 Hi everybody. Peter are we live. We're good. Okay, I gotta. Okay. Hi everybody. Welcome. This is the Portland city council we're meeting in a workshop. We've got seven out of nine of us here present I believe will be joined by our other two colleagues in person, shortly. So, I'm going to call this workshop to order. We do have some attendees with us on zoom so thank you for being here I'll keep my eye out. Because we will be taking public comment tonight. So, I've welcomed, I've called to order. And here we are. Oh, great. Councilor Rodriguez is here. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll just get right into it. I just wanted to take a couple of minutes before we have a presentation from our corporation council just to kind of lay out where we are. So, we talked a little bit about chapter nine back at our goal setting workshop in December, didn't get much traction. Fine, moving on. We put up in response to a couple people reaching out and say, saying, where did we land on that didn't get much response. Okay, fine. Then February came and I got a few people reaching out saying, what about chapter nine. So we scheduled a chapter nine review in workshop on March 27. And the intent of that workshop really was to give the council the opportunity to have a discussion on the heels of a few years worth of constituent feedback and input, as well as staff discussion about how chapter nine governs the citizen initiative process and at that time in preparation for that workshop. I had asked corporation council over email shared it with you all that the three things that I thought we had heard most consistently from constituents was is 1500 the right number of signatures is a five year wait on a council amendment to a citizen approved ordinance. The right amount of time. And do we need to have a fiscal note that would be required of any possible question that would go before voters. So that was the starting point on September 27, the memo and draft ordinance amendments on March 27 reflected those three areas. We met, we had some discussion we got some feedback we took public comment that evening just like we will tonight, and corporation council has put before us. An amended version of both a memo and the ordinance with some changes that reflect the conversation that we had on March 27. So, thanks to all who have given feedback, both at that workshop and between then and now. I hope everybody had a chance to read the memo and the changes provided for us for consideration by our corporation council Michael Goldman. And again, my intent here is to give the council the opportunity to have a say on whether or not putting something in front of the voters is the right move. So that's, that's the intention tonight is to emerge with something that we can put before the council for consideration. So please give your input tonight. And, and we'll, we'll take that forward. So I'll stop there and hand it over to corporation council for any additional summary. Thank you mayor. Good evening everybody getting members of the council and not sure how many people we have on zoom but I think what I'll do is I'm not going to not going to read my whole memo but I'm going to assume that some people have not had a chance to look at it and I'll do a quick summary of. It's the memo is essentially a summary of the changes that that we've made to chapter nine. And so I'll just go through that real quick. The first change is, as the mayor mentioned, is an increase in the number of signatures, the petition signature requirement, increasing that from 1500 registered voters to 10% of the number of votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election. So the next major change is some changes to the procedures for the filing of the application in order to, in order to have the clerk's office generate a petition, and also a review process. The clerk in consultation with our office would make sure that that the, that the proposed ordinance meets certain requirements in the, in the chapter. The next change is some changes to section 936 and 937 clarifying petitioner requirement, I'm sorry circulator requirements. And, and also, including some, some certifications that circulators will have to make when they submit assigned petitions. We're also proposing adding a fiscal impact statement so upon the city's receipt of a of an application for a citizen initiative, we would have the finance director, or the finance office prepare a fiscal impact statement. And also, we're considering an additional requirement that if the fiscal impact is greater than 50,000 then the ordinance would have a prospective application date that would start at the beginning of the next fiscal year, rather than have it start immediately, or the typical requirement would be that it would be 30 days after the certification of the election. Next would be publication costs we discussed this at the last meeting. Right now the chapter nine requires two separate publications of the ordinance in the newspaper and as the clerk explained, it ends up being very costly I can't remember the numbers for the last election Ashley. So November's election because of how lengthy the ballot was and how many questions we had on there was $16,000 each time. And for this election would just the one. It's like $2,500 each time. So the proposal would be to eliminate one of the, of the publications that would still be protections and making people would still have an opportunity to read the entire text on the city website at the clerk's office at the polling places, it just wouldn't get that paper publication. The, the last, the last substantial change is the change in the, in the five year rule that the mayor discussed earlier which would reduce right now there's a provision that basically says any citizen initiative can't be amended or appeared by the city council for a period of five years. And the only way it can be amended is to go back through the citizen initiative process or or out back to a vote. And this proposal here is to allow an amendment after by the council after one year with a vote of six members of the council. And there's one. I would say, that's in that in the revised chapter nine but it's not I don't think I mentioned it in the memo, which is to limit the, the initiative process to the November, the, the regular November election, and only have it happened during that election, as opposed to the June election as well. So, I think that sums it up. I don't know. You know how how best to move forward if we want to sort of talk about those generally talk about the substance of those generally rather than get in the weeds, you know the details and we can sort of look at each section does that work for you. Well I think first thing we'll do is take public comment. Okay, and then we'll head into the workshop portion of the evening and I think people can speak specifically or generally. But that was a great summary anything else before we move on. That is it from me. Okay, great. Thank you. So again, just to, as Michael was talking I was thinking, okay, so the, I believe that the, the signature requirement is something that looked to main state law to tie to that 10%. I think that the fiscal impact statement also is similar to what happens at the state. Correct level and then the application procedure and review prior to obtaining signatures is kind of like the state revisers office we've talked about that in the past. And I know that the November, limiting it to the November ballot was something that came from a from a counselor for inclusion. And here, kind of generally that were put forward there are things in here that come from staff on some of the procedural stuff I noticed in the, in the draft that we include email for example whereas we didn't have the term email used in the ordinance before. And I was going to ask you Michael do you recall the last time that this section of chapter nine was revised. I do not recall but I can tell you. Is it 91. Yeah, I was going to say it's 1991. It was originally enacted in the 50s. Okay, so originally enacted in the 50s most recent revisions to this were from 1991 so great opportunity for us to have this iterative process to review and see whether or not. There's anything in this ordinance that could be improved upon. So with that, I will open it up for public comment we don't have anybody here here with us in chambers but if you're on zoom and you'd like to speak go ahead and raise your hand we're happy to have you here. The clerk will keep the clock at three minutes please give us your name and either your address or the organization you represent and thanks again for being with us Jim Hall you can start us off. Hi Jim hall and district one thanks. I appreciate you inviting public comment in your workshop workshop. This is such a vital aspect of democratic checks and balances. This part of ordinance really amounts to a hidden charter section, the way it impacts overall governance structure. That's why I advocate for requiring the same 30% turnout threshold, but the revisions you've asked to draft here, you know as the mayor went over the signature threshold legal review fiscal mode, those all align with proven state level processes and I support that. On the same principle that we're implementing campaign on campaign funding to a proven states that you know back in 91 I believe voters had to physically show up to city hall to sign a petition. Maybe that case 1500 was seen as a groundswell of support, but elections practices have changed radically. Since this has been reviewed, you know just see the reference to email in the cost saving section. I fear the recent glut of very complex ordinance coming from a single interest group going straight to yes no ultimatum proves our current law has become a loophole to bypass public processes, in effect propping up a non elected shadow and you may disagree with that but in any case we simply must set thresholds as percentages at least fix that, especially with the present desire to grow housing stock and therefore total population. And please consider what mechanisms are available to ensure consensus building earlier in the process. The way that poorly vetted cruise ship referendum was forced to ballot, even while its architects disavowed it should be a cautionary tale. It's not hard to list others. Certainly the only ways to improve are to adopt the stinker first, wait five years, or condemn a three way alternative to no majority. I mean why aren't we considering ranked choice, or, or even simple plurality for the latter case. I would say it may be worth discussing the differences between citizens. Thank you, and people's veto. The initiatives are basically crowdsourcing legislative powers but currently without any of the consensus mechanisms like committee deep dives workshopping amendment, even sunshine laws, but veto provides a crucial check between campaign cycles. And I'm not sure council to go rogue from its electors, the current thresholds and prohibitions conflate the two inappropriately. But whatever you propose in November, please ensure it can be digested as a holistic and integrated improvement on the ballot. Thanks. Thank you for your comment. Next we'll go to amen Dundon. Good evening and thank you for hosting this workshop tonight. My name is Amy Dundon and I'm the director of advocacy at the Portland regional chamber. I appreciate this opportunity to address the need for modest reforms to chapter nine provisions concerning citizen initiated referendums. As I mentioned by the mayor and corporation council, these reforms aim to align our process with the state of Maine's while also ensuring that our city council, you guys as the legislative policy, making body of our city is empowered to effectively carry out its duties. You know, we wholeheartedly acknowledged the vital role that referenda play in determining public sentiment on narrow yet important questions of public policy such as gay marriage and legalization of marijuana. In recent years, our city has been beset with increasingly broad and sweeping measures that amend and insert dozens of pages of city code without any impact from you are elected policymakers. This inhibits your ability to respond to the needs of your constituents. Consider this scenario. If a concerned constituent were to approach you seeking improvements in the protections for workers provided by our minimum wage ordinance, you would be hindered from initiating the necessary actions to address their concerns due to the current prohibition on council amendment. Similarly, if an affordable housing developer would request a waiver to provisions of the Green New Deal setting excessive costs required by specific provisions in the ordinance, you would be prohibited from initiating council action directly undermining one of your most important goals, producing more affordable housing. Finally, I do want to bring to your attention a recent and urgent matter and that is the first circuit decision in the case of we the people pack the bellows. By of last year, the court ruled that means constitutional prohibition on out of state signature gathers is unconstitutional. Although the decision has not received significant media attention, its implications are far reaching. It opens the floodgates for well funded out of state organizations to effortlessly effortlessly place misleading initiatives on our local ballot, simply by virtue of their financial resources. This undermines the spirit of our existing ordinance, which aims to provide an outlet for groups of Portland residents to exercise their voice to hard work and grassroots organizing. It was not meant to enable the purchase of signatures to lock policies and city code for a minimum of five years. So in conclusion, we implore you to recognize the urgent need for a form. We must restore the balance between citizen initiatives and the authority and role of our elected officials, and by aligning our referendum process as closely to the state of Maine as possible. We can safeguard against unwarranted amendments to our city code by out of state organizations while ensuring that you, as our policymakers can effectively fulfill your responsibilities. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comment. Next we'll go to Joshua. I'm Joshua. I'm a senator and counselors. My name is Joshua chasing district to Sherman Street. Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening I was excited to hear about this workshop because a year after year I feel like I'm binge voting on referendum after end of friend. This is designed to be used when voters feel as though city council is not governing to the best of their abilities and moving policies forward that voters want. The reality is, is that good policy takes time to craft. It requires input from vested interests is, excuse me, vested interests that policy that the policy specifically would affect, which is not how ballot measures are written. This is a political weapon in Portland because the primaries to qualify are poor at best, while some initiatives proponents claim council isn't putting in the work, which is, which is as offensive as it sounds. It requires a mere 1500 signatures with room for challenges of course to qualify for the ballot. It's my understanding that the number of signatures that are currently required was designed when folks actually had to go to the city clerk's office and physically walk in and sign the petition, which back then was a heavy lift. Once folks were allowed to take the petitions out into the community, and no longer required folks to physically appear before the city clerk that number of signatures didn't change. An increase in the number of signatures required is just good common sense and pragmatism surrounding the qualifications to get on a Portland city ballot, mirroring our state guidelines as a percentage of voters is definitely needed and much more pragmatic. Our current chapter nine hamstring city council and their ability to govern effectively by not allowing city council to amend or change bad policy that's often written without all the stakeholders present. Current rules prohibit any changes to initiative after its passage for five years, which proposed would change that to one year which is certainly much more common sense driven. Good governance by counselors that we vote into office is being tampered by an arcane rule that needs amending. Unfortunately, by moving this legislation, the body, this body and council are supporting democracy. Just like signature gatherers proclaimed to you, you supporting this is simply supporting it going before the voters. You're saying that you want voters to be able to decide if changes to chapter nine are needed. After hearing much of the testimony here today. 30 years. Thank you. It certainly appears that many voters would like the ability to change chapter nine. I do thank everyone for their time and consideration. And I applaud you folks moving this forward and making our requirements mirror that of the states thank you so much. Thank you for your comment. We have been joined by counselor for near welcome counselor. Good to see you and we'll go now to Ken on public comment. Which can whichever Ken had his hand up. There's only one is only one and caper and district five. You know, we have a lot of conversation locally and around the state about making it harder to vote. And definitely it's an effort and outright effort to find the easiest way to get people to vote and give them that right. But here we're taking away one of the major tools that voters have. One of the limited tools that voters have to, to be heard by the by the council and and by other Portland voters now there may be a few things wrong with the rule but we recommend a fewer signatures as necessary and and and other measures that that make it easier. When when the counselors fail to do their job which listen to people and put forth the ordinances and rules that that really benefit the city. When we do our job, we need to have a way an easy way to work to work around that and that's through the the initiative process so I see this as making the effort even more difficult as being the wrong direction the wrong step. As stated, there needs to be a process under whichever whatever hierarchy, where the counselors and the petitioners sit down and have a conversation about what would be good best language to serve both sides on the on the ballot that comes up whether it's a June ballot or November ballot is irrelevant. But the facts remains that it, none of these initiatives would be necessary for the council and the counselors were doing their job. That is to listen to your constituents. Council doesn't want to know where where or how it's failing as is the impression that that this gives the the council needs to want or should want to hear what the electorate is is preferring what they're demanding what they're desiring. There needs to be a uniqueness to Portland, somebody mentioned about doing what the state does. I don't as a Portland I don't give a damn what the state's doing let's do it our way where we have a home rule. So, so let's, let's do, let's worry about us and let the state do their thing whatever they choose to do, but 300 signatures is way too much thank you for the timing. There's way too much and I'd recommend the only change that you really need is a way to, to collaboratively work on the wording of the ballot to get a meaningful question on the ballot, everything else. Make it easy. Because if your counselor is not doing the working for you, then you got to have another way and it should be an easy way. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Next we'll go to Philip. Good afternoon counselors this is Phillip Matthew Crosby Street district five. My, my concern about the changes presented is just that if taken on mass this would sort of can be a very major change to the process by which petitions are used as one of the people that has supported several of the recent referendum and has felt that they have sort of moved forward in a meaningful way. I recognize that there's concern both from people that may not agree with some of those referendum but also from counselors that would have preferred to put forth those changes to the ordinance from the council. I think the, I support some of the things that have been proposed, especially the changes that would allow the clerk to help sort of ensure that the referendum are as good as possible for lack of a better word. But I would not want to limit the ability of sort of outside ideas to come into the council. The one other idea that I do not see expressly sort of presented in any of the proposed changes are changes to the process that would provide the council with more time to craft and receive feedback on alternative ballot questions or anything of that form to me that kind of a modification to chapter nine would be more meaningful in terms of sort of providing a way for the council to both acknowledge a priority that's coming from the voters from the residents of Portland, but also giving the council a chance to pursue through its own process some sort of alternative language. So, I recognize that probably not everything that was presented is going to go through as a single motion but those are my general thoughts on the overall proposals. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comment. Okay. I'll close public comment. Thank you to everybody who provided feedback again we don't have anybody with us here in chambers but we will move on into the workshop portion of our agenda this evening I did want to just take a second if I could to get a context so I've been sitting in this seat since December of 2019 and since that time we've had probably more citizen initiatives on ballots in just a couple of years then we've seen in a long time. So for me this is actually response to constituent feedback over the last few years. Please have a look at this. It's been 32 years since this ordinance was amended so I think it's reasonable for us to say is it working. But again this is iterative you're going to see things that are in front of you tonight that differed from March 27. And we have the opportunity tonight to give Michael our feedback so that what we see coming back before us can be reflective of changes that counselors would like to see. So for me this feels like this is representative democracy at work we're doing the work that we are here that we were elected to do so wherever we land is going to be a result of nine people taking action. But I hope that we have the opportunity tonight to share thoughts and get ideas out on the table so that ultimately this council can have it say about whether or not chapter nine ought to have any amendments made or not. So we're going to open it up for discussion questions comments general specific any feedback on the draft you've got before you counselor pellet here. Thank you this is just general we're just talking generally now. Okay, I'm trying to. This is always awkward when this happens. So, I mean I have some thoughts I feel a little bit like a broken record but I guess I'll share. Um, this is going to sound a little sharper than I mean for it to I haven't eaten today very much so I don't mean it as intense as it's going to come out but we are spending a significant time talking about something that wasn't a council goal. Um, so whether there were some post council meetings or conversations that must have happened. We have so many things are happening in Portland right now so many people feeling unsafe so I'm definitely a little frustrated with how much time we're spending talking about whether or not we need to amend the citizens initiative process. So that's just like where I am in terms of a general vibe check. And then the second thing is another thing that I've said a bunch of times now which is, I am not in favor of restructuring the process of the citizens initiative if we're not going to do what we say we always want to do in here, which is engage stakeholders in how the conversation with the stakeholders so are there conversations with individuals, or groups who have gathered signatures in the past and he'll put forward referenda in the past, and is that something that we are going to do, and is that a next step. Before we actually make the decision on whether or not we are going to amend the signature count. And whether or not we're going to, you know, significantly change the citizens initiative process. I am definitely understanding that it hasn't been changed in several years and so I'm totally down to take a look and after we have these stakeholder conversations and see what we're able to do but it's tough for me to feel like I can especially with the signature count get on board with the amending of the signatures. Because I think again, the reason that we're seeing a lot of citizens referenda come forward is there's something in here that people are not getting from us and there's something that they are feeling frustrated by or unheard by or underrepresented I think that speaks to not just us but just local government in general and I think that's, that's the issue that I wish that we would talk about is how are we going to make sure that the people of Portland that we represent feel like we're hearing them feel like we're listening to them feel like we're collaborating with them, because they clearly don't if they're putting forward referenda that is, you know, change that they're hoping that we make and I know that that's another conversation but again like when I when I wish to have And then the signature part is tough because you need to get 300 signatures to qualify to be on the ballot to run for mayor in Portland or to be an out large city counselor, you need 75 signatures to qualify for the ballot to be a district So 15 which are not easy to get but it's it's not like that's significant to me as well that you need less signatures to be to qualify for being the mayor of the city, then you would for a citizens referenda and both would have significant impacts to how the city is ran so Yeah, I don't know that's that's kind of where I am on on this conversation and I am going through the memo which I really Michael I really appreciate the information from the memo that you gave us and I did have a question in terms of the the council can amend it. If there is a citizens referenda that passes and the council can amend it for five years. So there's no possible way that the we would be able to amend something for five years is that correct Currently, the council on its own cannot it would have to go back out to the voters in order to do that so it through either the citizen initiative process or the The council could put forward an initiative to go out to the voters as well so that but the only way to change an ordinance pass through the initiative process is to go back out for another election. So we would have to create in that five year period sorry. Okay, so we would have to create something in here and then put that back out for another for a vote, essentially, right. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Yeah, I mean like fiscal impact statement. I'm good with that. I think that makes sense. I think the positioners being main voters make sense. You know, I think the running it in the sorry I'm trying to find like where all of the bullet points are. Yeah, I oh the publication costs as well, eliminating the need for a second publication. You know, I don't know I think I could go either way with that but having it published once in the in the newspaper and then yeah retaining the requirement that full text be posted at the clerk's office and all polling places sounds fine as well but the signature account is tough for me and I don't I don't know that I can be in favor of raising the signature account if we're not addressing the the core issue and to me. I think that was that people don't feel like we are hearing them and that's the conversation I I wish we would talk about some. I'm going to stop there. Thanks. Other counselors with any feedback. And then Phillips and then counselors are. Thanks mayor. I mean I'm just looking over the memo and I do have some concerns I would agree with my fellow counselor counselor palatier I do have a little bit of a concern about the signatures and why some percent and so in that I do have a question so how many, how many signatures would we need. If this was happening in November. Oh, the actual number. Yeah, I mean it's 10% I'll defer to to Ashley on that one. Yep, it's so the 10% of the gubernatorial election was this past November was would be 3399. So almost doubled, and that would change every four years. Yeah, I mean I, I have a little bit of a problem with that as well. It just seems like a lot. I mean, and so I might be okay with a 5% but I think doubling that amount seems again it's a little concerning to me. So that's it on the first one. And then I'm okay with the application procedure review pro let's see the signature no limit which one's this one proposed change to petition procedure provision of nine dash 36 C and D. I'm okay with that. Okay, with the change and nine 36 and D. I do have some questions about the fiscal impact I agree that there needs to be some fiscal impact statement there. I've been thinking about the 30 days in general. Why I don't, I maybe, maybe, maybe we could hear from the city manager but to try and turn it in order to round in 30 days seems like a lot of work. And so I'm not sure if we've given any recommendations or any suggestions or whatever to actually change that because again, I will assume that there's a lot of work to try to change that within 30 days. So that's a good question. Yes, I think go ahead Michael I was going to respond from a staff perspective but go ahead. Well I'll just say quickly with the general rule is that that an ordinance after it's approved by the voters goes into effect 30 days after the final tally of the votes. So we have retroactive effect if the date is specified in the ordinance or prospective application as well. And so, so that's that's where those that's where those numbers come from but. So can I ask you a follow up so when is the actual final tally. Typically a couple days. Okay, it's about 30 days and from a staff perspective that's been extremely difficult which is why we wanted to see a change to this provision specifically because we're already nine times out of 10 midway through a fiscal year. We haven't budgeted for these things. And then 30 days to turn around some of the more complex ordinances to get all the forms ready. It's extreme. It's extremely difficult. Which is why, especially if you look at the rank control ordinance as an example. We didn't have staff in place to address that so we had to prioritize and just address things based on the staff that we had because we couldn't add them mid budget cycle. So it's become really complicated, which is why we've requested, or I had strong feelings about including at least a fiscal note and then if the cost gets over 50,000 to say that we would delay implementation until the next fiscal year to be able to budget for that. Which I mean, I mean, I'm in agreement with that I'm trying to think about all the ones that are under 50,000. So I guess my next question is is if this if a lot of this is is was looked at because of the states. What the state was doing. I think correct me if I'm wrong, or maybe just ask the question. When a bill gets passed in state how much time do they have to make it. No, not law or change something. Sorry. Not as sorry as I am I don't know the answer to the question. Is it 90 days. We have to bill it depends I think sometimes they have emergency language and some of the bills and then they do it's usually I think it is 90 days after the end of the legislative session that things go into place but I'm not specifically sure with regard to referendums themselves. Yeah. Councilor. Do you have an answer. Oh, I'm not corporation council. But I do have a comment about this when the chairs already. Thanks I've got some will will counselor Phillips you got the floor next we'll go to you have the answer if you think we have the answer I'd love to know I want to stand I don't have the answer. Okay, sorry. So my recommendation would be that that we would change that language as well and maybe that's an addition. I am in full agreement with the that it would go into effect and the fiscal year especially if it was over $50,000. I, as far as the publication costs. I miss things. I miss things. I think we all miss things. So putting in the paper once. It needs to go in the if we could put in the paper, three times or four times. I know that's not what we're looking for but we miss things and so I'm not, I'm not in favor of that I think we continue to do it twice. Because again, I think, I think people miss things. As far as the. Now which one is this one of the initiative process, being able to. It's as initial process anytime after when you're after the effective date of the ordinance, when is the effective date of the ordinance. Is that just very. It'll vary depending on the things I mentioned earlier, which is the sort of general rule that's in the in chapter nine already existing in there and it's not one of the, not one of the areas that I recommended changing but certainly happy to change it. General rule is 30 days, but the language of the ordinance can have prospective or or retroactive effect. So, my concern about that one is, is that if we haven't, if we have a citizen's initiative it passes. Who knows about the 3060 90 day thing, and then the fiscal note doesn't start until July. Then we have, it's, I don't know when it would be like when would it be in effect, because it could change that November or that January and so it's only been a citizen's initiative has only been an active for six months. I know my sound and confusing. I'm not totally clear of the question. So, sorry. My concern is, let's just, let's just say the effective days January 1, for lack of a better right. And let me separate, let's say the effective days July 1. Right. That's with the fiscal note right now I'm confusing myself. If the effective date is January 1, but because it's over 50,000 it doesn't go into effect until July 1, then when would it be changed if it would only be for a year. Would it be changed in January of 20 women of January or would it be changed a year from July. I think I got it. And I think, I think I got it. Oh Jesus, thank you. Oh, ciao. Sorry. Right, right now as as it's as the language is drafted in the, in the version that was attached to the memo, it would be the, the, the one year period is tied to the effective date of the ordinance. And so, if I think the way that the process would work as proposed is if there is a greater than 50,000 other fiscal impact, then automatically the effective date would be July 1. And that means that the time that one year time period would would start July one. It just seems too little for me. I mean, I'm looking at it. I'm looking at, I'm looking at the ordinance and all the work that has to go into somebody actually putting together a citizen initiative and then it passes. Right. They go through all they get the signatures they do a committee according to this is a committee. And it finally passes and then a year later that we get to, we get to change that. So, sorry, go ahead. I was just going to say it looked up about when they go into effect for the state. And it is regularly 30 days unless it involves the expenditure of funds. And so if it does involve the expenditure of funds that's held off for 45 days until the convening of the next legislature, so that they can provide a means to raise the revenue to be able to cover that cost. So they do anticipate expenditures and so on as well. So again, I would make some kind of a recommendation that it not just be the 30 days that we, we consider that as well, because it is difficult to put all that together. Anyway, I've said enough, and those are my concerns I guess in my questions I may have more. Thank you. I'll respond if I can, of course to that to that last comment which is we would we would when we did when we do the fiscal impact statement that'll be that would be at the beginning of the process before the petitions get circulated. And if, if, if the finance department notifies us that the fiscal impact is going to be greater than 50,000, then we would, we would then put in the prospective July one effective date into into the into the draft ordinance that would be included in the petition. That makes sense. It does make sense. My concern is, is if we only give it a year with the city council goes from us not being able to do anything for five years to one year with that fiscal note I don't know how long I mean, it's only a year. My concern is, it's just not enough time, especially if, like counselor Pelletier said, there's a lot of time and a lot of energy that is spent trying to put something together. Right, especially when you look at the whole ordinance of unique nine signatures just just to bring it forward. And then the process of getting all of the signatures, especially if we raise the amount of the signatures that's a long, that's a long process for somebody. Who has, you know, the energy to change to change something and for us to say it's only going to go into effect for a year just seems really. It just seems too little for me. And so I would, I don't know about others, but I would like to increase that one year to something different. I don't know at this point I'm what that would be. So that's exactly what we're here for, because what's on paper in front of you tonight is kind of a starting place. So that's exactly the kind of feedback I'm listening for. I think I just one point of context within what you were talking about. When does when is the legislature able to amend a citizen referendum at the state level. Do you know that answer. Okay. So that might be interesting, just for us to learn. I actually think it may be relatively immediately because I do recall with some of the marijuana legislation that there were issues, but I'd have to look it up or defer to Michael and when that specifically could happen. Please clarify Michael so if we delayed the implementation due to over 50,000 fiscal impact to July 1 that would the year clock that counselor Phillips was just talking about would be from that July one for the following July one. Is that correct that as it's currently drafted. Yes. Yes. So it would give a year but it would start when that July one day. So technically within that year with the city, if this were to go through, technically within that year, we could say we don't want it anymore and vote it out. Correct. No, it wouldn't, it wouldn't be, let's say there's a, you know, an election on November of 23. And there's an initiative that has, well, that's too soon. But anyway, for example, just for example purposes. Yeah. If there was a, an initiative that had a greater than $50,000 fiscal impact, it would go in effect July one of 24. It would not be you would not be able to amend it until July one of 25. That's correct. So it would only be in effect for a year. That's right. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Right. It would be able to change it within a year but we don't have to change it. No, no, no, I'm saying for all of that work right for all of that work. And then finally getting it into the budget, it would only be in the budget for a year because we would have, we could change it within a year. You could. Yeah, after that year as a yes. Yes. So again, date is malleable. This is just yeah. Councilor Zorro. I have a general comment on the proposal. That's all. Thank you, Mayor. I think I'm going to take a step back. I'm recalling the last workshop we had on it and we had a diversity of perspective and I mean that's the best part of this work that we can all come at it and be like I like this I don't like that. And then get in there and work it together as a body to make a recommendation, which I think is inherently what the referendum process removes us from doing, even though it has a really important role. I think that there needs to be some balance. And that's what this conversation for me is, and I'm not particularly tied to an outcome right now I'm actually genuinely eager to work with all of you on getting to that and finding what that balance is but what I do know is that if it's made. If it's made easier to have a referendum on the ballot then it needs to be made easier to fix it when issues come up and when things go awry, which we've seen happen before unintentionally. Right now, it is not difficult to get a referendum on the ballot, but it is extremely difficult and inherently challenging for us to fix that when something needs some attention. So that's the lens I'm looking at it when I'm coming here. And I'm trying to be flexible and I really appreciate what both of you shared in your perspective. Councilor Phillips kind of talking about, okay, you're not comfortable with the 10%. That's fine but being open to 5% or 8% or something that's different. I think that's, you know, I'm open to that conversation as well. The idea of well if the threshold is going to double. It's going to provide more time to get the you know, being okay with that. You said something that you know, talking about the window just before the time frame that's a long process. And if it's such a long and, you know, challenging process, the effects of what would happen if only a year it gets turned around and I mean I think the my reaction to that was and I wrote it down was you know this is it's a serious challenge for folks to want to you know, put their fingerprints on on ordinance to change it by referenda and. Councilor Bellinger totally raise our job to be there to do a good job, especially as district counselors and represent our constituents but you know, not everyone's going to be great at that all the time, like you know we're always need we always could do more and I recognize that having done this for a few years. So for me all of that to say, I'm, I'll just I'll let you know my general where I'm coming from, I appreciate and support a November only. I'm getting a better turnout for folks we know in June that's not the case. I'm supportive right now of 10, you know aligning with the state for 10% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election, but immovable. If need be if we can find a compromise I know a few weeks ago with clean elections we were diligent to align with the state and so I feel like that's in line with it. administrative circulation of petitions. That's that makes sense to me the fiscal impact statement I understand we've we've seen that a little bit more and more lately. I'm in alignment with Councilor Phillips about the publication costs just thinking about, you know, my constituents in D for they read the paper, they read the paper the first time, although I know it has an additional cost. And the one thing that I wanted to point out and loop back on and I think Councilor Rodriguez, and I discussed this in the last workshop was kind of that super majority of the Council amending. I noticed in the packet I missed it it was six out of nine I think we talked seven out of nine and the rationale was because that's what's required to wave a second reading and pass something as an emergency so I just feel like that would be in alignment with our already existing The last thing that I would want to name is to make sure that we are explicitly outlining our authority as a Council and a body to amend the title and summary language, which I know we've done before but it's always a little bit ambiguous when we when we have to do that. I just want to be really clear about that. If we do move forward with this because this is obviously our opportunity to do that. So I think those are all my notes at the moment but either way, regardless of how this goes I really appreciate the conversation I'm happy we're having it, because it's honestly one of the most consistent things that I hear from from district four constituents so thank you. Thank you counselor counselor Diane. And then counselor Pelletier and then counselor Rodriguez. Thank you madam there. I want to begin with this notion that direct democracy arises from some assumption that we're not doing our job I reject that. When I see a citizens initiative. I don't question the motive. I don't see it as designed to somehow be a response to an elected bodies inability or unwillingness to address a particular issue. I think citizens are more sophisticated than that. I think they can decide for themselves if there's a question that they feel so passionate about that they want to present to the elected population as a whole, and it's not a comment on a council or a commission or a legislature. So I don't dwell on that very much like oh my god there's an initiative because somehow I didn't meet my expectations as a representative in this body. I don't do that. What I am concerned with is, is there clarity around language. Right, whatever the referendum question looks like. I want to ensure a process where there's clarity around language so we all know what's intended by the content of the proposed question. At the same time I don't spend a whole lot of time worried about how many signatures. Last time I ran for something substance I had to get out the 2000 signatures let me tell you that's a lot of work. You know my hat goes off to people that take on that responsibility so the signature is not important to me as the clarity of the question. After the clarity of the question. I'm concerned about the capacity to inform the electorate or the electors I should say citizens of the ballot. What is the cost of this question. I think it's incumbent that to have a fully informed decision about a particular ballot question you need to know what it costs. I think I'm some use to some voters of little no use to others. I mean I always read the highway bond questions, a lot of numbers there. But I do pay attention to the numbers that are being fancied about inside that because a bond is simply a credit card decision by the government so I think we need to do the same thing. I think the public needs to know, yes I support this in principle but when I saw the price tag, I moved along to some other selection in the aisle. Alright, so that's incumbent for us to do that. The next piece is something I have heard a lot from many residents. The next piece of activity is this notion of being able to amend a referendum that has passed that's that delicate dance between direct democracy and representative democracy. I worked on the marijuana question we thought we had a down pat. There were many lawyers on that team any very smart non lawyer people as well. It only took us five years to unravel the knots that we thought didn't even exist five years and the legislature began work on it immediately because there was some apparent conflict of laws that existed in our proposal. What the legislature understood as we would when a referendum is passed is that the public has spoken about their intent about a direction we should be going into but I don't think any of them are so married to particular language is that they would walk into this chamber and oppose us, making some modifications. So I'm not particularly keen on having this year waiting period. There might be something that's brought to our attention very early on in the life of that new ordinance that presents a problem as it tries to marry itself to the rest of ordinances. The corporation council might bring us to that attention. I think the public interest is protected by a super majority. We can take his advice or not. And if we feel there has to be some manner of immediate intervention, then it would be up to six or seven of us I would lean on six to take some action. So that's a big piece. So the cost of an initiative, the clarity of the language, a fiscal note. I leave alone the issue of signatures. Privately I could, I could want more, but what am I accomplishing by that I never have a good answer for myself so that's why I'm directed to try to leave that alone if those other things are met. And in terms of fiscal consistency. I like the idea that if it has a certain threshold that that has to be moved forward so that this council through its own budget process, can incorporate that cost. That's where we get to make decisions that the public wants acts. Here's the cost that we thought it was going to be and what's the trade off in our own internal decision about the municipal health, the fiscal health of this municipality so those are the general things that I think about. So I do, I think I have some flexibility here in my understanding but I think it is an important piece to address moving forward thank you. Thank you counselor Diane. Next back to counselor Pelletier. Thank you just really quick question. We're we talking about when okay I want to understand I guess the process from here is, are we, we're not voting on this today, or workshop. Okay, but would this this would be something that we would need to vote on. Okay, two read item. So my intention would be that we would see it on a June agenda for a first read that would give us time before we would then see it as a for a second read. So amendments could be prepared, we can give feedback tonight, we could give prepared amendments between a first reading a second read, there can be amendments that come from the floor. And then we're not, did we determine that we would be since part of this wording is it would only be November, I think, are we talking about November of this year that we would be putting this forward to the voters, or did we determine a date of when we would want to put this forward. You go ahead because I don't know the answer to that question. That it would be on the ballot this November, I think it would take it when I think it would like any other ordinance change it would take effect 30 days from council action. So I guess the reason I'm hesitating is because I don't know how many days between council action and the November ballot there would be and there's dates and chapter nine that people would need to look at. Well, amendments to chapter nine, by their very nature, have to go on to the ballot. Right, right. So, and maybe I'm a counselor Pelletier are you saying would would getting citizen initiatives on the November ballot be bound by ordinance changes. Oh, this is just getting it on the ballot in November. This is, sorry, I got confused to this is the council's action would be to put the question on the November ballot of this year. Correct. Okay, and we decided. We decided that in here or is that something else that we would have to vote on I guess is my question. Am I making sense. I think I think the council action would be to send it to the ballot. Right. Right. There would be there would be two reads vote by this council to approve it. And then, and then it would be prepared to go on to the onto the ballot like, like another, you know, any initiative or referendum. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it would be, I think the plan right now, if the council approves it would be to get to have the changes to chapter nine on the November ballot for the voters. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry I made that more confusing I think that last year for example we scheduled a special meeting at the end of August, because we had some things that needed to get on the ballot and we need to make sure we do that and time for the clerk to set the ballot. We did that and I think we've done that every year. So, so there are things that may. So for example, the gender neutral language that we talked about that is something we need to get on the November ballot so we've got to schedule the first and second read. In my view I don't know why we wait until August to do these things if we know they're coming. So that gives everybody a little more time and information to have rather than, you know, always pushing it up against the deadline which again is what we've done the last couple of years special meetings in August so my hope would be with anything that we know that there's interest in getting on the ballot in November, we can do that without a special meeting. Thanks. Okay, over to you Council Rodriguez. Thank you Mayor. I guess I just want to start by saying that I don't disagree with anything that has been said so far. I like Council Rosario's framing of approaching the work in a way to bring balance I think that that I can see it that way as well. So if I go down the recommendations and sort of kind of speak to them. I'll try to be direct on the on the changes of a number of signatures. I'm comfortable with the 10% of the last gubernatorial election. I would say the clerk's involvement reviewing ordinance summaries and title compliance so like that on the circulation of petitions I was actually hoping I would like it to be instead of registered main voters. It should just be main residents. I think I view, you know, I've talked before about my views of political participation happens in very many different ways and you could potentially have somebody who is, you know, not eligible to vote, but wants to participate politically and circulating petitions participating in other opportunities to be involved in a political system I think it's, I want to create those opportunities so having this be limited to main residents is something that I would prefer over just voters. I always say I like the fiscal impact piece, and I do like the, if it the notion of if it's more than $50,000 the moving the in the day of tax when it goes in effect to July that makes sense. I agree with Council Phillips about the publication piece and I would like us to stick to the two newspaper publish publications or two times a second publication. And on the, on the being able to amend an ordinance has been passed. I would like to, like I said last time, have that seven vote requirement instead of six. And same thing, I think the way that Council is our frame that that that's was required to pass something as an emergency I think I can see those two things. Similarly, Wade, so seven votes, it would be my preference. And I think that's the end of the list. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Counselor Travaro. Oh, I'm sorry, did you have a hand up. Thank you mayor. I want to say, first of all that I appreciate the work that has gone into this and I want to just let people know that I never question intentions. I think that the reason that this is before us comes from the best intentions. And I say that because I feel like my comments on this issue can kind of land as personal. That's not the intent. It's simply that when it comes to issues of democracy and access to democracy and the question of limiting versus expanding access to democracy. I just hold very kind of black and white principles. I think that probably the reason this hasn't been visited in 35 years. I grew up in Maine, which is a referendum state and I think that the voters of Maine hold the referendum process as sacred. It's a check on the balances of democracy that we're accustomed to here. I think even though here locally it's written in ordinance rather than the charter at the state level it is in the state constitution. So it has the feel of a constitutional issue and the gravity that comes with that of holding it as impermeable. So my two cents on this there's very little in it that I would be willing to support the, and I think I went over my reasons why at our last workshop so I don't feel like I need to reiterate them again I guess I can tell you the parts that I would be interested in are simply the five year provision whereby currently we can't touch it for five years I would be interested in some kind of language that allowed us to amend but not repeal within five years and perhaps by a super majority. I would like to see if we could craft some language that allowed us to speak to kind of the substance of what we're changing. But I understand that that that gets tricky with legal language. And so if we can do it by a super majority I think that that kind of gets at the same issue so to me that is the the major issue that the public is speaking to with regard to chapter nine. So it's really kind of the, the biggest thing that I would consider supporting other than that, simply kind of the benign administrative changes like the advertisement in the paper. And I would be interested in seeing it go to November ballot specifically. But I mean I understand it may be a minority on this issue I'm willing to be vote against and it'll go to the November ballot and we can see where the voters land. Thank you counselor counselor for near. Oh, counselor Rodriguez. Yeah, I'm sorry I forgot one piece on the amending the ordinance has been passed. I just want to be really clear. If let's say an ordinance reference citizens initiative passes in a November ballot. I understand that we cannot vote to make a change until a year after the effective date, but we can begin the liberation on work to create that motion or create that work almost right away. So like the meeting right after the November referendum passes we can queue it up to a committee to start amending something. Even though the vote to actually amend it doesn't happen until a year after it's been, I just want to because that there's nothing I mean there's nothing in the. There's nothing that would prevent that. Okay. Yeah. So to that and I guess I'll start, I'll start at the end. I'd like it instead of a year for us to consider 18 months. That seems so kind of. Well, anyways, so I am. I think that it would take, I think a council and I said this at our last workshop I think a council would be I certainly would be very. I wouldn't go into amending something that passed the referendum, without being very thoughtful and and being very deliberate about it I don't know that councils would be very aggressive using that this leverage that we're putting here again because because I think there is this fundamental respect for what what happens at the ballot. And I hope also and this isn't I don't think that we can put in an ordinance, what a substantive change would be, but my hope is that changes would be limited to, to not something that would completely eliminate the initiative but to be less than I'm sorry and I don't think that that would probably be possible to have an ordinance that they give some sort of guidance and what is a substantive change or not. But anyways, I'm 18 months is the piece that I do want to leave us with on my recommendation on that piece. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor for near. Oh, go ahead. Can I just quickly. I wanted to quickly respond to something Councillor Rodriguez said previously, and I just wanted to check it before I before I responded but on the circular, the petition circulators have to be state law requires that they be main voters. So that's required and then people who sign the petitions have to be voters and registered in the in the municipality. So just wanted to make sure that to clarify that issue. Okay, thank you. I was in a world that I guess so we don't have a choice. Okay, great. Thank you, Councillor for near. Hey anybody else first. I just have to give you a hard time. I think I'll echo a lot of what my colleagues have said here. I think we are striving for a balance because we want the public to be engaged I would much rather have them be engaged as we're working things through committee as we have a chance to have a back and forth dialogue and I, you know, have heard from the public when they've been here that they sometimes don't feel like there is an opportunity for back and forth dialogue. So to Councillor Pilatear's point, I think, figuring out how, how do we address that and I don't think there will ever be a perfect solution but we always have room for improvement and so I definitely don't want to do so much that we're doing the ability for the public to engage with us, I would much again prefer that it be before we have to take lots of extra steps to be able to have that collaboration to that and I'm just going to, as my colleagues did just kind of go through the different points to share where I'm at. So as far as the petition signature requirement, I'm still fine with 1500. And my reason for that is whatever is put forward in referendum still has to go in front of voters. And so, ultimately, this is all going back to our public and our public has to make this decision so we can't just get these 1500 signatures and say, great, we're going to pass it as a council, it has to go to voters, and I'm comfortable with the 1500. I think as councillor Zaro had mentioned, finding the balance of if we are going to get a referendum to us and we're going to put that out to the voters I want to make sure what's going out to the voters is accurate that we both as a governing body and as the public understand the cost of what that's going to be to implement because I don't think either side wants to do harm. I think we're really truly all trying to do what's best for the city of Portland but having sat on both the referendum side and being very much in support of questions that are coming up and now sitting on the elected side. I can see this is really complicated and so it is very important I think that we have as much information as possible for voters so that they know what they're voting for so to make that language clear. I think is very important. So I am fine with the 1500. As far as the review I really appreciate the review from the clerk and Corporation Council before these petitions get out to voters so I am in support of that. The circulation of petitions matching the state language, I'm okay with that. I think the next statement I think for me is one of the more important components of what we're sharing because I do think it's important to understand. Are we putting forward a measure that is a $50 impact or a $500,000 impact. And I think those are very different things and as we saw with the budget this year, there's not a lot of wiggle room. And so if we're passing something that we can't change. We don't want to change is that what the public wants I'd rather have a greater understanding that out at the outset. I do also agree with counselor Phillips I miss things. We have work we have counsel we have families we have life outside of this room and so understanding that our public also is probably very similarly situated so making sure that there is a second publication or an additional way for people to see that information I think is very important. And then the final being able to do an amendment. I think I'm more along the lines of over a year so whether it's 18 months or two years, and I would rather see it making an amendment rather than revoking or rescinding whatever's been passed would be where I'm at so those are my thank you. Thank you counselor appreciate that counselor Ali. Thank you, Mayor. And then I think I mostly agree with, I'm just going to point out things that I think I will be comfortable with. I think making participation available to our residents means a lot to me, but to call some of my colleagues, we need to have a balance. So, I wouldn't mind keeping the signatures at 1500. But in order to have a balance because sometimes you cannot measure. If you remember I think it's there is a degree new deal. I was saying that the cause of the reason that why we cannot build in Portland is because of the Green New Deal. And then we have our own staff, saying that we haven't collected enough data to agree with what the developers are saying. I remember at the housing committee meeting several times I have a staff saying to me that counselor. We cannot say that the reason why the personal building in Portland is because of the new deal because we don't have enough data to support that this thing. So, I will say, let's put the time frame where console can deliberate and possibly amend an ordinance or something that have passed by citizens to two years. That gives enough room. I'm just using the Green New Deal as an example, because it's been more than almost two years now, but still staff may say that we don't have enough data. So I want to give staff enough data to support the work. I don't have enough space to collect enough data. And then I know that the council can do whatever we want with it in the frame of law we cannot just do what I want but that is that we can do because we are the body that make policies. But two years will be for me will be much much more than a year or eight months that six months different or four months if you can make a different in data collection. What else. Yeah, I was going to make a case about the non residents and registered voters but I think counselor counselor just try that it didn't work so I'm not even going to go there. Yeah, I agree with everything else. Yeah. Thank you counselor. Thank you. So I'll weigh in. I just I just want to start by saying that whether one person requests a workshop or multiple people do, we always do our best to get it on the schedule. So, again, I don't want to go back to why we're here tonight but it certainly was at the request of counselors who are following up and and wanting to have this so I appreciate everybody's input tonight. I will also say that I tried to stay away from the specifics of the first draft we saw on March 27. And, and, and went back and forth with Michael about the responses we got from counselors on March 27 in order to have work product for tonight. But for me I come into this with an open mind, I think that in the past three years I have had significant constituent feedback asking for review. But where we land I really want it to be the product of this council. And in the spirit of representative democracy, we've got an old ordinance we've had a lot of action in this realm we've had a lot of feedback. We don't make any changes that's really up to us. And I certainly think that having public comment at workshops, both of them was important. It's, it's what I wanted to do we don't usually have public comment during workshops but I think that this is an important one. So, that's where I am. And what you're seeing before you tonight is not my work product this is the culmination of our process as a council. As far as the signature requirement goes I think that I look back to, you know where this was 1500 signatures was in 1991 when people did have to come into city hall to sign petitions. So I think I'm open minded to change there. I'm not committed to it. I hear a majority of the counselor saying they're fine with 1500. It's fine with me. I hear a lot of support for the administrative changes that have been made with regard to the application procedure prior to obtaining signatures and the circulation of petitions. In 2022, I am definitely in support of a fiscal impact statement and I hear my council colleagues are as well. I think it's smart actually because I, again in 2020 it was very difficult to watch staff try to implement five new ordinance changes without the funding to do it and so it ends up being frustrating for everybody. Folks who put the question on the ballot who want to see the change the voters who voted for that change and staff who kind of have their hands tied and that doesn't work for anybody so I think that's smart. I'm hearing people want to stick with two publications. It's fine with me, and then as far as the council's ability to amend an ordinance enacted through the initiative process. I'm reminded there as well I've, I've heard support for 12 months I've heard support for 18 months I've heard support for two years so I think we can figure out a way to get there together. I will say that on a practical level. When the voters have spoken in my view you have to be really really careful about what you would potentially do to change anything the voters have spoken and I think that we all have a ton of respect for that so I think what I've learned over the last three years is the, the ability for amendment amendment wouldn't be substantive it would be administrative. Is there anything in an ordinance that would require administrative. But I actually think that that the application procedure and review element gets at that I think we'll have improvement as a result of that kind of revisers capacity that we're talking about building in so that makes me feel like there is. There's improvement in that way so I just and I and I'm fine, whether we go with two thirds Council needing to act on that front or a super majority. I'm flexible and open minded there. I think for me what this is is I have full respect for the citizen initiative process. I think it's part of our state government I think it's part of our local government, it's here to stay. For me what this is is it's a common sense review of of an ordinance that we've been asked to look at so I'm happy to look at it and I appreciate everybody's feedback. And I think we can get something before you that represents the feedback and we can take it from there like we would with any other ordinance amendment. And again the account sorry to have gotten things confused in response to counselor pelleteer. This is this is counts. This would be council action contemplating a question that would ultimately to be decided by voters. Did you have something you wanted to say. Michael. Anything. Anything else from council colleagues counselor Phillips. I just want to add something I really do want us to look at them see the next time we're together if we can make some kind of recommendations to change the 30 days to a 45 day. If it's under 50,000 isn't that what you said city manager. If you're trying to track the state the the Constitution says 30 days, but if there's money involved it was 45 days plus going to the legislature so. If there's no, it doesn't say how much money is an hour and it's it would say over $50,000. So I'm saying under $50,000, I would. I don't know what I mean I certainly don't want to debate it tonight but that would be a recommendation I would like to make is the 45 days instead of 30 for under $50,000. And then can I say something else. Councilor Phillips just to clarify there. Is that within the citizen initiative process. A citizen initiated amendment to an ordinance, you're saying you'd be more comfortable with a 45 day implementation period, but are you talking about ordinance amendments in general, because the council rule or are are any ordinance amended by the council goes into effect 30 days. Why that is a very good question. Okay. Oh, so that's okay. Okay, so I can't do that well. But I do have another question that has have anything to do with this it gets back to council Pelletier comments at the beginning of, of here and something that you would just said which is is that tonight we had this work session and we opened it up to public comment which I don't normally do. And so, for me in order for us to actually have engagement. I don't know if it's an ordinance but I would like us at some point time to talk about how that would be if that's changing something in our ordinance to say that we would have public comment on our work at our workshops, or every workshop. I think that that might be an easy way to get more engagement from the public. If we were able to do public comment and all of our workshops. That's it. I'm done. Thank you for that feedback. Appreciate it. I think, thank you everybody. This was relatively brief. So this workshop is adjourned and have a good night.