15:04:42 any language. With that said, I am going to be in 15:04:44 recording now. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Great. 15:04:46 Thank you, Ryan. Also to mention on that, that we do 15:04:51 have public comment scheduled for 4:00 p.m. so if you are a member of the 15:04:55 community we would love to hear from you at that time. 15:04:58 And to get started, I will go ahead and do a roll call. 15:05:01 I believe we have plenty to make a quorum here. 15:05:05 So if you can please unmute yourself and indicate that you are present 15:05:08 . I will start with Ashley Miller 15:05:11 . >> Here. 15:05:12 Present. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Thank you. 15:05:16 Rachel Nessy. >> Present. 15:05:17 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Thank you, Rachel. 15:05:21 Hi. Lauren waday. 15:05:21 >> Here. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Thank you, 15:05:25 Lauren. Taylor smiley Wolfe. 15:05:29 >> Present. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: You, Taylor. 15:05:33 Ada Jimenez 15:05:39 . I don't hear Ava. 15:05:43 Okay. Allan Lazo 15:05:47 . >> ALLAN LAZO: Good afternoon all. 15:05:49 I'm here. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Barbara Guire. 15:05:52 >> I'm here. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Becky Strauss. 15:05:55 >> Present. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Hi, Becky. 15:05:59 Young Ho. >> Present. 15:06:03 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Okay. Ellen Tolland 15:06:10 . I don't see Ellen in the chat. 15:06:14 Next would be Jay Ruther 15:06:18 ford Ty. Okay 15:06:21 . Mara Romero. 15:06:25 >> Present. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Hi, Marra 15:06:29 . Marissa Espinoza. 15:06:33 >> Hi, everyone. I'm present 15:06:38 . >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Vara Warren. 15:06:42 I do not see her. And finally, we have may 15:06:45 cha. >> Present. 15:06:49 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: As always, as I'm learning everyone's names, do feel 15:06:53 free to correct me if I mispronounce your name whatsoever. 15:06:55 Don't be shy about it. >> This is Holly Stephens. 15:06:59 You didn't call me in the roll so I just wanted to let 15:07:02 you know I'm here. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Thank you, 15:07:03 Holly. Sorry about that. 15:07:07 My apologies. I think we have a few lists 15:07:10 where we need to make sure that everything was cross-referenced when 15:07:12 you came on, Holly. So thank you. 15:07:15 With that, I will call the meeting to order. 15:07:19 Thank you. So to get started for our first 15:07:23 agenda item, I just wanted to do some housekeeping and a few 15:07:27 different updates. I did send out an email last 15:07:32 week when city council held the fair housing proclamation 15:07:36 declaring April fair housing month in Portland. 15:07:40 You guys could have logged on and watched it live or have it in the 15:07:43 background. That link also retains the 15:07:47 recording so if you weren't able to watch it, feel free to go back. 15:07:51 I think it went really well. We had some opening points from 15:07:55 commissioner Ryan, some words provided by our bureau director 15:07:59 , Shannon Callahan, and then Allan Lazo 15:08:03 , who is on committee, spoke on behalf of the fair housing council of 15:08:06 Oregon. And also presented the poster 15:08:10 winners from their fair housing poster contest. 15:08:13 I believe the theme was it's nice to have all kinds of neighbors. 15:08:18 And lots of really great posters. The grand prize winner 15:08:20 did an excellent job. It's beautiful. 15:08:24 Little Anime inspired, so it's very fun. 15:08:28 I encourage everyone to look 15:08:30 at it. The commissioner seemed energetic. 15:08:34 Lots of folks had comments to make and then the mayor made the 15:08:37 proclamation. So that went really well. 15:08:40 And if you need help locating that link or finding the recording of that 15:08:45 city council session, let me know. It's in the beginning, as it was 15:08:49 scheduled for a 9:30 time frame. Or 9:45 time frame 15:08:51 . Next item was federal guidance. 15:08:55 I am just kind of holding this in case we do get 15:08:59 anything or any word about federal guidance for an analysis 15:09:04 of impediments to fair housing. Nothing has come in so we are in 15:09:08 the same boat in that we are expecting guidance, but no details 15:09:12 have been provided at this time 15:09:14 . Also required trainings. 15:09:18 I know we sent out an email, there seems to be a little bit of 15:09:23 confusion with what the program has recorded on who has completed the 15:09:27 required trainings and submitted some COI forms so apologies 15:09:32 if you have completed the trainings. We are going to get that all sorted 15:09:36 out and make sure that it's recorded appropriately. 15:09:38 That said. If you haven't done any of those 15:09:42 required trainings, please make sure to complete those as soon as possible 15:09:44 . >> HOLLY: Niki. 15:09:47 Sorry. Holly Stephens here. 15:09:49 I have not completed the trainings. I apologize. 15:09:52 Ryan, you emailed me and I will get those done. 15:09:55 Should we take like a screen shot of the page that shows that we are done 15:09:59 or like is there something we should do to prove that we completed it, if 15:10:02 there's an issue with you guys showing that it's complete? 15:10:05 Would it be helpful? >> NIKI GILLESPIE: If you could 15:10:09 grab a screen shot so we could sort things out, that 15:10:13 said -- [Audio Difficulty] 15:10:18 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: I mean, if you 15:10:29 -- [Audio Difficulty] 15:10:35 15:10:38 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: No pressure. 15:10:42 If that doesn't happen. Okay? 15:10:43 >> HOLLY: Great. 15:10:47 Thank you. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Sorry. 15:10:51 And then lastly just an update that we will be sending out 15:10:55 the next meeting. It will be scheduled for July 13th 15:10:59 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. If you would like to put that on 15:11:01 your calendar. Otherwise, Ryan will be sending 15:11:05 that out shortly. Moving 15:11:09 on to the next item that we have. I sent 15:11:15 out the recommendation table for you all to 15:11:19 look at and review. And that came from our last meeting 15:11:23 where we wanted to know based on those 2011 recommendations what have been 15:11:27 done. If there were still items to do. 15:11:31 And pretty extensive list so I didn't get too bogged 15:11:35 down into the details. And it was from 2011. 15:11:39 So quite a few of those items do 15:11:43 have follow-up from the recommendation and I'm going to go ahead and share my 15:11:47 screen here. So that we can review that 15:11:52 . And there was a link to the full 15:11:56 2011 analysis of impediments as well 15:12:03 . Okay. 15:12:07 So here was the table 15:12:09 . The recommendation table. 15:12:13 And here's the link. And then the site 15:12:16 numbers to where that all list of recommendations was made. 15:12:20 And then we just provided brief notes on actions that we were aware 15:12:24 of that has been taken. There were some challenges just in 15:12:29 terms of the report was done in 2011. And some of those staff are no 15:12:33 longer with the bureau. But we were able to pull together 15:12:37 quite a few of general status reports on each item 15:12:38 . So at this time I'm going to kind 15:12:43 of just scroll through this. I am not going to go, you know, 15:12:47 line by line, but more kind of in the sections of 15:12:50 A, B, C and D. I have some highlights of some 15:12:55 things that were either vague or we are unsure of, 15:12:58 exactly what the recommendation status was. 15:13:01 So that we can decide what to do with those. 15:13:05 And then we can open up for questions about any of the notes 15:13:09 that are made here and discuss a little bit 15:13:12 about what we want to do with any of these recommendations that haven't 15:13:16 been moved forward 15:13:18 . So starting with that first 15:13:23 section, discrimination in housing. This one, quite a few of 15:13:27 these items have resulted in various things, 15:13:31 including the 15:13:35 contracts with the fair housing council of Oregon regarding education 15:13:39 and audit testing. The creation of a collaborative 15:13:43 with urban league, El Programa Hispano Catolico to 15:13:47 identify potential fair housing issues and to provide culturally specific 15:13:52 support and connecting them to enforcement mechanisms 15:13:55 . We also have a few links in here to 15:13:59 ordinances and policies that have addressed the recommendations. 15:14:03 I also provided some links to some offices and 15:14:07 program pages as they related to the recommendation 15:14:11 . I think we had most of the items 15:14:15 within section A. B for fair housing 15:14:20 understanding, we had creation of the fair housing advocacy committee. 15:14:24 Obviously, here we all are today, to meet on a 15:14:28 quarterly basis to focus on these fair housing issues. 15:14:32 That committee was created and now it has been reconstituted, which is 15:14:36 the committee as it stands today. There's also some notes 15:14:40 regarding committing resources to campaigns for public 15:14:43 information. A lot of that is handled through 15:14:47 contracts with community partners to provide fair housing services and fair 15:14:52 housing education, both to case managers, the public and housing 15:14:59 providers. I think the item here that kind of 15:15:04 stuck out as not having kind of like a clear recommendation status connected 15:15:09 to it was item 6, fund education services for workers in 15:15:13 assisted living and nursing facilities to better understand the varying needs 15:15:18 of the aging population. I'm going to go ahead and add that 15:15:20 highlight on there. But that may be an item to look 15:15:29 into. Moving into C, areas of reduced 15:15:33 access to opportunity, the recommendation to develop opportunity 15:15:37 mapping, and there was quite a bit about 15:15:39 partnering and leveraging that opportunity mapping. 15:15:43 There was a link provided and that was completed. 15:15:47 And some information about how it informs where affordable 15:15:52 housing development is financed, targeted within 15:15:56 partner organizations and general jurisdictions 15:16:00 . We do have a highlight here 15:16:05 regarding where housing is already affordable and accessible, focus on 15:16:08 creating quality jobs and linking residents to quality jobs through 15:16:13 education and other supports. This one was a little more 15:16:17 vague in using local political leadership to support national efforts 15:16:19 . That's item 7. 15:16:23 The national efforts to change loan modification process, which will help 15:16:27 homeowners prevent foreclosure. I didn't have a 15:16:32 direct item to tie there. Moving into D, 15:16:36 we have recommendations related to data. 15:16:40 We have the audit testing as well as the state of housing 15:16:44 and federal data reports that we can draw from here, as well as the 15:16:48 fair housing collaborative. So 15:16:52 that was relevant to pretty much all of those recommendations 15:17:00 . And E, accessible, affordable 15:17:04 housing stock, this was a lot about creating 15:17:09 data around accessible units as well as just increasing over 15:17:13 all availability of affordable units of family size 15:17:17 and units that were accessible. One thing I couldn't 15:17:21 quite connect and we can follow up on this was item 4, developing strong 15:17:26 building guidelines to ensure consistent standards 15:17:31 of what features and accessible unit includes 15:17:37 . Item 8, require annual training for 15:17:40 staff and partners. And item 10, working with housing 15:17:45 providers to provide two weeks' notice to advocacy groups about 15:17:47 availabilities. Didn't have a quite connection 15:17:50 there but we can see there are quite a few other items within the 15:17:55 accessibility and affordable housing stock grouping that were addressed 15:18:00 . F, unintended gentrification 15:18:05 through policies. There were kind of general public 15:18:08 investments, working with community agreements. 15:18:12 So we do have kind of various initiatives that we felt like could be 15:18:14 connected to this and we can dig deeper. 15:18:18 If you would like us to. There was kind 15:18:23 of more concrete item number 2, talking about encouraging 15:18:27 the renewal of Portland's 30% tax 15:18:31 increment funding and that was increased to 45% 15:18:37 . Item 4 was to fund a 15:18:42 representative advisory group, such as this report's proposed fair 15:18:46 housing advisory committee 15:18:49 committee -- [Audio Difficulty] 15:18:53 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: From the housing choice section participants have 15:18:56 . We can dig deeper into that. 15:19:00 It seems a bit pointed. But I wasn't able to tie 15:19:04 it to a specific action. Not to say that there hasn't 15:19:08 been work done in that area 15:19:11 . Other items including funding 15:19:16 homeownership programs, those programs continue to exist through our NHP team 15:19:20 here at the bureau. Involving community 15:19:24 members and redevelopment, there are some programs that definitely seek 15:19:28 to address that recommendation 15:19:34 . And then moving to G, low income 15:19:38 and vulnerable populations. Again, kind of a lot of various 15:19:42 programs within the joint office, the development of the joint office in 15:19:45 this time frame between, again, 10 years back, 2011, when these 15:19:50 recommendations were made. There are some items, 15:19:54 5, 8, 9 and 10, that 15:19:58 we could evaluate further including a new household income 15:20:02 measurement regarding a total cost burden and 15:20:07 retaliation laws, as it 15:20:11 relates to folks with illegal 15:20:15 notices. So I hope everybody had a chance 15:20:19 to review this. Like I said, I didn't want to take 15:20:23 a lot of time to, you know, go item 15:20:27 by item because you can see we have quite a few pages 15:20:31 of -- eight pages of recommendations here. 15:20:35 So with that said, I wanted to first open up and ask if there are any 15:20:40 questions about a specific item. And then after that, we can talk 15:20:44 about what to do with this table and how it can inform the work moving 15:20:49 forward. So does anyone have any questions? 15:20:57 >> HOLLY: Hi, Niki. 15:20:59 Holly Stephens here again. If we have a recommendation, do you 15:21:03 want us to shoot you an email, maybe 15:21:07 something we can look into that would help with one of these outstanding 15:21:09 items? >> NIKI GILLESPIE: To clarify, 15:21:14 Holly, do you mean a recommendation from the 2011 analysis that you feel 15:21:18 has been addressed or are you asking for future recommendations 15:21:22 for the new analysis or report that this body creates? 15:21:24 >> HOLLY: Like one of the ones that 15:21:28 was highlighted was around education for workers in 15:21:32 assisted living to understand the needs of aging populations and so that 15:21:36 was something that we didn't have, I guess, a way moving forward 15:21:41 for, if I understood that correctly. So we have a recommendation on 15:21:45 maybe a partnership we could make with an organization should 15:21:49 . Should we email you that or 15:21:51 are we not looking for more recommendations here? 15:21:55 We are moving forward. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: I think we 15:21:58 should hold that and in the second part of this conversation when we are 15:22:02 talking about what to do with these. Do we pick these up? 15:22:06 Do we want to dig deeper or do we want to note this and keep it in mind 15:22:10 as we move forward for a new set of recommendations 15:22:12 . >> NIKI GILLESPIE: And at that 15:22:16 point then maybe the recommendations need to be a little more direct and, 15:22:20 you know, specific partnership opportunities or something of that 15:22:23 nature might be appropriate. >> HOLLY: Okay. 15:22:25 Gotcha. Thank you. 15:22:29 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: No problem 15:22:37 . Does anyone have any general 15:22:39 thoughts or a temperature check that I could get? 15:22:43 I mean, I'm not sure, you know, if everybody had a chance to 15:22:47 review. Is this something that we need more 15:22:51 time before we can discuss or, you know, overall thoughts 15:22:55 on the performance of these recommendations 15:23:01 ? >> Mara: This is -- I see someone 15:23:04 else has their hand up. I apologize. 15:23:08 This is Mara. I have a comment whenever it's my 15:23:10 turn. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: I actually don't 15:23:13 see a hand. >> Mara: I thought Ryan had their 15:23:15 hand up. Basically for this phase, at least, 15:23:20 and, again, my name is Mara, I'm in independent living resources 15:23:22 . Really I just had a question about 15:23:26 what exactly the fair housing 15:23:29 -- what was it called? The fair housing collaborative, 15:23:31 whether that's something that's actually been created. 15:23:35 It was just mentioned a few times in the recommendations. 15:23:38 And then most of my comments are like, you know, actually getting to 15:23:41 the meat of it and really digging into this. 15:23:45 But, yeah, I guess mostly I'm wondering -- or I guess I want to 15:23:47 comment that thank you for putting this together. 15:23:50 It was helpful in sort of understanding what the recommendations 15:23:56 were and what has been attempted to try to 15:24:00 meet that need or that gap. So that was very helpful 15:24:04 . But, yeah, I don't know if that's 15:24:08 something that exists, the fair housing collaborative 15:24:13 . >> NIKI GILLESPIE: I'm going to go 15:24:17 off video for a second, 15:24:21 folks, because I seem to have instability in my Internet 15:24:22 connection. Apologies. 15:24:26 But, Mara, yes, there is a group 15:24:29 of folks that do work together and, you know, that work is supported by 15:24:33 the bureau and held within the rental services office where they 15:24:37 help community members identify potential fair housing issues 15:24:42 and provide culturally specific support to connect them 15:24:46 with agencies like the fair housing council of Oregon and legal 15:24:51 aid and they have monthly regular meetings to discuss issues that 15:24:55 they are seeing and they also work on education as well 15:24:58 . Matt, did you have anything you 15:25:02 wanted to add about the collaborative? No. 15:25:05 So as a formal entity to look up, no, but that is how we kind of 15:25:10 reference that group that is actively working together and making 15:25:14 those internal referrals to connect community members from the services of 15:25:19 one organization to another 15:25:20 . >> Mara: Very helpful. 15:25:23 Thank you so much. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Yeah. 15:25:27 [mara Romero] 15:25:36 okay. Well if nobody else has any 15:25:39 clarifying questions, I think the next step is to try and determine what we 15:25:41 would like to do with this information. 15:25:45 Do we want to spend some time, for example, digging in and seeing 15:25:50 if spots where we weren't able to make a policy, direct policy 15:25:55 connection, if you would like me to look further into those, 15:25:58 if there is an area of particular interest that you would like more 15:26:03 information on, or do we just kind of want to make note of what these 15:26:07 recommendations are and keep them in mind moving forward as we work 15:26:12 on a new analysis? 15:26:19 15:26:23 >> Taylor: Would it be okay and an offer to a group, if we went into a 15:26:27 discussion around not just the recommendations but what 15:26:31 maybe new ideas folks have as well. Is that the time for -- the right 15:26:33 time, or should we wait? >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Yeah. 15:26:37 I mean, you know, you guys can 15:26:40 steer this meeting in how you want to react to the recommendations. 15:26:44 I put some time too after public comment to talk 15:26:48 about the planned development but if this is inspiring, I can certainly 15:26:52 take notes of some recommendations and we can, you know, have those on file 15:26:57 too. >> Taylor: I wanted to offer one 15:27:00 around the -- well, the opportunity mapping that the Portland housing 15:27:04 bureau did and then going forward -- my name 15:27:06 is Taylor, I work for home forward. We were trying to do some mapping 15:27:11 of where voucher holders currently live according to the opportunity maps 15:27:15 and one of the things we know is that there are barriers to folks 15:27:20 with -- like higher opportunity neighborhoods and there are a number 15:27:22 of reasons for that. It could be choice or 15:27:25 landlord-based barriers. And one of the recommendations I 15:27:29 wanted to throw out there was supports for reducing barriers for 15:27:33 voucher holders and accessing whatever neighborhood they would like 15:27:38 to live in, hoping that that also impacts like reducing 15:27:40 various high opportunity neighborhoods and I don't know how much this group 15:27:45 can advocate federally, but talking about increasing 15:27:49 the per voucher funding so that we can increase our payment standards so we 15:27:53 are always kind of in this push and pull of like do we serve more people 15:27:57 or do we serve people more deeply by increasing payments and 15:28:01 giving folks more flexibility about where they can live. 15:28:05 I wanted to throw those recommendations out there so we can 15:28:08 remove barriers to folks who have a voucher. 15:28:12 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Thank you, Taylor 15:28:26 . >> Mara: This is Mara from 15:28:28 independent living resources and I was -- I had a few comments on the issues 15:28:33 that are really relevant to folks with significant disabilities, since 15:28:37 probably some of those recommendations came from my predecessor 15:28:41 , who was on this committee a while back. 15:28:44 And there are issues that we still continue to see in our community. 15:28:47 I'm sure folks on this call feel that same way about a lot of the 15:28:51 things that they heard, even if there is something in the recommendation 15:28:55 section, it's not necessarily actually meeting that 15:28:58 need. And so a couple of times it came up 15:29:02 in here around, like helping folks with accessibility 15:29:07 needs locate affordable housing. Right now there's 15:29:11 very limited resources for folks to really understand, even what that 15:29:14 word means in housing. The difference between a unit 15:29:18 that's just for a disabled person versus a unit that's been specifically 15:29:22 made accessible, these sorts of bits of education and information just really 15:29:26 are not available out there for people [period these sorts] 15:29:29 So while there have been really good steps in terms of setting a 15:29:32 requirement for folks -- housing providers to mark whether or not a 15:29:36 unit is accessible and other such things, we are still, I think, 15:29:40 having pretty large gaps as it relates to other kinds of accessibility, like 15:29:46 for our deaf and visually disabled community 15:29:51 and all sorts of different complexities it would be nice to see 15:29:55 more requirements. Airbnb recently added 15:29:59 19 different accessibility filters to their housing -- or to their, you 15:30:03 know, unit search, including like roll-in showers and all sorts of 15:30:07 really interesting things, which is probably going to increase sales too. 15:30:11 So looking at that, I think, is still a need and having some kind 15:30:15 of database potentially for accessible units that could be heavy 15:30:20 ily sort of a part of the housing providers' responsibility in 15:30:24 terms of how they list these units and what they -- you 15:30:28 know, how they respond to requests for clarification 15:30:32 . And then also the issue around 15:30:36 supportive housing and really getting an understanding for what that means 15:30:39 and what we are doing and how it's being funded through either behavioral 15:30:43 health or other supportive services. Honestly, I think a lot of 15:30:47 folks, you know, just are pretty confused about how to get ahold of 15:30:51 that kind of support and I think also we need more 15:30:55 of it and especially in our 15:30:59 new affordable housing developments that we are working on. 15:31:03 And then, yeah, I have been helping numerous folks avoid 15:31:08 foreclosure during the pandemic and just anecdotally I have noticed that 15:31:12 the process for trying to help save someone's home is very 15:31:15 inaccessible to people with significant disabilities and they are 15:31:18 much more likely to lose their home because they can't manage the amount 15:31:22 of paperwork and communication involved in that process. 15:31:26 So, yeah, again, my overall comment is mostly just a lot of the things 15:31:30 that are mentioned here as it relates to disability and accessibility 15:31:33 . They still are significant issues 15:31:37 that we are seeing in the community, even if there have been some solutions 15:31:40 presented. Thanks. 15:31:44 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Thank you. Allan, I can see you have your hand 15:31:48 up. >> ALLAN LAZO: Yeah, thanks, Niki 15:31:51 . I think my kind of overall comments 15:31:54 are sort of the same as I think what Mara is saying. 15:31:57 This is Allan Lazo from the fair housing council of Oregon. 15:32:01 And I'm wondering just processwise 15:32:06 , as far as this kind of set of recommendations 15:32:10 go in this table, if -- I don't think we should go through them one by 15:32:14 one but certainly there are a number of them that are still relevant and so 15:32:18 if we were to add a column that said, you know, keep this one in 15:32:23 or make this revision to it or a couple of columns in that table, that 15:32:26 would guide us in those. I think what we recognize that the 15:32:29 fair housing council of Oregon is the work that we do around education and 15:32:33 outreach is sort of always relevant. Until we get to that point that we 15:32:37 have reached every housing provider in the city, then maybe we are there, but 15:32:38 then we probably have to circle back to the new ones. 15:32:40 So things like that will always be there. 15:32:45 And as Mara pointed out I think there are some that -- related to 15:32:49 people with disabilities that we need to continue to look at and refine 15:32:50 . So that might be one way 15:32:54 organizationally for us to think about these and as folks are speaking, you 15:32:58 know, we can capture those specifically for 15:33:00 those pieces. That would be just one of my 15:33:03 recommendations about that. And I'm happy to talk through some 15:33:07 of the ones that are specifically, I would say we keep for the 15:33:11 next round. >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Yeah, thank you, 15:33:13 Allan. I think, yeah, that is very 15:33:18 helpful. I think adding a column is a great 15:33:22 idea, and, you know, folks can kind of -- 15:33:26 we can make time for that. We can also set that up where if 15:33:31 people want to make notes on the table, kind of 15:33:35 their own thoughts and then I can collect those together into a shared 15:33:39 document for everybody's review over, you know, the quarter that's going to 15:33:44 pass before the next meeting, right? And that way everybody kind of has 15:33:48 some time to think about it and if they haven't reviewed this document 15:33:51 yet, it gives them a chance to. So I think that would be a great 15:33:56 thing to use moving forward in terms of a process 15:33:58 . And I would say, yeah, go ahead and 15:34:00 share. We definitely have time, if you 15:34:04 want to share some of your ideas as far as what that would look like 15:34:07 . >> ALLAN LAZO: I think especially 15:34:11 in that section A around the education and outreach 15:34:15 that's being done, I think we have got to continue to do that and then, of 15:34:17 course, the second one around. So that's number one. 15:34:21 And then number two, the enforcement of fair housing laws. 15:34:23 Those are things that would continue. 15:34:27 And then same with number three, the audit testing 15:34:31 has value for us understanding what's happening in the marketplace. 15:34:35 So when we get to number 4, the other thing we 15:34:39 look at is maybe there are revisions or updates to the 15:34:41 actual recommendation, right? Because the fair ordinance was 15:34:45 passed but maybe there is tweaking that needs to happen or there are 15:34:49 updates to what's in there that might need to occur. 15:34:52 Let's see. And then, yeah, I think I have to 15:34:55 take more time to look at the table to get other specifics. 15:34:59 But same thing, I think when we go like to the section on gentrification 15:35:04 , you know, there may be areas there that we want to update based on what's 15:35:09 occurred over the last, you know, now several 15:35:14 years to really address some of the current dynamics. 15:35:18 And then as Taylor pointed out, you know, I think there are some specifics 15:35:22 around housing choice vouchers that we have got to figure out where they fit 15:35:24 in. And then, again, also as Mara 15:35:28 talked about, there's this movement around permanently supportive housing 15:35:32 that's happening with the metro bond also that we might want to capture 15:35:37 here, you know, in a way. And this also transpired over 15:35:41 the time that the city of Portland has 15:35:44 had its affordable housing bond measure also. 15:35:48 That's something we ought to look at and see has that impacted any of those 15:35:50 recommendations over that time period also. 15:35:54 And then one thing I will go back to also, on the 15:35:57 accessibility issue, I think there was some discussion, and I don't remember 15:36:01 where it landed in the fair ordinance, around capturing 15:36:06 accessible units in some way. And I don't remember exactly where 15:36:08 it landed. But it might be worth looking in 15:36:13 there to see -- I know there is some process around, you know 15:36:16 , getting into those units, but I think there was also some talk about some 15:36:22 kind of lists of accessible units also. 15:36:26 So that's just kind of a rambling of different 15:36:31 pieces 15:36:33 . >> Mara: Thanks, Allan. 15:36:37 This is Mara again. That, just to clarify, the fair 15:36:41 ordinance, basically, I think also included a part that gave a preference 15:36:47 for mobility users, mobility device users for sort of the section 15:36:50 8 program, I believe, in Portland where they can sort of notify home 15:36:54 forward and folks from home forward could speak up if this is wrong 15:36:58 . But they are a wheelchair user and 15:37:02 basically they get preference on that list and that has been working well. 15:37:04 And so I could add notes like that that I'm aware of. 15:37:08 I'm sure we all could. Put obviously there have been 15:37:11 some movement, but then, like you pointed out, there have been new 15:37:14 things that have popped up too. So I really like the idea of these 15:37:22 columns. >> Taylor: That wasn't -- the 15:37:26 housing bureau can step in on this. The ADA 15:37:29 accessible units isn't limited to home forward. 15:37:31 It should also include the private market. 15:37:33 And we have separate -- thanks, Niki. 15:37:37 And then we have -- we do waiting lists and have waiting 15:37:41 lists that are specific to 15:37:46 folks who are ADA -- and to your 15:37:49 point about preferences, I think it would be exciting if as a group we 15:37:53 could explore what federal advocacy would look like for the ability to 15:37:57 implement policies with explicit racial preferences to address the 15:38:02 past and current discrimination and segregation that 15:38:07 the fair housing act was traditionally trying to address in a color-blind 15:38:10 way. I wanted to offer that as something 15:38:14 that might be something we can talk about as a 15:38:19 group [able to talk] >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Thank you, 15:38:22 Taylor. I guess what I'm hearing is to use 15:38:26 this last set of recommendations and what we have as a bit of a road map to 15:38:30 clarify, branch off or as a starting point 15:38:31 . And I can certainly do that. 15:38:36 And we can collect those comments. I do also want to state too that 15:38:39 before getting too far into the recommendations, right, we should also 15:38:43 be doing some sort of analysis, right? On 15:38:47 data that we have available and community outreach. 15:38:51 So I think it's a good exercise to get everything together and I'm happy 15:38:55 to do that. But based off as well as kind 15:38:59 of that last report, obviously, you can see there was quite a few 15:39:03 conclusions that were drawn from various datasets and community 15:39:05 engagement too. So just we can continue to talk 15:39:10 about this and this is something that needs to be sorted out as we move 15:39:13 forward. But kind of, you know, in my mind, 15:39:18 what I'm hearing is let's get all these initial ideas down, 15:39:21 build off that 2011 table and then we can talk about what it looks like to 15:39:26 go into the analysis portion and the community engagement portion and 15:39:30 then wrap everything kind of together into final 15:39:34 recommendations. So I just want to put that out 15:39:38 there, one, to make sure that we do keep in mind that 15:39:42 there's some other work to be done. But I want to clarify that that's 15:39:46 what I'm hearing is to kind of use the 2011 as a road map 15:39:51 and brainstorming to develop recommendations for a new report 15:39:55 report. Is that correct? 15:40:05 >> HOLLY: That sounds great to me 15:40:12 . >> NIKI GILLESPIE: I'm seeing some 15:40:16 thumbs up there 15:40:21 . Great averages this is Allan. 15:40:25 In those recommendations there might be places where updates and data 15:40:29 would tell us kind of how the recommendation shifts a little bit and 15:40:32 so those -- so displacement might be an example. 15:40:36 My sense is that it hasn't gotten better, 15:40:40 but it's continued over that same time period and so that might 15:40:45 inform the way -- that recommendation is in there but it needs to get more 15:40:50 attention or it needs to get stronger kind of thing 15:40:50 . >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Certainly, 15:40:52 certainly. And if we are using that as a road 15:40:56 map, you know, I am definitely going to go back and we are going to provide a 15:41:01 lot more detail is going to be needed, right, about those 15:41:05 programs where any results and outcomes that we are seeing from 15:41:09 those, right, if that's going to be the use of this document, then, you know, 15:41:12 I think we are definitely going to need to include that. 15:41:16 And, you know, if that's the way that we are going to work through it, 15:41:20 then each section will kind of get flushed out 15:41:43 . Okay. 15:41:45 I will call that. The rest of the meeting we have 15:41:49 public comment that's scheduled at 4:00, so I want to hold that for 15:41:53 4:00 p.m. But I think we can kind of move to 15:41:58 that other agenda item and then call public comment when it's 15:42:02 currently scheduled, as far as what do we want to 15:42:06 see moving forward and what's the over 15:42:11 all process of how we want to move through creating this 15:42:15 report, compiling things, 15:42:19 analyzing and what that work flow should look like for this committee 15:42:23 . And, Matthew, if you have any 15:42:27 thoughts to jump in there or anyone else, please feel free 15:42:31 to unmute yourself. This is a committee discussion 15:42:36 , you know, for you all to guide how this work is going to get completed 15:42:39 . >> MATTHEW TSCHABOLD: Thanks, 15:42:40 Niki. I think the only comment I would 15:42:45 add for the committee members 15:42:49 is it's as much about, just to re-emphasize 15:42:53 Niki's point, it's about process recommendations on the process the 15:42:57 committee wants to go about so we can adequately staff the 15:43:01 committee and produce the work throughout the process. 15:43:05 So both kind of product but also process recommendations 15:43:10 . >> Mara: This is Mara. 15:43:13 I was actually just wondering if you could clarify a little bit at the 15:43:16 beginning, you had talked about federal recommendations and I think I had 15:43:21 asked about this before, but is that something that may heavy 15:43:25 ily dictate what we are doing here? Or what is it potentially 15:43:29 that could be coming when you talk about the waiting for notice from 15:43:34 the Feds? >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Yeah 15:43:36 . So previously, right, some sort of 15:43:41 analysis of the impediments to fair housing has been part 15:43:45 of the requirement that's submitted, right, to the federal government 15:43:48 . And I think we covered in the 15:43:52 previous meeting, kind of a little bit of history of what's happened over the 15:43:56 last administration about what -- how in depth those 15:44:00 requirements looked. And they were pretty severely 15:44:04 scaled back during the past administration in which there was not 15:44:09 a requirement to have this full analysis if you look at that 15:44:13 2011, right, how extensive, right, that analysis 15:44:17 was comparatively 15:44:20 . However, with the new 15:44:24 administration, the Biden administration, has been 15:44:28 directed to evaluate the impacts those changes have had and to 15:44:33 make any course correcting recommendations to what a fair housing 15:44:37 analysis should look like for different jurisdictions. 15:44:41 So at this point we don't have a requirement to create 15:44:45 the analysis report, document. However, this 15:44:49 committee had decided that they would like to move forward compiling 15:44:53 an analysis and some associated 15:44:57 recommendations despite not having a 15:45:01 directive to do so at this time 15:45:04 . >> Mara: Thank you so much for the 15:45:08 clarification. 15:45:11 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: And I will say, yeah, that is kind of part of, I 15:45:16 think, the road is very open right now about how it's going to look 15:45:20 and how in depth it goes. And that's why we are asking the 15:45:24 committee members, yourselves, to kind of 15:45:27 self-direct how we want to move through this process to create these 15:45:34 recommendations. >> ALLAN LAZO: This is Allan 15:45:39 Lazo again from the fair housing council organization. 15:45:43 One thing I appreciate about the bureau and the folks who have come 15:45:46 together here, there tends to be some shared agreement around the kinds of 15:45:49 issues that we want to approach in this work. 15:45:53 And they tend to align with where we hope the fair housing work at the 15:45:56 federal level is going. And so I think we can kind of keep 15:46:00 moving in that direction and really working to understand 15:46:04 those dynamics in our community right here, and then there 15:46:08 may be some, you know, directives that come down from the federal government 15:46:11 along those lines. I don't think they are going to be 15:46:15 counter to where we want to head. They might define some of the work 15:46:18 that the bureau is going to be required to do. 15:46:22 But, you know, I think that what we would like to address from my sense 15:46:27 in the conversations that we have had here, that those will align with where 15:46:31 I think the administration is heading and where this work needs to help, 15:46:36 particularly around addressing issues of racial segregation and 15:46:40 access to opportunity in some of the communities that we have seen 15:46:44 . And supply, frankly. 15:46:47 That's the other thing I think we are going to see come from even this 15:46:53 administration around the supply of housing and how that impacts this work 15:47:06 . >> Mara: Thank you, Allan. 15:47:09 Trying to be cautiously optimistic right now. 15:47:11 But things definitely are looking much better. 15:47:15 Much, much better 15:47:21 . >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Okay. 15:47:24 You know, based on my notes from last time, it did seem that there 15:47:28 could be some interest in understanding some of the mechanics 15:47:34 and to get some better 15:47:38 understanding of the ground before moving forward, such as digging into 15:47:43 things about the enforcement mechanisms that are currently out there 15:47:47 and understanding what the process of fair housing enforcement looks 15:47:52 like, things like getting the complaint data 15:47:56 about fair housing, potential fair housing violations 15:48:00 , and some other kind of preliminary information 15:48:03 . And so I wanted to check in on 15:48:06 that, right, before, you know, whatever the plan is to move forward in this 15:48:10 work and whether it's following up on the 2011 recommendation table 15:48:14 or looking at other sets of data 15:48:19 to draw conclusions from, you know, do you 15:48:24 want to have everybody feel like they have a good 15:48:28 footing and understand what the work is and what the fund 15:48:31 fundamentals are? Can everybody speak up and let me 15:48:33 know. Is that something you would like a 15:48:37 presentation on for the next meeting, some further information to get 15:48:41 yourselves oriented before starting? 15:48:49 >> If we talk about the mechanics 15:48:52 of enforcement because that occurs oftentimes on an individual 15:48:57 discrimination basis, it would also be helpful to talk 15:49:01 about the way that the fair housing act kind of requires a focus 15:49:05 on individual discrimination as opposed to -- I know with the 15:49:06 [INDISCERNIBLE] 15:49:08 Local governments have a responsibility to do more of the 15:49:12 structural change work but if there can be an example around like individual 15:49:16 discrimination versus like how FHA would play 15:49:20 out or housing would play out in the context of failing to do the 15:49:24 structural work as well, that would be helpful for me 15:49:45 . >> LAUREN: I think a presentation 15:49:49 including what Taylor just mentioned could be helpful for next time 15:50:01 . >> HOLLY: Hi, this is Holly. 15:50:04 I think it would be helpful. I also don't want it to hold up 15:50:08 sort of this process of us kind of moving forward and taking 15:50:13 a look at the -- you know, the 2011 15:50:17 table, but then also kind of figuring out what are 15:50:22 the -- how we kind of like look forward and revise that 15:50:26 table for this committee. So I am interested in that. 15:50:30 I just don't want it to put a pause on kind of us moving 15:50:36 forward and coming up with a new goals, I guess. 15:50:40 I forget what they are called. Sorry 15:50:42 . >> NIKI GILLESPIE: New 15:50:47 recommendations, right, or final report? 15:50:49 >> HOLLY: Yes. 15:50:53 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Thank you, Holly 15:50:57 . Marissa, I see agreed in the chat. 15:51:01 Could you clarify either through the chat or 15:51:05 here, were you agreeing with the presentation would be 15:51:11 helpful -- okay 15:51:12 . I do see that. 15:51:13 Thank you. Great. 15:51:17 Sometimes the timing is a little bit difficult for me to connect 15:51:22 . Okay 15:51:29 . Thank you, Marissa, a presentation 15:51:31 will be helpful. That's definitely something I can 15:51:36 look into providing. And as noted, not to slow down 15:51:40 the process too much 15:51:45 . But to have an understanding of the 15:51:49 basics in regards to enforcement mechanisms and to Taylor's point, 15:51:53 individual discrimination versus things like despair impact 15:51:57 or larger structural problems 15:52:01 . Okay. 15:52:04 >> It would be so nice to also in that presentation to be able to 15:52:08 discuss the recommendations from the 2011 report, like which ones are about 15:52:12 individual discrimination versus desperate 15:52:16 impact. Oftentimes when we talk about fair 15:52:20 housing it's focused on the enforcement of individual discrimination. 15:52:24 So that would be cool 15:52:33 . 15:52:36 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: We have a few more minutes before public comment is 15:52:41 scheduled. I'm going to go ahead and 15:52:45 share the 2011 analysis of impediments to fair 15:52:50 housing, and I'm not sure how much folks kind of dug into this, but just 15:52:54 to give us an idea of what that work product looked like as it was laid out 15:52:58 and I'm hoping that this will kind of spur some 15:53:03 more conversation and discussion 15:53:09 about, you know, how we would like to move forward and get 15:53:13 started and what else we may want to look at beyond the 15:53:17 2011 recommendations themselves. So how did they get there, 15:53:19 right? That's ultimately where this 15:53:22 committee needs to get as well, is to that new set of recommendations, which 15:53:27 isn't just solely going to be based on the previous 15:53:32 report's recommendations and where we think they are at, but also evaluation 15:53:35 of a variety of different backgrounds. 15:53:39 And to Matthew's point too, for us to know staffing and what kind of 15:53:43 products that we need to bring to you in order to make this 15:53:47 report meaningful. You can see the table of contents 15:53:52 are here and just kind of a breakdown of the demographic and 15:53:56 socioeconomic characteristics and housing characteristics and market 15:54:00 analysis that was done. So things to look at there 15:54:04 . Looking at the fair housing act and 15:54:08 local antidiscrimination law. The complaint data and the audit 15:54:12 testing. And then some conclusions that were 15:54:14 drawn. And then getting into the 15:54:20 identification of the impediments. >>> Methods 15:54:23 . Methods of illegal discrimination, 15:54:27 enforcement, screening, different conditions, and then looking at the 15:54:31 minority homeownership gap. Fair housing understanding. 15:54:35 Again, reaching into that education and fair housing homeownership and 15:54:39 service provider education. Where that opportunity 15:54:43 map come from, areas of reduced access to opportunity. 15:54:47 So that mapping tool may be something to dig into there now that 15:54:51 that tool is available. Fair housing 15:54:55 data generally in terms of accessible housing stock, looking at city of 15:55:00 Gresham and Multnomah County as well, what is unavailable or unreliable 15:55:04 , where those holes are. The accessible affordable housing 15:55:05 stock. And again you can see where each of 15:55:10 these are tying together with the recommendations 15:55:13 . Urban renewal and tax increment 15:55:16 financing. Property tax policies. 15:55:20 Again, poverty rent assistance, people with disabilities, healthy 15:55:23 homes. Looking generally at the programs 15:55:27 and activities that are happening within the jurisdiction, and then the 15:55:32 conclusions and recommendations. There is also citizen 15:55:36 participation that I was not here but from what I gathered in looking at 15:55:40 this report included several community hearings available at community 15:55:45 centers where folks came and gave comments and testimony about their 15:55:49 experiences, as well as one-on-one interviews with community 15:55:55 members to dig in and have those anecdotal 15:55:59 stories about people that, again, just supported the 15:56:03 conclusions that they came to here 15:56:06 and the associated recommendations. Looking at this document, is this 15:56:10 kind of helpful to understand a potential structure, again, of 15:56:15 what all the different areas that we could be looking at and does anybody 15:56:19 have anything that jumps out to them to get started? 15:56:29 If we follow the 2011 15:56:34 recommendation table, I assume we are going to start with that same section 15:56:36 . A here, discrimination in housing. 15:56:40 And, you know, I can flush out that table and we can kind of tackle it in 15:56:45 that same order. We can also back up. 15:56:49 We can get the information to look at now that we are a little 15:56:53 more oriented on the committee, to look at the demographic and 15:56:57 socioeconomic information, as well as the market analysis 15:57:00 . I believe Amal did give a 15:57:04 presentation on that but we can certainly circle back or dive 15:57:08 deeper. We can look at complaint -- 15:57:11 >> Taylor: I'm sorry. Do any of these estimate like 15:57:15 session by the different protected classes that we are looking at? 15:57:19 I'm not sure if anything on this list is kind of like a dis similarity 15:57:23 Index or that would be feasible within the scope of this committee but to 15:57:28 do an estimation of segregation by protected 15:57:32 class -- and home forward could provide data around voucher holders 15:57:34 and where they live in the city and county. 15:57:37 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Okay. I don't recall seeing that. 15:57:40 Matt, you have also reviewed this. Do you recall seeing something 15:57:44 similar? I do not 15:57:46 . I don't remember if the dis 15:57:54 similarity index specifically is in there but each of these data points -- 15:57:58 not each of them, but many of them 15:58:02 where possible are looked at by various protected class stat 15:58:08 statuses, but I think it would be 15:58:14 useful to think about what the best 15:58:19 way to kind of bridge the analysis 15:58:24 , yes, include the dis similarity compensated but 15:58:28 index but bridge the analysis where we are breaking out 15:58:32 data points by protected class statuses with what is the methodology 15:58:37 for then assessing, what does that mean in 15:58:42 terms of access to fair housing and 15:58:46 fair housing choice 15:59:01 . I will also comment on ma mis's 15:59:04 Marissa's point. We also did do that. 15:59:08 We did surveys and interviews and focus groups, collectively was before 15:59:12 my time at the bureau. But there was that as a portion of 15:59:15 it. So we can definitely think about 15:59:19 how to do that 15:59:24 based on kind of timelines for 15:59:28 moving from Zoom back to a more 15:59:32 in physical proximity environment and how that timing 15:59:36 works with the timing for what the committee is looking for 15:59:41 for planning development 15:59:46 . >> ALLAN LAZO: This is Allan. 15:59:48 I have a couple of questions along those lines, I guess. 15:59:52 I think it's so hard because the landscape is shifting 15:59:56 so much. But could you remind us, is there a 16:00:01 current requirement that you, meaning 16:00:05 the city, has to meet right now with regard to federal planning 16:00:09 and submitting a plan? And 16:00:13 then the second piece of that for me is, one of the things that -- and I 16:00:17 have said it before, that seems to match, again, with what our shared, 16:00:21 you know, I think desires are might be for us to look at, 16:00:25 as a group, the requirements that were under the assessment of 16:00:29 fair housing and some of these pieces that addressed racial segregation, 16:00:33 local data, some of those other pieces, and with thinking that might 16:00:36 be where the new administration is heading. 16:00:40 But some of that might inform us as to 16:00:43 whether or not are we working to meet a current requirement? 16:00:46 Could you remind me of that? >> MATTHEW TSCHABOLD: Sure. 16:00:50 Thanks, Allan. So the bureau does have our 16:00:54 five-year consolidated plan in partnership with Multnomah County and 16:00:57 the city of Gresham. For those that aren't familiar, 16:01:01 that is our -- it's a five-year plan that really specifies how 16:01:06 the jurisdictions intend to use their federal funding. 16:01:10 And a part of that does contain 16:01:15 some data analysis that would 16:01:19 overlap with the kind of pretrump 16:01:23 administration era analysis of impediments 16:01:28 in terms of looking at various communities and looking at housing 16:01:32 segregation and cost burden to then justify how the city is going to use 16:01:36 its federal funding. So it is scaled down. 16:01:40 But we do have that requirement as a part of 16:01:44 our consolidated plan. And then there are one-year annual 16:01:48 action plans for how the funding is spent. 16:01:52 Specific to affirmatively furthering 16:01:56 fair housing, the requirement really is 16:02:01 very, very little. We have to self-certify that we are 16:02:05 affirmatively furthering fair housing and there's some amount of kind 16:02:08 of narrative that goes along with how we are doing that. 16:02:13 But it is fairly minimal 16:02:14 . >> ALLAN LAZO: Right, right. 16:02:18 Yeah. Thank you 16:02:25 . >> MATTHEW TSCHABOLD: I suppose the 16:02:29 last thing that I will add, we do produce an annual state of housing in 16:02:31 Portland report. It is city specific. 16:02:35 It is not county specific. Although, you 16:02:40 fairly -- fairly linear to pull the data for the county as well 16:02:43 . And that also includes a number of 16:02:47 data points that would have some overlap with a kind 16:02:52 of classical analysis of impediments or assessment of 16:02:56 fair housing data process 16:03:01 . >> ALLAN LAZO: Yeah, Matt, I was 16:03:05 going to bring that up also. I think it is a good piece for us 16:03:08 to -- for members here to potentially look at and especially with an eye 16:03:13 towards the impacts on various protected classes that 16:03:16 are illustrated in the state of housing report, because there are some 16:03:20 that become really apparent when we look at what's in that report 16:03:23 itself too. So it might help direct some of 16:03:26 those areas. And the other thing I would say, I 16:03:30 think that's important in what you said about the requirements for the bureau 16:03:34 is, you know, it does put some onus on this committee then for us 16:03:38 to drive, you know, where we are headed 16:03:43 as a -- along those lines. You know, there isn't 16:03:45 a strong mandate from the federal government right now. 16:03:49 But we know that our local community is very, very committed 16:03:54 to work in this area and to insuring that we are creating 16:03:57 housing opportunity for all members of our community. 16:04:00 So that work is going to be happening right here in this committee 16:04:05 and talking about how we put that into this report and make those 16:04:11 recommendations. >> MATTHEW TSCHABOLD: Yes, I 16:04:12 agree. Allan. 16:04:15 And we will definitely be leaning on the expertise of the members of this 16:04:19 committee on considering the product at the end of this is fair housing 16:04:24 recommendations to affirmatively further fair housing 16:04:28 for Portland, Multnomah County area, how best do we 16:04:33 go -- how best do we inform those recommendations as 16:04:35 a committee. How best are you informing those 16:04:39 recommendations and what do we need, as well as what's in there, 16:04:44 right. And this committee has a lot of 16:04:47 expertise on, hey we should be doing this type of focus group to some of 16:04:50 the suggestions that have been made or this type of survey or this type of 16:04:55 data analysis, in addition to the, hey, we need these categories 16:05:00 of recommendations and then how -- what's the best way to then drive into 16:05:04 those. So, yes. 16:05:08 >> NIKI GILLESPIE: Okay. And it's 4:05 so we are 16:05:12 a few minutes past the scheduled time for public comment so I'm going to 16:05:16 pivot us there for a minute and we can return back and wrap 16:05:20 up. We had one registrant, Sabine 16:05:24 mart 16:05:28 Martinez who indicated they would like to provide public comment. 16:05:32 I would like to open it up to Sabrina if you are in the meeting 16:05:36 and would like to provide public comment. 16:05:40 16:05:47 Okay. I don't hear Sabrina and I don't 16:05:52 see her listed for the participants. So open it up to anyone 16:05:55 else, if you would like to provide public comment, you can raise your 16:05:59 hand and I will call on you 16:06:12 . Okay. 16:06:16 All right. Thank you guys for that 16:06:19 . So I think we have got kind of a 16:06:21 need for more information, based on everything there. 16:06:25 We have got some ideas for some recommendations. 16:06:29 We have got an ask for a presentation or at least more 16:06:33 information around enforcement generally. 16:06:37 I think that that should be enough for me to get 16:06:42 started and maybe as we pull things in and work through 16:06:46 that table, I think some more asks 16:06:50 in terms of what kind of information this night would like 16:06:53 to look at will naturally kind of rise to the surface as we do that. 16:06:57 So I'm going to move forward with that and we can change that plan if 16:07:01 it's not working or if we feel like we are still missing some large pieces or 16:07:05 have some blind spots in taking that approach. 16:07:09 So I will send that out and will add kind of a 16:07:13 third column or I'll have some kind of ability for you guys to email me back 16:07:18 or to add that onto a shared document in terms of whether you 16:07:22 think each recommendation is still relevant, whether you think it needs 16:07:26 to be clarified. And I will try to add 16:07:30 more detail into what is currently the second column about the status of that 16:07:34 recommendation and try to get more specific figures and we may put 16:07:38 that on as an agenda item for us to review at the next meeting as well 16:07:43 and that can just be a way for us to start putting together the pieces