The record · Transcript
Council Session — 2026-07-21
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (28,142 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.
Session summaryEditor-reviewed
This July 21, 2026 meeting of the Portland City Council's Housing and Permitting Committee, chaired by Councilor Avalos, covered four main agenda areas. During public comment, two residents testified on housing topics, including public subsidies and bailouts for landlords and a property tax exemption available to for-profit owners who add a small nonprofit ownership interest. The chair and vice chair then presented a draft letter asking the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the Housing Bonus Alignment Project, including raising the base floor area ratio in the RM3 zone from 2.0 to 2.5, applying a five-foot front setback reduction to the base zone, and aligning deeper-affordability bonus criteria with state cooperative housing criteria; after discussion in which some councilors declined to sign, members agreed the letter would go out from individual signatories rather than the committee. The committee also held a discussion with Metro Council President Juan Carlos Gonzalez and Metro's director of government affairs on regional housing and homelessness investments, covering the Portland and Metro affordable housing bonds, the supportive housing services program, and Metro polling described as showing growing voter skepticism about whether these programs are working. Finally, Revenue Division staff presented 14 properties proposed for foreclosure action over delinquent city liens totaling roughly $1.5 million, one agenda item having been withdrawn after staff reported the owner satisfied the lien balance; two representatives of affected properties testified. Rather than voting that day, the chair announced the foreclosure items would be continued to the committee's August 4 meeting (see the vote ledger for any recorded actions), and the meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m. Key items: • Public comment on housing and permitting, including testimony on landlord subsidies and a property tax exemption tied to partial nonprofit ownership • Draft letter to the Planning Commission proposing amendments to the Housing Bonus Alignment Project (base floor area ratio, front setbacks, cooperative housing bonus criteria), sent by individual signatories rather than as a committee letter • Discussion with Metro Council President Juan Carlos Gonzalez and Metro staff on regional housing bonds, the supportive housing services program, and voter polling on future funding measures • Discussion of a possible future affordable housing bond, acquisition of existing housing, and a potential joint ask to the state on behavioral health funding • Staff presentation of 14 properties proposed for foreclosure over delinquent city liens totaling roughly $1.5 million, with testimony from two property representatives • Foreclosure items (minus one withdrawn item) continued to the committee's August 4 meeting (see the vote ledger for any recorded actions)
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'm going to call the meeting of the housing and permitting committee to order. It is Tuesday, July 21st at 2:02 p.m. Diego, please call the roll.
1 Good afternoon.
2 Koyama Lane here.
3 Novick here.
4 Green here. Pirtle-guiney here. Avalos.
5 Present. Claire, can you please read the statement of conduct?
6 Thank you chair. Good afternoon and welcome to the meeting of the housing and permitting committee to testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the committee agenda at Portland.gov/council/agenda/houg and permitting committee or by calling 311. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In person. Testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. Please state your name for the record. If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. And finally, virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
7 Thank you claire. We have four main items on today's agenda. Although it might look a little wonky because one of those items is a lot of things. We're going to first start with public comment on housing permitting issues. Then councilor Green and I will share with the committee a letter to the planning commission that we're hoping to have your support on. We'll talk more about that. Then we will welcome metro council president, who I see is already in the audience. Thank you for being here. And the director of government relations, andy shaw, for a conversation on regional housing and homelessness strategies. And then after a short break, we will go through that list of foreclosure properties to consider. And we do have to do them all individually. So everyone's just going to have to bear with us procedurally today. So with that, please read item one, diego.
8 Item one housing and permitting community feedback.
9 All right. So we are going to hear from community members on their ideas regarding housing and permitting issues. They have three minutes each. Diego. Go ahead and call them up first.
10 Amber cooke, followed by brianne whitaker.
11 Please sit here. Yes. Thank you. Go ahead and introduce yourself and you can get started.
12 Hi, my name is amber cooke. And I apologize just is going to have it printed out and instead I'm doing it on my phone. Okay. Okay. Greetings to the committee. Housing is subject to the same rich people, big business phenomena happening everywhere in every industry. Millionaires and shareholders have decided to extract higher profit margins from their industries. And so demand both higher prices and bigger government bailouts. Developers and bigger landlords work together to keep their rents higher than the market rate with their realpage dealings, and hold Oregon and Portland hostage, claiming they are going under financially and can't make it without being allowed to overcharge rents while saving money, neglecting their legal obligation to their renters and properties. In addition, they received billions in rent assistance and are getting additional billions in a huge number of subsidies and bailouts. And now they're asking you for even more for debt buy down bailouts. Let's look at this through a non landlord lobby lens. If a business can't make it financially, someone else buys the business who can. Yes, landlords have created a multifamily northwest narrative threatening. They will fold and sell and then you'll be sorry. But ask yourself, has there, in the course of history, ever been a shortage of landlords? Landlording is making unearned investment income on a commodity everyone needs. Isn't the truth that if landlords who want to make unreasonable profit leave new landlords will take over who are content with a more reasonable and sustainable amount of unearned income? The fallacy that low income property landlords can't make enough to stay in business must be questioned by those who who are giving out the public funds and prove with comprehensive company financial documentation before more of our public money goes to these rich for profit entities from rent subsidies, federal tax credits, a variety of state tax credits and city tax credits, and a hundred other handouts. They get that you and the public don't know about, along with bonds, incredibly low rate loans, large developer fees, realpage collective price fixing, unaffordable rents charged developer landlords are not suffering. They are failing by overcharging and providing such harmful housing for low to moderate income and such that they can't even keep their properties rented out. With thousands unhoused and desperate to be housed. Sorry about this. Wow. Okay.
13 Got 30 more seconds.
14 Okay. Thank you. Bailouts and debt buy downs reward them for failing while still allowing them to extract higher profits. The housing industry is bleeding public funds out in such high amounts. It's time to start demanding accountability and stop the abuse. They can't afford to run their properties better and for less rents at a more moderate profit margin. So they'll fill back up with renters and become self-sustaining like we expect from every other industry.
15 Thank you.
16 Thank you for thank you for your feedback. Next up.
17 Hi council. My name is brea whitaker. I'm a longtime Portland resident, a grad school, a grad student at Portland state university, and a resident of district three. I just want to ask you to take a closer look at the nplt tax loophole in which for profit property owners like community development partners, I think they're called are able to tack on just a itty bitty, tiny little nonprofit, like 1/200 of an interest and receive a huge tax break on their property taxes. As you already know, we are faced with all kind of budget deficits here at the city level. We have them at the university, we have them at the state. It's a an issue that we have to start closing these loopholes up on. I think this is a major a major one that is going overlooked. In fact, I know that when my husband got on the phone with one of councilor Dunphy's staff members, that staff member let him know that it's intentional or possibly a nice a side effect that a for profit company like a huge privately owned international hedge fund that helps people in far off places retire while the rest of us just kind of stew in our own juices. It lets them get things like an $84,000 property tax break on one property, one property, milepost five in northeast Portland. That is basically a cesspool. It's I don't know if you've ever seen. Call the midwife, but it looks like a tenement house from call the midwife because they don't run it. They don't manage it. They say they have nonprofits that manage it and provide services. They do not the nonprofits, and that they have come in and take care of the problems that are happening in the building and take care of the services that are supposed to support the tenants that they have in the building. Never show up because there's 800 layers of administrative fees and administrators and this and that before it ever gets to the front line. So why are they getting a tax break? What is this tax break even doing for them? They don't need it. They already have multiple kinds of tax credits. They're already part of huge portfolios of properties that don't need help, that are luxury buildings that are just benefiting from these tax breaks. But the community doesn't benefit from the tax break. The community doesn't benefit from these loopholes. All loopy and holy and flapping about. We have to be better than past councils. We have to be better than past cities. We have to look to, quite frankly, new york and at this point and come up with some actual solutions and do some actual action. Thank you for your time.
18 That concludes testimony.
19 Thank you both for your very passionate testimony. And I'll just say I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and it is my intention to move forward policies to address these issues. I think that we do need to get serious about making changes to how our our housing market works. That is why we have proposed several alternatives, but really grateful for your feedback and know that I am going to be going on a big tour in the fall to talk specifically to renters, so keep an eye on that. We will be bringing rental rip offs to Portland just like mamdani, so we'll stay tuned. Thank you. Diego, please go ahead and read item two.
20 Item two committee letter to planning commission.
21 All right. So this is an exciting yet unconventional opportunity here to do something different in committee. I'm really looking forward to this discussion. We as chair and vice chair Green are seeking the committee's support to transmit a letter on behalf of the housing and permitting committee. The letter reflects the committee's interest in pursuing the planning commission, ensuring the planning commission is aware of our perspective as they continue their work. And so I'll go ahead and turn it over to vice chair Green to introduce the letter. Walk us through the purpose and explain why we're bringing it forward. And after that, we'll open it up for committee discussion to consider how we move that forward. So, vice chair Green, take it away.
22 Thank you so much. Chair Avalos, just for context here, I recently had a meeting with michael anderson at the sightline institute, some other kind of pro housing sort of agenda, you know, kind of housing policy focused constituents of mine and, you know, developers as well in my office to sort of say, look, we have an opportunity right now in flight with an item that's before the planning commission. It's the housing bonus alignment project project that is currently under consideration by the planning commission. And in reading the proposed draft, they they're really appreciative of the direction, but they think given a given how long it takes to move through those land use items and given the scale of the crisis that we have in the city of Portland, with failing to provide enough housing at a reasonable cost, and given that we have a shortage of funds to directly subsidize things, we have to get creative about how we change our zoning approaches and land use approaches. We have an opportunity to use that action that's in flight to appeal to the planning commission, to make some amendments to their to their project before it heads to council to save us some time, frankly. And so I was talking to him, you know, kind of and I'll go through what these three asks are. But the idea was, well, if we wait to receive it from the planning commission to the body that, you know, we can have that debate and we will have it either way. But what how do we envision the relationship between the housing committee of the city of Portland and the planning commission? And I think the the chair and I have thought that we really want this to be an opportunity to to minimize the time it takes to get to get to an end objective so we can move our housing production along as quickly as possible. You know, later we'll have a conversation about where voters are at on the state of paying for, for, for housing finance. And so anything that we can do to demonstrate to voters that we're using our time as wisely as possible and as efficiently as possible. I think it's it's important to strike while the iron is hot. And so the thinking was there's not time to draft a resolution. There's not time to consider kind of a new, you know, legislative action item from this committee. But we can't always transmit a letter to say, maybe consider this before you adopt something. Planning commission. And I think that's an opportunity that we might want to try out in this in this committee. And so there are three basic asks of the planning commission in this letter that are focused on the m3 base base zoning framework. The first is to increase the base floor area ratio from 2 to 2.5, just in the base zone, to make it easier for some of these mid mid density projects to pencil out, given a shortage of other capital that can make the difference for this project to kind of get over the line, things like single stair projects would be easier to build in a framework like this. It fits more easily with the inner east side for all type of envisioning that we're doing as well. The second is to apply the five foot front setback reduction universally to the base zone. So that's just built into the base zone to make it much easier to get to. Yes. On using as much of your your property and, and then finally adjust the deeper housing affordability criteria to align with state defined bonus criteria for affordable cooperative housing. So I think the, the, the instinct or the intention behind this piece is in some sense, to, to bring, you know. Let me get my notes here. Right. The commission should make any necessary tweaks to the deeper housing affordability bonus criteria to just bring more in line with the state's 90 year moderate income cooperative housing framework. So if we line these up, it ensures that our zoning code as we adopt it is sort of, in some sense, future proofing a little bit. Other cooperative forms, limited equity, co op forms of housing that we might want to consider, as well as any future social housing work that we might want to consider. So it kind of provides a little bit more flexibility. So we don't wait to react to a policy choice that we might make as councils. And we're instead ready to go. And you know, those are the top three, I think the sort of need to have and please consider it. But it wasn't really one of the top three was as you're doing this discussion draft and working towards adopting a recommendation to council, consider raising the stepdown height from 35 to 45ft so we can move away from these kind of like this corridor based approach to density and not concentrate housing on some of the busiest roads in the city of Portland, and really kind of upzone a little bit more. So the idea here is this is not a binding thing from the committee. This isn't a policy directive. This is a letter from the committee to the planning commission to say, before you send it our way, these are things we would love to see there. And so the ask from us is because we can't talk to you guys, we can't talk to a third between meetings. And this could potentially be a policy under consideration by the council. You would violate public meetings law by asking any one of you guys to sign on. So this is the place to ask if you want to sign this letter or not. And so no hard feelings if you won't. But we we think that it'd be great if all of us signed on to this letter today, and we sent it to the planning commission with some, some asks here, so I'll, I think I'll shut up there and we can kind of get into this conversation.
23 All right. Sounds good. Councilor. Novick. Go ahead.
24 Thank you, madam chair. So I have to say, some of these concepts are things that I learned at once a year, and then I promptly forget them. So what does the what is the base? What is changing the base far of 2.0 to 2.5. What does that practically mean in the real world?
25 That is a great question and I am going to do my best, but because I always have to ask this, I always have to retrain myself on these acronyms as well. But in talking to developers, my understanding is if we do that, it gives them more solution space to engineer and architect. Given some of the lot sizes and some of our inner east side, it makes it easier to contemplate more mid-rise development projects with that f.a.r ratio than than otherwise would happen. But I don't know. Director engstrom, I'm going to put you on the spot here, but maybe you can give a plain english explanation to the councilor on what that the practical impact of such a thing would be. And he's not working for me right now. He's working for for the committee. So thank you.
26 Thank you. For the record, Eric engstrom, director of the bureau of planning and sustainability. So floor area ratio is the measure. It's a measure of development intensity of buildings. And it really literally just means a floor area ratio of 1 to 1 means that you can have a floor area. If you had a 10,000 square foot lot, you can have a 10,000 square foot floor plate and that can be stacked. However many stories the height limit would allow. So a 2 to 1 ratio would mean for a 10,000 square foot lot, you'd get 20,000ft■!s of floor area to stack as you design the building. So it's it's a measure of development intensity.
27 May I ask the director a couple of questions? So let's see. One question I have is my understanding is the planning commission was sort of working on adjustments to the bonus criteria. And this is sort of about the base f.a.r. Would they be freaked out about being asked to sort of incorporate changes that aren't about bonuses?
28 You know, whenever we scope a planning project, there is some consideration for what's the project about? And we do want to avoid from a public engagement perspective, we want to avoid a situation where we market a project as about a and then we do z. This is not quite a and z, it's maybe a and c, so there's some wiggle room there in terms of how you interpret that. And if this was adopted, because again, as you're right, the project was about bonus provisions. It might prompt us to do a little bit more engagement to make sure that the public is aware of the change.
29 So is there would there be time to do that additional engagement, or are we asking them to like, add something on after they've already done all the engaging they're going to do?
30 The planning commission, I suppose, could ask us to do that before they vote, or they could just say, before you go to council, do that, it might stretch the timeline of the project overall a tiny bit, but it's not off the table.
31 Okay. I actually have the same kind of question about. What a five foot front setback reduction means. Councilor. And what, what what it means to apply it universally to the base zone as opposed to non universally.
32 Yeah, my, my understanding. So again, I might ask the director to help me out here, but when I talk to the developer and I talk to the, the folks in the room with me, they said if we were to adopt this rule, it would allow them to have a little more creativity in how they contemplate how to approach the development projects that are waiting in their pipeline, that they have investors ready to go on. And given, given the setback rules, oftentimes they're in a situation where something doesn't quite hit the line because they can't configure the lot the way that they would prefer.
33 Councilor my understanding that the multifamily zones, the front setback is typically either 5 or 10ft, depending on the zone. The the more lower density zones are the ten feet and the higher density are five. And in this case, I believe the bonus language says that if you're using that bonus, you can go to the five. And as I understand the letter, you're you're asking for the us to switch the base standard in that zone from 10 to 5.
34 Yeah. And I and I just want to be clear, and I really appreciate the questions you're asking. The folks in the room are like, look, there's going to be some pushback on like, well, why don't we just do this outside? This is a bonus alignment. So these, these sorts of questions would be reasonable to ask. And I think the argument was like, it doesn't seem to serve any good purpose to not have that in the base zone. If we want to encourage densification on the timelines that we're trying to do beyond just saying, well, if we're going to do this bonus project, maybe we're starting to veer into a in something that's closer to the z and just be aware of that sort of concern. And I, you know, I think the shared understanding is, well, if we were to hit, you know, take this letter off the table, go forward and do great things and then contemplate trying to do this later. It might take years to take this up on a different process because these are staff intensive, lengthy process. And so striking, while the iron is hot is sort of the is sort of the play here.
35 And how does the how do the setbacks work again? Is it you can you can build up to ten within ten feet of the property line in this mean you could build within up to five feet away from the property line, the.
36 The front setback is measured from the right of way edge. So which in many zones is at the back of the sidewalk or a couple feet back from the sidewalk. So yeah, it there are minor projections allowed into that setback in many cases like balconies and things. But but yeah, it would just allow the building to be slightly closer to the street in that zone.
Procedural episode · turns 37–45
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
37 Okay. And I have to say the third one, I think I understood, I don't understand the least. What what does it mean to address deeper housing affordability criteria to align with state defined bonus criteria?
38 I think the idea is folks like sightline, folks like Portland neighbors welcome some of these developers who are building kind of mid mid-rise single stair, you know, you know, 4 to 6 floors are anticipating that we might adopt something like a limited equity co-op model or a social housing type of framework. And they, they want the planning committee to, and it may already be compatible, but to sort of consider that if we were to adopt something like that, that we have already trued up and future proofed our definition. So we're not waiting on a later policy action that would be able to put to use some of those, those bonuses that are already in state law. So it's kind of future proofing against maybe future council action on that.
39 Director, do you have any thoughts to add on that?
40 That's the one that I, frankly, have not done my homework on either. So we'd have to do more research to, to really comment on that one.
41 Okay. On the other two, I have another question for you. Actually, for both of you who will be mad if we sent this letter, who would be the what would be the objections to the change in the setback rule and the change in the base f.a.r.
42 I mean, I don't know.
43 I just kind of from a, you know, public engagement standpoint, if a voting on something, I sort of want to know who will be mad to see if maybe I should check in with them first, just to sort of a general rule.
44 I do want to clear that this isn't up for a vote.
45 So okay.
46 We're just asking folks to sign.
47 Up, I see.
48 Right? Yeah. So you can always say, well, you know, I wasn't the first signer on it.
49 Let's see. The other question is, I mean, and except for the third one, which I don't understand at all, the other things seem to me to be consistent with my biases. So but one thing I would wonder about is. Do to do the. We're urging them to adopt three critical amendments. I think that in dealing with one of our commissions, I feel more comfortable urging them to consider adopting them rather than saying, we want you to do this. So. Okay. Yeah, that's my sort of instinctive reaction. Thank you.
50 Appreciate it.
51 Okay. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
52 Thank you, chair. And I just want to start by saying that I think for places where we have had robust conversations as a committee and there's a sense of where the committee and maybe even where council more broadly wants to head using this approach, writing a letter early on being clear about where council is, is a very good one, and I, I appreciate you daylighting this as a tool that we have in our toolbox to use. That said, I'm concerned with this one for a couple of reasons. I'm leaning toward not putting my name on it. I do want to ask a couple of questions. Is there a reason, a policy reason that this is focused on the rm3 zone? The underlying work of the alignment project is affecting a about five different residential and five different commercial zones.
53 In my conversations with the developer and neal heller is his name, just for full disclosure, and michael anderson, who many of us know or know of. The idea is most of the action in the inner eastside for all projects. And frankly, if we were to move towards something like a single stair framework of production, housing production would would be in the three zoning base. And so the idea was taking this step now, recognizing that this is a bonus alignment project and not a base zone project, would allow us to move in the direction that some cities, frankly, very close to us, like Vancouver, Washington, are moving where they're basically taking almost frankly, a maximalist approach to saying, we really can't afford to sit on our hands and we would like to upzone and remove as many restrictions as possible. And so we don't we're not going to do that in the city of Portland, because we have different rules and institutions, and we can't move that fast. But the idea here is knowing that our m three is going to be the zone where these projects would be envisioned, let's address it in the base zone while while this process is underway and see if we can make hay while the sun shines.
54 The bonus alignment project, though, isn't focused just on the east side for all area. It's focused citywide. And when I looked at the map that they include on the areas that will be affected by that project, it truly is all across the city. And interestingly, it seems to be very corridor focused, which is something that I've heard you a few times this afternoon say you don't support. So I guess I'm I'm still trying to square. Not only are we looking at two changes that are to the base, which is a pretty significant policy change, I would say, even if it's only small here to change our base zoning without a a robust conversation and inviting stakeholders to weigh in feels big. But we're talking about changes that I hear you saying are necessary for a small part of the city, that we've already fast tracked the process on. In a project that affects the whole city. So help me square those things.
55 This letter is not intended to be limited to the inner eastside for all projects. This letter is intended to speak to this idea that if we're going to hit our housing production goals, we kind of need to use every tool that we have at our disposal citywide. And, and one of those tools is recognizing that we have zoning map update projects in flight all the time, and we have this brokered procedural process that takes years. And so we have one underway that's already considering some opportunities to make some adjustments. And I think the idea is not that we want to focus the work just on the on, on the areas of the map that would likely benefit from the inner eastside for all work. But to make sure we're clearing any bottlenecks in advance as, as there's efforts to develop within this space, wherever they may be, it could be on the east side as well. It could be in my, you know, in southwest Portland as well. And so I'm using that as an example, because those are the areas where you're likely to see a lot of work because of the nature of the grid in that part of the city and the infrastructure that exists. But I think the spirit behind this is to say, you look at some other cities that are meeting the moment by removing height restrictions, by basically doing a bunch of by right development change. And we're not. And so we can't do that from this committee. But what we can, we can do from this committee is urge slightly more bold action when we do take some of these update steps. So that's the spirit behind it. I'm not sure if that addresses your concern or not.
56 It at least provides some explanation, and I appreciate that.
57 And the last piece though, just just on the corridor piece, the step down stuff is a direct callback to the corridors. The reason why we have these these density corridors on streets like division interstate, some of the kind of bigger, newer development spaces where you've got a lot of density right on the street. But then and then single family homes right behind it is because that step down structure. And I think the recognition is we it didn't make it in the top three because it's sort of not as that that's a big step. The idea here is like, while you're at it, maybe consider a subtle change to your step down approach. So that's, that's why that's called out on a different approach. And that's why I mentioned something about corridor density density.
58 I read through the summary of the report and a few of the, the detailed pieces of the report as well last night, so that I could understand the context here. And there are some really important changes that will be coming to us. There are also some things in there that I have some concerns and additional questions about, and I think. Looking at changes to one area of zoning based on a conversation you had with a developer. Without a broader conversation about what it is we are trying to do across our zoning structures isn't something that I'm comfortable putting my name on. I'm also not comfortable saying, these are the things we want you to change. When I may have other concerns. As we learn more about the proposal that I'd like to be able to have the opportunity to weigh in on. So I, I really do appreciate you all bringing this tool forward. I do think that as we have things that the committee has discussed, things that we have said are priorities for us. This is a really important tool we should be using. We certainly need to be moving toward more density in significant swaths of our city, but we should be having the policy conversations about how to do that in a way that that works with what Portland has done. We have robust processes. And for us to to end run those without a discussion about how it fits in with the broader policy agenda isn't something that I am comfortable doing. We need to we need to speed up the process, but we need to not get rid of all opportunity to think about how the different pieces of our our zoning work together to create the city that portlanders want to be in. So.
59 You know, I respect I respect that feedback, but I would push back that this is not an end run around the process. This is literally designed to engage directly in the process, which is the planning commission is considering a zoning map. Okay, so the planning commission would receive this letter and say thanks, but no thanks. Or they'll say, that's interesting. Let's incorporate this. So this is actually squarely in line with the process. And I think what portlanders are asking for is for us to think creatively on how we can help that process move as quickly as possible towards the outcome that we need, which is housing people who need to be housed and want to be housed. So I just, you know, this was an example of running the process would be bringing forward an ordinance or resolution to say disregard. I'm going to I'm going to bring a floor amendment to the ordinance that comes out of this and do all that. And so my desire, our desire was to sort of say that's actually not the preferred method. We do want to use the procedure, and this is how we would influence that procedure. So I appreciate your feedback.
60 You know, I'll take your point on the word choice. I was responding to hearing that this might be able to be a part of public comment and feedback, but that work has already begun. I think there is, as you have said, broad agreement across council that we need to diligently work to make sure we have enough housing in our city, and I will always ask for us to approach that work by making sure that changes we make in one place, fit with what we're trying to do in other places, and that this work is seamless. And I'm not sure that making a change to one one base floor area in one zone structure. In a process that isn't looking at the base at all, is a is the comprehensive way to do that work that I'd like to do. So I understand that you two will probably move forward with this boldly, with your names on it and anybody else who wants it, but I would ask that it not come from the committee as a whole.
61 Councilor. Koyama Lane.
62 Thank you, chair. Thank you, chair and vice chair for bringing this letter to us. I want to highlight the third recommendation, third recommended amendment in here. In the letter that suggests adjusting deeper housing affordability criteria to align with state defined bonus criteria for affordable cooperative housing. I agree that it's important that we line up incentives in the zoning code, so that the city is compatible with alternative equity models, community led land trusts, and, you know, other flavors of things that might come like social housing. So thank you, chair and vice chair, for including that language, especially in the third one. And I, I hear what councilor Novick was saying about the, the use of language that's a little bit more like, please consider or for consideration. I think with some changes there, I would be happy to add my name. Thanks.
63 Councilor. Novick.
64 Thank you, madam chair. I mean, I'm not prepared to sign this today. That doesn't mean it might not be prepared to sign into some version of it next week. One thing I wanted to mention is that I'd like to have a conversation at some point about the whole concept of things that are allowed as a bonus for doing something else, because I kind of wonder, okay, if something's okay, why is it only okay in this one circumstance as opposed to it's just being okay? So that's an aspect of your second bullet that I think is worth a broader discussion, actually. Thank you.
65 Council pirtle-guiney are you back in the queue?
66 Steve Novick: Just I am chair because councilor Novick actually said something that was on my list of thoughts as I was reading through this. All that I figured because he brought it up, I would just mention, which is that the reason that we have bonuses in these allowances right now, in our, in our code, is to incentivize certain types of development to incentivize in this project, family size units and more accessible units and inclusionary housing in units. And if we start to put all of these pieces into the base, then we do lose our ability to incentivize the type of construction we want. And given that there's a there's a push and pull, right, the market will develop what there is what there is a market for, what there is a desire for in a perfect market. But there is a delay and there are cost pressures and there are. Gambles on what you might be able to sell when people get desperate enough or lease, when people get desperate enough that if we want to have the type of housing that I think many of us have talked about needing in our city that accessible housing, family size housing units that really work for the people in our city. We've got to keep some of those, those bonuses. Thank you chair.
67 Just also the planning commission meetings next week, I believe. And so this is the moment that we have to ask publicly if anyone wants to sign it. And so I don't know, you've you've expressed some interest, maybe potentially signing a little bit later and you've expressed some interest. Councilor Koyama Lane of maybe potentially signing it if there's a subtle change. I don't know how that works in a serial like a public meetings law if we can't do it here. And so I it feels.
68 Let me start by asking this to you. Councilor Kanal do you. I would be down with changing the language to just add. Hold on. Where does it say to consider adopting three critical critical amendments?
69 I mean, I'd be comfortable with that if it if it meant we had more signatories.
70 At a minimum. Let's change that because, yeah, we're not trying to force it. We are saying that we want them to consider it, but it's not literally saying consider. So I'm happy to add that if you feel good with that. Okay, so I just wanted to get that out of the way because that's an easy fix. But yeah, like vice chair Green said, this is our opportunity. You don't have to decide in this moment, I don't believe. I mean, I think we're just trying to balance a legal. The legal guidance we've been given. Would it be like, do you think we could receive the people sign on later?
71 Or I think if, if everything that we talked about today was what happened in here, then the public has heard all about it and there's no privacy happening. And then as long as we got it out by tomorrow, I think there's still some timeliness to it. And so that would and I just just to clarify, this is not a committee. This is not a letter of the committee because this is not something we have voted on or doesn't have unanimous consent. So just to assuage any concerns that it's it'd be coming from the signatories of the letter, not the committee as a whole. Yeah, yeah.
72 Okay. I'm sorry.
73 Does that mean it will no longer be on committee letterhead? Because right now it is on committee letterhead? Sure.
74 That's fine. We can take it off. Committee letterhead.
75 All right. Well, sounds like we'll get some information. People are able to reach out to us offline, and we are going to send it by tomorrow. So if you want to sign on, let us know by tomorrow at noon. All right. With that, diego, go ahead and call the next item.
76 Item three regional housing and homelessness strategies. Looking to the future.
77 All right. So come on up. Our guests are going to get seated here. So this agenda item is a discussion with our new metro council president juan carlos gonzalez on the past, present and future of regional collaboration to address housing affordability and homelessness. Over the last decade, our region has made historic investments through the metro affordable housing bond and the supportive housing services program, and those investments have created thousands of affordable homes, expanded supportive services, and helped thousands of people access housing and avoid homelessness at the same time. We all know that the work is far from finished. Housing costs remain high. Homelessness continues to be one of the region's greatest challenges, and communities are asking important questions about results, accountability and what comes next. So today's conversation is an opportunity to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We'll hear about what these regional investments have accomplished, what lessons have been learned, how public perception has evolved, and what it will take for the city and metro to continue working together to meet this moment as chair of this committee. I think this conversation is especially important because housing affordability and homelessness do not stop at the city's boundaries. The challenges that we face and the solutions that we pursue require strong partnerships across jurisdictions, along with the shared commitment to delivering results and maintaining the public's trust. So I'm really looking forward to discussing how we can continue building on this partnership and how we ensure that future investments are both effective and responsive to the communities that we serve. So with that, I'd like to go ahead and welcome metro council president gonzalez. And I believe this is andy shaw. Yes, director of metro government relations, and I'll turn it over to you. Thanks.
78 Thank you, chair Avalos and hello, committee. Just a delight to spend some time with you this afternoon to talk about, like the chair mentioned, one of the most important and pressing issues of our region. Last time I was here, I spoke with the whole council. We were talking about the future future vision project. It was a lot of fun. Since then, you know what? An election now appointed to be your metro council president and happy to have a six month head start in this work. And I, you know, alongside andy and the metro council, believe that conversations like this are so important. And I think it's why metro exists because, you know, we're here to solve big problems that no one city or one county can do alone. So I'm here today to spark a discussion about how we as elected leaders at metro in Portland, along with all the other partners in the region, can meet this moment as we look to the next phase of addressing our most pressing and chronic chronic challenges, which are housing affordability and homelessness. My presentation is going to tell a bit of a story how we got here, where we are, what could be next. Then I want to invite all of us to grapple with how we lead in this specific moment that we are in. The last ten years have been a time of great change for the region, and at metro, we built a department basically overnight for supportive housing services and homelessness as we implemented a mandate from the region in 2020. And Portland is the city of Portland. Portland is a critical partner in this work. You know, Portland is the heart of the region, a a barometer by which the health of the region is judged. In short, the region needs Portland to succeed, to help lift all of us to our full potential. So we're grateful for the many ways that we've partnered with Portland. And we know that there are still yet more to come. We are in a time of both great potential and deep concern, which is why this city, which which way is this city and the region going to go? What can we control and what do we have to respond to that's beyond our control. What message does it send to our communities and our businesses, as well as the broader nation and the globe? I look forward to our conversation today. As we present, we're going to take any clarifying questions that you have at any point. So just signal to us, and we're going to try and move through this quickly. But it's a rich, substantive presentation, and I'm lucky to be flanked by andy, who's one of the region's best. Slide two, please. So if you will hop into a time machine with me and go not too far back to the mid 20 tens, greater Portland was booming. A darling of the national and international press. For our quality of life, our culture, our balance of urban and nature. Employers were moving and growing here, but underneath this there were some very dark clouds. Our population was growing quickly, but coming against housing construction that had stalled since the great recession and seemingly overnight. Working class people, seniors, people with disabilities and other vulnerable populations saw their housing security pulled out from under them. The seeds for a spike in homelessness, long a concern for portlanders and Oregonians, were planted, and there was very limited funding for services outside of Portland and Multnomah county. In fact, Washington and Clackamas county had almost zero funding for affordable housing or homeless services before metro's investments. So the city and Multnomah county were primed for a full blown crisis. By 2015, the problem was becoming more and more acute enough that the city of Portland declared a housing emergency, and the legislature put housing on the top of its agenda for the session. It was clear that action was needed. So that was our 20 tens. Next slide. And let me tell you, action was taken. In November of 2016. Voters in Portland passed the largest, ever largest ever general obligation bond to fund affordable housing. We often credit voters for their support, and it's right to thank them for stepping up, because we all know that it took a lot of leadership in advance, and that leadership came from city hall, from leaders like nick fish, among many others. And it came from those outside of these halls, too, with groups like the welcome home coalition, street roots, and others developing the political will to carry a successful campaign and convince voters to tax ourselves for something that they had never had before, helping their neighbors find stability in order to support a more whole community. But even as leaders and advocates celebrated the passage of portland's housing bond, it was widely known that there was still more to do. Next slide please, because and we've touched on this, housing and homelessness are not just a city of Portland problem. Once again, leaders and advocates came together to to find a similar conclusion, people across the region have been struggling. They shouldn't have to go to Portland to get help. Portland shouldn't be alone in addressing what is inherently a regional challenge. Once again, a combination of inside outside leadership electeds, community advocates, business leaders, community leaders. They came together to propose a bold vision for vote to to the voters for the broader region on change. First, what what was at that point, the country, the us's largest ever bond for affordable housing, $652.8 million investment to to house neighbors across the region. And also at the same time, a constitutional amendment to make that housing investment go even further. Second, a couple of years later, that coalition proposed a supportive housing services measure at the time estimated to be the the nation's largest ever per capita investment in services to build long term housing stability and also help people escape or avoid homelessness by placing a marginal income tax on those doing the best in our city and our region. In times of a booming economy, we could make sure that thousands of people would not get left behind and would get to participate in the greatness of Oregon. I was elected to the metro council on that same ballot as that housing bond, and it was a time of great optimism and hope, like we were getting a handle on these challenges by investing in locally driven solutions, driving towards regional outcomes. Next slide. And I have to admit, I do think the region has delivered on promises of these late 2010 measures. In fact, I think we have more than delivered together with both bonds, the Portland housing bond and the metro housing bond and our regional partners, we're on track to create more than 7000 affordable, affordable homes across the region, including more than 3000 family sized units and nearly 2700 deeply affordable homes, which was the focus of the metro housing bond. There are a number. There are numbers we could never achieved without the combination of bonds, hhs funded rental assistance and supportive services, and also a statewide movement to change the constitution of Oregon. What should be. We should be very proud of these accomplishments for about $82 a year for the average household, we're talking about well over 15000 people finding homes and 2300 jobs supported at an average salary of $92,000. That's a great return on investment. Next slide. And these impacts have been felt across the region. We've been able to combine forces to create affordable homes and communities that have never had them before. And in front of you, you see a map that shows the the constellation of affordable housing bond investments happening on every single corner of our region. Next slide. And when you add the incredible, mostly unseen impact of, it's more than doubly so as h. S was launched with the goal of placing and sustaining 50005000 household and permanent supportive housing, and helping 10,000 more avoid or end their homelessness halfway through the program's ten year lifespan, which were. Right now we're at that halfway point. We've already more than doubled the goals that we had promised voters in 2020. Again, we should be very proud of this work and grateful to all the partners who've made it possible in the face of extraordinary challenges. Of course, we had a once in a 100 year pandemic. Let's not forget. Next slide please. And at the same time, you know, I'm talking about some of the exceptional successes that the region has faced. But I do not ignore also the challenges that that we all face. And as important it is as it is for us to celebrate the successes that we've had, I think we have to work even harder to acknowledge that there's so much more to do with these tools and beyond of what they can do. The bonds and s.h.s are truly transformational tools in the Portland region. They are a magic power that other regions have not had and I think wish they could have. These are resources that cannot be taken away by a regime in dc or legislated away in a budget in Salem. This is our money to address the problems that we've been charged to, but they have not kept up with the problem. Why? Because many things fuel homelessness and housing costs. As you know, some of those things are are in our control. But many of them they are not. And many have gotten worse during the pandemic and the aftermath of the pandemic. We know them all by now. Inflation, evictions, layoffs, restructurings, struggling states, state budgets, the collapse of a safety net that the federal government once provided for those in need, and many, many people in our great city and our great cities in this region are one misfortune away from the trauma of homelessness. And I think every day Oregonians, they understand that at times we we have not been fully honest with ourselves about the limitations of the tools that we have, or we've placed too much hope or celebration in what they can deliver. And yet without them, I believe we would be in a much worse shape than than even where we are now. So it's critical that we keep going. In the next part of the presentation, we're going to discuss what it will take to help keep these investments going to the future, and what metro and the metro council is prioritizing in this moment. So I'm going to hand the mic to andy shaw. Metro is director of government affairs and policy development. He will begin with what we know about where our voters are. And since they are going to be the ones determining whether these critical funding tools continue. So, andy, please.
79 Great. Thank you, president gonzalez. So again, andy shaw, director of government affairs at metro metro, conducts public opinion polls on a regular basis to understand where what our voters perceptions and concerns. It's not the same as engagement, as you were talking about earlier on that earlier item. Opinion research really helps the council inform decision making and how we structure effective communication strategies. So I'm going to walk through just a few slides summarizing what we've heard in recent surveys and focus groups. I know committee members have been briefed individually on the full suite of results. So glad we get a chance to do that earlier. A key thing to note is that voter perception is not always the same as reality, in that data may show improvements, but voters aren't perceiving them. This can be frustrating as policy makers, when we know the world of good that's coming from public investments, but we really need to meet people where they are. Convincing folks to believe something different is enormously challenging and quite expensive. From just a communications campaign point of view. The good news is voters are aligned on some key points. First, there is near universal agreement that homelessness, the cost of housing, the cost of living are the region's top concerns. And second, nearly two thirds of voters, as you see on this slide, agree that public funding is necessary to help alleviate the crisis. Let's go to the next slide. So a lot of policy discussions about housing get into the weeds. You were you were talking about far earlier, all really important conversations. What's the right policy approach? What's the right financing model? What's the best philosophy to bring? This is not where voters start. This is not where they spend their time thinking about the challenges or worrying about things that you are legitimately worrying about, and the results on these slides and the next one are pretty similar to work we've done across issues at metro. When it comes to how potential funding is is spent, voters value housing for people such as older adults living on fixed incomes, veterans, low income individuals, low income families. It's not the process. It's not the philosophy or approach that they're thinking about on a daily basis. And so it's not how they respond to a funding proposal. Beyond that, voters tell us they're most concerned with taking care of what we've built first and then and thinking about that housing being relied upon for a very, very long time. If we go to the next slide, this is a continuation of some of these areas of interest. So you can see as these go down, voters spend far less time thinking about specific policies or approaches. They might be familiar with a local affordable housing project in their area or a shelter site, but it's just not something they're they're concerning themselves on a day to day basis. And so it's not something they react to when we approach them with a proposal. This slide is from the same January poll on a theoretical affordable housing bond. And more or less, every specific example of how funding might be spent rates as less important to most voters than who you're serving and what outcomes you're achieving. So approaches that we all discuss regularly are just not things that voters are necessarily engaging with daily. So we really feel like we need to focus in on describing and demonstrating who our efforts are serving, and not how we're serving them. Next slide for the harder news. You all know, I think that metro spent the greater portion of 18 months recently exploring a potential measure to extend the supportive housing services program, including strengthening accountability and having a more clear tie to funding for affordable housing. At our council's direction, we're now exploring potential ways to continue affordable housing funding through a new affordable housing bond. We've seen, though, a lot of headwinds when we looked closer at the potential for both of these ideas, both an extension and a bond, a key reason is the growing skepticism voters have about whether our approaches are working as described. And that's the red line that you see on this chart that's going up over a series of polls. I think we started asking this question do you not believe something's happening? Back in 2023, we were getting some strange results and so started adding this question in and have been surprised to see it grow over time. It's specifically about SHS, but it applies to the broader question of housing funding as well. So recent focus groups that we conducted specifically to dive in on some of these questions helped illustrate why voters feel this way, even when presented with data about successes in both programs and about benefits in investments. There's a skepticism because they're seeing something different out on the street or hearing something different in their community. So frustration is that main reason that we're getting this skepticism. Largely what people are seeing in their own with their own eyes, as well as the drumbeat of headlines and social media that confirm their existing worries and fears. And again, we can't expect voters to be experts in all the things that are contributing to homelessness and suffering in our communities, but it makes them far less likely to believe that anything is working. So when you combine that with the increasingly precarious financial situation that many voters find themselves in, voters are even more reluctant to approve new or extended taxes to fund these programs. Having said that, when we push on it, most voters would rather continue investing than let it all go away. They're telling us we need to be more accountable and transparent, but fundamentally, they tell us they won't believe things are getting better until they see it themselves in their community, or they're hearing that from their neighbors. Connecting with voters can be quite challenging and expensive. But I'm going to hand it back to council president now to talk about some potential further steps.
80 Thank.
81 You andy. All right. We're in the home.
82 Stretch here, and then we can have a robust conversation. Thank you again. Committee. So to sum up, voters know that this is a problem that we cannot stop working on. They want to help their neighbors live dignified, affordable lives. Here in our region, majorities are potentially still willing to invest, but they're placing the bar much higher than ever before, a key reason they aren't sure that government has the same commitment or focus that they do on the problem, a point that metro heard in recent focus groups was that voters are tired of hearing only bad news about local government, and when they hear one news about one local government, they think it applies to all local government. They're not necessarily discerning between layers or jurisdictions. So what can we do to change the narrative? I think that is the question that we need to be asking ourselves because, and I'm guilty of this, it's more than glowing social media tooting our horn about openings and numbers on dashboards, though we do need to share our successes. Those kind of stories are more they're mostly about shoring up people who already believe that our approach is working. So we want to. We need to broaden support for continuing these vital funding sources. And that means that every day we have to demonstrate focus on what people are telling us they care about most, and that's their neighbors. So next slide, I think I think that we should get caught trying. Let's get caught collaborating to improve our systems and to deliver on the opportunities before us. Let's ensure that our affordable housing investments are as stable and as reliable as possible. And Portland, this means working across every bureaucracy and community group to deliver big opportunities and community driven visions like the albina vision trust and the omsi district. It also means broad results, doing all we can to increase the creation of housing across the board, not the kind of stuff that gets big headlines and groundbreakings, but the honest day to day work that will make the difference more lasting and more broad based. I think on communication it means using our limited resources in new ways. First, we must meet people where they are. We must acknowledge frustration and connect to the real emotion and experience that portlanders are living with. And that also connects our personal experiences and those of our neighbors. We can't be afraid to be real with people because in reality, I think that's the only way to connect. And we need to boost coordination of how we deliver messages across all of our governments, from the constellations of messengers we have today, or something more like a single movement. It was the singularity of purpose and message that delivered the Portland and the metro housing bonds, and then ultimately SHS. So I think it's time to develop and spread connective messages that resonate and resound across the region. So last slide here. Here is what metro is doing as we look to the future. Above all, we are working to continue to deliver the benefits of the investments that voters have entrusted us with. Thousands of families will have a safe and stable home tonight, thanks to those thanks to what voters have chosen to create with these programs, we honor that choice and its potential. When we deliver results with competence and with compassion. I believe that together, we are doing a great job at this. Though as I've said, there is still so much more to do. We don't believe that a future bond or s or SHS extension measure is going to look exactly like what we built in the past. Those measures were built for a different time. And as we've discussed, the region and that context have moved on, our staff is undertaking a big look at the impacts and lessons learned from the implementation of these bonds, as well as the evolving nature of need and service delivery. Again, it's less fun than new openings and projects, but we are working with our public and provider partners to explore every angle that we can to make sure we ensure system performance, stability and resilience for decades to come. There are also new ideas and opportunities emerging that we are going to be looking a little bit deeper into. We need to find ways to build more, more sustainable financial models to make sure that the affordable housing, the make sure that affordable housing delivers where the need is greatest today and for the long term. I know that portland's brilliant staff are also going to dig into this, as are many other partners across the region. But ultimately, the details aren't where most voters will find their reasons for supporting continued investment. That's where I believe that we as elected officials come in. We have to embody the collaboration that demonstrates our focus on these problems, while also holding ourselves to the highest standard of accountability. It's not whether my government is doing better or your government is doing better, or another government is doing better. When we point fingers, voters don't really see a difference between levels and layers of government. Instead, we have to acknowledge our challenges, admit our struggles, and show that together we're fighting to set things right. Because if we appear divided, uncoordinated, and unfocused, we will all fail. There's one. That's one reason we're reforming our approach with the regional policy oversight committee, the new supportive housing services oversight group, introducing new, clear metrics and goals that will set our collective regional sights and hold ourselves accountable for reaching them. And finally, metro is working to invest in broader messaging messengers and tools for sharing this work with the public that we know is desperate for reasons, for hope, about the future of the city and the region that we love. So we're going to be partnering with anyone and everyone that is willing. And with that council. One more slide, actually. Sorry. Lastly, I we should not feel daunted, even worried about whether we can continue and build on the success that we've had. Let's not run from that concern, but instead see it as a fuel to reach for the kind of leadership that envisions, shaped and delivered the measures of the past. Metro and the city are not alone in that discussion, but we are two governments in the region with the potential to reach hundreds of thousands of people. We also together share in both the responsibilities and the successes of many of the investments we've made and what we could make in the future. As we shifted this discussion, I'm going to urge us to stay out of the policy weeds. I think that conversation should be for another day and for our our expert staff to help us inform. I would love for us to focus on what we're demonstrating as leaders charged by our voters, with progress, with some good leadership. So as elected leaders, my question how can we be better? How can we show better collaboration to build and sustain support for these investments that will benefit this city and communities across the region today and for decades to come? And what voices, partnerships, and perspectives should we bring into this conversation to boost, to boost our shared understanding and improve that outlook? I think we've shared some ideas, but I really want to hear yours, and thank you for continuing to lean into our partnership. Chair Avalos to you.
83 Gracias. Thank you so much for being here. So much for that presentation as well. And just committee. So you have a little bit more of why I wanted to do this. I think what this presentation showed us, one, we cannot solve this alone, as you said. And so this was an opportunity since we were already getting briefed on the information, to kind of just bring it to the public. And I really like what you said. Let's get caught trying. That really stuck with me because I think that's part of the the point here. I think that's the concept I'm trying to bring forward, is that what we're seeing in the polling is that people, they just don't trust us. They don't believe us, and we can point to all of our success. We can point to all the numbers. And that clearly is not working. But I think us being honest about the challenges, us being honest about, like looking at this feedback and saying, yeah, this is hard feedback for us to take and we need to take it seriously. And having that conversation in public to just start to build some of that trust. Obviously, this one conversation is not going to build back the trust, but this is an attempt to start figuring out how we are working together in public to kind of dispel some of those fears that people have that we're, you know, we're not working together or we're not, you know, trying or we're not looking for solutions. And so this is a communications issue. It's a narrative issue. It's a helping to process or describe what these winds mean, what these investments mean to the public. And so again, this is just kind of an intro conversation. It is definitely my intent over the coming months to keep doing this and figuring out other ways. And I think part of it, too, is that I'm sure we all get tugged in all kinds of directions from various community groups or elected leaders who are like, let's talk about it. Let's figure out a plan. And so I'm just trying to figure out, okay, as Portland, you know, we are the biggest city. We are a leader here and we need to show that we're leading. How are we doing that? By saying we're going to convene these conversations. We're going to put this out in the public, be honest about what voters are are seeing from us, and just be transparent about our intentions to fix that. So that's the goal for today. It is obviously very open ended. We have, you know, these questions that are up on the screen to kind of guide the conversation. But again, just wanted this to be a chance for all of us as policy makers to talk openly about, you know, some opportunities that we have to continue building portlanders and frankly, the region's trust. So with that, I will open it up to some discussion. Maybe we can put those questions back up or I guess they're they're up on our screens. Okay, so the questions again, how can collaboration between metro and the city build and sustain support for continued regional investment in affordable housing and supportive services, and what voices, partnerships and perspectives can broaden our shared understanding and improve our outlook of success. You don't need to feel limited to those questions. Those are just to kind of get the conversation started. Kick it off. Vice chair Green.
84 Thank you so much. Chair Avalos. Thank you so much, council president, for I think, recognizing the moment that we're in, I think at least for a year now, I have felt this kind of lurking anxiety that, you know, you hear from voters, you hear from the press about what voters think, and then you hear from voters about what those other voters think. And it all kind of points the same direction that like, if you put this thing up tomorrow, it's not clear. People would say yes again. And I actually feel that across all of our policy areas. But for me, it's really about qrs and the next housing bond, because that is at the crux of so much of I mean, it's the top issue for portlanders. And so I really appreciate the polling that you all did, but also making sure that we understood that polling in depth in our offices. I just got my brief, like right before this committee meeting, but I'd been hearing about it. But then also taking that next step to say, let's have this conversation together. Let's be a little bit vulnerable here, because the top line result that I took away from the rather depressing set of polling data was that it's not that portlanders don't recognize we need to spend public dollars on supporting affordable housing and addressing our homelessness. It's that they just don't have any confidence that we'll hold ourselves accountable when we do it. And my feeling has always been that the only way to cure that is to be radically transparent, is to say, hey, here are the missteps that we've had. How can we cure that? Lay our cards on the table and say, you know, this approach we took in the past, well-intentioned didn't quite work out as we planned, but here are some interesting new ways we're thinking about doing this and come along with us. So this idea of like, let's get caught trying, I think applies in a lot of different ways. I think when if you look, look back at periods of American history where people had a lot of faith in the administrative state and the administrative capacity of our governments, it was during a period where we were trying a lot of stuff to address, like the great depression. And, you know, this isn't at that scale. And we have limited tools at local level, but to to address your questions, council president, I think it'd be really interesting for voters to see fairly frequent work sessions, perhaps between our governments, to have informal conversations that are all publicly noticed, to say, hey, here's something that my office is working on, or here's something that this committee is working on. We think there might be some legs here, but we, as Portland, being the largest jurisdiction in the region, we want to make sure we're rowing in the same direction and vice versa, because I do think that this is a regional problem that we're dealing with. And Portland can adopt any number of policies that wants to adopt to to solve this issue, but it won't work if we don't have the rest of our regional partners, at least kind of not working against us. And that's true in reverse. So I think it takes time. It takes resources for us to kind of make time of our schedules to go have those work sessions. But, you know, something more elevated from a fireside chat could go a long way to, you know, broadcasting to portlanders to say, these are what your elected officials are talking about right now. This is their highest priority. And by the way, it's connected to your highest priority. I think that's that's step one. The other piece I want us to think about, and I know that you don't want us to get too deep in the weeds, but I can't.
85 Go ahead.
86 I cannot help myself. If you look at the data today on rents across all qualities of the housing stock, whether they are affordable housing, whether they are market rate, and you look at wages, with the exception of the first two deciles of the income distribution, we are in a position where housing is relatively affordable, but it won't stay that way. And so the idea being here we have a soft rent period. So if we're thinking differently, we're thinking about opportunities to provide that long term affordability that that those respondents said is one of their highest priorities. And, and, and to support what we have, we might want to contemplate acquisitions of those to then transfer from the private market into some semblance of the non-private sector to say, we are we are securing this while it's on sale, and we are doing this together as a region. So having a conversation about maybe spending our money in that kind of a way we might, it'd be interesting to see how voters might respond to the formation of that type of exploratory thinking to say, actually, I might support that instead of new housing production. So a couple quick reactions to this. Really looking forward to the conversation. We're up here today and I don't know if you want, like, I don't know, how do you want to jump in at any point and respond? Or is it kind of like we all get in the queue and we do it that way?
87 Yeah, I think very open ended. So I think metro president, if you want to react to anything, any, any of us say, I say go for it.
88 Yeah, I think thank you chair. So gracious. I agree. Councilor Green on the on the acquisition side, the metro bond had a few pilots. We had a regional land banking acquisition fund. We know that there's a pretty extraordinary size of affordable housing stock that is expiring, or it's losing its affordability credits. We, we this region does not have remotely the scale of tools to even keep what is affordable, affordable. And then on top of that, I think there is an opportunity to look at, you know, fire sale real estate or something like that to, to what you're I think those tools are all under the umbrella of what should we be exploring? Andy. I'm not sure if you want to add anything.
89 Is acquisition is the tool we have used. And it, it has resonated more with voters in recent polls that we've done just because there's a sense of using what we have. Sort of going back to basics, it. Again, the mechanism is not what motivates folks, the people we're serving. So connecting it in with who, who, what kind of folks that might serve in the community, I think strengthens the messaging around a new tool, a different tool, or leaning into a space.
90 I appreciate that because I think that these numbers, if they then wait six months down the road, once, a lot of these providers start to fail and we get these balance sheets start to fail. Like you take that experience and connect to this. And I think we're in a much worse place. So that's kind of also what I'm anticipating is like shoring up and preserving and kind of holding what we have.
91 Yeah. Brilliant.
92 Thank you. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
93 Thank you, chair, and thank you, council president and andy, for being here today and sharing this with us, but also with portlanders who are who are watching today. Council president, as I was watching the presentation, I was thinking about our collective work on the future vision committee and just the the way that affordability has stood out in some of the feedback that we've gotten from portlanders there. Right. Building this robust community with all of the things people love about our region, all of the assets people want close by in an affordable way. And the fact that this work, this tangible work is what will drive some of the realization of the visions that we know members of our community have. And, you know, seeing the numbers that show that people are ready to figure out the next step in helping our neighbors, but aren't ready for us to take that on yet is a hard juxtaposition to figure out. How do we get there? And it it occurred to me as I was thinking about the fact that we hit double our goals, and people still don't know if it's working. We need to figure out how to talk about the fact that it is working, and yet simultaneously it is not fixing the problem. And how do we tell
94 Folks. Yes, it is working in that we're hitting double our goals. We are doing meaningful work while validating their very astute perception that it is not fixing the problem because the problem keeps growing. And that feels like part of our collective challenge, right? Ensuring folks feel heard and seen around the fact that it's not fixing the problem, but separating that from whether we are meeting our goals and solutions are working. So I just, I wanted to offer that up. I am well, I'll also say before I move on to the question I have, when you ask how we work together to meet this moment, I think metro is in many, in many ways, how we work together to meet this moment, right? We formed an entity that is a convener, and metro at your best is not another layer in the work, but is a convener of all parts of the region to make sure that we're in this work together. And I also think that telling that story is part of what we need to do collectively. And I think about half of the councilors at the city of Portland sit on one of the metro committees or commissions and or advisory boards. And how do we make sure that we are telling the story of the collaborative work that we're doing in those positions with all of you and with our colleagues, leaders from cities and counties around the region on a whole number of different topics, right? Not just housing to help tell the story that we can work together, that it's not just the the fights between the city and the county that folks see in the paper here in Portland and the fights between other cities and counties and other parts of the region as well. To that end, I do have two questions. The first is, I'm assuming that as this has been rolled out, we are well behind a rollout to our poc, to the regional policy oversight committee, and I'm wondering what the reception has been there or if that's not the right committee, if it's a different group within metro that has been looking at this and how it's been received in those rooms where there are representatives from cities and counties across the region.
95 Thank you, councilor. Just to understand your question, you mean like the general tenor of this presentation to our poc?
96 I would say less.
97 The presentation and more the reality of the facts. The fact that voters that that are residents even beyond folks who are are voting. Are skeptical of the work and yet still hold the values.
98 Yeah, yeah, I, I think, you know, we haven't had a, the time with our poc yet to have a kind of conversation like this. I mean, we've been razor focused at establishing really, really intentional and aggressive goals and, and really taking the measure into the 2.0 phase. That being said, a lot of the people around the table and around the measure have been a part of multiple tables at metro set over the last 18 months that I was asking some really deep questions around the region's nhs system. You know, how do we make it truly regional rather than three siloed county systems that are kind of operating under an umbrella? Some of those limitations and barriers to regionalization are, are baked into the language that the voters adopted and cannot be changed without a change from the voters, which kind of urged us to explore this question. So we have had explored this general, you know, public attitude and also the need for us to be more urgent in our reforms and our accountability. But we ultimately determined that a path to the to the voters is not viable. And instead, what I heard really clearly as a policymaker was, don't ask me for more money until like you do harder work on what we've already given you. So we've used that animus to kind of re reorient the entire attitude of the measure. We had two different oversight committees. Now we have one. It's been a lot of a lot of really deep work on that front. So to answer your question, I think people understand, but it's it's going to be another major step that that committee needs to take when we when we step into a deeper policy development and to try and be less like ambiguous. Right now, the goal of the poc is to make sure that we're implementing the measure to its highest and best use, without necessarily asking them to think about what are we building for the future. They will contribute to that. But right now we really need to do more with what we have heard.
99 And I, I appreciate hearing I know this has been happening, but hearing about the work to think about in the future, obviously we we need to sit with the measure we have right now, but in the future, how do we create that more regional approach? And I think a regional approach that doesn't just rely on three buckets that look different in different counties, but that also looks at how our counties and our cities and metro provide services in a in a seamless way, and how we make sure that the measure supports that seamless work across all bodies within the region, but toward a singular goal.
100 Yeah, I agree. One of the things that our region has not had the ability to form since the creation of s.h.s and actually something that I think we do very well in other aspects of policy, transportation, transit, especially being kind of the gold standard of what I think about is the region does not have a unified housing agenda from what we need for the state and our federal partners. It's a little fragmented, different partners saying what they need, all good things. But there are a few, to me, very glaring gaps in our system that can only be impacted by state leadership, and that is funding and reforming our behavioral health system and our our addiction recovery services or triage or transition that that entire ecosystem of funding and services to people is, is not working at the same level of performance that our SHS program. And I'll go even a step further. I think when people, when I talk with everyday folks, you know, in, in town halls or out in community, I think people are really upset and frustrated about our government's inability to care for people that are experiencing psychosis or that are, you know, clearly struggling with substance abuse disorder. Even those folks that want help that want to exit. I mean, it's seven, eight month waiting periods. And I mean, you've seen the data. It's it's just unacceptable. And that is a state problem. We really need the state to fix that right now. You know, for, for one person that we move into housing with SHS3 more are asking for SHS services for the first time ever. So we have this broken economy, broken behavioral health system. And what we need is the courage and the political will to, to, to grab to grab those by the horns and ask for them to be better. So I think there's a lot that is a very clear, actionable thing for us to collaborate and to work on and to ask from our legislators like, this is just not, not going to not going to do it for us.
101 I'm looking past you to the back of the room, to our government affairs folks, as you say that. And I might get in trouble for saying this here, but I'm going to take the risk and do it anyway. I love hearing your interest in collaborating on some asks to the state around behavioral health. A couple of my colleagues and I have been having conversations with providers in the region around how we, as the city, can make some asks around behavioral health, not a service that we provide, not a service that that we've been heavily involved in in the past, but something that's so critical to meeting our community's needs across the board. And we'll be having a conversation as a full council next month around how we move forward with a potential ask around behavioral health and depending on where our conversations as a body land, if that's something that your body at metro council is interested in partnering on, I'm sure that well, I'll just speak for myself and say, I would love to extend that conversation to, to something we could collaborate on potentially.
102 Yeah, great. And this is something that I'm also hoping that the, the, the regional policy oversight committee helps steward and put together for the region. Another ask that I that I will have is, you know, the city of Portland has two seats on our poc. We still need an alternate filled. The mayor is the primary. And we've yet to get a second from the city council, so I'd love to have some city leadership on our poc as well. And just, you know, to be tracking the work and understanding what's happening. I think that table is very important. And so anyway, I just wanted to put that out there and have real tangible asks for you.
103 Those are appointments that the mayor and council president generally collaborate on. But if we don't have somebody coming forward, I'm happy, and I'm guessing some of my colleagues would be as well to put a bug in the council president's year about making sure we have someone there. Yeah. Thank you so much. And thank you, chair.
104 Councilor. Novick.
105 Thank you chair. So the polling you presented, by the way, mr. President, I haven't said it before. Congratulations on your on your presidency.
106 Thank you.
107 Councilor. The polling you presented was on an affordable housing measure. I is that because that's more recent and we've already had I, I think we probably have had a chance to see polling on a supportive housing services measure before.
108 Yeah. That's correct. We've done 5 or 6 polls over the last three years on supportive housing services and affordable housing as a combined a combined concept, because the work of that period of time was can we get back to reaffirming the supportive housing services measure by reforming it and combining it with affordable housing? More explicitly? The timing of the bonds was interesting in that the city passed its first bond, then metro passed a bond. Those were before we had resources to more robustly address homeless services, so they weren't constructed to think about specifically like supportive housing services, psh type housing. So any rate that that whole process earlier was about, can we re extend SHS connect it with affordable housing? Those efforts did not lead to a successful measure proposal. And so the latest poll was looking at what if we just considered affordable housing as a bond by itself.
109 Gotcha. Okay. In terms of like city metro county collaboration, I mean, this might sort of go without saying, and I'm not going to give any specifics, but I think that as you, you know, forge the next supportive housing measure, we need to make sure that it includes, you know, so that money is fungible. It needs to include reference to services. The city provides that the counties or metro might not, and that any metrics for success that you adopt should also include metrics for success of things the city might be uniquely doing. A question.
110 Councilor can I ask? Well, do you have any examples in mind?
111 Any. Well, I let's see. I, I will have some it's a it's I hesitate to say what is about to say, but I will have some. Thank you. So. One, one number that always sort of raises my hackles is number of people prevented from, you know, saved from going into homelessness because I wonder if we can really quantify that. Do we actually know with certainty that somebody was going to become homeless without the intervention? And I wonder if using that terminology turns people off. It's just like, well, how are you saying there'd be a million people homeless without you? I said, could you just give your thoughts on how that metric is forged and how you think we need to talk about it?
112 Yeah. Thanks, andy. I'm pretty sure I know it, but if you know it 100%.
Procedural episode · turns 113–121
Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.
113 No go, go.
114 Great. So that number is measured through eviction prevention and other kind of similar spending programs that the counties have. And typically those. Services are made available to someone that is facing an imminent eviction, okay. And does not have a clear plan or income or something that would allow them to rebound quickly and would result in type of homelessness. And so it is a large number more comparatively to the more like supportive, deeply services that someone might is already living homeless. I'm sure you've seen the data, right? Keeping someone housed is, is a, is a much more cost effective tool than having to help someone that has stacked acuity on top of that. So I think we're trying to build a system that makes homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. And there's a lot of inputs into that. But generally that's how that number is, is identified.
115 Okay. That's reassuring, because I was hoping that you're going to say that it's people who are immediately facing eviction, because I think that there's research showing that people who are evicted have a really high likelihood of becoming homeless, homeless, whereas people further up the chain, even if they're severely rent burdened, you can't say that giving them rent assistance prevented them from becoming homeless because they might not have any way. Do you have some sort of initial thoughts? Following up with councilor Green said about what we think we've learned over the last few years and how we might, you know, do things differently. I mean, can we say that? Well, okay, we've spent a bunch of supportive, supportive service services money on x, and we think that that was well intentioned and it has some benefits, but maybe not as targeted as they should be. So we think we might be moving towards y.
116 I think I think we have learned a lot. I some of the primary things that I think come up to me is, you know, you can't address homelessness without a more dedicated upstream strategy. That is like living wage jobs, like people focused economic development. It's the housing production work and the decades of underbuilding that we have have I think it's it's a full layer of things. At the same time, I think what I am taking from this moment is, you know, we can't take voter support for granted. And we really have to show people every single day the little things and the big things of what we do. Andy, is there anything that that comes to mind?
117 I mean, again, the order of these measures was, was, is a lesson. It was a little out of order in terms of having a robust homeless services measure come after affordable housing bonds, which were aimed at primarily low income families. And so we have a dearth of places for people to receive additional services in housing, housing that's built with staff spaces and places for the provision of services that would better suit the robust homeless services program. I guess also, don't launch a program like this at the beginning of a pandemic that no, none of us saw like that has caused such a challenge for us and the entire country. And that is a part of what we're struggling with. I think also just the the depth of challenges that we need the state's help and others helping us with from a behavioral health point of view, you know, other other services that are beyond what was envisioned in this measure that we're now we've done amazing work to provide an array of services and layout programs, especially in the two suburban counties, which had almost no resource in this program before. And so now we're into the space of some incredibly hard work to, to build out the rest of the program.
118 Yeah, I love that. I mean, that's true. I mean, you know, for generations, the homeless plan that Washington and Clackamas county had, I mean, not for a lack of trying, for a lack of caring was a, a bus ticket to downtown Portland. And that that's just no way to build a regional housing continuum that cares for people. You know, I think I think too, one of the big takeaways that I have councilor is, you know, with the pandemic and then now the, the administration and the white house and just the general nature of, of like sequence crises that we're facing from funding, availability and focus from partners above us is, you know, I think that we need to be probably a little bit more focused as to what it is that we want these measures to do, because the need is so great. The economics are so, so, so wildly entangled that I think that was one of the a real, real, like ribbons of, of, of success from the metro affordable housing bond was that it focused on deep affordability and family sized units, which is something that in most cases, the private market cannot truly address without some kind of investment. And I'll give some examples. I need to get better about talking about deep affordability or 30% ami. And, and I think sharing it in a number that actually people understand. So last week we, we opened a new affordable housing community in hillsboro called dolores with hacienda cdc. And majority of those units are deeply affordable. There's some blending with SHS really cool stuff, but basically a deeply affordable unit is like 600 or $700 for a two bedroom unit. I mean, that's significant. I mean, that is not something you can find on the market, especially for someone that is living in poverty in the Portland metro area. So that's kind of what we're talking about when we're talking about that level of affordability. That's probably the most significant gap. You know, one of the one of the mandates that the state's kind of housing rules imposed on metro was the regional housing coordination strategy, which I know all of our cities have a local housing coordination strategy. It kind of asks us to look at a more regional outlook on on housing unit shortage. I think for the last 20 years, we've underbuilt by around like 110,000 units, about half of those 110,000 units are 30% ami and lower. And that's I mean, it's just such such a major gap. The need is so significant. And why I feel public investment is essential is because we need to really chase after that goal. And then also the work that you're doing is help to alleviate housing and missing middle in other ways, other strategies and other parts of the continuum as well.
119 Thank you. And I'll, I'll send you this, andy, but I just wanted to let you know that councilor Kanal and I did a poll recently that was mostly about other things, but we threw in a question about tools to address homelessness. And we asked people, you know, what do you think is most effective? Building shelters, giving people rent assistance or building affordable housing? And it was shelters at the bottom, rent assistance above that, affordable building, new housing a bit above that. So finally, I just want to say that I was interested in the, you know, there weren't great numbers for social housing because I suppose people don't know exactly what that is. And I really would like to see what had happened. If we, like, asked about anti-social housing and see if that might have a stronger appeal.
120 We can certainly look into the questions that we put out to folks. For sure.
121 Great minds think alike. I made the I made the same joke just the other day. We did. We did try to add some questions in that describe what we perceive social housing is trying to achieve. And it is similar to to acquisition of existing. It's similar to construction of new. It's just not the level at which voters are interested in engaging. And so yeah, I think we had a couple counselors that were very curious about if you if you just use social housing, if you used other ways of describing what you're trying to accomplish with what we've seen in some of the social housing models.
122 Yeah. And I think, again, polls are snapshots in time. And also they help us understand, I think, where our electorate is, and it should be a data point that we use to inform our policy development, our policy framing, right. As I'm sure you you fully embrace there. And I do think there's still a need for us at a policy level to really rigorously, rigorously examine what are the things that we want to prioritize. And I don't see why, you know, different set of mix of social housing investments could be a part of this new affordable housing bond. I think we just need to, to andy's point, kind of work backwards and say, what are the things people are going to feel once these investments are complete? And then that helps us really tailor the bond framework. And frankly, the coalition that I think we need to build to secure more resources for us. So I hope that it's not necessarily saying social housing is not something that we should consider. It's just a snapshot in time.
123 If I could add one more piece, I mean, I think social housing is a continuum of different approaches depending on the model. And we are absolutely using various aspects of what other social housing models use in some of the developments and some of the programs we're working on. It's not quite the vienna model, which is a much more robust public ownership model, but it does incorporate aspects.
124 Thanks, andy. Good point.
125 To contradict what I said earlier. I actually was surprised that social housing scored that high because I assumed nobody knew what it meant. So I think we made progress. Thank you.
126 Thanks.
127 You're welcome. Exactly.
128 Councilor. Koyama Lane.
129 Thank you, chair, and thank you so much for being here today. I couldn't agree more that everyday portlanders really want to see us working across jurisdictions, want to want to see alignment, want to see coalition building. I was really pleased to hear how much I was hearing you all talk about older adults and people with disabilities. In the data you presented. I think it said 69% of respondents noted that providing affordable housing for older adults living on fixed incomes was extremely or very important. So that's top priority identified in in the data. I'm wondering if you can speak a bit more to what's being done to address the needs of that population. And if there's engagement with groups like northwest pilot project and Multnomah county's aging disability and veteran services division.
130 Yeah, thanks. Back to our house, we have a lot of really certified smart people behind us. I do I do know that across both hhs and our affordable housing bond program, on the affordable housing front, the the projects have kind of been put together by different project partners, often focusing on on different target populations. That data shows there's a kind of some disparity. One of the really, really frequent themes that I've seen is like a focus on senior housing that then the developers and the kind of the community partner providers will then collaborate to provide wraparound services that are really tailored to that community. I'm sure we can get you way more really concrete examples about that. If you would like. We would love to follow up. And with s.h.s, I, I feel pretty confident as well that that similar work is happening with the different providers, with the supportive housing services across the three counties. We have 100/100 different homeless services providers, some of them specializing in youth, some of them specializing in veterans, some of them specializing in elders. And there's just different, different kinds of wraparound care services that we've tried to build a system that is resilient and there's like no wrong door. So I would love to get more detail, but also trying to answer to the best of my ability. Councilor.
131 I would love to continue this conversation and continue to partner in this area. Another thing I was wondering is if there's anything being done specifically to address housing insecurity for families with school aged children.
132 Yeah, one of the most and I can't really take credit for this because this work was done way before I was ever on the metro council. With the development of the first metro affordable housing bond was again a focus on family sized units. So it's like two, three, four bedroom units and many of them in the deep affordability level. I try and spend as much time as possible in community rooms with affordable housing. Communities that have been funded by the metro affordable housing bond meeting with folks. I see a lot of kids running around. I see multigenerational households. And that to me is is the success that can't be demonstrated by the the data, right? The joy of people's stability. And at the same time, there are too many young, young people. There are too many families that are, you know, one small thing away from really, really painful and traumatic housing instability. So I look forward to working with you to help create that, that that sharp focus.
133 Sounds great. Thank you so much.
134 I would just add one, one comment in the, in the, in the build up to building the 2018 regional measure, we did deep, deep engagement in communities and trying to understand both just from a mathematical point of view, the the lack of housing in the affordability, in the deep affordability range, but also what were the kind of things that that communities needed. And that was how we identified focusing in on that deep affordability, focusing in on family size units. In order to do that, it meant building fewer units in order. We could have built more units that served individuals with that same money. But the commitment of really learning, what was it that communities needed led to a decision? And it was it was a it was a process with community groups to say, you know, this much money could buy you this many units or this many family size units or this many deeply affordable units because it, it costs more to build those units. So that that was a part of the development of that bond at the time. And I'm sure we would engage in that same kind of process to figure out today, what are the specific gaps today? What are the community needs that the market or other affordable housing funding programs aren't fulfilling?
135 Thank you so much for sharing all of that, and I look forward to continued conversation. That's it for now, chair.
136 Of course.
137 Thank you. All right. I have some thoughts. Trying to think of how to organize my thoughts. First of all, thank you. I mean, I think what this conversation is illuminating is just how important it is for not only us, for us, not only for us to get on the same page and have a shared vision, but also be clear about who is responsible for what, right? Because I think that's part of the issue and what, you know, people are experiencing as they're like, well, they don't care who is technically in charge of doing whatever aspect of addressing the problem. They don't they care that they are struggling to just keep that roof over their head. Right. And one of the reasons that I've been leading the unified housing strategy is because we cannot keep operating in these disconnected plans and investments, and we need a roadmap that really articulates the city's role. So I've been spending time kind of focused internally at the city, and that is by design, because I just don't feel that we can show up well at any table. We're having this cross jurisdictional conversation about solutions. If we don't even know our own role, what our resources are, what we feel is within our jurisdiction. And so I really I'm excited to continue that work this fall. And one thing that I'm noticing as we're planning to do some public engagement in the coming month, is that we just have to remember the different expertise that different groups of people bring. Because I think sometimes we get really stuck in like, oh, we're talking to housing providers and developers and advocates and service providers and all that. And, you know, they are useful, right? Because they help us understand what's feasible, what barriers exist, what our challenges to implementation. But everyday people and what we're hearing in this poll, they're bringing something different because they tell us whether we're solving the right problem, right? That is the feedback we get from everyday people, and why I want to make sure that we're also doing a good job of not just staying so high level in the grasstops because it's easy to point to a number and, you know, to say this, this is what, you know, feasibility looks like, but what how are we showing that our priorities are reflecting everyday people's lived experience and whether the policies are making a difference in their lives directly. So I just, I, as it relates to like how we partner, I just want to keep elevating how important it is that we take that voice seriously. It's clear by the evidence that they don't feel like we're taking them seriously. And I think that also points to this like values versus expectations conflict we're seeing in the data. And frankly, I see it in my own neighborhood. We deal with this on the daily. You know, I have an hoa, we've got like a little group chat and I monitored it all through like my campaign. And it truly was a microcosm of Portland because I could see all the things that we conceptually talk about are happening right in this whatsapp group chat with my hoa neighbors and trust me, they got opinions, they got lots of opinions, but it's been really helpful to also see that that sense of tension of like, I'm frustrated because I want us to help this person. I want you to get this person off the street. I'm also frustrated because it's affecting my quality of life when there's, you know, campers and there's, you know, people on the street and it's creating chaos. There's all these traffic things that occur. So we're always having this drama. And, you know, it's been very heartening though, to in those conversations, even with all that frustration, to know that their value is truly that they care about these humans and want to get them help. We have a unhoused man who's ended up on our street, and we're all trying to find a way to help him. I'm a city councilor. I'm supposed to have supposedly all of the resources at my fingertips, and it's been weeks and I can't figure it out, you know? And obviously I can't do it for him. I think that's also part of it. It's like there's all these systems that, you know, you have this combination of like what government can deliver. And then of course the person has to do take their own steps. But I think that's the issue is that that that step is missing. And this is where supportive services come in, right? This is where proactivity is important, right? Because often our systems are just so responsive to, well, he's already unhoused, right? What are the steps that could have been happening when this person who has a full time job, right. It's not that they're not working. I'm really tired of people saying that, oh, we just need to make sure everybody gets a job. First of all, there are plenty of people who are housing insecure, who cannot have a job, whether they're disabled, whether they're they are a senior and they've paid their damn dues. And that really makes me angry, actually, because I just feel like we're really missing this wide swath of people who cannot age in place and that, you know, we know by the numbers that the highest rate of homeless people are our seniors. And so, you know, this is, again, why we like get so disconnected with like, oh, well, if we just provide workforce opportunities, if we just like, that's not how it's really being experienced by people. People already have jobs. They already have, you know, certain things that supposedly would be the, the parts of an equation to keep them housed, and yet they're still not housed. Right. And so I just say that because I really, I really want us as leaders to just take more seriously that voice and connect those dots. And I know we're all trying to, but again, I just, I hear this frustration from, you know, my neighbors and I'm just like trying to figure it out. And they look to me because I'm the city councilor in their neighborhood and they're like, Candace, what are you going to do? And I'm like, I'm trying. I swear I'm trying, but like, it's not good enough. And, you know, that's one individual person. We're talking about a system, right? Like, I'm going to do everything I can to help my neighbor, but I, the system is broken, obviously. So I think that ultimately, you know, what I define as success would be moving beyond these individual crises and building a durable system. I know we all want that. I want to have a shared regional strategy that where everyone understands what their role is. And an important part of what we're about to do with us is we're going to have engagement in two phases. One phase is going to be kind of with the grasstops like, where are the experts, the developers, the housing providers? We're going to get their feedback. And one thing that we're going to get from them, or what I'm going to emphasize is you also need to tell me how you're going to help, right? Because I think also we've got a lot of people are like government do things. And it's like, if this is supposedly an ecosystem that involves all of these public private partners, then we need to create the conditions in which we can say, okay, private partners, like what's your role in this? One way that we're approaching it is, you know, essentially the us, we've got these objectives, all of these goals under these objectives. And I plan to go to these people and say, where do you fit in? Like, do you oh, you're already working on that. You have dollars that could help that or you're, you know, you can, you can put some of your capital, whether political or literal capital, into this, this solution. And so, yeah, I'm really looking forward to that conversation because I think that's part of the work that we have to do is like, what are we doing to secure those private public part? We just hear, I hear it all the time. And I'm like, what does that mean? What does that really mean? And I'm hoping to kind of test out that concept through this process. But then the second phase of engagement is going to be with everyday portlanders to again, make sure that, like, we're not just staying all high level and wonky land and we're actually bringing it down to what are you experiencing? What do you need right now? Does this long list of objectives make sense to what you think we should be prioritizing? Right. So as we move forward and we start collaborating together again, I really want to focus on getting the city's house in order before I feel like we're ready to show up as the right partner. I mean, we're going to show up in other ways, obviously, but that is a huge importance to me because I think we'll be more prepared to have a thorough discussion about what our role is after that. And I'm hoping, again that what does it look like for us to do some? I mean, I heard work sessions. I think that's a good idea, like having more public work sessions, more public opportunities. Because even when people, even if in my experience, when I'm talking to portlanders now east portlanders, obviously they they're just glad to have anybody there representing them. The bar is really low and unfortunate way because they have been so used to people not listening to them, but they they know it's hard. They know that I have impossible situations in front of me and. But they. The fact that I just come to listen makes a big difference in their trust and in their like the let's get caught trying, which I'm going to tattoo on my body because I love that philosophy. Not really, because I really think that could make a big difference in helping portlanders feel confident that we are actively doing it. But we got to show it. You know, these committee meetings, I mean, nobody's aye, Morillo, you know, five people who are maybe watching this right now, but like, these are not the places to have that dialog with community. And so I would really urge us to think about how we're going beyond the dais, beyond these rooms. I think we just need to do an intentional effort there. And obviously that costs money. That takes time. But frankly, I don't see I don't see a choice. Right? We have no choice but to put in the time and money that it's going to take to be amongst people and understand their priorities more personally, and then reflect that back in the policies we're suggesting. So that's a long rant to just give you my thoughts and appreciation as well for the way that you're leading and you're showing up. And I really am looking forward to seeing how metro, you know, will kind of guide in this discussion, especially because metro has been kind of the holder of some of the important pieces of this. And I feel really encouraged to hear the direction you're going. And obviously, we have a lot of work to do, so I'll leave it at that and we'll close it out with councilor. Pirtle-guiney.
138 Thank you, chair. And I'm sorry to go so granular after that fantastic high level overview, but as councilor Koyama Lane was asking questions, it sparked a question for me. We know that there are so many people in our community who need some support with affording housing, and we know from the polling and from conversations with portlanders that they want to know who they're helping. Have we had any conversations? We being the groups broadly that have been pulled together on this work about what it would look like to say, hey, we are going to specifically address the needs of this group. We're going to specifically address the needs on this next iteration of housing bond of our seniors or of our families, with young kids focusing on family sized housing, and whether that is whether that helps us build more trust that the results are there or not.
139 Yeah, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and living through it in terms of the policy making space, if I have to be really, really honest, I think that the kind of the government partners that were building SHS implementing SHS, we were in such a period of, you know, trying to get the money out the door, urgency, urgency, urgency, there was a bit of a gap, I think, in terms of understanding of trust amongst each other and also roles and role clarity. As a result, it created sometimes gaps between what would feel like really simple opportunities to collaborate. I can tell you, though, that in the last 12 months, especially with with, with some of my leadership and those on the council, I mean, we're having all of the housing teams across the region meet together, coordinate on messaging, coordinate on those kind of key examples of what you're talking about. And, you know, could it have been happening sooner? Yes. The conditions were not there at that time. But I do think that that is again, I see so many of these like little Green sprouts, these Green shoots of things that are starting to go in the right direction that when things are really performing, we're gonna be like, wow, look at all these things. Getting there. From my vantage point, I feel like I get to pull up the hood and see some of those things happening. And I do think the region acknowledges that metro has a really important role to help kind of coordinate and to, to tell that broader story and those concrete examples that that show people and that try and change the, that belief question. We're really, really focused on that. That is a gap that I do not feel comfortable seeing. And I know it's part of my job, and I think it's all of our jobs to address. But I wanted to share a little bit of what also, I saw as some of the. Kind of distance between our government partnerships that we have had to fix and that we're fixing, and that I think are working so much better to our credit. And and long may it continue.
140 Thank you. And I know, I know there's a lot to do there and a lot that's been done. I think it would be really interesting to look at what it would take and what it would mean to be able to say, any family that is at risk of homelessness. We regionally have a solution. You will not fall into homelessness or any senior who is at risk of falling into homelessness. We have a solution. We together as a region will make sure that you don't fall into homelessness. And to really think about those people that were serving and how we have, how we might lean in. And I know the politics of choosing who do you serve first is always really challenging, but how might we lean in to really be able to make that promise, that promise to people in our community?
141 Yeah. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Thank you. And I, I think I misunderstood your question originally. I went more of a comms to like show to the to folks. To your point, I think your question is also asking us to think a little bit bigger about a theory of change. And like in a perfect system, these are the people that we want to make sure never fall into these circumstances. I think that is absolutely one of the one of the responsibilities that we have to continue to, to focus on and deliver on. So thank you. I just want to acknowledge my my last answer was not quite hitting what you.
142 Were asking, but your last answer was fantastic and really great information to have as well. Thank you.
143 Of course, if I could share one last thing, you know, I, you know, in my office, I kind of have a whiteboard and I'm sure we all love to whiteboard and, and have different things up there. I put, you know, as I, as I do do this job every day, I write down a data point that I find interesting, alarming, shocking. And I want to share one that kind of hit all of those three for me in 2025 in Multnomah county, one, 1 in 4 of all units, built housing units built in all of Multnomah county were funded by the metro affordable housing bond. That's that's incredible because wow, metro affordable housing bond investment. But also we're not building housing anywhere close to the scale of what we need to be building. And I see that number and I'm like, I feel pride and also shock. And I just share that number with you about this kind of production slow phase that we're in right now is just a number that's really stuck out with me. And I share it with you to. Yeah.
144 Yeah, I'm going to have to let that one cook a little bit, but that's very insightful. Thank you for sharing that. And thank you, committee for the discussion. Again, this is just the beginning, but I really appreciate us just putting out on the public. You know what, we're thinking about being vulnerable a bit and just being honest. I think that goes a long way with the public. So thanks for helping us to start that today and we'll be in touch.
145 Yes, absolutely.
146 Thank you. Thank you all. All right, colleagues, we're going to take a quick ten minute break. We'll be back at 415 and get through all of our foreclosure items. All right. We are going to call this meeting back to order. Diego, go ahead and please read items four through 18 together.
147 Here we go. Item four, document number 2026-247. Initiate foreclosure action on 7545 northeast sandy boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against this property. Item five. Document number 2026-248. Initiate foreclosure action on 7545wi slash northeast sandy boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item six. Document number 2026-249. Initiate foreclosure action on 6307 north montana avenue for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item seven document number 2026-250. Initiate foreclosure action on north columbia boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item eight. Document number 2026-251. Initiate foreclosure action on 110 southeast 124th avenue for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item nine. Document number 2026-252. Initiate foreclosure action on 7250 northeast lombard street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item ten document number 2026-253. Initiate foreclosure action on 7101-7103 southeast division street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item 11 document number 2026-254. Initiate foreclosure action on 1625 southeast 35th ave for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item 12. Document number 2026-255 initiate foreclosure action on 2706 southeast 122nd avenue for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item 13. Document number 2026-256. Initiate foreclosure action on 2734-2738 northeast alberta street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item 14. Document number 2026-257. Initiate foreclosure action on 4324 southeast 65th avenue for this collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item 15. Document number 2026-258. Initiate foreclosure action on 6627 southeast woodstock boulevard for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item 16. Document number 2026-259. Initiate foreclosure action on 10104 southeast herald street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item 17 document number 2026-260. Initiate foreclosure action on 5706 southeast lambert street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property. Item 18 document number 2026-261. Initiate foreclosure action on 855 northeast church street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property.
148 Thank you diego. Great job. That was a that was a mouthful. So one quick note. I missed a cue to say that we received a request from the mayor's office to withdraw. Item eight, item 2026-251, which is the property at 110 southeast 24th avenue. Our understanding is that the owner has satisfied the balance owed on the lien, so we do not need to move forward with foreclosure action on this property. So without objection, we will remove item eight from today's agenda and refer it back to the mayor's office. Seeing no objections. Great. All right. So now we've got our fabulous presenters here to talk to us more about these proceedings. The other thing I wanted to note, I mentioned this at the beginning. We are going to be able to vote on all of them as a bulk. We got some information from the city attorneys that we can do that. If anyone wants to take out one particular one to vote separately, you can just let me know. Otherwise, we'll move forward at the end with voting on all of them as a set up. And with that, please take it away.
149 Yeah.
150 I'll get us started. I'm selita holt, the audit and accounting manager with the revenue division counselors. Each ordinance begins foreclosure, proceeding proceedings on the property with delinquent city liens that are eligible for foreclosure under city code 530 and administrative rule 1410. Collections and foreclosure process. The liens were placed against the property by Portland permitting and development for code enforcement violations. The liens are delinquent and the violations have not been corrected. Each property comes before council as part of a coordinated effort by the cfo, permitting and development, city treasurer, city attorney, the revenue division to actively pursue remedies including foreclosure for vacant and distressed properties. These properties have been identified as causing significant problems for neighbors and are subject of multiple and frequent police calls and numerous enforcement activities. The foreclosure prevention manager in the revenue division has reviewed each case to ensure it meets criteria for foreclosure. The foreclosure prevention manager has also reviewed whether any aggravating or mitigating conditions exist within the case history that would prevent the city from moving forward with foreclosure or warrant an adjustment of lien amounts. The property owner and parties of interest have received notification of pending foreclosure action. This is our last resort, and all property owners were given extensive opportunities to rectify the issue. Today, we will hear from kevin foster, the foreclosure prevention manager, about the properties recommended to be included on a foreclosure list of properties for sale. I will now invite kevin foster to begin the presentation.
151 Right. Good afternoon, chair Avalos, vice chair, Green and committee. For the record, I'll go ahead and state my name again. My name is kevin foster, foreclosure prevention manager for the city of Portland. This is the team that works on foreclosures, Portland permitting and development. They recommend properties to the revenue division for foreclosure consideration. Our city attorney works with us on legal matters related to the foreclosure in the revenue division. I review the delinquent accounts, work with paddy and the city attorney to determine which properties to submit to council for consideration. And our city treasurer conducts the foreclosure sale. I want to start by giving an overview of the city foreclosure program. Our program is not your typical foreclosure program. Usually with foreclosure programs, there's an amount owed and everything is. The foreclosure proceedings are based off the amount owed. Our foreclosure program started back in 2016 with the mayor's office. This is a focused effort on vacant and distressed properties. This is about safer communities. And I want to also state vacant. Our foreclosure process does not displace any legal tenant or any legal occupant in the property. Yes, there are times that there are unlawful occupants on site at these properties, and you'll see that through my presentation. And what we do is we send out we work with human solutions. They have an outreach team that they can actually send to the property to meet with the, the unlawful occupants, to try and connect them with services, to get them into some type of housing. These properties create livability issues in the neighborhoods that they are in. We use foreclosure as a way to prompt the owner into getting engaged to resolve the issues at the property. This is used as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. When properties are referred to foreclosure, I make several attempts to prevent the property from moving forward. I do extensive outreach by phone, trying to get a hold of the owner. I send out letters just to get the owner, get the owner's attention, and to bring some engagement. When owners are willing to resolve the issue and their case is closed, we can review them for programs to assist them. We can see if they qualify for the lien reduction review program. We can offer waivers. We can work with them on payment plans. We can do a hardship temporary payment plan. And lastly, we can also come up with an amicable resolution to resolve the issues at the property. And of course, if they pay the liens off in full, we'll remove them from the list. The list I'm going to present to you originally came over with 20 properties. Using these tools, I've been able to reduce the list by six properties. Three of them paid off, one closed their open case and qualified for the lien reduction plan and is now on a payment plan. One we one we're working with on an agreement. And then the last one they filed for bankruptcy. We are always looking at ways to improve our program. Sorry. One second. We are always looking at ways to improve our program. So I want to highlight some admin rule changes regarding foreclosure that went into effect on June 12th. The admin rule 1410 and section 60. We changed our name from the collection committee. Now we call ourselves the foreclosure finance committee. That committee consists of people from the team p and city attorney revenue and the city treasurer's office. We also changed some of the criteria. I wouldn't say we changed the criteria. I just said we made it more concise. Prior to the rewrite. It was pretty wordy. Section 120 foreclosure properties purchased by city. Properties that aren't that don't receive bids at the foreclosure sale. The city, with council approval, can bid on those properties. And then the major one is section 175. What we're running across is, in some cases, properties aren't selling at a foreclosure sale because the lien balance is higher than what the property is valued at. So this section now allows us to get an appraisal and base the sale price off that appraisal. Today I'm going to present to you 14 properties combined total of 44 liens. Most of the liens are code enforcement and nuisance liens roughly combined. Total of 1.5 million owed. And then this is just the property summary. In bold text you can see the ones that are commercial properties. All of the properties we ran what's called a police calls for service report. All of the properties had some type of police involvement, either at the property or within 200ft of the property. The first property is located at 7545 northeast sandy boulevard. Property is in district three. There are five liens against the property delinquent since 2020 427. $27,000 is owed. Unlawful occupants are on site. Overgrown yard, excessive trash and debris being dumped at the property. And as you can see, this property is covered in graffiti. The next property is located at 7545wi, which means within northeast sandy boulevard again, properties in district three. There are two liens against the property delinquent since 2025, $9,800 is owed. The property has been found open to entry or the garage has been found open to entry and they're unlawful. Unlawful occupants believed to be camping in the garage. And you can see there's excessive trash and debris at the site as well. This next property is located at 6307 north montana avenue. Property is located in district two. There are five liens against the property delinquent since 2023. Roughly $335,000 is owed. The current owner of this property was actually the lender for the former developer for this. For the for the prior owner, the prior owner stopped the project, quit paying. And so eventually they had to foreclose on the, the, the prior owner. They've had no. So okay, sorry, we're currently the new owner is trying to restore the property, finish the work and. Their plan is to sell the property. Once the work has been completed. The complaints on the property are for unlawful occupants, excessive trash and debris. And then there was some fire damage caused to the property by the unlawful occupants. I am in touch with the owner's attorney and we are working on an agreement, and I expect this property to be pulled before we go to before we go in front of the full council. Right. The next property is located at 7250 northeast lombard street. This property is located in district two. Three liens against the property delinquent since 2025, $24,000 is owed. The complaints are. As you can see from the pictures, there's people camping on the property, excessive trash and debris. This property was originally supposed to be an apartment complex. The owner is in litigation with the contractor, so this property has not. The completion of the work has not moved forward. This property has a long history of code. Code history violations dating back to 2005. This property is located at north columbia boulevard. This is a vacant lot with no property number. First time I've ever ran across that. This property has a long history of nuisance complaints dating back to 1993, but they would get resolved because the owner would resolve them before going forward. Both owners are now deceased and I have not been able to locate a next of kin. And this is kind of a revolving cycle because we keep getting complaints. The city is incurring fees by having to go out there and clear the property. The next property is located at 7101 and 7103 southeast division street. This property is located in district three. Two liens against the property delinquent since 2009, $430,000 is owed. The property you can see as trash debris is on site. It's open to entry and there's unlawful occupants. The property owner is not engaged and hasn't responded to any of my phone calls or emails or any of our letters sent out. The next property is located at 1625 southeast 35th avenue. Property is located in district three. Two liens against the property delinquent since 2020 for amount owed 24,000. The neighbors have reached out to me on this property complaining about. There's large sinkholes on the property. The roof on the garage is deteriorating, the yard is overgrown. At one point they were. They were considering suing the owner of the property for the condition of the. For being left in this condition. I have spoken with the owner and the property is now under contract. I spoke with him as recently as last week and he said it should be. The sale should be final within 45 days. Now, the reason why we're keeping this property on this list is because the property owner has defaulted on prior agreements. The next property is located at 2706 southeast, 126 southeast, 122nd avenue. Property is located in district one. There are eight liens against the property delinquent since 2023, roughly $74,000 is owed. The property does have a prior code enforcement history, which dates back to 2016. There's trash and debris is being left on site. There's also unlawful occupants camping at the property. This property owner is engaged. They're working to close their open case and I. And by the time we get to full council, I expect this one to be removed as well. This next property 27, 34 and 2738 northeast alberta street property is located in district two. There are four lanes against the property delinquent since 2025, roughly 100 and roughly $106,000 is owed. This property has a long history of code violations and nuisance complaints. This property was also part of a prior city foreclosure action in 2024, which the council did approve this property for foreclosure. The property was later removed because the owner paid off the liens. This property has garnered several complaints for several years. One of the neighbors uses a wheelchair and cannot access the sidewalk because of the debris in the that are covering the sidewalk and the fence and what have you. The owner is engaged. I've spoken with them as recently as yesterday, but there's no action plan to resolve the issues at the property. We. I've been copied on emails from p and d detailing what needs to be done and nothing is moving forward at this time. The next property is located at 4324 southeast 65th avenue. This property is located in district three. There are three liens against the property delinquent since 2020, $38,000 is owed. This property has had extensive fire damage. There's also roof damage from the firefighters battling the blaze. I have spoken with the owner and his plan is to demo the property and rebuild it, and then he plans to sell it and then use those profits to pay off our liens. The owner, the the owner, the owner was paid by insurance for the fire damage to the property. The last time I spoke with the owner, they were engaged with their contractors. So this 1st may possibly come off the list depending on what we're able to work out within the next couple of weeks. The next property is located at 6627 southeast woodstock. Property located in district three. Sorry. Give me one. Property is located in district three. There are three liens against the property delinquent since 2025, $5,800 is owed. This property has a long history of complaints dating back to the early 2000. This was also part of a prior foreclosure action in 2024, which was later removed because the owner paid off the liens. The property is open to entry. Unlawful occupants are on site, trash and debris is on site in the yard, is overgrown. I've had no engagement with the. I've been unable to reach the owner by phone. He has not responded to any of our letters and so we're moving this property forward. The next property is located at 10104 southeast herald street. Property is located in district one. There's one lien against the property delinquent since 2016, roughly 117 000 is owed on the on the lien. This property suffered extensive fire damage in 2017. The property is open to entry. There are reports that there are unlawful occupants living in the garage. There was an occupied rv on site as of the most recent housing inspection. That rv, which believed to be the owner. The owner is deceased. His son was living in the rv on site as of the most recent housing inspection, there was no one living in the rv, and we've received reports that the person living in the garage is someone connected to the family. The next property is located at 5706 southeast lambert street. Property located in district one. Three liens against the property delinquent since 2023. Amount owed 24,000. There are trash and debris being left on site. We have unlawful occupants and as you can see, this house has extensive fire damage. The owners are believed to be deceased and I. I'm sorry the owners are deceased and I cannot, I cannot. The son was engaged at one point, but I cannot get a hold of him. I cannot get him to return my calls. The last property is located at 855 northeast church street. This property is located in district two. There are two liens against the property. Delinquent. Since 2009, the total amount owed is $266,000. This property has suffered roof damage, extensive roof damage that. Now on the inside, there is mold issue inside the property, trash and debris were accumulating at the property. Property also has electrical issues. This owner is engaged and her plan is to rehab the property and turn it into adult foster care. For the next two weeks prior to us going in front of full council, I'm going to work with this property owner to see if she can get into. She can provide some type of plan path forward so that we're able to remove remove her from the list. Since she is engaged, we want to give her that opportunity. All right. The next steps in the process will be to present the properties to full council. Properties that are approved for full council properties that are approved on council ordinance. Authorize the city treasurer to conduct the foreclosure sale. Property owners still have the right to pay off liens up to the sale date. If a property is sold and goes to a third party at our sale date, at our auction, at our foreclosure sale, the property owner will have a 90 day redemption period. I plan to continue working with each and every property owner that's on this list to try and get some type of engagement prior to the council vote that will conclude my presentation. I am available and our team is available to answer any questions that you may have.
152 Thank you so much. Let's start with diego. Do we have anybody signed up to testify?
153 We have two individuals signed up.
154 All right. Let's call them up.
155 First for document number 2026-249. Initiate foreclosure action on 6307 north montana ave for the collection of delinquent city liens. Placed against the property is andy canyon and andy is online. Feel free to unmute yourself and begin your testimony when you're ready.
156 Thank you. Counsel. I represent the lender, center street lending. They're actually the current property owner. I'm an attorney representing them, so I'm just speaking on their behalf. I just want to introduce my client and give some quick background on them. They are indeed a real estate and construction lender. What makes them different, however, is they saw an opportunity where there was a there's a significant housing shortage. And part of the problem is that a lot of these banks will not lend to developers or property owners. In order to improve these properties and increase the housing supply, my client saw an opportunity there, and now they've made a business out of loaning money to people for properties that the banks won't touch. So in essence, they're trying to be part of the solution rather than contribute to the problem that is plaguing a lot of the west coast, including Portland. So what happened here was that my client lent money to the prior owner. When the property was nearly complete, it burned down, and then my and that he just disappeared. He left the liens in place. He never paid anything. He never paid my client. When my client foreclosed, they discovered the property had been burned down rather than simply leaving it as is. As a lot of those other properties on that list were, they developed the property. It is now a 19 unit, so it's a 19 unit apartment building. It was originally simply a four bedroom house. They've turned it into a 19 bedroom, a 1919 apartments, and they're, I believe by next week should have an occupancy permit. And so they're going to try and start to lease these properties. What I'd be asking the city council, I've tried to negotiate and maybe come to some kind of solution with the city to stop this foreclosure so that my client and the city can come to some arrangement, discuss potentially having some of these units listed and rented out as low income housing. So far, I've not heard back. The city has taken quite a rigid stance, despite these circumstances, to foreclose on the property. And if you were to move with foreclosure today, it would not. It would essentially preclude my client in the city from coming to some kind of solution to resolve this issue. And instead of foreclosure. By taking this aggressive, aggressive stance in favor of foreclosure, rather than coming to some kind of resolution on these liens and helping my client help the city of Portland, I'd ask the city to not allow foreclosure to move forward and to allow us to come to some resolution, to allow my client to come to some resolution with the city regarding these liens.
157 Next, we have for document number 2026-256. Initiate foreclosure action on 2734-2738 northeast alberta street for the collection of delinquent city liens placed against the property bars. Aptly, bars is joining us online. Feel free to unmute and begin your testimony when you're ready.
158 Good afternoon again, chair, members of the committee. Kevin, thank you for allowing me to testify regarding 27342738 northeast alberta street. My name is bob epley, district two. I'm here as the custodian for the minor owner of this property. Although the property records identify d.o.j. Building llc as the recorded owner, the owner of this asset is a minor. The minor owner has not personally participated in communications regarding this matter. I've been the individual communicating with the city and acting in my legal and fiduciary capacity as custodian. Throughout my testimony, when I refer to actions taken for the property owner, I refer to actions I have taken on the minor owner's behalf in that custodial capacity to preserve and protect the minor owner's assets. I understand the purpose of the city's foreclosure program, and I understand the need to address properties that create health, safety and neighborhood concerns. However, I respectfully ask the committee to consider that this property presents circumstances different from the typical distressed property case. I'd like to address the city's own evaluation criteria point by point. First, I recognize that there are outstanding liens and that the property has been subject to code enforcement concerns. I'm not asking the committee to disregard those concerns. The question is whether foreclosure is the appropriate next step, given the circumstances and the efforts that have been made to resolve them. The city's own report recognizes that steps were taken to correct the violations, and that the property owner was cooperative in making efforts towards resolution. Those efforts included obtaining engineering assessments, addressing safety concerns, communicating with city staff, and completing demolition. After the city communicated that demolition was required. The demolition of the above grade structure was a significant part of addressing the city's safety concerns. The report also states that the property owner did not have a plan in place to correct the violations. I respectfully believe the record does not fully reflect the efforts undertaken. The challenge has not been a lack of effort or cooperation. The challenge has been navigating a complex situation involving flood damage required demolition, limited resources and a process where the remaining obligations have become the barrier to resolution. To continue advancing the city's requirements and preserve the minor owner's asset. I sold my own property and devoted approximately half $1 million toward expenses associated with this property, including paying for contractors, legal expenses, taxes, title expenses and city related obligations, which were referenced by kevin. Those resources have now been exhausted. Despite these efforts, the remaining lien burden has become the primary obstacle to resolution. Multiple potential buyers have expressed concern about the outstanding liens, making it difficult to transfer the property to someone who could resolve the outstanding obligations and return the property to productive use. I respectfully believe this case is closer to resolution than to abandonment. The city's materials state that foreclosure is a last resort and identify other tools, including resolution agreements, fee waivers for engaged owners, and lean reduction review after case closure. Throughout this process, I've attempted to work with the city to understand and resolve the outstanding issues. I contacted the revenue divisions foreclosure prevention office specifically to ask what options were available, and I was directed back to the enforcement process. I did not understand that additional resolution tools, including fee waivers, payment arrangements or agreements for resolution, were available. Until reviewing the materials for this hearing, I respectfully ask the committee to allow this matter to continue through the city's remaining resolution pathway authorizing foreclosure. Thank you for your time and consideration.
159 That concludes testimony.
160 Thank you, colleagues. So it is. 453 I know we're running close on time. Let's get through these questions and see if we're able to complete this by five. I know some folks have some hard outs, and I'm waiting to get confirmation on the timing urgency as well, in case we do have to move it forward. So I'll work on getting that answer. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney. Go ahead and start.
161 Thank you chair. I will limit myself to the two properties that I had the most questions about. The first is the property at 10104 southeast herald street. You said that there was somebody who was related to the owner who had passed away, who had been living on site and wasn't there anymore. And did you say that the person who is inhabiting the garage is related to the family, or is not?
162 Yes. I received information earlier today that the executor of the trust had actually reached out to pad to try and get that person that is living in the garage out of the property, and the information I have is there just somehow connected. I don't know if they're an actual family member, but they're somehow connected to that family.
163 Okay. And I, you know, I know that the city as, as an entire entity takes this work really seriously and that there's a lot of steps we go through to try to ensure we're not foreclosing on people. I think when there has been an owner who is deceased, I pause as I look at these, because I wonder how much of the lack of movement is because things are caught up in probate or in determining next of kin and ownership after somebody is deceased. Do you know in the case of this property, you said you've been in touch with an executor. Is this a case where things have been delayed because there are complications having to do with the owner's death and ensuring that the the person who inherits this property knows that it is in their possession and and has and gets it legally in their possession. Or has there been a an unwillingness to work on this one?
164 I actually have not spoken with any of the relatives to the property. The executor of the estate actually reached out to had a conversation with the housing inspector, and this is the information that I'm getting from them. And they are aware that we are moving to foreclosure. They have received our notices. They just I just have not been able to get ahold of anyone.
165 Okay. So this may be a case where foreclosure is a tool to obtain the cash for the probate or whatever is happening with the estate, is that I'm trying to understand what's happening with this property.
166 You know, as far as I can see, it's just pretty much an abandoned property because there isn't because once they because they're aware, just from what I read from the housing inspector that the property is going into foreclosure, and I'm sure the housing inspector gave them my contact information and I have not heard from anyone from the property, any of the ownership.
167 Thank you. That's helpful information and background to have on 855 north east church street. Yes. This again is a property where we have a an individual who owns it, not a not a company. It's somebody who's local in the community. Can you help us understand? You said that you were in touch with this individual, but you didn't list this as a property that you thought would likely be coming off the list. Can you help us understand what's happening here? We've got some concerns on this one.
168 So this property has suffered extensive extensive damage. And you know, the property owner is engaged. And I want to give her an opportunity to I want to give her an opportunity to see if she's able to follow through with her plan. And her plan is to rehab the whole property and put it into adult foster care. So I'm going to focus on reaching out to her to see if she can come up with a plan that we can all agree on, agree on to remove this from the list.
169 And if we don't move a property forward, when is the next time that foreclosure lists come to this committee?
170 We don't have a date set yet for the next time.
171 But we're not on a cadence yet of like quarterly or something like that.
172 That's our ultimate goal is to come quarterly.
173 Okay. Councilor you had said we might be able to remove things from the list to vote separately. I'm happy to follow your lead as a d1 councilor on if you have concerns on that southeast herald property or not. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable moving forward. The northeast church street property today, if it sounds like there's going to be more time needed than just the few weeks between now and when this gets to full council for that property owner, but that there is engagement. So I'd ask that we vote on that one separately and happy to stop with questions there. Let me get the the item number for you. I just have the address in front of me, but I'll shoot that to you.
174 Vice chair Green.
175 I just want to thank you. Chair, I wanted clarification. There was a gentleman who was the I think is andy was speaking to a property I can't remember. I couldn't piece together which property that was because they were describing some like 19 unit building, but I didn't see something that looked like a. 19 unit property in your slide deck. So do you have an indication of what they were speaking to?
176 Yes, that's the property at 6307 north montana avenue.
177 Okay. And do you have a response to that testimony?
178 Yes, I actually spoke with him yesterday because we've been talking pretty regularly the last couple of weeks, and we're working on some type of payment plan to come up with so we can get this removed. He was supposed to actually meet with his client today. And again, I'll follow up with him tomorrow.
179 So this is already slated to sort of potentially be removed from this consideration.
180 Yes.
181 Okay. Well, I'm prepared to pull off the other one there. Councilor I thought your line of questioning was fair. The harold street property, I think other than that, I'm.
182 Just to clarify that. So what you told me was the church street one councilor Pirtle-guiney. But you're saying the harold street one. Those are two different ones. So do you also want that one to be pulled out?
183 No, I just want to pull off. I just want to support what you're trying to.
184 I had questions about the harold street property but was not at the level of concern that I would go above what our colleagues who represent that district would do. The church street property felt like we had a situation where somebody was acting in good faith, but might not be able to act in time for the council meeting. And if we're if that if pulling it off would delay action by a year, I would not do so. But if pulling it off and voting separately, if it doesn't move forward, would delay action by 2 or 3 months, it seems reasonable to give this person a little more than just a couple of weeks, but to ensure that the process continues forward so that if we're not able to reach some resolution, it comes back to us in the next batch.
185 Okay. Process wise, let me understand. So could it be that we just don't vote on one? You know, like, I guess I'm trying to figure out it sounds like you want to vote no on it. Right. And but if we yeah, can we continue it to another time or postpone it? What's the process for something like that?
186 I mean, from a procedural perspective, you can make that change, though. I think it would be worth having staff verify just in terms of their timelines or potential other notice, what would need to happen or what would happen with those properties that you did not take action on today.
187 Could you answer that question then? Staff.
188 So I'm real hesitant about taking this property off the list just because the delinquency. This case has been open since 2009. The property owner, you know, there's a lot this this is actually part of a prior foreclosure as well back in 2024 that we removed from to allow time for the property owner to resolve the issues. And, you know, here we are to date in the same stance also. Another thing is that the property is also creating a rodent issue for the neighbors. And I just I'm pretty reluctant about removing it from the list. But I think, I mean, this may help her know the property owner, knowing that this is the next step. We're we're, we're at this stage now. We're serious about this. We're serious about moving this forward. If they're not if she's not able to get into some type of resolution for this property.
189 And chair, chair, if if I may just add some color, I think to answer your question for the record, jonas biery chief financial officer from a process perspective, so as as kevin identified, what happens next is anything that moves past this committee will go to council, I believe, in two weeks for a first reading and then for a second reading, which eventually will put this on the foreclosure list. So those will move as a batch that then move as a batch to the next sale. If one property were to not go forward from this committee, it would essentially be out of the queue for that next council action, and it would continue to marinate out in whatever form it is to come back to eventually a committee again in the future. I know, as kevin said, we're targeting starting to get back on a quarterly ish cadence. So procedurally, what would happen if that did not proceed from committee today is it would probably not be on a path to stay aligned with the current properties. It would essentially force a delay. There is an option should committee choose to move it forward from committee and then take that action to pull it out of the council queue when that vote comes in a couple of weeks. But that's at the discretion of the committee, obviously.
190 Chair, I know we're on a tight timeline today, and I was actually about to get back into the queue to suggest that if we if we move this forward today, I'm comfortable having the conversation about pulling it potentially from the batch at full council. I would ask that I'd ask that you put in a request to the council president that we have the opportunity to look at these and not have them just end up on a consent agenda, where it might be harder to pull just one if the easy ones do. Sure. But but to make sure that they're not on consent as a batch where it's hard to pull just one thing out.
191 I have one other suggestion, and let's hear from you all too. Just because we are at the end, it sounds like there's lots of questions, and it might not just be those properties. I know I have questions for other things too. Do we want to move this to August 4th? Would that be okay? Timeline. If we just tick all of these and just put them to August 4th, just delay it by committee action by two weeks, and then hopefully we can get some decisions and committee, then have more time. And then from there it can move on. So it's just really just a two week delay instead of taking things out and putting them on different timelines, like you're saying. And I wanted to gauge how people feel about that, but what is your response to that?
192 Yeah. Councilor, I think, I mean, that's, that's doable. I think a couple of questions. I don't know whether I think it's a decision for council president. I don't know procedurally whether something going to a committee on the fourth allows space with with public notification, etc. To get it on an agenda for the sixth. So I think it would punt that first reading to the 13th if I'm thinking of these dates correctly. And then my understanding is council is on recess for a couple of weeks. So that would functionally kick the decision out three weeks, 3 or 4 weeks, which might be manageable again, at the discretion of the committee and the council to decide. We do have, although also noticing requirements that we have to provide related to this. So we just need to make sure that we have some clarity about that timeline so we can meet those those reporting notification requirements.
193 I think because time is an issue that people have that might actually be helpful because then it doesn't delay it too far down. I mean, three, two, three, even a month delay. I'm okay with if we feel okay with that, that it wouldn't be for August 6th, right? We would have to move it one more council meeting. But just given the timing and the discomfort that we're having with making the decision now, I would personally rather just move this to the next committee meeting and go from there. Does that feel doable for staff?
194 I think it's manageable. Yeah, we'll have to, I think notice folks about those timelines, but we can we can technically administer that.
195 Okay. Well, then I will go ahead and say we are going to continue items four through 18 minus item eight to the August 4th committee meeting, and we'll pick it up from there. Sound good? Okay. Thank you so much for your time.
196 Thank you.
197 Okay, colleagues, then with that, in part of why I said that is because the August 4th agenda is still a little bit loose. So I think we have some time to fit that in. And I'll let you know what else is on that agenda. Otherwise, we are adjourned at 5:07 p.m.