14:04:25 All right. Official makes a quorum. We did it. 14:04:28 Hello, everybody, welcome to -- >> Recording in progress. 14:04:31 >> Welcome to the September 14:04:34 20232023RSC 14:04:37 meeting. It's good to 14:04:40 see you all. We're 14:04:44 going to go 14:04:47 ahead and start our phone call. Say 14:04:50 your name and please state your 14:04:54 pronouns, name, and 14:04:57 your accessibility needs. So just repeat 14:05:00 your name each time we 14:05:03 speak, whether on camera or not. If all of 14:05:06 your access needs are met, you can say, all of 14:05:10 my access needs are met at this time. If something 14:05:13 else pops up that you will need, just go ahead and say that at 14:05:16 this point. So let's get 14:05:20 this ball rolling. 14:05:26 >> LAURA: I am here, my 14:05:30 name is Laura Golino de Lovato, 14:05:33 my pronouns are she-her, and I have all of 14:05:36 my accessibility needs met. Thank you. 14:05:40 >> Thank you. Christian Bryant. 14:05:54 Matthew Maline. >> MATTHEW: I'm here, Matthew Maline, 14:05:58 he-him, and all of my accessibility needs have been met 14:06:01 and I will be on video shortly. I'm running 14:06:04 around doing some other stuff at the moment, but I'll be 14:06:07 right back. >> Awesome, 14:06:10 Matt, glad you're here. Vivien Lyon. 14:06:14 >> VIVIEN: Present. My pronouns are 14:06:18 they-them, all my accessibility needs are met. 14:06:21 Thank you. >> Thank you, 14:06:25 Vivien. Regina Amodeo. >> 14:06:29 Hi, Regina Amodeo, she-her pronounce, and my accessibility 14:06:32 needs are met. >> 14:06:35 Awesome. Thank you, 14:06:40 Regina. >> KRISTINA: Thank you, I'm here, 14:06:45 my name is Kristina Goodman, my pronouns are she-her, 14:06:48 and all of my accessibility needs 14:06:51 are met. >> Thank 14:06:54 you, Kristina. 14:07:01 >> PIPPA: Pippa Arend here, and my needs are 14:07:04 met. Thank you. >> Moriah McSharry McGrath. 14:07:23 I see you're typing. 14:07:25 Okay. Having problems. 14:07:29 Glad you're here. Amber Cook. 14:07:33 >> AMBER: Yes, hi, my name is 14:07:37 Amber Cook, pronouns 14:07:41 she-her, and my accessibility needs are met. The 14:07:44 display on my laptop went out, 14:07:47 so I'm nearing on to a screen and that's why 14:07:50 I appear to be not looking at people. 14:07:53 It's one of those things, if you're looking way it looks like 14:07:56 you're not paying attention, so I wanted people to 14:07:59 know that I'm looking at the screen but the camera 14:08:03 is off. Thank you. >> Thank you, 14:08:07 Amber. Team work makes 14:08:10 the dream work. And 14:08:13 Stephanie Phillips Bridges -- won't be here for this meeting, 14:08:16 but we have a quorum. Let's do 14:08:20 a little blurb about the chat feature, and then we can dive 14:08:24 right in. The chat 14:08:27 feature should only be by staff 14:08:30 and RSC commissioners, not the 14:08:34 public. PHB staff will be with 14:08:38 the chat moderator for comments and discussions 14:08:41 in the chat and [indiscernible] 15 minutes, 14:08:44 normally, we have a chat moderator 14:08:47 from the executive 14:08:50 committee. We -- 14:08:53 right now is only Laura and in the past, we 14:08:57 haven't exactly needed the chat moderator, so I think 14:09:00 I'll watch it today and see if that works and if 14:09:03 not, we can go ahead and designate 14:09:07 somebody. Staff will only repeat comments left in the chat 14:09:10 by commissioners during the accessibility 14:09:14 check-in, and the accommodation that 14:09:17 they need. Staff will 14:09:20 attempt to read these chat messages 14:09:23 as real time as possible by using the hands 14:09:26 meeting. Side conversations should not be given, particularly 14:09:29 during the public testimony. Chat 14:09:32 used on topic items at the 14:09:36 appropriate time. And without further ado, 14:09:39 we can jump right in to staff 14:09:43 updates. I want to thank everyone up 14:09:46 top here for being so flexible with the schedule, the 14:09:49 agenda. As we all know, we 14:09:52 [indiscernible] was going to be here originally to present 14:09:57 on the HEART Standard 14:10:01 and get some feedback, and we adjusted that, 14:10:04 so thank you, particularly Laura, who is going to 14:10:07 moderate today, for your flexibility. 14:10:11 I'd like to make some room for a 14:10:14 special guest that we have who showed up today, he 14:10:18 is the new interim director of the 14:10:21 public Housing Bureau, Michael [indiscernible], and I'll give him 14:10:24 the floor. >> MICHAEL: Hey, 14:10:28 everybody, glad to be 14:10:31 here, in the audience, thanks for being a 14:10:34 part of the RSC. As Justin 14:10:38 said, literally, just showed up 14:10:41 today, day one. 14:10:44 I currently filling the 14:10:47 interim role for the Housing Bureau 14:10:51 halftime and halftime 14:10:54 director role at the 14:10:58 Washington County services, so I'll split 14:11:01 between the two and then 14:11:04 the bureau director. 14:11:07 [Indiscernible]. Yeah. 14:11:10 It's a pleasure to be here, and excited to 14:11:13 -- thanks, Laura. Good 14:11:16 to see you. 14:11:19 Laura, in the beginning role, 14:11:23 coming off of your -- 14:11:27 >> LAURA: Huh? >> MICHAEL: Coming 14:11:30 off of as well? >> LAURA: Kind of, 14:11:33 yeah. >> MICHAEL: Good to see you all. Thanks for 14:11:37 being here. >> JUSTIN: 14:11:39 Awesome. Thank you so much, Michael. Perfect. 14:11:43 We'll get going here. First item of 14:11:47 our staff updates -- providing public 14:11:50 testimony engagement. And 14:11:53 so many of the individuals I 14:11:56 spoke with during my [indiscernible] months 14:12:00 ago at this point had confusion 14:12:03 around the role of public testimony, 14:12:06 to provide feedback, particularly during listening 14:12:09 sessions, resources, a role as our commission. 14:12:14 Here it is. So I will 14:12:17 -- the leadership and interim manager on this 14:12:20 topic and to clarify, our role as a body, really 14:12:23 is to listen to any feedback and to use this 14:12:26 feedback to make recommendations 14:12:30 to City Council and 14:12:34 PHB leadership to influence policy and programming. 14:12:37 Unfortunately, it's not our role to provide individual 14:12:40 resources or feedback to those who come 14:12:44 to public testimony. I commend you all for the 14:12:47 desire. I understand and share the want for 14:12:50 that. We get into issues around -- 14:12:53 there are some equity issues, providing resources too, 14:12:57 but not the resources themselves approved for 14:13:00 one person by others and in terms of access 14:13:04 issues to make meetings and 14:13:09 to take that feedback and try to influence the 14:13:12 policy and programming. And so we should 14:13:16 only be asking clarifying questions and we don't 14:13:19 -- our understanding the individual's experience that 14:13:23 could impact how we make recommendations or 14:13:26 influence our discussions. We should 14:13:29 not be asking questions for purposes of providing 14:13:33 resources. That's just to 14:13:36 clarify. Me and my 14:13:40 colleague, Mickey [phonetic], have set up 14:13:43 public testimony web pages that are being worked on right now, should 14:13:46 be live in the next week or 14:13:49 so. We have one web page 14:13:53 that's specifically for what public testimony is and tips and 14:13:57 tricks on how to provide testimony and it will 14:14:00 give a breakdown of the testimony 14:14:03 script. We developed those in an 14:14:07 effort to kind of help curb expectations of the 14:14:10 public when they come to present 14:14:13 testimony. Just wanted to clarify that at the top there, 14:14:16 make sure to address it because there was 14:14:19 some confusion in questions. Any comments or conversation 14:14:24 around this topic? 14:14:32 Lovely. Okay. 14:14:36 Next is the HSC 14:14:39 executive committee recommendations. We still have 14:14:43 [indiscernible]. I have pinged, obviously, several 14:14:47 times, and currently in 14:14:51 communication with the office regarding our 14:14:54 reappointments, because there are some commissioners 14:14:57 whose terms are expiring 14:15:01 this month and in December 14:15:04 and so we have been in contact with them regarding this and we're 14:15:08 hoping to kind of loop 14:15:11 into the executive committee at the same time. So I will 14:15:14 keep pushing for any updates 14:15:17 and get that to you as soon as 14:15:20 possible. Any questions, 14:15:23 comments, or concerns? Thoughts? 14:15:30 Thanks. Okay. Moving right along 14:15:34 here. We're going to ask 14:15:37 to review the 14:15:41 FAIR policy review. As we know in 14:15:45 our last policy 14:15:48 subcommittee we had two that we're going to talk about today. 14:15:52 One was the FAIR policy, and 14:15:55 the other was the undefined subcommittee with 14:16:03 the intent of addressing one of the work plans that we had 14:16:06 yet to get to this 14:16:09 year. So with the -- reported 14:16:13 out previously, unfortunately that 14:16:16 Commissioner -- we need at least three 14:16:19 individuals to volunteer 14:16:25 to fully staff it and we 14:16:28 only received two that were interested so that was dissolved 14:16:32 before it was started. But there was a subcommittee, we 14:16:35 had to work with our first meeting and one 14:16:38 staff member at an appropriate level, however, 14:16:41 the absence of an executive 14:16:44 leadership team after our previous 14:16:48 concern director, Molly Rogers, put in 14:16:51 her office, and policy training manager 14:16:54 for -- and manager of the 14:16:58 services offices, it was 14:17:01 determined that 14:17:04 the staff had other issues to that 14:17:07 committee and reassess or readdress 14:17:11 the issues and winter, spring of 14:17:14 2024, and so I have 14:17:17 two leadership kind of outlining exactly what happened in 14:17:20 the subcommittees and then the recommendation that we continue 14:17:23 the FAIR ordinance review next 14:17:27 year when we have an executive leadership 14:17:30 team. I wanted to make sure you 14:17:33 all understand the importance of being reactive to 14:17:36 committee feedback, particularly that it's feedback -- 14:17:40 I wanted to let you all 14:17:43 know that I will make 14:17:46 sure it's possible it's 14:17:50 revisited in the future when we 14:17:53 have, you know, support and leadership to 14:17:56 help support tackle this issue and support -- 14:17:59 which would be the staffing for, you know, 14:18:03 continuous staffing of committees. So a brief 14:18:07 overview of those two things regarding 14:18:10 subcommittees and make some space for questions, 14:18:14 comments, concerns regarding that. 14:18:26 >> LAURA: Justin, thank you for that. 14:18:30 Can you go over about the 14:18:33 FAIR policy review subcommittee 14:18:37 and why it was delayed? >> JUSTIN: Absolutely. You 14:18:40 know, the -- you know, I wasn't 14:18:43 here at the time, but my understanding was 14:18:46 the passage -- of the ordinance, 14:18:50 it was difficult and contentious 14:18:53 and [indiscernible] as we're going into a time of 14:18:57 considering to review those, the absence, I think, of the 14:19:00 leadership team and the Housing Bureau 14:19:03 is a very unique 14:19:06 thing, 14:19:10 compounded by the lack of rental services 14:19:14 office, [indiscernible] who is still on leave until next 14:19:17 month. So as I was speaking with them regarding 14:19:20 this, you know, it was -- we had a meeting the 14:19:24 day that Molly announced her departure 14:19:27 from the bureau, and with all these things up 14:19:32 in the air and it was agreed upon it was not the best 14:19:34 time for us to open this can of worms right 14:19:38 now, then, the bureau in such 14:19:41 a transition, that would prevent us from being able to 14:19:44 provide you all with what you would need to have a 14:19:48 robust conversation, the deliberative process and get 14:19:53 results. We wanted to have -- 14:19:56 [indiscernible], when reviewing the 14:20:00 subcommittee, making recommendations and it 14:20:03 wouldn't be possible without the support of our 14:20:07 excellent leadership team. So unfortunately that decision was 14:20:11 made, but again, recommendations that 14:20:15 you do have manager revisiting this in the 14:20:18 future. But it is a bummer in that 14:20:21 -- and I believe that I am thankful that everyone who signed 14:20:26 up for the subcommittee and had the range 14:20:29 to discussion -- it will be a robust 14:20:33 discussion, and I was also looking forward to this chance to 14:20:36 interact with policy in such a way. So 14:20:40 I hope for now, 14:20:43 not forever. 14:20:46 >> LAURA: Thank you, Justin. >> AMBER: Yeah, I 14:20:49 just want to say, kind of 14:20:53 -- you're firmly in a publicly 14:20:56 -- you know, I understand 14:20:59 when there are staff shortages 14:21:02 and, you know, 14:21:06 concerns, it's still frustrating 14:21:09 to have the experience of coming on to the 14:21:13 Rental Services Commission, you know, to fund, 14:21:16 you know, not all meetings cut in half, half the number of 14:21:20 meetings, but then you can't get responses from, 14:21:23 you know, the office to set up 14:21:26 the new executive committee. You know, we come up with ideas 14:21:29 and are given approval, you know, to 14:21:34 set up subcommittees and then they're canceled at the last 14:21:37 minute. So just -- you know, just in the scope of, 14:21:40 you know, this is like the 11th -- the 11th 14:21:43 year of like a housing crisis in Portland, but 14:21:47 also, you know, absolutely 14:21:50 skyrocketing problems that just get worse every 14:21:54 month. It would really be -- you know, it's 14:21:57 important to actually see more 14:22:00 rather than less so I'm just saying that publicly, you know, 14:22:03 I'd like to see more responsiveness from, 14:22:07 you know, from the housing 14:22:11 politicians and office and I'd like to see the meetings go back to, 14:22:14 you know, once a month 14:22:17 and the subcommittees 14:22:21 -- not to take too much time, 14:22:24 I just need to say something. >> JUSTIN: I appreciate 14:22:27 that, 14:22:30 Amber. Thank you. >> [Indiscernible]. 14:22:33 >> Thank you. >> MICHAEL: So Amber, thank you for 14:22:36 that. What I can tell you is, as 14:22:40 Justin said, this ss 14:22:44 sort of an unusual circumstance that I hope the bureau 14:22:48 moves out of quickly. 14:22:52 There's a next round 14:22:55 from the director later this 14:22:59 month, as the question becomes more clear, whether my 14:23:02 time will be shorter or longer, I'll 14:23:05 approach the whole based on that. So it looks like I'm going to be 14:23:09 interim for a while. I'll do my best 14:23:13 to sort of get things up and 14:23:16 running again a little bit of a 14:23:19 holding pattern, unusual 14:23:22 circumstance. It is an odd situation to have 14:23:26 an interim director and the 14:23:30 two executive positions under 14:23:33 -- to try to keep everything going that 14:23:37 needs to keep 14:23:40 going. But we'll get there and we figure it out, and I feel like 14:23:43 there's a light at the end of the 14:23:46 tunnel and the commitment you've made is really important to 14:23:50 this community and I want to make sure 14:23:53 we honor that as can really make the best use 14:23:56 of your time and service as possible. So just know I have a 14:23:59 big commitment to that too, even, the 14:24:02 way we really appreciate you being invested 14:24:06 with us in this. >> AMBER: I appreciate that, and I wanted to add one 14:24:09 more thing. Even if, you know, as systems get 14:24:12 settled in place, it would be very helpful, 14:24:16 if, let's say, we're given a long, 14:24:20 lengthy agenda item that involves hours of reading if we could get 14:24:23 a turnaround the same day 14:24:26 saying that agenda item has been canceled, just because, you know, 14:24:31 what happened, you know, put a lot of time in this, 14:24:34 but it is frustrating to spend hours of time 14:24:38 preparing for something that didn't happen and we just 14:24:42 found out hours after 14:24:45 -- so that was a request to please get that information 14:24:48 to us as soon as possible. >> JUSTIN: Thank you, 14:24:51 Amber, and I apologize for that. I got the 14:24:55 email last week from 14:24:58 PDX that it was being canceled, on 14:25:01 vacation, so I updated 14:25:05 as soon as possible, but understand 14:25:08 [indiscernible], and so I would be more cognizant of 14:25:12 that. I don't want to waste anyone's time, as much power as 14:25:15 I had into that. If you could 14:25:19 comment, Michael. All right. >> LAURA: Yeah, just to 14:25:22 follow up on the -- the 14:25:26 FAIR Policy Review Subcommittee, 14:25:29 how many commissioners signed 14:25:32 up for that? 14:25:39 >> JUSTIN: Seven. >> LAURA: So I just wanted 14:25:42 to make ask you, Justin, to help me 14:25:45 remind people that we are going to 14:25:49 get to that item and Michael will be calling 14:25:53 on you to help us, you know, with 14:25:56 -- assuming that everything goes 14:25:59 well and we can get to this soon. So for 14:26:02 the folks that signed up, let's start thinking about 14:26:06 how we might approach that topic. 14:26:10 So maybe we can get ahead 14:26:13 of the game when we finally get there. So thank 14:26:16 you. >> JUSTIN: Thank you, Laura, and part of my attention, 14:26:20 particularly with the executive committee, my role 14:26:23 is to make some space in that committee and 14:26:26 in our next meeting for discussion around 14:26:29 what data points we would need to make 14:26:32 sure this discussion moves forward at a 14:26:36 productive pace. And so, you know, please be 14:26:39 thinking about that. And then ideally, we'd be 14:26:42 able to go into this first or second meeting of the 14:26:45 subcommittee with the data points we need and we 14:26:50 can, you know, make that work plan as quickly as possible to get 14:26:53 the ball rolling. So thank you for that, Laura, and I will 14:26:57 be working on that and I will be following up 14:27:00 with specifically those individuals who indicated their interest 14:27:04 in joining this subcommittee. 14:27:08 Any other thoughts, questions, or concerns? 14:27:20 Perfect. Last staff 14:27:24 update, I have, providing a 14:27:27 Winter Listening Session. This 14:27:30 was discussed in our last meeting and I saw some interest on that in 14:27:33 hosting another one. 14:27:36 Ideally, 14:27:40 host another one before our first meeting in 2024 14:27:43 in order to use that community 14:27:46 feedback to really shape our 14:27:50 going forward work plan, to give that feedback to us 14:27:54 into that first meeting and basically the work will be for that 14:27:59 year on the public -- 14:28:04 [indiscernible]. And so I 14:28:07 have given the go ahead to host 14:28:10 1 before I 14:28:15 take the lead on scheduling and 14:28:18 planning this, to have a vote of the full body 14:28:22 so I wanted to make some space for any comments or 14:28:25 concerns about the item of the listening session and then I'll 14:28:29 take on a vote. Does anyone have any 14:28:32 questions or thoughts around that Winter Listening 14:28:36 Session? Amber. >> AMBER: I 14:28:39 would love to know 14:28:42 how the listening sessions are 14:28:45 advertised or promoted, 14:28:48 how and where. >> JUSTIN: 14:28:51 Yeah. For this past one, we 14:28:56 reached out, we used kind of 14:28:59 an email blast of various stakeholders. 14:29:02 PHB has an outreach to 14:29:05 basic communications that have created some detailed list 14:29:08 of community partners, 14:29:11 organizations, who would 14:29:18 benefit towards 14:29:23 specific graphics, so we sent those out to the 14:29:26 co-workers and contract partners as well in an effort to share 14:29:29 this more broadly and share with the commission, to 14:29:33 share with their networks. 14:29:37 Going forward, I was working more with the 14:29:40 team to make sure a farther reach 14:29:45 and, you know, at least 14:29:49 [indiscernible] within various languages 14:29:52 to get the word out more. Whether 14:29:55 there's any other outreach strategies that you want to try in 14:29:58 your work and you want to see us 14:30:01 engage in, please feel 14:30:04 free to let me know. >> AMBER: And just to 14:30:07 clarify, that's a 14:30:10 great answer, [freezing] on 14:30:14 that list, is it by government agencies or does it 14:30:18 include, you know, housing advocacy groups or, 14:30:21 you know, groups that work 14:30:24 with [indiscernible] or, you know what I'm 14:30:27 saying, just -- try to like be 14:30:30 helpful in terms of making sure that the outreach 14:30:33 we do is reaching, you know, 14:30:36 let's say the communities that maybe don't 14:30:40 often hear from us. 14:30:44 >> JUSTIN: Absolutely, Amber, all 14:30:47 of the above. It's a lot of community partners, a lot of 14:30:51 CEOs. I don't have the exact list right now but 14:30:54 I can see about providing that to you all, who 14:30:59 would -- as soon as possible first 14:31:02 to see who we're already reaching out to and take 14:31:05 it from there. >> AMBER: That would be great. That would help the 14:31:09 outreach that we do personally so 14:31:12 we're not doubling efforts but reaching out. Thank 14:31:15 you, Justin. >> JUSTIN: 14:31:18 Of course. Laura. >> LAURA: Yeah, I think we 14:31:22 posted it on our social media 14:31:25 as well to just sort of 14:31:29 loop our constituents in. So, you know, that's another way 14:31:32 we could do it. Regarding the Winter 14:31:36 Listening Session, 14:31:39 I think that given 14:31:43 that what we took away from 14:31:46 the Summer Listening Session 14:31:49 was an action item that we tried 14:31:52 to get to was addressing the FAIR ordinance or 14:31:55 revisit the FAIR ordinance after hearing from so many 14:31:58 of the attendees that that was what was 14:32:02 on their minds, and now then delayed, I think that 14:32:06 if we do a Winter Listening Session 14:32:09 that we have to be really, really clear about 14:32:13 expectations and set those 14:32:16 expectations well and clearly and also 14:32:19 with a reasonable time frame 14:32:22 and maybe -- because what I'm afraid of is that 14:32:26 we have a winter Listening Session 14:32:30 and then we're already behind if another topic comes 14:32:33 up. So we could eitherISTENING SESSION and then we're already behind if another 14:32:42 topic comes up. So we could either not do winter LISTENING SESSION and try to 14:32:46 revisit or we are very specific in 14:32:50 what we ask the community 14:33:00 so instead of having a broad Winter Listening 14:33:03 Session, we can have the public tell us about this 14:33:06 significant issue that we want their perspectives on. 14:33:10 Again, just an idea. I don't want to feel like 14:33:13 we have these listening sessions and then let 14:33:16 the attendees get after 14:33:20 that is nothing. And 14:33:23 so we're doing -- nothing. So just a thought 14:33:26 there, that I wanted to throw out. >> JUSTIN: Thank you for 14:33:29 that, Laura. Yeah, we -- you know, I never 14:33:33 want to make space 14:33:36 for public input and not be reactive. 14:33:39 That's the point of -- as a body, and when we 14:33:42 look back at the possible Winter Listening 14:33:46 Session, I was, I know, 14:33:49 I was initially envisioning that the cause of the 14:33:52 subcommittee being a subcommittee, and this 14:33:56 Listening Session impacting our actual 14:34:00 work plan of itself just for some clarity 14:34:03 around the elimination of the 14:34:06 work plan, but I -- I appreciate 14:34:10 the ideas of a more 14:34:13 significant topic and I am 14:34:15 with you. Kristina, go ahead. >> KRISTINA: Thank you. 14:34:19 I really like the idea of the Winter Listening Session even 14:34:22 though I know that can be tricky because folks have a lot going on 14:34:25 during that time. But I do think hearing 14:34:28 voices before we enter into the work plan 14:34:32 topics is really important to like inform 14:34:35 how we do that. I think the 14:34:38 one thing that's on my mind from the last 14:34:42 Listening Session is it felt like -- it's not the first time it's 14:34:45 happened, it just was a really large 14:34:48 amount of it happening, was that so many folks 14:34:52 seemed like they were showing up and wanting to 14:34:55 provide testimony but for one reason or 14:34:58 another there seemed to be some barriers that 14:35:02 existed from folks actually being able to do that and I'm 14:35:05 not sure what those barriers were, 14:35:08 but it might be nice to just like 14:35:11 pause and figure out a way to 14:35:15 make it more accessible for folks 14:35:19 so we can actually hear testimony that wants to be 14:35:22 shared. >> JUSTIN: That's a very good idea. 14:35:27 Thank you, Kristina. And then 14:35:32 Amber made the point that we should consider how we can 14:35:35 follow up on both the main two issues 14:35:39 renters and landlords brought up 14:35:42 in the summer. After we do the 14:35:46 Winter Listening Session, the FAIR 14:35:49 housing and rents 14:35:52 being so far above local 14:35:56 wages. I wanted to mention 14:35:59 Amber's comments. 14:36:06 Moriah. >> MORIAH: I appreciate hearing 14:36:10 everybody's comments and I wasn't able to be at the Listening Session 14:36:13 in real time, but I read the materials afterwards, and 14:36:17 I just have a real dis-ease 14:36:21 with this experience I've had over and over again on this 14:36:24 commission of people sharing really important, 14:36:27 really painful things in their lives and this 14:36:30 commission having pretty limited capacity to 14:36:34 respond to that. And I really feel like in many 14:36:37 instances, even if we do 14:36:41 ultimately influence the policy thing in the short 14:36:44 time, we're exacerbating harm that 14:36:47 people are experiencing. And so I think the suggestion 14:36:50 of being really focused about the purpose of Listening Session 14:36:53 is helpful with addressing that. 14:36:57 But I'm also wondering if 14:37:00 we should reconceptualize 14:37:05 the direction the information is flowing in. I think people don't know what 14:37:08 the rental services office is 14:37:11 and what can landlords get from there, what could renters 14:37:14 get from there, and maybe this commission could 14:37:17 or should be doing more 14:37:20 to communicate outward about either 14:37:24 us or the bureau and think of these sessions as 14:37:27 more of a space for 14:37:30 exchange. 14:37:33 >> JUSTIN: Thank you, 14:37:36 Moriah. 14:37:40 Amber? >> AMBER: Yeah, I want to say that I 14:37:44 -- I appreciate what you just 14:37:47 said, Moriah, and echo about 14:37:50 that. I do -- I was reminded, and I don't remember 14:37:53 if, you know, what conversation this was, 14:37:57 Justin, but I do remember a discussion of 14:38:01 sending out something to all the people who 14:38:04 registered for the Listening Session and asking 14:38:07 if there were barriers or 14:38:10 issues or, you know, effectively 14:38:14 -- some question 14:38:17 to try to help to discover why we had so many 14:38:20 people sign up and so many not give testimony, 14:38:24 even though they appeared to be online. 14:38:27 I felt like we 14:38:31 could do a little work to learn from that experience before we do 14:38:35 a second. >> JUSTIN: Relating to that request, I 14:38:38 did reach out to everyone 14:38:41 who signed up during last session to provide 14:38:44 testimony who didn't -- weren't able to attend, 14:38:47 just to ask that question, and I didn't 14:38:50 get any responses. 14:38:54 And so I think doing 14:38:57 that, going forward, that -- 14:39:01 work for me and -- 14:39:05 [indiscernible] it has been a few months since the last 14:39:09 Listening Session, so I'm not entirely sure about 14:39:12 the protocol setting up a way for them to 14:39:15 see them and whether they -- it was a while 14:39:19 ago, but I can commit to going forward, you 14:39:22 know, that you have to -- provide the testimony to 14:39:26 see why they did not 14:39:29 -- weren't able to attend. 14:39:35 Laura. >> LAURA: Yeah, I just wanted to ask 14:39:40 Moriah to talk a little bit more about the 14:39:43 exchange concept. Were you talking 14:39:46 about an exchange between those who give public 14:39:49 testimony and us, like a conversation, or us as 14:39:53 a roundtable saying, oh, that's a 14:39:56 good point that this person made, let's 14:39:59 talk about that? 14:40:02 >> MORIAH: I didn't have any clear idea, but maybe 14:40:05 the former, talking about it, 14:40:09 that we want to understand better renters' 14:40:12 experiences but help people in Portland understand what the city government 14:40:15 -- how it's structured and 14:40:18 what it's supposed to be doing and enabling them to 14:40:22 access services but also advocate to their elected 14:40:25 officials if they do or don't like what is going on in 14:40:28 the Housing Bureau, et 14:40:31 cetera, et cetera. 14:40:37 >> JUSTIN: And 14:40:40 Vivien? >> VIVIEN: 14:40:44 Hi, I'm just wondering if we 14:40:47 can come up with a paradigm for checking 14:40:50 in with everyone who signed up to provide 14:40:55 public testimony at one of the listening 14:40:58 sessions, rather than calling on people 14:41:01 and waiting for some amount of time to see if they're 14:41:05 able to respond, because that 14:41:08 took up a lot of the time in 14:41:11 the previous Listening Session. 14:41:14 With so many people signing up and then 14:41:18 not being able to testify or not -- for one 14:41:21 reason or -- who knows why, not actually 14:41:25 providing the testimony. So I'm not sure, 14:41:29 technically, if that's 14:41:32 feasible, but at the beginning of this session, 14:41:36 somehow asking folks to indicate whether they are 14:41:39 going to be providing the testimony they 14:41:42 signed up to provide. So that we 14:41:46 can economize on time. 14:41:49 >> JUSTIN: Thank you for that. People sign up and we have them 14:41:52 indicate, but I absolutely hear 14:41:55 you that most of the 14:41:58 Listening Session was [indiscernible], and I'm very aware of 14:42:02 that, so I appreciate that 14:42:05 perspective from -- about that 14:42:08 process, because that would be helpful. 14:42:12 And Amber, suggested in the 14:42:15 chat, what about an empowerment 14:42:18 sheet that not only gives 14:42:27 encourages -- what's PA, Amber? >> AMBER: 14:42:30 Something small we could do would be to 14:42:33 have something that's onscreen, you know, like 14:42:37 we have the agenda on screen but 14:42:40 during testimony, we have something on screen, just in 14:42:44 my head, an empowerment sheet, that would not 14:42:47 only give us information but encourage people, 14:42:50 like Moriah was saying, encouraging people to stand 14:42:53 up for their housing needs and saying how you can do 14:42:57 that. I'm not saying you can coach everybody, 14:43:00 but, you know, the benefit of whatever we know 14:43:03 that's the best way to reach or the best way 14:43:06 to get your, you know, 14:43:10 the thing in front of the policy-makers. >> JUSTIN: 14:43:13 Absolutely. I know the last one, my email 14:43:16 wasn't available at some point, and 14:43:19 [indiscernible] prominent and, yes, 14:43:24 empowerment message to encourage people to provide feedback. So thank you for 14:43:29 that, Amber. 14:43:32 Well, just to say, in 14:43:35 close, to -- with this, with this 14:43:39 issue. I'm going to go down for the vote, at this 14:43:43 point, we're voting on just the 14:43:46 Winter Listening Session with the ability to add more 14:43:49 parameters on how exactly it's hosted, 14:43:54 incorporating some of the ideas here today 14:43:58 into the actual listening process itself, could impact when this 14:44:01 occurs. Want to be aware of that, making 14:44:04 substantial changes to the actual -- 14:44:07 actual procedure of the listening 14:44:10 session. But 14:44:20 Amber, can we set 14:44:24 A 14:44:28 SM? >> AMBER: Technology issues, set off a chunk 14:44:31 of time in the next meeting to talk about this 14:44:34 issue that Laura brought up because I think it's 14:44:38 important to many of the commissioners, just from what 14:44:41 I've seen, and does seem to be the -- we'll see like 14:44:44 the -- you know, I don't want to 14:44:47 set a date for the Portland Housing Bureau, 14:44:50 but what we're hearing from feedback is very different from what we 14:44:54 would like to see, so it would be great to have 14:44:57 discussion time to find a way to kind of meet 14:45:00 those two. >> JUSTIN: Absolutely. I think 14:45:03 that's a great idea. And 14:45:07 let's do a vote. 14:45:10 Laura Golino de Lovato. 14:45:14 >> LAURA: Yes to a Winter Listening Session. 14:45:19 >> JUSTIN: Thank you, Laura. Allen Hines, 14:45:23 I see you're on the 14:45:26 call. >> ALLEN: Yes. 14:45:29 >> JUSTIN: Matthew Maline. >> MATTHEW: Yes. 14:45:33 >> JUSTIN: Thank you, Matthew. Vivien Lyon? 14:45:36 >> VIVIEN: Yes. >> JUSTIN: Thanks, 14:45:40 Vivien. Regina Amodeo. 14:45:43 >> REGINA: Yes. >> JUSTIN: Kristina 14:45:46 Goodman. >> KRISTINA: Yes. 14:45:50 >> JUSTIN: Pippa Arend. 14:45:54 >> PIPPA: Yes. >> JUSTIN: 14:45:57 Moriah McSharry McGrath. >> MORIAH: Yes. >> JUSTIN: And Amber 14:46:01 Cook. >> AMBER: Yes. 14:46:04 >> JUSTIN: Awesome. 14:46:09 Okay. Perfect. 14:46:12 Well, then, it's agreed with. I will work with 14:46:16 the executive committee and 14:46:19 PHB leadership to make some time 14:46:23 to have discussions around what we'll be doing in that Listening Session and 14:46:26 see if we can get some other models to see what 14:46:29 works for other areas and I will come back into 14:46:32 our next meeting with some 14:46:35 suggestions or 14:46:39 suggestions or both around this, so I want to thank you for 14:46:42 the discussion around 14:46:45 that. Awesome. Well, I built in 14:46:48 a break here at 3:30, so until then, I want 14:46:51 to turn it over to 14:46:54 Laura Golino de Lovato to discuss our next 14:46:58 agenda item, which is finalizing 14:47:02 recommendations with the 14.6 rent increase 14:47:05 and long-term rent assistance. 14:47:09 >> LAURA: Great. Thank you, 14:47:12 Justin. So we've got, I think, lots of time 14:47:15 today to finalize 14:47:18 this. And I believe that 14:47:23 our goal today is to 14:47:27 finalize the recommendation that we can 14:47:30 then get to 14:47:34 PHB leadership and City Council on 14:47:37 this topic. And we 14:47:40 had a good discussion back in July 14:47:44 which seems like years ago 14:47:47 and thank you to 14:47:52 Ryan Davis for taking 14:47:55 notes and summarizing that, they 14:47:58 did get those out via email, so thank you for 14:48:02 that. We talked about a lot of different things, but 14:48:05 we ended up, according to both my notes and 14:48:08 Ryan's notes, with 14:48:11 four recommendations 14:48:15 and let me 14:48:20 see, there was a recommendation to also have things typed 14:48:23 out, so I'm putting these in 14:48:26 the chat. I don't know if -- I don't know how 14:48:31 helpful that is. And if you 14:48:34 want, for accessibility, I can 14:48:37 read through them. 14:48:40 But these were where we landed on 14:48:43 proposals, recommendations, and the 14:48:46 final one being discussion on creating on agenda item for 14:48:49 the next full meeting to develop the recommendation to send to the City 14:48:52 Council. So I think that is 14:48:56 our big takeaway action. Is it okay with 14:48:59 everyone if I read through these for the accessibility 14:49:02 to meet the accessibility issue? Is that 14:49:05 good? Okay. So 14:49:08 the first one was ask City Council to stay 14:49:11 connected with state legislators to 14:49:14 determine if the rent increase cap of 14:49:18 10% from SB611 could be 14:49:21 made even lower by the city. So I think 14:49:24 we have a good conversation around 14:49:27 the parameters around that and 14:49:31 still felt in our last conversation it was worth it for 14:49:34 the City of Portland to push a little bit on that. 14:49:37 The second one was ask the city to set 14:49:40 aside somewhere in the range of $10 14:49:43 million for long-term rental 14:49:46 assistance, longer than an amount that would cover rent 14:49:50 assistance for longer than six months. And then to work with 14:49:53 the county to advocate for faster 14:49:56 spending on the supportive housing services funds being allocated 14:50:00 to the long-term rent 14:50:04 assistance vouchers. Seems like still a 14:50:07 timely topic. Another 14:50:10 idea that was proposed was making a 14:50:13 recommendation that if the tenant 14:50:16 has to receive rent assistance twice in a 12 14:50:20 -month period, the property owner/landlord would be 14:50:23 required to meet with a mediator to discuss 14:50:27 whether the rents are set at a fair or 14:50:31 affordable rate. We did have some group discussion 14:50:35 there, but because that was a proposed recommendation that we 14:50:38 didn't -- we didn't finalize that, I wanted to come back to 14:50:42 that. And then we also had 14:50:45 -- I know that [indiscernible] is not here, 14:50:48 but I think that she 14:50:51 wanted to 14:50:59 -- I think dig in a little bit more on 14:51:02 the idea of average rent having outpaced 14:51:08 the ability of BIPOC folks 14:51:11 and native Portlanders 14:51:14 being able to pay -- let me 14:51:17 see here on the 14:51:20 next slide. 14:51:23 >> JUSTIN: I think that was provided in 14:51:27 the chat. >> LAURA: I was just going to do 14:51:30 that. >> JUSTIN: I got you. 14:51:33 >> LAURA: Thank you. Thank you, Justin. 14:51:36 So she was saying if the average rent in Portland was around 14:51:39 $1700 a month for one bedroom, we 14:51:43 have outpaced 14:51:48 Black, Latino, and 14:51:51 native Portlanders from being here, we can't continue 14:51:54 to subsidize maximizing 14:51:58 landlord profits without some sort of check to ensure that city 14:52:01 funds are being put to good use. And I think 14:52:04 that was with regard to people getting rent assistance twice 14:52:07 in a 12-month period. I don't see her on 14:52:10 the call. I don't want to speak for 14:52:14 her. But I think that 14:52:21 -- I wanted to make sure I shared that with you 14:52:24 all. This was our second-to-last 14:52:27 meeting -- correct me if I am wrong, Justin. Our next meeting is in 14:52:31 November. Is that correct? 14:52:35 >> JUSTIN: Correct. >> LAURA: So I'd like us to leave 14:52:38 this meeting today with some very specific recommendations 14:52:42 for City Council that I believe PHB staff 14:52:46 will formulate into a letter 14:52:49 that will go to 14:52:52 City Council. And working with what we 14:52:55 distilled down over many 14:52:59 meetings into these recommendations, I'd like to ask that 14:53:02 we go through these one at a 14:53:06 time and see where people are 14:53:09 with these recommendations and 14:53:12 if we can move forward to 14:53:16 say, basically, yes or no, we're going to move these recommendations 14:53:19 forward to the City Council. 14:53:22 Does that work for 14:53:25 folks? And 14:53:28 if it doesn't, does 14:53:31 anybody want to recommend anything else? And 14:53:35 I want to make space for sort of, you know, what 14:53:38 you might be thinking about between 14:53:41 -- the July meeting and today. 14:53:46 Any thoughts, comments? 14:53:54 Amber. >> AMBER: You know, since 14:53:57 we have discussed this 14:54:00 repeatedly and over a long time, 14:54:04 we may need to look 14:54:08 at, you know -- we may need to look at 14:54:11 less of a unified 14:54:14 approach and more of a 14:54:20 a -- you know, 14:54:23 pinning down factors more 14:54:27 specifically, to say, like if we have -- it 14:54:30 would be an easy split for housing 14:54:33 advocates saying, rents are too high, they're 14:54:36 above wages, and landlords saying, I'm 14:54:39 just spitballing here, but our costs are too 14:54:43 high so we have to charge that much. So in that sense we 14:54:46 may not come to a really nice, neat package 14:54:49 of recommendation. We may need to split that 14:54:52 up some and break up, if costs are too 14:54:55 high for landlords to recommend, you know, the 14:54:59 specific factors going on while pressing, even if we don't have 14:55:03 a solution now, that solutions need to be 14:55:06 found so that when it's matched, we just -- 14:55:09 so people can afford to actually live here. And 14:55:12 I apologize, that's not 14:55:15 the sharpest -- 14:55:22 >> LAURA: Amber, you cut off. 14:55:25 >> AMBER: The internet -- so I know this is not a 14:55:28 sharp suggestion, but what I'm saying is having to look 14:55:32 at a longer recommendation letter that breaks things 14:55:35 down in different points rather than, you know, coming up with that 14:55:40 great, one suggestion. >> LAURA: Certainly, and 14:55:43 Vivien, I see your hand. I 14:55:46 just want to respond to Amber. I'm not 14:55:49 necessarily saying we should have one recommendation. I think what we've 14:55:53 got, though, is one 14:55:56 opportunity to create 14:56:00 a set of recommendations and, you know, 14:56:04 regardless of how they're split, by making a 14:56:07 decision today so we can put some time into the other topics that 14:56:10 we want to talk about at the 14:56:13 November meeting, which includes getting a little bit 14:56:17 ahead of the work plan and 14:56:20 also looking at the Winter Listening Session 14:56:25 and what that's going to look like, even with the full three hours of our 14:56:29 meeting, there's much to talk 14:56:32 about. So I mean, we can -- we can do that 14:56:35 in any way, and I don't think we even 14:56:38 have to be united in the 14:56:42 recommendation. We've done what we've done in the past 14:56:45 with recommendations is very clearly 14:56:48 said. These commissioners 14:56:53 supported these commissioners, these commissioners supported that 14:56:56 recommendation. So I think there's 14:57:00 some flexibility. Vivien. >> VIVIEN: Thanks for 14:57:03 saying that, Laura. I was -- I was going to 14:57:07 point that out, that the recommendations do not 14:57:10 have to be unanimous. What 14:57:13 I would also like to suggest or 14:57:17 float the idea of is for the 14:57:20 -- whatever we send to 14:57:24 City Council, to 14:57:27 identify what we have 14:57:31 heard from public testimony as 14:57:34 being matters of the 14:57:38 greatest concern in terms of 14:57:42 ensuring that Portland has enough 14:57:48 sort of arrows in the 14:57:51 quiver to address stable housing for the 14:57:55 majority of Portlanders. 14:57:58 And the 14:58:01 recommendation that -- or the comment 14:58:05 that was put in the chat was, I believe, in response to 14:58:09 a proposal that I had 14:58:12 put forward with regard to 14:58:16 a tenant who has had 14:58:19 to access financial assistance two or 14:58:22 more times during the calendar year or a 12-month 14:58:25 period, that that should be an indicator to 14:58:28 the landlord and require 14:58:31 some systematic response 14:58:34 that their rent is not -- it's 14:58:38 -- it's not a feasible rent to be 14:58:41 charging for that dwelling unit. Now, 14:58:44 that's just one proposal. The problem that it's 14:58:48 attempting to address is extremely well and 14:58:52 succinctly stated in that comment, that 14:58:56 we run the risk of subsidizing, 14:58:59 landlords maximizing their profit 14:59:03 by offering varying levels of rent assistance. Now, I work for 14:59:08 the PCC, clinic legal defense program, and that's 14:59:11 primarily what we do is help 14:59:14 to coordinate financial assistance and 14:59:17 handle the legal representation to make sure our clients 14:59:21 avoid facing eviction. We couldn't do the work the way 14:59:24 that we're doing it without the 14:59:27 financial assistance being available at the same time. So the recommendation is 14:59:31 not that we jettison 14:59:35 financial assistance. It's 14:59:38 to make sure it doesn't have the effect of 14:59:41 continuing the problem. I want that to be identified to the 14:59:45 extent that the -- all the commissioners agree, that's an issue 14:59:48 that needs to be addressed. We have to keep that in the 14:59:51 forefront of our mind as we make any of these 14:59:54 recommendations, that that's a real risk 14:59:57 that has to be dealt with 15:00:01 and addressed. And then how to address 15:00:04 that as a recommendation 15:00:07 would be 15:00:15 subsidiary to that issue. >> LAURA: Thank you, Vivien. I 15:00:19 think that, hearing what Amber said as well, 15:00:23 looking back to what was discussed, I sort of 15:00:26 feel like we've got 15:00:29 two things. We've 15:00:33 got a proposal to 15:00:36 City Council to step up more when it comes 15:00:39 to engaging with the 15:00:42 state legislature around 15:00:48 the city being able to 15:00:52 make it -- some of its own rules 15:00:55 and then, of course, is an issue to 15:00:59 -- in addressing some state law, but I still think 15:01:02 that's, you know, still a viable recommendation. 15:01:05 And then the recommendation about how 15:01:11 rent assistance is both 15:01:14 a -- 15:01:20 effective eviction 15:01:23 deterrent and 15:01:26 effective stable housing 15:01:29 tool but could be driving rate 15:01:32 increases, so what 15:01:36 is the systematic way of addressing housing. And 15:01:39 I think we also did 15:01:42 hear at the Listening Session that there are 15:01:45 many property owners and 15:01:48 landlords who are having 15:01:52 challenges and I think this commission has to hear 15:01:56 them as well. And think 15:01:59 about the issues that they do 15:02:02 have with cost. And so 15:02:05 I guess what we're talking about is really 15:02:08 a system of reform. 15:02:11 But just some observations and I 15:02:14 see your hand up, Amber, after Pippa. 15:02:18 So Pippa, go ahead. >> PIPPA: 15:02:22 Thanks, Laura. First, I'm confused 15:02:25 if we're talking about these issues one by one because 15:02:28 I have some issues with some of them that if we're going to talk about them 15:02:31 one at a time, I'll save 15:02:35 it for that time. But if we're just talking about 15:02:38 it, I want to respond specifically to Vivien 15:02:42 and that last point. Which maybe I'll just 15:02:45 do and then we'll talk about these one at 15:02:49 a time. I don't know. 15:02:51 >> LAURA: Yeah. Yeah. 15:02:55 >> PIPPA: So I feel strongly against putting in what I think 15:02:58 was item number 4, apply for rent assistance 15:03:01 twice in one year that there's some automatic 15:03:05 repercussion to the landlord. Having been a landlord, 15:03:08 still being a landlord, 15:03:11 sometimes the -- first of all, the -- I want to respond again 15:03:14 to the idea that all landlords are greedy. 15:03:17 We are not. We are trying to make ends 15:03:20 meet. But sometimes there's not a 15:03:24 correlation between someone's income and them as a 15:03:27 tenant and what I need to charge for rent. 15:03:31 So if they need to apply for rent assistance twice 15:03:34 in one year, that doesn't always mean I'm charging 15:03:37 too much. And I just -- 15:03:40 I think that's -- it's 15:03:46 -- I feel strongly 15:03:49 enough about this that I would resign 15:03:52 over this particular point. I hear what you're trying to do, 15:03:55 Vivien. Yes, it might be an 15:03:59 indicator. Some landlords are probably 15:04:03 snaking the system. Some tenants are 15:04:06 probably snaking the system. I don't think that can be avoided. 15:04:09 I think we can use this committee to equal up power 15:04:14 dynamics, but I don't feel that's the way to do it. I feel very 15:04:18 strongly about that. In terms of number two, I just had a 15:04:21 question. Number 2, as I understand it, was ask 15:04:24 our city to set aside $10 million 15:04:27 for rent assistance for those who need rent 15:04:30 assistance for longer than six months. Any money set 15:04:33 aside, awesome. My question is, are we 15:04:37 actually saying that we would -- 15:04:41 say we're helping 100 people. Do you want to help those 100 15:04:44 people for a year instead of six months or are we really 15:04:47 saying we don't want to have 200 people for six 15:04:50 months? I would like some clarity on that 15:04:53 because if that is accepted, 15:04:57 then I'll be looking for clarity about what does 15:05:01 reduction mean. Spend money faster, 15:05:04 always good. And then 15:05:07 in terms of number one, 15:05:10 about asking City Council to 15:05:13 lower the rent increases if possible in the city or 15:05:16 maybe in the county, as a -- as 15:05:19 -- in a different way than the state, and what 15:05:22 I heard a lot of at this last Listening Session 15:05:26 was the opposite, just landlords 15:05:30 mostly all -- it was only landlords that were saying this, 15:05:33 saying, please, please, please, make these rules more 15:05:36 simple, please, please, please, make our city align more 15:05:39 with the state. That's -- I'm just observing 15:05:43 that, whether I believe it or not, it's an observation that this 15:05:47 recommendation is literally what we did not 15:05:50 hear. That's all. 15:05:55 >> LAURA: Thanks, Pippa. 15:06:01 Amber, and then Regina. >> AMBER: You 15:06:05 know, I want to say, coming out of 15:06:08 -- with the discussion about 15:06:12 -- you know, like -- 15:06:15 you know, how much rents need to be raised, 15:06:18 of course, there are legitimate reasons and then 15:06:21 there aren't and one of the ways we could get a better handle on 15:06:25 this comes back to the 15:06:28 rental registration that ended up being 15:06:31 kind of last on the list but everybody 15:06:34 agreed it was on important thing, and even though I might not be 15:06:38 100% clear on exactly what the rental registration 15:06:42 is, I think we have 15:06:45 proven over the last year there isn't 15:06:48 enough information out there in terms of like what landlords are 15:06:52 charging and what their expenses are for us to have or even for 15:06:56 the city to have or even the state to be 15:06:59 able to make the decisions about 15:07:03 where that money should be 15:07:07 going. So if registration could work on 15:07:10 getting and accumulating that data, 15:07:13 that would help a priority 15:07:16 and a recommendation. >> LAURA: 15:07:20 Thanks, 15:07:23 Amber. Regina. 15:07:26 >> REGINA: I'd like to call in on what 15:07:29 Pippa and Vivien have 15:07:32 said in regards to 15:07:35 recommendations around if a resident has to request rental assistance 15:07:39 more than once in a 15:07:42 year, to evaluate or what the rent -- what 15:07:45 the rent is that's being charged by the 15:07:48 landlord, and I -- I -- 15:07:52 I agree in some ways with that, but in some 15:07:55 ways I don't. And one of the ways 15:07:58 is because at least internally, my agency, obviously, during 15:08:01 the pandemic, we saw more people needing 15:08:04 rent assistance due to lost jobs, lost income, than ever 15:08:07 before, and we worked with a lot of people, 15:08:11 thousands of people in getting rent assistance. But now 15:08:15 what we're still seeing is 15:08:19 even having reported income and [indiscernible], 15:08:23 haven't recertification and 15:08:27 the -- but now 15:08:31 -- the past due rent paid 15:08:34 due to all rent systems available but 15:08:37 some cases are still not paying their rent and I think that 15:08:40 it is worth looking at the 15:08:44 reasons why someone might need to 15:08:48 request rent assistance more than a year, but I disagree it is 15:08:51 always because the landlord is always charging too much 15:08:54 rent. I think there's a lot of factors to consider, and I 15:08:57 think it would be worth knowing from a data perspective and a 15:09:01 policy perspective why someone is 15:09:04 requesting rent assistance multiple times in a 15:09:07 year and it could be many factors for that and not always 15:09:12 because the landlord is charging higher 15:09:15 rent because they have a chance of getting rent 15:09:18 assistance or the renter has a chance 15:09:22 of getting rent assistance. 15:09:26 Vivien, you might be seeing a lot of that on your end, but there's 15:09:29 also the possibility that there's other factors that are 15:09:32 influencing a resident's ability to pay the rent. And I do 15:09:35 think it's worth the recommendation that if 15:09:38 someone has to request rent assistance multiple times in a year to 15:09:41 find out why that might be. 15:09:45 But I don't think it's always going to be because the rent is too 15:09:48 high. I know on the affordable end that it's 15:09:51 usually not because the rent is too high, 15:09:54 necessarily, but because so many factors are 15:09:57 impacting people's ability to earn enough money 15:10:01 to pay rent. It is true that 15:10:04 rent in many cases have 15:10:07 risen in a much higher rate than wages 15:10:10 have gone up, but a lot of people don't 15:10:13 have the same steady income that they had 15:10:17 prepandemic and so many factors are worth looking 15:10:20 at. And I agree -- I guess generally 15:10:23 what I'm saying it if someone had to 15:10:26 request rent assistance multiple times that we look at 15:10:30 possible ways for them to -- it would be good to know 15:10:34 why. But I don't think that it's always -- I know that it's not 15:10:37 always going to be because the rent was too high. 15:10:41 There's going to be other variables. 15:10:45 Thank you. >> LAURA: Thanks, Regina. 15:10:48 Vivien? >> VIVIEN: Well, Amber already 15:10:51 pointed out in the chat that I -- my 15:10:54 recommendation wasn't a penalty or 15:10:58 repercussion, nor did I 15:11:01 suggest that it's always going to be because 15:11:04 the landlord is charging too much rent. 15:11:07 But as Regina said, sometimes it may be, and 15:11:10 it's worth investigating. I think the reason why I 15:11:14 suggested that is because I am seeing that quite 15:11:17 a lot. And I am also seeing landlords 15:11:20 and property managers who are aware of what 15:11:24 our program can offer send a slew 15:11:27 of their tenants to us for assistance. Now, on 15:11:30 the one hand, that's helpful 15:11:33 because these folks need help staying housed with the law as it 15:11:36 currently is and with their situation as it 15:11:39 currently is. Nevertheless, it also 15:11:43 -- it raises some red flags to me, and 15:11:47 it does to other providers who are working in 15:11:51 this area as well. It's a 15:11:54 very loose proposal and would be 15:11:57 amenable to, you know, fleshing out. 15:12:00 What does it mean to have 15:12:04 that trigger and investigation 15:12:07 and exploration, mediation, you 15:12:10 know, there's -- there's 15:12:13 a number of ways that could be 15:12:17 implemented or proposed. 15:12:22 What I would resist is making the inquiry 15:12:25 all about the tenant. I think it should be about the 15:12:28 tenant and I think it should 15:12:32 be about the landlord and the value of what they're 15:12:35 providing as well. Having said that, I just 15:12:38 -- I want to make sure 15:12:41 that folks understand, I never 15:12:44 said that landlords are greedy. I don't think 15:12:48 anybody here has said that. That's a vast 15:12:51 oversimplification of the issues that we're all facing here in 15:12:54 Portland. So this can be 15:12:57 extremely nuanced. 15:13:03 I would -- I would 15:13:07 -- I would welcome suggestions for how something like 15:13:10 this could work rather than people making assumptions 15:13:15 about what I suggested. 15:13:20 >> LAURA: Thanks, Vivien. Thank you 15:13:23 all. What I am going to do now is just remind us 15:13:27 when we make recommendations to the 15:13:30 City Council, they're going to need to 15:13:33 see actionable recommendations that the city can turn 15:13:36 into an ordinance or a 15:13:39 policy or something that they can 15:13:43 do as opposed to just a concept. I mean, I think it 15:13:46 starts with a concept. 15:13:49 So the city, as 15:13:52 I understand it, their control over 15:13:56 how rent assistance is 15:13:59 distributed, organizations like where I work, we 15:14:02 have our own guidance and rules and 15:14:05 rules from our renters about rent 15:14:09 assistance. So I think we have to think about if we're going to 15:14:12 go to the city and 15:14:15 propose or ask the 15:14:18 city to recommend mediation 15:14:23 of -- under certain 15:14:26 situations, there has to be some sort of 15:14:29 lever for them to pull. There has 15:14:32 to be something they can control. And that would be 15:14:35 more the relocation ordinance. So changes to 15:14:38 the relocation ordinance is something 15:14:42 that the city controls. >> VIVIEN: 15:14:45 Laura, if I could just break in. I totally agree 15:14:48 with you. I don't think that what I put forth is -- 15:14:51 rises to the level of an actual proposal 15:14:54 or something that could be recommended. 15:14:57 It's far too vague. >> LAURA: Thank you for 15:15:02 that. But I don't want to ignore 15:15:05 it. >> VIVIEN: What I said 15:15:09 previously, though, I feel like 15:15:12 I'm most interested in helping, to the extent that 15:15:16 we can, helping City Council understand that that's 15:15:19 a real area of concern, is 15:15:23 the -- is the possibility 15:15:26 of all these various modes of 15:15:29 -- and pools of money to 15:15:32 subsidize rent and to keep people housed, 15:15:36 which is extremely important, can have 15:15:39 -- can, not will or always 15:15:42 has, but can have 15:15:45 the unintended effect of 15:15:49 keeping rents higher than they should 15:15:52 be. Or incentivizing rents to remain as high as they are, 15:15:56 which is, in my experience, an 15:15:59 estimation, too high. As it stands right 15:16:02 now. So just -- just to highlight 15:16:05 that as something to be addressed, however 15:16:09 City Council feels that that can 15:16:12 be addressed. >> LAURA: Got it. I hear 15:16:15 you. And I'm trying to 15:16:18 orient myself very much to an 15:16:22 action that we can take in a letter 15:16:25 or in some sort of communication to City Council because 15:16:28 I hear you on that one. Moriah, I 15:16:31 saw your hand up earlier. Do you want to -- do you want 15:16:34 to -- did you want to say something? 15:16:38 >> MORIAH: Thank you very much for checking in with me, but it's 15:16:41 okay. >> LAURA: Great. Matthew and then 15:16:45 Amber. >> MATTHEW: Well, 15:16:49 Vivien had asked earlier if anyone had ideas on how her 15:16:52 proposal could work. So my impression from 15:16:55 the idea of mediation is to 15:16:58 increase landlord costs without a lot of incentive for them to lower their 15:17:02 rents. What you could try and what 15:17:05 they do in some other contexts, they 15:17:08 offer tax incentives. So for instance, Portland 15:17:12 landlords pay business taxes to Portland. There's other tax incentives 15:17:15 that you could have, which is, the 15:17:18 advantage is that it doesn't necessarily come out 15:17:21 of the city budget. Depending on how you account for it 15:17:24 right away, but you could incentivize certain things 15:17:28 for landlords that way if 15:17:31 you wanted to kind of give them a carrot for doing the 15:17:34 mediation, for doing other things that 15:17:38 might help. So I was just trying to be constructive in 15:17:41 saying, I don't necessarily approve of it, without 15:17:44 any additional sticks for the landlord, I think there are ways that 15:17:47 you could formulate it that it 15:17:51 might be helpful. 15:17:54 >> LAURA: Thank you, Matthew. Great suggestion, to bring it back 15:17:57 to something actionable for City Council to think about. 15:18:01 Amber and then Regina. 15:18:05 >> AMBER: This is -- first, it's just 15:18:08 a friendly -- I haven't 15:18:12 seen anybody on the commission -- any 15:18:15 of the commissioners using blanket language, like X is 15:18:19 always true or why is always bad, so just 15:18:22 a friendly reminder if we're hearing 15:18:25 that, stopping, this is a charged issue for all of 15:18:28 us, so nothing is any individual 15:18:31 person, right, but these are charged issues 15:18:34 that we're passionate about and if you feel like you're 15:18:38 hearing, you know, very, you know, negative 15:18:41 comments or that kind of thing, then maybe we 15:18:45 should discuss that rather than responding to 15:18:48 it. You know what I'm saying, listening 15:18:52 to it, just because -- you know, for 15:18:55 example, no one should have to feel like 15:18:58 they have to constantly apologize for what 15:19:01 they're saying or like Vivien now is saying -- 15:19:04 and I'm not trying to speak for her, now I have 15:19:08 to preface everything and say five things so it 15:19:11 doesn't make sure I'm being too demanding and 15:19:14 no one on the commission should have to feel that way. So if this 15:19:18 is something that we need to have a discussion 15:19:21 about, a forum for how we discuss 15:19:24 these things, then let's do that. If not, we can 15:19:28 move on. I wanted to suggest 15:19:31 for the first point, 15:19:34 one of the things that we discussed previously was 15:19:38 the city being unable to change 15:19:41 rent raises because the state has been granted 15:19:44 that authority, so a direct request to 15:19:48 the City Council would be 15:19:52 to make a challenge, to advocate 15:19:57 specifically, to set upped a vote 15:20:02 -- set up 15:20:05 advocatation. >> That's a 15:20:09 tangible suggestion. >> LAURA: Yes, thank you, 15:20:12 Amber, and that is 15:20:15 definitely one of the recommendations and that 15:20:18 would mean, I believe, a change to state law, 15:20:21 but certainly doesn't stop us from recommending that 15:20:24 to City Council. Did I cut you off, Amber? 15:20:26 I'm sorry. >> AMBER: No, no. 15:20:29 It's in the chat. Thank you. >> LAURA: 15:20:32 Yeah. Regina. >> REGINA: I just wanted to add that, 15:20:35 you know, I did not mean to 15:20:39 insinuate anything critical. And I don't know what a 15:20:42 policy or what a framework like this would look like, but 15:20:46 if we do recommend some kind of policy on 15:20:49 this, which I really like the idea of, if folks 15:20:52 are having the need -- if the tenants are having 15:20:55 the need to make multiple requests 15:20:58 for emergency rental assistance that 15:21:02 some way of gathering information 15:21:09 about why they 15:21:12 have requested rental assistance multiple times would be 15:21:16 helpful to inform future policy recommendations. Laura, 15:21:19 when you say your agency has your own specific 15:21:22 rules and guidelines for rent assistance 15:21:25 and who qualifies and that's -- that's the case for every 15:21:29 organization. You know, a lot of -- 15:21:33 and so that's something that's really difficult. There are so many places where 15:21:36 people can go to get rent assistance, and every 15:21:40 agency, based on the rent assistance, based on 15:21:43 the funding source 15:21:46 of that rent assistance on how 15:21:49 it's disbursed, residents have to actually have a 15:21:52 notice, an eviction notice or a 15:21:55 nonpayment of rent notice until they'll get rent assistance. 15:21:59 So sometimes it has to go as far as someone having a 15:22:02 notice of nonpayment or a threat 15:22:05 of eviction to get rent assistance. So if someone 15:22:08 has to do that multiple times 15:22:11 in a year, the 15:22:14 -- the hurdle is 15:22:18 immense, but as we think this through, in the time that 15:22:21 we have, it would just be, I think -- 15:22:24 I think it would just be 15:22:27 really good if it was possible 15:22:30 to know the reasons why someone is in that 15:22:33 situation, because it could help us 15:22:36 with future policy recommendations to the 15:22:39 city. But I always 15:22:42 want data that's impossible to get but I 15:22:45 think would be super helpful. So 15:22:50 -- yeah. Thank you. >> LAURA: 15:22:53 Got it. Thank you, 15:22:57 Regina. 15:23:00 Welcome, 15:23:07 Angelita. 15:23:10 Moriah, I saw your hand again. Go for 15:23:19 it. >> MORIAH: I think the data we 15:23:22 wish we had, they don't exist, but I wanted to 15:23:26 comment, on this issue of repeat 15:23:30 recipients of rental assistance, I hear us 15:23:34 talking about different and maybe often interrelated problems 15:23:37 like a renter can't afford their 15:23:41 place and the issue of -- but there's 15:23:45 evidence that certain landlords may be taking advantage of these 15:23:48 programs so I just wanted to point out for that second 15:23:51 problem, I think the way you would intervene on 15:23:54 that is the property owners are repeatedly 15:23:58 getting this -- these monies and 15:24:01 so working with them, what is going on 15:24:05 that you're constantly needing this public -- I just wanted 15:24:08 to point out there's two types of recipients of 15:24:12 it. That's all. >> LAURA: 15:24:15 Great. Thanks, Moriah. 15:24:21 So are we good with taking a break now for five 15:24:26 minutes and coming back at 15:24:29 let's make it a nice six minutes and come back at 15:24:32 3:30, and then we will have 15:24:36 until 4:15, Justin, how many people do 15:24:39 we have for public testimony? 15:24:42 >> JUSTIN: We have six people signed up, maybe, but 15:24:46 I do have some -- that I have to wait for 15:24:50 the Listening Session, so we'll take 15:24:53 the full minutes again. >> LAURA: So let's 15:24:58 come back at 3:30 and talk again 15:25:01 to 4:15, do public testimony, and then finish out with 15:25:05 a continuation of this discussion and 15:25:08 Angelita, we'll get 15:25:11 to your topic after the break. 15:25:15 >> JUSTIN: Thanks, Laura. [Break] 15:32:09 >> LAURA: All right, all right, we're 15:32:12 back. Can everyone hear me? Can 15:32:14 anyone hear me? Okay. Good. 15:32:18 I swear Zoom is the best. I'm sure all of you 15:32:21 have the exact same experience 15:32:24 with that. 15:32:35 Okay. 15:32:43 I want to 15:32:49 -- Justin, can you take this? I need to answer a phone 15:32:52 call. Can you just get us 15:32:55 started again? I'm sorry. >> JUSTIN: 15:32:59 No worries at all. 15:33:02 And so where we left off, 15:33:05 Laura mentioned she wanted to go ahead and 15:33:09 jump in and revisit -- to your 15:33:13 point, before the 15:33:16 break, about -- 15:33:19 Vivien's proposal of the average rent 15:33:23 $1700 per month and the relief and 15:33:26 BIPOC -- household in the 15:33:29 City of Portland -- and you 15:33:32 know, kind of keeping this to mind -- 15:33:37 Laura, you're back. And 15:33:40 15:33:44 tangible, actual recommendation we can make to the City 15:33:47 Council, that's where we're at before the break, but I see that 15:33:50 Laura is back, so I'll pass 15:33:58 the reins 15:34:01 back over to her. 15:34:04 >> LAURA: >> LAURA: 15:34:08 Angelita, we wanted to give you 15:34:11 space and time for your 15:34:14 comments and at the beginning of the meeting 15:34:17 what I said was Michael was to 15:34:21 try to get us to a final set of 15:34:25 recommendations to get to City Council and 15:34:29 the PHB leadership about these issues 15:34:32 that we talked about. 15:34:35 So 15:34:49 I wanted to give you time to flesh that out. If the 15:34:52 average rent in Portland is around $1700 a month for 15:34:55 a 15:34:59 one-bedroom, we have outpaced Black, Latino, 15:35:03 and native Portlanders from being here and we 15:35:08 can't continue to maximize landlord profits 15:35:11 without making sure that city funds are put to good 15:35:14 use. You don't have, to but if you'd 15:35:17 like to, we'd love you to 15:35:22 amplify that a little bit. >> ANGELITA: Thank you for bringing that 15:35:25 to the forefront. I think it's important 15:35:28 to discuss, especially since Portland is one of the 15:35:32 whitest cities in the United States of America because it is 15:35:36 unlivable here for many reasons and one of the reasons is 15:35:40 the cost of rent 15:35:44 of 15:35:47 Black, Latino, and native 15:35:51 Portlanders and why I think it's 15:35:54 amiable to help people pay their rent and 15:35:57 that's something that needs to look into, it 15:36:01 seems to incentivize that behavior from certain landlords if 15:36:05 they want to increase the rent an 15:36:12 exorbitant amount and I think doing a rent cap -- 15:36:15 if you don't do a 15:36:18 rent cap, you are essentially 15:36:23 incentivizing bad behavior from landlords, not just from 15:36:26 the people to maintain their housing, it's going to be 15:36:29 beneficial to everybody in the city. The less people that are 15:36:32 homeless on our streets, the better our 15:36:35 streets look, the better it is that everyone 15:36:39 stays housed, so from a human or aesthetic 15:36:45 perspective, it is best 15:36:48 that the people in our city with 15:36:51 the least are well taken care of. Those 15:36:54 are my main concerns with subsidizing 15:36:58 an increase in rent payment without doing 15:37:02 something to address why they're increasing in 15:37:05 the first place. Thanks, Laura. 15:37:09 >> Thanks, Angelita. Any 15:37:12 additional conversation with that additional perspective? Any 15:37:16 other thoughts on that? 15:37:27 Okay. So I wanted to 15:37:34 suggest a couple of things and come back to you 15:37:38 all. So I'm going to -- Vivien, I see 15:37:41 your hand. Go ahead, Vivien. >> VIVIEN: 15:37:44 Well, as Angelita 15:37:47 was talking, I had 15:37:50 a thought about tying 15:37:54 something together related 15:37:58 to accessing financial assistance for 15:38:01 rent. When I say financial assistance, that means I'm talking 15:38:04 about not just rent but also associated costs 15:38:07 like late fees, utilities, other things that may 15:38:10 be required as a payment 15:38:13 by the tenant or 15:38:17 by the landlord. When a tenant has 15:38:20 access to financial assistance from 15:38:23 any agency and within that 15:38:26 same 12-month period, the landlord 15:38:30 then raises rent, 15:38:33 that would be potentially 15:38:37 a narrower set of circumstances 15:38:41 that I think would really 15:38:44 bear some 15:38:47 scrutiny, to look at what the 15:38:51 justification or need on the landlord's part for 15:38:54 raising the rent would be and to ensure that 15:38:57 the tenant who has recently had 15:39:00 to access financial assistance is 15:39:03 able to -- reasonably able to pay that 15:39:07 on a going-forward 15:39:10 basis. And in terms of City Council having 15:39:14 something -- having the power to enact that 15:39:17 and what that scrutiny 15:39:20 looks like, I'm 15:39:24 going to try to put together sort of a sketched 15:39:28 out paragraph in the next period of time 15:39:31 before public testimony starts and 15:39:35 offer that in the chat so that it's a concrete proposal 15:39:38 and not a squishy 15:39:41 proposal. 15:39:46 >> LAURA: Thank you, Vivien. I appreciate that. 15:39:49 I'm actually doing the same sort of 15:39:52 thing. So 15:39:58 I did hear -- so 15:40:03 I think we've got 15:40:08 -- I think we've got a few things that we can talk about 15:40:13 in this next phase. 15:40:20 Sorry to be 15:40:23 multitasking. So I'm going to 15:40:27 -- oh, my goodness, the -- 15:40:30 where is the chat here? Here 15:40:34 it is. I'm going to 15:40:39 put this in the chat 15:40:49 -- it's all mushed together. It didn't 15:40:52 copy over the way I wanted it to. So I'm going out 15:40:56 on a limb here. And I'm 15:40:59 saying here are maybe four 15:41:02 proposals that we could 15:41:05 -- or proposals, recommendations, ideas, that we could 15:41:09 share with City Council. So one is 15:41:12 that idea -- and the language in this can 15:41:15 be totally wordsmithed, but whatever. The first 15:41:18 one is the idea that the city work 15:41:22 with state legislators to change state law 15:41:25 about the rent cap. And that's, 15:41:28 you know, as I said, that's a big ask. 15:41:31 I have no idea what sort of appetite the city 15:41:34 would have for that, but that's not 15:41:38 my problem, not our problem. Our issue 15:41:41 is to put forward ideas. If they don't like it, 15:41:44 we can circle back and say why didn't you like it and try to get 15:41:47 a conversation. So that's 15:41:50 one. I did 15:41:58 rent -- I think, 15:42:02 Pippa, how many people for how long because just 15:42:05 saying $10 million for rent assistance doesn't tell you 15:42:08 a whole lot. But if we were to say 15:42:12 the City Council allocate funds and a directive to 15:42:15 PHB to set aside $10 15:42:18 million for rent assistance for 138 households 15:42:21 for four years at $72,000 a 15:42:24 year, and work with the county to advocate for 15:42:28 faster spending, that's 15:42:31 just a 15:42:37 ballpark figure, but we work with single 15:42:40 adults in studios, so $1500 is just 15:42:43 a ballpark. So that's 15:42:46 one. I think 15:42:50 I missed one. Oh, 15:42:53 yeah, sorry, this is sort of messy. I 15:42:56 apologize for that. And then 15:42:59 thank you 15:43:05 , thank you, Justin, educate city leaders about the 15:43:08 potential impact of rent assistance on rent 15:43:11 increases. Rent caps, and part of the 15:43:15 PHB to study the reasons why a renter 15:43:19 might need rent assistance and the reason 15:43:22 I'm suggesting the city fund PHB, there 15:43:25 are, one, the city has control over the Housing Bureau. 15:43:29 Two, there are so many agencies that provide 15:43:32 rent assistance. Somebody has to 15:43:36 wrangle those agencies and get some sort of 15:43:39 an understanding of -- and collect 15:43:44 the data and understand why 15:43:47 different agencies might provide different rent assistance 15:43:50 more than once to the same person in a month. 15:43:54 The other thing is understanding which 15:43:58 agency has provided rent assistance directly to clients, 15:44:01 to tenants versus rent assistance to landlords, and 15:44:05 I think also understanding that are the requests 15:44:08 coming from landlords, are the requests coming from tenants. So 15:44:12 there's a little bit of a -- a 15:44:16 lift there that I don't think a CBO would be 15:44:19 able to do but certainly the 15:44:23 Housing Bureau -- theoretically, could do 15:44:26 it, in gathering -- and there was one more that I had 15:44:29 that maybe Vivien will magically come up with 15:44:33 her proposal. And so, 15:44:36 again, putting this forward, not because I'm in love with all 15:44:40 of these ideas, but because I'm trying to move us forward and 15:44:43 get us something to poke at. I 15:44:47 always work better when there's something I can poke 15:44:51 at. And I have absolutely no problem if everybody 15:44:54 says, I hate all of these. So 15:44:57 I don't really care. That's not my 15:45:01 goal. So any 15:45:04 thoughts, any -- and we're not 15:45:07 wordsmithing these, but maybe 15:45:11 concept-Smithing, if you will, do we want to go with three 15:45:14 recommendations, with a fourth? I did have a fourth 15:45:17 one and I sort of lost track of 15:45:20 it. Do we want to focus 15:45:23 in on maybe just one 15:45:28 with -- and then sort of 15:45:31 provide the context in 15:45:34 which all of these pieces fit together? What 15:45:39 do you all think? 15:45:47 You all love it, Justin, 15:45:50 you have an appointment to wordsmith! Just 15:45:55 kidding. Regina. >> REGINA: 15:45:58 It wasn't one time per month but one time 15:46:01 per year, I think, 15:46:04 on the requests. And then my -- my 15:46:08 question for number 2 is 15:46:15 138 households, 138 households with full 15:46:19 rent assistance for full years. 15:46:22 >> LAURA: $1500, $72,000. And then that's, 15:46:25 you know, some people are going to be paying more 15:46:29 if it's a family with [indiscernible], some 15:46:32 people are going to be paying a lot less 15:46:36 he -- if it's a studio. It's all over 15:46:39 the place, using the number that Angelita put 15:46:42 in, $1700 a 15:46:46 month. You know, and -- yeah. >> REGINA: 15:46:49 So it could be a figure like 138 15:46:52 households, to me, that doesn't seem 15:46:55 like enough households. >> LAURA: 15:47:00 It never is. 15:47:05 You're absolutely right. I think to this point, we can't 15:47:08 just say, I'll take $10 million of rent assistance and figure 15:47:12 it out. We have to give them some very 15:47:15 specific direction. If we went -- if we're asking 15:47:19 them to allocate city money for rent assistance, they're 15:47:22 going to want to know how much for how long 15:47:25 and who is worthy. 15:47:29 >> REGINA: Right, I gotcha. Sorry. 15:47:32 >> LAURA: No, just getting to this point, 15:47:35 I was going to answer Angelita's 15:47:38 question. I took $72,000 a year and 15:47:42 $10 million and that ends up -- for four years. The 15:47:45 other thing, I picked four years, because in my 15:47:48 experience at the project, what we see over and over and over 15:47:52 again, two years of rent assistance with the expectation that 15:47:55 the person, that the tenant 15:47:58 is going to be able to either move to a fully 15:48:02 subsidized building or pay a portion or most of 15:48:05 their rent is just no longer enough time. The 15:48:09 wait-list for subsidized buildings are much longer. 15:48:12 The challenges of being able to really 15:48:16 get on your feet are tough. So 15:48:19 I picked four years, 15:48:24 $1500 a month, $10 million 15:48:28 total -- and if somebody else wants to 15:48:31 do the math, that's great. $10 million was the number we had in 15:48:34 our notes before. It doesn't matter. We could 15:48:38 ask the city $15 million, to set 15:48:41 aside $15 million. >> MORIAH: Like issuing 15:48:44 a bonderbonder 15:48:49 -- bond or something? Where is this money coming 15:48:52 from? >> LAURA: Who knows. We didn't 15:48:55 address that in previous conversations. Go ahead. 15:48:58 Regina, do you want to finish up? >> REGINA: Yeah, just a few 15:49:02 thoughts on, you know, just using an example of, you 15:49:06 know, this many people getting full rent assistance, right, 15:49:09 for, you know, X period of time, is perhaps in addition to 15:49:12 that, we could, you know, while 15:49:16 I totally get it that 15:49:19 City Council will want something really tangible, 15:49:22 right, maybe using this but then also other possibilities, 15:49:25 right, like in the event that some 15:49:29 households are able to 15:49:33 pay, rent assistance would be able to 15:49:36 spread longer with more households, so holding this 15:49:39 up, 138 or 200 -- there would be 15:49:42 folks who were able to pay a portion of their rent and 30% of 15:49:45 their income in rent and the rest 15:49:48 is rent assistance so hopefully it 15:49:51 stretches farther, and just thinking about 15:49:55 -- we had that with -- we could use 15:49:59 this, 138, with full rent paid for four years, 15:50:02 but also, you know, 15:50:05 the goal maybe -- some 15:50:08 potential -- other alternatives being 15:50:11 met if the rent is lower than 15:50:15 $1500 or if 15:50:18 some households need less 15:50:21 rent assistance that the money would 15:50:24 stretch farther. 15:50:28 >> LAURA: Thank you. Kristina. 15:50:31 >> KRISTINA: This is all over the place 15:50:34 and I don't want to list -- 15:50:39 low-hanging fruit, adjust for 15:50:43 relocation assistance which feels like maybe an easy recommendation 15:50:47 to make and match it 15:50:50 a little bit more closer to rent increase and then I think the first 15:50:53 one in the chat, so easy. The 15:50:56 second one, I'm just going to name it, I feel like I have 15:50:59 a conflict of interest on that one, so I'm going to 15:51:03 recuse myself out of that. For the 15:51:07 third one, probably not tonight, there's not time, but I 15:51:10 think it would be worth having a little more conversation 15:51:13 around the idea that Matthew proposed around 15:51:17 exploring tax credits and how to potentially leverage 15:51:21 those. It feels like when folks 15:51:24 receive rent assistance or vouchers, the way those are 15:51:28 issued, those come with what's considered rent 15:51:32 reasonable, right, so they're only paying 15:51:35 a certain amount for that rent. Those calculations do not 15:51:38 always keep up with what the market is charging 15:51:41 for rent and we all know that there is a shortage 15:51:44 in affordable housing stock, 15:51:47 so if all those vouchers are being 15:51:51 applied to affordable housing, it doesn't leave enough 15:51:54 affordable housing for those who don't have the assistance 15:51:57 but need affordable housing. So I'm wondering if there's 15:52:01 some way to explore Matthew's 15:52:04 idea a little bit more, better understanding those tax 15:52:07 credits, if there's a way to leverage those to 15:52:10 free up the affordable housing to give folks 15:52:13 a little more self-determination on where they 15:52:16 can choose to live when they're issued vouchers. 15:52:19 >> LAURA: Yes. And we 15:52:23 did a lot of scattered sites 15:52:26 placements, and -- yeah, 15:52:29 it's important to have the 15:52:32 tenant choice as well as subsidizing 15:52:36 buildings. So yeah. Thank 15:52:39 you, Kristina. Matthew. >> MATTHEW: 15:52:42 So for the issue of a specific amount 15:52:45 to subsidize a specific number of families 15:52:49 for a specific period of time, I 15:52:52 guess I don't remember from our prior conversations why our 15:52:56 body is the body that would be best 15:52:59 suited to be experts on that sort of thing. I thought that we would 15:53:02 give, you know, some feedback to the City Council 15:53:05 of, you know, tenants 15:53:09 need more subsidizing, we think you should 15:53:12 look into this. But I would think like 15:53:15 others, like financial planners or others 15:53:19 might know what amount of money is feasible for the 15:53:22 city. So I just wonder 15:53:25 why we're focusing on specific dollar amounts rather 15:53:28 than the general idea. I thought that wouldn't be 15:53:31 productive since we're not the ones that would have any idea how 15:53:35 that would be funded or where that would come 15:53:38 from. Maybe the general idea would be better. 15:53:41 Hey, we heard this, it's a great 15:53:45 idea, we should look into this. That's 15:53:48 my thought on that. >> LAURA: Yes, I was pulling from the notes 15:53:51 and we had a prior recommendation in our notes 15:53:54 to ask the city to set aside somewhere in the 15:53:58 $10 million range for rent assistance. So that's where 15:54:01 I pulled that. We don't need to go that direction. We 15:54:03 can go the direction you're talking about. Absolutely. 15:54:06 We can just say, more 15:54:09 rent assistance is 15:54:13 needed. Personally, my 15:54:18 opinion is the city is going to say, 15:54:21 great, the county can deal with that, not our problem. I think 15:54:24 if we put a very specific 15:54:27 ask in front of the City Council to do something with city 15:54:31 dollars, that it will be a more effective, 15:54:35 tangible ask. But, you know, in our -- in 15:54:38 our body here, it's what we collectively agree 15:54:41 on. So thank you for that. 15:54:45 Amber. 15:54:56 >> AMBER: Yeah, I wanted to clarify. 15:54:59 Universally, it seems like everybody discussing rental assistance 15:55:02 and thumbs up on more rental assistance, but in 15:55:05 essence, it's also not that simple. You know, many of 15:55:08 us have been saying that while we want more 15:55:12 rent assistance, we don't just want to tell 15:55:15 the city to spend a bunch of money 15:55:18 on rents that seem inflated 15:55:22 or we have no way of knowing whether 15:55:25 they're inflated or not so 15:55:28 we don't know. But a lot of us have been 15:55:31 saying, we don't just want to 15:55:35 recommend rent assistance. We want to recommend rent assistance 15:55:39 that, you know, is being spent 15:55:42 wisely on, you know, tenants and 15:55:46 landlords who need it. >> LAURA: 15:55:49 I think that's very subjective, tenants 15:55:53 and landlords, spent wisely. In my 15:55:57 experience in dealing with the city and the county, there's 15:56:02 more objective 15:56:08 criteria that they're going to want to put that into our 15:56:11 ask, and I hear you saying, 15:56:15 make it more general, and in that case, I 15:56:18 guess what I would say to you all, what would be 15:56:21 the specific ask to the city around 15:56:25 rent assistance? Where we started, with a recommendation 15:56:28 that we pulled from our July meeting, 15:56:31 which was to ask the city to come up with $10 15:56:34 million from their own -- from their 15:56:38 own resources, and 15:56:41 then qualify that, you know, 15:56:45 what outcomes would -- as 15:56:48 some -- as I have 15:56:51 heard, run that 15:56:54 by us from the 15:56:57 vendor perspective, but if 15:57:00 we wanted to frame it differently, 15:57:03 what would it look like. >> LAURA: 15:57:07 Pippa. >> PIPPA: Yeah, just 15:57:10 to add complexity to -- 15:57:13 a couple more ideas, because 15:57:17 there is a shortage of housing 15:57:20 and because I feel like 15:57:24 that is the responsibility of the comments and we need to take 15:57:28 care of our neighbors and sometimes we can do that as 15:57:31 individuals and sometimes our government comes in and 15:57:34 helps, our recommendation would be the city build more housing 15:57:37 that they own, which then they can really, 15:57:40 you know, moderate the price of, would be in charge of 15:57:43 that, so I would just put that as a recommendation. If 15:57:47 I had my druthers, let's have the city 15:57:50 build more housing to be in 15:57:53 charge of that. Sort of 15:57:56 tangentially, but there's always the permit issue, 15:57:59 just making the -- and I know they're working on it, God 15:58:02 bless them. They're working on making the 15:58:06 permits better, but keep emphasizing that to 15:58:10 incentivize the development of more low-income 15:58:13 housing if that low-income housing is going to be 15:58:16 private, but my recommendation is more public 15:58:19 low-income housing. >> LAURA: Got it. 15:58:24 Thank you, Pippa. 15:58:34 What other thoughts? We have a few 15:58:37 more minutes. I'm going to read Vivien's 15:58:41 proposal. If the tenant 15:58:44 has had to access 15:58:52 financial assistance to pay 15:58:58 rent/utilities/fees in 15:59:04 the last year, then the landlord wants 15:59:07 to raise their rent within 15:59:11 12 months of provision of assistance, 15:59:14 then landlord must provide reasons and 15:59:18 substantiating documentation for the rent raise or agree to 15:59:21 participate in mediation with 15:59:24 resolutions or another group that provides 15:59:28 no-cost mediation you. If the landlord does 15:59:31 neither, then that triggers relocation assistance requirements, and not 15:59:34 necessarily with the full range of exemptions or 15:59:38 exceptions. Vivien, do you want to flesh that out for 15:59:41 us a little bit? >> VIVIEN: I'm not sure about fleshing 15:59:46 out. I will say that 15:59:51 , although I didn't make it clear, this would 15:59:54 be irrespective of the percentage 15:59:57 of rent raise. I feel 16:00:00 like from a policy perspective 16:00:04 when we're talking about somebody needing to access 16:00:07 financial assistance for the level of 16:00:10 rent they're currently obligated to pay, then 16:00:13 any increase, obviously, puts them at 16:00:17 risk of facing yet another 16:00:20 default on the lease requirements and then, you know, very 16:00:24 likely facing a termination 16:00:27 notice and an eviction action. So that making 16:00:30 it, you know, if the landlord 16:00:34 wants to raise the rent by 5% or 16:00:37 more, I don't think it really matters how much 16:00:40 they would want to raise the rent. The 16:00:43 very fact that they're doing it 16:00:46 is quite obviously going to cause potential problems for that tenant. So 16:00:50 this is -- this is aimed at 16:00:53 creating housing stability for people we 16:00:57 know, have recently experienced housing 16:01:00 instability. That's all I really have 16:01:03 to say about that. 16:01:11 >> LAURA: Thank you, Vivien. Any comments or 16:01:14 questions? Yes, 16:01:17 Moriah. Go ahead. And I'll read 16:01:20 Kristina's comments. >> MORIAH: I appreciate how we're all 16:01:23 trying to work through this idea or bunch of ideas 16:01:27 and clarify them. I'm having trouble 16:01:30 like grasping this concept and 16:01:33 like what problem it's attempting to fix. I 16:01:38 appreciate, 16:01:41 Vivien, summarizing you see helping households that have 16:01:44 been under strain, which I agree is really important. A couple of 16:01:48 things, what are the potential outcomes of this 16:01:51 mediation is that the landlord would agree to lower 16:01:54 the rent or have the payment plan? I don't really 16:01:57 understand the mediation 16:02:00 mechanism and also if the 16:02:04 purpose of this is to help the 16:02:08 household under strain, why wait until the second time they 16:02:11 need assistance? How about doing it the first time? 16:02:14 >> VIVIEN: Those are great questions, and I mean, in terms of why not do 16:02:17 it the first time, I think the 16:02:20 first time sort of -- at least 16:02:23 in my experience of helping 16:02:28 tenants apply for financial assistance many times 16:02:31 a week, a lot of times these are people who have never had 16:02:34 to do this before and the reasons why they're needing to do 16:02:37 it now are related 16:02:40 to, you know, 16:02:46 are issues that arose from the 16:02:49 moratoriums, they lost their jobs, they were disabled for a period of 16:02:52 time. These are significant dislocations in their ability to have the 16:02:55 income that they used to 16:02:58 have, and 16:03:02 they access the assistance and that helps them 16:03:05 get stabilized and 16:03:08 the income is there, so a one-time doesn't 16:03:11 necessarily signify any issues 16:03:15 but then 16:03:18 if that happens again, or if 16:03:22 there's a rent increase during that period where they're trying to 16:03:27 get stabilized, I feel like 16:03:30 that's the time period when 16:03:33 some extra eyes could be placed on it. As to your question 16:03:36 about the mediation, obviously, that would 16:03:40 also have to be fleshed out, and 16:03:43 I am trying to multitask right now because I almost 16:03:46 didn't attend this meeting because I have 16:03:50 a lot of work. So I don't have 16:03:53 that whole -- 16:03:56 I don't have the whole architecture scheduled out in my 16:03:59 head. But the mediation 16:04:02 programs have -- we've tried pilot projects with 16:04:07 them, there is something that people like to talk about, 16:04:10 but they're not very well 16:04:13 established and so 16:04:18 they're a way to 16:04:28 -- well, I'll leave it at that. I don't have the 16:04:33 architecture all sketched out. 16:04:41 You're free to propose something. >> LAURA: I think we're 16:04:44 happy to throw out the 16:04:47 concept. I want to read Kristina's remark in the 16:04:50 chat, and then I'll come to you, Pippa. Is it 16:04:54 a fair housing violation to offer different rent amounts 16:04:57 for different tenants or to increase some rents 16:05:00 but not all, and Justin 16:05:04 responded, I'm not entirely certain, but I can find 16:05:07 out and get back to you individually. And Justin, I think that would 16:05:10 be good for all of us to know. Good 16:05:15 question. Pippa. 16:05:20 >> PIPPA: Thank you. Vivien, 16:05:23 I really -- I like a lot about that 16:05:26 proposal and the way it's written, and I think it 16:05:29 does lend towards stabilizing housing, which is great. As 16:05:33 -- from a landlord point of view, I think there's some 16:05:36 unintended side effects, so I just wanted 16:05:39 to highlight those to flesh those out, which 16:05:43 is, something like this further 16:05:47 disincentivizes a housing lender from renting 16:05:50 to someone who might seem 16:05:53 as they they might need rental 16:05:57 assistance at some point because if someone 16:06:00 needs rental assistance more than twice a 16:06:03 year, I guess, I am bound as an 16:06:07 owner to not raise my rents for more than 12 16:06:10 months, a year, from the time that you're needing assistance or 16:06:13 something like that. So I'm 16:06:17 -- my private business is being bound 16:06:20 by something that is not entirely related to me, which 16:06:23 is the income that this 16:06:26 person doesn't have versus my business 16:06:30 but I just need X amount from, so there's a 16:06:34 disconnect there so I was wanting to highlight that. And then with 16:06:37 mediation, it -- I'll 16:06:40 stop there. >> LAURA: Thank you, 16:06:45 Pippa. I'm going to read Amber's 16:06:49 comment in the chat. Even 16:06:52 OHCS, Oregon Housing Community 16:06:56 Services, changed their rent raise policies this year on 16:07:00 affordable housing, where before property owners had to apply 16:07:03 to raise the rent and show good faith property 16:07:08 management, now they can raise the rent 16:07:11 5% per year without application. So in some places 16:07:15 rent raises are being made easier not more 16:07:19 fair. Do you know, Amber, is 16:07:22 that just for the low income 16:07:25 credit tax properties? Regina is shaking her head, yes. 16:07:28 So that is a subset of the 16:07:32 affordable housing, they're regulated, so it 16:07:35 doesn't apply to all rental 16:07:40 properties, 16:07:43 just the 16:07:46 LICTA properties. We have seven or eight 16:07:50 minutes before public testimony. 16:07:54 I'm going to be a little 16:07:57 pushy, again, and just 16:08:00 say -- let me frame it this way. It's 16:08:03 not being pushy. So we do -- we do 16:08:07 have one more meeting in November. 16:08:10 And I feel like we've made a lot of progress 16:08:13 today in talking about this, and 16:08:17 there's a lot 16:08:20 here. Do we want to 16:08:25 try to pick the top three or four concepts 16:08:29 that we then want to hammer 16:08:32 out at the November meeting with a goal of 16:08:37 finalizing recommendations? Or do we want to trier 16:08:41 to get to some maybe -- 16:08:45 pick two recommendations that we could land 16:08:48 on today and come back and revisit 16:08:51 a couple of other ones? Or another 16:08:54 option, are there -- maybe I should also ask, 16:08:57 and I'm definitely trying to move us toward a 16:09:02 very specific deliverable because as I said 16:09:05 before, this commission, this body has 16:09:08 one, what I call a superpower 16:09:12 superpower, one thing we can do which is communicate to 16:09:16 the City Council and PHB 16:09:19 leadership our 16:09:24 thoughts, our ideas, our recommendations, so I would like to take advantage of 16:09:27 that. I would like to walk away with maybe two 16:09:30 recommendations today that we could 16:09:33 ask Justin to work 16:09:36 on. What do people think about 16:09:40 that? >> JUSTIN: And for the 16:09:43 process wise, after I 16:09:49 -- recommendation, I'll take them 16:09:52 to the next meeting and 16:09:56 [indiscernible], the January 16:09:59 meeting. >> LAURA: Thank you, Justin, 16:10:02 for that reminder. It just keeps getting 16:10:07 further down the road. But I 16:10:10 mean, that's sort of -- to Amber's point early on in 16:10:13 the meeting, that's where we are with only six 16:10:17 meetings a year. That's 16:10:20 sort of where we are. Thoughts 16:10:23 on that. Amber? >> AMBER: Yeah, I 16:10:26 mean, in response, 16:10:30 I feel like a lot of people have 16:10:33 [frozen] 16:10:37 you know, the whole group has -- you know, been 16:10:40 excited or wanted to back 16:10:44 most of the ideas, so 16:10:47 I'm not sure how we could create any kind of 16:10:50 consensus at this point. >> LAURA: Okay. I'll just remind us, 16:10:53 we started off with recommendations that were made at the 16:10:56 July meeting and I think one of the 16:11:00 things that 16:11:04 gets in our way is 16:11:07 continuing to go back and revisit other ideas. 16:11:10 So -- I mean, 16:11:13 that's fine. We just have to 16:11:17 understand that if we feel like we're not going to reach 16:11:20 consensus on any of these then 16:11:23 it is going to be January before the commission 16:11:27 hears from us. And so what I'm trying to do 16:11:30 is poke at all of you and say, is there anything 16:11:33 we can agree on that we could 16:11:37 send the recommendation to the city in 16:11:39 November, because as Justin said, he's got to work on 16:11:43 it, then we've got to vote on it. We have to wait 16:11:46 and vote on it in 16:11:49 November. So 16:11:52 maybe 16:11:57 -- well, 16:12:01 Pippa. 16:12:06 >> PIPPA: I want to go back to the idea that I don't think was brought 16:12:09 up in the June meeting 16:12:12 but some of these ideas 16:12:16 -- this idea of encouraging the city to build 16:12:19 more housing so they can control at least some of the 16:12:23 stack of housing to 16:12:27 provide more comments for other neighbors. Is that an idea 16:12:30 that could be included in that or is it too late for 16:12:33 that? I hear what you're saying, Laura. 16:12:37 >> LAURA: No, not too late at all, if it's an 16:12:40 idea that we can get 16:12:43 behind, I will say that I believe that 16:12:47 the Welcome Home Coalition 16:12:51 is working on putting forward the 16:12:54 concept for a new housing 16:12:57 construction bond. So -- >> PIPPA: Something along the 16:13:03 lines of, you know, the permit process and/or honestly, 16:13:06 it's tax process too, but encourages 16:13:09 more private developers for low-income housing, 16:13:13 but not the sneaky kind 16:13:16 where they crank up brands within minutes. 16:13:20 I know there's snakey stuff out 16:13:23 there. And I don't know legalese so I don't know how to craft 16:13:27 that, but permits and building, common 16:13:30 housing. >> LAURA: Thank you. Moriah. 16:13:33 >> MORIAH: Personally, I am so into the idea 16:13:37 of public housing, housing 16:13:41 owned by the government and managed by the 16:13:44 government, and amazing gardens and beautiful -- that is 16:13:47 not a policy direction, cities in the United States have taken for 16:13:50 a long time and I think that people 16:13:54 on this commission know this stuff better than 16:13:58 me. But I think putting 16:14:01 our eggs in that basket would 16:14:05 take us in the direction -- not necessarily 16:14:09 the direction of the bureau we're advising is working on and not 16:14:12 necessarily what our elected officials are doing 16:14:15 in the community. So I just think 16:14:19 -- I would hope our commission could be 16:14:23 strategic about aligning what's important to us in all of 16:14:26 our various roles in the community with what 16:14:29 our city employees are doing and thinking about 16:14:33 do we want to propose things that are really different from what's 16:14:36 going on and push on those or do we want to get 16:14:39 a strong understanding of what they are working on 16:14:43 when we're hearing about so much staff strain they're 16:14:46 having and thinking about avenues for us to help them 16:14:49 in the direction that they're trying to go in. So for 16:14:52 me, like when I look at this list of 16:14:55 things or what I'm hearing people talk 16:14:58 about, there's a lot of conversation in the city right now 16:15:01 about city permitting. So if you think that's something 16:15:05 that can help stabilize people in housing in our city, 16:15:08 maybe that's something we want to focus our energy 16:15:11 on. How can this commission support that. If 16:15:14 we do want to bring the big ideas that are 16:15:17 maybe really different, I'm not saying 16:15:21 necessarily I would oppose that, but I want to 16:15:25 point out how our conversations relate to 16:15:28 other conversations going on. 16:15:33 >> LAURA: Thank you, 16:15:36 Moriah. >> JUSTIN: >> JUSTIN: We have to 16:15:39 pause here. It's 4:15. 16:15:43 No problem. >> LAURA: Angelita and go to Matthew 16:15:47 and we'll come back. >> JUSTIN: Thank 16:15:50 you, Laura. The public comments, we have 16:15:53 30 minutes for the process. 16:15:56 Several people have indicated they may want to provide 16:15:59 public comment. Are there any other members 16:16:02 of the public who would like to provide testimony, 16:16:06 please get your name in the chat and we'll circle 16:16:10 back to you. The testimony that was submitted 16:16:13 for the Listening Session which will probably take us 16:16:17 through most of the half 16:16:20 hour. Each person has two minutes to speak, if you go 16:16:23 over, I will stop you. And we'll start 16:16:27 at the top of the list. 16:16:30 Shaun Irelan. 16:16:38 A.T. 16:16:51 [Indiscernible]. 16:16:58 Danielle Parks. 16:17:08 Mary Margaret Wheeler 16:17:11 Webber. 16:17:22 Wila Logan. [Indiscernible]. 16:17:32 >> Jessica 16:17:35 Greenlee. >> I work with property 16:17:38 management. I just wanted to frame a couple of things 16:17:42 for the commission, and 16:17:45 understanding -- actually down between 16:17:49 1.2% and 4.4%, depending on what report you want to 16:17:52 look at. If you look at Portland 16:17:55 Proper itself. So year after 16:17:58 year [indiscernible]. Expenses have 16:18:02 increased with inflation, which everybody has had to deal with. 16:18:05 And more importantly, interest rates, the 16:18:09 increase in -- dramatically 16:18:12 shifting the value of all properties at this point in 16:18:16 time. Right? You see 30% decline 16:18:19 in the value of -- to interest 16:18:23 rates, which means that the [indiscernible] owner 16:18:26 to capital are decreased and 16:18:30 often time NEPA. Now, that happens, 16:18:33 right, you have to deal with those factors that are 16:18:36 coming forward. But the 16:18:39 regulatory 16:18:43 LA -- >> JUSTIN: Can you speak 16:18:46 up? >> JESSICA: Is that a little bit 16:18:49 better? >> JUSTIN: Yes. >> JESSICA: Sorry. 16:18:54 I'm trying to project. 16:18:58 So the regulatory restrictions 16:19:01 that are being proposed by some of 16:19:04 members of the committee really start to 16:19:09 [indiscernible] the housing and management of housing within 16:19:12 the market. And that 16:19:15 really -- weighs in on your decision 16:19:18 as you're looking forward to that, as 16:19:21 we go past certain policies and 16:19:25 quite honestly, part of the conversation, very 16:19:28 disheartening to hear that there was a thought that 16:19:32 there's some kind of 16:19:37 nefarious intent by landlords and advocating 16:19:41 for them to get rental assistance and we think the policies 16:19:44 that our company uses and when a 16:19:48 renter comes to us 16:19:51 and says they're struggling, we find the time and 16:19:54 resources -- which is expensive for our company to do 16:19:58 -- to help advocate for 16:20:02 additional resources. So 16:20:05 when you start -- these additional barriers to being able to 16:20:08 do that. Quite honestly, and I'm sure many 16:20:11 other companies or individual housing 16:20:14 providers will -- will step away from doing that and say, you're on 16:20:19 your own. Because it's viewed of 16:20:23 something as we're being greedy 16:20:26 or taking something -- unjustified, it's just -- 16:20:29 I'm sorry to be emotional, but that's 16:20:32 really insulting. And 16:20:37 I don't -- [indiscernible] a lot of number and 16:20:41 facts and -- and I do 16:20:45 realize that a lot of people need continued support and the best way to 16:20:49 do that has always been rental assistance and 16:20:53 institutional housing and those should be the primary factors you're 16:20:56 looking at as a committee because the 16:20:59 regulations increase staffing costs, 16:21:02 increase administrative 16:21:06 expenses, increase legal fees, all of that drives rent 16:21:10 costs. >> JUSTIN: You're out of time. I'm sorry about 16:21:15 that. >> JESSICA: Thank you. 16:21:20 >> JUSTIN: Do other members of the public 16:21:23 want to provide public testimony 16:21:26 at this time? 16:21:32 I'll go ahead and 16:21:35 [indiscernible], I'll go ahead and read written testimony 16:21:40 from the Listening Session. 16:21:50 [Indiscernible]. Dear thank you for taking the time to 16:21:53 listen to members of the rental housing 16:21:56 community. I was about to buy a house 16:21:59 but -- to rent but 16:22:02 after learning details 16:22:08 and rent ordinances, 16:22:12 I'm canceling. It's exhausting to try to keep 16:22:15 up with the changes, staffing and 16:22:19 changes. [Indiscernible]. 16:22:24 Incremental impact on housing supply 16:22:27 and 14% increase in single family rentals 16:22:32 since the policy passed. The RSC should 16:22:36 work to hold leaders 16:22:39 accountable for delivering on rent assistance and the housing 16:22:43 industry, the RSC to be a 16:22:46 prominent voice in ensuring 16:22:49 that budget dollars are spent and 16:22:53 ending homelessness must be an 16:22:56 all-hands on 16:23:00 deck effort and [indiscernible], restricting the member 16:23:03 and affordable units in the 16:23:07 city, 16:23:10 unequivocally looking to rent. 16:23:14 Please do not end the state's harassment 16:23:18 policies, already held to a 16:23:21 strict statewide standard and stakeholders are 16:23:24 complying with. We should not 16:23:27 free up state [indiscernible] 16:23:31 adverse landlords disputes. Thank you 16:23:35 again for your consideration. 16:23:38 Next up is testimony from Michelle 16:23:41 and John Fitzgerald. 16:23:45 Thank you for the opportunity to represent a small 16:23:48 business owner's point of 16:23:51 view. I am the owner of short term 16:23:54 and long term rental in northeast 16:23:57 Portland and I have worked hard to 16:24:02 educate ourselves and -- that said, we 16:24:06 have continuously had situations where 16:24:10 we -- just trying to save for 16:24:13 retirement but held to a standard that -- the rental 16:24:16 -- holding them 16:24:19 accountable, the -- 16:24:22 rental properties, of 16:24:25 -- a city like Los Angeles, the result 16:24:29 has been for many mom and pop owners 16:24:32 to sell to larger 16:24:35 entities, rentals of Multnomah County and 16:24:39 -- permanent nants are creating 16:24:44 -- creating those conditions -- 16:24:48 lack of rental homes has greatly 16:24:51 dwindled. We need to bring back the convention 16:24:55 for owners and properties scaled 16:25:00 appropriately. The rental increase is somewhat understandable 16:25:03 and we as mom and pop 16:25:07 landlords [indiscernible]. 16:25:19 We chose to -- 16:25:24 the property management companies rental negotiation and 16:25:28 contracts. Our tenants were 16:25:31 approved and then served -- 16:25:36 [indiscernible]. 16:25:39 Asked about the job and at that point, we 16:25:42 have no recourse 16:25:45 and -- this is unfair, 16:25:49 and we did not -- 16:25:52 should be allowed 16:25:57 for damages. We completely 16:26:00 understand the need for -- and agree that 16:26:04 landlords need to accept the -- 16:26:07 [indiscernible] should still be made to pay 16:26:10 a deposit for potential damage since we currently have no 16:26:13 recourse to collect from 16:26:17 these damages and a response 16:26:20 -- rental code 16:26:23 the damage, the 16:26:26 ADA provides that any 16:26:30 accommodations, must be paid for by the 16:26:33 tenant. A service animal should be no 16:26:36 different. We would love to have joined the 16:26:40 session but are unable to have 16:26:43 [indiscernible] Concordia Neighborhood Association 16:26:47 and the meeting conflicts and 16:26:51 [indiscernible] organization the same 16:26:54 evening. Perhaps channeling the announcement to the 16:26:58 neighborhood associations would increase attendance. Thank you for 16:27:02 the chance to submit 16:27:05 comments. 16:27:15 Next up is Rhea 16:27:18 Hannon. My name is Rhea 16:27:21 Hannon and I'm a Portland -- in the 16:27:24 [indiscernible] neighborhood. By moving into 16:27:28 my current neighborhoods I was extremely 16:27:31 fortunate to find in my 16:27:34 budget. Securing our apartment 16:27:38 from these rental sites every single day multiple times 16:27:42 a day to ensure 16:27:45 a rental application, 16:27:56 will diminish your chance of being approved 16:28:00 on the access to secure WiFi, 16:28:02 the process was 16:28:08 painstaking 16:28:12 painstaking, anxiety producing and stressful and over 16:28:15 and -- a house speak other languages. The 16:28:18 obstacles that these people faced do not disappear 16:28:22 even when housing disappears as all these 16:28:25 communities are at higher risk for eviction. 16:28:28 We -- resources for all the 16:28:32 renters, affordable housing and smaller 16:28:35 rent increases, measures like 16:28:38 eviction representation for all, despite the 16:28:43 vitriol, and long-term disability and the city's 16:28:48 renters and housing market. Any 16:28:51 interest in diversity and professionals 16:28:55 [indiscernible] renters. Do you have 16:28:58 a comment? 16:29:24 I don't know if this the time 16:29:28 to respond to testimony. 16:29:37 >> ALLEN: I am consistently 16:29:40 distressed -- 16:29:54 landlord's consistent 16:29:57 interpretation of responsibility. 16:30:04 Around emotional support animals. 16:30:17 And other disability accommodations. 16:30:32 And the housing discrimination 16:30:35 complaints are related to people with 16:30:39 disabilities. 16:30:56 And landlords complaining about damage 16:31:00 from our emotional support animals is 16:31:04 pretty inappropriate. 16:31:15 So I just wanted to see 16:31:18 if we can as a body 16:31:24 do more work around this 16:31:27 type of discriminationdiscrimination. 16:31:30 I know we had the fair 16:31:33 hougzing 16:31:37 control -- 16:31:42 and I'm hoping there's 16:31:46 something about disability 16:31:50 but I think we've heard 16:31:53 these type of comments 16:31:57 many, many times. 16:32:05 They reflect the needs 16:32:09 within the housing market 16:32:14 for more protection for people with 16:32:17 disabilities. Thank you. 16:32:22 >> JUSTIN: Thank you. 16:32:30 All righty. Back to written testimony 16:32:35 submitted during the 16:32:38 Summer Listening Session. 16:32:44 On a single unit in the City of 16:32:48 Portland, a two-bedroom 16:32:52 bungalow before we were married and got together, 16:32:55 long-term tenants over three years 16:32:58 now and found the landlord and rotate 16:33:02 around the rentals to be so 16:33:06 overwhelming that actually getting some -- and planning to 16:33:09 sell the house this summer 16:33:12 and -- the market for doing 16:33:16 so. In particular, bully restrictions 16:33:19 such as creating undue hardship of 16:33:24 small landlords, moving financial 16:33:28 assistance, the rates started 16:33:33 out high and we've been -- required timelines, 16:33:36 AKA [indiscernible], 16:33:39 for tenants and 16:33:43 landlords. Requirements and notices 16:33:46 be mailed -- now tenants before 16:33:49 email and digital documents. And 16:33:52 the approach that only residential 16:33:57 landlords able to do business, 16:34:00 various corporations to scale, 16:34:03 that at every juncture which has resulted in our case 16:34:07 having to charge as high of rent as possible, just to 16:34:10 make it worth our 16:34:14 effort. There's obviously [indiscernible] to all results and 16:34:18 restrictions, and as services 16:34:21 provide for legal 16:34:24 advice, as a 16:34:27 resources, would decrease due 16:34:30 to increased 16:34:34 competition. Next up is testimony 16:34:37 from [indiscernible]. 16:34:47 I 16:34:51 moved to Portland in 1978 and 16:34:54 -- 1987, and 70 hour weeks at my 16:34:57 job, looking at rentals, 16:35:01 25 plus years, 16:35:04 renters almost had their 16:35:07 [indiscernible] and -- whatever capable of doing and 16:35:12 continuing to invest any 16:35:16 -- have told me that I'm the best landlord 16:35:19 they've ever had. Average renter stays with me 16:35:22 from 12 to 15 years and 25 years and 16:35:26 counting. I haven't had rent 16:35:29 -- I have had 16:35:32 renters over for dinner many 16:35:35 times. The cover your 16:35:38 own expenses, the wear and 16:35:41 tear and [indiscernible] 16:35:45 vacancy, spent a lot of time on repairs, even 16:35:48 if you hire someone, 16:35:52 tenants and [indiscernible]. 16:35:57 Of the current rental increase 16:36:00 between 14 and 26% if I was a 16:36:05 renter and there was that increase, 16:36:08 I'd -- 16:36:12 [indiscernible] in the past. 16:36:15 And 16:36:19 increase, knowing that they might have a vacancy. 16:36:23 The City of Portland has brought us to this 16:36:26 point by steadfastly -- the nearly 50 16:36:31 years that I've been -- and owners saying they refuse to work in 16:36:34 the city and it's so much more difficult, 16:36:37 costly, just 16:36:40 costly expenses are often 16:36:44 [indiscernible] to construction in the city. The city 16:36:49 the area builders are -- 16:36:52 in Portland, whatever the percentage, 16:36:55 very similarly, the 16:36:59 update for developers and an 16:37:02 example, 16:37:06 over many years when they're so high, but somebody 16:37:09 else has to be the 16:37:12 scapegoat. At the 16:37:17 -- that the city has has been evident 16:37:20 for a long time and virtual harassment with new 16:37:23 taxes, registration, what has the city done with 16:37:28 all that money to create 16:37:40 nothing about -- 16:37:43 schedule for every little -- 16:37:47 location and 16:37:51 -- 30 days notice, we'll get back to you, 16:37:54 and the expenses, just 16:37:57 goes on and on. 16:38:01 It's no wonder -- Portland as well as 16:38:05 other jurisdictions who are -- as 16:38:08 ours, but who have Oregon's 16:38:11 laws created by the legislature which 16:38:16 [indiscernible] as well. 16:38:20 Just in the last two 16:38:23 years, that has been getting 16:38:26 out as quickly as I can, I am only one in Portland, 16:38:30 thankfully, but as soon as [indiscernible]. 16:38:35 Unfortunately for me, I don't have the ability to 16:38:38 sell, I have to wait until people vacate 16:38:41 and I sell. That's my 16:38:45 choice, but at the beginning of the Zoom meeting 16:38:48 and the [indiscernible]. 16:38:57 One more here. Next 16:39:09 Next. 16:39:15 [Indiscernible] property owner, from 16:39:18 Michelle -- I have a couple of rental properties and 16:39:23 ACPA until I had to get 16:39:27 -- to migraine issues. I have 16:39:30 a real estate license although I can't use it much because of the 16:39:34 migraine issues. I'm 16:39:37 worried about -- harsher rental -- my mom 16:39:40 and other landlords, raise rents 16:39:43 in 2016 to raise 16:39:46 rents that if they increased rents they might get stuck 16:39:50 with the lower rent later and 16:39:53 not able to raise them and [indiscernible] 16:39:56 landlord that rent ceilings won't happen with the 16:39:59 renters and the issue with rules 16:40:02 about COLA, rate increases as well, 16:40:07 new renters and 16:40:11 60-day notices. But I don't 16:40:14 -- I don't want to see 16:40:17 any increase 16:40:21 again, with evictions, 16:40:27 a month's pay or not seems 16:40:30 pointsless and 16:40:33 landlords -- to try to give the 16:40:38 renter one month -- 16:40:41 personal imbalance issues, my personal pet 16:40:44 peeves, I'm not sure if 16:40:48 this falls within your purview or 16:40:51 not, the same value and each 16:40:55 the same property taxes, 16:41:00 to the disparity between the remodeled 16:41:03 and market houses and remodeled 16:41:06 houses, are not so huge. The exemption on 16:41:10 the schedule and the tax of Portland and 16:41:14 Multnomah County, if you have only [indiscernible] 16:41:17 properties you pay a tax on 16:41:20 rentals such rental 16:41:23 income that 16:41:27 other zone and -- idea, that's a different issue. 16:41:30 The exclusion to have a schedule C for a 16:41:33 small -- a business 16:41:36 on the state seems weird. I don't know the 16:41:40 [indiscernible] on personal property investment to 16:41:44 combat business income, why factored into the 16:41:48 business income. This is 16:41:51 weird 16:41:54 [indiscernible] and just confusing 16:41:57 and -- more 16:42:00 useful if you want to get rid of 16:42:03 large business or individuals 16:42:06 buying property and jumping up the credit on them, 16:42:09 for residential rental properties, 16:42:13 depreciating over 39 years 16:42:16 is stupid and you should be 16:42:19 able to appreciate the 16:42:23 [indiscernible], overall building, no, historically, the 16:42:26 past seven years, the rents have gone up, not 16:42:29 down, account for depreciation 16:42:32 at 16:42:35 ordinary income just allows for 16:42:39 a stupid and 1031 exchanges on 16:42:43 taxes on the income and [indiscernible] to 16:42:46 market, a 16:42:50 pretty big 16:42:54 estate tax exclusion, and if you want 16:42:57 to get more landlords 16:43:00 to -- set up the 16:43:03 same type of thing 16:43:06 [indiscernible]. Instead of paying their rent, just 16:43:09 operate for them, they can pay 16:43:13 a bit more in insurance which the government pays 16:43:16 for -- as long as paying on 16:43:19 time and -- pays for the 16:43:22 landlord and damage in an amount that 16:43:25 far more landlords -- 16:43:29 low-income housing people -- and there 16:43:33 should be lots of opportunities by 16:43:36 state to property to 16:43:39 low-income housing or traditional housing as to what properties 16:43:44 -- there are so many 16:43:47 -- 16:43:51 someone made the comment to allow a three-day 16:43:55 back-out period. Please don't do this. The cost would be 16:43:59 astronomical for landlords since many are set up for 16:44:02 two weeks ahead of move 16:44:08 move-in and have to paint again after the 16:44:11 tenant and additional overhead 16:44:14 would send them running for the hills and a 16:44:17 way for tenants -- property management 16:44:20 companies and the properties themselves in 16:44:24 some sort of public forum 16:44:27 -- similarly, 16:44:32 individual basis with the 16:44:36 landlord. This -- 16:44:39 they can always ask 16:44:42 about anything they are worried is being 16:44:45 misrepresented is a legal issue 16:44:49 they can [indiscernible]. Sorry 16:44:53 -- 16:45:00 [indiscernible],. I will turn 16:45:04 it back to you, Laura. 16:45:10 >> LAURA: Justin, there were two testimonies that were 16:45:13 sent along with the media materials. Do 16:45:17 those need to get 16:45:20 read out? >> JUSTIN: 16:45:23 [Indiscernible]. >> LAURA: Got it. 16:45:24 Okay. All right. 16:45:28 Thank you. 16:45:31 Okay. So here we are. 16:45:35 We have 15 minutes, a whole 16:45:38 15 minutes! What are your thoughts? 16:45:41 We heard a lot of new 16:45:44 ideas. We've got the public 16:45:48 housing permit issues 16:45:51 which Moriah 16:45:55 referenced, a reference that are 16:45:58 being addressed. Where is 16:46:04 -- I don't want to use the last 15 minutes to try 16:46:09 to do a poll. It feels very 16:46:12 awkward. But maybe we can 16:46:15 try something simple. 16:46:18 Anybody want to give a thumbs up on recommending 16:46:21 to the city that they work with 16:46:25 the state legislators to 16:46:30 work with the state 16:46:34 rent cap? Any hands on that? I've 16:46:38 got two -- yeah. 16:46:52 Nobody's feeling it. Let's see. 16:46:55 Regina. >> REGINA: I think the reason I'm hesitant -- I don't know 16:46:58 about others -- it seems like a really -- 16:47:02 it seems unfeasible -- it 16:47:05 seems a bit 16:47:09 unfeasible -- the city making that pitch to the state 16:47:12 legislature, that the city would be willing to do it and that it 16:47:15 would have any success. And so that's -- 16:47:19 that's my -- that's why I'm 16:47:22 hesitant to give a thumbs-up. >> LAURA: Got 16:47:25 it. I hear 16:47:28 you. Thank you. Angelita. 16:47:31 >> ANGELITA: Yeah, I think that makes sense. I would be 16:47:35 interested in seeing them pursue 16:47:39 it for Portland, but asking state 16:47:43 legislators to do their job is always a hard 16:47:46 ask. I actually really liked Pippa's 16:47:49 proposal to talk about government housing. I think it's a really interesting 16:47:53 one. And while I know it might not be in line 16:47:56 with some of the stuff that PHB is doing right 16:47:59 now, the reality is we've been in a housing emergency since 16:48:02 2015 and we do need to be 16:48:05 more imaginative 16:48:09 and thinking about housing. It's an 16:48:13 emergency at this point. So I don't think maybe new or 16:48:16 out-of-the-box proposals should be written off because what we are 16:48:19 currently doing is not working so maybe it's time to 16:48:23 try new stuff. >> LAURA: Thank you, 16:48:26 Angelita. Amber. >> AMBER: Well, 16:48:30 I think that -- and I 16:48:33 agree with Angelita and Pippa and -- while 16:48:36 I think it's important to strategize, you know, 16:48:40 smartly or intelligently 16:48:43 on the recommendations 16:48:46 being something that the City Council can 16:48:49 hear, at the same time, sometimes there are needs that have to be 16:48:53 met and we may not have the perfect solution, 16:48:56 but we are representing the need and they could be the 16:48:59 ones that figure out how to make it happen. 16:49:02 So if we -- for example, if we felt like, you know, 16:49:05 the city should consider its 16:49:08 own, you know, rent raise 16:49:11 caps, then we can put that 16:49:14 in the letter and I don't think we 16:49:17 need to second-guess whether it's their priority or 16:49:20 what they can do or not because we're representing what we feel 16:49:24 needs to happen for the rental market. So 16:49:28 that's just a friendly additional 16:49:32 [indiscernible] in there. >> LAURA: Thank you, 16:49:35 Amber. Matthew. >> MATTHEW: I'd just like to add that 16:49:39 I think a couple of years ago it was pointed out there's 16:49:43 a whole nother committee that was set up around the issue of building 16:49:46 more housing, and so I totally agree that 16:49:50 would be, you know, 16:49:54 ending the 16:49:58 monopoly, and that's what we should be focusing most of the city's efforts 16:50:01 on. My understanding is there's another committee about that and 16:50:05 our purpose was more narrow around assuming 16:50:42 this much housing, what kind of regulations are we going to put in place to try to help landlords and tenants and everybody get along within that situation. That was 16:50:42 my understanding from when I first joined a long time ago but that might not be the case anymore. And I started my career as a lawyer for public housing in 16:50:42 New York and it made me very, very against public housing in general as an institution, and I'd be happy to discuss that -- the reasons for that 16:50:42 more, you know, just the one sound bite I always give it, are you willing to evict somebody for 16:50:45 propping open a door? If you're not, how 16:50:48 are you going to prevent drug dealers and everybody else from 16:50:51 coming in and what do you do 16:50:55 when the government is evicting that 16:50:58 person and you're housing of last 16:51:02 resort, it creates other problems that other 16:51:05 countries with successful public housing infrastructure don't 16:51:08 have, so that's my perspective from being there. 16:51:11 I'd be happy to speak to anyone more 16:51:14 about that or with the group. >> LAURA: 16:51:18 Thank you, Matthew. 16:51:22 And I'm just putting in the chat the 16:51:26 original purpose and mission of the RSC to remind us 16:51:29 all what it's for and what it's doing, it's actually 16:51:32 pretty broad. So if we wanted to 16:51:35 step into the space of public housing, 16:51:39 I think -- and housing construction, I think we 16:51:42 could. Moriah, and then 16:51:46 Allen. >> MORIAH: I just wanted to say, particularly 16:51:49 based on the testimony that we heard today, 16:51:53 I think we all know and are seeing, particularly with 16:51:57 the rapidly changing regulatory landscape 16:52:00 that we have a lot of landlords that, first of 16:52:03 all, Allen talked about not understanding their 16:52:06 responsibility, but also not understanding the 16:52:10 legal situation and not understanding that you don't have a 16:52:13 God-given or a government-given 16:52:16 right to earn money and so I just want to flag 16:52:19 that because I think it -- I was having 16:52:23 strong reactions to the testimony and I think maybe some 16:52:26 other people were and just connecting it to the 16:52:31 RSC's job of helping both landlords 16:52:34 and renters like function better in 16:52:37 the city. Maybe they're seeing 16:52:41 -- I don't know, there is good landlord education. So 16:52:44 I'm just really -- always see a lot of people, a lot of 16:52:47 people don't get it. And I say that as 16:52:50 a landlord. >> LAURA: Thank you, 16:52:54 Moriah. Allen. 16:53:09 >> ALLEN: Yeah, so I find myself thinking about where 16:53:12 we're at with housing in the 16:53:15 State of Oregon. And locally. 16:53:28 I know that the main focus right now 16:53:31 is housing for [indiscernible]. 16:53:35 And housing need analysis 16:53:43 -- to create enough housing for 16:53:47 the next 20 years. 16:53:58 I'm not sure how -- I'm sorry. 16:54:01 I would love to explore how the 16:54:04 RSC fits into that 16:54:07 work. 16:54:17 I know today we've been talking a lot about rent 16:54:20 increases and rent assistance. 16:54:34 Those issues are really somewhat symptoms of a bigger problem. 16:54:43 And that need is for affordable 16:54:48 housing. 16:54:54 So I'd just like more information 16:54:58 from the Portland Housing Bureau 16:55:01 about how we can be involved with 16:55:05 that work. Thank you. 16:55:11 >> LAURA: Thanks, Allen. We only have 16:55:16 a few minutes left, so I 16:55:19 want to suggest that perhaps we take -- 16:55:22 we've got some new ideas and some 16:55:25 new suggestions which are, I think, really great and 16:55:30 provocative and interesting. And Justin, 16:55:34 is this something that 16:55:37 executive committee can discuss? What I'm 16:55:40 thinking, I should be more 16:55:43 specific. What I'm thinking is to 16:55:46 tee us up for getting some recommendations finalized 16:55:49 in November so that we can get them out 16:55:52 the door to City Council but after voting on 16:55:57 them in January, but Executive Committee could 16:56:00 take all the ideas that we've talked about today 16:56:03 and try to distill them down and bring to 16:56:06 the November meeting, okay, 16:56:09 here's the recommendations that 16:56:12 we heard and plan ahead to do 16:56:15 some polling and voting. Does that -- is 16:56:18 that, Justin -- for 16:56:22 Justin, is that reasonable to 16:56:25 do? >> JUSTIN: 16:56:29 [Indiscernible]. >> LAURA: Okay. Does that work for 16:56:33 everyone to do that? 16:56:35 Okay. Excellent. 16:56:39 Excellent. Yeah, Kristina. >> KRISTINA: Thank you, Laura. 16:56:43 I really like that idea. It sounds like 16:56:46 we're a little all over the place. >> LAURA: Yeah. 16:56:49 Yeah. >> KRISTINA: So find some direction. 16:56:53 But I also like want to -- I don't know, I guess 16:56:57 kind of go back to what Allen was saying 16:57:00 and what I heard others say. It might be good to have a 16:57:04 session that's dedicated to -- what is it that we can 16:57:07 do, like what is realistic, what 16:57:11 you were talking about, kind of talking about actionable items, 16:57:14 what the RSC does, because it feels like such 16:57:17 a broad thing that we're trying to tackle that we might 16:57:20 need to narrow it down a little bit and 16:57:23 like be more in the lines of what 16:57:27 we actually can do. >> LAURA: Absolutely. I love that 16:57:32 idea because I think that not only are we 16:57:35 a public body and I -- I feel, 16:57:39 you know, we've -- that constrains us a little bit in how 16:57:42 we do things. We only meet six times a 16:57:45 year. That makes it challenging 16:57:49 now, especially -- when we've been meeting every month. So 16:57:52 I think the more focused we are on 16:57:55 what we can do, I think would be 16:57:58 great. Would people be up for that being the 16:58:03 topic of the January meeting? 16:58:07 Aside from the vote, that we would have 16:58:11 a vote on the recommendations at the January meeting, but 16:58:14 then we could spend -- with the exception of 16:58:17 public testimony, of course, that would be in there -- 16:58:20 we could spend the rest of the meeting having a broad 16:58:24 session about our scope of influence? If 16:58:27 you want to call it 16:58:30 that? Or action area? 16:58:34 Yeah? All right. 16:58:37 We can change our minds too. 16:58:43 Well, maybe not if a public meeting and it's been 16:58:47 noticed. Never mind! At any rate, what we'll 16:58:50 do is we'll have Executive Committee take 16:58:53 all of these ideas and frame 16:58:56 them in a way that we 16:58:59 can do some polling and 16:59:04 prioritizing at the November meeting. Then 16:59:07 Justin will take those and turn them into a formal 16:59:11 recommendation. We will vote on that recommendation 16:59:14 in January, and then we'll use 16:59:17 the rest of the January meeting, aside from the public testimony 16:59:20 time, to get refocused on the 16:59:24 intent and purpose of -- 16:59:27 and sphere of influencing authority of the RSC. 16:59:31 Does that sound good? All right. 16:59:36 Awesome! Thank you all. 16:59:39 It's always such a stimulating conversation. 16:59:42 I'm always so exhausted at the end of these 16:59:46 meetings. Thank you all. 16:59:47 >> JUSTIN: Thank you, everybody, have a great day!