
347 This is the only responsible approach.
348 I Novick.
349 Nay.
350 Clark no.
351 Green. I Zimmerman. No Avalos. I Smith. No Kanal. I pirtle-guiney no. Ryan. No. Dunphy.
352 No.
353 The amendment fails with a vote of five ayes and noes.
354 Thank you. Councilor Kanal to Kanal one.
355 Thank you, council president. I will explain Kanal one. At this time it makes changes only to the resolution, not to the term sheet. It adds to the. It adds to what has been the third and second to last. Be it further resolved a clause and then it adds a new. Be it further resolved clause between the. The second to last and last, be it further resolved clause. The clauses that it adds are to the. The clauses which sorry the text that it adds to existing clauses. There's one that says that the mayor is authorized to sign the moda center arena renovation and renovation operations term sheet in a form substantially similar to the one that is the attachment, and the other authorizes the city administration to develop formal, definitive documents. And in both cases, it adds that they are not authorized by council to commit to any specific funding source. And then the new clause says that the city and the city council specifically will evaluate the use of restricted funds for potential financial obligations only following receiving sufficient information to go through our standard processes. And that is a list, an itemized list of proposed improvements with their estimated costs. It is a two column table adding up to 573 or frankly, even 75 million if that's the ask. In order to allow us to not have a rushed process, because as is, I think, pretty clear here, I'm concerned about the idea that we're going to leave every other option unexplored and end up where we have 40 or $45 million figured out with b, l t and the remaining $75 million, there's no other option identified besides PCEF. We don't get information because we never asked for it, or because we asked and didn't receive, and then it's go time, it's December, it's vote for this or the blazers leave and you have to do it with PCEF money, even though we don't know if it's eligible or not, let alone whether it's a good idea or not. And so this clause does not seek to change the funding source in any way, but simply to say that we'll evaluate it based off of the information necessary to evaluate it received with sufficient time to do so. I've said before, if I'm if my arm is being twisted and I'm being told to fund to use PCEF outside of a proven scope, proven eligibility for the scope as approved by voters, I will. I will tell them to keep going and to not count on me to break that rule, because I will not break the rules that the voters gave us on sff. I do think it's appropriate to look at the information and determine if cf is eligible. I think that's a fair request, and we're just asking for that information. So that's the amendment Kanal one, and I will move it formally and ask for a second.
356 Second councilor Kanal moves Kanal one. Councilor Avalos I believe that was seconds colleagues to the amendment. Kanal one. Councilor Green.
357 Thank you for bringing it forward. I think it's substantive to the resolution. I think it's good. It's important for good governance, and I plan to support it. Thanks.
358 Thank you, councilor Green. Seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we please call the roll on Kanal one.
359 By Kanal. Seconded by Avalos.
360 Koyama Lane aye, Morillo Morillo.
361 I Novick. Nay. Clerk Green. Hi Zimmerman no.
362 Avalos I Smith. No. Kanal I.
363 Pirtle-guiney no.
364 Ryan. No. Dunphy.
365 No.
366 The amendment fails with a vote of 7 or 5 eyes and seven days.
367 Councilor Morillo to Morillo one.
368 Thank you everyone. You'll like this one. It's super simple and should not be controversial in any way at all if we're actually doing our due diligence. So Morillo one requires the city administrator and the chief financial officer to give us at least 30 days before any vote on definitive agreements or city debt, to provide the council with a report that identifies, one every proposed funding source and repayment method, the opportunity costs for every funding source, the potential impacts to the Portland clean energy fund, our general fund services, parks, police, fire and public safety to affect the effects on debt capacity and future borrowing costs and a backup plan. If assumed, one time revenues do not materialize. It also requires a comparison of the public benefit of funding versus current proposed uses of those dollars. So, for example, if we end up using the Portland clean energy fund dollars to renovate moda, we would need to see what programs and things are going to be defunded from the Portland clean energy fund in order to fund this renovation instead. And that is what we are going to be looking at right now. I think this is very simple. I think this this amendment of all the amendments that are being brought forward is the absolute bare minimum boring amendment that a responsible council would pass, because this amendment is literally just saying, hey, 30 days before your city council makes a decision on a multi-million dollar deal, we would like to see the cost benefit analysis of our funding source. That's it. So if you guys vote this down, I will be very confused. I would love to hear some rationale as to why not for something as simple as this. It's just a report.
369 Councilor are you moving the amendment?
370 Yes, I'm moving Morillo one second.
371 Councilor Morillo moves Morillo one. Councilor Avalos seconds colleagues to the amendment. Councilor Green.
372 Thank you for bringing this forward, because we have because the negotiators, the stewards of this, both at the state and the city level, have failed to make sure that this happened before we have gotten here. And I have to emphasize, they have failed us. The state of Oregon. Senator leber, I'm actually talking about you. You have failed us. This was a this was a condition that went into your bill to make sure that we have an independent analysis. You have put us in a position where we must adopt this kind of an amendment, or else we are being irresponsible with the public's funds. And so this is like this doesn't even get into dollar amounts. This doesn't even get into whether or not you can get a hot dog for a buck 50. This is just about like, what are we going to spend your money on before we're presenting city council with a, a vote, by the way, can't change it because we have no time. Better pass it. You amend it. It's dead like this. This is this is so irresponsible. And thank you for for writing this. I expect to see 12 votes on this.
373 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Novick.
374 Is jonas biery here? I wanted to ask if he I know he has some thoughts about this amendment. I just wanted to give him a chance to express them.
375 Thanks, councilor. For the record. Jonas biery is there a question specifically?
376 Yeah, I just wanted to know your thoughts on the feasibility of the 30 days thingamabob.
377 Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that. And I'll say I appreciate counselor's office did reach out for for some feedback on this amendment. So I appreciate that greatly. And I just also agree with the intent and aspiration. I'll just say, as I would intend to do for any major decision that's coming to council, as I've said, for over two years in this position, I'm always striving to bring those appropriate facts and details to support decision making. So I support that. I did communicate and will communicate again, that I think the there are some challenges in complying. I think that the variability in the outcomes will lead to a report that's likely very unsatisfactory. The 30 day timeline is a little bit challenging. I think we can provide something, but but often in my experience, these negotiations will go right up to the last minute. And so some of the there may be some open endedness in a report that's coming 30 days prior to to that timeline. Maybe more challenging is that the trade offs that might exist will be extremely variable and subjective. For example, if there was a pathway that had a debt issuance that had multiple payments over a 20 year period, the options around that will be potentially vast or subjective. And I don't think I mean, it's something that can be prepared. And so I think that's that's a fair request. I'm just a little concerned about the ability to to meet council's expectations given that variability. I do appreciate that it includes the phrase if feasible. And I think that's really important. So I would just highlight that if this proposal does pass, set expectations appropriately, because I think that if feasible, is is going to be a really important qualifier of what's able to be delivered within that 30 day window.
378 Thank you.
379 Thank you, councilor Novick councilor Morillo.
380 Thank you, thank you, I appreciate that. I think that's helpful. And I would say that you can qualify the information as needed when you bring it forward. That doesn't mean that that's not information that council should request or have. And I think that there are a lot of ways that we can actually look at this information. Pcef is currently obligated to a five year plan, so getting information on how any funding that is used now would require the obligation of certain plans. I would like to know which ones. From there you can tell which portlanders are going to be served less and in which ways the general fund, which is another pot that it could come from, has a five year forecast. So can you utilize the projections in the appropriate year and compare that to what csl would be, quantify the cut, and then have the mayor speculate on how he would make those cuts. That's also something that we need to see. We could also analyze the blt as a one time reserve. We could analyze our debt capacity. So there are a lot of ways that we can actually assess how and why these different pots of money, should they end up being used for. The moda, are going to impact our budget overall. And what that is going to mean for portlanders who receive our services. So that is all that I am asking for. It's not going to be perfect. I understand these are quick timelines, and I think sometimes fabricated timelines, but it is our responsibility to at least try and ask.
381 Thank you, councilor Morillo councilor Koyama Lane.
382 Thank you. I appreciate this amendment. I plan to support it. I will also just say, more generally, I hope and expect that negotiations are not happening up until right before we take that vote on December. I think it's the 17th. I in order to consider voting yes on anything in December, I think that the public needs to see the whole the whole package at least 30 days in advance. There are parts of the term sheet proposal where I see voices from up here and community voices reflected. And I've also been very clear that in order to consider voting for it, I need to see the owners have financial contribution to the capital stack. If something changes between now and when we have the vote in December, I'd be interested in reconsidering my support, but I really do hope over the next few months of negotiations that there is a timeline set and there is some clarity for portlanders and for us about how we can get information and stay engaged and follow this. So this doesn't just go completely behind closed doors for a few months. And then all of a sudden were were asked and communities asked to support this last minute. So I think this amendment is really clear and reasonable. And in order to to vote on something, it makes sense that we need to be able to know what are the funding sources. And get a report like this just to get some basic information. So thank you, councilor.
383 Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan, can we please call the roll on aye, Morillo oh one.
384 Move by Morillo. Seconded by Avalos.
385 Koyama Lane I. Morillo I.
386 Novick no.
387 Clark. No Green. I Zimmerman. No.
388 Avalos I. Smith no. No I. Pirtle-guiney no.
389 Ryan. No.
390 Dunphy no.
391 The amendment fails with a vote of five eyes and seven nos.
392 The time is now 410. I'm going to give us a ten minute break. Colleagues, please be back at 420.
393 And I'm calling us back to order. Thank you very much. I colleagues, I'd like to bring up Novick one and Kanal three, which are substantively similar. Councilor. Novick.
394 Thank you, mr. President. First of all, I have to apologize to my colleagues and what we posted yesterday. Somehow I must have like clicked on accept all deletions because I only had my new language, not the struck through language listed. So I just passed out. A copy of the term sheet with my strikethroughs and new language. I have four proposed changes. One is just under user fees and page four to say that a 7% user fee payable to the city on all ticketed events at the rose quarter will exist throughout the term. 1%, or one seventh of that fee will be used by the city as it sees fit. There's no requirement to reinvest those funds into the arena so that, similar to councilor Kanal proposal increase of 6% to 7% on parking revenues, we have a kind of odd arrangement now where the city gets the city laser division of parking revenues depends on which historically was whose parking lot. That means the blazers wind up getting the majority of parking revenues, even though most parking revenues come from non laser events. My proposal is simply to say that the city receives all parking revenues from non events, and then on page. Six there's kind of a conforming amendment that reflects that change which deletes under funding for post renovation operations. The actual the quote, the actual revenues the city receives from parking from laser events. Because under my proposal, we'd simply be getting parking from non blazer events. And then finally under community benefits, I add language saying in addition, rip city and or the trailblazers through the trailblazers foundation shall continue to invest at least 2 million annually in the community through charitable donations. I bring these amendments to bring us somewhat closer to the situation that the state is in. The state is putting in as much money to the arena as they expect to get out of the arena through taxes on player salaries, the current term sheet. What concerns me about it is that the only financial commitment the blazers are being asked to make to the city is we will get one third of a 3 million sort of payment in lieu of rent thingamabob or $1 million a year, although that does increase over time by 5% a year. And to be asked to put in $120 million and get in return $1 million a year in rent, it's sort of kind of is the equivalent of a homeowner who's renting their property saying, we will make $120,000 worth of renovations. You will pay us $83 a month. So I didn't find that acceptable. So I'm proposing these tweaks to make it more acceptable to me. And I think that they're such small tweaks that I don't imagine that the nba will look at them and say, well, they're insane. They want an extra percent in ticket revenues. They want all the parking revenue from non blazer events. They want the blazers to continue their practice of making charitable donations. So I move this amendment. And frankly I don't know if I'll get a second but I ask for a second.
395 Councilor Novick moves. Novick one is there a second?
396 I'll second it.
397 Councilor. Kanal seconds. Thank you, colleagues, to the amendment and. Councilor. Novick. Would you like or. Councilor Kanal. Would you like to discuss how. Kanal. Three now we've moved this. But to compare and contrast them and we can. We will move to that afterwards.
398 Yeah. Colleagues. Kanal three. It it does three things. But but together they do. The first item that councilor Novick just laid out, both of us are trying to increase the user fee from 6 to 7% and continue to commit the exact same amount of money, 6% user fee back into renovations, while keeping the additional 1% back into city coffers. And this is about increasing the roi the way that Kanal three does it is on page seven. It increases the user fee from 6 to 7%, where it describes what goes back into funding for post-renovation operations. It doesn't say user fees, it says 6% of user fees. And then it updates a header on a table in exhibit d to note that it's the motor user fees, 6% that are built into that. I. I don't have a preference strongly between how those are worded between councilor, Novick or my own. The other I. My understanding is that the. The blazer parking and non non blazer parking piece is being made clear in councilor. Novick as opposed to a change. But I'd love to hear more on that. And then mine does not include anything about the charitable contributions.
399 Thank you, mr. President. Yes. Under the current parking revenues provision is the city retains parking revenues from public parking facilities. The city retains approval authority for parking rates at public parking facilities. And the. My understanding is the public parking facilities refers to those lots that historically belong to the city as opposed to the blazers. So I'm simply striking that out and saying that the new deal is the city gets all revenue from non parking events, regardless of whose parking lot the parking lot originally was.
400 Okay. Well, I guess the way that I'm viewing these two amendments is that I like councilor Novick. And if it fails, I'd like you to vote for mine, but I'm very happy to have Kanal three be a backup to Novick one thanks.
401 Thank you. Councilor Kanal colleagues to Novick one councilor Green.
402 You've heard my. I think it's a. I think it's a very bad deal on the table that we walked into. This makes it less bad, so I appreciate that. I don't. Yeah, I don't know if you've got the votes for councilor, but I think this is good. I particularly enjoy that you put in that $2 million cba there. I think that's a very strong signal. So thank you for that. I'm going to vote yes for this.
403 Thank you, councilor Green. Colleagues seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we please call the roll on Novick one.
404 By Novick. Seconded by Kanal. Koyama Lane. Aye, Morillo. Aye, Morillo. No.
405 Novick I.
406 Clark.
407 No Green. I Zimmerman.
408 No.
409 Thomas.
410 No.
411 Smith. No no. I pirtle-guiney no. Ryan no. Dunphy.
412 No.
413 The amendment fails with a vote of four eyes and eight nose.
414 Thank you. Councilor Kanal to councilor to Kanal three.
415 Yeah. So as I mentioned, this does not change the deal around parking. I, I personally believe and other people may disagree and I think it's all speculative. So this is I'll just note that that I think the blazers are likely to continue their charitable contributions either which way. But this I do still think that the user fee piece is important. And so again, this increases the user fee from 6 to 7% does not change the amount of money that goes into the post renovation contributions. It just creates 1% that goes back to the city's coffers for use on as a return on investment. So yeah, I'll move Kanal three and ask for a second.
416 Second councilor Kanal moves Kanal three councilor Novick seconds. Colleagues to the amendment. Seeing no further discussion, can we please call the roll on Kanal three.
417 Move by Kanal. Seconded by Novick.
418 Koyama Lane aye, Morillo. Morillo I.
419 Novick I.
420 Clark no.
421 Green I.
422 Zimmerman no.
423 Avalos I. Smith.
424 No Kanal. I pirtle-guiney no.
425 Ryan no. Dunphy no.
426 The amendment fails with a vote of six ayes and six noes.
427 Councilor Kanal to Kanal two.
428 Yeah. Thank you. Switching my tab here, colleagues. Amendment Kanal two is also an amendment to the to the term sheet itself. I'm trying to be clear about which things amend the term sheet and which the resolution. Currently we have a $3 million a year property tax offset payment's been referred to as pilot elsewhere. I'm sort of out in the community or payment in lieu of taxes, what it's called a property tax offset payment in the document is $3 million a year split proportionally, which will be near a third for the city of Portland, a third to Multnomah county, a third for Portland public schools. I'll note that that's, again, not exactly a third. It's proportionate to the tax that they pay and that there's a 5% increase a year for 20 years. The amendment retains the proportional split, but it does two things. It changes the $3 million a year at the start to four, and it raises the 5% increase to 6% each year. Once again, this is designed to not necessarily require a change to the upfront in any way, but to ensure that there's a return on investment over time. And as with the previous the previous amendments, it also creates a source of funding that could theoretically be bonded against. And so I will formally move Kanal two and ask for a second.
429 Second councilor Kanal moves Kanal to councilor Avalos move. I'm not used to who is sitting on what side yet, so I'm figuring that councilor Avalos seconds colleagues two Kanal two councilor Novick councilor Kanal.
430 What would be the total increase in what the the blazers would be paying over the 20 year period under your proposal, the total. To everybody.
431 Sorry, the total to everybody you said. Yeah, just bear with me one second. Pulling up the right tab in the spreadsheet. Okay. Under the current scenario, they are paying about $99 million a year. Sorry, not a year over 20 years, starting with 3 million a year with that increase, of which $33 million a year would be a third of it, which we're using for estimation purposes for the city's share. If we were to increase the 3 million to 4 million and the 5% to 6%, that would take that up to 147,000,000/20 years, which is a increase of $15.9 million for each third of it over 20 years. It starts out as 300,000 more a year to us.
432 Thank you. And I just want to say in advance of the vote that although it does worry me to be somewhat negotiating on behalf of the county and the state by doing this, since this like my proposal gets us closer to the idea of the city, will be getting back over time. What it puts in, I'm going to support it.
433 Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Kanal number Kanal two.
434 Kanal seconded by Avalos. Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. No Green. I Zimmerman. No.
435 Avalos I. Smith no. Kanal I. Pirtle-guiney no. Ryan. No. Dunphy. No.
436 The amendment fails with a vote of six ayes and six.
437 Councilor Avalos. Would you like to go through your your amendments however you want to.
438 Sure. I'm going to start with Avalos one, and I'm not going to introduce all of these. I'm going to introduce 167, eight.
439 Okay.
440 Avalos one is about preserving city ownership and control of all existing and future development rights associated with the arena site, the plaza, and any adjacent city owned properties, unless city council approves otherwise. My feeling about this is that future development rights could become extremely valuable, and I don't believe that they should be transferred as part of an arena agreement without a separate public council discussion. It's our understanding that the blazers don't want the development rights and great. They clearly aren't doing anything with it anyway. My concern is that I want to put that back to the city so that we can make a more informed judgment about where we could put those development rights. Because ultimately, the things that I want to understand about the people who have those rights are what kind of money do they have to put into it? What is their plan? What's their vision for that? And so I don't think that we should be giving those away before we have any of those discussions, especially given that we're having this discussion with very, very little information as it as it stands. So this is about preserving council's authority over future development rights and not unintentionally negotiating away a valuable public asset as part of this lease. So I will ask for a second.
441 Second, second.
442 Councilor Avalos moves. Avalos one councilor Morillo seconds colleagues to the amendment. Councilor Novick. Just verifying that. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please go councilor Green. There we go.
443 Thank you, councilor Avalos. I, I appreciate that you brought this in. I think when cities do deals like this, there's a there's a lot of different reasons why cities get screwed in stadium deals and not in this particular deal. It doesn't seem to be really on the table. But there's this sort of assumption that when you do deal like this, you're assigning development rights without really thinking about the long term future. And frankly, the, the intentionality behind the what is, what is our unified approach, unified housing strategy, if you will, towards this stuff. But, but how do we want the built environment to look and who do we want to be at the table? And so I appreciate that you put this in there. So it preserves our ability to really think about that as separate. So for that reason, I'll be supporting it.
444 Thank you, councilor Green. Seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we please call the roll on Avalos?
445 One move by Avalos. Seconded by Morillo Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. No. Clark. No. Green.
446 Hi. Zimmerman no. Avalos I. Smith no. No I. Pirtle-guiney no.
447 Ryan.
448 No. Dunphy no.
449 The amendment fails with a vote of five a's and seven nos.
450 Councilor Avalos amendment six is about arena lease payments. The rent for portlanders is too damn high. I don't understand why we would not ask for rent. I think it's ridiculous to not include some kind of provision in this term sheet, where our negotiating team can start to negotiate what that looks like. It doesn't just like we're being told the negotiating, I'm sorry, the term sheet doesn't mean that we're going to get everything in it, but it means that you start the conversation. I don't see how we could enter this discussion without asking about getting an annual lease payment. So this is simply adding a section that directs the negotiating team to make that part of their negotiating discussions. I will move it and ask for a second.
451 Second.
452 Councilor Avalos moves Avalos six six and councilor Kanal seconds colleagues to the amendment. Councilor Kanal.
453 Thank you. I really appreciate this amendment. I think to me, this is the one that I was most interested in looking at the the list of 12, because one of the things I've been asked a lot by by portlanders as I'm out and about and I got to tell you, at this point, moda is 60% of the conversations that I get when when folks come up and talk to me in district two is why the city didn't ask for something, whether it's a private contribution or it's a lease payment, rent, whatever, it's did you really not ask for that? And the answer is, of course, we didn't ask for it because we haven't had a chance to ask for anything. Today's the day we get to to ask for that. Putting something in the term sheet is how we ensure that it gets asked for. So later on, when it's reported that the city never asked for rent, it will be because it never got into the term sheet. But it won't be because I didn't try. And it won't be because councilor Avalos didn't put up this amendment. So I'm going to be supporting it so that we just ask, what's the harm in asking?
454 Thank you councilor Kanal. Councilor Green.
455 Thank you. Again. This is our this is our arena. This is our house is the tagline and we're the landlord. We should charge rent. And to your point, councilor Kanal. We can't like in executive session, we cannot develop policy because that's a violation of public meetings law. All we can do is provide vibes and we can't do backroom deals. You know, we don't want to do any of that. So when we want to feel good about the mayor's team negotiating on our behalf, it is because we have collectively and publicly and through a democratic process, adopted a term sheet. And that term sheet should start with our strongest ask. And we've already had some discussion from some of our colleagues who don't want to start there, think that it's better to negotiate by hoping that the backroom deal people bring, the strong asks back into it after they've already done the weak deal. I don't I don't follow that logic, by the way. But so for that reason, I'm going to I'm going to support this. Thank you.
456 Thank you, councilor Green, councilor Smith.
457 Thank you. Is danny here? Thank you. Do we get rent right now?
458 No. Councilor. Well $1.
459 $1.
460 Yeah.
461 Okay.
462 Thank you. All yours? Yeah.
463 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Avalos.
464 Which is exactly my point. We are making this ginormous investment and we're not going to ask them to pay rent. I don't care what they currently pay. This it. I am making this ask based on the fact that you're asking us to give $400 million of taxpayer money. So I think it is extremely fair market for us to get a rent out of a building that we own, that they operate, and currently they operate it. They get all the revenue from it, they get the naming rights, they have all of these benefits that are financial that we aren't getting back. I think at a very minimum, we should be getting some rent.
465 Thank you, councilor Avalos. Colleagues. Councilor Smith.
466 Thank you, council president. But I think don't we get a 6% off of each ticket?
467 Yes.
468 Okay. So how much is that every year?
469 Staff in the room able to answer that. It's in exhibit b d. All right. I'm just going to let ken answer the.
470 Ken mcguire from the city attorney's office. For the record, councilor, I believe that's approximately $11 million if I'm between 9 and $11 million. If I'm remembering what, karl.
471 Is that something like a rent that we. And that's the reason why we don't do a rent because we get the 6%.
472 That was how the original deal was structured in 1995. Yes.
473 Okay. Thank you. That's that's what I need to know.
474 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor. Morillo.
475 Thank you, councilor Avalos, for bringing this forward. I think we we really need to clarify the only person up here who made the deal to take ownership before was councilor Dan Ryan. The rest of us were not on council yet, and we have lost taxpayer revenue by owning the building. We are actually making less money as a city now, as owners of this building than we were before we were owners, and now we have the opportunity to, at the very least, just try to make up the revenue that we've lost. That's all this is asking for with the little bit of rent. And at a minimum, that would keep us whole. If we're going to own the building, we wouldn't even be making money off of this. So we have to understand we are not even being made whole in these negotiations. We are literally still clawing back all of the revenue that we lost. And every year, when we go into another budget discussion and we have to lay off more employees and we have to cut more services, this is all part of that.
476 Thank you. Councilor Morillo councilor Kanal.
477 Yeah.
478 So I'm a little confused because in the in the exhibit d, it says that the motor user fees were 6.6 million in year one. So I think there may be a question over the overall versus just the user fees portion of it. But the other thing is that the original deal was based off of a fully privately financed development of the moda center when paul allen built it. I do think that there's importance to recognize that the context is different when public dollars are being put into it versus not. That seems like a pretty uncontroversial concept, but we'll find out. Thanks.
479 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Novick.
480 I just wanted to note that my understanding is that the majority of the user fee revenue comes not from blazer tickets, but from non blazer events.
481 Thank you, councilor Novick. Councilor Green.
482 Because I continue to have my spreadsheet up in front of me. The average annual is $11 million on moda center user fees. It starts at 6.7. It escalates to $1,415 million by the end of the 20 years. But all of that goes back into that post renovation capital fund. So it's not available for general fund discretionary, which is what your amendment would do, councilor Avalos, and allow us to fund our pension obligations, allow us to fund our health care premiums, and allow us to fund parks, public safety and our approach to homelessness. So that's why I'm supporting this amendment. So so we can actually get that. Thanks.
483 Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Kanal okay, thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Avalos six.
484 Move by Avalos. Seconded by Kanal Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. No Green. I Zimmerman.
485 No. Avalos I.
486 Smith. No no. I pirtle-guiney no. Ryan. No.
487 Dunphy no.
488 The amendment fails with a vote of six eyes and six nos.
489 Thank you. Councilor Avalos.
490 Yikes. No rent on a building we own. Cringe. Amendment seven is private capital contribution. So this you know you're going to hate this even more if you don't want to get rent from a building you even own. So it's pretty straightforward. I put some language in there to define, and particularly why I'm doing this is because I do not want the blazers to come back later and say, our private contribution is a tax break, that you already gave us, a future investment that we're going to make, because that's kind of the arguments that they've been making so far that every all the money that users are paying and the percentages that you're getting, that's our private contribution. No, a private contribution is from people who have a lot more money than the portlanders who are coughing up this money. And I think it's weird that we don't define that more clearly. So I define it in this amendment. I ask for a second.
491 What's the number.
492 Seven?
493 Councilor Avalos moves Avalos seven. Is there a second? Second councilor Koyama Lane seconds colleagues to the amendment. Seeing no one in the queue. Keelan can we please call the roll on Avalos seven.
494 Move Avalos seconded by Koyama Lane. Koyama Lane. I aye, Morillo. I Novick.
495 No. Clark no. Green I. Zimmerman no. Avalos I.
496 Smith no.
497 Kanal I.
498 Pirtle-guiney.
499 No. Ryan no. Dunphy no.
500 The amendment fails with a vote of five eyes and seven nos.
501 Councilor Avalos.
502 All right, portlanders, I am going to try one more time to get you a return on your investment. This next one. Amendment eight is about naming, naming rights, revenue. Again, simple concept. If we're making an investment right now, it doesn't. It's silent on that. So all I'm simply doing is adding some language to ask that our negotiating team require an equitable allocation of arena, arena, naming rights, revenue between us and rip city. So again, straightforward. All of these amendments are about trying to find other revenue because again, we keep being told that we are in a crisis, a budget crisis that we don't have money, and yet we're putting money into these coffers without any information and without anything that's guaranteeing we're going to get something equitable back. I think the naming rights is simple. I think it should be called the rose quarter like it used to be. Or the rose. What was it? Sorry, rose garden, rose rose garden, whatever. You get it. So but ultimately this is about just asking our negotiating team to ask. Because remember, all of these amendments are just telling our negotiating team to ask. It doesn't say that we're going to get it. It doesn't guarantee it. But why would we not come into that negotiation asking for a return for the public? I ask for a second.
503 Second.
504 Sorry, what was the number on this one again?
505 Amendment eight.
506 Thank you very much. Councilor councilor Avalos moves Avalos eight. Councilor Koyama Lane seconds. Colleagues to the amendment. Councilor Koyama Lane.
507 I'm going to support this. This makes sense. I also just want to reiterate and get on the record what I believe I heard from council president earlier, which is that his intention is that his team, including kristen, who's been supporting this, is paying close attention, paying attention to hopefully amendments. I would ask the ones that are like six, six, where there that there might be more support there, close to close to seven. We'll talk to the negotiating team and then see if next week there are possibly some amendments that can be. I see kristen nodding brought to the resolution, and we can amend it next week since it is a resolution and still vote. So I just hope that I see. I feel assured kristen is nodding her head. We're paying attention. I know there's a lot of feelings, and a lot of work was put into these amendments and just want to say, especially to the public, this is not done. I think there are a lot of people watching this right now and trying to get a temperature check and see where where folks are at. So thank you.
508 Thank you, councilor Koyama Lane. Seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan can we please call the roll on Avalos eight.
509 By Avalos. Seconded by Koyama Lane Koyama Lane. I Morillo. I Novick.
510 No. Clark no. Green I.
511 Zimmerman.
512 No.
513 Avalos. Smith. No no. I pirtle-guiney no. Ryan.
514 No. Dunphy no.
515 The amendment fails with a vote of five eyes and seven noes.
516 Council president, I would like the opportunity to discuss some of the concepts of my other amendments, because apparently something's coming back. So I'm going to throw these concepts out to the public. Sure. So the other amendments that I did not introduce, let me just briefly mention them. So amendment two was about the lease commencement. I just wanted to ensure that we had that the new lease starts in 2030. I know that's the intent, but I wanted to be sure I want the blazers in here until 2050. So I added language around that. The amendment three was about preservation of existing bridge agreement protections, essentially saying, I want to ensure that the final agreement that comes back to us does not bring us things that are less than what is in the current bridge agreement. In particular, I said that because I want to make sure maintenance stays at 5050, I absolutely will not accept anything. Were we going to pay 100% of the maintenance? So that was the intent behind amendment three. Amendment four was a nod to ensure equitable treatment of the other professional sports tenants. We talk a lot about the blazers, but we have two other professional sports teams, the Portland fire and the Portland winterhawks, and wanting to ensure that they have an equitable, commercially reasonable lease. I know there's some other language around that in the term sheet, but I wanted to, again, make that stronger. Amendment five was about clarifying, clarifying what the pilot is, because, again, my amendments five through eight were about trying to get money back to portlanders. I did introduce that one because I decided to go for amendment six, which was the rent, but we don't get that either. Amendment nine through 11, bless you, is about is actually on exhibit b, which is the community benefits agreement. Nine is about workforce reporting. It has a section that talks about workforce participation and all, but it didn't have, in my view, any accountability for how we're going to ensure that these projects are actually going to help stimulate our local community, having more local hiring, apprenticeship utilization, minority and women owned business participation. So it was about adding some metrics. Amendment ten similarly, that one speaks to community redevelopment. And so this was about adding measurable performance objectives and annual public reporting to commitments involving albina vision trust and other community development organizations. That's how it's it's written in there. So I added a section to essentially just make sure that we could get some reporting on that and transparency to see that the community benefits were realized. Amendment 11 was more so a general statement, which was the community benefits should be in proportion to the amount of investment, and they should be measurable. And then the last amendment was I had asked some questions in a previous executive session around what money goes in. First, I asked about can we stagger the payments? Does it have to be 120 all up front? Can we do a payment plan? Can we make sure that the the state's bonding money goes in first before we do ours? Just trying to get creative of the timing of our investment so that we could buy ourselves some more time to figure out where we're going to get these dollars from. So those are the concepts, I guess, negotiating team or whoever else is going to make this package. I hope you're listening. These are the kinds of things that I need. I'm pretty frustrated that the term sheet as is, is essentially moving forward, per the last hour, from what I can tell. And I just really think that that is a disservice to portlanders, especially when we were told that this was our time, this was our chance to actually fight for what we needed to see in the negotiating team. I keep hearing that people say, oh, it's not the end. Debatable. Debatable. I clearly do not have any confidence that the people who are supposedly going to negotiate on our behalf, who have, up until this point, not negotiated on our behalf, because how could you, if you don't know what we want you to negotiate on? I feel very concerned that what you're going to bring us next week is not going to is, again, not going to reflect not only what we want. This isn't about what I want. This is what about what east Portland needs. This is about what our constituents need out of an investment that they're making. And I think the current term sheet is absolutely unacceptable. And I hope that we come in next week with some of these additions, because otherwise I think we are failing portlanders. And honestly, it's gross. That's all.
517 Thank you. Councilor Avalos councilor Kanal to Kanal for.
518 Council president. Just clarifying. This is the last one.
519 Last one I have on my list. Yeah.
520 Okay.
521 Colleagues, we've talked about, I think five amendments that all do different specific things, trying to increase the return on investment. I think there is a feeling that there is a outlay being proposed that has a lot of specificity around it. In terms of the city's financial contribution, but not necessarily clarity or even an anticipation of a return on investment, financial or otherwise. And so this amendment seeks to address that. I didn't ask for this to be last. It's actually kind of fitting that it is because it is more general than than all of those. What actually happened is that I ran all of my amendments contrary to what was said before by the the person we were told to run them by. And as I got feedback one at a time, we filed them. And so one got filed. First two and three got filed later and four took a little longer. So that's, that's what happened there. But let me speak to this one. Kanal four adds only to the resolution. It does not change a thing in the term sheet. A be it further resolved clause that reads, be it further resolved that the Portland city council directs the mayor to negotiate final agreements that deliver a return on investment for the city's financial contributions to the motor innervation through a combination of terms and community benefits. That's the full text, and I think that what the underlying goal of all those amendments that didn't end up passing is, is to get something that shows the city is not doing a giveaway. This simply says, we already tried to do it in a more specific way. We're now saying, mr. Mayor, please find a return on investment conceptually, not giving any specifics to it. I would argue that this is in fact, the barest of bare minimums and may not even meet the standard of a bare minimum for some of our my colleagues. But that is the text adding it would simply state the council's priority is to get some sort of return, which I know many of you share and ask for your support, starting with asking for a second.
522 Second councilor Kanal moves Kanal for councilor Avalos seconds colleagues to the amendment. Councilor Morillo.
523 Thank you councilor Kanal. And thank you to my colleagues who including councilor, Novick and other folks who tried to improve this as much as we could. I feel like, unfortunately, we are going to just be in like a greek mythology cassandra moment where we're not going to do anything to improve this term sheet. Clearly, by the end of today, and some of us may be politically punished for actually trying to negotiate on behalf of portlanders later on. And we will also be vindicated a few years down the line. So thank you for trying. I appreciate this, the last amendment that we're going to put forward today and to the portlanders that are watching, we're trying to do the best that we can to get a good deal for you. And at the end of the day, I would rather I would rather lose some political points somewhere down the line than make put my city in debt for the next few generations to lay off more employees in the coming in the coming budget cycle to cut more services that we promise to people in the parks levy, that we ask them to pay more for. Our constituents are emailing us. They can barely pay rent. They're choosing between rent and food. We're laying off so many people, and we are not even recuperating the cost for this. So this feels very heavy, and I'm willing to take whatever political costs it is at this point to do what I think is right. So thanks for trying. Thank you everyone who did try today.
524 Thank you, councilor Morillo councilor Novick.
525 I appreciate where councilor Kanal is trying to go. To me, the language is too vague to support. I also wanted to respond to councilor Morelos comment about cassandra, which is that whatever happens to any of us, I hope none of us are murdered by clytemnestra.
526 Second that. Thank you, councilor Novick, councilor Green.
527 Thank you, council president councilor Kanal amendment is our last formal effort as a body to signal to portlanders that we are going to be good stewards of their dollars and that we demand more than trust and we demand more than just this is what the nba says, what we need to do to get a good deal. Without checking the numbers, without subjecting analysis to scrutiny, without saying, hey. You can't share your assumptions with me because it's covered by the nda, I guess that's good enough. Like that's unacceptable. Like that's, that's malpractice. That's a dereliction of duty on the part of this body. And so the idea that we don't put up a challenge to that and provide some guidance to the mayor to do a better job for Portland is frankly astonishing. And so I really do hope that the negotiating team can take this discussion and say, you know what? I slept on it. I do think we should fight for Portland. I don't have any confidence, though, that that's going to happen. And I think what we're going to do is we're going to get a tiny little tweak to this term sheet, and we're going to put forward our final, maybe acceptable offer, not our starting position. And that's what that's the signal we've sent to Portland today. And that's why I'm voting for Kanal councilor Kanal amendment. And I think that we I think we owe portlanders a lot better than this. And yeah, I'm with councilor Morillo. I'll take the punches. I already have taken the punches and I've paid some political costs for taking this stance. But portlanders are watching. And I got to tell you, they're pretty upset at the way that we steward their funds in this city, and they will not forget. Thank you.
528 Thank you, councilor Green councilor Kanal.
529 Thanks.
530 I have three questions. One is councilor Novick, I appreciate that you've been willing to engage with each of these amendments on their merits. I really do appreciate that. And you voted for some and voted against others over the course of the day. What would make it less vague? Because we've tried a few more specific amendments and they just haven't passed.
531 I just when it says a return on investment, I think that that might be construed to mean that we make a profit. And I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm just not quite sure what it means. I mean, it could be a negative return. It could be a positive return. And like my collection of proposals arguably wouldn't have delivered a profitable return on investment because it was incorporating charitable donations as part of the package. So I, I simply am not sure what a return on investment means.
532 Yeah, I appreciate that.
533 On the on the subject of. The charitable donations, that's what the terms and community benefits are for. I don't think that everything that the city could get back in a good mode of renovation package is monetary. And so some of it is some of it may not even be quantifiable, right? What you know, or not easily quantifiable at to some degree in terms of the rest. Yeah. I mean, it doesn't say profit. I think return on investment can be safely assumed to mean positive. But if you have thoughts on how you'd like to make that more positive, I would love to know because I think what and this leads me to my second question for my other colleagues, which is, do you want a return on this investment?
534 Good question.
535 And actually, you know, I'm going to skip ahead. Mr. Mayor, you have listened to this whole conversation. Do you want a return on this investment for the city of Portland?
536 Absolutely. It's how you quantify that, whether it's qualitative or quantitative. But it's absolutely at the core of what we're trying to do. And we're looking at this from a holistic standpoint. And as an aside, councilor, I do want to mention looking through all these amendments, there's some great ideas that can certainly form the discussion with our negotiators, and they're going to take that into consideration. And so this is not a period in which this conversation didn't end with a result. We're going to be looking at these. I think there's some good ideas, and certainly we'll be considering that.
537 I appreciate that. So what you all just heard, colleagues, is that the mayor, as I knew the answer to the question before I asked it does want a return on investment for this and also mentioned more holistically. That's what, through a combination of terms and community benefits means, it means holistically. And so I hope to to see that, and I'll have a comment that's unrelated to the amendment on the rest. After the vote, we take on this amendment. Council president. But I would suggest to colleagues that your vote will be interpreted by me. I can't speak for anybody else as about whether or not you want a return on investment, because there's literally, I don't know how this can't possibly have a negative effect to put into the resolution and not the term sheet. So I'll leave it there. Thank you.
538 Thank you, councilor. Councilor. I'm sorry. Just making sure. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue. Keelan, can you please call the roll on Kanal for Kanal.
539 Seconded by Avalos. Koyama Lane.
540 Morillo.
541 Aye, Morillo Novick Clark. No. Green.
542 Hi, Zimmerman. No.
543 Avalos. Smith.
544 No. Kanal I pirtle-guiney. No.
545 Ryan.
546 No.
547 Dunphy. No amendment fails with a vote of six eyes and six noes.
548 Colleagues, that concludes our work on amendments on this item. Councilor Kanal.
549 Yeah, thank you, council president, I would suggest, just as a format note, if the idea is to make suggestions to the administration, a work session might be a more appropriate way to do that. I think the song and dance of of doing amendments, but not actually having a credible consideration of that when the intention is to have a request, might make that a better outcome where people feel like they're being heard, as opposed to going through somewhat of a, of a farce of a process. So I just wanted to put that on the, on the record, because I think the work session conversations where we've given input to the, the administration has been, it has been what it was promised to be. It's a work session. We give feedback. We have a conversation. So I just wanted to ask for that in the future that I think maybe for the sake of not only counselors, but for the public understanding what this conversation actually is might be appropriate in the future. Thank you.
550 Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Councilor. Morillo.
551 Thank you. We were told earlier that there would be another opportunity, since amendments was not the opportunity to do this. What is the time and date that council will be able to have this discussion to make sure our input is included?
552 Our next council hearing on August 12th will be starting at 9:00. 9:30 a.m. Will be about this, and we have cleared the calendar for the remainder of the week, and we have extended that meeting to last from 930 until five.
553 So are you assuming that we are going to bring some of these same amendments to that next to August 12th?
554 I'm assuming nothing. I have no idea what folks want to do. You're welcome to do it.
555 Because we can't negotiate or have these policy discussions, discussions in executive session because of quorum rules. So we're having it here today. There was no engagement from half the council on this. So we're going to be bringing amendments again on August 12th. Or are we expected to rubber stamp this.
556 Councilor there was engagement on this. We had a series of 16 or 14 votes just now and they failed. That is engagement. I don't know what. I mean, I hear your frustration and I hear everybody's frustration, but that is engagement. You are welcome to do what you want on the 12th. That is how the process works.
557 Council president. What I'm asking my colleagues to do is to engage on the substance of the things that are being brought forward, and people have chosen to completely ignore their duty to actually analyze the policy and the budget impacts for the city of Portland, because they have just across the board, said no to any and all amendments. That's not true engagement, and I don't appreciate the condescension. Thank you councilor.
558 Thank you very much, councilor Avalos.
559 Yeah, I mean, I genuinely just don't understand what we're doing next week. So all these amendments, people didn't want to talk about the amendments. They didn't want to make any changes today. Supposedly we're supposed to do that next week, but I don't I thought that was the point of this. So am I supposed to bring all 12 of my amendments, or can you're vote on an amendment at a different day? I don't even know the the logistics of that.
560 When is the package coming?
561 Yeah. And what and tell me more about this package that is coming. I don't understand again, it's just very frustrating to not know the way that my input is going to be taken. So if this was not the way, because nobody wants to vote for anything, because for reasons, can I get an understanding of what I'm doing on the 12th? Because at this point, I don't even know why I would come.
562 August.
563 August 12th will be the final vote on the resolution.
564 So you said that kristen is going to. So, kristen, come up here, please. Could you please explain what, how what you're going to do between now and next Thursday? Because what I heard the council president say was that you were going to take this information and propose something.
565 Thank you, counselor, for the record again, kristen. Dennis, my, my intent from the direction from council president Dunphy, is to take all of the amendments that have been proposed today, talk to the team, the negotiating team about them, and figure out how to integrate as many as possible into the into a package, an amendment for next week to integrate them into the term sheet.
566 And also, just to clarify the record, because I know my amendments, we've talked about them. I didn't give you the exact ones ahead of time, but just to clarify, because I heard it be said that nobody nobody ran anything by you. That doesn't seem to be the case. Can you please confirm.
567 Kristen was not who the directions were to run by? It was the negotiating team. Kristen is assisting me in facilitating this process, but kristen is not a negotiator for us. And the email, which my chief of staff is resending to everybody on council about the process that was laid out, said to contact the negotiating team, or at the very least, the staff administrator.
568 Thank you. And it also it was a recommendation. Is that how the email reads.
569 I you know, councilor.
570 I'm pretty sure.
571 That in just a second.
Procedural episode · turns 572–580
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
572 Well, but I'm asking please do not dismiss me when I'm asking you a serious question. It said a recommendation, so I don't appreciate the goalpost continuing to move. Is it kristen? Is it a recommendation? Did it have to get submitted by this time? Is it now that we have to do amendments? No, it's not. So I think I'm feeling jostled because I don't understand where I'm supposed to put my input. So can I get a clear answer on do before now and next week? Do I need to get some kind of grading from somebody in order to put something forward? How do I bring more ideas next week so that they can be integrated into the term sheet?
573 What I can commit to councilor is that I can work with you directly. I have the amendments that you have that you've already submitted. If there are any additional ones, I'm happy to talk to you about them. I will take on making sure that that input is then brought over to the negotiating team and making sure that we have a full package, and I will commit to making sure that you all have that in advance of the 12th, so you all can read what that looks like. That way, if there's any additional amendments that don't get captured, they can be brought at. My understanding is that you can bring them to the council meeting on the 12th. I'd like to incorporate as many as possible.
574 Thank you.
575 Thank you. Councilor Avalos councilor.
576 A point of order, mr. President. Can you just remind us the rest of the agenda for tonight?
577 This is the remainder of our agenda. We have concluded all the city's business and we are about to adjourn.
578 Okay. Thank you, mr. President.
579 Thank you, counselor Green.
580 Thank you, mr. President. So we heard from the Portland trail blazers last week, and they told us up here that unless we abandoned the protections that are already in the bridge lease agreement, that there's no deal, that this term sheet is unacceptable. The draft thing is unacceptable. They didn't respond to our term sheet because they found it unacceptable. And so I'm. I'm struggling to really understand why we have to vet our amendments with the negotiating team to find out what is acceptable, because the whole point is to adopt the term sheet, to say, this is where council is at. And then from there we go into the negotiations and then we lose some of what we got. But at least we've given the parameters by which to negotiate. And so that's some of the frustration you're hearing up here. And I just need to make it crystal clear that, and this is to the negotiating team and for the public. I expect you to negotiate for Portland. Please negotiate for portlanders. Do not negotiate for tom dundon. Do not negotiate for the Portland trail blazers. He has not been working in good faith here. We have we have we've all of these amendments were very reasonable, very reasonable starting positions. And so I'm going to shut up here and I'm going to let us move on. But I really, really, really hope that what you bring us next week has some measure of what we have talked about. I hope you heard my concern about that post renovation funding stream, because it is extremely important to get media s on a term sheet that finds the money to $120,000,120 million, because we don't have it yet. So there must be language in there that says we can use that to bond for that. If there is not, I am a no on this term sheet. Thank you.
581 Thank you, councilor Green, councilor Smith, last word.
582 Thank you, council president kristen. So are you saying that you're going to put forward the amendments that got voted down? You're still going to put them forward even though you they got voted down.
583 Councilor Smith, what I've been asked to do is bring back a. Review, all of the amendments, and bring them back into a package that could be review.
584 Packages that were approved.
585 Know all of the amendments that were brought up, and then council, because council will need to ultimately decide how you all vote on them so that that entire package could be voted down.
586 And I think I need to direct my question to to council president, because you can't bring anything forward that we did not approve. So council.
587 Will be coming in my name and I will be bringing forward. If there is a if there is a path forward on that. The negotiators think that on some of these issues that were tied 6 to 6, I will be sharing with folks an opportunity to vote on it. If it's not, then I. We won't and we will vote it down.
588 Generally, you can't move on. On things that did not pass council president and that is a slap in the face for us who have been here all afternoon and we voted. If all you're going to do is bring them forward, even though they lost, then why were we here? We could have just emailed you our our, our concerns.
589 Thank you.
590 So I think that that is not appropriate. And you need to figure out a different way because as far as I'm concerned when I'm leaving here, is that the current term sheet as is should go forward. Okay. If you're going to add some other stuff to it, you are not following procedure.
591 Then what is the president's package?
592 All right.
593 We have brought forward president's packages before. This is not unprecedented.
594 Okay, colleagues. Councilor Morillo last word.
595 I was just saying that we this council has had situations where we've brought amendments to things before they failed, and then they have been recuperated in a president's package and an attempt to reconcile something that is workable. So this is not unprecedented. Granted, the president packages have not been super successful because when you put everything that everyone doesn't like in a thing, then usually it doesn't work out, but it is an option. And the goalpost has continued to move for this discussion for what is acceptable. Also, kristen, I just want to say that you're doing a great job and none of our ire is directed at you. I'm mostly frustrated at my colleagues and the whole process of trying to negotiate with people that don't seem to love the city as much as we do, but you're doing a great job. And I just wanted to say that.
596 With that, we're going to adjourn.
597 President.
598 Thank you. City business is concluded. This meeting of the Portland city council is adjourned.