 Good afternoon, everybody. Nice to see you. Welcome. This is the Portland City Council. We're meeting in a regular council meeting this evening. It's Monday, March 6th, 5 o'clock. Welcome to people in the chambers. Welcome to people who are with us on Zoom. And we'll begin our meeting. So we're going to officially start the meeting. Will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? The Pledge of Allegiance is to the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Willa Clarke. Please call the roll. Councillor Forno. Here. Councillor Rodriguez. Here. Councillor Dyon. Here. Councillor Ali. Councillor Zorro. Here. Councillor Chavarro. Here. Councillor Pelletier. Here. Councillor Phillips. Here. Mayor Snyder. Here. The next item on our agenda this evening is the 5 o'clock public comment period on non-agended items. So anybody in council chambers or with us on Zoom who would like to address the council, we welcome you. We just ask that you don't talk about something that's on tonight's agenda. Please give us your first and last name and either the neighborhood you live in or the organization that you represent. You'll get three minutes on the clock and we appreciate you being here. And it looks like we've got somebody with us in council chambers. So go ahead and start us off, please. Hi, my name is Jay Gruber. I live in District 2 in the West End. And I've worked for Shalom House since 2018. And I'm here to share news about the unionization efforts led by Shalom House Workers United. Shalom House provides an array of community-based mental health services throughout Portland. A large portion of our services are staffed residential treatment programs, including group homes, supported apartments, and supported housing. Direct support workers in these programs provide some of the most critical mental health care in our community, supporting clients every day, which impacts the overall health of our community in Portland. For most staff, doing this work is a calling, but now we need support from our community. Workers at Shalom House are attempting to unionize to secure a fair and livable wage, improve workplace safety, and have a voice in decision-making that will improve our clients' well-being. However, Shalom House Workers United is facing harsh opposition from the organization's administration. The administration has sent out emails and posters with misleading and intimidating messages. They have scheduled mandatory meetings this week for full-time staff about unionization. Managers have held anti-union one-on-ones with workers, and the administration has attempted to require the election be held only in person at headquarters on a single afternoon, which would exclude workers who have multiple jobs or are scheduled at 24-hour programs. Shalom House is largely funded by grants and public reimbursements, and these funds should be used for programs and client care, not for union busting. Other nonprofits have unionized and seen their services improve as a result. Also, in contrast to the administration's actions, other nonprofits have modeled neutrality. For example, Planned Parenthood agreed to neutrality for their union election, and Maine ACLU voluntarily recognized their union, their workers' union. Using staff time for mandatory anti-union meetings and agency resources on a union avoidance lawyer is creating a hostile environment for employees and needs to stop. I'm asking that city counselors contact Shalom House administration and board members to let them know that this behavior is unacceptable and a waste of resources. Other members of the public are encouraged to show their support as well. Please go to tinyurl.com backslash, support SHWU to send your message to leadership in support of Shalom House Workers United. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we'll head over to Zoom for our next public comment. So just a reminder to please give us your first and last name neighborhood you live in in Portland or the organization that you represent, and first we'll go to Richard. Yeah, hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. All right, great. Richard Ward, Parkside neighborhood, District 2. Free speech, white supremacy. I'm however grateful that due to so many sharing the photo of the banner that my message has reached more than I ever could in person. Social media has come out of the woodwork to support the message that yes, it is okay to be white. One podcaster alone received over 1.5 million views on Twitter with 99% of the comments standing with free speech over social justice, wars, hurt feelings. All races of people came together to condemn your anti-white propaganda. WGME has to keep taking down comments and re-upload in the same news articles to push the narrative that city counselors are the victims while actively attacking free speech. It's okay to be white and to constantly bash white people and blame us for your... It's one of you, are race-baiting hypocrites. The real racists in this city are you. You'd never call it beyond gathering in the city in act of hate or boo-hoo for the cameras. When criminals vandalized our city and attacked police officers, you went silent. Police officers were assaulted with urine, rocks and fireworks that anywhere near as much care. If members are really receiving hateful emails, they brought it upon themselves for lying and slurring white people. A FOIA request has not turned up any threats made towards city counselors. Prove it and release the emails. I condemn violent threats and would encourage you to demand an investigation into who sent the so-called threats. Without a police report, it leaves me to believe that these threats were never made or made by yourselves. You can't play a victim when you spout anti-white hate. Counselor Fonier has said she wants to create an environment where white supremacy doesn't feel safe enough to be in public and loud. With the city deeming it okay to be white as a white supremacy slogan, I'm going to take that as a city councilor wanting violence toward her political opposition. When did it become acceptable for city counselors to start calling for silencing private citizens? With seeing the response, it is obvious that leftists don't believe it's okay to be white and it's a message that needs to be seen more often. Not a single person of color could bother to attend city hall to speak out against it. It was a crowd of angry, self-loathing white people. Thank you for the inspiration to keep my head up in demand and end of racist hate. Thankfully, we are a free country that protects our right to the speech and self-defense. I will not be intimidated. My rights trump your feelings. You will never stop me from peacefully standing up. I'll never quit. I'll never surrender. I'll never give up. Next commenter, please. Anybody else in chambers who would like to address the city council? Come ahead and step forward, please. Good evening, council. My name is Grace Nichols. I live right here on Casco Street. And the reason I'm here this evening is on behalf of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is an international effort led by the nations of Vanuatu and Tuvalu, both nations which are expected to lose land to climate change in the near future. To compliment the Paris Agreement and the most recent COP 27 agreement, but which do not mention coal, oil or gas and fill that fundamental gap to call for the, to stop fossil fuels at source everywhere, non-proliferation, to phase out existing fossil fuel reserves in line with the 1.5 degree Celsius pathway and to support a global, equitable transition to renewable energy. So this is a zero fiscal impact resolution and we'd be joining cities all over the world, including my previous hometown of Albany County, New York, but also Vancouver, Hawaii, a lot of different cities. And 76 noble laureates have all signed on. And the idea is to set a leadership for taking some necessary steps like ending fossil fuel subsidies around the world in order to really get online to a clean energy transition. So I know Maine supports these causes and I think it would be lovely if Portland, Maine would sign on to the resolution. So this is not on the agenda for tonight, but what I did was I brought six packets of the information with a model resolution and all the reasons why it's a great idea. And so I was hoping to hand those to you guys and have you think about it? My name, my email are up on front so you can contact me if you're interested in sponsoring or endorsing it. And then I'm a law student and there's several law students who also support this. So if we can get sponsorship for the resolution, we'd be happy to bring some people here to support it and have different voices to be heard. So thank you very much for listening tonight and I hope to be speaking with you in the future. Thank you, Grace. And our interim city manager is gonna grab your papers from you. Thank you for bringing those and we appreciate your comment. Okay, I will head back over to Zoom for the next public comment. I have somebody on named Tom Dillion. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. My name's Tom Dillion, I'm in district four. I've been a resident of Portland for almost 50 years. I've been hearing a lot of stuff lately, disturbing things about Portland. There's a lot of accusations that city council, that there's a lot of members, there's a lot of members that are socialists or communists and it's disturbing. I've never done a city council meeting. And they told me that if I came on, I would watch city councilors not stand for the American flag. And I told them that there was no way that was possible. And I came on and my daughter showed me and I don't even know what to say right now. I watched them not stand, what is happening to our city? Everyone is sending me videos of stuff that's happening in Wyndham schools. You saying that it's not okay to be white, that you won't stand for the pledge of allegiance I don't even know what's going on in the city anymore. If you guys aren't socialists, would you at least make a comment and say you denounce socialism or communism? My father fought in the North Korean War. That's all I'm gonna say. Thank you. Is there anybody else in council chambers who would like to offer public comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda? Okay, I don't see any. I've got a hand up on Zoom from George Rowe. George Rowe, Hanover Street. I had made a request of the council to do a motion to reconsider the North Deering Park approval last week. The basis for that has to do, and you did it with the Munjoy Hill Historic District. It's one of the kind of the bigger items that you've done it over the years. So the procedure is very familiar to you. But the reason is last week's discussion was really in no way, shape, or form enough for this city to get comfort that this transaction is on the up and up. For example, the trust for public land was able to basically do a propaganda video in the middle of that that had absolutely nothing to do with this transaction, absolutely nothing to do with its specific work in Portland over the recent decade or so. But I also included in that request to you, I included an email that had two video links. One was to the Land Bank Commission meeting on December 9th, 2020. It was kind of the genesis of this whole transaction. And in that video, Simon Rucker, who a member of the Land Bank Commission basically admitted that he was proposing this transaction as a favor to his friends. He was wanting public money to be used to assist friends of his. And that may not be a direct financial conflict, it is certainly the appearance of a conflict. And it set off, he was basically the project lead for the Land Bank Commission on this project. He spent an enormous amount of time queuing it up and sending it off to Greg Mitchell and other people in the city administration who pursued it. And that conflict was never made known to you, I don't think explicitly, or to anyone else in the public who didn't have the benefit of being at that meeting, which by the way, that meeting video was not available to the public until fairly recently. And then the second video was the one public meeting that the city of Portland and the trust Republic land had about this transaction. It was the literally over two and a half years, the only time that the public was invited to weigh in on this idea. 30 second warning. And there were no renters invited or present, there were nobody there that was supposed to be the low-income disadvantaged members of our community who were supposed to primarily benefit from this transaction. And so those two videos just help put a pin on why you should be doing a motion to reconsider this evening. And you should be postponing action on this proposal until there can be more public discussion. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Okay, I have, is there anybody in council chambers who would like to step forward? I don't think I see any action in chambers. So we'll head over to Zoom again. Somebody named Alex Jones. Yes. We can hear you. All right. My name is Harry Johnson, district three. I wanna say why did the mayor turn public comment soft last week before giving anyone the chance to speak? That was about 50 of us bastards on Zoom. And within 10 seconds that bitch turned off public. Okay. Thank you for public comment on items and not on tonight's agenda. I will close public comment at this point in time and we will move on in our agenda. I did wanna draw attention to the fact that Councillor Ali is with us this evening, but he's on the attendee side and he's joined us by phone, which, oh, oh wait, maybe we got him. Anyway, I just wanted to let folks know that Jessica is working with Councillor Ali to try to get him over to the panelist side. We don't see him at the moment, but I think he's on his way. Okay. Are there any announcements from my colleagues on the council this evening? Okay. Seeing none and I have none. We will close announcements and move to the approval of the minutes from our previous meeting. Can I please have a motion to approve the minutes from our February 27th council meeting? Move passage. Second. Councillor Zahra with a second from Councillor Dyon. Is there any council discussion on those draft minutes? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and vote to approve them. Councillor Fornir. Yes. Councillor Rodriguez. Yes. Councillor Dyon. Yes. Councillor Ali. Jessica, if you're with us and you can let Councillor Ali speak, then he can go ahead and vote on this item. Looks like you're available to speak, Councillor Ali. The wonders of zoom. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Peter. Okay. We'll keep trying. Okay. Councillor Zahra. Yes. Councillor Trevorrow. Yes. Councillor Pellett here. Yes. Councillor Phillips. Yes. Mayor Snyder. Yes. Those minutes are passed unanimously. The next item on our agenda is Proclamation 14. Will the clerk please read Proclamation 14. Proclamation 14, 22, 23, recognizing March as Women's History Month, sponsored by Kate Snyder, Mayor. So we have a proclamation before us this evening, recognizing the month of March as Women's History Month, whereas women of all races, classes, ethnic backgrounds and beliefs have made historic contributions to the growth, economic vitality and overall quality of life in the city of Portland. And whereas throughout the history of our city and despite a history of hardship, exclusion and discrimination, women have strived and sacrificed for equity and equality to ensure that the daughters of Portland have the same opportunities as our sons. And whereas despite their numerous contributions, and as described in a 2020 report issued by Maine's Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, Maine women still disproportionately struggle for economic security, experience domestic and sexual violence, lack access to healthcare. And whereas throughout history and still today, Portland women have led and lead endeavors to create a more fair and just society for all. And whereas for the first time in the history of the city of Portland, the majority of the members of the 2023 city council are women. Helping the body better represent the needs and priorities of the population and now therefore be it proclaimed that I, Kate Snyder, Mayor of the city of Portland, Maine and the members of the Portland City Council do hereby recognize March 1st through 31st as women's history month. So that is signed and sealed this sixth day of March 2023. Thank you. That's it for proclamations this evening. We do have a communication. Will the clerk please read communication 26. Communication 26, 22, 23, updating, permitting and inspection rules by Jessica Hanscom, Director of permitting and inspections. And I'll look to the city manager. I think we've got, we have Jessica here with us tonight. Correct. There she is. Director Hanscom, please take it away. Good evening, council. Jessica Hanscom, the director of permitting and inspections. So we've just updated our outdoor dining on public property rules to include a rule that we've consistently had throughout the years that you can't cook on public property. And then we formalize the rules for the parklet program. When the parklet program was created in 2017 and 18, the rules were all just listed on the application and we never actually made a set of rules separate from the application process. So we did that this year. Those are the two updates. They both will be uploaded to our website for anyone that has any questions. And I'm happy to answer anything that anyone has. Thank you so much for being here with us this evening, Director Hanscom. And we have two resources available in our packets tonight, which reflect the updates that the director just told us about. Does anybody have any questions or comments with regard to these updates? Councilor Phillips. The only question that I have is under the, is it called the parklet? It says that a restaurant can use their parking lot, other parking spaces right in front of their restaurant in order to use that for outdoor dining. But it doesn't say how many spaces they can use. Does that make sense? So how many parking spaces can a restaurant use in front of their spaces at four? Is it 10? The ordinance specifically states they can have one or two spaces. So it depends on how much frontage they have in front of the restaurant, what they have for occupancy in the restaurant will depend on how many spaces they can have. But the max is two spaces. Thank you. Thanks for the question. Any other questions or comments from the council on this communication? Okay, again, thank you, Director Hanscom. And we have no more questions on that front. We're heading into orders. Will the clerk please read order 145. Order 145, 22, 23, setting a public hearing on citizen initiative regarding an act to improve tenant protection, sponsored by Ashley Brand City Clerk. Thank you so much. And so I think I'm going right back to you, Ashley, for a little heads up on this or are we going to court council for this setting of the public hearing? I think this one's just pretty straightforward. It's just setting the public hearing date, which will be at our next meeting. And then we'll be able to take public comment and the overview up. Okay, thank you. So again, this is straightforward. The item before us tonight is not on the content of the initiative, rather the setting of the public hearing so that we can make sure people know when we will be offering that public hearing opportunity. So I'm going to ask if there's any public comment on this item before I come back to the council for a motion. I have a hand up from George Rowe. George Rowe, West Bayside. So in terms of setting this particular date, you have the distinct advantage of only having one referendum, fortunately, to be wrestling with. But a lot of people find these meetings to be inconvenient. It's still technically winter. So Monday nights are not always great times. And there's also a lot happening at I think your next council meeting. So what I was going to propose since there are some pretty high stakes with this referendum as there almost always is with a referendum from somebody's point of view is to hold a special meeting just for the purpose of giving the public an opportunity to weigh in. And as with any public notice, people may or may not take advantage of the opportunity. But to me, this is, I mean, you had some pretty light meetings over the last year. I would say this is the least hardest working council in a long time in terms of the way that you've been using your meetings. But occasionally you have long ones and the public really never benefits from long evenings where there's lots and lots of different competing people trying to get your attention to focus on something. And so to me, this is absolutely a right issue because there's probably going to be a fair amount of money spent by the landlord interest groups to pass this and there's some merit in what they're doing in terms of looking at a lot of rent control regimes across the country and over time, but the main thing is that one side of this, renters, are not well organized, do not have a well-funded interest group and are not likely to be able to probably have much of a rebuttal campaign. And so creating a special meeting night or a special meeting afternoon on like a Saturday, which is not crazy or unheard of. I don't think it's illegal for you guys to have a special city council meeting on a weekend allows a few hours of our community's time to be spent solely focused on this and let people show up for, against whatever, often even asking you to just pass it outright. And so we can then return to another city council proceeding to maybe hash out either future amendments or adjustments. So that's where I would love to see some leadership and some creativity. I think it basically only serves your interests to have this be a scrum match in a busy city council meeting in a couple of weeks. I don't think it benefits the public, thank you. Thank you for your comment. Is there any other public comment on setting a hearing on the citizen initiative regarding an act to improve tenant protections? Seeing none, I will close public comment. I'm gonna come back to the council for a motion. Move passage. Second. Councilor Zahra with a second from Councillor Fornir and we now have a motion in front of us again. What we're talking about tonight is setting the hearing date so that we get that on the schedule and that we make notice of that hearing date. So I ask if there's any council comment or discussion on this matter. Councillor Fornir. Thank you. I have a question on the timing of the hearing. Does it have to be our next council meeting or does it have to be a certain number of days before the election just so we kind of understand the timeframe in which this public hearing could happen? Thank you. I think there's multiple considerations. So I'm gonna look both to corporation council and the city clerk. Just a quick response. It does have to be held within 30 days of today. So anytime between now and April 5th. Any considerations with regard to timing of the ballot? The ballots would have to be ordered in April in order to receive them 30 days before the election. So we'd need to receive them in May so that we can start absentee voting. There was a tight timeline for this to get the petitions back in and turn back around so that we could have public hearing and whatnot. Thank you. Councilor Rodriguez. Thank you. And just to follow up to that. Does the public hearing have to be part of a council overall meeting or can there be a standalone time for the public hearing to take place? Much like Mr. Rowe suggested. Yeah, I don't know of any reason why you, if the council chose to do so have a special meeting on a separate date as long as it happens within that timeframe but that's a decision for the council to make. Appreciate it. Just because I asked the question, I should say in my personal opinion, any day of the week, any time of the day is gonna present barriers to certain people. I think that today's both labor force doesn't have the traditional nine to five schedule. So we don't have like that framing to kind of follow. I do think that there's certain things that we can do much like we've put in place in here like the hybrid meetings that allow virtual participation and things like that. And again, as Mr. Rowe said, the expectation is not that we fill the room with everyone. These things, regardless of our efforts are simply gonna have limitations for people to attend but do appreciate the clarity. And as Mr. Rowe's intention was, we're all aware now of what the options are. But I think holding it on the date that the agenda suggests and the first read is fine with me. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments? I too appreciate the public comment. It's always good to get thinking creatively about what the options are. As my colleague said, there's always a challenge. No matter what day of the week or time of day. And I do hope that having this remote access opportunity allows people to zoom in and call in and give their feedback. There's a predictability to Mondays for people. They know it's a council meeting night. They know the time of the council meeting. People can write us ahead of time for sure. We take public comment through written emails and those can be sent anytime and included in the backup so the community can actually see people's input if they can't do it in real time. So I like, I will vote in support of this this evening because again, I think there's a predictability. There's been notice. There will be further notice so that we can make people aware that we'll be having this hearing. For me to set a date on a Saturday feels like that would be very confusing to people. So I'm inclined to stick with our precedent here. We've usually gotten quite a good turnout and I expect we will again. Okey-doke, I think we're ready to go ahead and vote on order 145. Councilor Fornir. Yes. Councilor Rodriguez. Yes. Councilor Dionne. Yes. Councilor Ali. Yes. Councilor Zauro. Yes. Councilor Trafaro. Yes. Councilor Pelletier. Yes. Councilor Phillips. Yes. Yes. Thank you. That passes unanimously. Read order 146. Order 146, 22, 23, approving the purchase and sale agreement between 144 4th Street, LLC and Portland regarding Tam Street property sponsored by the Housing and Economic Development Committee. Councilor Pius, Ali chair. Thank you so much. And coming out of the HEDC committee, we've got Councilor Ali here with us this evening. If you'd like to provide some context, Councilor Ali, we'd be happy to hear from you. Thank you, Mayo. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. I think, I don't know if Mary Davis is with us today. I do see her with us on Zoom, yes. So Mary will speak to this. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Mayor, if I may, I'd also mentioned to Mary earlier that I'm happy to jump in with a brief introduction and then people have questions. Mary is here as well. Okay, wonderful. So if you're ready to do that, we'll be happy to hear from you. Sure. This is a, and Mary, feel free to jump in at any time if you feel like cut you short there. This is a purchase and sale agreement for remaining city-owned property down on Tam Street. It's been in the works for quite a while, but we finally have a final purchase and sale agreement that's been approved by the Housing and Economic Development Committee at its last meeting unanimously. And the long and short of it is, this is, it's a parcel currently owned by the city. The last remaining lot, it's a surface parking lot right now operated by the city. It, the city issued a request for proposals to purchase and develop the lot back in 2021. We received one proposal from 144 4th Street, OZ, LLC. A copy of the request for proposals and the proposal are included in the backup materials. The sale of the property would bring $1.15 million to the city, including cash contribution for public restrooms, some additional parking spaces, five additional parking spaces under an agreement that we already have with an affiliate of the purchaser. It would also, the purchaser would also, convey to the city, Freedom Way, which is the block of a land that's currently a private street connecting Thames Street to 4th Street. And we'll also be being granted two substantial pedestrian and public pedestrian utility easements that run east west and north south between Hancock and the connector road and between 4th Street and Thames Street. The, what else can I tell you? I think that sums up the big picture items, but I'm happy to take questions. And Mary, if you think I've missed something important, oh, I would go through just the various values that are addressed in the memorandum that was included in the backup, just specifically that the property sale price, $1.1 million, the value of the connector road that's gonna be conveyed to the city is at $1.2 million. Cash contribution of $30,000 is included in the purchase price to help cover cost of a connector road sidewalk. As I mentioned earlier, $50,000 for a public restroom, the easements that I mentioned earlier, which are valued at 300,000 or over 300,000. And then the five additional parking spaces for four years valued at 43,000. So it's total value of the city of 2.69 million. I think that about sums it up. And I'm happy to take questions or defer to Mary. Okay, Mary, would you like to add anything else at this time? The only thing I would point out is in the attachment in the backup, the purchase and sale attachment, page 25 and page 32 have diagrams that show the parcel that is being sold. Okay, thank you for that reference. So what we'll do is we will take public comment on this item and I'll come back to the council for some discussion. So is there anybody in council chambers would like to address the council on order 146? Okay, I don't see any. I'm looking for hands on Zoom. If anybody would like to provide public comment on 146, go ahead, George. George Rowe. George Rowe, West Bayside. So a couple of quick questions just about the materials in front of you. When is the likely estimate of when this public bathroom will be open and operational for the public? Just kind of curious about that. I'm also wondering there was some attention paid to trying to preserve a once thought important corridor basically a ghost paper street bringing Montfort Street down all the way to Thames Street. And my question there is if I am a disabled person, either in a wheelchair or just otherwise, not able-bodied enough to negotiate stairs, how do I make available or make use of that pedestrian corridor slash easement? I know it's kind of hard to describe exactly what's going on there. How does that benefit me as not somebody who can negotiate stairs? I also just wanted to besides the couple of those questions, I wanted to just ask about the values are a little bit strange and I don't see an appraisal in the packet. So I don't know if that was included at any point along the way. It's weird sometimes public transactions have appraisals that are public and sometimes they kind of keep them under wraps, but property has skyrocketed since this transaction initially I think was proposed and kind of conceived in the RFP. You can go all over the place on the peninsula and see some crazy numbers. I know like Barbara Vestel and Ned Chester who hated to see anything happen in the Eastern Waterfront, like they just sold a building on 22 O'Brien Street for like 1.3 million back, a while back, like a year ago or so. And that was like a little parking lot and like a six unit like triple decker. And that went for 1.3 million. This is a much, much bigger piece of land. And we're saying that it only would have been $3 million for this choice property. It just seems a little bit strange. And I also just wanted to know that, I just wish that these transactions are difficult, but the city knows how to sell land and ask for a lot of conditions when it wants to. And it doesn't seem to wanna do that on any public open space land in other parts of the city. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Any additional public comment on order 146? Seeing none, I will close public comment on order 146. And I'm gonna come back to the council and ask for a motion, please. So moved. I can. Councilor Ali with a second from Councilor Rodriguez. Okay, I wanna open it up for council discussion. Councilor Zaro. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have a few questions, public comment alluded to one of them already. I remember when this came before HEDC when I was on it last year. And I had a few questions then that I'm gonna reiterate now. I think I'll start with the most recent one though that Mr. Rowe asked, but we did sell in a budding piece of land in 2017. It was a 1.1 acres for I think $3.3 million. And now it's what six years later. And this is just shy of an acre. Thank you, Corporation Council for explaining kind of the larger package of the sale that got us closer to that 2.699. But I didn't see an appraisal either. And in this market that is very competitive. I'm curious if we can get a little bit closer to how we landed at this number because it does feel low, quite frankly. Thank you. Yeah, I would defer to Mary. Mary, I don't know if you've got a, if you have that information. Yes, I'm just pulling up some information now. There was an appraisal that was done in April of 2021 on the property. And it has a value range of between $3.9 and $4.1 million. And I think the value of the property and the contributions that the developers proposed and agreed to make to public access. That was part of the consideration in the total value to the city and reflected in that purchase price of the property. Thank you, Mary. So that would assign that value at around $1.5 million, the difference for looking at the 2.699. I'm curious, I remember talking about this last year to a point, but why isn't there a housing component on this parcel? Mary, I'm gonna, I know that was, I imagine that was covered in committee work. So I'm gonna first look to you. Yeah, I would really have to go back and take a look at it because at the time this was not a project that I was working on and my memory isn't serving me well tonight for that issue. I know the area around there is in that essential area where we're talking about has a lot of commercial buildings around it, but I would need to go back in and look at the committee work to know specifically why housing wasn't included there. Thank you. Yeah, I think that would be for me pretty helpful. I know right across the street, there is housing and I know in the 2015 master plan that may not have been present. My last question, and then I'll take a break and let my colleagues dive in, is this the last remaining parcel of this size on the waterfront? And I'll let whoever wants it to take that question. I knew you'd looked at me, Mayor. I don't know that I could say with any certainty if that's true or not. It's the last city-owned property that's owned down in that area, but I don't know if it's the largest available one. Thank you for clarifying, that was my, I meant city-owned, so thank you for clarifying that for me. Thank you, those are my only questions for now. Councilor Zahary, you've got me thinking so I'm gonna jump in with a question. I know that this issue has straddled various council years and even leadership and staff with regard to economic development. So we've had some staff changes, we've had some council changes and I'm gonna direct my question to Mary on this one. I'm wondering, Mary, if there's an opportunity to look deeply into the issue of housing on this parcel, if more time would help in that realm? I can quickly find it, but probably not for the meeting tonight. So I know that we've been working on this for quite some time and the developer is anxious to move it forward, but I don't know that if we had a short delay just to gather that information, if that would be a problem, I don't see why it would be. Michael can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that would be okay. I would, just in response to your questions, Mayor and the councillor Zara's questions about housing, I will say that this was the only proposal that the city received and the proposal was for a, for a multi-tenant commercial office building. There hasn't been any proposal from anyone as far as I know. Certainly we didn't receive one that included housing. It was always just a commercial building and that was the proposal that the committee had encouraged the city to move forward with in terms of negotiating the purchase sale agreement. Thank you. That's helpful information. This is in response to an RFP councillor, Diane. I have a couple of questions. Corporation council, how much time have you spent negotiating this purchase and sale agreement? Sometimes one of the benefits of working for the city is not having to keep track of billable hours, but a lot. It's been, there have been some delays on both sides in terms of this sort of lying dormant for a couple of weeks here and there, but it has been, it would really be hard for me to estimate it, but it's a complex process with multiple easements and multiple sort of side agreements and it's taken a long time. I wasn't looking for the hours. I really wasn't. I'm just saying how many weeks has this been going on? It's been going on for probably, I mean, are the negotiations have been going on for over a year. Okay. And how long did it lay on the table on committee before it came out? I would say it was several months. I just want to make an observation, mayor. I mean, I think we have a responsibility to the business community or any party that looks to engage in a business transaction with city to have some predictability and consistency. You know, this issue has been present before the committee. It's been worked on by corporation council. We knew about that at the last meeting. I just, I will vote against any delay. I think the other parties entitled to see the deal resolve in the good faith that it was negotiated by corporation council. Thank you. Thank you, councilor Diane. I agree. I think that it's been in front of this group for a while. We've had, we have a unanimous vote for zero from committee, but I also really respect the questions from my colleagues with regard to options and, you know, all of the factors that we want to think about. And I did want to acknowledge the change and the transitions that have happened. When issues take a while as this one has, we straddle council years and committees and that kind of thing. So I appreciate the comments and the questions and the conversation. Is there any other councilor who would like to weigh in or ask a question at this point in time? Councilor Fornier. Thank you. It's a pretty robust packet. And I remember vaguely when this came up in AGDC. So what I was trying to find and to councilor Zaro's point is kind of the difference between the value of what this is and what we're getting in exchange for the monies that are being paid. And that isn't clear to me, I guess, in the purchase and sale agreement. Just that seems to be a pretty big discount for some parking spaces and maybe a potential right away. And maybe I'm misunderstanding it, but I feel like I want to make sure we're not giving the store away for a deal just because it's taken a little bit longer of a time. And so I don't know if Mary or corporation council have that within this purchase and sale agreement that kind of outlines those different prices. I've looked through this a number of times and I haven't seen that clearly outlined. So also to the public's point where they charge us with making sure we understand what we're agreeing to, I just want to make sure that that's outlined. Thank you. So I think that question would be directed to Mary. Is there a specific outline in the purchase and sale? We do have that summary that was provided in the memorandum that corporation council outlined, but any additional information, Mary, that you'd want to share? Um, the, um, I want to first go back to the original RFP. And there were some specific requirements that were included in that RFP for any proposals that came in. And the, um, the issues around parking, the connector roads, um, the public rights of way, those were all key goals within the RFP. So that could, that could have been accomplished in a couple of different ways. The city could have just sold the property and use the proceeds of the sale to make those investments. That might have impacted what type of development could have been done in those areas or as what happened with the proposal that's in front of you, we looked at what were the city goals and priorities for this property? How best could we meet those goals and negotiated with the developer to come to an agreement to the point of how long have we been talking about this? It's been months worth of work that encompasses several departments. And so we've had input from public works and planning all around what would these rights of way and road work look like? How could we get the best possible benefit for the city? And so with that in mind, I'm switching back over to the purchase and sale. And I don't know that those specific numbers and that transaction is written into the purchase and sale in any one particular place or an easy place to point to but the attachments to the purchase and sale outline the work that is the responsibility of the developer where that work is located. And they are taking on the cost or bearing the cost to do that work. So unless Michael can correct me, I don't think there's any one place where we can point to those exact dollar numbers being referenced in the purchase and sale agreement but the work associated with it is referenced in the attachments to the purchase and sale. Thank you very much, Mary. Councillor Fornears, are you all set with that? Yep, go ahead. Just one other question based on their RFP that they submitted. I know, I think it was in 2021 when that came in and the estimated taxes were 170,000. I just wanted to know, is that consistent now or is that changed at all? I don't have the answer to that. We did not update that number. Thank you. The assessed value of the property. Councillor Zarro. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Why did I turn that off? I appreciate the questions following up. I just want to be clear that I am certainly not advocating for a postponement on this at all. I agree that, you know, this is a process and continuity is important for both, you know, business community and residents of Portland. For me, and I want to be careful because I cannot remember when I was on a GDC last session if this conversation was in public or an executive session. So I won't go into details, but I will say that I recall advocating for a housing component on this, even though it was outside of the context of the master plan for the waterfront because lots changed since 2015 to 2020, then 2022. And it feels incongruent. I mean, we have massive vacant office spaces and a housing shortage. And I just think about our council goals and I think about what we keep saying we need to do. So I don't think this is a bad deal in that it came up from where it was. I think it was at $840,000 last year. So there have been some concessions. I really do appreciate city staff for working on it. I get it. I know how much you put into it. That's certainly not my issue. My issue is, and this, it might just be me. I might be the only one. I'm fine with that. I just don't feel comfortable saying that we're checking the boxes of going after our council goals this year specific to housing and being okay with more commercial office space. It's nothing personal. It's just the situation that I think we're in right now. I know we can't force people to build housing on lots that we sell them. We can certainly incentivize it. So I just wanted to be clear. I'm not trying to postpone anything. I think tonight we do have an obligation to our community to vote on this. But I think that it's a missed opportunity, even though I understand the waterfront has been developed in a very specific lens and a lot of work did go into it. This for me, isn't it? So if I could have my way, we would keep working and find someone who does wanna build housing here or a combination of housing and office space and figure out parking and easements and infrastructure with the abutting road. And I understand that is a tall request, but these are difficult decisions that we have to be making. So I just wanted to clarify it for the record. That's where I'm coming from. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. So I'll jump in with a question. We are looking within the package we've got before us tonight at a net revenue of about 1.15 million from the deal. And I'm gonna turn to either corporation council or the city manager, I think, to talk us through the council's role in having a say about that revenue. Is there an opportunity for this council to contemplate investment in, for example, our housing trust fund as it relates to revenues that we see coming in from this deal? I think the next step after this, if you were to approve this deal tonight would be an order that would appropriate those funds. And so that order would direct those funds to specific areas. Obviously staff would provide you with a recommendation that we would propose that you consider, but you guys have the ability, I believe, to appropriate those funds to the place that you think they would be best used. Thank you, that's helpful. Corporation council. Thank you. Just one, I wanted to just draw the council's attention to one other point that I don't know if it's clear. I think it's in the materials, but I know there's a lot of materials there, which is that the, I know that the acceptance of the connector road as a city street is an important piece of the plan for that area. And I just wanna make sure that it's clear to everybody that the developer currently owns the section of that between the property that we own and four street. And so as the council considers whether or not to approve this, I think it's important just to keep that in the balance that in order to get titled to that, to the property that would make that connection, we'd need to move forward with this agreement. Okay, thank you for that clarification. I see a hand up on Zoom from councilor Ali. Thank you, Mayor, actually that was the question I was going to ask what was the city manager or corporation council, so corporation council have answered that about that connector road in between because I know this thing has been, I think I've been the longest person on this specific committee and deal with this back and forth and a couple of executive session on this item. So the question that I was going to ask is already been answered by corporation council, which is that connector road. I am aware of that. Okay, thank you, Councillor Ali. Next I go to Councillor Dyon. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to return to council Zaro's commentary. I appreciate his effort to reframe his position in doing so. I don't disagree with anything you've had to say. I think housing is a priority. My concern, and you use the word consistency and I think that's important is it's incumbent on us to make decisions as to the timing of such a request for housing. I think if it's front loaded at the RFP juncture that makes sense, then our potential partner is no going in. If I want a commercial tower, 35% of it has to be residential. I have no problem with that. I stand with you. I think in the future, there would be an appropriate posture for this council and it's committees to take in evaluating a development proposal, that makes sense. I always am reluctant to approve add-ons for lack of a better term this evening to anticipated projects and what they're going to look like and what we're negotiating for in trying to settle that transaction. That's all. 11th hour, I tend to want to reject those instinctively. But moving forward, as I said, I'm in concert with you in terms of we've got to be a little bit more intentional and affirmative about securing housing space in any development that moves forward in the city. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, counselor. Counselor Zaro. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm going to stop standing because I'm just getting my work out in. Counselor Dianne, you and I agree. I think we are aligned on this. The one thing I will add though is I did ask for the RFP to include housing when I was on AGDC. It was very clear about it. It wasn't comfortable with this then. And so that has remained consistent. I'm still in comfortable with it because I asked for it. I understand we only received one response. And that's just what it is. But I just want to be clear about that as well. One last question. The bathroom, 50,000 allocation for the public restroom, that leads me to believe that we are responsible for the maintenance of that. Can we just get clarification on that? That would be correct. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, everybody. I appreciate the conversation I'm looking on Zoom to see if Counselor Ali has a hand up, not at this point. Always good to have this conversation, I think, and share things across the dais. So I appreciate the dialogue this evening. I think we are ready to go ahead and vote to approve order 146. Counselor Fornir. Yes, Counselor Rodriguez. Yes. Counselor Dianne. Yes. Yes. Counselor Zaro. No. Counselor Gervaro. Yes. Counselor Pelletier. Yes. Counsel Phillips. Yes. Mayor Snyder. Yes. Order 146 passes eight to one. Thank you, everybody. The last items on our agenda this evening are first reads. So I'm going to ask the clerk to please read the following items, which are again first reads order 147, 48 and 49. Order 147, 22, 23, authorizing general obligation bonds to finance a portion of the city's fiscal year 2024 capital improvement program, an amount not to exceed 17,455,000 sponsored by the finance committee. Order 148, 22, 23, appropriating bond proceeds and other funds in the amount not to exceed 24,530,000 for the city's fiscal year 2024 capital improvement program sponsored by the finance committee and order 149, 22, 23 amendment to zoning map regarding IM-B industrial moderate impact on industrial way sponsored by the planning board. Thank you. So these items will be on our next meeting agenda. So our next regular meeting of the council is Monday, March 20th. So we'll see those and take action on those in a couple of weeks. Between now and then we do have two workshops scheduled for the 13th. And so of course we invite the public to watch and engage in those workshops with us. One is having to do with the budget. The other is having to do with clean elections. So we'll see one another in chambers next week on Monday. We'll see each other the following Monday. We'll see each other the following Monday. But for now I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Councilor Ali, a second from Councilor Rodriguez. Councilor Fornir. Yes. Councilor Bradford, yes. Yes. Councilor Dion. Yes. Councilor Ali. Yes. Councilor Zahrao. Yes. Councilor Gervaro. Yes. Councilor Palatier. Yes. Councilor Phillips. Yes. Mayor Snider. Yes. Thank you everybody. We are adjourned.