It's starting to get a little warmer outside and I don't want to turn on my oven. So I'm gonna use the air fryer today. So you guys loved my last air fryer recipe, the 10 things you didn't know you could make an air fryer. So I thought I would make one pretty similar to that because it was fun. So today I'm sharing with you five things you didn't know you could make in your air fryer. All right, if you guys are ready, let's get cooking. All right, the first recipe I am attempting to try is homemade croutons.  You can also make this a little bit healthier too if you want to use wheat bread, but I'm using the good white bread today. First you're gonna take two tablespoons of butter and melt it. All right, you're just gonna cut the bread into little bite-sized pieces, the same size that you like your croutons. So I have two tablespoons of butter melted in here. Then we're gonna add one teaspoon of parsley, a half teaspoon of onion powder, and a half teaspoon of garlic salt. Then just mix it all together. So now I'm just gonna add all my croutons to a bowl and pour my butter mixture on top. Then just go ahead and coat all of the bread. Okay, let's pull out our air fryer. We're just gonna put our bread in there and spread it around so it's a single layer. Okay, go ahead and put it in. Okay, so you're gonna go to 390 degrees and then we're gonna go to about five to seven minutes. Let's check it at five minutes, see how it is. Okay, let's see if it worked. Holy, those look so good. I would say yes, it worked. We made like a little Asian salad to go with our homemade croutons. I'll put a link down below for you if you want that recipe. But I just need to try it guys. I need to try the croutons. There we go. Oh my, that makes a homemade salad even better with the croutons. Okay, I'm giving this five out of five and that's how good it is. Okay, the next recipe I'm making is ground turkey. Now I've made ground turkey in the Instant Pot. You can cook it from frozen. I love the thought that you can just throw it in the air fryer and not really think about it. So we're gonna attempt trying thawed ground turkey in the air fryer. Here we go. Okay, I'm just gonna dump in my ground turkey into it. I'm just gonna leave it just like that. We'll break it up in a little bit. Then we're just gonna add a little bit of salt and pepper because you need a little bit of seasoning right now. Then I'm just gonna add a little bit of pepper and just a little bit of garlic powder. All right, let's throw this in. Okay, I'm gonna use my chopster just for a second. We're just gonna break it up just a little bit so it will be able to cook all the way through. We don't want any pink meat in the metal. Okay, so we're gonna put this in. We're gonna do power 400 degrees for five minutes. Okay, here we go. Okay, it's been about five minutes, let's pull it out. It's not the prettiest, but it's not done yet. You can tell that it's cooking on the outside so we'll chop it up a little bit more so it will cook all the way through. Okay, let's throw it back in for about three minutes. All right, let's pull this out, see how it is. Oh, it worked really well. Okay, now I'm just gonna break it up. Oh, I am a fan of this so you don't have to be over the stove top cooking. One thing is I noticed as I was doing it, I wanna show you on the bottom is that there is some that fell through. So you wanna make sure you grab that too so you don't lose some of your meat. So I might have cheated just a little bit and used some manwich to make some sloppy joes with the ground turkey. I added a little bit of pickles, some whole wheat buns. And all about simple, easy recipes in the summertime. So this is super simple, especially using the air fryer. So let's try it out. You know, I'm surprised. I'm surprised the turkey is so good with being cooked in the air fryer. So I'm gonna rate this one a four out of five, mostly because some of the ground turkey fell through the air fryer. It wasn't my favorite thing to try and like dig it out. Other than that, it's delicious. The third recipe we're gonna try is beef jerky. We're gonna try it out, see if it works. Okay, so we have some bottom round thin sliced meat here. So we're gonna just cut into this. So this beef is really, really thin, just how we want it, cause we're making beef jerky. Now we just need to cut it into beef jerky strips. So we're just gonna slice this up a little bit. We're gonna slice into about one inch strips or so. It doesn't have to be perfect, but just so it's sliced. Okay, we've cut all the beef jerky. Now it's time to just make the sauce. So first we're gonna add just a half cup of brown sugar, a fourth cup of Worcestershire sauce. Now this is called liquid smoke. It's one of my favorites. You can find it at every grocery store. So we just need one tablespoon of that liquid smoke. Now we just need one teaspoon of onion powder, one teaspoon of garlic powder, one teaspoon of black pepper, one teaspoon of cayenne pepper, and then one teaspoon of smoked paprika. You wanna make sure it's smoked. Then I'm just gonna add one tablespoon of this Caribbean jerk sauce. This is Buffalo Wild Wing sauce, and it's one of my faves.  This is our sauce where our meat is gonna marinate. Okay, now it's time to put our beef jerky in. You just wanna make sure that the pieces are not stuck together, that it's just individual pieces, and we'll put them right on top of each other. Then we're gonna cover this with plastic wrap and let it sit in the fridge overnight. Now let's get cooking. All right, this looks so good. I'm really hoping it works. Okay, now we're just gonna get one piece at a time, and we're gonna put them on a skewer.  Then we're just gonna go all the way down to the bottom of the skewer. So we're just gonna do one piece at a time, and just put a lot of pieces on this little skewer. Now as you're putting them on, you want them to be about an inch apart. So we're gonna, hopefully, they won't stick together as they cook. Okay, this one's ready to go. We're just gonna bring it right over with our skewer and just put it on the air fryer just like that. So go ahead and put it into the air fryer. You're gonna cook it at 180 degrees for 45 minutes. So let's see if this works. They fell a little, they fell a lot. That one stayed alive. Okay, these didn't stay up as well as I had hoped. This one did, but they actually still look like they're still getting cooked pretty good. They'll just be a little scrunchy, which is fine. Okay, we're gonna try and put these back up. We gotta keep on cooking them until they're cooked all the way. So hopefully they'll stay. We'll see. Here we go. Okay, there's like 12 minutes left, but I'm gonna just check on them. Ooh, yeah. Those sticks are not working very well. I feel like you can even lay them down. But I think for the most part, it's working like really well. Okay, let's pull one of these out. Okay, this is looking so good. I don't like my beef jerky really hard. And this is like tender. I love this. So you can kind of see they're a little bit oily. So we're gonna put them on a paper towel and try and get all the oil out of them. Cause we want these as dry as can be. Let's give that a try. I'm back to store bought. That's so good. All right, the next recipe I'm making is called cinnamon roll bites. Now I grew up in Utah and there is this little place called hometown buffet. We used to go like a few times a year. It was my favorite place, but you could get these little tiny cinnamon roll bites. They were my favorite. So I'm excited to try and make them for you today. So we'll see how it goes. Now I know I'm cheating just a little bit, but we're gonna use canned cinnamon rolls. We're gonna make them taste really good. Okay, so first we're gonna need a third cup of sugar and a half teaspoon of cinnamon. And then we're just gonna mix this all together. And then with these little biscuits, you have a few options. You can cut them with a knife. I personally like to cut them with scissors. It just makes it go by so much faster. So we're gonna cut them into fourths so we can have these little cinnamon roll bites. All right, so you're gonna just take your little piece.  If you notice, we put them on parchment paper just to make cleanup a little bit easier. And we're going right in the air fryer, down to 325 and then we'll just cook them for three minutes. There we go, okay. Three minutes, let's check these out. Ooh, they're coming. We're just gonna flip them now. We're gonna cook them for another two to three minutes. I might try two minutes and then just check because we don't want that to burn. All right, just gonna stick them back in for two more minutes. Okay, they should be done. Ooh, it didn't burn extra two minutes. They got a little brown on top but I think they're gonna be just fine. Let's try them out. Now you have a few options. You can dip it in cinnamon sugar again if you want to to get that extra coating and then dip it in some frost. That's really good. Now this would be perfect for like a lazy Saturday morning. I'm a huge fan. I would say probably four and a half out of five. It would be better to make homemade but for about, it's still pretty good like this. The next recipe I'm making is coconut shrimp. Now I've seen this kind of all over TikTok so I thought it's gonna be a fun one to make perfect for like family dinner if you guys are shrimp lovers. So let's give it a try. So I'm gonna start with about a pound of shrimp. This is thawed, ready to go. Then in the second bowl, you're gonna have two eggs and we're just gonna whisk them together. Then in this last bowl, we're gonna add a half cup of flour, a half cup of pincocrums and then a three-fourth cup of shredded coconuts. This is the sweet and kind. That's my favorite kind.  Then just mix this all together. So first, what you wanna do is spray the bottom of your air fryer pan with some olive oil and I just buy this olive oil just to make my life a little bit easier so I don't have to brush it on. If you don't have this, brushing is just fine. Now we're just gonna take our shrimp. We're gonna go over to the egg, dip it in. I love keeping my tail on so it's something for me to hold on to. Then we're gonna go into this one and coat it both sides. You want it really good and then we'll just put this right into the air fryer. Okay, we're gonna put these in, cook them at 400 degrees for just seven minutes. There we go. All right, let's pull these out. Oh, they're looking good. Okay, we're just gonna flip them and cook them for just a little bit longer. Oh yeah, they're turning nice and brown on that side. We're gonna put it back in 400 degrees for three more minutes. They look good. They look really good. All right guys, taste test. Let's try this. I don't have a baby crying in the background. It's pretty good. Not my favorite. A little too much flour, I probably wouldn't add as much but I would delete it. I'll give this like three and a half out of five. Not my favorite but still, it's still pretty good. Now if you want more air fryer recipes you can find them just right up there. All right guys, I'll see you next time. Bye.


f us says that eligibility for participating candidates to qualify as a certified candidate eligible to receive and retain payments from the fund, a candidate must, and then number one, meet the requirements to be listed on the ballot as a candidate for mayor city council or the school board pursuant to the provisions of article four of the city charter and article four of the city charter talks about how we get on the ballot. And so it seems to me here that I could be mistaken but I want to be just explicit. It looks like you have to qualify for the ballot in order to get the distributed clean election funds. And I would want to be really careful about that before we move on it. And if it's not something that you can answer now, I'll flag it as a question. I know this was talked about at the workshop, so I don't, I don't. Mayor. While he's here of it, while he's researching the, may I ask a quick question of corporation council? Sure. In regards to the Zaffa Davis and the monies that should be returned to the city, if the candidate just refuses to do so, can you give us just a primer of the practical mechanical process you'd have to engage into at least attempt to recovery or just write it off from the beginning? Well, I mean, yes, it certainly may be difficult to collect those funds after they've been spent. It's all gonna depend and, you know, you can go through the process of asking for it nicely, asking for it less nicely, you know, filing a complaint and, you know, and a collections action, taking steps like that. It's a lot of work and you may end up getting nothing in return. Thank you. I just wanted to bring that up, Madam Mayor, because we use words that make us feel really good that we've done something when I'm just trying to highlight the fact that these affidavits make great language, but as a practical matter, mean little or nothing. So we at least accept the fact that if we give money to a candidate who fails to become an actual candidate, kind of like a conditional certificate of occupancy before you actually qualify to have one and they disappear, then our money is disappeared. That's, I'd rather be frank about that than hide behind the idea that there's this legal affidavit that will return money to the treasury that belong to the people to begin with. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that little segue. I'm gonna take the floor back because I've got a few more questions and I think we have an answer. Yeah, thank you for the time. So this may not be as eloquent as it should be, but the idea here in section nine dash six, six threes in order for a certified candidate to be able to receive and retain the payments. So that word in that opening paragraph in able to retain the payments of not a is that you do have to qualify for the ballot. So our intent there was to clarify, receive and retain as a certified candidate. And then further down where it talks about having to return if you do not qualify for the ballot. So as I think we discussed one of the workshops, there are a lot of levers here. And when you pull one, it sort of pulled another. So that was our attempt to show that in order to retain the payments that are distributed from the fund, you have to qualify for the ballot. Got it. Okay. Thank you. That helps and satisfies the question. Another quick question for you. I think quick is page 295. This has to do with funding that a candidate may have let's say you've run for city council before you have money that's in a bank account. So my question here is in section five, if a candidate has accepted contributions that are not seed money contributions as defined here in or do not comply with these seed money contributions restrictions, the candidate is ineligible to be a certified candidate in the same election cycle. So how does that, I guess I wanna be thoughtful and careful about how that applies to somebody who might have a bank account with previous money raised. So that is actually a different section that I'm probably not gonna put my finger on. Those are two independent issues. Okay. So funding from a previous campaign in a bank account needs to be disposed of prior to and there's a limitation in that you can take, you can contribute your own amount of seed money to your own campaign. So the $100 you can take out of your account, put it over to your seed money account. The rest has to be disposed of similarly to what the state allows on page 293 page 293 B5 if that is that if the candidate has any campaign. Nope, that's not the right vote for. That the candidate has disposed of campaign surplus funds that according to the requirements of 21A including donating such surplus to the fund and it carries on. One of the allowances under the state statue is to do a restricted or unrestricted donation to the municipality. So we sort of just made it explicit that you can donate to the Clean Elections Fund if you wish. The section that you were referencing, Mayor is basically if you happen to go out, you're not familiar with the system you collect. It's limited to $500.  Okay. The intent of that section that you pointed out. Okay. Thank you. I had seen the declaration of intent language but then when I read further I was like, I was a little confused by it. Okay. The last question I have for the moment is actually in article six, the campaign finance section, which is at the very end of the packet for everybody. I'm looking at my own printed version here. So I'm gonna tell you which page I'm on. At least I'm gonna try to. Oh, great. Okay. Thank you. So right. So campaign finance section six. I do, I don't want to forget about this. We at the very end, section 995, we talk about campaign contributions reporting. And so, you know, part of my thinking going into tonight is what are we spending? What are we putting in the budget as we move from tonight's receipt of the city manager's budget? What do we need to do in the finance committee over the next few weeks? And so I'm focusing on the reporting. And right now we have $30,000 that we've been told is enough. And I have a concern there that I wanted to ask the clerk to speak to because I'm not sure 30,000 is gonna get us there. And I think it will be something that we we're obligated to do within the ordinance, right? So looking at the ordinance language can actually can you just weigh in a little bit on where we are with regard to knowing how much it's gonna cost and what our next steps look like? So one of the things that my office did was we had to put on RFP for a clean elections database because even at the 30,000, which has been talked about over the last couple of years of what the estimate was for this one time cost of providing in a searchable online database for campaign finance, it's over the $25,000. So we did an RFP for it. It was out there for a month. We received two responses. We that just closed two days ago. We haven't scored them, but the upfront cost for one of them is $454,000 with an annual fee of $65,000. And the second one is $504,000 with an annual fee of $78,000. So just keep that in mind as we're putting funds into this budget that an online searchable database is not gonna be a one time fee. It is extremely expensive. And again, it was out there for a month, only two responses, we have not scored them. So there's not much other detail I can give you other than the two preliminary numbers of what that award base is for upfront costs to put something like this together. Right now we upload our campaign finance reports, the PDFs go on our website. It's arguably not searchable. So that's why this was put in there. And we did the RFP process and that's where we are right now. Do you see a way to work around that so that we can be more in line with the projected? Even if we were to work with these two individuals, there's no way I don't think we would even be able to get the cost halfway down to do this. I did talk with the state and their stuff that they've been working on is thousands of dollars as well for some updates that they're doing so they're different stuff. So it's costly. Thanks. And I just wanted to weigh in just for a minute on that piece of it, because as I mentioned during the budget discussion earlier, I just, I know you all probably heard me. I just want to remind you, I only budgeted 290,000 for this.  I'm actually wondering, I know Ashley didn't include any specific additional staff to address this, but this program, as the more we get into it and the more complicated it gets, I worry about whether or not she's going to need a staff person, at least a part-time person to help her with this. We have that four to 500,000 plus 60 to 70 each year thereafter for the database. And then the proposal in front of you potentially doubles that 260,000 that I included in there. So we're looking at like more than a million dollars that's almost tripled the cost. And so I just want, I just, that that's why this cost has been jumping off the page to me and really making me very nervous when I'm looking at the budget in a bigger context. I know we're not specifically talking about the budget piece of this right now, but it's just something to really think about, especially as we move forward because it's a significant expense. And yet work we have to do.  Thank you, Mayor. I'm trying to remember the things that were in my mind. I wanted to also point out that the number of clean election checks compared to the number of signatures, the, I mean, the effort to get clean election checks and qualify for clean elections is so much more difficult than getting signatures to qualify for the ballot. And I think that while we are taking some risk in this proposal, when you look at it globally, it's a very small risk to be able to offer something that makes this program much more competitive. And you know, Councillor Dianne, I think said that it doesn't have to be perfect. Well, it doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be workable. It should be something that's attractive to candidates and it should be something that we can build on with knowledge of how to go forward next year. If we create a program that's not viable, it's not gonna give us any information on how we need to improve upon it for future years. So, you know, it's not, this is living up to the obligation that the voters mandated. And so I think we have a responsibility to put forward our best effort and make every effort to make it attractive and usable to candidates. So with that, oh, the other thing is for this year, we're not using an online program. So that's not part of the kind of upfront first cost in the first year of this anyway. But I think, again, we have an obligation to fund this properly, whatever we decide is allocated to candidates, we have to be willing to make good on that. So, you know, I think we need to take a look at this in the finance committee and see, you know, how much does this increase actually impact the overall guidance that the council has given on the budget? Because I think it might still fit within that. I think that that was everything. Oh, yeah, and as far as the online program, I know that the clerk actually was working with the state and I know that there is an expense to that as well. So I know it's no expense, but perhaps working with them may be a better option than outsourcing it. I'm not 100% sure on what those costs are exactly. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Tavaro. Councillor Ali. Thank you, Mayor. I came in here tonight hoping that we might be able to just vote on this and make sure that it happens. But as things are unfolding, it sounds like it's going to be complicated or it is not going to be complicated. It is more complicated than I thought when I was living home around 345. My question is, and I want us to be honest to ourselves, are we sure that we will be ready to vote on this by Monday? That is one. The second question is a cooperation council or city clerk. If for whatever reason, I make a suggestion that in order to get it to whether it is perfect or close to perfect, we postpone this to the 15th. Will that be a problem on your timeline of putting it on the ballot? Or no, on making sure that it works for June or whenever we come up with. So it doesn't need to go on the ballot, but the further we push this down the road, the less time my office has to get this program put together. So the forms are ready. There's education out there on how this is going to work with potential future candidates and spreading that out there because the further we go, the less time that is and then there's not going to be as much time to educate everyone on how the program is going to work. That's a little flip. What did I say the other time? Is it catch 22 or catch 55? And then you told me that that was not the way and I said that is the Ghanaian in me flipping it upside down. Yes, I said that before to her because I rather vote on something that prospective candidates would look at it and say, hey, this is clearly understandable than based on what I'm seeing now, I don't know if we're ready to vote on this or money, but that is me. If my colleagues believe that by Monday they will be ready for us to move it forward, I will go along. Thank you, counselor. First of all, this seems like a perfect time to, we know that we've got Paul Riley with us from elections. Thanks for being here, Paul. This is all gonna fall to you. Thanks for being here, that's really great. I actually on the point of simplicity that counselor Ali was just talking about, one of the things that I was thinking about over the weekend was, and I think counselor Travarro touched on this too, the in my view, we want this to help candidates. We don't want it to be something that is an extra burden. And so as I was trying to think about it, I was thinking about, can we coincide the collection of signatures with the collection of qualifying contributions? So instead of having a bunch of different deadlines, in some ways, it's nice to think about, you've got an August 14th deadline for your signatures, could that be your deadline for your qualifying contributions? And that unlocks the fund. I think the way that we see it in the current ordinance, there are multiple deadlines associated with signatures, or sorry, with qualifying contributions, and then you've got that other deadline associated with signatures. So as we think about moving forward and how we explain things to potential candidates and simplify it for them, I was thinking about that, how do we maybe align the deadline so that the work can all be seen as integrated.  But that might take a little bit of work to think about that language. Councillor Dianne, did you have a hand up? I want just a question to the lawyers and then a comment that probably circles back to them and Corporation Council. It would be really nice if we clarify the foreign thing. I hate to harp on this, but if my brother was a significant equity partner in an LLC in Boston, it appears he can't contribute to my seed money, right? It doesn't seem right. It precludes the fact that I may have colleagues and friends outside the state of Maine who might wanna assist in a candidacy. And I'll use myself an example because I don't wanna put it on the spot with anyone else. In terms of my colleague, Councillor Travarro's commentary, regarding my need for good rather than perfect. I think there's a term that she employs. We all employ and I have difficulty with this. What constitutes a viable campaign? There's an underlying text to clean election that it's gotta be funded in a certain way that you're viable or the people who wanna participate. I don't know what a viable campaign looks like because every campaign is unique to the candidate and they're assumed constituency. So again, having all the money doesn't guarantee success. So my question for Council is what does the charter expect? Does it define what substantial funding looks like? Does it give us parameters? And that would be very important to consider on the finance committee because if it's a term without meeting, then every number satisfies. And that could prove to be a real debate here because we get back to the subjectivist. I think a mayor all race should have $200,000. I could run a pretty good campaign for 200,000. On the other hand, if I hear my colleague, Councillor Rodriguez, I think we could get it done in 50,000 too. Either they like what you have to say or they don't. So throwing more money at them doesn't guarantee anything else. But this legal question of what constitutes substantial funding and satisfaction of the charter language is something I would like to know. Thank you. If you find anything. Thank you, councillor. Is that a question? I think that was directed toward legal counsel. And if that's the case, then I'll try answering it. Well, only because I was there with regards to the charter perhaps I'm maybe in a better position to try to answer at least the first question. And no, someone down in Delaware is not foreign. I did raise with the Charter Commission that that's something that we could say under main law. But there's a definition, what they meant was foreign as far as in another nation. And so we have proposed the definition in here that the foreign investor means someone who owns or controls part of the business entity, but is a government of a foreign country or is a foreign national from another country. And so that's the definition that we've adopted for this ordinance. I did see that under foreign investor, that's fine. I was concerned about the other previous language as well. Right, with regard to the full funding that was what was proposed by members of the Charter Commission. And there wasn't much explanation as to what was intended by full funding. They simply said they wanted to see full funding. A fiscal note is not required as part of the charter process, but one was voluntarily suggested by a Charter Commission member. And that was the $260,000 amount that you'll see cited in the report. Jim, what was the actual word that was used in the charter? Was it full? It was. Let me take a look. This is with regard to question three. The city council shall establish and fully fund a city of Portland clean election fund, provide campaign funds to qualify candidates for elected municipal offices. That was the language. And that's what'll be added to the charter, that exact language you just tried. Okay. Jim, can you repeat that language one more time? The city council shall establish and fully fund a city of Portland clean election fund. Now, one quick thing, discussion was had for just a moment with regard to the database. There is a timeline with regard to the clean election ordinance that had to be in place for fiscal year 2023, 2024. That's with regard to the clean elections fund. That same language doesn't appear with campaign finance. Does not. It does not. Okay. So we wouldn't have to do that campaign finance piece with the database until a future year. It just says that you must do it. It does not have a time. Oh, so it's up to us. I guess if we budget for it in FY24 or some future year. Councilor Travaro, I see you have a hand up. Yeah, so I've learned a little bit about this in terms of interpretations of that language.  So there's some ambiguity, but my understanding of kind of likely interpretation of fully fund is that we as a council have kind of more discussion over what we determined to be maximum distributions to candidates, then we do over fully funding that. So once we decide, you know, each candidate is going to get X amount, then we are potentially obligated to fund the fund to provide for that. And that's kind of part of why I added that piece to my amendment where the council can replenish the fund because it kind of in my mind gives us an opportunity to live up to that fully funding obligation in the charter. The other thing I would say, I know that there was language, I think in the Charter Commission report about how much this program would cost annually. But I believe that that was kind of an annual average estimate not necessarily considering the differences in mayoral years. And, you know, my sense is that the first year of the program, because it's new and because it's a mayoral year, it's going to cost more upfront than it will in the off years. And I think actually the Clean Elections Group may have some projection data on how after, you know, you make that kind of upfront funding, then year over year, there's some carryover funding. And I think Anna Keller testified to this earlier that would allow us to have funding available even in the mayoral years, you know, going out. So, I mean, we're far off from this at this point, but my intention when and if I ever offer this amendment would actually be to amend the amendment so that the only year that we budget 500,000 would be in the first year and then thereafter it would be 250. I think that that is everything I had to say right now. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. I actually have a quick question. Jim, do you want to address? This is just a little bit more gloss on the fully fund piece because that first paragraph is what I read to you. Below it, beginning in fiscal year 2023-2024 to allow for implementation of the November 2023 election, the city council shall provide an independent allocation from the city's budget each year to ensure the clean election fund is sustained at a level that facilitates competitive campaigns for participating candidates who meet qualifying criteria. The clean election fund shall be administered by the city clerk and the city council shall appropriate sufficient funds to ensure their adequate resources including paid staff to effectively administer the fund. But that first sentence perhaps of that second paragraph may provide some guidance for you. The city council shall provide an independent allocation from the city's budget each year to ensure the clean election fund is sustained at a level that facilitates competitive campaigns for participating candidates who meet qualifying criteria. Thank you. I'm going to just jump in here. I think my understanding of that as I read through counselor Travarro's proposed amendment tonight is this is an annual budget decision. And I think that's what you're saying is that every year the council is going to need to approve a budget that contains funding for clean elections. So even if you write it into an ordinance that's, I guess that the work is going to have to be done and the context is going to have. So I would think it would be worth thinking about whether we write that into the ordinance or we just know that it's all you're always going to have to make a budget allocation. Can go ahead. Related to that issue. Do you mind if I ask Jim a question? No, go ahead. A clarifying question, Jim. And if you can earlier at the beginning of the presentation, you discussed briefly the binding future boards concept. Can you talk about that concept with respect to the numbers that we're talking about right now that may be included in the ordinance? Well, if you were to say that the council shall, you know, in mayoral years, mayoral election years it's $500,000. It's $250,000 in other years. You can say that. You can put that in your ordinance, but it doesn't bind a future city council from saying more or less. And maybe what you might do is just fall back on the language that's actually here in the charter and use that as your guidepost and each year appropriate that sum that you believe is necessary. And maybe just we had borrowed from Santa Fe and put an $800,000 cap. And basically if you got to 800,000 there should be sufficient money that maybe you don't need to appropriate that year when you've got this turning over from year to year. But maybe the way to go is not to put a specific number in but just to rely on the charter language to make sure that it's sufficient to facilitate competitive campaigns. And then each year it's the council's decision. Jim, can I ask a follow-up? Are you saying then you would want just that to be part of the budget allocation is what you're suggesting in terms of numbers for candidates and all of those specifics? What would say is the money that would allow you to make those distributions, the source would be this funding as well as any donations and any money that's thrown in from carried over by this far as a source it would be up to the council to appropriate that amount of money and use this as a guidepost. Jim, I think I have just a quick follow-up there and then I know of Councillor Dian and Councillor Fornir. So I'm looking at the, it's in our first read packet. It's this three-page document that has the various elements of seed money and other distributions spelled out but the last page is kind of what I tried to mimic here. It's this page. So again, this is in our first read and it contemplates 500,000 from the current budget or the upcoming budget, 20,000 in change of qualifying contributions and but the need for the total distribution under the clean elections program it would be $578,000. And so what we see is that this funding model has been prorated at 0.9%. And so what this is telling me is that we wanted to give the mayor candidate 120,000 but we were only able to fund at 108,000. And so in the ordinance language that we're looking at tonight, I think what happens here and that my question is I just wanna be clear that I'm correct here is that for the 12,000 or so that each mayor candidate didn't get from the clean elections fund because it needed to be prorated that's the funding that they could then go out and do private fundraising for so that they meet that funded amount. Am I right on that? Okay. Well, I see nodding heads yes and shaking heads no. So I'm- So not quite. So under the first week proposal we got rid of the proration, if you remember. It is a first come first serve. What this chart shows is if you had kept prorations. So and it is confusing and I apologize but we tried to keep the charts consistent so you could compare different proposals. So the proration column was still there to show even if you did the 500,000 you were gonna be short in some way. Now under the first week proposal it's first come first serve. So those that got in their qualifying contributions both initial and supplemental would be the first ones to get funding. Somebody that came in later and if the fund is depleted that first come first serve situation would be it's still have to submit their qualifying contributions but then could go out and hit the pavement to collect under sort of traditional rules. So some clean elections candidates might get fully funded and some clean elections candidates would do private fundraising. Under the original proposal without councilor Travara's amendment that's part of the packet tonight. Okay, so the amendment gets- Just like trust that- Oh, by having a city council allocation. But in the event, so it says the city council may by resolution appropriate additional amounts. If the council chose not to because it's the word may that would trigger the private fundraising. And because- Okay, so you said the pro-ration that's shown in this chart is not right. So we're no longer pro-rating. There is no pro-ration under the first. So it's there to show it as an example had you kept the pro-ration what it would have been. It basically would have reduced funding back. The reason I was nodding my head was just if you didn't do the pro-ration as in tonight's draft then yes, you could raise the extra money to the private funding up to the limits of how much you can. Okay, so I guess my comment there is that I feel like clean elections should put people on equal footing. And if people, if it's first come, first serve and some people, if you're still qualifying within appropriate deadlines but some people get their money first and other people have to fundraise to get that level that could be tricky. And then the other piece that would be concerning would be the amount of time it could take for that additional allocation to be made. And if I may, one of the issues we ran into trying to piece this all together is we could not come up with a simple solution to allowing multiple rounds of distributions with pro-ration because you don't know how much to pro-rate without sort of having those everybody comes in on the same day you certify and you figure out what's there and then put out the checks with this rolling continuing submitting supplemental unless you put all the supplementals on specific dates so you knew how much was in the fund at certain dates at time and release it all at once the pro-ration just didn't work with the multiple rounds as opposed to in an original one of our alternate proposals where we did two rounds we made it sure that it was two specific dates that had the papers turned in and released and the earlier date was a very limited amount that was released to make sure we didn't sort of get into a pro-ration although hypothetically you could have if everybody submitted on that first date. Right, and that's what I saw when I went back in our materials from the first workshop was there was that we have those different models that you built responding to the first workshop. Got it. Okay, I have three hands up. Councilor Dian, Councilor Fornir and Councilor Travarro. I'm gonna yield to Councilor Fornir. I'm just trying to clear there's a lot of information so I'm just trying to bring this back. So going back to kind of that last tail that we were on so if we are depleted and now the people that came forward for clean elections now have to do private fundraising is it to the clean elections limits or are they now a traditional candidate? So they're no longer clean elections, they're traditional. They would still have to qualify so you would still have to get your supplemental qualifying contribution. So you're under the, I think it's 150 for mayor, to then that money would go back to those funds you'd pretty much get it back and then that difference you would then be still considered a clean elections candidate but you would be able to fundraise to the max as a traditional candidate so that $500 contribution max is how we tried to draft it. So it somewhat defeats that purpose if to get the big money out but trying to make it as simple as possible if you did have to go and become that traditional candidate to do it as efficiently as possible. Okay. And then going back to the not binding from year over year. So in my mind it's like at the beginning of the year it comes in front of the council to say just like you're setting parking rates or whatever. So this year's clean elections allocations are proposed to be this council votes on it and that's what it is for that year. Is that kind of what we're thinking? I think that sort of has to be the crapshoot here is the charts in front of you are the averages over the last 10 years if you have one less mayoral or one more mayoral or any others it could swing things very differently. So every year you'll have to take a sort of guess at how many candidates you think will be running and running clean to set the adequate amount. And the contested and uncontested amounts I guess could be set somewhat more in stone to say okay if you're a mayoral candidate you're gonna get the 75,000 but your guess on how much put in a budget would be based on the number of candidates you have. Sure. Okay. And then my last question just about the chart so I'm understanding it. So if we had three mayoral candidates three at large, two for each of the districts two for the school board at large and then two for each of the school board districts and they all max out what they were able to get. The program would need to be funded at $367,000 and everybody would get their money. So you're looking at the mayor's chart. I know so many pieces of paper, thank you. So based on that proposal between and the difference here, she also does not have the seed money offset. So the total amount that would need it would be the 367 total but then you back out the qualifying fund. The 16,000, okay. Which is why when I first started talking about that those qualifying contributions needed do not necessarily match the first read numbers I just touched those. So that $16,000 number would swing one way or the other depending on what you determined was the required or right number of qualifying contributions. And in the first read packet I worked with the councilor to try to match the I don't want to use probation but the number of qualifying contributions for the amount of money you were getting. So it's sort of tracked amongst the different ballots. So if you may decide if it's less money there should be fewer qualifying contributions needed to get those figures but those haven't been touched in this in the past amendment. Great, that's helpful, thank you. I think my last comments and I know and I appreciate all my colleagues.  I am excited to run as a clean elections candidate. I think it's a great program and I'm glad that we're spending time to get this right. So I think I'm kind of in the middle of both of these structurally. I like what's what you put forward. I think that makes a lot of sense to me and I think I'm good with that. I think with the mayor's amendment I'm more in the middle with amounts. And so I don't think we're there yet on numbers but I'm getting closer. But I really appreciate the questions because there's some that I just haven't considered as we've had this conversation because it is a ton to go through and I have supported clean elections for a while. So I thought I had a pretty good understanding. I had no idea. So this is really beneficial. But I think that's all my questions for now. Thank you. Great. And next we'll go to Councillor Travarro on Zoom. Thank you mayor. Just to speak a little bit to the rationale behind the first come first serve versus pro-ration. The first come first serve is modeled after the state program. That's the language that they use. And my concern with the pro-ration was that basically I think it's tied to the previous iteration of the timeline. So you wait until everybody gets qualified at the last minute. So you know what your pool of candidates is and then you kind of divvy out the fund on a pro-rated basis. And to me that my concern with that is that it kind of allows us to preemptively underfund the program and not deliver on our promise to candidates. So, but again, the amendment that I have to give the council the option to replenish the fund, the idea that they would go out to raise private funds first they would only be allowed to raise up to what they would have qualified for clean elections. And second, it would be like a very, very, very last resort. You know, the fund would have to be depleted. The council would have to consciously decide not to to replenish the fund and only then would they be allowed to fundraise up to what they would have qualified for clean elections. I don't know, I can't see the full room to know how many hands are up. But I think at this point I would be willing to just make a motion to postpone this to our next meeting. We do have an additional hand up from councilor Ali. So I'm not sure if this is the exact right time, but I leave it to the council to, if somebody seconds, we'll take it up. Otherwise we'll continue discussion and councilor Ali, I'll look to you. Yeah, I will, I will ask my question and then I will second it. What? So it's kind of like a sandwich. Councilor Travaro made a motion and hold tight, okay? Yeah, what I was going to say that as we are looking at how to decide how much it is going to cost for every year, I don't know if the timeline on when people will take out papers will align with our budget timeline. So is it going to be supplemental or the council will have to meet again because our budget timeline ends by June. The school will bring theirs and then we will vote on it and it will go to the public somewhere in June. I think by the time we vote on the school, the Board of Education's budget, we're somewhere knowing what percentage of the tax increase is going to go in and we're wrapping up because nobody votes on the city side, right? Are we going to just buy alone X amount because we don't know how many people. Right now, we're having this conversation. We don't know if there's going to be one mayor or a candidate or 10 and we are in almost in May, right? So as we are moving this conversation forward, let's also look at that. I'm just sitting here thinking and then I said, let me just throw this out there and then figure out how we can factor that into the conversation. Councilor Ali, thank you for that. I'm going to have the city manager ask or answer your question, but quick before you make your second, can I just ask one more quick question? Okay. Are you going to try to make me remember both? Go ahead. No, no, you go ahead and answer the question with the funding. Okay, I was going to say for you, Councilor Ali, that that's one of my concerns is obviously this wouldn't be in place. I think we have to get it in place, but the fund itself wouldn't be in place till the next fiscal year. So having anything in place for June is going to be problematic. Brendan, our finance director, I would need to discuss with him, what funds we could appropriate specifically if there was anything prior to that fiscal year, if that was the council's choosing, but right now the way that this would be set up would be funding for starting July one. And I do think that having this in place, as long as we're done by the end of May is okay. We won't be taking up the city budget for final action till June 5th. And so that still I think works within that timeline, but I am concerned about any funds being expended before July one, because we don't have any specific funds set aside for this purpose at all. Thank you for letting me ask actually two quick questions. Just in the ordinance amendment, we understand the contested races and how the money would be distributed. I'm just blanking on whether or not there are specific dates in the ordinance that would trigger those distributions specific to this question. Yes, so I should know that because I'm, but I'm... Where you're gonna wanna look, mayor, is the seed money period, the qualifying period. And as part of the packet, there's a sort of chart, and I think you've referenced it in the past. This guy. Yeah, Councilor Navarro's proposal is sort of what I did to distinguish it from our other proposals. There's a key dates. That's right. So in the ordinance itself, it'll talk about, and I can point you to initial distribution, supplemental distributions and those dates, but the key dates just for simplicity's sakes are laid out here. And to clarify what the city manager just spoke about, it's not contemplated to have any funds distributed until July 17th to account for the budget. You would be able to start collecting your qualifying contributions and they arguably that the Treasury Department would have to create the fund for those checks to be deposited to, but there wouldn't be anything extended presumably until July 17th. So since the only action before the council is the ordinance, how do we approve dates for distribution? But that's what I was asking. Can you point me to the place in the ordinance where the dates live? It's in various places. Oh, okay. All right, as long as I trust you, as long as it's there, I just didn't see it. So if you, so there's in the definitions itself, it talks about the qualifying period and the seed money period, both subpart N and Q, and then in the actual body of the ordinance itself on starting on page 300, where it talks about distribution of funds to certified candidates. It talks about the amounts for contested and uncontested and then the timing subpart C on page, bottom of page 301, the timing. And we've, I think in councilor Travar's original graph, she had put specific dates. We had tied that back to sort of manage charter language for so many days before the election to hopefully address sort of future years. So you're not tied to, I think it all worked out for not following on weekends. Okay. I'll go ahead. So the 113 days, the initial. And that was one section that we've tried to correct with the amendment to not be so rigid for the city clerk's office. So that's in council Travar's amendment is a little bit more possible, but those are where the dates, the specific dates live. Okay. I'll let that be. And so I guess my very, I'll let that be just because it's here and I'll read it more closely, but the, my quick question that I wanted to ask before councilor Ali's second had to do with the clerk's office and the capacity for the distribution structure that's contemplated in this ordinance. So one thing to point out is that right now as it was written before the amendment is that it's, you know, it shall be distributed, what does it say? No later than 113 days. So that saying on July 17th is the has to be distributed. That means that we would need to put something in place where a individual needs to give us all of those qualifying contributions so we can certify them and verify them, then submit it to the accounting office to cut a check. So just because it says that, well it says it has to be distributed within 113 days right now, but we would need time before that to make that happen. So the deadline would be different. The deadline would need to be sooner than that to submit your stuff for that initial disbursement. That's why we really tried to work through this at the beginning and I know it seems really late, but to have everything taken out at the same time, you're a candidate, you're coming in, you're getting your paperwork to say that you're declaring as a candidate and you're getting your clean elections packet. Everything is done at the same time. It's submitted to us so we can verify everything together. The way this works right now is that a candidate can come in with their qualifying contributions. We then have to verify them, cut them a check and then they turn back around, they come back into our office again and we verify the signatures to become a candidate. So it's like two different times they're coming in and then we're looking at multiple rounds of supplemental. I hear everybody when they're saying it seems late, but just the flow of everything. A candidate is potentially going around and getting qualified contributions and then they're turning around when they can take out paperwork to become a candidate to get signatures. They're going around essentially twice. So I guess it would be helpful for me if we postpone to be able to have not only dates for distribution, but deadlines for submissions to the clerk's office so that you have the opportunity to, like you said, verify and turn everything around. So if the date of initial distribution is July 17th, what's the deadline for submission to the clerk's office? And then with each subsequent distribution date, I think that would be helpful because candidates are gonna be juggling so many deadlines for filing and other things that they don't wanna be disappointed on July 17th. If you say it'll take 10 days to turn around your distribution. That's where I'm going with that. Brandon. Just a point of clarification which also came up in this conversation is the, I don't, and Councilor Travara can correct me. I don't think the intent was to be so rigid that initial, you could be qualifying during the qualifying period. So you could be turning in your initial qualifying contributions up until a date certain. We can try to back out how early that has to be, but to do date certain to put everybody in at the same time, you may not pull your papers until August if you don't want to. So to back into those dates is gonna be a little tricky unless we start getting into everybody has to pull papers on the same day. Everybody has to turn them in on the same day, which we can certainly do. But the idea in the way the state works is it's sort of rolling. There is no set date for your initial qualification or your supplemental. It's sort of, it comes in and goes. Okay, so that means like, we wouldn't want to mislead anybody and say your initial distribution is gonna be this date because it all depends on when you get your other paperwork in. Okay, that helps, thank you. Okay, you've all indulged me in lots of questions. Councilor Phillips, I want, go ahead. So because of the way the charter language is written, nomination papers are released or to qualify for the ballot 127 days prior. The first day that you can turn those into the city clerk's office is 85 days prior, which is August 14th. So you can't turn in your nomination petition before then. And that's written in the charter. Brandy, can I ask just one quick question too? Maybe this is for Councilor Travarro. I'm not sure, but I'm slightly concerned about this in her amendment. The sources of funding number one indicates that if once the ordinance is passed, a special appropriation, the sum of 500,000 for 2324 will be deposited immediately upon adoption of that ordinance. That's gonna be prior to the fiscal year starting most likely. And I'm definitely concerned about that because I don't have a money tree out front. So I'm not sure exactly where I will get that money from. Okay. I'll defer to Councilor Travarro. I think I just, I used her language that they provided, but I think it is something that we would have to wait for the fiscal year. I think, I mean, as long as we understand or we can find it, I have to talk with finance director. I just have not, I don't have a specific source right now that I could draw on to fund that. And I just wanna note that. Yeah, I think the fiscal year starts July one, sorry. Yes, correct. Yeah. So I think wait until the fiscal year. I don't know that I had any specific intentions around that and maybe just that's a point of clarification. I'm fine with not immediately, but yeah. Thank you, Councilor. Okay. So lots of discussion. I know that we had the contemplation of a postponement, Councilor Travarro, do you still wanna make that motion? To postpone, yes. You wanna specify the date? Our next meeting, is that a week from today? It's a week from today, May 1st. Okay, postpone to May 1st. And we have a second from Councilor Ali. Okay. Sorry, it's still good. Okay, so we have a motion and a second to postpone this ordinance approval till next week. Any discussion on that motion? Okay, I'm not seeing any. So I think all I'll say is that we have this before us tonight. We had this before us in the first read. If you wanna see something different, we gotta work with our outside Council between now and I guess Wednesday or Friday is our option. So I put that out there. We don't have a lot of time to prepare something specific. Otherwise, we'll be looking at any changes that wanna be made would be made to this first read. Have any amendments prepared by Friday morning? For the packet wise, I think it would be nice to have everything put together. It's ideal, I mean, the tricky thing is you can always make amendments from the floor if you're in discussion like you just had with Councilor Travarro and that date doesn't have to be, I feel like things come from the floor, but we would do our best to do the work in advance. Okay, okay, motion to postpone to May 1st and we'll go ahead and vote. Councilor Fornir? Yes. Councilor Rodriguez? Yes. Councilor Dion? Yes. Councilor Ali? Yes. Councilor Zahro? Yes. Councilor Travarro? Yes. Councilor Pelletier? Yes. Councilor Phillips? Yes. Yes. Okay, order 171 is postponed to May 1st. Thank you everybody, I appreciate it. And will the clerk please read order 172. 2223, amendment to zoning map regarding R6 residential to B3 downtown business at 211 Cumberland Ab sponsored by the planning board, Maggie Stanley Chair. Great, and I'm gonna look to, I'm not sure exactly who's speaking to this, so I'll look to the interim city manager. I believe Kevin's here. Kevin Kraft, are you, and maybe Maggie as well. I'm here, thank you. Mayor, Kevin Kraft, Deputy Director of Planning and Urban Development, and we have Brandon Mazer, the newly appointed chair of the planning board here to be able to speak to the board's recommendation on this item. Oh, how funny. I thought about bringing a different tie in. So good evening, everyone. Again, it's been a long night and I will be brief on this matter. At the February 28th, 2023 public hearing, the planning board unanimously voted to recommend to the city council adoption of the proposed zoning map amendment from R6 to B3 for the area of land that includes 211 Cumberland Avenue and to add the site to the downtown height overlay map which governs height in the B3 zone. In reviewing the proposal, the board found that proposed amendments to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and noted that the changes would one, bring the existing Franklin Towers building into conformance with zoning for both density and height which would allow the applicant to rehabilitate existing affordable housing and to facilitate future housing development in the downtown would foster sustainable growth by providing contextually appropriate housing density in an approximate to neighborhood centers, public transit and along identified priority corridors and would provide opportunities for people who work in Portland to have the option to live in Portland. The vote was four in favor, none opposed with two board members absent and one recused. I'd be to answer any questions that may arise on this matter. Thank you very much for that introduction and Kevin, did you have more that you wanted to add? And Mayor, I do have some slides as is customary. If you'd like me to share those, if not all of the information is in the packet that was provided to the council, but happy to share my screen if you'd like. Are the slides the same as what's in the packet? Yes, just overall aerial of the site as well as the proposed zoning map amendment and the existing zoning. Well, if you can put it up, I think that would be great and that would give everybody a visual and then we'll go to public comment. Happy to do that. Okay, so has everybody seen that? Yes. Okay, so here's just an aerial of the site to 11 Cumberland Avenue. You all may be familiar with this. This is the location Franklin Towers. It's bordered by Franklin Street Arturial as well as Cumberland Avenue. The site is currently zoned R6. This portion of R6 is actually governed by the Bayside Height overlay map currently and heights range from 85 feet to 125 feet on the site currently. The existing Franklin Towers is roughly 175 feet tall. So the proposed zoning map amendment would extend the adjacent B3 zone over that 211 Cumberland Avenue parcel. And as Chair Mazer mentioned, sites that are in the B3 zone are governed by the downtown height overlay map. So along with that rezoning would come adding that parcel to the overlay map which we've highlighted here in the red box. The maximum permitted height would be 150 with street wall heights of 50 feet and 90 feet on the side streets, as you can see in this graphic. And then this is just the final component of the map amendment which would actually remove the parcel from the Bayside Height overlay map because it would be being added to the downtown height overlay map. And that concludes my presentation. So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on the proposal that's before you. Thank you, Kevin, appreciate that. Okay, so before we go to questions to you, we'll see if there's any public comment on order 172. I don't, the council chambers has cleared out but we do have a couple of hands up on Zoom. So we'll just focus on Zoom and go right to Bill Higgins. Hello, we have a large short of three really low income which is under 30% of AMI, every median income and low income housing which is under 60% and these are leading to an increasing amount of homelessness in the city. Why can't we just look at increasing all building heights in the city in the back, especially the Bayside neighborhood to either what they're where the internet building is or the back bay towers is or those height limits that were approved years ago for the Bayside development that was going to go around where the Bayside trail is. Increasing the potential number of, these were all increased the potential number of affordable housing units for the city. And I speak of affordable housing units as those that qualify under the fair market rent limits and the early median income limits and have these limits also be updated to when the properties will be completed. Thank you. Thank you for your comment, Bill. And next we go to Jay York. Jay, you'll have to unmute from your end. Okay, thank you very much and excuse my ignorance on unmuting. That's okay. I think that this zoning change is completely unnecessary for Portland Housing Authority to develop this parcel to increase their housing stock on the Portland Peninsula. And I think it sets a really dangerous precedent for pushing the boundaries of what's considered now the downtown zoning into a very residential neighborhood that has been at risk for so many years because of what the city has done to it in clustering services. I would advise all of you to not let this happen. I realized that it was not the planning board's ability to do this because it met all the criteria, but it is yours. And I again, thank you for your consideration. And I also thank you for the long conversation about clean elections because as council Ornier said, I thought I knew about it and I realized no, no, no, I knew very little. So thank you very much for your time and efforts. Thank you for your comment, Jay. Any other public comment on order 172? Seeing none, I'm gonna close public comment and come back to the council for a motion. Second. Councilor Ali with a second from councilor Rodriguez, is there council discussion on this issue before you? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and vote to approve order 172. Councilor Fornier? Yes. Councilor Rodriguez? Yes. Councilor Dion? Yes. Councilor Ali? Yes. Councilor Zahro? Yes. Councilor Chabarro? Yes. Councilor Pellettier? Yes. Councilor Phillips? Yes. Mayor Snider? Yes. Order 172 passes unanimously. Will the clerk please read order 173? 2223, amendment to downtown height overlay and Bayside height overlay maps regarding 211 Cumberland abs sponsor by the planning board, Maggie Stanley chair. Two different orders kind of related. So I think we're looking to you, Mr. Mazer. Yeah, and I think as Kevin mentioned, the second order is really amending the overlay map. So you've already seen that slide and there's really no new information to add. Okay, thank you. That's what I thought, pretty straightforward. Any public comment on this order? Seeing none, we'll close public comment and come back to the council for a motion. Move passage. And Councilor Zahro with second from Councillor Fornir. Any questions or comments from the council? Nope, we will vote. Councilor Fornir? Yes. Councilor Rodriguez? Yes. Councilor Dion? Yes. Councilor Ali? Yes. Councilor Zahro? Yes. Councilor Chabarro? Yes. Yes. Will the clerk please read order 174. Order 174, 22, 23 amendment to the zoning map regarding repealing the C5 conditional zone agreement at 22 Park Ab sponsored by the planning board. Thank you, Anshale. Okay, here we go, thank you. I think I like being chair again. I'm pleased to present the planning board's recommendation for removing an existing C5 contract zone and the zoning 22 Park Avenue to a B2B business zone. The recommendation is in response to an application from Community Housing of Maine, which has proposed the zoning amendment to utilize an existing seventh dwelling unit to provide affordable housing. In 1991, C5 contract zone exclusively allows the use of the seventh dwelling unit to the YWCA, a former owner. At the February 20, 2023 public hearing, the planning board voted unanimously to support the proposed amendment, which consisted of one, removing the existing C5 contract zone at 22 Park Avenue that only permitted the YWCA to utilize the seventh dwelling unit for their team parent services program, and two, to rezone the parcel at 22 Park Ab to the B2B business zone, which permits multifamily dwellings and is consistent with the surrounding context. And we always like to get rid of contract zones where we can, so it was an added benefit. The vote was five in favor, zero opposed with two members absent that evening. Thank you very much for that. Is there any public comment on order 174? Seeing none, I'll close public comment and come back to the council for a motion. Second. Councilor Ali with a second from councilor Zaro is their council discussion. Seeing none, we can vote to approve. Councilor Fornir. Yes. Councilor Rodriguez. Yes. Councilor Dion. Yes. Councilor Ali. Yes. Councilor Zaro. Yes. Councilor Travaro. Yes. Councilor Pellettier. Yes. Councilor Phillips. Yes. Mayor Snider. Yes. That order passes unanimously and we'll move next will the clerk please read 187. Order 187, 22, 23, approving the renewal of Portland's participation in the Cumberland County home consortium sponsored by the Housing and Economic Development Committee Councilor Pius Ali chair. Thank you, councilor Ali. Thank you, Mayor. I think Mayor Davis might be on Zoom to speak to it. She is there. She is there, okay. She is here. Yes, Mary. Hi, Mary. Yes, I am. Good evening, councilors. The order in front of you is an order that will allow the city to meet a requirement of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. As you know, the city of Portland is a HUD entitlement jurisdiction and we receive federal home program funds as part of the Cumberland County home consortium. The city is the lead entity in the consortium. The other members of the consortium are the town of Brunswick and the remainder of Cumberland County. Every three years the city has to or every three years all of the members of the consortium have to recertify to HUD that they wish to continue to be part of the consortium and that's what's in front of you tonight is the city needs to affirm that they wanna continue to participate in the Cumberland County home consortium. Happy to answer any additional questions you may have. That's really helpful. Thank you very much for being here. Is there any public comment on order 187? I see none. I will close public comment. I'm gonna come back to the council for a motion, please. Second. Councillor Ali with a second from Councillor Fornir. Council discussion. I'm happy to vote in support of our renewal and to be part of the consortium. So I think we can go ahead and vote. Councillor Fornir. Yes. Councillor Rodriguez. Yes. Councillor Dion. Yes. Councillor Ali. Yes. Councillor Zauro. Yes. Councillor Treborrow. Councillor Treborrow. Yes. Councillor Palatier. Yes. Councillor Phillips. Yes. Mayor Snider. Yes. Order 187 passes unanimously. We'll move on to 188. Order 188, 22, 23. Moving the polling place for district true precinct to from the Portland Expo to the true ice arena for the June 13th, 2023 municipal election sponsored by Ashley Rand City Clerk. And for the record, will you tell us why we're making this change? So the Expo is being used as the temporary shelter. So we do have to move this for this election only. And this was done in 2019. So it has been moved over to the ice arena before and it will be upstairs when you enter into the building that corridor hallway. I've laid it out and sent it to the state. So they're aware of the polling location change as well. After this evening, once this gets voted on we'll send out postcards to the district to as well letting them know that this is a temporary change just for this June election. And then November, it'll go back to the Expo. That's helpful. Thank you. Any public comment on order 188? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. I look for a council motion from the council to approve. So moved. Second. Councilor Rodriguez. Second from councilor Fornir. Council discussion on this matter. I see none. We'll go ahead and vote. Councilor Fornir. Yes. Councilor Rodriguez. Yes. Councilor Dion. Yes. Councilor Ali. Aye. Councilor Zaro. Yes. Councilor Trevaro. Yes. Councilor Pilatier. Yes. That order passes unanimously on the last item on our agenda tonight. Will the clerk please read order 189. Order 189, 22, 23, approving the agreement between the main department of transportation, Portland area comprehensive transportation system and Portland regarding improvements to Preble Street extension sponsored by Daniel West interim city manager. And this is just an agreement which has already been funded approved through the CIP. It's with PACs. They will pay 49% of this project. We'll be paying 51% or $409,000. And as I said, the funding has already been approved by the council. Great. Thank you very much. Is there any public comment on order 189? Okay. I don't see any. So we'll close public comment. Come back to the council for a motion. So moved. Second. Councilor Rodriguez with a second from councilor Fornir. Discussion. No. We'll vote. Councilor Fornir. Yes. Councilor Papigas. Yes. Councilor Dion. Yes. Councilor Ali. Yes. Councilor Treborrow. Yes. Councilor Pelleteer. Yes. Councilor Phillips. Yes. Mayor Seder. Yes. And that passes unanimously as well. And so the last item on our agenda is a motion to adjourn. Second. Councilor Ali. Second from councilor Fornir. And we'll vote to adjourn. Councilor Fornir. Yes. Councilor Rodriguez. Yes. Councilor Dion. Yes. Councilor Ali. Yes. Councilor Hazaro. Yes. Councilor Treborrow. Yes. Councilor Pelleteer. Yes. Councilor Phillips. This meeting is adjourned. Good night. Thank you everybody.