 Oh, you know what, I got a login. I was going to make a sarcastic comment, but. Oh, I was going to go to the bathroom. Should I tell everybody. Okay. Okay. I think we're good to go. Peter, we're good from your perspective. Hello, everybody. Sorry to start the meeting a couple of minutes late. We were in a, an executive session that we moved into on the heels of a workshop that started at four o'clock. So I want to welcome everybody to chambers. We've got 46 people with us on zoom this evening. So we've got a full house. Welcome. This is the Portland city council. We're in a regular meeting this evening and I'll call our meeting to turn it all over once we get back to the table. Thank you. And congratulations to the Buddha legions. Pledge allegiance to the flag. The United States of America and to the Republic. One nation. Under God. Individual Liberty. And justice for all. Thank you very much. Will the clerk, please call the rule. Councillor for near here. Council. Councilor Zauro. Here. Councilor Travarro. Here. Well, I'm Zoom. Councilor Chauro is with us on Zoom. Hey, Councilor Palatier. Here. Councilor Phillips. Here. Mayor Snyder. Here. Okay. Everybody is present. And as noted, we do have Councilor Travarro with us this evening on Zoom. We can see her. So, Councilor, please raise your hand, and I'll do my best to keep an eye on my Zoom screen to make sure I'm calling you at the appropriate time. So, at this time, we're going to open it up for public comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda. So, if there's anybody with us in chambers or on Zoom who would like to speak to the Council on a matter that is not being covered on tonight's agenda, now is the time. Right to you, Stephen Sharf. That work is in the wrong position. And it didn't work to fix it. Stephen Sharf of Brackett Street. I'm assuming you are referencing your previous meeting as not being part of this meeting being your executive session. I intended to speak to the executive session, but there was no audio on the Zoom at four o'clock. So, I couldn't, I wasn't even aware that you were, you just looked like you were chatting all of a sudden, you left the room. I quite frankly don't understand your motive for an executive session. They're really, you know, the public should be informed if you're looking at locations for siting facilities. That should be a public conversation, not something you do behind closed doors. And I wanted to object to that. And I came for the rest of the meeting because I was concerned that I wouldn't have audio for the rest of the meeting. So, thank you for your comment. And next we'll go to Zoom. I've got Don Marietta. Don, if you're with us, you need to unmute yourself and just go ahead and give us your first and last name and the organization you represent or the neighborhood that you live in. And you've got three minutes on the clock. Okay, we're having some AV issues it seems. If there's anybody else in chambers who would like to step forward, I'm happy to go back and forth. Okay, I don't see anybody else in chambers. So, I'll go to George Rowe on Zoom. George Rowe, Hanover Street. So, the Parks Director recently informed the Parks Commission that the Batcove West Storage Project that has been digging up Preble Athletic Field next to Hanifords has been delayed like 10 months, something like that. And that they've really apparently encountered some very difficult subsurface conditions that they had, I guess, anticipated but didn't realize just quite how tricky they would be. And I believe that that project is at least a $50 million project. And I am just sort of always gobsmacked at the fact that there is almost no public visibility on what is going on with the enormous amount of money being spent on the stormwater compliance. We occasionally have little presentations and whatnot, but considering that the much more modest elementary school renovations, which were capped, by the way, they literally could not spend more than a dime than they were allocated, those projects have been under enormous scrutiny. There's been commissions and committees. I think Mark Dion, Belinda Ray, Nick Mabadonis, they all got to sit on a special oversight committee. There's been absolutely no citizen oversight of all of this money. And we have no good idea about cost overruns and about what's actually been going on with these projects. John Jennings had moved the site of that storage facility from marginal way over to the Preble fields for his own reasons, without any council approval of that, other than just letting him do it. And so I don't understand how literally hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent over the course of at least the last decade and still very much in progress that we haven't had any real public scrutiny of this. And it's just unbelievably disappointing when some projects get all kinds of scrutiny and other projects just completely skate in terms of the public understanding what's going on on a quarterly basis, at least if not an annual basis and having some sense of cost overruns and... 30-second warning. The impact to our bond capacity and things like that. It's a huge glaring error in what the city council's been doing for years. And it really needs to stop because it's hurting the credibility of a lot of the hardworking people who are trying to get us to a better place on this stormwater compliance. But it has this dark cloud over it of no transparency of any meaningful kind. Thank you for your comment. And is there additional public comment either on Zoom or in chambers? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public comment period on items that are not on tonight's agenda. And I'll ask my colleagues on the council if anybody has an announcement this evening. Okay, looking for Councilor Trevorrow. Nope. Okay, I don't see any. So we'll move on from the announcements. And next on our agenda are recognitions. Will the clerk please read our first recognition? Recognizing peace into chorus bronze award at the Anthem Awards. This is sponsored by Pius Ali, councillor. Councillor Ali. Thank you, Mayor. I am going to postpone that to a future date because I think I'll be seen to have a rehearsal today. So they are not able to join us. Okay. Thank you. So we'll postpone that recognition. Thank you very much for that explanation. And the next recognition is... Does the clerk want to read that one into the record? Sure. Recognizing Teresa Valiere, founder of Friends of Woodford's Corner as main development foundations 2022 Downtown Hero sponsored by Kate Snyder, Mayor. Thank you. And I'll just take this moment to share a little bit about Teresa. So congratulations to Teresa Valiere, Friends of Woodford's Corner, who will receive, as the clerk said, the Downtown Hero Award this April from the main development foundation. So Friends of Woodford's Corner has grown quickly, and Teresa has been behind the scenes, has helped to accomplish nearly everything that they have done. When... What started as a Facebook group in 2015 became a community volunteer organization because Teresa had organized a railroad cleanup. She drew in dedicated people who helped the group file as a 501C3 just two years later and put together a board of directors with skills that mapped onto the main street model so the organization could become a main street affiliate. And at this point, I'm going to turn to Councillor Zaro because I know that you had some suggestions on that front and were helpful in getting that community organization to actually become a main street affiliate, which is a pretty big deal and a great asset for the city of Portland. So thank you, Councillor Zaro. Though Teresa has no background in economic development, historic preservation, or community organizing, nor is she trained as an urban planner, she's used her background in the food and hospitality industry and her training and experience as a clinical social worker to build relationships and organize events that helped set in motion the rebuilding of Woodford's Corner. In 2022, Friends of Woodford's Corner has reached a particularly, or had reached a particularly noteworthy milestone leasing an office in a newly revitalized landmark building on the corner right there. I'm sure you're all familiar with that. And raising enough money to hire a paid staff person who will finally relieve Teresa of some of the burdens of managing and performing the myriad administrative tasks that keep the organization moving forward. I don't see Teresa here with us in chambers. I'm going to look glasses on, glasses off to see if she's with us on Zoom. But in any event, what we all wanted to do tonight was offer our congratulations and recognition of a great community member. So thank you for your work, Teresa Valiere. Okay, and next we will move to the approval of the minutes from our previous meeting. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the March 6th City Council meeting? So moved. Second. Councilor Phillips with a second from Councilor Zaro. Are there any questions or comments from the Council about those draft minutes? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and vote to approve those minutes. Councilor Fornir. Yes. Councilor Rodriguez. Yes. Councilor Dionne. Yes. Councilor Ali. Yes. Councilor Zaro. Yes. Councilor... Yes. Petrovaro. Thank you. Councilor Palatier. Yes. Councilor Phillips. Yes. Mayor Senator. I'm a yes, and so that passes unanimously. And now we move into proclamations. So we've got several this evening. Will the clerk please read Proclamation 15. Proclamation 15, 22, 23. Recognizing April 2023 as Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month. Answered by Kate Sider, Mayor. Thank you. And I'm actually going to hand this one over to my colleague, Councilor Ali. Mayor, my computer is being slow, and I only have one of the two proclamations printed. So you may have to read that. Okay. I will be happy to read this, but I do want to thank Councilor Ali for his close attention to proclamations and working with staff to make sure that proclamations that we see each year are brought forward with appropriate edits and updates. So thank you, Councilor Ali. I'll go ahead and read this one into the record. Again, this is the proclamation recognizing April 2023 as Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month. Whereas genocide is a human tragedy inspired by the most repugnant elements of hatred, intolerance, and inhumanity. And whereas Article 2 of the United Nations Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes a mental element, intent to destroy in whole or in part a national ethical, sorry, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such, and a physical element killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. And whereas for decades, campaigns of dislocation and murder have been used with a clear and ultimate purpose to annihilate an other race, religion or ethnic minority through coordinated massacre. And whereas as a result of genocide, millions of people, adults and children alike, have been murdered, had their cultural identities stolen or experienced forced relocation. And whereas by recognizing, remembering, and educating ourselves on past and ongoing instances of genocide, we help protect historic memory, ensure that similar atrocities did not occur again, and remain vigilant against hatred, persecution, and tyranny. And whereas residents are becoming informed as to the causes and effects of genocide, as well as the ramifications of these tragedies in our shared human history, on the generations of people descended from survivors of genocide and those impacted by genocide today. And whereas the month of April is designated as Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month, in recognition of the many genocides which have occurred or begun in the month of April, so that all members of the human family may preserve the memory of victims, honor survivors, and stand together in opposition to the possibility of future genocide by fostering peaceful coexistence between diverse communities. Now therefore be it resolved that I, Kate Snyder, Mayor of the City of Portland, Maine, and members of the City Council, do hereby recognize April 2023 as Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month in the City of Portland, Maine, and invite the residents of Portland to commemorate the solemn observance and recognize how much more we must do in the struggle against these unthinkable crimes against humanity, signed and sealed this 20th day of March 2023. Thank you. Will the clerk please read Proclamation 16. Proclamation 16, 22, 23, recognizing April 2020, 2023 as Arab American Heritage Month, and this one's also sponsored by Kate Snyder, Mayor. And I hand it over to my councillor, my colleague, councillor Ali. Thank you, Mayor. I think I'm your councillor, I'm not large. You are. Proclamation, recognizing April 2023 as Arab American Heritage Month, whereas for over a century Arab Americans have been making valuable contribution to virtually every aspect of American society, including in medicine, law, business, education, technology, government, military, and culture, and whereas since migrating to America, men and women of Arab descent have shared their rich culture and tradition with neighbors and friends, while also setting fine example of model citizens and public servants. And whereas they brought with them to America their resilient family values, strong work ethic, dedication to education and diversity in faith and creed, which have added strength to our great democracy. And whereas Arab Americans have also enriched our society by sharing in the entrepreneurial American spirit that makes our nation free and prosperous. And whereas the history of Arab Americans in the United States remain neglected and defaced by misconceptions, bigotry, and anti-Arab hate in the forms of crimes and speech. And whereas they join all Americans in the desire to see a peaceful and diverse society where every individual is treated equally and feel safe. And whereas the incredible contribution and heritage of Arab Americans have helped us build a better nation. And now, therefore, be it resolved that Kate Snyder, mayor of the city of Portland, Maine, and members of the city council do hereby recognize April 2023 as Arab American Heritage Month. In the city of Portland. And invite citizens of Portland to celebrate the many accomplishments and rich history of our Arab American neighbors that are to the diversity, strength, and vibrancy of Portland. Sign and seal this 20th day of March 2023 by Kate Snyder, mayor of the city of Portland. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, Councillor Ali. Will the clerk please read our proclamation 17. Proclamation 17, 22, 23, recognizing April 1st through the 7th 2023 as the week of the young child sponsored by Kate Snyder, mayor. Thank you. And I'd be happy to read this into the record. Whereas the first years of a child's life are the period of the most rapid brain development laying the foundation for all future learning and whereas high quality early childhood programs provide important benefits to children, families, and the city by saving taxpayer dollars, making working families more economically secure in preparing children to succeed in school, earn higher wages, and live healthier lives. And whereas there are fewer available slots in both home-based and center-based early childhood education programs than the number of children from birth to age five, limiting access for working families that need an affordable mixed delivery early childhood education system that offers a range of high quality options that meet their needs. And whereas young children need skilled, educated, competent, consistent, and compensated early childhood educators to ensure that children supported by families in our community have the early experiences they need for a strong foundation. And whereas in celebration of the National Association for the Education of Young Children's Week, Young Children's Week of the Young Child, the city of Portland expresses its support for continuing to advance the early childhood education system for children, families, and educators. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that I, Kate Snyder, Mayor of the City of Portland and members of the Portland City Council, recognize the efforts of the main association for the education of young children and Portland Works for Kids to promote early learning and healthy development and recognize April 1st through 7th as the Week of the Young Child, signed and sealed this 20th day of March, Kate Snyder. Thank you. And lastly, we'll go to, I'm going to say lastly, but I know we've got a lot tonight, our last proclamation this evening, will the clerk please read 18? Proclamation 18, 22, 23, recognizing April 3rd through the 9th, 2023 as National Public Health Week, sponsored by Kate Snyder, Mayor. Thank you very much. And I will read this one into the record as well. Okey-doke. Okay, recognizing April 3rd through 9th as National Public Health Week, whereas the Week of April 3rd through 9th is National Public Health Week, and the theme is centering and celebrating cultures and health. And whereas between the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and August 2022, life expectancy in the U.S. decreased by one and a half years, with the most significant decreases observed in Black and Hispanic populations. And whereas racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States continue to experience disparities in illness and death rates. In Portland, 16.6% of people identifying as Hispanic, and 7.4% of those identifying as Black, have no health insurance compared to 7% of the entire population of Portland. And whereas the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country and is the only developed country to see those rates rising. And whereas according to a February 2023 report by the main Attorney General's Office, 10,110 drug overdoses were reported in 2022, including 716 suspected or confirmed deaths. And whereas in urban environments like Portland, health status can differ by neighborhood due to differences in the built environment, environmental quality, community context, and access to healthy food, education, and health care. And whereas public health professionals help communities prevent, prepare for, withstand, and recover from the impact of a full range of health threats. And public health action has played a major role in reducing and in some cases eliminating the spread of infectious disease. Now therefore be it proclaimed that I, Kate Snyder, Mayor of the City of Portland, Maine, and members of the City Council do hereby recognize the week of April 3rd through 9th 2023 as National Public Health Week and call upon the people of Portland to celebrate the impact of public health as well as to encourage family and friends to adopt preventive lifestyle habits. Signed and sealed this 20th day of March 2023. And for anybody who's checking out the agenda online, we do have a plain language version that I'd like to hand off to my colleague, Councillor Fornir, to read into the record. Thank you so much, Mayor. I think it's really important as the Chair of Health and Human Services in public safety. One of the things we've been talking about is making sure that the language of these proclamations is plain language. So it's easily understandable for the public. And sometimes with the whereas language, the message can get a little bit lost. And so when we met this past week for Health and Human Services, we talked about just taking this opportunity to read the alternate text so that it's available for everyone in that plain language. So thank you so much for allowing me to read this. So Portland National Public Health Week proclamation, so the week of April 3rd through the 9th, 2023, is National Public Health Week and the theme is centering and celebrating cultures and health. So until three years ago, life expectancy or how long people live on average has slowly increased over time because of advances in medicine and technology. So from 2020 to 2022, life expectancy in the U.S. decreased by 1.5 years with Black and Hispanic populations impacted the most. So some highlights of public health work inequities, minority populations in the U.S. continue to have higher illness and death rates. In Portland, 16.6% of Hispanic and 7.4% of Black populations have no health insurance. This is compared to 7% of the overall population of Portland. More women die on childbirth in the U.S. than any other developed country and the U.S. is the only country to see these numbers go up. In Maine, there were 10,110 drug overdoses reported in 2022, 716 of those overdoses ended in death. In larger cities like Portland, how healthy you are can depend on where you live. Access to parks and sidewalks, air quality, community connectedness, and access to healthy food, education, and healthcare all impact your health. Public health professionals help communities. Public health helps to prevent, prepare for, resist, and recover from health threats. This includes disease outbreaks such as COVID-19 pandemic, measles, natural disasters, and disasters caused by human activity. Public health action has played a major role in reducing and in some cases, eliminating the spread of infectious disease. For these reasons, our Mayor Kate Snyder and the City of Portland, Maine members of the City Council, recognize the week April 3rd through the 9th, 2023 as National Public Health Week. We thank those working in the field of public health and we call upon the people of Portland to celebrate the impact of public health and encourage family and friends to adopt healthy lifestyle habits. Thank you. That is helpful. Thank you, Councillor Fornir. I appreciate that. Okay. Moving on from proclamations this evening and into our consent items. So we've got a couple of items tonight under our consent calendar. Will the clerk please read orders 150 and 151. Order 150, 22, 23, declaring August 6th through the 9th, 2023. The Circus Mercus at Payson Park Festival sponsored by Daniel West Interim City Manager and order 151, 22, 23, declaring June 11th, 2023. It's recircum music festival sponsored by Daniel West Interim City Manager. Thank you very much. And just so folks in the audience understand, we'll take public comment on these two items at the same time after we hear from the city manager who will provide context for us. Thank you, Mayor. I see Andy Downs out there, my good friend who'd handle these events. I don't think there's anything specific that we have to update you on. These are pretty regular events. Andy, if you could maybe just give a little bit on the timing of the Circus one. I think it's August 6th and 9th, is that correct or through the 9th? Just to make sure that everybody understands that will be at Payson Park. And then the main Academy of Modern Music will be at the Ocean Gate Parking Lot for Sunday, June 11th. And that will be a music festival that will be during the day, but will have the stopping at 10 o'clock. And most of the music will be just during the day period. But Andy's here if we have any specific questions. Great, I appreciate that. Thank you. If there's any public comment on either of these items, please come step forward in chambers. Don't hesitate, come right up to the mic. I'll start on Zoom, I think. There we go. First commenter is Devin Green. Thank you, Madam Mayor, council members and city staff. Thank you so much for all that you do for the city. I want to start by saying that I'm a huge fan of Circus Mercus, but I have a couple of things that I just want to call attention to about this specific event. You just mentioned that this is a regular event. This is, to my knowledge, never been held in Payson Park. I believe that they're usually at Fort Allen and it's not like a big top event. And most of the larger events that happen in Payson Park happen in the triangle, which is in a different location. Obviously, we have gone through the process with the larger music festival with C3 Presents. And I appreciate that with this, there's a lot more info. There's a map included. It's 3,000 people over the two days instead of 40,000. But the parking is just going to be on city streets. And my main issue actually is that in the process of learning about the festival, I found out that there's some infrastructure underneath the part of the park where they are suggesting that this event be held. So I actually didn't get any of this information until this morning. So I scrambled to get in touch with Brad Rowland, the engineer for the city. And he let me know that there's a variety of infrastructure under the park in that specific area, including a 60-inch pipe, three rows of 14-foot wide box culverts, which are 450 feet long each, and electrical conduit running and to end of the conduits that are only 36 inches below the ground surface. And so he had some concerns, also about four-foot poles being dug into the ground. So I guess I would just say that's something for you all to look into. I did just send that to you, but because I've been scrambling to get this information, I did not get it to your emails earlier, but it is in your inboxes. And mostly what I want to say is that this is just another example, I think, of where it would really benefit you all to do the work, to really figure out policies, procedures, and permitting application processes around what events to hold and how to use public space for profit and what that looks like. Obviously, this is a much smaller event, but it's still an instance of a public park being used for profit. It's a smaller space, so it's much easier, but I just hope that you'll do that work. And I'm not sure how this became... You're in second warning. Yeah, I'm not sure how this became a consent item lumped in with another event, but nobody in the neighborhood knew about this. I don't even know if the council knew about it. We just found out about it. And I think it's really important for there to be transparency and for people to be included in the process and just to give the information that's needed and make sure that the due diligence is done. Thank you so much. Devin, thank you for your comment. I lost Zoom there for a little bit, but I think I'm back. So if you would like to speak on Zoom, go ahead and raise your hand. I don't have any hands raised there right now, but it could be because I just got reconnected, but we do have a speaker with us here in chambers. So we'll hand it over to you, Steven. Steven Schafer, Brackett Street. Good time. Make a plug that, since you're going to be digging in the ground with mechanical means, you should be calling DigSafe. And DigSafe will come out and mark out where a significant infrastructure is for you so that they don't hit it. So I would and I would hope that the city would not require the event organizer to do it, but the city would do it itself. Even on your own property, you need to call DigSafe. DigSafe is as simple as calling 811. Thank you. Thank you, Steven. Any other public comment on the consent calendar before the council this evening? Orders 150 and 151. Okay, I do not see anybody. So I'm going to close public comment and come back to the council, please for a motion. So moved. Councilor Rodriguez with a second from Councilor Ali. And I'm looking to the council for any discussion on these two items. Councilor Rodriguez. Thank you, mayor. Just a brief question about the information which is found out about the under, is there anything that the council has to do to avoid? I totally want to heed the 811 call, but in terms of, I believe that the venue that they can just needs to be moved based on the infrastructure that was that we're now aware of. Is there anything that council needs to do with our motion today in that regard? I was just trying to pull up the order. That may be more of a question for Michael, but I think that the order doesn't specify, does it specify the location of the, of the event itself? I was going to have Andy come up. I know that we have a, I just wanted him to talk a little bit about the process that we have to. Since there was a question about that, we do have a pretty extensive process that we go through for each of these events and looking at these types of issues. And maybe you could talk about that specifically, Andy, and with regard to this event as well. Sure. Thank you. So regarding the dig safe, so with the staking and what's proposed for Dyer's flat, it is subject to dig safe. So we've been working with the organizers about making sure they go through that process, and we're working with them currently about the staking. So that's something that we do manage internally. For all the events that come through, and we have roughly 800 or so events that come through our facilities and our parks, we have an internal process of working with the organizers, this particular organizer, Portland Ovations, we work with very closely at Merrill Auditorium. They're one of our prime tenants. But when an application comes forward, we meet once a month with different city departments, parking, business licensing, police, fire, and others to go through and evaluate whether this is going to be done safely, whether what the impact will be. So from everything from a small scale event to a large scale, like that's brought forward. So there is a pretty thorough process that we go through to analyze and determine whether this is something that we want to bring forward to council. So we go through that process prior. Thanks, Andy. And I would say that these are usually consent items that are before the council. And I do think I'm just looking at the order. I don't want to speak for Michael, but it looks like we've identified specifically in the order that the area where the festival would be would be that Dyer's flat area, which I think is the area that's being referenced. Is that correct? So it would mean, are you comfortable with the materials you've presented that that's the location that will work best for this? And you've talked with staff. And yeah, we've discussed with staff and with the organizers on the best location. If there is a problem with the dig safe, we would have to reevaluate. Is this required to do tonight? Can we look at that and have that done and bring it back to the council? For the city, I think absolutely. I would ask the organizer if that's doable. Thank you for stepping forward. Council, hi. I'm Eric Hager from Portland Ovations. I'm the production manager there. We have a window closing for announcement and public relations and ticket sales, but obviously we don't want to drive a stake into an electrical conduit. So we will defer to council's decision and advice. Thank you. Oh, cut back to you, Councilor Rodriguez. I don't have a follow up question, but I want to hear. Okay. Thank you, Councilor Fornir. Thank you so much. I'm just curious about process because I know we obviously had a very big decision about the concert that was brought forward to Payson Park and it seemed like there was a lot of public engagement in that process. And I'm wondering how this particular incident differs because it feels like for, I don't know if it's on the promoter. It's their responsibility to engage with the neighborhood organizations or the abutters in this case, where it seems like this is another pretty big event. And as we heard from the public, feels like there's a lack of engagement from their perspective. So I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about who's responsibility is it to engage with the people that are around where this is going to be happening so that they feel like they're a part of that decision making process. Typically, we ask the organizer to reach out and provide outreach to the neighborhood and to the areas that will be impacted. This compared to the last festival declaration we brought forward is very different. The reason this is coming in front of council is because of the duration, not because of the size. So the size of it itself with a number of attendees, that's typically handled internally. And we can inform different groups in the area and of these events that are happening. But again, there are close to 800 events that we're managing. So the outreach is challenging. So for the larger, more impactful ones, we certainly do our best to engage, but we do ask organizers. So considering this one is closer to maybe 3,000 people, I wonder if you could talk a little bit, how many other events do we have at Payson Park that are about the same size that are happening this year? Well, it's 750 people per performance. So it won't be 3,000 people at one time. So in scale, it is a little bit smaller. But I don't think we've brought anything I don't think we've brought anything to Payson Park outside of a road race that needed council approval. So I think there's a new interest in Payson Park, which is great. And we're very supportive of that. So we're starting to see more inquiries come in, but nothing to the scale. Last question. I certainly also hear the concern about parking. I live near Payson Park and parking is challenging when we were back in little league days. And that's 50 people. So thinking about multiplying that multiple times, is there something within their packet that talks about parking impact or how parking mitigation would happen? There is not space for that many cars in that area, especially considering the construction that's down there. So I wonder if we could talk a little bit about that. So I know organizers are reaching out to local churches and Chevron High School and trying to mitigate the parking challenges. Also in the advertising and in the marketing, it is encouraging people to walk, use the trail, park pool, doing everything they can to mitigate the parking challenges that could arise. But we work very closely on what's available and makes strong recommendations on parking plans that are presented. Thank you. Other questions or a discussion from the council on either item? Councilor Dionne? I don't remember who made the public comment, but the other person brought up the correct topic. When we were discussing the major, well, the initiative that would have brought a significant concert to Payson Park, one of the final conversations centered on this notion that the licensing scheme should be revisited. I looked at it at that time, and really the language and the intent was for something a little bit greater than a significant family gathering and everything that goes along with that. And it's nothing against parks, but I mean, they're kind of stuck trying to approve things with language and standards that probably are not as current as we would like them to do. So I guess this is a comment and a question of the chair. I don't know if this is an item for consideration by the executive reporting back to us or whether it should be a question that goes, and I could be wrong on jurisdiction to public safety as a licensing question to determine that I take the advice of the interim manager at this point, but I think before we're presented with other questions or proposals, we ought to take a look, see that particular ordinance as a possible candidate for revision. Thank you very much, Mayor. Thank you, Councilor. And I'll look to the city manager for discussion of where that licensing language review could live. Yeah, so that's chapter 19 is my recollection and it's about festivals. It is rather old. We have tweaked it a couple of times. I know we had language that specifically probably 15, 20 years ago that addressed First Amendment events and so on. So it's been a little while since we've looked at it. There are specific triggers. We do have processes in place, which Andy just described, but we're happy to look at that again and talk about that a little bit more. When I think about where it would live, I guess public safety makes sense, I think, but I'm not sure if that was the first committee that jumped to my mind, but we can make sure. I'll just say that we'll put a pin in it. In fact, as we're talking right now, I'm emailing staff and we'll have that on our radar screen and hope to bring that back to some council committee to review very shortly. Thank you, Madam Manager. Thank you for that comment. I appreciate it. Other discussion from the council? Okay. Seeing none. So we've got this consent calendar before us. I think we're ready to vote, but we do have a flag on the issue of licensing language so that as we make our way through these decisions, we're comfortable that that's as up to date as can be. So we'll keep our eye on that, but we'll move on this that's before us this evening and we'll go ahead and vote. Councilor Fornir. Yes. Councilor Rodriguez. Yes. Councilor Dion. Yes. Councilor Ali. Yay. Councilor Zahro. Yes. Councilor Chavarro. Yes. Councilor Pelletier. Yes. Councilor Phillips. Yes. Mayor Snider. Yes. Orders 150 and 151 both pass unanimously and now we head into licenses. Will the clerk please read order 152. Order 152, 22, 23, granting municipal officers approval of citrus. Application is for Class A lounge with indoor entertainment and outdoor dining on private property located at one city center sponsored by Daniel West Interim City Manager. Thank you. Is there any public comment on order 152? Okay, we do have a hand up on Zoom and I'm probably not going to get this name right because it's all one word in lower case, but Blaine Tully. Yeah, I think they can. Yep. Yeah, I am Mark Olson, the owner of One City Wine Academy in Citrus and I just wanted to point out one thing. That is that this is not a new business license. We actually have been in this space for 10 years and this is our third year as Citrus. We did change our DBA and we're actually just switching away from a Class A restaurant to a Class A lounge because while we wanted to sell food, the people just wanted to dance. So we've had to change the style of license but this is actually not a new license but just a change of class. And with that in mind, I spoke with Tom Williams, the health inspector, and he said he did not need to do a health inspection. However, because it is technically a new style of license, we have been contacted by the Greece Trap people and so I would love to ask City Hall. First point is to clarify that this is not a new license but that we've been here for a while and then secondly to ask City Hall to do as Tom Williams with health has suggested and not allow us to go through the Greece Trap inspection process. Again, we did less than $1,000 in food sales last year and that's why we're changing our license. Thank you. Okay, thank you for being here and thank you for that comment. Before we move into it, is there any other public comment on Order 152? Neither on Zoom or in Chamber so I'll close public comment and come back to the Council for a motion please. Second. Councilor Ali with a second from Councilor Rodriguez and we move into Council discussion. I think I just want to turn to the City Manager and ask when new is a characterization of different I think in this circumstance. So I just wanted to clarify and sort of mark what the owner talked about. Yeah, I think that's correct. I'm not sure if Zach or Jessica Hanscom are on the Zoom link or either one of you. Got Zach with us. Zach, could you weigh in on that? Sorry for the glare. That's all right. Go ahead. Yeah, a change of classification is a new license and it says in the description that the establishment currently holds a Class 1 FSE and it is so it's a change. Thanks, Zach. So yes, it is. It's just due to the fact that it is a change. Great. Thank you for the clarification. Any other Council discussion on this license before we vote? Nope. We're good to go ahead and vote on Order 152. Councilor Forner just stepped out. Councilor Rodriguez? Yes. Councilor Dionne? Yes. Councilor Ali? Councilor Zahro? Yes. Councilor Chavarro? Yes. Councilor Pelleteer? Yes. Councilor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Snider? Yes. Order 152 passes 8-0. And Mr. Olsen, thanks so much for being here with us this evening, helping to clarify and also for doing business in the city of Portland. Will the clerk please read Order 153. Order 153-22-23 granting municipal officers approval of SARA application is for a Class III and IV food service establishment with outdoor dining on public property located at one monument square, Suite 103. This is sponsored by Daniel West, Interim City Manager. Thank you. Is there public comment on Order 153? No public comment. I'm Steve. I'm the owner of SARA. I'm just here in case there's questions. Thanks, Steve. Good to have you here. We'll come back to you if there are. I don't see any hands up on Zoom. So we'll close public comment and I'll come back to the Council for a motion. So moved. Second. Councilor Rodriguez with a second from Councilor Zorro. And is there any Council discussion? Any questions for Steve? I don't think so, but thanks for being here. We'll go ahead and vote on Order 153. Councilor Rodriguez? Yes. Councilor Dionne? Yes. Councilor Ali? Yes. Councilor Zorro? Yes. Councilor Chavarro? Yes. Councilor Pellett here? Yes. Councilor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Snyder? Yes. Order 153 passes 8-0. Steve, thanks for being here. Thanks for doing business in the City of Portland. Thanks for coming tonight. Okay, moving on. We've got one communication in our packet this evening. Will the clerk please read Communication 27. Communication 27, 22, 23. Regarding staff implementation of LD 2003, an act to implement the recommendations of commission to increase housing opportunities in Maine by studying zoning and land use restrictions. This is sponsored by Christine Grimondo, Director of Planning and Urban Development. Great. And I look first to you, City Manager. Christine is here. She has a brief presentation. Her memo was lengthy, and she wants to boil it down very quickly for you. I believe she may have one slide to show you, but if not, it's just going to be a brief summary of what her memo says. Hi, Christine. Hi, thank you. City Manager West and Mayor Snyder, members of the council. That's a great intro. There's a memo in the council's packet, communication regarding LD 2003, and it provides a summary in a few different ways. And I'm going to just provide, I'm going to try and boil that down what the sort of key points are of that. And I can throw up a slide up of those as well, but I'm going to just talk for a moment. So LD 2003, it was signed by the governor in April 2020-22, and it is aimed at creating housing requirements for municipalities on the topics of residential density, zoning, ADUs, and affordability, among some other things. And Portland has analogous regulations for all of the elements of LD 2003. We meet or exceed these requirements in most cases, and we have many other housing tools and policies beyond the scope of what LD 2003 contemplates. But we word them differently, we structure them differently because they've been implemented here over years. And so for us and for this analysis, it wasn't as simple as just checking a box, do we do it, do we not? It required a little interpretation and sort of combing through some of the detail of our respective wordings of those requirements. So I would say it's not a matter of the city adopting LD 2003 whole cloth for staff. The exercise is really doing that analysis to see where are there gaps and where do we need to do some reconciliation with our land use code to new state requirements. So the communication in your packet goes at this a few different ways. There's some sort of lengthier commentary on each item, but there's also a table that kind of gives a snapshot by section of where there's just no issue or where we have maybe partial consistency, not complete consistency. And then there's four bullet points at the end that summarizes those. And I'm just going to go over those real quick. So LD 2003, it has density bonus requirements for zones where multifamily is allowed. We do this in addition to height and other dimensional bonuses, but there is one zone where that's not the case. That's the R6. So we would need to look at adding bonuses to the R6 as well. There's a requirement that up to four dwelling units be permitted on residential lots, unbuilt residential lots. A subset of our low density residential zones do not currently meet this requirements. This has implications for them. Most of our zones do and in some cases far exceed four dwelling units per lot. LD 2003 has a requirement that zones not have different dimensional requirements. For single family as for multifamily development, two of our zones have different dimensional requirements. R4 and R5 have some different standards for whether your single family or multifamily, things like setbacks and minimum lot sizes. And lastly, ADUs are to have the same dimensional standards as single family dwellings in LD 2003. This is true citywide, except two island zones have different minimum lot sizes for ADUs. So we in future revisions will look to those standards for bringing those R code and LD 2003 closer together. There's a couple of substantive points here, but by and large, we're in a good place with it. And as part of our recode process, we're looking at all these points about how we're going to implement changes that are keeping LD 2003 in mind. And with that, I don't think a slide of those four points is necessary, but if it helps anyone, I can throw it up, but I talked through all of it. So I'll just wrap it there and happy to answer questions if there are any. Thank you. Thank you so much, Director Grimondo, for this communication and for being here this evening. This is a communication, so there's no public comment. It's not a debatable item. There's no action that the council is taking tonight. But if there's any comments or questions from the council, happy to put those forward at this time. Councillor Ali. Thank you, Mayor. I read through the materials that are shared by us. I also know that the legislative committee did support this, I think, last year. But I wonder if, I know our calendars are full and staff's plate is full. Is that a possibility of a workshop down the line? On LD 2003 specifically? Yes. I'll look to the manager for that one. I think, I mean, I will say that my recollection of the calendar in March, April, and May is pretty packed. We could do a circle back with you on an update and I'll flag that for sometime in May. We will have, Councillor Javaro has requested a workshop on affordable housing. That will be coming April 3rd or 3rd. And so we may have some discussion about some of these concepts at that time. But I will try to flag that, Councillor, for sometime in May. Because last night, when I was going through, I asked myself if the everyday person who owns a property in Portland, who may want to do something like this, will they understand all the legislative jargon in it? So thank you. Yeah, thank you for the suggestion. Christine, I've got a quick question for you. So my understanding is that the legislation compliance is required by July 1. And your memo is really helpful and very thorough. And there are places in it that explain that in some cases, not most, but in some, Portland does have some work to be fully consistent or compliant. So I wanted to ask you about that July 1 deadline and how we're looking at that as a city, knowing how important it is to be in compliance. Sure, thank you for that question. It is July 1. However, I will point out, there's still rulemaking underway for LD 2003. There's still a lot of discussion at the state level about exactly how to interpret many of these standards. And so no one has adopted it yet. And it's going to be a fairly tight window. And I expect maybe too tight in some ways because there's still clarification underway what some of these standards mean. And that process is not even wrapped up yet. I expect it to be wrapped up fairly soon. I would expect April potentially May. It would be a really short window for communities for many, if any, to adopt by July 1. So we know that dates out there. But I'm not overly concerned. One, I think we're in very good company. We're also in a very good place. And as I've said, we have basically policies implemented that are analogous to LD 2003, except for a few areas. And so we buy the July 1 deadline. I think those items will not be on the books yet, but we will be diligently pursuing them. So there will be amendments out by then. We are approached to some of that interpretation discussion underway is to make safe interpretations of where we think they're going to land in some cases and to actively have regulations as part of some of the amendments we'll be rolling out by June for Recode Phase 2. We're going to be rolling out groups of chapters at a time. And we're going to pick those up in those first that was first rollouts early summer. And so they'll be actively in review. I do not think they'll be adopted by July 1, but I don't think there'll be negative consequences. There's not going to be enforcement arm around those pieces. And I think the fact that we're actively pursuing implementation to bring us in alignment will be okay. And I'm actively talking to folks with the state about this. And I'll certainly keep the council posted on progress and any other sort of direction or news coming out from the state on this matter as well. And again, as was mentioned, we'll be speaking about affordable housing in April. And if we have any new news, we're happy to bring that forward to. Thank you very much. Spring's going to be busy for planning, I think. Thanks for bringing up the context of Recode Phase 2. And the fact that that's around the corner as well. So any other questions or comments from the council on this communication? Okay. I don't see any. So we'll move on, but with our thanks to Director Grimondo for filling us in this evening and sharing information. Okay. So we're going to move on to resolutions. And I'll ask the clerk to please read Resolution 7. Resolution 7, 22, 23. Adopting the fiscal year 2023, 2024, Housing and Community Development Annual Action Plan, According to Appropriations for the Community Development and Block Grant Home and Emergency Solutions. Grant programs and certifications pertaining there too, sponsored by Daniel West, Interim City Manager. Thank you. And I understand that we will have Lawson Condry, who is the chair of the Community Development Block Grant Allocation Committee with us this evening to offer some context. Oh, there you are. Okay. I'm looking for you on Zoom. You're here in person. Great. Thanks so much for being here. Yeah. I have some notes. Hi, everyone. Thanks for serving everyone. I'm Lawson Condry, 213 Auburn Street, Northeering, chair of the Community Development Block Grant Allocation Committee. So first, we, the committee, I'll speak on behalf of everyone. We want to thank all the many organizations who applied this year and are grateful for all the work they do for and with the city and people of Portland. There were nine applications for development and six were able to get funding. There were 14 applications for social services and nine were able to get funding. I just have a couple of key points to know everyone has the letter from us and the city manager. One, we support and agree with how the city manager was able to allocate reallocate the funds based on how we originally scored and score the applications. It's largely based on our recommendations and given her wide discretion, more organizations can now receive funding. The second key point is for community policing. This is something the committee has recommended before and are glad the city manager was able to make this change or at least recommending this change. We've highlighted this in the report, but I want to vocalize here that the committee supports community policing and the mission. However, given the need in the city for an array of diverse support services and the fact that those services will only become more in demand, then we need to find more creative solutions to address those problems and issues. We believe it's imperative to provide as much funding as possible to those organizations, so by reallocating the community policing funds away from the CBBG overall fund, just makes it for more organizations to get money. We hope the council agrees. Thank you so much, and I know we're going to hear from our interim city manager, Daniel West, but I just want to remind people who are following along with the agenda that tonight we have the opportunity to hear public comment, but we will not be taking action tonight, so just a reminder to the community that that's what we're doing tonight, so I'll hand it over to the city manager and then we'll head right into a public hearing. Thank you, mayor, and I want to thank the CBBL Cation Committee as well for all their hard work as well as city staff. Mary Davis and her team really works extremely closely with the committee and with me to make sure that all of these recommendations get made in a timely manner, so thank you to everybody for all of your hard work. As Lawson just said, I do have more discretion than the committee does, and so I was able to take a lot of their recommendations and then also work with staff to try to find some additional funds, specifically CARES Act funding to help address the significant needs that we see in the social services area. I just would note, I know the council's well aware of this, we talk a lot about all these social service programs pretty regularly. They serve a major issue, one of the council's goals to address homelessness and the housing crisis, so really try to focus in on that and try to find ways in which to provide funding to a variety of organizations that the committee just couldn't reach within their limited discretion. As Lawson noted, the administration and planning, that basically evens out, so there was no changes there with regard to development activities. I took all of the Allocation Committee's recommendations and just made a switch to fund the Hope House. They had specifically some waterproofing needs, and the Hope House serves our asylum seeking population, and so I thought that was, first of all, the amount of money that was available lined right up with what we had, and thought that was directly connected to all of the different things that we're trying to do with the asylum seeking population in Portland. And then lastly, with regard to the social services section, you'll see as Lawson described as well, that I made some tweaks to the recommendations mostly to be able to serve more people. So recommending the move of the $150,000 for community policing to the general fund, that is something obviously I'm very connected to and I know that the community takes well advantage of and is a great program, but I think it's better served in the general fund. And so that opened up additional monies as well as some additional CARES Act funding in the amount of $106,000 in change, and then some cotton street proceeds from a sale of that were $20,000. So ultimately, that allowed me to provide additional funding to fully fund Catholic Charities IELAP program to be able to assist asylum seekers, and also the Catherine Morrill Day Nursery Child Care Voucher program, which is heavily used. And as I think we've heard in the past, that program serves people and helps them a lot of times stay just outside or be able to continue to stay just outside of the homeless situation and crisis situation, because they do get that assistance through that voucher program. So saw that as a significant need. Additionally, I took some of the Cotton Street money and put it towards the Preble Street food program. So all of that allowed us to fund those additional programs. As I mentioned, happy to answer any questions. And as the mayor said, we won't be voting on this until our next meeting on April 10th, but we'll be taking public comment both evenings and either night I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you so much for that. So like I said, we will head into the public comment. If you'd like to comment tonight, that's great. You can hold your comment until next week. We ask that you don't comment on both nights. So either tonight or on April 10th, and I know the clerk is going to be keeping track of folks who have the opportunity to speak tonight, something we do during the budget process to ensure that people have as much opportunity to comment as possible, but not two times. So anybody in chambers want to come forward to talk about resolution seven. I have a hand up on zoom. So I'll head right over there. Victoria Morales, you've got the you've got the floor. Thank you very much, Mayor Schneider, city manager West, city counselors and staff. My name is Victoria Morales. I'm the executive director at Quality Housing Coalition, and QHC is extremely grateful for the recommendations made by the CDBG allocation committee, city manager West and staff to support Project Home Trust, which is a guaranteed income pilot program, the first in Maine to provide direct cash assistance to low income mother led households to prevent to prevent the financial crisis and extreme stress that results when mothers lose benefits such as general assistance, TANF and SNAP. Project Home Trust is based on a five year successful guaranteed income program that has demonstrated significant improvements in the participants ability to pay bills on time by 56% to have enough money for food by 17% to have an emergency savings by 48% and to have health insurance by 25%. Project Home Trust was designed by Project Home Mothers based on their experience with homelessness and housing insecurity and essential needs programs, and it will be led by Peace Mutesi, a former Project Home mother. I ask you all for your support for this innovative program, and I thank you for your service. Thank you very much for your comment and for being with us this evening. Is there any other public comment this evening? Okay, I've got a couple people on Zoom, but nobody in chambers, so we'll focus on Zoom until I see somebody step forward. Go ahead, Andrew Bove. Good evening, Mayor Smider and members of the council. My name is Andrew Bove and I'm a social worker at Preble Street. I'm here tonight asking you to support the city manager's recommendations for allocation of the Community Development Block grant funds. We are pleased to see her recommendation for our emergency food programs as well as many of our trusted partners in homeless services. Preble Street values our long-standing partnership with the city of Portland to help food insecure portlanders and people experiencing homelessness, and this funding is critical to our ability to continue these efforts in our community. Everyone deserves access to healthy, nutritious food, and these funds ensure this for people in shelters, sleeping outside, or those staying in hotels. We look forward to continuing our collaborative partnership with the city of Portland and many of the other organizations represented here tonight to ensure that everyone in our community is safe, fed, and well cared for. Thank you. Thanks for being here with us tonight, and next we go to Jenny Stasio. Good evening. My name is Jenny Stasio and I'm the Director of Operations at Through These Doors, which is the Domestic Violence Resource Center in Cumberland County. I want to thank the City Council for funding our project, the CDBG grant last year, to bring domestic violence services to the Bayside neighborhood, and to the Committee and the City Manager this year for recommending continuation funding. Our project to date has served 109 survivors of abuse. These survivors were provided with behavioral health services, emergency services to prevent homelessness, food assistance, housing startup services, and emergency shelter services. We found that the survivors of domestic violence accessing our community-based services in the Bayside neighborhood are among the most vulnerable that we serve. These survivors are experiencing a culmination of extreme poverty, homelessness, violence, mental health concerns, and substance use disorders. The services provided through this program are reaching survivors of abuse that we otherwise may not reach due to barriers to accessing services. By bringing our services and supports to the people most in need, we are helping to eliminate barriers to safety. We've seen many successes in the first year of our project and a resounding need for continued advocacy and support. We thank the Committee and the City Manager for recognizing this and for advocating for the continuation of our work. Thanks so much. Thank you too and thank you for your comment. Anybody else want to step forward in chambers with regard to Resolution 7 or on Zoom? Okay, I am going to close the public comment period on Resolution 7. I want to thank everybody who did step forward this evening and just remind others that you have another opportunity to weigh in on this issue that will be before the Council on April 10th for consideration. Well, the clerk, so we're heading into unfinished business. We're going to take three orders together. Will the clerk please read Order 147, 148, and I ask that we take 156, which is relevant to these two other orders. I'm suggesting we take that out of order and consider it together. So orders 147, 148, and 156 please. Order 147, 22, 23, authorizing general obligation bonds to finance a portion of the City's fiscal year 2024 capital improvement program in the amount not to exceed $17,455,000 sponsored by the Finance Committee, Mark Dion Chair. 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 and 156 accepting and appropriating a $39,270 donation from the Reconstruction of the Baseball Court on Great Diamond Island sponsored by Daniel West Interim City Manager. Thank you. I think that's for basketball. Right. Yep. Great. Okay. Thank you so much. So what we'll do here is we've read all three orders. I'm going to look to Councillor Dyon to talk about all three orders. We'll act on them separately. So when we take your public comment, it'll be on any of the three or all, but we'll take our votes separately. So just spelling that out for folks, Councillor Dyon, I look to you as the chair of the Finance Committee to offer some comments here. Thank you. I'll try to be brief, Madam Mayor. But it's a little bit challenging to be brief with the significance in terms of the issues that a budget addresses. And this is the CIP budget. So I want to begin with just that simple observation. These particular orders deal with allocations that respond to the infrastructure of the city, whether it's equipment, vehicles, tools necessary for our city staff to accomplish the service expectations placed upon them by our residents and those who come to Portland for other reasons as well. So I'd like to bear in mind or at least suggest to you that a CIP budget is how we get the job done. It's not necessarily a programming budget where we're looking to move forward a particular social policy initiative. This is the hardware of government. This is what makes sure as the sidewalks are walkable and streets are plowed. In that light, I'd like to take a moment to publicly appreciate the efforts of Councilors Travaro and Zaro as members of the committee. Their insight commentary and their own diligence is reflected in these documents and will also be reflected in the overall operating budget as well. I'd like to thank the interim city manager, Daniel West, and our finance director, Brandon O'Connell. This is a voluminous body of data and request almost $50 million was submitted by departments looking to enhance their capacity to serve the citizens of Portland. We were only able to meet about $10.6 million of those requests, all of them legitimate for the committee working with senior staff, department directors, and the executive. We had to call that list down to something that's manageable in this budget cycle. Another point to make about a CIP budget for those who are here today and those watching from another locale is you want to consider infrastructure investments of this nature as a never-ending cycle. We review and get comfortable with what we call year one requests and the allocations that flow from that. But frankly, we also look out almost five years as to see where these investments will be realized. I mean, the investment though minor, probably in the grand scale of expenditures, but significant island residents has to do with recreational facilities. That's an important piece of how they define community and that was identified a couple of cycles ago and finally we've gotten to a place where their position in the prioritization schedule has succeeded in their funding. We're making significant investments in Congress Square, both in terms of the park as well as intersection redesign. We've met 100% of the requests in the school department having to address their capital needs as well. We're meeting challenges confronting the public library in terms of managing their HVAC issues. None of those are particularly great news stories, but it's actually what keeps the machine of government functioning. I think the CIP reflects a narrative that isn't always appreciated that there has been a lot of cooperation between the Board of Education, the COSU Pretendence Office, the executive and this council in trying to meet their financial needs so they can meet the mission of serving our children. Consistent with that as we've made appropriation recommendations in this body of requests to address parks, the resources they present for recreation and mental health for our citizens and their families. We're committed to long-term investment in the playgrounds that support schools. I don't know, that was the best part of me going to school was rec time, so I'm committed to that strategy for the long haul for children who may think as I do. I'm looking at my notes here and I have sometimes a tendency of speaking too long, so I'm going to try to limit that. I want you to also appreciate as tax payers that we spend meetings in the finance committee, the finance committee has private conversations among ourselves as to what those priorities are. The interim city managers made herself available throughout the process for conversations on specific items and where it fits in her fiscal landscape. Our finance director, I don't believe has any interest in sleeping because he has provided all the background material that we have needed in order to make an informed decision. This isn't a happenstance agreement to what the city managers propose. I think this has been well informed and well intentioned action by the committee and I hope it's ratified this evening by the council and I'll close with that madam mayors. I sincerely appreciate and I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of my committee members. The voluntary participation by many members of the council as a whole. It's not incumbent on them to attend our meetings, but many have showed participated vigorously made their opinions known both in terms of what they thought was important for the city as a whole and specifically for their districts. So I want you to understand that what's presented here this evening, this 10.6 million is not the work of three of us, but three of us who receive and engage support and advice for many members of the city organization and among our peers here on the council. Thank you, madam mayor. Thank you very much, councillor Diane for that thorough summary of where we are this evening and the work that the finance committee has done and I also want to thank you very much for your leadership as chair of that committee. So again we have I was so enrapt in what you were saying that I lost my lost my spot on the agenda but I'm back. We are again at orders 147, 48 and 156. We've heard from our finance committee chair and at this point I'm going to be looking for public comment on all three items. So feel free to step forward in chambers, raise your hand on zoom, we'll toggle back and forth. Again, you can offer comment on the totality of the CIP budget or something specific. We'll start here in chambers with you Steven. Steven Scharf of Brackett Street in Portland. I'm a bit confused by the councillor's comment that this is a $10 million plan because it's actually $10 million in borrowing. The entire plan is $24 million. So his description of the $10 million plan is actually incorrect but the entire plan is $24 million. Some of it comes from other sources and that's why you know I have spoken for the last 20 years to the city needing to have a comprehensive committee to to review and create a capital improvement plan. It should not be on two staff members and three members of finance committee to review a plan and and present it to the entire body here. There should be a larger committee reviewing this stuff and coming up with a plan for what the city really needs to be doing and figuring out is this project really makes sense? Does this project not make sense? You know is it somebody's wish list who has a little power over here versus here? And so I would recommend the council really adopt that concept which I believe is in the city ordinance and embedded in the city ordinance. Some specific things on the plan that detail Congress Square redesign is listed $700,000 but there's some other couple hundred thousand dollars thrown in there where it says oh the rest of the money is somewhere else. Sort of weird how it was all worded there they're very complicated difficult to understand where the money's flowing. I would like to get a very specific before you prove this tonight I would like to get a very specific outline of what we are spending to rebuild the entire intersection of Congress Square and the park so this references Congress Square but is this 700 for the park or is it for the entire intersection and I think it's very important considering the problems the city went through last summer with the contractor who is absolutely incompetent and this city should never hire that contractor again. 30 second warning. The other issue things I just wanted to point out is there are two items for $200,000 for pickle ball courts. That's pretty expensive for pickle ball courts and they're just rebuilding other 140,000 of it is converting tennis courts in the pickle ball courts. Makes no sense we're spending that much money to do that. Longfellow and Lycea playgrounds are getting $450,000 and $80,000. That's time Stephen. Can I just have one minute? Go ahead. Those are in we we just put out a bond to rebuild those schools and part of that bond was supposed to be for the rebuilding of those playgrounds so I'm not sure why we're bonding you know why we're putting them into a separate plan to this additional stuff when it was already in the bond that we did for those schools. Thank you. And the last thing I want to speak to is the restroom pump truck. We spent we spent I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up Stephen. We spent a ton of money building these restaurant restrooms around the city and no one figured out that we'd have to actually pump them out on a regular basis and now we're spending $140,000 for a pump truck which has no clue it provides no information as to how much it's going to cost to run that pump truck. Thank you so much. Next we'll hop over to zoom Ann Weber and you'll have to unmute yourself. My name is Ann Weber. I'm a year-round resident on Great Diamond Island and I am a member of the city island liaison committee and I would like to thank our district representative Anna Traverro as well as the finance committee for bringing the two projects we have in the in the CIP to this stage of funding and I ask on behalf of the committee that the full council approve this funding. Thank you. Thank you for your comment anybody else in chambers and if you would like to speak just go ahead and step forward. Hi thank you Mayor Snyder city manager full council and the finance committee. I'm C. J. Opethos I'm the executive director of the Friends of Congress Square Park like to obviously encourage the council to support the CIP funding for the Congress Square redesign. We get well over 30,000 park visits a year of all sorts of people it's truly a public space where we build community not just the space itself but through our programming we have hundreds of free events every season a lot of them you know actually encouraging people to get to know each other so it's very active community building space and really valuable to the city but as built it's not at its best it's pretty inaccessible as a space there's quite a lot of walls it's not as green as it could be there's not as much greener as it could be and this redesign would really alleviate a lot of those problems and help us do our work a lot better and build the community much better. I also brought some cards from some folks that use the park with their comments I'd like to share so the prompt is they support the Congress for redesign because it's a great space to be with the community and it's provided us with a space to connect and support local artists and makers it is all about community sharing and joy. We need a space that's for us the design helps build community expresses the art community and will make the space that much more welcoming and finally it's a great space to be with the community and it has provided us with a space to connect and support already read that one apologies. So on behalf of those folks who use the park and the organization again like to encourage the council to support the CIP funding for the Congress where we design thank you. Thank you very much for your comment I appreciate that and we do have another hand up on Zoom George Rowe. George Rowe Hanover Street the Great Diamond Island it's not appropriate to bundle that there was no notice in the agenda to do that as a combined item so I'm going to withhold any comments on that. You have gotten a couple of emails from me on this topic I just want to say that it's been probably the worst process I have ever seen the city charter specifically requires a five-year plan to be before the city council when they're deliberating on this and there has been no five-year assessment of anything either at the finance committee level or at this council level tonight that's a violation of the city charter mandate and that is actually one of the big things that the Charter Commission did in 2010 was to try and force this council to confront the fact that we have these enormous hundreds of millions of dollars of backlogs of projects and to try and think multi-year over five years at least and make those tough decisions and also realize the in your face the opportunity cost of handing your friends candy which is basically most of what happens in the CIP each year and I also want to point out that the audit that caused so much attention on the school side was very clear that there is no transparency about the project balances in the CIP funds there's dozens and dozens of accounts for all these projects that have been building up for years and you're basically right in this budget robbing paul to pay peter to the tune of over three million dollars but you're not telling us what projects were reduced cancelled or reallocated to allow us to be able to steal money from prior CIPs to do that there's no transparency there's a lot of things that you guys are happy with I mean our city manager and our district five councilor they they like to golf well we're spending money on the golf course so of course they're happy with that but in terms of actually moving policy forward in our city there's been virtually no justification and because somebody else got an extra minute I'm going to ask for an extra minute just to conclude my remarks but what happened here is on January 31st there was a meeting of the finance committee there was no public comment Andrew Zara wasn't even present for that meeting that the information for that meeting was published the day before and then literally a week later they voted on it with virtually no time for the public to even digest what was going on thank you that's not a process that is that is a snow job okay and I know that we're now in spring as of like two hours ago but that's a snow job and you ought to be ashamed that this is how you're conducting this business thank you for your comment anybody else in chambers who would like to offer comment this evening and if you if you're here and you're just go ahead and stand forward and I know that you're in line that would be great go ahead good evening I'm David LeCase I live at 80 high street I've been involved with the congress square redesign since 2013 when we first met with Jeff Levine who was the planning director at the time and Caitlyn Cameron the urban designer Jeff stated that projects such as this take at least 10 years those of us newbies to public projects were shocked and said how could something so simple take 10 years Caitlyn stated that we should not forget that this was a very unique project as the private sector rarely works jointly with the city on a city-owned project well here we are 10 years later the design and construction drawings actually took over seven years to complete with input from multiple organizations and individuals including wrt the parks department the department of public works the public arts committee Portland downtown the pma the friends of congress square park with your planning department leading at all i'm sure they will tell you that organizing and focusing this group was a bit like herding cats however last year the intersection rebuild was started and should be completed this year with the park and pma plaza scheduled for summer 2024 the congress square capital campaign committee has raised over a million dollars in private money and continues to fundraise for the project and sarah z sculpture this kind of private support for a public project is unprecedented in the city of Portland i expectually would like to thank this thank the city planning department and city staff who have invested hundreds of hours working on this project over the last 10 years i would also like to thank the city council and the city manager for their past and continued support for this amazing project it is incredibly exciting to see the completed project in sight thank you and as we say hope to see you in the square thank you very much for your comment others in chambers who would like to step forward to speak to any of these three items on the agenda i don't see any and no more hands up on zoom so i'm going to close public comment and come back to the agenda and like i said we'll be handling these um one at a time so i'm going to look for a motion from my colleagues to take up order 147 first so most second counselors are a counselor dion with a second from counselors aro and now we will open it up for council discussion council rodriguez i meant to look around and see if anyone wanted to go first but i am just in an early one of that's all right i'll i'll kick it off um i guess i'm gonna kind of pick up where some of the public comment um left us off um is there a five-year strategic plan for a cmp process is that a global five-year plan or does each department have their own strategic five-year plan there is a five-year plan bernand is bernand are you on the yes i see him he's ready to to speak to this issue earlier today i just wanted um with regard to the comments we had received some of these comments over the weekend so we did as staff walk through them uh have prepared responses and i did send the link to the council um for that five-year plan um we did discuss it with the finance committee as we always do and what's in front of you tonight is just that one year which we're asking you to allocate and authorize which is required so i think bernand can speak to that in a little bit more detail um and i would just add for the record that i'm a golfer but it's pretty terrible and i don't do it regularly but thank you mr roll for identifying that over here bernad i have answers to a couple of different questions that were raised but i'll start with uh just the cip charter requirements so we do bring the one-year cip and also the five-year list of requests and available funding to the finance committee each year i will say of the focus both from the public uh and from committees typically on that one-year cip because those are the actions that come in front of the city council the city council cannot bind future councils in regards to specific spending but we do try and bring the full picture of all the five-year requests some of our departments actually do maintain longer term plans and a parks and rec does attend the school department had a 20-year facility study done but we do try and keep the five-year plan updated and that does get presented to finance committee i'm posted on the city website i will say the five-year plan is typically brought directly to the committee and then we do some updates after 6 30 when they audited financials and audited financial information comes out does get posted around june on the formal report but that represents the final city council approved cip which may include amendments to the city manager's recommendations which are brought forward to the finance committee in the winter so you can find those reports not only on the finance committee page but there's a capital improvement plan page as well and the five-year cip is posted to the backup of the committee pages that's the other the other question i haven't answered for prepared i don't know if anyone else wanted to bring it up was the congress square total dollars i want to get that well i'm talking about ahead yep and then we'll head back to you so uh the total uh square park project is 3.3 million dollars the city has provided 1.65 million dollars of funding to date and the friends of congress square park have come up with 950 000 to date and there's a remaining delta of 700 000 in next year's cip and this year's cip is proposing 700 000 for the park there's also an intersection project and that is a 2.6 million dollar contract slightly higher than the original estimate due in part to some of the delays on the project and that's why there's an additional 200 000 dollars in this year's capital improvement plan for that intersection to get us to the 2.6 million dollar total with 1 million funded via the state department of transportation so only 1.6 local thank you very much brennan for that and we're back to you councillor rodriguez thank you men and always very hopeful i i was aware of the school's long term i'm in cip plan because i was involved oh i was serving when the enrollment facility studies came out and you know as it was mentioned earlier today that big um uh you know improvements to the four elementary schools um was part of a whole bunch of you know delayed maintenance and lack of so i know that there was a lot of effort on their part and i i knew that the other departments had a similar long term strategy but it's good to bring it out here and discuss it um i didn't have anything other specific but i did want to just express gratitude to brennan he helped me um by sharing a whole bunch of information about riverside golf course um particularly looking at literally the pnl to see exactly how money flows through that um operation and you know and taking into account both benefit expenses and the uh debt service from the cip investments that have happened there over time and with all that into account it is still a significant revenue producing or operation for the city where it's putting back into the operating uh operation budget um almost half a million dollars every year um and again it's it's the improvements that we're putting into the facility are actually going to help facilitate even more of that revenue producing because it's going to help operations um as well so i i totally see how that um you know could be perceived by the community as you know us spending money on a golf course i think that nothing looks nothing sounds more privileged than that but when i look at how it returns money to our operating budget that is you know deeply in need of more revenue sources um i see as that's a you know an investment worth making and it has been over the years um for the record i only go out into the year riverside golf course to go sledding with my kid and my kid's 14 so that doesn't even happen anymore so i don't even use the facility um i think that's all i have for now thank you thank you counselor other questions discussion from the counselor council dion thank you i i'm overjoyed of the thought that somebody would put the words golf and my name in the same sentence i labor with a fantasy that one day when i get to the course they'll ask me not to leave they have a job for me specifically trying to prove to the rest of the world that i'm as great as i think i am in my mind so it's likely that'll never happen but it's a wonderful dream i only wanted the microphone for a moment madame because i do want to respond to mr scharf i want to thank him for correcting the record um maybe he'll agree with me or not but in my mind throughout the cip i focus on how much we have to borrow because in my mind it's how much do we get to pay back so the number i referred to as the cip budget was incorrectly stated by myself and i just want to put that out there another piece of evidence that i'm human but thank you steven for correcting the record for those that were watching because i i have confidence in the conversations i've had through the process with the manager's office as well as our finance director that there was adequate funds from other sources that would underwrite the expenses that are outlined in the cip budget but to me the cip bonding process is akin to using a government's equivalent of a credit card so that's something i try to pay attention to because most credit cards that i've met demand payment at some time so thank you madam mayor thank you mr scharf thank you councillor dion other discussion from the council um i i'm going to be happy to support these orders this this evening and i did want to just circle back and say that um the five-year plan is something that's required in our charter and i think it's something that we're all very mindful of and so we get that opportunity to look at with the five-year plan and then recognize that each year is calibrated based on how needs get prioritized over the course of any given year and that can happen because an hvac system goes down or a any number of systems fail or we've made a decision to you know increase investments in sidewalk plowing capacity so i think the five-year plan is really important it's the place where we can flag things and being nimble in the annual review of the cip of course is um critical as well and um so uh so just wanted to say that i have i have every confidence that we're all very aware of that and kind of bugging the manager all year long about what's coming up is this going to be able to be realized this coming year if not why so you know the more discussion the better throughout the year it's not the needs in in a city like portland um don't get looked at once and then we turn our attention away for the next 11 months or 10 months we we contemplate them all the time and um try to try to balance it as well um because it is kind of the workforce investments some of them are just we have to make them and others of them may be investments in park facilities and um recreation and and um and those are important too to a community so um i did also i just wanted to follow up um on the congress square um question i know it's something that is um valued by our community and um we've made significant investment in this um this both the park and the intersection and so as folks in the community have asked me about that um and the city's commitment um it's true that we um you know we've made as as was mentioned um before by our finance director we've made significant investments both as a city but also as a um a friends group which is such a an incredible value that we've got in the city of portland when people come um to our parks and fundraise and do work to support those spaces that are used for so many things so thank you to uh those of you who are here tonight who i know work really hard to bring assets to bear um brendan just a clarifying question for me there's seven hundred thousand in the order that we're looking at tonight uh for the congress square redesign in your explanation a little bit earlier were you saying that we would see that number again next year or when you said next year did you mean f y 24 uh so there's another seven hundred thousand dollars in our five-year cip in next year's cip budget okay thanks for the clarification we don't guarantee future funding but no because we've committed so much to data that's likely going to be in the list of recommendations okay thank you i just wanted clarification there for future councils and um and that recognition that the the long term planning that's been done as was mentioned before the 10 year um plan and working together is um you know it does stretch over time and over years so that's all for my questions other discussion or questions from councillors councillor Phillips i was really trying not to bring this up tonight because um it just well once you hear it um i'm really concerned about the clock at congress grill park isn't that the park that we're talking about and i mean i it seems silly but for me being from portland um and having the um um the what is it called the railroad you know the building on st john street having that be demolished and not having that in our history um it's something seriously i don't struggle with it every day um but i do think about it because it could have been a serious monument um and we we tore that down and so now i'm in total support of the congress square park and what we need to do to revitalize it but i don't want us to just take this clock and put it somewhere because we don't know where else to put it um because that to me is also part of congress grill park um and i just wasn't going to bring it up because it doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal because it's just a clock um but for me being from portland it really does have some significance for me in the city so i don't know what we can do with the clock i know that i trust the friends of congress grill park to work with the developer to figure out where it goes or whatever um and i just i just don't want us to put it somewhere and leave it because it does hold some significance and history some serious history in the city thank you for your comment i was just going to speak to that council phillips that's very much on staff's mind i know kathy alva as our facilities director is very focused on that and so we've been talking about ways in which to make sure that that's preserved and where to put that so it it's very much on our radar screen so i appreciate that comment okay any other discussion on order 147 which is before the council for a vote councillor fornir thank you just a quick question uh for brendan and also a lot of gratitude to my colleagues um i'm no longer on the finance committee i've moved over health and human services and public safety but it is a ton of work so thank you so much for showing up and doing that um just relative to the congress square park i i would be remiss if i didn't say something because i just keep hearing these numbers and number one i'm wondering have we spent this much on any of the other parks in our city this is a very specific square in the middle of the city and i'm thinking we've had so many different discussions about equity in parks and now we're spending millions of dollars on one park when we've been fighting about getting parks in other spaces and so my question and i don't know if brendan has this for this evening but have we spent this much on any other park and knowing that there's still another $700,000 to go and when we just had our our budget meeting last week and we're talking about struggling in so many other areas it just for me it's very hard to just not say anything when we are saying we're committed to equity we're committed to housing we're committed to health um and public health for our community this just does not feel like an equitable investment to me so um i appreciate that there has been a ton of engagement with the community to try and get these funds um to make this happen that doesn't to me mean that we we should be on the hook for the rest of it um and so i'll i'll leave it with that but that's my question thank you thank you for the question brendan can you offer any insights there so in recent history we have not funded parks any specific park at that level i think you know when you look at some of the larger parks where there's multiple things like ball fields a playground tennis courts uh we might be approaching that over a much longer period of time but certainly uh nowhere close to that level of investment at one park uh in a single or even over a few cip years thank you councillor ali um thank you mayor uh i want to thank uh staff and my everybody's comments uh i just want to uh say a few things i wasn't going to say anything but i don't know if that will be helpful to some of the comments my colleague made about uh equitable i think uh um uh on to recently i walk everywhere and sometimes i take the bus or councillor rodriguez gives me a ride but i i think in all the parks that we have in portland i think uh with the exception of the a the east and waterfront the congress square park is a place that i've seen uh many different people from different parts of the city of portland i've gone to uh even though i don't know how to dance i've gone to uh latinx dance uh there i've been there with uh immigrant groups i've been there on uh juneteenth i've been there for several things i one of the young people that i work with who have moved on uh he went to college to learn how to make movies his first uh movie festival was at the park i think he called it a movie at the park so i think it's a very valuable uh part of our city where people from different backgrounds gather so i appreciate those who put the work in and councillor councillor thank you for your comment thank you councillor ali any other discussion before we act councillor dion i i totally respect uh councillor forenears assertions and descriptions of her concern i smile meekly at councillor philips notion that of course she's from portland which must make me from away um i arrived here in 1972 and for those of us here or watching congress square was the center of all the disarray and disorder of the city so i for one have sat back and watched a decades evolution of that space to where i think one day it'll be known as an anchor point for portland as a hub for how we define ourselves as a community and then on a more practical level i just want to get it done i want to get money allocated so that we see it done and the critique that we receive from the public today about the contractor and otherwise i'm not going to dispute that i think that's more factual than i'd like to embrace but the bottom line is sometimes we just need to get it done and that's why i endorsed it in my role on this committee and i hope to see it through with the appropriate votes this evening and in the future thank you madam mayor thank you councillor dion and i think that um you know as my i i asked my question because i wanted to just be clear what are we doing tonight what may come before a future council so we do have one um one action on that well we have we have the whole body of work before us tonight so um councillor travaro i'm sorry if i've left you hanging um sometimes i i'm not as focused on zoom as i as i should be but there you are oh you haven't i just raised my hand so thank you i just wanted to briefly weigh in i think councillor dion gave a thorough introduction to this item in the beginning and so i just wanted to kind of echo those sentiments and that i will be supporting it in whole this evening i think that staff as they always do has done a fantastic job this year in going through all the needs and being able to um put together a list of what we can meet this year and um what will best serve our community oh my um he's doing that funky thing again it was doing that the other night so i'm just going to stop my video um but uh i also wanted to say with regard to congress square i i said this during the finance committee discussions i lived up there for a period of time i think i moved there in late 2007 and so i kind of followed this um from you know many you know that long ago and there were early designs for the park even before um the design that we currently have there was a contest at one point and you know the idea was that at the time it was an underutilized public space and the thought was that it was underutilized because of its recessed design and so there was a need to kind of um bring it back to life and have it be a space for people in that area to come and um people were very excited about it and um it was one of those many things that um got put out there to the public and just never really materialized um so i am excited that after all this time it finally is coming to fruition and i i do see it as um as value added to a diverse socioeconomically diverse community that lives up there there are several dense um low-income housing buildings in that area and um this offers a public space just steps outside of their door so um i am excited i do understand the concerns raised just about the kind of large sum of money um all allocated in one place but um at the same time for this i i am really excited to see it go forward so i'll be supporting that as well as the entire package tonight thank you thank you councillor other discussion before we move to a vote on order 147 i think we're ready to go ahead and do that councillor fornier yes councillor pratt-riguez yes councillor dion yes councillor ali yay councillor zaro yes councillor travaro yes councillor pelatier yes councillor phillips yes mayor snitter yes order 147 passes unanimously and next i'm looking for a motion to approve order 148 so moved councillor dion with a second from councillor ratriguez is there any council discussion on order 148 okay i don't see any we'll go ahead and vote councillor fornier yes councillor ratriguez yes councillor dion yes councillor ali yes councillor zaro yes councillor travaro yes councillor pelatier yes councillor phillips yes mayor snitter yes order 148 also passes unanimously and lastly in this um package of three i'm looking for a motion to um approve order 156 council ratriguez with a second from councillor fornier any discussion on order 156 okay we'll go ahead and vote councillor fornier yes councillor ratriguez yes councillor dion yes councillor ali councillor zaro yes councillor travaro yes councillor pelatier yes councillor phillips yes mayor snitter yes order 156 passes unanimously thank you everybody and so many thanks to city staff our interim city manager and director of finance in particular but i know all levels of staff and across all departments are working on this so many many thanks to city of portland staff to help get us here tonight will the clerk please read order 149 order 149 22 23 amendment to zoning map regarding imb dash b industrial moderate impact on industrial way sponsored by the planning board maggie stanley chair great and i think we've got the chair of the planning board here with us maggie stanley do you want to offer some comments heading into this order this evening hi yes thank you um good evening i'm pleased to present that on january 24 2023 the planning board voted six to one silk was opposed to recommend the city council adoption of 50 industrial way llcs proposed zoning map amendment that would change 50 industrial way and eight adjacent parcels from an im industrial moderate impact zone to an imb industrial moderate impact zone yep in its review of the application the planning board found that the zoning map amendment to the imb to be consistent with many of the shared goals and objectives expressed in the comprehensive plan including promoting an economic climate that increases job opportunities and economic well-being valuing and nurturing portland-based businesses and supporting industries with high growth slash high value potential creating an economic prosperity by growing portland's tax and employment base and supporting economic vitality by ensuring the efficient movement of goods services and people the board felt that the imb is an appropriate zone for the subject area and would add appropriate density and bulk to lots that are currently built out with industrial buildings allowing for future expansions or enlargements of existing businesses over the course of the review the board requested the planning staff consider expanding the imb zone to encompass more lots than originally proposed however after staff analysis and further board deliberation concerning the existing built contacts impervious surface ratios and geography of the dolebrook urban impaired stream watershed the board ultimately agreed that the imb zone should be expanded to encompass adjacent smaller more intensely develop lots and to exclude the larger lot which could still be which could still expand on the existing imb zone in conclusion the planning board voted six one to recommend the city council adoption of 15 industrial way llc's proposed zoning map amendment thank you and i think um christine dramano and kevin crafter also here excellent thank you so much so all three of you are here uh for questions that may arise but um at this moment with that um summary presentation offered from the chair of the planning board i'd like to see if there's any public comment on order 149 okay i don't see anybody stepping forward in chambers but i do have a few hands up on zoom so we'll first go to kylie mason uh good evening thank you madam mayor city council members and city staff my name's kylie mason from spago techniques i represent the alligash application uh that that began this process i just wanted to state that we've been very appreciative working with the city staff they've been uh phenomenal to work with and advancing the application additionally our time with the planning board was um very productive uh and we really appreciate their support this approval for the amendment will enable alligash and other landowners to improve their developments uh for the next decade at least and it's a very important expansion potential for alligash uh and strengthens their ties with community importance so thank you for the opportunity thank you for your comment anyone in chambers want to step forward to offer comment on this order 149 seeing none i'll head back to zoom shawn difley good evening mayor schneider city council and members of city staff my name is shawn difley i'm the engineer and director at alligash prune company i'd like to back up kylie's comments and just offer a quick word of appreciation to the planning board and city planning staff for helping us get it at this amendment put forward here today as kylie mentioned the passing of this amendment will allow us at alligash to continue to grow here in the city of portland thank you again thank you for your comment anybody in chambers we'll head over to zoom again where we've got george roe george roe uh west base side just wanted to highlight as along with my public comment that i submitted this is exactly why uh zoning is such a terrible thing in our american society you'll all remember that alligash played a key role in helping the city purchase some land next to the riverton trolley park and one of the big reasons that that was never considered for housing in any serious way by our city and our council and our planning department is that it would have required a probably would have required a rezoning to build enough housing on that site to be feasible for especially for like an avesta uh you know affordable housing developer and you know oh my god rezoning that's like so hard to do like how can we even consider that like that's like not something that you know we're ready to do but alligash just a few months later knocks on your door and is like hey i need to rezone this you know this factory where we make our beer even though we're moving to scarborough and our flagships going to be over there we still definitely don't want to move our manufacturing right away so you're like okay let's do it and so you do it and that's it that's it and the problem is you have to like cover your tracks so instead of it being a spot zoning you have to throw in a few other neighboring properties so it doesn't look like you're just doing a special favor for alligash so but then you get called on that and so you're embarrassed so you add a couple of extra ones but then you realize that this is supposed to be like a special area of like wetlands you know protection because of the brisum scott river and dole brook so then you make sure that a lot of small industrial properties literally just like a few doors down don't get the same benefit that alligash does because you're supposedly worried about wetlands well long story short this is exactly how zoning especially exclusionary zoning in america works and you guys do it you're the ones who make you grease the wheels you're the ones who actually make this happen and the powerful get what they need even if it's kind of expensive and annoying and it takes longer than it should but 30 second warning everybody else who doesn't have the money doesn't have the power doesn't have the connections they get shut out they sleep on a tent on a sidewalk or in a public park before the police come and kick them out they move to windham they move to florida um if they don't get a lottery ticket through the subsidized housing waitlist they just go somewhere else some of them even go to canada that's america and you guys are the ones guarding the system thank you for your comment any other public comment on order 149 okay i don't see any so i'll close public comment i'm going to come back to the council for a motion please move passage second councillor fornier with a second from councillor zaro and i would like to remind folks that we do have resources we have people here from both the planning committee and the planning board so uh if there's any questions during council discussion we definitely have the opportunity to have questions answered any discussion i don't see any i think we're ready to go ahead and vote on order 149 councillor fornier yes councillor bradbergas yes councillor dion yes councillor ali yes councillor zaro yes councillor travaro yes councillor pilateer yes councillor phillips yes mayor snider yes order 149 passes unanimously and we will move on in our agenda to the orders section will the clerk please read order 154 order 154 22 23 proving the home american rescue plan allocation plan sponsored by the housing and economic development committee councillor payas ali chair and i'll head over to councillor ali who is the chair of that committee for uh some context here thank you mayor um i think this is something that the housing committee does once every year and uh mary might be somewhere out there on virtually to speak to it she's actually right oh she's here and oh mary over to you mary thanks for being here mary thank you good evening councillors and mary davis the interim director of the city's housing and economic development department um councillor ali made reference to a program that you're probably familiar with our home program which we receive funding from the u.s department of urban development every year um this is slightly different from that um through the american rescue plan act um funding was allocated to the u.s department of housing and urban development for this particular program called home arp um entitlement jurisdictions like the city of portland where we're given an allocation um of this funding and there are very specific um rules qualifying populations eligible activities that were associated with this funding um very different from our usual home program i would also note that because we are part of the cumberland county home consortium this funding is um available for projects throughout cumberland county and we worked very closely with the cumberland county community development staff to um create this plan um as i said uh the home arp funding is very different from the regular home program and there were a lot of different requirements as far as um outreach and collaboration in order to create the plan that's in front of you so we had meetings very specifically um with social service providers um other interested community members we participated in um outreach meetings that main housing held with um the coc statewide social service providers housing developers um so there was a very robust outreach program for creating this plan um the city received uh just under 3.6 million i should stop saying city the cumberland county home consortium received just under 3.6 million um in collaboration with the county um we um are recommending that the funding um not use the allocation formula that was within our um home program but that we make this funding available countywide um so that we can hopefully facilitate greater impacts um very specific populations are eligible for this funding the funding is to be used to address the need for homelessness assistance and supportive services um it can be used in a variety of different ways um to develop in support of affordable housing tenant based rental assistance provision of supportive services and acquisition and development of non congregate shelter units the qualifying individuals or families that are eligible for this assistance are homeless um as is defined under the mckinney vento homeless assistance act um families or individuals at risk of homelessness um fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence um and parts uh and or are part of other populations we're providing supportive services or assistance would prevent a family's homelessness or would serve those with the greatest risk of housing instability in addition um the last qualifying population is veterans and families that include a veteran um so in our plan we took those four eligible areas or types of activities um and we made some recommendations about what we thought based on the community input that we received what would be the best use of those funds um so the plan before you um is recommending uh funding in the supportive service supportive services category um of 763,755 um acquisition and development of non congregate shelters for 250,000 and development of affordable rental housing at just over two million dollars again um the plan isn't recommending specific projects it's recommending funding in these categories and um the cumberland county commissioners have approved the plan once um it's approved here at the city it'll be submitted to HUD once HUD approves the plan we intend to release um request for proposals um for the use of the funding happy to answer any questions thank you very much for that um that summary Mary it's really thorough we appreciate you being here before I go to the council for discussion and questions I'd like to take public comment on order 154 anybody in chambers who would like to step forward um and I think George I see George Rowe on zoom it might be his third great okay just just wanted to make sure that you knew uh George but go ahead uh George Rowe west base side um just wanted to highlight um you know two-thirds of this money is uh likely to go towards uh potential housing development opportunities and uh just wanted to make it clear that um you know there's very few actual places where this kind of development can occur in cumberland county um you know community after community have really shut down uh either through uh a short-term oratorium or you know some some version of of basically zoning out poor people um they have made it virtually impossible for this money to really be put to much good use in in the short term and that is you know that's the reality so you know it's a shame that I mean if you actually scroll through this and if somebody actually took the time to actually open the the uh the backup material there's just an enormously long you know bureaucratic uh slug of of paper uh exhaustively talking about all of the work uh and it was busy work that went into creating this quote-unquote plan and it really comes down to at the end of the day uh whether middle class and mostly upper middle class people in cumberland county are going to allow more neighbors near them and the answer is no uh you've shown this council has shown it I mean supposedly the most diverse most progressive city council um in uh in the city's history um and you're deathly afraid of making uh any move that upsets the neighbors whether it's a music festival or a shelter or affordable housing uh you know complex um we literally are scheduling a quote-unquote celebration for the opening of a 208 bed homeless shelter on the outskirts of our city next to a suburban propane distribution tank farm next to a scrap metal yard next to a waste management dumpster facility next to a tree cutting uh uh shipping yard that's not a celebration that's a complete and total failure 30 second warning of everything that people in this city claim to be champions of it's exclusion it's I don't care who you are just don't get close to me and you're not allowed to live near me if I think you're going to bother me and the solution is right now to hand over most of Bayside to poor properties which is fine well Bayside's always been welcoming to your comment George but that's where we're at any other public comment on order 154 okay oops not on zoom either okay I'm going to close public comment come back to the council for a motion please so moved second councillor Rodriguez with a second from I believe it was councillor Zorro I hope I got that right okay okay and now we have the opportunity to have some council discussion if there are any questions director Davis is here any questions comments discussion I will happily be supporting this this evening I think that the it is a long memo in the in the backup um I think it's 40 some pages but lots of times that's what's required when there's government that not only city government but working together with county government in response to a federal program so thank you for that that work and making our way through there is really informative and I would say that the home the home American rescue plan out allocation plan aligns perfectly with the council's goals and it's not just as Mary said it's not just focused on the city of Portland it's focused on Cumberland County and I think that's that's good and meaningful work when we think about making investments in and housing in response to homelessness so happy to support this tonight I see no hands up for my colleague so we'll go ahead and vote councilor fornier yes council Rodriguez yes councilor Dion yes councilor Ali yes council Zorro yes councilor Trevorrow yes councilor Palatier yes councilor Phillips yes mayor Snyder yes order 154 passes unanimously we're going to take um order 155 but I did want to just note that um we're going to take a little bit of a break uh after 155 and before we head into the public hearing uh period associated with order 157 and the work that that will entail I just want to give we didn't have any turnaround time between executive session and the council meeting so I want to give people a chance to stretch their legs um after this and then we'll come back so will the clerk please read order 155 order 155 22 23 approving the rules of the rent board sponsored by daniel west interim city manager thank you and I'll go to you daniel I'm not sure if the chair ali at simpson is he available oh there he is I didn't know if you had uh some comments you wanted to provide on these rules specifically prior to uh public comment yeah so we prepared rules uh the new ordinance that was passed in November 2022 required city council approval of some of our rules procedures and forms that are used so that's what is before the council this evening the rules of the rent board which is how we the board operates the new maintenance and net operating income uh worksheet which is the basis of the new ordinance for evaluating rent increases and I'm happy to answer any questions then thank you and I would just note also that um we're requesting that this be passed as an emergency um that's due to the fact that uh these need to be passed immediately so that they can go into effect prior to I think it's um the deadline's coming right up what is it michael you march quoted me at martin so we need to get that in place as soon as possible great um thank you so much um chair simpson for being here with us this evening we appreciate you being available for questions um and so before I look to the council for a motion and some discussion here we'll see if there's any public comment on order 155 in front of the council this evening hello uh my name is buddy more I live uh at 95 welch street I just want to speak in favor of the maintenance of net operating income methodology that the rent board is proposing it is the gold standard for determining a fair return for landlords under almost every rent stabilization ordinance in the country um and the board has worked really hard on this um and I just want to offer my support for it thank you thank you for your comment we'll go to matt walker who's on zoom uh hello I'm matt walker I live at 655 congress street um I also just want to say that I think the mny is a good thing for the rent board to be doing so I'm really glad that this is getting done and I want to thank the city manager for getting this through as an emergency order on time uh and just the last thing I want to say is thanks to the rent board it's a ton of work and I see all the effort you all put into it and I recognize they don't appreciate you so thank you thank you for your comment anybody else who would like to speak to order 155 okay seeing none I'll close public comment on order 155 and come back to the council for a motion please move to pass it's an emergency second well done counselor Rodriguez I appreciate the inclusive language with the emergency passage and counselors are with the second is there any discussion before I say oh oh sorry sorry sorry hold on let's go back um thank you thank you well done any discussion from the council on order 155 counselor dion thank you um I appreciate the work the rent board did thank you I actually read the rules I read the ordinance more than once over the weekend and then I took a look at the uh MNOI I guess this is a future for accounts and lawyers okay it's pretty detailed and I think it may be an appropriate instrument for assessing what some would refer to as corporate landlords I think they should be subjected to that kind of scrutiny I don't have a problem with that but my only comment to the board is consideration much like the IRS did you know there was the old 1040 then they developed the 1040 easy that people could understand I mean I read this over a couple of times because I wasn't really clear what was being asked of me so I think for landlords won't a couple of buildings they're not really big business they've made investments over a couple of decades this could be pretty challenging all right so I I'm going to vote for it so we can move the process along so that you can exercise your responsibilities as a rent board but sincerely trust me there are folks that are going to be intimidated by that instrument and they might it might not be so for those who are landlords actually have legal counsel on retainer that'll just be a billable experience for them but for a loss of a lot of land persons that I know especially if they're getting on in their years this is going to be really tough so I just want to put that on the record it's it's real important to me thank you thank you counsel Diane I think Chair Simpson if you wouldn't mind stepping forward I was you know I'm looking at what's in our packet and it's a significant amount of information that you're asking for from landlord so what degree of help do you have to offer people who might have you know a few units and would need help filling out this form I think the council is concerned is one that I have expressed and I think other members of the board have expressed with the way that the ordinance was written the maintenance and operating income refers to a pretty specific methodology and you know based on conversations we've had with the corporation council's office this seems to be you look at a lot of other cities there are no simplified versions that don't take into consideration so many factors based on the research I've done there are cities that their ordinances are written that allow for certain simplifications for small landlords or for increases under a certain percentage unfortunately with the way that this new ordinance is written we don't believe that we have that uh flexibility to alter that maintenance and that operating income methodology that is called for in the ordinance if so I mean I personally would support having a simplified but I think just giving given the way that the ordinance is written our hands are somewhat tied there in regard to help the housing safety office is doing the best that they can to support the rent board and reviewing these applications I'm hoping that after we get a few that maybe we can revise the application to still be in compliance with the ordinance but simplify as much as possible one of the well-known downsides of the maintenance and operating income methodology is the complexity and time-consuming nature of it and to say that it is a you know necessitates accountants and lawyers is very much the case in a lot of uh localities that have these sorts of uh methodologies in place so yeah it's not a simple methodology thank you I appreciate that council dion thank you mr chair I appreciate your candor in assessing that instrument and I would like to pose a question to corporation council are we to understand that the chair's analysis of our inability to modify that form is correct the uh the language in the new um uh the the recent changes to the to the rent control ordinance um do have pretty specific requirements about this particular form of analysis the mnoi analysis um and they also state that the board has to adopt rules that are as as the chair said um that are essentially I'm just looking at the language similar to the to what other towns have done that have similar ordinances um they haven't tried to reinvent the wheel here um but that that form was reviewed and approved by the by the board it's consistent with the language in the new ordinance which was approved at the by referendum last fall um and it unfortunately says what it says uh whether or not there's some flexibility down the road to create a simpler form I don't know that that it I don't know that it's going to simplify the methodology the form is complicated because the methodology is complicated and I think that the I think that the form um and correct me if I'm wrong chair but I don't you guys didn't create this from scratch it was a form borrowed from another jurisdiction which is what the which is what the language in the new ordinance uh advises the board to do it Michael you this is subject to the five-year rule right so the council couldn't amend that ordinance provision to change the requirement correct it's subject to the five-year rule and yeah won't can't be changed unless um unless it was to go back out uh for a vote well thank you I appreciate that and the reason I asked and his his explanation is very clear when I first started reading this I said I'm going to go to council and move for division I was going to tear off the form rule and see if we could modify it because I think there's a whole class of landlords that are ill served by this or at least could be intimidated by doing it correctly that I thought it was worth exploring but the more that I read it I came to the conclusion I have to live with it that's why I was posing it to the chair as to whether or not he could take action with his body to at least provide an alternative form that would arrive at somewhat similar outcomes in terms of reliability to assess what I guess the base rent would be and other such factors I mean I I guess I would say at you know at some point down the road I know that the you know the board is under uh significant time constraints to get these rules done there wasn't a lot of time between the effective date of the the new ordinance and when these rules had to be in place whether or not there's some ability to come back and get approval for you know another form in the future as long as it's consistent with the language in the in the ordinance that would be fine but changing the ordinance itself as the city manager said is would require not only action by by the council but also a vote of the or an election of the voters thank you corporation council thank you mr chair thank you madam mayor thank you councillor councillor Rodriguez thank you mayor um I want to I want to just kind of speak a little bit of what councillor Dunn just said um you know from 10 from the 1040 to 1040 you see and then if I could add another layer then there's turbo tax right which completely changes the way that questions are framed and it's supposed to be helpful but it's really not turbo especially if you're running a business and you have difficulty in figuring out your expenses so I do believe that efforts to simplify complex applications such as tax preparation documents is not necessarily um as effective as as as we think it is um and I'm saying that just from my experience of when I've had to file my taxes and as I include my my overhead expenses and costs of good souls for my business I've you know I've I prefer to go straight to my schedule c form instead of going to turbo tax it's just the government has actually made that simpler um so to speak to the application itself I agree that it it seems to be asking for a significant amount of information however as with any business having a solid understanding of how you're operating expenses um are breaking down is ultimately how you're going to stay in business so businesses that tend to not do well um when we look at their numbers often we see a poor calculation of operating expenses which makes them then have to artificially or you know inflate their overall prices because they're trying to chase this like net profit that you know it's never there because they're just not calculating their operating expenses correctly so asking somebody who is making housing a business or their their business um to have accurate accounting of their operating expenses it's actually a way to support them as as an entrepreneur right because you do need to have accurate accounting of all your expenses so I as as as any buddy that's you know running their own their own business or doing their own accounting you know I would expect them to have accuracy in the expense of their operating expenses regardless but I I don't want to pretend that this application is simple and all you have to do is plug in your PNL numbers here um so I just wanted to say that that I while cumbersome I do think that it is appropriate and it's it's beneficial to the landlords themselves just to have accurate information on the operation and that's all I have thank you counselor I have a question for you chair simpson I think on the heels of that so I appreciate that um that commentary that you know the more information you have the more organized the information is the better poised of businesses to succeed um and we have lots of folks who own properties in portland with many many units but I'm wondering about the person who might own a two unit um uh who works full time maybe has a family um but has these two units of housing that they rent out so it's not their business per se um it it is of course a business but it's sort of in in addition to their um you know their work in their life and I'm just wondering to the to the extent that you have a sense of this can you talk at all about the different kind of landlords that we have and how this interface works for the smaller ones yeah thank you for your question madam mayor I I think you bring up a concern that I myself and others on the board have expressed with the ordinance um I my reading of the ordinance is I don't see a way to simplify it too much but I think that there are a number of you know smaller landlords in portland who may only have a few units who would wish to utilize this process one thing I will state is that not all the only landlords who are going to be using this form are the ones who are trying to achieve a rental increase that is above the automatically allowable so we don't really have a prediction for how many we'll see but if it's the historic you know trends of the board we get a few per month um so if more would like to use this then yes and smaller landlords could you know it is asking for a lot of information one thing I will say is that the board works a lot with the housing safety office who ends up being on the hook for answering a lot of the questions from landlords and they can provide feedback to the board on things that can be done to improve the form so and I'll continue to work with the corporation council's office on any you know revisions that we can make that are still compliant with the ordinance after we get some experience with how this will work for portland one of the last things that I'll say is that a lot of the cities that have these maintenance of maintenance and net operating income methodologies have staff professional staff that are dedicated to these sort of things in portland this entire infrastructure is based on volunteers so it certainly that could be an area of difficulty for applicants but I won't get too much into that but I think hopefully that addresses some of your concerns that helps thank you there questions discussion from the council before we move to a vote here um uh I want I want to say thank you to to you and to others who serve on the rent board in that volunteer capacity we know that you're putting in a lot of time and bringing your own um context and personal expertise to the table so um I think we hear you that um there's a volunteer role and then there's a paid professional staff role and I want to acknowledge how much work you all are doing as volunteers thank you and I think we're ready to go ahead and vote on uh these uh to to pass these as an emergency order 155 Councillor Fornear yes Councillor Rodriguez yes Councillor Dion yes Councillor Alde yes Councillor Zauro yes Councillor Trevorrow yes Councillor Pilatier yes Councillor Phillips yes Mayor Snider yes Order 155 passes unanimously thank you again for being here and as mentioned we're going to take a little bit of a break before we head into Order 157 so that um people can uh do whatever you need to do so let's meet back here in 15 minutes it is now 741 um so I will see you at 756 and I'm on zoom Peter I'm looking at you are we good to go thank you thank you very much um okay so um we are back we've got attendees we've got folks in chambers thank you for being here we've got one more item on our agenda this evening um which is Order 157 so we'll head right in there and I'll ask the clerk to start us out by reading that order into the uh record Order 157 22 23 setting an election date on citizen initiative amendment to the Portland City Code regarding an act to approve tenant protection sponsored by Ashley Ryan City Clerk okay thank you um so I'm going to spell this out a little bit and then we're going to go to public comment um so we've got a couple of things in our um our agenda backup back up this evening we've got um a citizen initiative which is an amendment to an ordinance that uh we had a public hearing on last week um in response to our the hearing had to do with setting the public hearing date um so tonight what we will be doing is having a public hearing um on the council's work to set an election date for a proposed citizen initiative that has been submitted to the clerk's office in addition to this citizen initiative we have an amendment to order 157 in our backup materials sponsored by both um counselor uh uh Phillips and counselor Trevorrow so that serves as an amendment to order 157 hope that makes sense so when we take public comment this evening we'll be taking public comment on setting an election date for the citizen initiative amendment to the Portland City Code regarding an act to improve tenant protections and we'll be taking public comment on a proposed competing measure which acts as an amendment to order 157 I hope that makes sense to folks the original 147 is setting the election date for uh the citizen initiative the amendment to 157 is a possible competing measure that will be uh teed up for you by counselor Phillips before we head into our public hearing so um we've got like I said we've got folks with us here in chambers people on zoom I just remind people to give us your first and last name either the your address or the neighborhood you live in or the organization that you represent the city clerk will keep your time to three minutes and give you a 30 second warning um we appreciate hearing from you and lastly what I'll say here is in the event that um so we've got the the order setting an election date on the citizen initiative in the event that an amendment to order 157 were to pass there would also be a third element on the ballot which would be the none of the above which we can of course talk about later but I think everybody's pretty familiar with with what all that looks like so with that I hope I've made that less confusing not more confusing I'll go right to my colleague counselor Phillips to offer her amendment to order 157 and then we'll open it up for public comment thank you mayor um I um see I um I looked at the um citizens initiative um and I um had some concerns um that we weren't really um completely looking at tenants tenants rights um because ultimately our goal here is to look at housing and it's not just to look at the unhoused it's not just to look at the homeless but it's also to look at those folks that are in housing and making sure that those folks are being able to afford to stay in their house um or their apartment um and uh making sure that we were being fair um to them and and and getting them to pay their rent um and staying housed we also have an obligation to landlords right we also have that obligation this is not just so it's just not it's not a one thing it's both and so I really tried to take a look at this and I really tried to put a competing measure together with the help of consulate to viral and with the help of corporation council um to something that um I think is fair um to both and so um and taking a look at this I I've talked to folks on the council about this I've I tried to get some support I've tried to say is there's something else that we should be putting forth um and so I really tried to have this be a competing measure from myself and me um with help and with consideration from the council um and I appreciate council to viral um being willing to co-sponsor this with me also basically I want to put together a competing measure that says a couple things one um in simple terms that we uh increase the banked rent from 10 percent to 20 percent um and if somebody is um if there's a no cause eviction or a voluntary termination um that some that both the landlord and uh the tenant agreed to that and we get an affidavit from that stating that that was the case another one is uh supply is uh the voluntary terms of what it does mean um to actually have a no-cost eviction or um voluntary termination and the other one is to increase the the relocation cost by two thousand dollars depending on when you leave so that's what I'm putting forward um I welcome comments and I welcome comments from both the public and from my colleagues um on this measure thank you councilor and now we will open it up for public comments so again if you're with us in chambers please feel free to step forward make a line behind the podium so that I know you're here and you want to speak don't wait to stand up we can keep keep it rolling and I'll toggle between chambers and zoom so I don't see anybody in chambers I'll go straight to zoom Rudina you're up uh hi can you hear me yes we can yes uh Madam Mayor uh City Councilor and Staff my name is Rudina Gabizia I live in Portland at 285 Clifton Street my husband and I have no own property in Portland for over 40 years my husband is born and raised in Portland and I'm an immigrant and I've been living in Portland for a long time we both have been worked very hard for every dollar we have when we first started being landlords everything was done with a handshake later on Elise and the last three years has been very complicated you literally have to be a lawyer in order to keep up with all these legal changes the lease is not five pages anymore but 50 pages before rent control we usually did not increase rent to our current tenants but after they left we were able to update our property and send a set of rent to market value the last three years this has not been possible we have to increase rent for our current tenants every year after the lease after they leave we won't be able to update our property because we can't recuperate our losses anymore we worked very hard to collect signatures from our community to place our proposal to address this on the ballot we spoke to Portland resident and collecting it in the end over 3 000 signatures actually more if we had more time today I found out that there is a competing proposal that did not require collecting signatures not sure what this is why are certain council members working with and for Ethan Streamling trying to undermine our efforts with a proposal on the 11th hour the proposed act to improve rent control maintains all tenants protection in the current rent control ordinance approved by Portland voters the proposal is incredibly narrowing focus and easy to understand by both tenants and housing providers we have volunteered countless hours to put the risk proposal and the company summary front of the voters because we believe it is crucial compromise that will help tenants and help Portland because without this we are thinking on selling out all our properties important thank you for your time thank you for your comment please step forward you can you can just stand right up to the mic and give us your name thank you mayor thank you counselors and my esteemed community members my name is Leo Hilton I live at 3 Salem street in district 2 and I'm a co-chair of the main democratic socialists of America I know we're not speaking to the merits of these proposals this evening but I just want to say rent control works in our first two years under rent control in Portland we with the enhanced tenant protections our city is effectively stabilized rent for the first time in decades it's not perfect but I think the laws greatest flaws are exhibited in the city's failure to enforce them effectively the sponsors of this proposal this ballot question argue that they can fix our rent control measure and ameliorate the housing crisis by allowing landlords to further increase rents if this act is an act to improve tenant protections the question for me is improve them for whom it's clear to me that this initiative sponsored by a group of landlords and developers is a cynical attempt to improve their own ability to enrich themselves and I think most relevant tonight is their insistence on deception as a key element of their campaign for such they masquerade as a grassroots group advocating for tenants rights calling themselves the rental housing association and I'd also just like to put forward what is a rental housing association the only people providing housing are the my brothers and sisters in the building trades who are building the buildings that we live in and maintaining those buildings but in addition to that they've titled their question in a way that misrepresents its content and included a summary that seems guaranteed to confuse voters as to the actual matter that we're voting on last month I was sick with COVID went out for my once daily walk double mask trying to keep myself away from other people and I was accosted by a signature collector who continued to badger me even after I told them that I was contagious with COVID I refused to sign their petition and I was a little bit perplexed that they didn't have any supporting documentation or full language of the measure while they were collecting my signature this is all to say I urged the council to do what seems only reasonable in response to this clear attempt to gut an important provision of a law that was adopted overwhelmingly by the people of Portland at two elections with some of the highest turnout we've ever seen at an election that historically has some very very low turnout and what I'd ask the council is that first you amend the summary language to accurately represent the intent of the question specifically that it will amend not improve tenant protections and to remove the clearly biased language about discouraging no cause evictions and aligning it with 30 second warning thank you and second I fully support the competing measure sponsored by counselors Phillips and tovaro I think that this is important so that Portlanders can use this opportunity at the ballot to vote for something positive make a positive impact in our city that allows us to build a place we can all can live in and not just for the people who own the buildings thank you thank you for your comment and I do just want to remind folks that what we're taking public comment on tonight is two things setting an election date for the citizen initiative and secondly the amendment that was offered so if you could narrow your your comment to those two things that would be helpful thank you next we'll go to zoom chris acedo chris acedo at 12 pine street um I wanted to uh just point out the utter hypocrisy of the idea that when other people other groups others quote associations that the previous we could spoke about when the dsa came in with with their referendum question nobody from the council tagged an amendment onto to their uh amendment questions but when something uh when the citizens initiative is raised from quote a competing group of the dsa namely landlords this association an amendment is hooked onto it the the it seems so hypocritical that that when the citizens initiative is formed in this case that it can't be put on the ballot it has to be put on the ballot with modifiers set by the council but when someone else puts one on yep you're good to go and I would like to ask councillor uh Phillips directly if she did or did not get this information this amendment this idea from the former mayor third place third place in the last election Ethan stremley because that pollutes the whole process it's like he's running the council from uh the trailway building because if it's if it's if it's Regina's idea on her own fabulous even though it's hypocritical but I've you know Mr. Acedo I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm just I was you can try to interrupt the last speaker but I'm gonna interrupt you and I'm gonna just make this reminder please focus your comment on setting an election date and the decision before the council of whether or not to approve uh an amendment to order 157 so again I I really didn't want to interrupt the previous speaker and I don't love to interrupt speakers but I'm asking folks to stay as disciplined as you can within the context of public uh comment thank you okay on my time I'll be as disciplined as I can the amendment is tagged on to a referendum question where it was never tagged on to referendum questions in the past it's it's it was never applied to previous citizens initiatives and questions and part of that amendment is where did the idea for the amendment come from so I'm very precise on what I'm speaking about the amendment is polluted by the idea that the person who's initiating the amendment got that amendment for some from somebody who initiated any second warning I've said everything clear I'm sure people get my point I don't have to have to add to it thank you for your time thank you for your comment chambers hello my name is Zara Kane I work full time in Portland's food service sector and I live in Westbrook because I cannot afford Portland's rent I ride the bus southern main landlords association has gotten a makeover recently realizing astutely that public sympathy for landlords is in short supply they have renamed themselves the rental housing alliance of southern main when put it when you put it that way it almost sounds like they might be representing renters they do not they tell you they are going to improve tenant protections they are not this is an act that extends no protections whatsoever to Portland's tenants their message to you is that this will only affect the next tenant many of you are renters think about your own apartment think about that mold around the bathtub lining and the ants that come through the floorboard every May hi there sorry sorry about that again hate to interrupt but really what we're so the initiative set forth by landlords that is slated for action tonight by the council to set the election date that's going to be decided by voters so the content of that is going to be decided by voters and so what we're talking about tonight as an action for the council is setting an election date so that's we're taking public comment on setting the election date again when when we talk about the amendment to order 157 we're talking about the possible inclusion of another viewpoint on the ballot so if you could please keep your comments focused on what we've published in the agenda for public hearing I'd really appreciate it right on the situation for Portland renters is dire as it is giving further handouts to the rent to the landlords of Portland is again something that will be decided at the ballot box in June with the and as a resident of Westbrook I am of course powerless to stop the will of the public however supporting regime um counselor pelleteers competing measure is a means by which the residents of Portland can actually advocate for those their own interests versus being asked to sign away their rights the mechanisms by which we actually keep the rents down in Portland without any means by which to advocate for themselves that ballot box it's going to be a low turnout election in June and we want to give the renters of Portland something positive that they can actually look forward to thank you thank you for your comment Emily manter on zoom my name is Emily manter I live on Cumberland Ave in district one in Portland I'm speaking in support of adding the competing measure in early 2021 I moved into an apartment in Portland and learned learned that the landlord had increased the rent 60 between the previous tenant and myself without having made any significant improvements to the unit as an example I did a bit of research and I think the oven was from the 80s so they were not making improvements that they needed to pay for this was an extremely high rent increase that was not allowed under the rent stabilization ordinance that was in effect at the time I raised the issue with the landlord and copied the housing safety office and the landlord adjusted the rent to be in compliance however when my lease expired the landlord um did pursue a no-cause eviction um I imagine they raised the rent at least 50 for the new tenant rather than the 5 allowed under the ordinance and I imagine they got away with it my experience is not unusual these days unfortunately and it's clear that extreme rent hikes between tenants is something we need to make more difficult and enforceable not easier um in my eyes this is an issue of disincentivizing evictions um so I would support having a competing measure on the ballot um to give folks um more options because I think that um this this measure needs an alternative um because it would certainly make things worse um thank you I am curious about um the competing measures um aspects around no-cause evictions um I don't quite understand what that piece would do and I'd be curious about that thank you thank you for your comment um just another reminder to folks come on step forward if you're in chambers you don't have to stand back you can be at the at the mic at the ready please direct your comments to me those are part of the council rules we don't call out individual counselors um so you can direct your comments to me but we're really not pulling out individual people's names here um thank you uh for familiarity with the council rules and we'll head to our speaker here in chambers uh hi my name is Chase Heimbach um I live on congress street in district two um I assigned um to this measure because I was lied to by the person collecting signatures um yeah so I think that we should probably have um a competing measure and change the language um I'll keep it short thank you thank you for your comment Jonathan Cully on zoom yes hi thank you mayor uh Jonathan Cully owner of red from property sweet development owned apartments um in Portland um you know first I'll acknowledge what sort of that everyone's hanging and the council knows we do have an affordable housing crisis locally regionally nationally um that deserves bold solutions but it's important that there are thoughtful solutions and and ideally apolitical it's a shame that housing policy has become politicized and I think there's blame to go all around for that um I do think that you should put the uh the uh citizen petition ordinance on as soon as possible I was part of um the effort to create this petition um I think it should go on soon because um I will sort of reiterate that the petition does not remove or change any protection for existing tenants it does address what happens when a tenant voluntarily moves out allowing for a reset of basement um my concerns about the competing resolution are largely process oriented um from my understanding there's no precedent for the council to offer a competing resolution to a petition proposing ordinance changes I know the homeless services center there was a competing resolution but that's a different situation um there was obviously no competing resolution when the DSA proposed rent control in 2020 nor the rent control changes in 2022 um and I would say in the past that councils determined that the voters should decide on the merits of the petition and not muddy the waters or confuse voters with an alternative proposal and I think that's exactly what this petition how the the completing uh competing resolution would do um my reading of the competing resolution is that it's frankly vague and difficult to interpret and will increase the administrative burden on the city uh well the citizens initiative will dramatically decrease the administrative burden on the rent rent board and city staff um finally usually when the council makes housing policy it's been through a thoughtful and deliberative process and it usually starts with staff's research and analysis and then moves to committee for discussions and deliberations before being worthy of consideration by the full council um in this case it appears that the resolution just surfaced at the very last minute maybe last week um my understanding is there's been little or no staff input it certainly didn't originate with staff and there's no clarity on who wrote the documents and what the specific policy goal is that they were trying to target so um I urge you to reject the competing resolution based on both substance and process thanks thank you for your comment and chambers please hi thank you all my name is Stacia Brzezinski I'm on Deering Street I strongly support the competing measure and I'm here to speak on that for myself and the many many low and income renters in Portland the search for affordable housing is exhausting demoralizing usually unsuccessful and if you haven't considered this I'd like you to consider it today entirely unnecessary I'm speaking now to all in the council as well as the questions authors if you're present housing is not optional it's not a luxury shelter is a basic human need and we should respect that unalterable fact and protect it fiercely I voluntarily moved out of my apartment last year to move in with my partner that's wonderful if the person in my current apartment did the same thing before me that shouldn't mean that I couldn't live there so excuse me I wish that um the fact that housing is a human right was uncontroversial enough to never make it onto a ballot and from what we know about how signatures were gathered there's a good chance it shouldn't at the very least Portland voters deserve clear honest language but also a functional alternative when this enormous part of their lives of my life comes to a vote thank you thank you for your comment over to zoom Jamie Clark please hi everyone my name is Jamie Clark I live at 60 Brack history in district 2 I'm here to speak in support of the competing measure and for the change of the summary language to the proposed question um as someone who works in the city at a local grocery store an essential institution to the city city I've struggled to make rent in the past in the very recent past and recently had to change my living arrangements due to rent increases in my old neighborhood I was lucky to find affordable housing luckier than a lot of people who live and work in our city with already high rent in Portland giving the landlord giving landlords the ability to raise rent as much as they want after a tenant leaves will hurt those who are already struggling with our city's rent people who live work and contribute to our city the act to improve tenant protections is a misleading name and I urge the council to alter the language and to allow the um uh the competing measure to go through um and that's really all I have to say about it but thank you for your time thank you for your comment hi my name is Camille Howard I live on Vester street in district 2 and I'm speaking today in support of councilor Phillips amendment I work between 45 and 55 of hours each week and can still just barely afford to live here in Portland and I've had many friends and neighbors be asked to leave their apartment over the years and have seen them struggle to find new housing in the city this has led to a persistent anxiety that for some reason I may have to leave my apartment because the market is already so much more expensive than the rent that I'm paying now if friends balloon even further in town it means that I would lose my community and my life here in Portland I encourage the council to consider how difficult the rental housing market already is for young people trying to start building their financial lives in this city and to change the summary language to reflect how this measure would truly affect the city and tenants who live here and to add the competing measure to the ballot that would truly protect Portland's tenants thank you for your time thank you for your comment Elizabeth Frazier on Zoom good evening I hope you can hear me okay my name is Elizabeth Frazier I live on commercial street right here in our lovely city of Portland I am speaking this evening in support of setting the date for the citizen initiative for the earliest possible election date and appreciate the council support of that effort I am speaking in opposition to the effort to do a competing measure for two reasons one I you know do a lot in housing policy both you know sort of locally and at the state level and typically those types of policies started in the housing committee and are brought forward in a thoughtful and deliberative process that wasn't the case here in fact I don't believe the language has been reviewed by any deliberative body in advance of tonight's hearing so I would oppose that for that reason but also because I'm a renter here in Portland as well I have been for about seven eight years I've been living in the same building during that period of time and the landlord actually lives in the building with me which is very unique I live down on commercial streets you can imagine how unusual that is but in the first few years I was here my rent probably increased two percent per year maybe two point five percent I was very happy about it since 2020 my rent has increased by the maximum every year and I certainly understand the rationale for it I don't blame the landlord whatsoever they had to put in a multi-million dollar window refit project here this year and I'm sure that was a very expensive project for them and it should certainly be something that they're able to recover the value of the property in if and when I choose to leave so I would say that encourage the council to oppose the competing measure that's been presented and please set the election date as early as you can and I'm going to give you back a minute and 12 seconds thanks so much thanks for your comment and here in chambers thank you madam mayor members of council my name is Grayson lookner I'm a state representative in Portland I reside on warwick street and I'm here to speak in favor of the amendment I serve on the housing committee at the state of Maine in the legislature and I also want to apologize on the behalf of the state of Maine because we have not done nearly enough to address the housing crisis that you all are keenly aware that we are mired in and have been mired in for decades so it's fallen not just to the state the federal government has failed as well to provide solutions for housing and that has forced this city to take action to protect tenants and to protect the notion that housing is a human right which I believe to my core so it's not easy I'm going to say something that's probably going to alienate some people behind me I don't think it's easy to be a landlord in Portland I think it's much harder to be a tenant in Portland who is facing eviction who doesn't know where they will end up and if they can keep their jobs if they can live in this community that we all value so much so I think that this amendment is well thought out it's a compromise it's going to make it easier to live in this city and I truly don't believe that many building owners who are providing housing are going to struggle I think if you look at the market treating our housing as a market these people are doing just fine and we have to ask ourselves you folks have to ask yourselves out of mayor that you know what is the most important thing here providing a livable city for all or allowing a small privileged segment of folks to continue to make large profits at the expense of people living here so I'll see the rest of my time and look forward to hearing you all chime in in the housing committee in Augusta so thank you thank you for your comment next week go to Madeline on zoom Hi my name is Madeline Mackenberg I live on Deering Ave in District 3 I'm thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and I just also want to include my voice in favor of the competing measure um Portland rents are incredibly high um I have multiple times over the pandemic um had very unstable housing and honestly it almost left our community for New York where I was able to find cheaper places to rent but so much of my life is tied here that it was important to stay this is my hometown this is my community and um I think that it would be important to look at the language of the proposed ballot question as well um as it's incredibly misleading and um that's all I really have to say I feel like everybody who's been speaking in favor of the competing measure have had really beautiful points to make and I just want to reiterate that I am in support of their voices as well and if the competing measure thank you so much for your time thank you for your comment next in chambers that's you yep Hi um I am Dylan and uh I live in uh D2 Grant Street and uh I would like to speak out against the uh misleading language of this and advocate for changing the language to reflect the true spirit of this initiative um this is uh an amendment and not an improvement it doesn't specify any improvements and to the protections for tenants um and uh the the clearest point of the initiative is to uh got rent protections um and uh all right so just a reminder we're setting an election date for the citizen initiative and then we're talking about the amendment that's being proposed anyway um um I lost my spot now I'm all like all right uh so yeah uh the um language here is uh does not um uh it's the first half of it um it doesn't say anything about uh the protections um to tenants and uh it doesn't say it just says discourage it does not say it doesn't specify what disincentifies is uh landlords from um uh evicting their tenants at the end of the year it doesn't have any solid um uh language to uh to support that and I don't know uh why it's um called an improvement to tenant protections when there's nothing in the language to um uh support that and uh I every time uh something like this comes up um uh the young folks all all all show up because um we're we're uh we're we're trying to make it and um and uh if we're um if we're uh very certain warning uh if we're turning off um what's what the spirit of the uh rent control ordinance is and um giving landlords free reign to increase uh their rents and incentivizes them to uh to discontinue leases and uh or you know um not make improvements to properties you know there is no uh checks and balances for the for any landlords to be um genuine uh in keeping their tenants and all thank you thank you for your comment uh can I have one more minute I'll just ask you to wrap up we've got a lot of folks who are looking to speak all right um yeah so uh it um it offers no protections to the tenants at all and just um uh yeah it and uh so yeah that that's what I want to speak against is that um that how misleading uh the language is and how many of those 3000 signatures just saw improved tenant protections and um signed way and uh anyway thank you thank you very much for your comment next we'll go back to zoom we've got Hadrian Hatfield hello um thank you everyone for allowing me to speak today my name is Hadrian Hatfield and I live at 196 bracket street in district 2 um I would like to voice my support of an amendment um and adding a competing measure to this citizen initiative um I believe it's necessary to add an amendment despite um the the lack of other um instances of this happening in the past because of the confusing and misleading language of this is the initiative I am one of the people who signed it and thought that I was um signing something that would support tenants and only realized later after a great deal of effort and research that that I didn't support it and I'm not here to talk about like we're not debating um whether to support or reject the measure but um I I think that it's necessary because to to add an amendment because the language is misleading um and I support the proposed amendment slash competing measure um because I believe it offers a reasonable compromise between the existing code and the citizens initiative and I really appreciate the specificity of the exact things that would change which I believe are the specificity is what's missing um from the existing citizens initiative so um thank you very much for giving me the time thank you um hi my name is rose do boys I live on morning street in district one thank you for giving me a chance to speak tonight and why support the competing measure this past november the board the voters of portland overwhelmingly voted to enact a law that gave many new protections to tenants including limiting the ability of landlords to excessively raise rents in precincts for the high concentration of tenants over 75 percent of voters voted yes it should be clear to anyone why this is so incredibly popular with portlands tenants rents already far exceed what many of us are able to afford and many tenants including myself are only a rent raiser two away from no longer being able to live in portland having to face leaving our friends family and community behind giving landlords the ability to raise rent as much as they want on turnovers as this new measure proposes will be devastating to our city and undue key elements of what we just voted on only four months ago um anyone who is evicted or needs to find a new place to live for any other reason will find themselves facing rents much higher than they have now unlike some of the other residents here tonight I did not grow up in portland for most of my life I lived in rural and conservative parts of new england and as a young trans woman this is an incredibly difficult isolating experience I cannot express in words how much leaving that behind and moving here changed my life for better the city is a place where I'm able to be myself and have a wonderful queer community I cannot have imagined ever wanting to leave all that being said while portland prides itself and being a welcoming place for queer people if we can't afford to live here then no amount of rainbow crosswalks and pride flags and shop windows will amount to anything more than hypocrisy if portland wants to remain a safe harbor for queer people then its housing policy must reflect that commitment trans people struggle disproportionately with homelessness due to due to having a much lower income on average and higher rents will destroy the city's working class queer community if this happens I simply do not know where else I will go this ballot question by enabling landlords to have unlimited increases on vacancies will make it impossible for young queer kids to move here like I did many of them will be trapped in vulnerable and often abusive situations as any vacant apartment of portland will be privately expensive I asked the council to support adding a competing measure to the ballot the original measure claims that old scourge no fault evictions but this is simply not true the proposed competing measure will give voters a choice to actually limit this practice from happening while acting as a compromise and allowing landlords to raise rents when they actually earned it I also encourage the city council to change the summary language to be more neutral the current language is misleading and it is only fair that the voters know what they're voting on unlike what happened when the signatures were collected which is something that I personally witnessed happening thank you for giving me the time to speak and in particular I want to thank the two counselors for sponsoring the competing measure I and portland's tenants will not forget it thank you thank you for your comment Matt Walker on zoom hello thank you the opportunity to talk my name is Matt Walker I live at 655 congress and I am talking today because I want to speak in support of councillor Phillips's competing proposal so thank you to councillors Phillips and Trevorrow wow you've got guts that's pretty cool I think it's really cool when the councillors want to step up for the citizens so specifically I like this proposal because what it's doing this competing proposal right what it's doing is it's specifically targeting the claimed intent of the original proposal right so the original proposal talked about incentives for landlords to increase rents on existing tenants and it talks about discouraging no-cause evictions but nowhere and what they're going to do is actually going to do that so these the the councillors competing proposal targets those concerns that they said they had and come up with and came up with a solution to fix them and I especially like that the their summary language here is specific it's got like an abcd of exactly what it's going to do right abcd exactly what it's going to do you will scroll through the the legal text and that's exactly what it does when you look at the original language's summary it it talks about the incentives and it talks about what it discourages but it does not talk about what it actually does what it actually does it says the landlords will just jack up the rent between each tenant and it's going to just break rent control that's literally what the intent is so given the circumstance with the signature collections I think it might be a good idea for the council to take a look at the original summary language too and just make sure that it's actually talking about what it will exactly do right what what's it going to do and not about what it says its intent is not about what the incentives or what what it discourages just what does it do so I fully support the competing proposal it's specific in what it's going to do and it directly addresses what the purported intent of the original proposal was it's a really incredible piece of work to put out so quick and I thank you I really think it's you've got guts and it's it's super awesome to see that coming from my city council so thank you good evening councillors and madam mayor my name is katie wilson and I live in district two on hill streets I am speaking tonight in support of the competing measure as has been stated time and again this evening housing in portland is already cost prohibitive and hard to come by portland voters demonstrated in both 2020 and 2022 that they support rent control and want to see housing made more affordable in this city councillor Phillips and councillor travaro have crafted a competing measure that seeks to preserve the core tenants of rent control while concurrently making a compromise with those landlords who are concerned about their ability to increase their rents after a tenant voluntarily vacates their unit thank you for your time I hope you will vote in support of the competing measure thank you for your comment we'll head back to zoom Winston lumpkins thank you uh madam mayor and the portland city council for the sake of democracy it's essential that people understand what they're signing and what they're voting for I expect the council to provide a clear and neutral description and title for the referenda as you have done for other referendas in the past didn't disingenuous for an act to improve tenant protections to be called any kind of improvement though it is poorly written and confusing it will create at least a slightly increased motive to coerce tenants to leave their apartments existing regulations in spite of november's election are not sufficient to protect tenants from being asked to leave so that landlords can raise rent even by five percent some of my closest friends have been deeply affected by this in the last few months and are facing an uncertain housing situation because of it self-reporting your landlords wrongdoing simply does not work and cannot work an act to improve tenant protections in fact does nothing to prefer further prevent the displacement of current tenants and leaves in place the currently insufficient system of self-reporting it will not improve tenant protections and it will lead to displacement and abuse of portlands tenant population this may be the will of the people in june but we must be aware of what we're voting on I can't write that description any more than the authors of this petition could but I trust the council can figure it out with the help of portlands corporation council whose office I hold in the highest regard that said I support the competing measure as I think it is a good idea to allow landlords to fully empty their banked rent increases between tenants speaking as a tenant I have no issue with yearly increases in rent when I know what they're for as is now the case and they are limited to 10 per year inflation exists after all but it would be nice if there weren't banked rent hanging over a new tenant's head tenants aren't greedy we're afraid I will also mention I think if the legal language of a referendum is under a single page it should be included on the ballot as otherwise there is never no point in never having discussed printing it at all I admit is agreeing with the clerk on that point thank you madam mayor thank you for your comment next in chambers my name is bobby cope and I live in portland at 172 concord street thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight my husband and I have been left-leaning democrats since we first registered to vote in 1972 we own three three unit buildings in portland full of wonderful tenants and we live in half of a duplex and rent the other half to our son and his family we love our home and we love having our granddaughter right next door we have been lifelong portlanders for almost 70 years I grew up in an apartment with my grandmother and aunts downstairs my husband lived downstairs from his grandparents until he was 10 I have never lived in a single family house we understand why people live in apartments and that has been part of our philosophy as landlords in the past I never raised the rents on existing tenants I have great tenants I had one tenant for 20 years I never raised the rent I only raised it upon a vacancy now I raise the rents each year by the percentage allowed in an effort to someday get to market rate if I live long enough we have treated our tenants fairly and favorably without government intervention I believe that I represent a typical portland landlord I support the language and summary of the proposal which was submitted via the referendum process because I believe it will allow us to continue to provide this housing to our tenants without increasing rents every year I went door to door neighbor to neighbor friend to friend gathering signatures for it they understood what they were signing and did so with enthusiasm the proposal I worked for is narrow in focus and easy to understand it remain it maintains all tenant protections in the current rent control ordinance I support putting it on the June ballot conversely the competing measure is confusing and perhaps deliberately so this will only make matters worse for tenants and the rental housing supply if the council wants to bring forth housing policy proposals of such a complex nature such proposals should be thoroughly analyzed and vetted to the proper city agencies on housing I ask you to please deny putting the competing rent control proposal on the ballot it will not serve portlanders well thank you thank you for your comment next we go to zoom tyler mattes you guys hear me we can hear you hey folks my name is tyler mattes I live on salem street in district two thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight I'm speaking out in support of the competing measure uh I'm a blue collar worker in Maine finding reasonably priced housing in portland is always been a tremendous challenge uh the problem is that working people are an essential part of any healthy city and this ballot question and act to improve tenant protections proposes measures that will make our lives even harder it's a misleading name in my opinion and I urge you to alter the summary language of this initiative thank you thank you for your comment next in chambers hello my name is west pelleteer I live on christen street in the west end first I just want to clarify there is no committee process for competing referendum so this is the process um we are in it um this referendum question is a cynical attempt by the southern main landlord's association to undermine the democratic process but fortunately our city's charter places checks in the hands of the city council to deal with just these circumstances um so many of these people who signed this petition perhaps a majority signed because they were told that this would uh protect tenants and lower rent I was specifically told um there's actually two items on the ballot and the this one was the good one um so is the city councils additionally is the city's council duty as defined in state law to ensure that ballot language uh accurately reflects the referendum um at hand uh and the language being put forward in this amendment well the amendment we had heard about uh that language should be improved that the language right now as we've heard uh very misleading regardless more importantly uh the other amendment being put forward tonight is a compromise between the actual impact of the referendum just to allow landlords to raise rent um on turnover uh and then what the signatures were telling everyone in any crowd that I was in uh which is that this would strengthen tenant protections um this is exactly the sort of situation the uh the council's power to add a competing measure to the ballot was created to rectify and I hope you all take this opportunity to give voters an option this June that reflects more accurately what they were sold I'd also like to thank the councils or put these amendments forward for their labor time insertion thank you thank you for your comment we'll go to Rose Greeley on zoom hi good evening um I'm Rose Greeley and my husband and I currently provide rental housing in Portland we've been part of the community for 35 years and Portland property owners for 25 for many years we lived in our apartments alongside our tenants as we improved the buildings we offered below market rental rates successfully balanced rent increases with what our tenants could actually pay and made great friends along the way we provide housing for new manors low income folks and asylum seekers what started as an opportunity to help a community in need of safe and clean housing has become an expensive and baffling effort to meet the city's ever-growing demands on property owners we're selling the building because balancing our vision with what the city expects is no longer tenable I'm speaking today for for three reasons setting housing policy should be carefully considered to address the needs of all and not rush through as part of a political agenda and I personally work together signatures for the proposed ballot question and found enthusiastic support from every person I spoke with the act to improve tenant protections is a common sense and narrow fix that maintains all current tenant protections I strongly support the straightforward act to improve tenant protections and the accompanying summary I urge you to vote against the very confusing proposed competing measure and thank you very much for your time consideration thank you for your comment we'll go next to chambers good evening madam mayor counselors my name is glenn gallick and I live on hill street in district two I'm speaking tonight in support of adding a competing measure to the ballot I want to thank councillor phillips councillor travaro and all of the staff for working on such short notice to put forward what I believe is a well thought out and carefully considered measure on such short notice I believe this measure strikes a balance between the financial needs of landlords by raising the maximum allowable rent increase in case of voluntary turnover from 10 to 20% the strengthening of tenant protections by protecting against no fault evictions and respecting the immense difficulty of enforcing rent control by defining what a voluntary turnover is and outlining a process for landlords to complete should they wish to claim the voluntary turnover rent increase I'm deeply concerned that should the proposed referendum pass we will see an increase in no fault evictions followed by unlimited rent increases which will go unchallenged and never be walked back thank you for your time and careful consideration thank you for your comment jenna lutz on zoom hi everyone thanks so much for the opportunity to speak tonight my name is jenna lutz I live in liby town I'm speaking tonight to strongly support changing the summary language to the proposed ballot question and adding a competing measure the title of this ballot question itself is very concerning let alone its content the title is intentionally deceptive as this measure will in no way improve tenant protections it's actually quite the opposite it serves only to benefit landlords like those who belong to the organization who got this measure on the ballot through misleading campaigning on the contrary removing restrictions on rent raises between lease contracts poses a huge threat to housing accessibility for working class folks ask any working renter in portland and they would tell you that renting in the city is already extremely difficult I've personally witnessed many friends rent being raised multiple times within the span of a few months despite no real change occurring in the unit to reflect that raised rent if this ballot measure passes in the election rental units in the city will become even more unreasonably expensive and price out heartbreaking people who struggle to keep up with rent and cost of living as it is just to enrich landlords who fain financial struggle I urge you to alter the deceptive summary language of this initiative and to to reflect its true impact on tenants and to support adding a competing measure thank you very much thank you for your comment and our next speaker is in chambers good evening mayor Snyder you know my name is Rebecca star I live on Melbourne street in district one as I was standing here you know I had something to say all written out and then everyone in front of me just came forward and said it much better than I could so for the sake of time I will just keep it short and say that I support the addition of the competing measure and I thank council member Phillips and council member Trevorrow for putting it forward thank you thank you for your comment nori hilton on zoom hi thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight my name is nori hilton and I live on belfield street I'm speaking tonight in support of changing the summary language to the proposed ballot question and in favor of the competing measure portland rents are already prohibitively high causing a housing crisis in our city giving landlords the power to increase rent however much they want on turnovers will only make things worse calling this ballot question and act to improve tenant protections is misleading and biased it does not protect tenants rather it allows landlords to increase their wealth I urge you to alter the summary language of this initiative and I support the competing measure thank you for your time thank you for your comment next we're in chambers hi and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight my name is Sarah Loudon and I live on park avenue in district two I'm here tonight to urge all counselors to change the summary language of the proposed referendum question as well as to vote in favor of adding a competing ballot measure to portland's gene ballot as it currently stands both the referendum title and act to improve tenant protections and its accompanying summary language are incredibly misleading and are written to intentionally confuse voters in fact during their signature collection drive last month the southern main landlords association there I'm just going to try to redirect you to setting the election date and then the addition of a possible amendment the southern main landlords association the group behind this referendum hired circulators who intentionally misled many portland voters into signing their petitions if you could stick please to the public hearing that was posted I realize you don't want to but I'm trying to get people to stick to the plan which is we're setting an election date and we've got an amendment to consider so thanks for for adjusting maybe a focus on the content of the citizen initiative which will be decided by voters it needs to be reiterated that portland voters decisively cast their ballots in favor of rank control in 2020 and again in 2022 to strengthen those existing tenant protections our cities landlords are now trying to trick portland tenants as you've heard from multiple signers of the petition and to voting against their own self-interest why it's so these same landlords can continue to profit off of the working class people in the city as the portland press herald reported just a few weeks ago though in the last decade in portland we've witnessed an increase in fair market rent prices by 84 percent uh counselors I ask you an earnest how many people do you know whose income has risen 84 percent over the past 10 years to keep up with such high rental increases it should come as no surprise that currently between 50 and 70 percent of tenants in portland are cost burdened by their monthly rents and those are the people who are lucky enough to be able to find a place to live in portland and the people who have not yet been priced out of their homes an act to improve tenant protections is in fact the opposite of what it claims to be it is a way for landlords many of whom do not even reside in for a second warning to continue to line their pockets with profits it is at its core merely another mechanism for the rich to get richer at the expense of tenants and if it passes in June it will only add to portlands escalating housing crisis I want to thank the counselors who have already come out in support of a competing measure and to thank those who have already spoken in favor of changing the summer summary language of this initiative and I urge all remaining counselors to do the same thank you Harlan Baker on zoom please thank you uh Madam Mayor members of the council my name is Harlan Baker I resided 44 mitten street in portland I'm asking you to support a competing measure to the petition that you have before you I'm going to give you the reason why I was one of the people who were misled into signing the petition on the evening of February the 10th I was approached by a young man asking if I would sign his petition on rent control I asked about the petition and he assured me it was in support of rent control I mentioned there was a petition going around Madam Mayor point of order and he assured me counselor so Harlan I'm gonna redirect you again reason why I think you should put out a competing measure and I think you should put out a competing measure because of the the misleading attempts by the landlord association to get this measure on the ballot that is helpful context thank you I'm serious I didn't know that you were advocating for the amendment so go ahead thank you you know I really don't like being interrupted I don't interrupt you you shouldn't be interrupting me I've had nothing else I want to say goodbye okay next we'll come to a speaker in chambers hi um my name is Sarah McKee I'm a realtor here in portland and my husband and I own a multi-unit on st john street the very first time we raised the rent since purchasing the building in 2017 was after rent control was enacted and our ability to bring our units to market was prohibited one of our units is a three bedroom our current rent for that unit unit after a legal rent raise is $1,375 this is nearly a thousand dollars under what the state defines as affordable housing in portland we'd love to keep our current renters in place without raising the rent who were simply unable to do so under the current law under rent control so like many other landlords we reluctantly raised rent for the first time on our tenants my husband and I also worked hard on the signature drive we worked with 80 volunteers to get this small tweak on the ballot we made sure they understood the issue and allowed for voters to read the initiative every petition had the proposed ordinance attached in addition it was confirmed that when the petitions were returned to the city they were still attached we met with gatherers biweekly to ensure that things were running smoothly and gather gatherers were able to touch base express concerns and ask questions we are proud of our effort we collected over 3 000 signatures from registered portland voters twice the amount required by the city i have concerns with the last minute amendment amendment proposed by two city counselors the amendment does nothing to incentivize landlords to not increase rent under the rent control ordinance additionally it seems out of precedent of previous council councils as competing measures were never added to the myriad of citizens initiatives over the last few election cycles i feel this competing measure will only confuse voters and i hope that the council chooses to place an act to improve tenant protections on the ballot without a competing measure thank you for your comment spencer m on zoom hello can you hear me yes we can thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight my name is spencer mcfadden and i live on washington avenue in district five i am speaking in support of changing the summary language on the proposed ballot question and in favor of the competing measure uh rents are already ridiculously high um voluntarily uh raising is one of the common tactics of gentrification um to a city which would make portland much much less diverse um calling this ballot question an act to improve tenant protections is straight up lying um and like the signature gathering tactics used outright deceptive uh they repeat a lot they i um ended up signing i got a lot of uh the uh phrasing of rent control uh repeated to me a lot um without actually going into it and i would like people to actually um be able to afford to live in the city i urge you all city council members uh to alter the summary language of this initiative and i am in favor of the competing measure thank you for your time thank you for your comment next comment is in chambers hi my name is buddy more i live at 95 wild street i served on the rent board and helped to draft the current rent stabilization ordinance that was passed as question c last november uh in the portland metro area unlikely one of the most qualified individuals to speak about this topic portland is a city of tenants with almost 60 of our residents being renters and even more of our community members experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness we are all existing tenants because we do not have control over our housing i would encourage counselors to support a competing measure that would truly protect tenants a reasonable proposal that addresses the concerns of frequent rent increases on incumbent renters while still allowing landlords to obtain a fair return what the southern main landlord association is proposing in contrast to the competing measure is called the vacancy decontrol this was implemented in many california cities at the behest of landlords resulting in dire consequences for renters according to several studies the median rent in these cities doubled under vacancy decontrol each time a tenant moves out that will be one less affordable park apartment in portland leading to what researchers call involuntary displacement this process is a key driver of gentrification and the displacement and replacement of our community members despite concerns that landlords are unable to recoup investments and make needed repairs the law already provides a pathway for them to reasonably increase rent to recoup capital investments and make needed renovations all while receiving a fair return on their investment in line with decades of legal and regulatory precedent this process was approved by the council earlier tonight the difference between the initiative in question and the law we have now as well as the competing measure is simply that the current system requires public oversight over drastic rent increases while the proposed ordinance does not this oversight is crucial to protect the interests of the majority of portland residents in the midst of this current housing crisis the first thing we must do is keep the housing we do have as affordable as possible to tenants who make up most of our residents the smla proposal alone would be a step backwards in the wrong direction for portland thank you thank you for your comment we'll go to john john on zoom hey there uh john wasp tiger wasp i live on robert street uh in oakdale neighborhood and i'm just wanted to um speak out in support of this competing measure um to this ballot initiative thing that the landlord association put out there um i myself am starting to have to like look for new housing and dear lord is it expensive um and not sure i'm going to be able to stay in portland but i'm also a social worker and a fair number of folks um that i work with who are low income live in portland have been just in the last year getting displaced some of the things that landlords have pulled have been blatantly illegal but all of it really points to they were longtime tenants landlords clearly want market rate they're pushing them out so i see this competing measure as hopefully a step in the right direction and away from this astro turf whatever that these people put together and i also would urge that landlords just sell their buildings and get a real job um and thank you for your time uh thank you for your comment um it is super hard to try to focus these comments tonight so i really do appreciate when folks try um i think we're being pretty loose with comment in general people are passionate we get that we like that that's why we're here but i really am urging on both sides of the issue focus on the publicized public hearing for tonight i think it's just respectful um both of you know us and you and and and the differing viewpoints so if we could do our best to focus on the published public hearing content that would be really appreciated thank you so we'll go to our next speaker in chambers and then we've got a handful of other folks back on zoom i don't i don't know what that means what do you want me to do i'm sorry oh just just have been reminding that what we published for a public hearing tonight is order 157 157 which is focused on setting an election date for the citizen initiative so we're talking about um you know we've heard from some folks we'd like to see this on the june ballot that's what's before us tonight and then we've got a competing measure an amendment to order 157 and so we're focusing comments on the amendment and people support or not for that amendment okay so do i say that i'm in support of the amendment make it yes absolutely i'm in support of the first if you wouldn't mind giving us your name and neighborhood and thank you yeah hi everyone i'm sorry i haven't done this in years um my name is how i live on park av i've been a renter for several years um so i i'm here in support of the amendment um like i said i'm a portland resident i've me my family have lived here for over 20 years um after college i decided to stay here because i fell in love with the city you know like five years in and i wanted to stay here so i was able to find semi affordable housing that wouldn't put me in debt and i was really lucky so i immediately signed up um it's been two years since i was able to find it um anything like that in numbers and although i consider myself lucky i still am at an at will tenant um and so are the rest of us who are tenants under a certain landlord company here in portland um i actually got a reminder on my way here today that my rent will be going up it's only going up by $30 which is great right um i don't have a lease right now so like i said i'm actually like an at will tenant um right now legislation is preventing landlords from deciding the price for people like me um being at will i could be moved out next month if that's what my lease says i don't have a lease kind of unprotected here so i just wanted to give my experience as an example um this is why we need ordinances i'm no stranger to confusing language i asked earlier um about what this meant the language part is so essential um english is my second language as you all some you all know um and although i would say i'm pretty proficient when i tried to read more info on this specific measure i was actually i left the document more confused than i was starting it what i did find out though is that this measure will allow landlords to essentially name their price when a tenant moves out why that isn't clear is lost on me um 60 set 60 percent of people in portland are portland renters i think the person behind me um said that earlier we want to stay here we want to contribute to the city we love the city this isn't a radical leftist group organizing together and showing up to take over portland politics these are families like mine who call the city home and want to stay please listen to your constituents tonight and please make this language clear this is your chance to do the right thing thank you bye thank you for your comment next we'll go to daemon on zoom good evening uh my name is daemon yacht of left i live on bolton street in district three in a single family home i'm neither a tenant nor a landlord i'm speaking to you tonight um in support of the competing measure and in favor of amending uh the ballot language before you um and i'll stick stick to um process related arguments i believe that the process the collectors used to collect signatures was flawed and muddied the waters in terms of creating an impression that the citizen initiative somehow provides something for tenants here which it clearly does not if it's red um and there is a video evidence i'm aware of of a collector who actually did not provide the ballot language upon request and i personally witnessed many collectors who miss were miss pailiness leading uh in what the initiative uh actually would do um on the other hand the competing measure actually does those things uh that the collectors uh purported to do that it would do so i think in this case um the competing measure is uh is warranted um you i've heard um a complaint that um it would muddy the waters on the contrary it would provide a great deal of clarity here if you are to uh provide this competing measure which based on the arguments and the number of signatures that we've heard um actually might have a fair amount of support something that legitimately has something for both landlords and tenants to like in it so i think it's in the public interest for you to um both amend um the ballot language advanced by a southern main landlord association and their allies and to uh add the competing measure to the ballot so people have have a choice so that they can support something that there clearly is some amount of public support for um and i i think it's within your power to do that um in terms of precedent um that was done recently in 2021 a competing measure was added uh to uh citizen initiative related to homeless service center policies and it also the uh 30 second warning the amendment language was also edited in that case so it's well within your power to to edit the language add competing measure and there's also precedent to do that so thank you all for your time this evening and i hope you will do so thank you thank you for your comment anybody else in chambers okay we'll head back to zoom amelia kellerher hi good evening um my name is me a kellerher and i'm a renter on grant street in district two and i'm here today to express my support of the measure um and to clarify the language of the current ballot measure i'm also in favor of adding council philips proposed competing measure to the june ballot um and a study released last thursday for the national low income housing coalition found that affordable housing is unavailable for more than half of man's first renters and data from 2021 shows that man's rental housing market is among the least affordable in the nation with nearly 60 percent of extremely low income households spending over 50 percent of their income on rent so as a renter who is misled into signing the petition i believe the the language of the existing measure needs to be clarified and along with some of my peers who are also misled in signing the petition i have requested i requested to have my name removed from the ballot and unfortunately it had already been submitted to city council um but so after conducting additional research on the current measure i believe that if passed it would exacerbate the ongoing housing crisis by further increasing prohibitively high rental rates so in short it just strikes me as very um undemocratic to put a measure on the ballot that is worded in such a way as to intentionally confuse our sway portland voters which is already done we've heard that from many constituents tonight so i don't think that's something that you should feel proud of as um was said a few minutes ago but i would urge all councilors here tonight to alter the summary language of the initiative and propose competing measures to the new ballot thank you so much for your time thank you for your comment next speaker on zoom is alevi you'll have to unmute yourself okay we'll we'll come back to you um and hopes it works out next speaker joe yes hi this is joe the chiano i'm a property owner and i rent for 15 um renters in portland i purchased a building in 2015 with my family first generation american telling american i bring that up because i have a tenant who's from al salvador she's a new um a new manor and she's got two children and i've been renting to her since 2015 and since then we've worked things out to try to accommodate um not increasing rent and unfortunately as a result of rent control i've had to increase rents each year and it's and it's something that i wish i could avoid but you know having not raised rent since 2015 um has really created a very below market rent for that unit and so i bring that up because um if i have the ability to raise to a market rate upon her choosing to to move out um then that would make it much easier for me to maintain the status quo that we started in 2015 and i bring this up because of the fact that adding this amendment that is complicated that many people on both sides of the fence this uh this evening have mentioned how confusing and how convoluted the wording is the the way that the wording for the initial uh initiative that was put forth was that we're going to keep all rent controls in place but upon that person's voluntary leaving of the unit we can raise rents to a marketable rate and keeping things simple on a ballot i think is crucial because what that allows is somebody to say yes or no i want to move forward with this this sounds like a good idea or i don't adding a a an alternative to that makes it very difficult for there to be an affirmative position and so we put forth a a proposal so that we could allow market rates to be adjusted upon uh somebody voluntarily moving out but it gives us the flexibility to say hey listen you know things are working out great i want to keep you as a tenant you can't afford more okay we'll work this out um and unfortunately our hands are tied we have to i you know as i mentioned earlier need to increase rent each year so um nothing more to say other than the fact that i would like to set uh the green ballot and uh you know the the earliest ballot and to keep things simple so that it is a yes or no on the ballot to what was put forth and let the voters decide thank you thank you for your comment and we'll try again with a levy so you are permitted to talk on our end but we need you to unmute yourself okay so we're gonna we're gonna move on to Eli hi um my name is Eli i live on cumberland av in poland main um it came to my attention that the petition i signed that uh it's now what we're speaking about um completely misled me in the information that was given i now understand that it would eliminate the five percent cap and rent increase that currently exists on units that are voluntarily left by the tenant um i also want to mention that a couple of the landlords have been mentioning that they've unfortunately had to raise rent um each year it is not my understanding that landlords have to raise rent each year and that this would help them in not forcing them to raise rent um is my understanding that this new amendment which again i agree has very confusing language and i support the clarification of um would eliminate the five percent uh cap and so that great um you could bring a lower income um apartment up to market value but you could also bring a market value one way way above what it what it what it should be so that being said i'll keep it brief and i urge you to amend the ballot length on this question to remove any language that seemingly promotes um uh renters uh good good will um and to um add a competing measure thank you thank you for your comment and next we'll go to brit vitaleas good evening thank you for your time my name is brit vitaleas i'm president of the much uh spoken about rental housing alliance um this is really a process question this evening and um and and when we're concerned about um i think it's worth looking at the language we've heard a lot about housing challenges and greedy landlords but looking at the language i think the council has to determine whether it warrants and needed a competing measure there is about all of one sentence in the proposed language um that is that is what's in here it says if the tenancy of a covered unit is terminated voluntarily by a tenant the landlord may establish a new base rent at their discretion and then it defines voluntary termination and the rest of it is about protecting the tenants that's all so i'm not sure what all these charges are about the confusion and then um the clarity of the um competing measure i think the green new deal was rather confusing when it was an inclusionary housing bill called the green new deal and what feels like is happening is the dsa anything's trembling or finding a way to get something on the ballot without having to go through the process uh the referendum process here in the city so to the substance of order mayor can we make sure he stays on topic please i'm sorry um yes uh well i'm asking just focusing on the content of the public hearing this evening which is setting the election date for the citizen initiative and the amendment that we have before us in the packet to 157 understood i apologize i was trying to cite the precedent for other titles and other summaries that have been in the past and this exists within that context i certainly the i would like to hear the council explain um what's going on in the counter proposal and how it's a competing measure against what is really a very simple question um a 20 increase is not a given increase we've all read this several times over the weekend and it's very confusing 20 is a cap of the increase but that's on top of only what you get is a bank grant 70 of cpi and only 5 on a turnover those things are never going to equal 20 so i think this is misleading it's much more complicated and we'd really like to know where it came from the referendum process is a challenge in the city we tried to grab this thank you in a very very narrow way i hope the council wrestles with the proposal puts it on the ballot and sees that there is no need for countermeasure anyone who signed anything could easily read the language it was there and if it wasn't there they should not have signed but the process is important and anything that comes forward from the council should be clear should have been deliberated it's coming forward in the council's name thank you very much thank you for your comment and thank you for the point of order um councilor fornier okay uh alivi are you able to to speak i am i think i am muted myself great you did okay um good evening my name is alan levy i live on festenden street in portland and i own rental units in south portland as well as in portland and i am speaking in opposition to the competing measure of the referendum initiative i respect the care and the due diligence that the south portland city council engaged in order to put together their rent control policy while one may agree or disagree with the outcome what i can say is that the process is good governance it was unrushed thoughtful and stakeholders were considered over a two-year period the city of south portland developed their rent control policy i consider this good governance the city of portland also has the opportunity to exercise good governance this evening there are lessons to be learned from the south portland city council's rent control process please consider the due diligence and the amount of time it took for south portland to come out with a well thought out rent control policy and then please consider the process of how councillor phillips and councillor trevoros competing measure came to be i am unsure of how much due diligence went into the crafting of their measure i am unsure if stakeholders were involved i am unsure of its clarity to tenants or to landlords the only fact that i am sure of is that this measure was presented publicly this past sunday at the 11th hour i am not asking the city councillors to vote for or against this amendment measure based on whether they are for or against rent control i feel the council should vote against this measure due to its lack of a transparent and thorough process the city of portland voters deserve better if they if they are going to vote on a measure to amend rent control thank you very much thank you for your comment okay i want to thank everybody who has offered comment tonight i'm going to close public comment on order 157 we've had about 40 speakers both here in chambers and on zoom and again um a little tricky to keep everybody on course um but the effort was is really made um to you know try to try to stick with what we've publicized for a public hearing and be relevant to the order in front of the council for action tonight so as we get into our discussion we're going to need a motion and a second to consider what's before us this evening um so i'm looking for a motion from the council please so move is there a second second councillor travaro with the second on zoom thank you um so we will get into a council discussion um councillor philips at the appropriate time you can go ahead and offer your amendment um i would like to turn to the clerk just because we do have an inclusion in the packet that has to do with um signature gathering and other elements associated with the clerk's work to support the council's action to set an election date so if you i just want to tee you up for that so that can be um you know put put on the record that we've got that memo in the packet and then we'll go to council for discussion on february 16th the rent housing alliance filed positions in our office regarding the amendments to the portland city court of ordinances chapter six buildings and building regulations positions were titled an act to improve tenant protections the petitions contained a total of four thousand thirteen signatures for verification um through that process we validated 3087 signatures and 926 of them were rejected the required number of signatures needed to be put on the ballot is 1500 um we did have some uh complaints about uh removing signatures but uh once petitions are filed we're not allowed to do so um so uh they won't they shouldn't be removed once they're filed in our office um even with those complaints the amount of signatures that were collected was way more than what was needed to be put on the ballot um during the council meeting in march six the public hearing date was set for this evening march 20th the notice of public hearing as well as full text of the ordinance was put into the portland press herald on friday march 10th um and then tonight's meeting council will decide to put the initiative on the ballot for consideration on the june 13th 2023 election under section nine dash four one a of the portland city code i'm also requesting that the title and summary only be placed on the ballot due to the length of the text um and it's not reasonably possible to reproduce the full text of the initiative on the ballot for june i appreciate that thank you very much um for sharing that information and so we've got a motion we've got a second i look to the council for discussion counselor zaro thank you madam mayor uh just for clarification we are we were discussing and debating the amendment as well or primarily the amendment has been teed up but not yet offered or uh we don't have a motion um for it so right now we're in the content of 157 okay i'll do a little bit of both just because i feel like everything is really tight in um first of all thank you everyone for giving comment i feel like the only time we really see this room as full as it is tonight is when we're discussing referenda the last time was in august and a lot of familiar faces are here tonight i'm just going to take a moment uh to discuss not the content of what we were talking about tonight so far with the referenda or the competing measure but rather the process that got us here i think we've come to a point where we can now expect referenda at every election not just in november but now in june uh it really doesn't matter if the council's working on it in our committees uh even though that's what we were elected to do but we're seeing them come in abundance uh what was once a process that was meant to be the people's veto now feels a little bit weaponized uh into a back and forth uh in between elections and um it's resulting in uh enacting policies that are well intentioned but have unintended consequences it's putting us in a position of wanting to do the best we can but having our hands tied because we can't change things in the moment um and it's it's creating situations for city staff where they are not able to to enact the policies themselves it's even been shared tonight so you know i personally just want to say i believe it's time for this council to collectively and collaboratively discuss and debate amendments to chapter nine and send our recommendations to portlanders to align our referenda process with the state because this is not working we are watching people tear each other apart every time they get something on the ballot and we're going to disappoint whoever whether it's you're in the room or someone who's watching on zoom you're going to be disappointed because we have very limited capacity in this moment and so i'm really frustrated because i really want to help but i can't and i know my colleagues likely feel the same anyway i digress so it's already two two and a half minutes left um okay so what i've heard a lot tonight is i remember in 2022 the landlord association it was a key funder of enough is enough a group that was formed to oppose all referenda because they said that the referenda process was being abused i remember being in this room with all of you or most of you um welcome councillor um and i remember we were being told don't bring a competing measure let portlanders vote on it we were being scolded we were if we considered that it was going to be a direct slap in the face of our citizenry um let the voters voted up or down and i agreed with that and and now i'm hearing the opposite and i'm feeling a moment of cognitive dissonance because i don't know which one it is um i i want to thank my colleagues you know councillor philips councillor travaro um for engaging on this topic i believe you know i did i tried something similar last summer by adopting and referring um it didn't work out but i know how hard it is and you you walk away from this meeting feeling pretty bruised and people can be really harsh but it doesn't mean you're not coming from a really good place and you want to you want to do good and i respect you immensely for that my friend um but you know i think it's really important for us to pursue what we're passionate about in this i think that working with members of the community is really important that being said it's really important that we do that together um we have to do that collaboratively and the last time this body considered a competing measure was in 2021 it was with the smaller shelters question and at the time it had been worked on in hhs committee um i expressed my concern with it because i was not on that committee and i didn't want to put a council approved so it is a competing measure uh out without having a workshop on it i had to go back and look at that meeting to remind myself of where i fell on that and um i can i i'm having a hard time now and i had a hard time then saying how can i understand the impacts of what this council was endorsing 30 second warning if i did how is that possible i'm gonna need an extension without i didn't speak at all tonight so i'm gonna i'm gonna take some of that other time it's horrible how am i going to understand something this impactful without having time to dig into it without having a workshop without having a dialogue and working together i received this competing measure on friday morning it was three days ago many of the people we heard tonight knew more about this before i did and i spent the weekend reading it but that puts me in a really uncomfortable spot because i'm supposed to be ready and to to dive in and i'm just being really honest with everyone this we don't get any special access before most other people do this is just the name of the game for me here's where i'm at i'm going to try to wrap it up really quick i would really like to see this referred to hgdc so it can get a full analysis from city staff and colleagues on the council i know that we are in a time crunchier but there's nothing that says that we can't bring something back for a november ballot that says you know because we'd have to put this out for referenda for voters to vote on but this needs more due diligence i don't want to endorse and i don't believe endorsing any referenda at this point seeing this dueling back and forth overturning what just had passed is like i said at the beginning of this it's unsustainable it's not how you run a city citizens are getting whiplash they're getting angry they're getting upset on both sides i understand that but we can't exist in these polar opposite uh politicized realms it's not good for any of us and i want to believe that folks are coming from a good place and they really want to see the best for the city but i'm watching it tear we're tear at the fabric of what we're doing here at municipal government so i'm rambling ultimately we need to bring landlords and tenants and developers and housing experts together see sawing between these questions isn't doing it so just just to be clear i do not like this referenda i personally will not be supporting it in june i wasn't planning on bringing anything from the floor this evening as i thought colleagues were also going to tonight with their competing measure bring amending amending the title um because i do think the title is misleading and the council does have an obligation and a responsibility to amend that um i did not prep anything in the packet because i thought it was coming but i would be open to amending the title of the referenda this evening to be objective and clear and my understanding is that the summary will not be on the ballot just the title so we we potentially wouldn't have to amend the summary title and summary there i am corrected anyway thank you for letting me go over so sorry i'll yield my time thank you there's no time to yield councillors your time okay doke uh thank you for your comments um and thoughts shared councillor fornir thank you so much and i think what i'm going to say is very much echoes what councillors are just shared um and so i will try and keep it brief um and so i think my my issue is again more about process and i appreciate that i had a great chance to chat with councillor phillips over the weekend to just talk a little bit through um the content it's not for me that i disagree with the content of what's in this i very much agree that a lot of this needs to happen but i think we also heard from the public that you know there is no committee process to be able to talk about referendums you're right because we're not supposed to govern by referendum we have we're set up to govern through committee through this deliberative body where we can engage experts on city staff in our corporation council in the community to talk about all of these issues and be able to put forward good policy that's going to benefit more than just again as councillor mentioned councillors are mentioned this this back and forth and so i think i i really appreciate the referendum process i think you need to have um the the ability to be able to question the governing body but again it feels like we are doing this in every election nothing has a chance to even get underway or be worked on because now we're in the next election cycle trying to establish what's going to be coming next and so i think for me it's it's sort of ironic as councillor mentioned that this last election we had a group very loudly advocating against referendum and then the next election they are using that as their vehicle to move policy and i just i feel like this is not productive it's taking up city staff time um i really believe that you know i have been the chair of legislative um committee and currently i'm the chair of health and human services and public safety and being able to have the ability to bring in experts have deliberative conversations be able to ask questions of corporation council i'm very proud of some work we're getting to do on pregnancy crisis centers and you know being able to bring forward that for our city but it's through conversations that we're having um with all of these different bodies to be able to make good policy um that will withstand challenge that will be enacted for our city so i'm i'm getting a little bit afar too um really bringing it back to say i i want us to have we know rent controls work you know in different municipalities um i really have high respect for my fellow sister counselors uh travaro and phillips um and appreciate that they brought this forward i too would love to see it and i in my notes had said i would love to see whether it's a task force or an ad hoc committee or going back to h edc the ability to bring together all of these stakeholders to talk about how do we right size this for our city you know we've heard from both landlords that have hundreds of units and those that have four and live in one of the four and so i don't believe it's a one size fits all but we can't discover that if we only have 48 hours to review very complex housing policy i'm not a housing policy expert that's not my job my job um is training people how to run for office you know who are um native leaders in their own communities so i have to be able to talk to experts and have time to deliberate i need also some downtime over a weekend to be able to spend time with my family and so when we get something on friday afternoon to have to make such a significant decision this is not a quick and easy policy i called corporation council this afternoon to try and work through some of my questions as well and so i don't feel good about putting something on the ballot that i don't have all of my questions answered and having to now talk about this after an entire council meeting debate this late into the evening i you know i just don't i don't feel comfortable being able to move this forward so while i appreciate what the body of it is and i do want to move these types of things forward i think there are other avenues that we need to use rather than putting out a competing measure so i'll leave it there thank you 30 seconds to spare um and you're going to yield that time i'll i'll give it back to thank you thank you councillor fornier councillor dion thank you madam mayor first of all let's do it in june that's the easiest part of the issue tonight let's i vote for june in terms of the competing measure i'll vote against it all right i i spoke with council Phillips beforehand it it's really a matter of process certain people gather petitions how they gathered them there are venues to deal with that if they can be proved the fact of matters certain citizens gather the petition opposing a question of the public it's incumbent on the public to become educated it's almost like we want to make sure they can't get confused isn't that said in every single election for every referendum question my god if i sense i could lose they might be confused if i sense they win they must have understood everything i've said i do agree with my fellow councillors this journey we've taken into policy by referendum is disastrous and i tried early in tonight's meeting to give us an illustration of that when i pose questions to the chair of the rental board to see if we could make modifications in something that i sensed he understood was a challenge for some of our constituencies we somewhere on the city recognized a similar challenge during nothing we can do right because it's a five-year term that's no way to run government all right somebody says yes there was precedent on the shelter initiative a competing measure was put on after nine years of work and committee it was clear what was at stake in that particular competing measure this one here i learned about uh vacancy deregulation all the legal considerations on how to frame an argument for the space between tenants i wish it was clearly settled law and i did read cases i read articles i read both sides of the argument there are many questions and i raised that with councillor phillips and she agreed well there are other questions to be answered if that is the case and i took her at a word then it's not ready for prime time now would i support that he cd visits this question yeah sure that that sounds good tonight i'll say it's not likely to be effective because we'd be trying to modify the structure of a statute in ordinance that we can't modify to what 2025 am i correct corporation council 2027 well it's five years from the right and it's unfortunate that we can't see that's the legal opinion so 2027 it remains an immovable beast all right no matter what good work we do on committee it's just interesting but it doesn't change the substance i think there's more to be said for this council to engage in its work to modify how referendum questions are presented that might change the atmosphere but up to this point i have to honor the efforts made by the parties who brought forward the petition i don't have an objection to this idea of modifying the language i mean an act to improve tenant protections it could be a stretch okay it could be a stretch now i will say in fairness with some of the other material i've read from other parts of the country there's part of that that fits into their theory of as to why vacancy deregulation makes sense so they wouldn't be so quick to chuckle that this title doesn't make sense but i can understand that the common person might assume something by reading this title and it goes to my overall theory on referendums i'll close with that is most people just read the titles that's why this is dangerous you make i read one referendum it was 14 pages long how many voters really read that come on let's be real with each other now if we're gonna do this kind of work we need to be real so that's why i understand titles are everything thank you very much madam mayor thank you councillor dion first to councillor travaro on zoom and then next to councillor redriguez thank you mayor i'm not sure where to begin and my thoughts have been kind of everywhere based on the comments that i've just heard um i think you know i was inclined to support this competing measure because i was coming at it from the perspective that it was a compromise between the the desire that we saw as exhibited by the the last referendum which is now in place to have um to have tenants rights um and this they need for landlords to you know recoup rising costs um and there's nothing in the competing measure that gives more rights to tenants than they have currently um it just the the major component for me was that it it kind of gave some clarity to buy how much uh rents could be increased annually rather than just kind of to whatever degree if they deem appropriate um so you know that's that's kind of where we are i i'm finding it really unfortunate that the entire debate circulates around processes rather than substance and my hope was that through the offering of a competing measure that would be an avenue for us as a community to get to the substance of this issue um you know the comments from the public largely have have centered around processes and you know intentions and that's really not what we should be talking about we should be talking about you know what's appropriate increase in in rent each year what can tenants afford what can landlords afford um so that's just where where i was coming with this i i don't know that i'm totally on the same page with some of my colleagues regarding the referendum process i you know i grew up in main and we're a referendum state and to me it has always been another check on the balance of powers and it's closer to a direct democracy and to me i i like to even though i'm i'm on the side of the council now rather than the side of the public i um i like to retain the idea that these referenda keep us accountable to the work that we're supposed to be doing um in terms of how much it's in alignment with the sentiment of the voters um so you know i'm open to having those discussions in the future but i was hoping that we could work with the process we have today to get to the the sort of question that we need to grapple with uh so you know if this were to be to be offered as an amendment i would support it um if it's not then i suppose well here's one question do we have the um the purview to send this to the november ballot as opposed to the june ballot um if we wanted to go the route of kind of putting this whole subject through committee i guess that's a question maybe to the cleric corporation council i'm i'm looking at them i think we just need a minute there good question counselor we can come back to it if you want to know what time well there's language in in the in section 939 the time of the election um which has to be no less than 60 and no more than 150 calendar days after the council meeting um and so yeah so i think 150 days is before november right that's just yeah pardon public hearing it's yeah no yeah no less than 60 and no more than 150 days after after today okay but is more than 150 days to the november election okay i think that's the answer counselor for that um for the the referendum the signature referendum we would we're only allowed to set it for june um if we so you know if this amendment if the amendment were offered i would support it today going to the ballot if it um if we want to as counselors are had suggested put it um on a november ballot and in the meantime put the referendum on this ballot um we could go that way i would also be open to working through some amendment language for the title um if counselors wanted to work that through this evening that's just where i am at the moment thank you thank you counselor travaro counselor rodriguez thank you mayor um you know in the backs of counselor tomorrow's comments i think the only thing i wanted to say was um kind of pause for a moment and see if there was going to be a motion before we go any deeper discussing and something that's not really on the floor um and then since i do have the mic and i have four minutes and 40 seconds to go i'm not going to use them all um i will say that um i agree a lot with what most of my colleagues have said um i am interested in looking at the process and having the council um try to mirror the the state uh citizens initiative process um i i do agree that the citizens initiative is intended to be a like a tool that the citizens use and i don't want to discourage us use but i also want to uh you know i want to acknowledge the challenges that it presents to good governance um and particularly in issues that we've highlighted as the priority for us to to take on so um all that said i'm going to pause with four minutes to go and see if my colleague does want to put a motion to get the competing measure on the floor and counselor philips i was just going to say in response to counselor rodriguez um i think that you know we have the competing measure in the packet if if you want to continue to hear people speak before you offer to get a sense of the room you can or you can just go ahead and offer it whatever your preference is no i'd like to um i'd like to go and offer and before i offer it i just want to i just want to talk about the process right i um first of all i just wanted to address the referendum because i wasn't here i i certainly understand the frustration about referendums and competing measures and you know i i understand that i can't speak to that because i wasn't here in this role and so whatever happened last year or two years ago or three years ago i can't speak to and so again frustrating process sure it is what it is what happened happened and so for me it's like okay well that's what let's even though that was a frustrating process how about if we leave that in the past and then go forward and think about where we are right now because i again i can't speak to that right and we can have conversations about referendums and all that stuff i also didn't create a competing measure i would see it before me it's in the ordinance i didn't create it i found out that you could do a competing measure i saw i had some concerns on the landlord referendum and so i said hey let's do a competing measure and so and so that's where it ended up it was i said okay let's go ahead and do one and then it's like okay well what is the language i tried to look and see and be mindful that this is a tough subject and this is going to affect renters and it was going to affect landlords and i said what to me what what is fair out of this what can we do and i tried to work with i not tried i worked with corporation council to figure out the correct language the language that came from me language that came from me in order to bring this forward and and and to you know and and i will uh i will maybe uh continue on to what my counselor counselor to varro said to get to get all chopped up about the process i thought i followed the process i saw a competing measure i got some language i talked to corporation council i talked to my colleagues i talked to my colleagues right i said hey i'm going to be putting this forward i don't know what i don't know all the language i wanted to wait for a corporation council uh to give me something and then i sent it out and not only that but i made personal phone calls to people to say what do you think do you have anything that you want to change let's have a conversation about this right i reached out and so to say i didn't follow the process or whatever i i followed the process that i thought i was supposed to follow and for us to get tripped up over the process versus what's in this language and we have something that the the initiative i want to put forward is for us to look at a couple things one is bank rent to take the 10 and make it 20 so let's let's look at the issue here right let's look at the issue let's see process out there you know for a minute and let's see referendum versus competing measures versus this versus that let's leave all that out in in the in the in the in the peripheral for a minute so what i want to bring forward is to increase the rents from 10 to 20 percent right the other thing is supplying an affidavits for somebody to say yep you know what this was volunteer voluntary between you and i this was voluntary i'm not asking you to leave i'm not evicting you you and i have agreed that it's time for us to part ways you're going to go your way and i'm going to go mine it also looks at increasing the relocation costs our priority is housing we absolutely and not but anybody else in a warming center or in a school or in a family shelter we can't so in order for us in order for us to be fair to your second warning in order for us to be fair to our tenants it's like okay well you need you need to be relocated we don't nobody has security deposit and all that other stuff so it's it's also taking a look and increasing those relocation costs about the 2000 to 2002 months front and also you know what it means to be voluntary terminated from an apartment and you know we did talk to experts they're right here I did was it set up separately and did we get in a room and you know I have a great have a conversation about it no well actually we did because we're all in the room and we did have a conversation about it but we did have a conversation about it and there were folks that came forward that said rent in Portland is unaffordable I know do you want me to stop well no I'm just I'm just giving you that look because after the five minutes is up we usually say the five minutes is up right that right it is the five minutes is up that's when actually yes um yes so I mean I think I think I'm you know what I mean I think people get it I know it's late you know I know all of those things I do not support putting it on the ballot in November what happens to the referendum the referendum if we put it on the ballot in June I don't know what will happen but if we put this on the ballot in November I don't I don't know what happens I don't have a crystal ball all I'm saying is is that we have a competing measure to me it's great language on how we can protect both the landlord and the tenants obviously I am going to vote for it and counselor would you like to offer a motion to amend order 157 oh sorry yes I'd like to offer a motion to amend 157 and is there a counselor who would like to say that counselor Ali with the second so we've got a motion to we've got a motion and a second to amend order 157 so we're in the amendment and I'm going to take this opportunity to say a few words and I'll call on you counselor Palatier so I appreciate this conversation I really wish we were truly talking about the substance of the competing measure tonight and instead we have been talking about policy or sorry process so I do want to first start out by thanking everybody who came and has stuck with us all night and who offered public comment whether you're on zoom or in person I know that it's a long night and I appreciate that for me I I I really want policy that's durable and and my I have to say that I feel like it's accomplished best through an inclusive process the democratic process that is deliberately slow and that's frustrating but it's the way that policy making was developed in our country and how we ideally do the work here in Portland with representative government is to build an inclusive process so that we get those stakeholders that were mentioned earlier we get citizens we get experts we get policymakers we get corporation council we get city staff we really talk about the issue and we come up with a compromise as a result of debate and dialogue before policy is put forward for consideration and action so for me any ready-baked ordinance that comes to the council or to the community feels like it's not it's it's antithetical to durability because that durability was taken away because there was no process so that's always been my struggle with the citizen initiative process is we get something fully baked and we put it on a ballot and the drafting is done nobody gets any say and so that public process regarding the substance to me is very important it may be that somebody has a great idea for policy but if it's not done in public with the opportunity for dialogue and debate it just doesn't strike me as durable and that's part of what I think we're struggling with here in Portland is that we're approving things on ballots that are ready baked and they're put before voters and then people say how do we change this okay let's go back to the citizen initiative process because the council can't handle it in five years and so we end up talking about this process versus substance because we're stuck in that tangle right now I don't think it's ideal um I think that the council has become an arbiter of political adversaries this is what I have experienced over my three and a half years here starting in the summer of 2020 the council had to decide about putting citizen initiatives on ballots should there be a competing measure what do we do do we adopt if we adopt are we circumventing the process that citizens want so I think that the council has become an arbiter of political adversaries because we're getting the adversaries who are putting citizen initiatives out there so our role is we're sort of stuck in the middle what do we do with these things we put them on this ballot or that ballot what are the voters going to do it's it's frustrating I think all of us raised our hand for public service because we wanted to be policymakers and we wanted to be part of a governing body and we want to act as fiduciaries and we're stuck in the middle of people saying don't use citizen initiatives for policy then we're stuck with people saying don't offer competing measures you need to respect the citizen initiatives and that's exactly what has happened to us many times at this table in the last three and a half years don't touch the citizen initiatives that's democracy and I'm fine with that as as was mentioned earlier lots of policymaking happens through referendum but it is really difficult when we get the competing messages from the community don't offer a competing measure do offer a competing measure what's what's don't vote for a citizen initiative none of them do vote for citizen initiatives so it's it's tricky and frustrating I would say at this table because we love this work we would I think that that's why you raise your hand for public service is because you actually really love the committee work and the slow iterative process to make good policy so you know we're not required to advance a competing measure of course we're not required to do that we have a community group that wants that for me consistent with past practice we have been told let the initiatives go to the voters if it's gone by way of a legitimate process that's in our current code let it go to the voters do I always love it not really but this is what we've got right now so as meant as was mentioned earlier I think that review of substance of chapter nine which is on the council's calendar will begin that work on March 27th is imperative and and and so to me that's where this lives so I'm not inclined to support an amendment tonight I always I always am appreciative of of people bringing things forward I haven't had the the chance to really discuss the content or the substance with the sponsors we've we've I feel like unfortunately we haven't discussed the substance we've actually just discussed the process and it all happened so rapidly that something hit our agenda packet on Friday afternoon and so I haven't had time to digest that substance so I won't be voting for the amendment I will be voting to send the citizen initiative to the June ballot thank you for the time I think Councillor Pelletier and then back to Councillor Rodriguez thank you I'm tired but I yeah I feel like I I don't know where to begin on this whole conversation and I'm again I feel in disalignment with some of my colleagues because everybody wants to do process and everybody wants to tie it up in a ball and make it nice and me and there's this consistent undertone of like we're not supposed to do it like this in process but in terms of a competing measure this is the process two counselors got together they had a conversation with their stakeholders or they had a conversation with community members and they decided to create a competing measure and people put citizens referendum on the ballot it's a process it is the process and I also just like to add this is a city of renters and it's really scary being a renter your future is very unknown you have very few rights and I'm pretty sure I'm the only renter here on the council it's scary being an at will tenant it's scary wondering if you'll get evicted so that your landlord can renovate the building and you have no money and nowhere to go and it's scary not being able to afford your rent here so I would love for us to be able to do this in a perfect way but there is no perfect way because we are talking about an imperfect system with a very significant power dynamic and power imbalance and it's not ideal but it's what we have which is the competing measure and I also feel like we're back on forth unlike we can't govern by referenda we need to reel in chapter nine and it's wild to me that nowhere in this body we've discussed people feeling so disenfranchised by their local government that's why they're putting forth measures like rent control that's why they're putting forth measures like tenant protection so if we are going to have a stakeholder conversation I would love to have one about why people don't feel like their local government is in support of them I would love for us to start there if we are going to dissect chapter nine because that's a whole part of this conversation that I don't think that we talk about I also think that there is always like I said a power imbalance between tenants and landlords whether people want it or not it exists even if you are the nicest landlord in the world you still control the livelihood of your tenants by determining how much they pay and how long they can stay in the unit even if you never raise the rent and I think the amendment of an act to reduce no-cause evictions is a balance especially in terms of the relocation requirement which I also think is fair landlords have normalized asking for first month's rent last month's rent and a security deposit before you can even rent the apartment so I think moving this measure forward is more than fair and at the end of the day it's still going to be up to Portland it's still going to be up to the voters just because we're putting it forward on the ballot does not mean it's automatically going to pass and again I think in a city that is rapidly becoming unaffordable Councillor Phillips and Councillor Terviro's amendment is fair it feels like it is a balance and it feels like it is fair and I feel like they follow the process the last thing that I'll say is I'm I'm not going to talk about the act to protect the act to protect tenants citizens referenda I'm not going to talk about the content of that because because I'm I'm fine with setting it so voters can support it but I will say there is no way I will support setting it as it is written now where it says an act to protect tenants I am not comfortable with sending that to the ballot as it is written because I think it is subjective and misleading somebody already said that so I don't know where others stand on that I've heard that some councillors are in agreement with maybe amending the the title and the text so that way when people are going to vote you know they're clear on what they're voting on so yeah I'm just going to leave it there for now thanks thank you councillor Rodriguez oh and then councillor Ali thank you mayor um couple of things I just wanted to say to councillor Phillips you use the tools that are available to you and that's fine there's absolutely nothing wrong with that kudos to you and councillor Terviro for doing that I think however that when we hear like the word process thrown around I think the best way my I hope I'm not mansplaining here the best way for me to like to explain how I feel about it is that you know the the way in which policymaking usually takes place compared to the way that you know this happened is a way shorter you know window of time it's not as inclusive I know that you reached out to me over the weekend I was doing one of the four jobs that I that I do and I just didn't get a chance to get you know as much attention to it as I as I should have um so in comparison in what you know a two-year process to create policy versus you know a weekend clearly one is more thorough than the other so I think that that's the difference here but you you did exactly what's within your your toolbox you know and kudos to you um I will not be supporting the amendment because like I said I just didn't think that it's a thorough process and I haven't even had a decent chance to to dive into it um lastly I'm I hear and I sympathize with the call to change the language but in I've not seen a motion here so without the example I agree with it I don't have an motion to offer I'm fine putting it in as is presented um so but I hear a lot of energy and I think we've all used up our time so if if we can just have a motion or an example of what we want the language to be let's have that discussion um and see if we're going to do it but right now that's not on the floor um so just to recap well I don't support the amendment um I guess I'm fine putting the original motion on the ballot though my heart tells me that even that doesn't make sense but I don't want to undermine their process thank you Councilor Rodriguez I um I think that when it comes to um any amendments outside of the motion that we're currently in Councilor Phillips amendment right now that would obviously we don't have anything prepared or shared or in the packet so somebody would need to come forward with something from the floor so that's up to my colleagues to decide if you're ready to do that in the meantime Councilor Ali the floor is yours and we're in the midst of discussing the amendment thank you mayor I have a question and then I would discuss the amendment if someone wants to bring the uh emotion on the floor how many votes do they need seven seven okay just to clarify that um I know that we uh having a conversation around process I am very sorry I just sorry I answered real quickly I wanted to make sure are you saying if someone were to offer a separate amendment that's not in the agenda packet how many votes would it need to make its way yes that's my question seven no sorry sorry I want to yeah no just a regular majority just a regular amendment not a competing measure or a competing measure a emotion to change the title oh I'm so sorry okay I am misunderstood glad we paused okay let's let's go to the experts here that's just five votes it's just amendment from the floor like that if it was a competing measure and it wasn't in the packet then what the mayor said was correct it would have been seven votes from the floor um because it would have been an unagented item but we're just talking a straight amendment to to the title it's five votes yeah I'm not often I mean I'm just asking because I've heard that there's a rumor that uh yeah uh I know we're speaking we're having discussion about um um process and uh uh substance I am extremely process oriented and I believe that you get to substance through process and um I've been through several of these uh amendments and backlashes and um you should have done this you didn't do this uh it was a time that I was the only one that didn't support uh an amendment that didn't uh join my colleagues on the council to make a public statement against a a referendum why because I believe in process they were accused of having gone under the rock and create a a a a referendum without having enough public process and I've heard that today from both sides and uh I don't know what to say to that um I hope and hope that in the next few months we will look at uh is it chapter nine may or that is your favorite chapter right um we'll look at chapter nine and then find a way to fine tune that process like I said I'm process oriented find a way to fine tune that process so that uh whether it is those of us who are here right now or a new uh group of councillors that will be discussing referendums in the near future they don't have to go through uh process like this and councillor Phillips thank you for bringing this forward I'm not supporting it but thank you for um as councillor Rodriguez said you use what is available to you I may not agree with it but thank you for the effort and um as I said I'm a the process oriented it's part of the process so thank you for being there for me thank you thank you councillor Ali okay so I think I don't see any more hands oh okay councillor Fornir um just a real quick interruption um where we're after 10 do we need to take a motion to do you want to offer a motion to continue the meeting I'd like to offer a motion I guess to continue beyond 10 o'clock now that it's time to leave councillor Ali has the second we'll take a quick vote on the motion to continue our meeting past 10 p.m which it is councillor Fornir yes councillor Rodriguez I want to think about this yes councillor Diane yes councillor Ali yes councillor Zaro yes councillor Chavarro yes councillor Pelletier yes councillor Phillips yes mayor Sider yes okay we can continue thank you thank you for that procedural check in we're back to the um amendment that's being offered to order 157 I think we're ready to vote on the amendment brought forward by both councillor Phillips and councillor Chavarro councillor Fornir no councillor Rodriguez no councillor Diane no councillor Ali no councillor Zaro no councillor Chavarro yes councillor Pelletier yes councillor Phillips yes mayor Sider no um okay doke so the um amendment fails uh six to three and I have a hand up from my colleague councillor Zaro thank you madam mayor um if my colleagues will um uh humor me uh I'd like to make a motion to um amend the title of the proposed citizen initiated referendum question and my proposed change would be uh to amend the title of the ordinance uh from an act to improve tenant protections to an act to amend uh rent control and tenant protections can you repeat it yes so uh right now it is an act to improve tenant connections excuse me uh and I would like to uh propose changing it to an act to amend rent control and tenant protections second okay we've got a motion in a second councillor Zaro with councillor Rodriguez um before us count we've got comment from corporation council thank you yeah I just want to point out a couple quick things about some of the language in chapter nine um that addresses uh this issue and um I think this has been brought to the council's attention in the past but I just want to make sure that not to overlook it but um the the the ordinance um chapter nine has instructions to the petitioners and a citizen referendum to submit a summary to a company the proposed ordinance on the petition and and it says that the summary uh shall be clearly an objective shall clearly and objectively objectively excuse me describe the content of the proposal and shall be written in words with common and everyday meaning the summary shall not contain language design to promote or oppose the proposal um and so so that's what that's how it describes that's sort of instructions to the petitioners um the the uh text of the ordinance goes on to say that the summary included on the petition shall accompany the title and text of the ordinance on the ballot so on the one hand it gives instructions to the petitioners to do a certain thing on the other hand it instructs the uh council to include that language on the um on the ballot and that appears in another in another place as well on the um under the form of the ballot where it says in a situation like this where we're including the title and summary only on the ballot it says that the summary provided with the petition shall accompany the title on the ballot in place of the full text so um I wanted to bring that to the council's attention I think there's you know perhaps some ambiguity in that language maybe something that can be clarified um in the future as the council's considering amendments to article or to uh to chapter nine um but you know I just want to say I can't I can't guarantee that there wouldn't be some challenge down the road um regarding a change to the title or the summary but I know that the council's also done it in the past and so I just want to highlight that issue okay thank you for doing that councillor Zaro uh thank you for the clarification corporation council and I know the council has done it before a couple of times since I've been on the council um just a point of clarification though are you saying that if we are going to make an amendment to the title then because the summary accompanies it we would do that to the summary as well the I think the rule applies equally to the title and the summary and so if I think in the past my understanding I don't know I don't I'm aware of situations where the council and Danielle's been around longer than I have she can weigh in but I'm aware of situations where the council has amended the summary in the past I don't know if the council has amended the the title in this case the change that's being proposed to the title is I believe very objective it's it states exactly what is doing which is amending the rent control and tenant protection ordinance that's the title of the existing ordinance and so I I don't anticipate any substantial you know problems with that but I just wanted to make sure to highlight the language and yeah I think that in the past we have we've actually had councillors get into the summary language itself and actually amend that I don't I was trying to think of a time where someone amended the title I don't know if I recall one specifically but we have council past councils have amended the the summary so I think it's due to that ambiguity that Michael described but he he was right to flag it I think it's been flagged in the past as well but thank you that's helpful okay we've got a motion and a second to amend the title we've already got a second thank you councillor Diane a lot of enthusiasm so we have that on the floor to discuss corporation council I'm actually going to discuss and go back to you at the very top of what you were talking about in chapter nine can you just read that initial part again that you were referencing when you started out the discussion it doesn't sound like you're saying you can or can't do something you're saying be aware that there's language in chapter nine yeah yes do you want me to sorry do you want me to read that language yeah please so um yeah this is in uh just to be clear uh section 937 the this is this is instructions to the petitioners on the form of the petition and it says at the time of submitting the proposed ordinance the petitioners must submit a summary to accompany the proposed ordinance on the petition so the summary shall clearly and objectively describe the content of the proposal and shall be written in words with common and everyday meaning the summary shall not contain language designed to promote or oppose the proposal uh and then and then it goes on to say that in the event the uh that sufficient signatures are obtained to submit the ordinance to the voters the summary included on the petition shall accompany the title and text of the ordinance on the ballot okay thank you sure i appreciate that um counselors are i i i don't have any problem um supporting this title amendment counselors are thank you madam mayor one thing i did notice though it's is the title is the first line of the summary so we do actually have to change the summary if we're going to change the title just to make them the same good catch any council discussion on at least the the amendment that we're in which is a revision to the title council Rodriguez thank you councillor sorrow i like it i will support it thank you other input thank you councillor fornir thank you sorry my hands i'm tired um so i i like it i'll support this i wonder if we're adjusting the summary language to then match what the title is i'm just drawn to the the rest of the summary language to be more plain plainly aligned with what the actual changes are and so the way that it reads currently is the act removes incentives for landlords to increase rents for existing tenants and discourages no cause evictions by allowing for the establishment of new base rents at the time of new tendency so i think part of that is factual and then part of that is some assuming or a subjective so um the removing incentive for landlords it just to me feels like that's a little subjective but i think you can say what it's exactly doing but the might not i might not be making sense of this um the other the last piece of that as well is the act also brings portland's rent stabilization ordinance into alignment with most local and national rent stabilization ordinances again to me that's subjective i i don't have any factual information to base that on and nothing within the ordinance itself speaks directly to that so to me i don't know why you would include that part so i would propose summary language that really is more um aligned to like an act to amend rent control and tenant protections and men's the existing rent control and tenant protection ordinance i've been writing this out sorry it doesn't make sense to allow for the establishment of new base rents at the time of new tenancy but only when a prior tenant moves out voluntarily um it's removing just all the additional language around things that you could assume depending on what side of the argument you're on thank you counselor fornier yeah i guess i'll i'm comfortable with um the amendment offered by counselors are to the title and replacing the initial element of the summary that references the title at this moment i don't we've had the summary language now for a bit of time and i we nobody we nobody's come forward with a prepared amendment so i feel like i'm not equipped at the moment to respond to something on the fly that's where i am we can always go ahead and just vote on the amendment that's before us and see where we get counselors are okay why don't we counselor palatier and you just read it read the amendment again don't mean to read it i think an act to amend rent control and tenant protection we we don't have an amendment on the text at this time that would come next council corporation council yeah i think just to clear i think to to clarify that issue that the first line of the title well the title and the first line of the summary are the same and so that change would remain in two places so counselors are would you want to change your proposed amendment to include the first line of the summary to mirror the changed title yes we could do that say that whole thing okay so i'm looking i think councillor rudrick as if you're okay with that so it would be a change to the title as just discussed and then a change to the summary language to reflect the new title sound good okay that's what we've got before us right now i think we're going to go ahead and vote on that amendment council fornier yes councillor rudrick as yes councillor dion yes councillor ali yes councillor sorrow yes councillor travaro yes councillor palatier yes councillor phillips yes mayor snider yes okay so we are actually back at order 157 as amended we can go ahead and vote on order 157 as amended or if there's additional information uh or items for consideration from the council we can take them at this time i think we're ready to vote on order 157 council oh just quick clarification this is to place it on the june ballot that's right that's what yeah the order reads that we would be the city council will vote to set the election date of june 13th thank you that's helpful thank you councillor sorrow sorry now just now that we're in it councillor fornier actually brought up a really good point in the last sentence of the summary and the act also brings portlands rent stabilization ordinance into alignment with most local and national rent stabilization ordinances you have to bring up a really good point i don't recall seeing anywhere that we have a local ordinance that this brings this brings this in compliance to at the local or the state level do we have any information that that that clarifies that this is fact or not i'm going to look to corporation council for that um nothing was submitted to my office to to either support that or uh or refute it i yeah i'm not aware of that that's language that came as from the petitioners oh yeah yeah the summary that's drafted uh the title the summary and the ordinance language itself were all drafted by the petitioners it's the language that was included on the petition um and circulated by the circulators council dion i would move to strike the sentence because we don't know we simply don't i i have an opinion based on some reading but it's not it's not reliable it's one man's opinion i mean others could dispute it even if it were passed as to whether or not it's an alignment so i would become i don't think removing that last sentence harms the core question being advanced by the proposition so we have an amendment we have a motion to amend the summary language to strike the last sentence second we're in discussion on that corporation council can you weigh in on that can you offer any opinion about the removal of language from the petitioners at this stage i think that the it seems to me to be an overall sort of more substantial change than changing the title as has been proposed or has already been approved um um you know i've read the the language in the in the ordinance that describes you know what is supposed to be included on the ballot which is the the summary um that was included there um at the same time the council has changed the summaries in the past uh and so you know i don't i think i would agree i think with councillor dion that um and councillor fornia that that that the the the statement in the last sentence is not something that's addressed in the changes to the ordinance uh and so i don't know that it has any real bearing on the substance of the ordinance um but again it would be a decision of the council and whether or not to to include that and i see daniel is chomping at that i'm just i'm remembering why um we get into this in the past we chose not to put summaries on a couple of times and put the entire ordinance language on which um took all of these questions away because it takes you out of that provision you're reading and so we put the whole thing on but the thing that that does obviously is make the ballot huge and very um expensive and we've had some issues with that so my one question to you ashley is at each polling place the language will be available right yeah the language is going to be posted on our website um and it will also be available at every post single polling location okay so i mean we'll have let the language itself there so i'm not sure removing that sentence really takes away any of the substance but um i think that's the other option for the council is to put the whole the whole hit and caboodle right under the ballot but that does make for a very uh pricey and um difficult ballot for voters because it becomes very long budgeted expense yeah an unbudgeted expense which uh ashley the city clerk just reminded me of and they are very costly but we've done it councilor dion you had your hand up i don't want to get myself in trouble here but i think the proponents say that this initiative can be summarized in one sentence i think i heard that clearly and then when you look at the text it is one sentence wrapped in all existing other protections from the standing ordinance which i think was a way to assert we're not disturbing anything other than this one specific issue and our issue is addressed by one specific sentence so i think you've got that in the summary corporation council and um striking the last sentence i guess as i think about it one could read that as an implicit endorsement of the proposition that others have adopted it so therefore it must be okay whether that's true or not i think just reinforces the idea it's not a neutral statement the other sentences are neutral then allows the voter to draw their own conclusion as to the anticipated benefits of the proposition thank you madam mayor thank you councilor dion and i think that we have as a council made that choice in the past to be to change language to make it as objective and neutral as we can councilor zaro did you have a hand up yes thank you madam mayor one one last thing um but i just want to piggyback on what councilor dion and councilor fornier was saying i'm i don't think there are any municipalities in the state of Maine that have a rent control ordinance on the books south portland is the closest but so taking that into account i agree with you entirely there's no i mean what is what is it even referencing so i i would support i would support removing striking that last sentence thank you i okay i think we're ready to go ahead and vote on that motion from councilor dion with a second from councilor fornier i'm just confirming that to strike the last sentence in the summary language council fornier yes councilor rodriguez yes councilor dion yes councilor ali councilor zaro yes councilor trabaro yes councilor pilatier yes censor phillips yes mayor slater yes okay um that was a that was an amendment within order 157 to remove the last sentence of the summary we're back to order 157 as amended is there any further discussion at this time okay let's go ahead and vote on order 157 as amended council fornier yes councilor rodriguez yes councilor dion yes councilor ali councilor zaro yes councilor trabaro yes councilor pilatier yes censor phillips yes mayor slater yes order 157 as amended passes unanimously this will be a question on the ballot um on june 13th so thank you again everybody for being here tonight for thoughtful deliberation at the council table thank you to staff for all of your help and support thank you to the community for coming out and being with us this evening and offering your voice uh this meeting oh wait i need a motion to adjourn so i was going to just adjourn us councilor ali second councilor zaro with a second and we'll go ahead and vote on our adjournment councilor fornier yes councilor rodriguez yes councilor dion yes councilor ali councilor zaro yes councilor trabaro yes councilor pilatier yes councilor phillips yes mayor slater yes uh our meeting is adjourned