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