[1:15] Our pocket for her tireless dedication to this work. Laura is a board member of here together and the executive director of northwest pilot project, and brings 30 years of experience in homeless services. And welcome again, laura. We're really happy to have you with us

[1:30] we also have an update from our friends in washington county. Commissioner jason snyder will now serve in the primary seat of arpac with commissioner willie now serving as the alternate. So we think you, commissioner snyder, for being here and commissioner willie for his continued service

[1:49] all right, we're getting off to a good start. I like the celebratory mood. Yeah, yeah. And also, mayor keith wilson has notified us that city councilor eric zimmerman will now serve as the alternate for the city of portland. So we look forward to welcoming councilor zimmerman

[2:06] when he is able to be here. And finally, we are recruiting for a new rpoc member with expertise in serving the american indian alaska native, tribal and urban indigenous people within our homeless services system. We are actively recruiting. That recruitment closes on october 5th

[2:25] and I plan to make the appointment in time for our november 18th meeting. So if you know anyone that would be a strong fit for that, please have them reach out. We'd really appreciate your help in spreading the word. So that is updates on committee membership. There's a actually there were a lot of things to cover there

[2:41] and as we go into our roll call here, I am looking forward to getting into today's discussion. I know that we have a lot to get through and we intentionally scheduled the vote on our agenda

[2:57] to be a little bit after the 1st hour to give folks flexibility, since we know we're coming in early. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to mike to get started on the role and everything on the agenda today is going to be super high impact, and we're going to work through it all

[3:17] all right. Thank you, chair. We'll go through our I'll now start the roll call. If your name is called and an alternate is present instead, please state your presence and full name for the record. Metro council president juan carlos gonzalez. Present.

[3:30] councillor duncan-huang.

[3:34] councillor christine lewis.

[3:37] commissioner shannon singleton. Present.

[3:40] commissioner ben west.

[3:43] commissioner martha schrader.

[3:46] commissioner jason snyder? Here.

[3:49] mayor joe buck here

[3:51] mayor beach pace here.

[3:53] mayor travis stowell

[3:55] here

[3:57] mayor keith wilson.

[4:00] councilor zimmerman.

[4:04] adam brown

[4:06] zra copiano.

[4:08] crescente

[4:10] laura gorlino de lovato. Here.

[4:13] sahan mckelvey.

[4:17] andrew rowe. Here.

[4:19] bridget rodriguez here. Peter rosenblatt here

[4:24] mindy statlander? Present. Gretchen kent. Here

[4:28] mike savarra here. Margaret salazar.

[4:34] and andrew wilson

[4:36] john sarah sitting in as the trimet alternate today. Thank you.

[4:40] okay. Concludes our roll.

[4:43] alright, thank you. It looks like we have a quorum. So we're going to move now to our consent agenda. As a reminder, we're going to use a show of hands to approve our last month's meeting minutes. I will shortly ask for a motion and also for a second

[5:00] if you'd like to second, you're welcome to do so. If you do have edits to the meeting minutes, please speak up at that point, or you can reach out to staff before any of the meetings to have the items corrected. So can I ask for a motion on our consent agenda, please?

[5:18] so moved. Moved by commissioner rosenblatt. No, commissioner. Our pot commissioner. Two years. Second. And seconded by commissioner singleton. All in favor, please raise your hand.

[5:38] any opposed?

[5:40] all right, I'm seeing no opposition. The meeting minutes are passed unanimously. Thank you so much. And then from here, rahi, at any point, am I leaning on you for anything on the agenda? Yeah, next I'll do the space and safety logistics. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is rahi reddy, transferring as the facilitator for our meeting

[6:03] I first, before I get into safety logistics, we have some space up here, and I don't know if the folks at the end, if you want to move up, so I think it makes it easier for everyone to see you online. If you want to stretch out and don't feel squished down there.

[6:19] these seats up here are available for anyone who wants to just want to let you know, kind of stretch out a little bit. So I just wanted to go through the safety logistics, and then we'll open up the meeting. So first of all, to note that we are on the third floor of the building

[6:37] in the event of a fire or fire alarm, please exit through the door in the northeast corner of the room. Go down the steps to the second floor and exit through that main entrance onto the north plaza. We will meet at the corner of grand and northeast oregon street over by the convention center

[6:54] in the events of a medical or fire emergency, please call 911 and notify the staff at the front desk and the nearest defibrillator is mounted on the steps leading from the reception desk downstairs on grand. A fire extinguisher is also located in the corridor along the side of the dais

[7:11] just behind the wall over there. Bathrooms are on the second floor, so that's downstairs. Just appreciate your patience as you have to travel a longer distance, because the third floor bathrooms are under construction. For folks online

[7:26] please have your cameras on. Otherwise, members of the public, not you, and this meeting will have to the chat turned off. So if there's any urgent technical issues, just use the shs email. It's the same email you get for your packets. Let folks know what you need and support

[7:46] and again, for the folks online, to enter the queue for… as we're doing discussions, you know, just raise your hand in your zoom.

[7:59] and then for everyone in the room, remember, number one, your mics are on time, so don't press any buttons. And I want to make sure you all know that we're closer to the mic when you speak and don't press any buttons

[8:16] and then please do say your name before you speak so everyone listening online knows who is speaking. And for those committee members joining virtually, again, turn your cameras on, but remain on mute

[8:30] so really excited to have this four hour, wonderful, exciting meeting today. You've done a lot of amazing work up until this point. We also have some new folks at the table.

[8:46] we are one team and looking forward to, you know, just supporting our newer members of the committee as they're getting oriented to the way we do business here today. So, should we get the agenda up?

[9:08] cool. Thank you. So our big focus today is to vote on the final package of goals, kpis, and keis. But before we go into that vote today, we are going to have another agenda item, which is really discussing our regional legislative agenda, and we have a wonderful mic on our committee who's going to do some of that presentation with us

[9:33] then we're going to take a break. And then we'll spend the next hour and a half on that boat on the kpis and keis. And then depending on how conversation goes, and we're going to be in the thick of it, we'd love to have another break after that. So I'm not promising anything, but we'll take a look at it to have another

[9:53] possible quick break as we go into the next discussion item, which will be the regional investment fund.

[10:00] and so today, you know, we have, because we're doing a formal vote, we're gonna, you know, make sure that we have the process clear of how we are going to engage in the discussion, in the vote, in

[10:15] possible additional amendments and things like that. So we are gathered up front. We have counselors here, we have shane obama, metro attorney, really here to help us through that process, and it's okay to ask questions. It's okay to make mistakes

[10:32] we're all here to just make sure everyone is heard, everyone has the opportunity to engage in this really important first decision for the committee. So that being said, again, please, you know, take care of yourselves. Please move if you want more room, so seats up here

[10:49] and then I will hand it over to president gonzales. Thanks. Yeah, and I understand, liam and yesenia might have some staff updates as well before we get into the legislative agenda. That's correct. Good afternoon, rpoc members. My name is yesenia delgado. I use her pronouns, and I'm the shs division here at metro, and I'm just going to provide you all some brief staffing updates

[11:13] but before we get into my updates, I want to quickly orient you to the materials that are in front of you and acknowledge that it was a big packet, so thank you all for doing all that reading and making sure that you were prepared for today's meeting. So everything I'm about to mention was included in last week's meeting packet. So in front of you, you'll have the agenda for today's meeting

[11:33] an updated committee roster that is reflective of the changes chair gonzalez mentioned at the top of this meeting. The motions guide for today's meeting as we get into the goals and kpis vote. There's also another handout that's the draft legislative principles and priorities for our first agenda item

[11:50] and then you'll also find the final goals, kpis, and keis, and an appendix, which we'll discuss in the second agenda item today. So feel free to add any of these documents to your reference binders or just have them out as we kind of move through today's agenda

[12:06] the couple other things that I wanted to note is that you all should have seen the quarter 4 reports for shs in your meeting packet from our county partners and a high level regional overview of progress. As a reminder, quarter 4 reports run from april 1st through june 30

[12:22] and it is the final quarter of the fiscal year. So you all as rpoc members provide oversight for the shs fund, and reviewing these reports is a critical way in which you all fulfill this responsibility. So even though we won't have time to unpack those reports in today's meeting, we are about to launch the regional report process

[12:40] which will provide the committee with an avenue to unpack the performance, challenges, and opportunities for last year's shs-funded program work. So reviewing these quarter four reports will provide you all the needed context that you might

[12:55] have as we get into the regional annual report process. Peter. Yeah, I'm I'm a little confused by that.

[13:03] I noticed that last month in our packet we received financial information, a financial report that did not make it onto the agenda for us to discuss, and you know, over 100 pages of our packet this time was about the quarterly reports

[13:18] and we're not discussing them. And maybe I'm still wearing my roc role, but

[13:25] who is doing the oversight of the finances and who is doing the oversight of the quarterlies if we're not jumping in and doing them? Where is that happening?

[13:35] yeah, that's a really great question. And part of the distinction now that we have this consolidated regional policy and oversight committee versus the oversight committee and the tri-county planning body is that we have consolidated. So that just means we have less time on the agenda to go through

[13:50] things, so I can assure you that staff are looking into these reports, into the finances, reviewing them.

[13:57] unpacking them with our county partners and moving through those questions. But for the quarter 4 reports in particulars, that was never really a report that the oversight committee unpacked in much detail because the annual reports are coming here shortly. So now that we are standing up this oversight the annual report subcommittee.

[14:15] they will really be diving into these quarter four reports along with the annual reports to conduct that overview and oversight process as we head into that regional report overview.

[14:26] then on the finance reports

[14:30] it would be nice if there was a cover page of this is what metro was concerned about and looking at this, this is what we talked with our partners about, you know. So we can at least track that process if we're not supposed to be doing that deeper dive

[14:45] thank you. Yep, we can certainly work on getting some sort of cover page going, and I'll just note that we are going to be doing those quarterly check-ins around the finance overviews. They're just not happening at a monthly basis, like in the same way that happened with the oversight committee. Thank you.

[15:00] thank you, andrew rowe. I just wanted to make sure I heard you right. We will be reviewing and discussing the annual report. We'll have time to unpack it and provide feedback on the report.

[15:15] yes, the annual report subcommittee that is going to be composed of arpac members is doing a deep dive into those reports, and then that subcommittee is providing updates to the broader rpoc committee. So yes.

[15:28] is that recruiting for that committee, or is that's a really good segue into my next update.

[15:35] so my next update is around the shs subcommittee. So we already have 3 members interested in serving on the shs annual report. So thank you to the 3 of you that volunteered. And just as a reminder, the subcommittee will help with the annual regional report process, which is one of the committee's core oversight responsibilities.

[15:53] and the goal is to do some deeper work outside of our regular meeting meetings and preserve more time for reforms and other committee business that arpac is busy with. So the subcommittee will work with our consultant, chris mock, who will lead drafting the report, and the committee will really focus on drafting recommendations

[16:10] for metro council and the executive summary. We're anticipating about 7 additional meetings from october through march, plus some time to present to metro council and county boards. Because the report evaluates the county's work, county commissioners will not serve on this subcommittee, and that's intended to provide some independence in developing the recommendations

[16:30] so we are still seeking a couple more members. So if you have any interest in being part of this committee, please reach out to myself or staff, and then we'll make sure to get you plugged in to some of the onboarding sessions that we have.

[16:46] and then my final update is just around the feedback tracker that we shared with you all at the last meeting. So as we noted in the last week's meeting packet email, we'll send the feedback tracker with august feedback and what we can capture from september's meeting in next week's post

[17:02] meeting email. So those were all the updates I have. Happy to answer some questions. Commissioner singleton.

[17:09] thank you. This doesn't need to be answered or have a big conversation here. I just wanted to flag one that I want to make sure metro had allocated 15 million to the city of portland and that that is not included in the county's overall numbers because the outcomes that we're being held to are not necessarily the same

[17:29] is that 15 million allocation? And so that should be an addendum to our final report. And then additionally with

[17:38] that subcommittee, I think if there's a conflict or concern about counties being there, if it is looking back, then I also think the city of portland should not be on that committee because of that allocation that they also received of shs.

[17:54] those are really great points. Thank you, commissioner.

[17:59] great.

[18:04] liam, anything from you? Nothing for me today. Okay, great. So I'm going to introduce our next agenda item, which is the legislative agenda. If we could get that slide up.

[18:16] this is something that I feel is such a huge opportunity for this region to, rally around to create a set of priorities

[18:26] that we can talk to our state legislature about. I've had several conversations with state legislative leadership, senator wagner in the legislature, in the senate and others in the state house, and I've heard really clearly from folks

[18:42] we want a coordinated set of asks instead of 25 different asks from different partners around what we think the region's housing and homelessness priorities should be. And so we have spent some time working across different

[19:01] different government affairs teams across the region beginning to evaluate a long list of what potential opportunities could be for us to rally behind. The vision is that once the short… once the long session begins and sessions from there on out, the region is able to show up with one voice

[19:20] and say, you know, across all these entities, these are the core things that we're looking for in this. And this, of course, does not preempt, you know, other governments or other organizations from having other priorities or additional things, but being able to say these are… this is the list of things that we prioritize

[19:36] I think will be really, really valuable, and which is why we wanted to make sure we're spending some time on our agenda before january of 2027 to do that. But before we do that, we have a really generous offer from mike savarra from ohcs, who is graciously going to present a high level overview of the state's current

[19:59] homeless services budget. And we also have a metro state affair advisor, keong park to walk us through the set of legislative principles, the draft legislative principles and priorities that have been worked on in preparation for this body

[20:14] to give some feedback and guidance on, I don't think you'll be surprised to see what the team recommends. But again, I think speaking with one voice, especially from a position of strength, knowing that this region has shs, and asking the state to match our level of investment is just… I can't even begin to say how important that is. So I'm going to hand the mic over to mike

[20:40] to walk us through his presentation. Awesome. Thank you, president gonzalez. Yeah, so just kind of by way of orientation again, mike zavarra. I work at oregon housing community services. We're the state's housing finance agency, and

[20:55] today, I'm mainly going to focus on a little bit on the sort of legislative landscape and dive into some of the kind of nuances around the homeless services side of our budget. Ohcs also does affordable rental housing, home ownership, disaster resilience. We do a couple other areas of kind of housing related work. But for today, I'm really just going to try and be brief and focus on the homeless services side, kind of with respect to this committee's role.

[21:24] I've worked at oregon housing community services for six years when back when this margaret souser was director when I started. So this is a very different session. We're approaching, you know, a very different set of

[21:42] circumstances at the revenue level across the state, we're looking really at how do we maintain the things that we've been doing for the last biennium and for the last few years. This isn't really about growth in a lot of ways. And so we're starting to ask ourselves

[21:59] how do we do the things that we do more efficiently, more effectively? How do we reduce burden for providers, for local governments, for folks that are doing the work? And where do we start to think about those kind of revenue-neutral ideas that can help improve the experiences and improve our outcomes

[22:17] so this is also sort of the mandate from sort of the state agency, department of administrative services direction. So you'll see our budget request, which we just released on september 1st, just about 8 days ago, does not include any additional general fund requests for some of these key homeless services programs like shelter or long-term rental assistance or the oregon rehousing initiative

[22:43] it is purely a focus on the current service level programs, current service level is sort of like the wonky budget term for the programs that we're sort of ongoing funded from the legislature. So we're going to continue to see those programs theoretically, we don't have to create a policy option package or a request for funds to ask for those

[23:04] but you'll see in a slide or two that there's some real risks that we need to be aware of if the budget scenarios continue to kind of move forward as they are, that I want to make sure this group is aware of. So a couple of things that, you know, we're thinking about is how do we think about regulatory relief and areas where we can start to move the needle forward for that relief area for making things just easier to operate? And then how do we make sure that

[23:32] the stakeholders that are involved in this work are aware of the situation around the budget realities for the homeless services side. So if we can go to the next slide, that'd be great.

[23:42] so this is our current look at the funding that the state provides for homeless services. Again, this is the current biennium 2025 to 2027. So we're like right in the middle of this cycle

[23:58] there's 387.2 million total out of these buckets. You can see about $204 million is for the statewide shelter system, 50 million is for the oregon rehousing initiative to rehouse people experiencing homelessness and help them get into housing for up to 24 months. 87.4 million is for the long term rental assistance program. That's a program that's very similar to the regional long-term rental assistance program that's funded by

[24:27] shs, and it's funded throughout the entire state now, expanded to the rural regions of the state. There's also 44.6 million for eviction prevention resources, so that's, like, your very immediate need, usually no more than 3 months of rental assistance to support someone who

[24:45] had a job loss or some type of impact in that way. And then there's $10 million for tribal housing, and that resource can do both homeless services, but it can also fund development and other types of activities, like home ownership. So this is just a really high-level look at the current state

[25:02] you'll notice that under each of those high-level numbers, these are all what's called general funded. So they're literally coming out of the general fund from the state's budget, which is some of the most competitive dollars that the state has to allocate out of these top line numbers, there's some of these programs have what's called current service level. That's that ongoing funding that continues to be provided sometimes through a sunset date like in 2034 and other times it's just in perpetuity

[25:31] unless the legislature acts to undo that. And so, if nothing happens and there's no additional money put on top of the current service level for some of those key numbers, then that is the amount that we would expect as a system for that biennium. So let's give shelter an example. It's about a 50% reduction in the amount of funding for shelter that we would be allocating in the 2027-2029 budget cycle

[25:59] and so that's sort of the current look at that. If we can go to the next slide… oh, yeah, so peter rosenwell here, so go back to the shelter one. So does that mean

[26:10] that if you only had the 102 million. That half of the shelters that are being paid for would lose money or you're only using 102 of the 204 right now.

[26:24] oh, great question, peter. So we're currently using the 204.9 million for the shelter system statewide. If because 102.9 million is one time general funded, meaning we we are only given that money one time this biennium

[26:42] and we would have to ask for that money again in the next cycle in order to match that. So that's essentially it would be a 50%. Okay, thank you for that. Yeah, and the next slide actually gets into this a little bit. We tried to quantify the impacts, basically. So we can go to the next slide

[26:59] you'll get a little bit more insight in here, and apologies for the text-heavy slides here. We're still working on, like, the way to describe the impacts. So this is a scenario. If our agency request budget were funded as is, there was no additional money on top of

[27:14] the agency request budget through one-time general funds or other resources. This is essentially the reductions that we should expect to see across the state. So it's essentially a 50% reduction in shelter funding. We expect that around 2,400 shelter beds would be lost throughout the state

[27:34] there would be 727 fewer households exiting homelessness. We also fund shelter services inside of our shelter system to help people exit into permanent housing. A 50% reduction in rehousing funding, so essentially the

[27:50] the door out of homelessness, the rapid rehousing resources would be greatly reduced there. A 25% reduction in eviction prevention funding. I'll note, too, that that number, that eviction prevention resource that we're currently working through this biennium

[28:06] that is a 64%, I believe a drop from the last biennium, the 2325 biennium. So that's on top of an already steep drop this biennium, we're seeing some of the highest rates of eviction across the state that we've ever seen, even pre-covid. So we're definitely seeing the effects of limited funding around eviction prevention. Anyone that operates an eviction prevention program is probably telling the same story around just

[28:32] inundated with need and very, very limited resources. So I think I'll just add that this is sort of mike speaking here. I think as this group is starting to think about priorities for funding, starting to think about where shs needs to show up in maybe future iterations or future reform conversations.

[28:51] I think it's really important that we think about what the gaps are across the state and federal landscape of funding, because, honestly, the counties are constantly trying to think through this balancing act between the different resources. And as you all know, primarily shs is not a prevention tool. It's not primarily used to prevent homelessness in the in the sense of the eviction prevention resources because

[29:15] for most of shs's existence, we've had resources from the federal government or from the state that helped to support some of the needs there. So I just think it's important to note that this trend and sort of these pieces are going to be important to look at holistically. We would also see a 50% reduction in tribal funding. These are dollars that go directly to the nine federally recognized tribes of oregon

[29:38] and so that's really critical for both emergency and long-term housing needs, and it would completely eliminate the long-term rental assistance program

[29:46] again, this is the program that supports currently about 1,700 formerly homeless households. So this is, you know, a pretty critical need just around continuing to support folks that had come out of homelessness to get that support from that program.

[30:02] so that's the sort of scenario I wanted to make sure folks were aware of. I think a little bit more on, like, the logistics I'll share in terms of, like, where we go from here, because this is obviously not super exciting news.

[30:18] the, the governor is required to release a governor's recommended budget later this year, and that looks at the november revenue forecast. The state economists have to look at the future, essentially, and try and predict how much the revenue will look like in the future for the next cycle and the governor has to use that number to help balance, create a balanced budget at the end of the year. And so

[30:46] as she's weighing her that reality as well as her priorities, that's really what's going to go into sort of what the governor's recommended budget will look like. I think it's really important to note, just like the governor's commitment to housing and homelessness is very strong. She is

[31:03] been an absolute champion for most, if not all, of these programs have been created under her administration over the last couple of years, and I think it's really important. And we're in a situation that, you know, we haven't faced in many years in terms of this dire reality around the general fund because of

[31:20] federal pressures like h.r. 1, we're seeing such a restriction around how much general fund we have to work with. And so these are kind of the realities that we're all contending with at the state to try to navigate. I'm going to go forward a couple slides, go one more

[31:35] oh, question over here.

[31:39] I'm reading this right. The state set up

[31:42] long-term rental assistance program, $87 million worth with one-time funding

[31:48] with one-time funding? Yes. That aspect of it. Yeah, we stood up the long-term rental assistance program under governor kotek's executive order on unsheltered homelessness in 2023. It was a part of the

[32:05] sort of an early session package to help launch people from… who are experiencing homelessness straight into, long-term rental assistance. The ability to get programs funded at current service level under an emergency order is

[32:22] pretty darn near impossible. So if you set up an emergency order and ask for emergency resources, it's really difficult to also say, and we need this in perpetuity or in an ongoing way. I think it's just… it's one of the realities of trying to navigate some of the state, state

[32:37] processes that often you get… you get one time funded for a very long time. And so, yeah, it is a really tricky, like, like

[32:48] reality that we have a long-term commitment to folks that we've been able to only at this point fund with two cycles of one-time funding, 2325 resource, and then a 25-27 resource. And so, yeah, there's real vulnerability for folks that are facing that the, you know may not have that program in perpetuity

[33:09] I have a question.

[33:11] 1,700

[33:14] households who are right now housed with service. Will become homeless?

[33:20] it's hard to predict the future. If the agency request budget, you know moves forward without additional funding for long-term rental assistance program, we wouldn't have that program to fund. What we call long-term, then.

[33:35] yeah. There's no, like, long-term commitment for the, like, our other programs have restrictions on the amount of months that someone can have the, you know, the resource for, so that's the main key difference, but, you know, shs is also a 10-year limited program, and we have a long-term rent assistance program. So I think there's a there's a bit of this kind of rub between how government processes work and how we need to design programs that that you know actually meet needs. But totally hear that we'll we'll

[34:05] I think operating equipment for four years. One sense that's long term and another sense, it's just a blip in time. So yeah, I think that's a

[34:15] big risk here, right? Like, we would see folks be unable to pay their rent, their services resources would no longer be available after the next cycle. And obviously, I think that's where, you know, once we know more about the revenue forecast, once we kind of have a better insight into the, you know, next steps here

[34:33] that's when we would want to make sure that we're starting to think, okay, like what actually is going to happen? How do we start to plan for contingencies and work through the kind of the realities? But at this point, we're not sure where the revenue forecast will lie. We're not really sure what the governor's recommended

[34:49] budget will look like. So there's a lot of unknowns here

[34:53] we've got andrew

[34:56] one more question. I know we're over time, too. So we can skip through these. These are basically just some legislative concepts, but the budget stuff, I think, was the main point. So I think we can just go to questions. I'm just curious, andrew rowe. I'm just curious if there's any place where

[35:11] the public and or any of us can find a consolidated dashboard or picture of all the different funding sources and uses federal, state, county, local, so that we could understand the total. 1st of all, what the whole picture looks like, how that data has trended over time

[35:30] and how it relates to actual kpis, I.e. I see a few snapshot suggestions of number of houses, you know, housing is going to be lost, etc. But it strikes me that we need to have a much more comprehensive picture if we're going to get our

[35:47] heads around it, the public's going to get its heads around the magnitude of the problem. This is obviously very concerning, but there's so much data that seems to be lacking here to understand the whole picture, and I'm wondering, is anybody, to your knowledge, tracking that sort of consolidated

[36:02] dashboard of how the overall landscape looks and how it compares to previous years. It's a great question. I totally appreciate, like, the… like, in order to make policy decisions, we would need to see the landscape, and I think this group has talked about this a bit, and I would say, overall, no, we don't have

[36:23] that tool, to my knowledge, I think a big part of this is the fragmentation of all of the different ways funding shows up in community, like federal funds don't all pass through the state. Sometimes it flows directly to county governments or cities or other other ways. So I think there's

[36:41] it would take a lot of coordination to get an accurate picture there. I think we, you know, we're happy to contribute and figure out how to make that happen. But I do think that could be something that the you know if this is something that the group needs to do to get a better sense of, I think, you know, it's possible it just takes a lot of work to try to pull together all the different threads of it. But

[37:03] yeah, I don't know if others have other ideas on that. So we have a couple more folks with questions. We have another speaker. So have folks this last round of questions for mike, and then we'll go to our next speaker. So we have mindy and then margaret. Thanks so much for this, mike. This could be totally not your lane, so feel free to redirect me. But we've been hearing a lot about the sort of structural deficit with affordable housing providers, and that crisis kind of coming. Is that in your lane to raise to the

[37:33] legislature? Is it a priority? Can you talk a little bit about that? Yeah, yeah, no, great question, mindy. Yeah, definitely in our lean it wasn't part of the presentation I was giving today, but definitely in our lean and we've actually been talking a lot with housing oregon and folks across the sector to really and metro as well to try to figure out

[37:51] how do we start to wrap our arms around the scale of the problem, get an understanding of the solutions? So there is a lot of work that we're trying to jump into and has been happening for months now around trying to think about the data that we need, think about the challenges that we have around other regulatory problems that might be causing some of the challenges

[38:14] and what some of the levers that we can pull to get into that are. In terms of the legislature's role, we actually, I think today or this week, we're presenting to them on a report that is essentially looking at what regulatory processes we have available to us to try to ease some burden on affordable housing operators

[38:34] so it's definitely something they're interested in understanding, and we're really trying to think about, like, what are some of the tools that we can have, especially given in light of the budget realities that I just talked about, more resource isn't necessarily going to be, you know, the only answer we can grab for. So I think we're really trying to think with partners and experts across the industry

[38:55] how do we actually start to tackle this in ways that are feasible? So it's a really big priority for us, but just didn't touch on it in the presentation, so thank you. Thank you, margaret. Great.

[39:07] thank you so much and thanks for all this information. I had just a factual question, kind of piggybacking on andrew's question. I know that that was a larger question about a larger dashboard and system map

[39:20] but I'm wondering if you could explain for the group which of those funding sources from the state flow directly to the counties here in the metro area, because I think that might help to elucidate where those cuts will be felt directly by the counties who are administering shs, and where they might be flowing outside of these county systems. Absolutely. You want us to go back to this? Yeah, if we can go back to the slide with the

[39:45] we can go to the 2527 one. I think back one more, one more. There it is. So this is kind of just a look at the different programs we have. So of this list, let's just talk about the metro area, because once you get out of the metro area, it starts to get a little bit more complicated, different.

[40:03] the statewide shelter system, the rehousing, and the long-term or excuse me, the statewide shelter system and the rehousing and the long-term rental assistance all flow to the three counties. Couple caveats there. The long-term rental assistance program is a program that goes to multnomah county. But last I checked is the voucher side is operated by the housing authority of portland home forward and the services side is operated by the multnomah county, but the

[40:33] county is responsible for the program by and large. And then, so those are the three that essentially flow to counties. And in my experience, they merge that in with the way they operate shs primarily. So they're almost seamless in a lot of ways

[40:50] providers may not even know that they're operating a state program versus an shs program at times. So that's generally for those three eviction. All three counties, all three counties receive those 3, yeah. And then eviction prevention is a little bit different. It flows through our community action agency network

[41:10] and in multnomah county and clackamas county, that they are incorporated into the county structure. It's a different department, actually, than where shs is typically operated out of, but they are very tight and they work closely together. And in washington county, community action organization operates the eviction prevention resources

[41:32] and it does not flow through the county at all. Tribal housing funding doesn't go through any county governments, goes directly to the 9 tribes. Hopefully that was helpful. All right, thank you so much. It's great to have a presentation from the state

[41:47] to arpac, I'd like to now introduce kyung to present on legislative principles and priorities. Kyung. Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is kyung park. I use he, him pronouns, and I'm metro's state affairs advisor. I'm going to go over quickly some background of this work. Then we'll go over the draft principles and priorities, and then finally, I want to leave a lot of time for discussion for you all because

[42:11] the discussion that we'll have here today will be informing the future of this work.

[42:16] so quickly, when metro developed its regional housing coordination strategy last year, one of the action items was to convene jurisdictional partners to develop a coordinated state and federal legislative agenda on housing and homelessness resources. So please keep that in mind. It's pretty narrow as far as housing and homelessness resources

[42:35] you can find the description of the full action item in your meeting packets. There's some other elements on there if you're interested. After the rhcs was approved earlier this year, metro staff started to convene our jurisdictional partners, specifically government affairs staff and housing policy staff

[42:54] to begin conversations and start drafting a legislative agenda to be ready for the 2027 session.

[43:02] currently we have participation from all three counties. There's about 8 cities in active conversations. I am open to having more cities join us if they have the capacity to do so, and if you're listening in, just reach out to me. We can get you added to those meetings.

[43:17] just a quick point of clarification, this coordinated legislative agenda is not meant to be a replacement of a jurisdiction's, like, internal legislative agenda. I'm thinking of this coordinated legislative agenda as more of a complement to every jurisdiction's legislative agenda

[43:35] and hopefully this coordinated legislative agenda highlights areas where we need cross jurisdictional coordination. So as for the timeline, we're hoping to finalize this coordinated legislative agenda sometime in november

[43:50] the main reason being that a lot of our jurisdictions adopt their legislative agendas in december. So we want to make sure that this document is ready so that jurisdictions can either adopt all or parts of this agenda onto their own separate agendas.

[44:06] so it's coming up pretty quickly. The legislative agenda consists of 2 parts. We have a go back to the previous slide. Legislative agenda consists of two parts. There's the legislative principles and then the legislative priorities

[44:21] principles are kind of like your evergreen statements, guiding lights, priorities tend to be a lot more specific, sometimes down to the individual bill or legislative concept level. So with that, I'll just we'll go right into what we

[44:37] come up with so far, starting with the legislative draft principles. We've landed on two so far. I don't think either of these are very surprising, but the first one is a very general statement about housing and homelessness here in the region. We want to support funding and investments

[44:56] for programs that increase housing production of all types, create opportunities for home ownership, and also address the homelessness crisis. You'll see some of our priorities a little bit later on the next slide that kind of show more specifics around this principle. And then the second principle was around flexible flexibility and

[45:16] accessibility when it came to resources. There was a common theme kind of emerged from our local government partners around technical assistance dollars, and sometimes not being able to access those things. So this was kind of our second priority that came up

[45:32] next slide.

[45:36] so based on those two principles, we have reached consensus around four priorities thus far. The first one we have on this slide is around behavioral health, specifically want to support investments in behavioral health that prevent homelessness or improve outcomes for those transitioning out of homelessness

[45:59] as you can tell, this is a pretty broad statement. This is one where I think I'd like to have some listen in on your discussions to see if we can further refine this and provide some specifics around this particular priority.

[46:11] the second priority is to protect and support funding for existing programs. As you have seen through mike's presentation, we're entering a pretty fiscally challenging biennium. So we wanted to be really intentional about that word, protect

[46:28] it'll be very hard to grow things in this fiscal environment. So we want to see how much we can protect of some of the things that exist out there. We did a quick at the staff level of prioritization exercise of some of the programs that are out there

[46:43] and the three that came up more frequently than others was the housing infrastructure financing program, oregon eviction prevention, or adap is what it's known shortly, and also affordable housing preservation.

[46:58] this doesn't mean that the other programs out there are not important. It's just as a snapshot moment in time, local governments would want to prioritize these three for this upcoming session.

[47:10] the next priority is around is a funding request, actually. And yes, I know we're going to a difficult funding situation. But there has been always technical assistance dollars kind of available for local governments. This one specifically around

[47:27] requesting funding for updating housing codes. A lot of the state mandates that were passed, local governments haven't had a chance to kind of catch up to those, so they would like some additional assistance to get up to speed and to support the housing production. Additionally, this priority is asking for funding for any future state mandates

[47:49] for implementation, instead of anything unfunded in the future. The last priority I will share with you all is around broadening the eligibility for system expansion within the housing infrastructure and financing program

[48:04] currently, system expansion. So for example, if you have infrastructure under new housing development, that's eligible. But if you needed to it

[48:13] increase the capacity of your sewer system or something like that. It apparently needed some legislative clarity to allow that as a expense under that program. So this is a policy change that has also landed on this legislative priorities list

[48:26] these are the four priorities that's been currently identified. I mean, we've been in conversations for about 4 months or so, so far. I know this is work that's ongoing, so there's definitely going to be some changes. We're continuing to collect feedback as one of the primary reasons I'm here today, is to

[48:45] collect some additional information on how to shape this. So if we want to move on to the next slide, we have prepared some discussion questions for you all, some prompts to kind of spur conversations. If you want to take a moment to read these

[49:01] I'd love to

[49:04] kind of collect your feedback. I'm happy to answer any questions, but my purpose here really is to collect your thoughts and your input so that we can continue to shape this regional coordinated agenda.

[49:18] so with that. Thank you, ken. Okay, so we've got opening up with some prompts and we have folks already in the queue. So shall we begin? Commissioner snyder, and then followed by mayor burke. Mayor buck.

[49:34] yeah, I was struck when I was hearing mike savarra

[49:39] speaking about the fact that the state budget process and how state funding works doesn't necessarily work very well for people that are operating the systems and programs.

[49:53] I would suggest that that's backwards and needs to be addressed and probably not just in this environment only. I accept and understand that, but if we're not going to start thinking differently about those kinds of things as a state and a region

[50:11] I don't think many things will move forward in the way that they need to. So I just wanted to point that out because I think it may belong on the legislative agenda to say, look at like the operations and providing care is what matters the most

[50:27] and if we have to change the way the state's doing its budgeting or its finances such that the operations can continue, then that's what needs to happen.

[50:38] otherwise, to me, it's just the, you know, tail wagging the dog on real life. I would also point out that all of us, including me initially

[50:49] I think just sort of accepted that statement as sort of a that's just how it is. And I would encourage us to reject that thinking as much as possible.

[51:01] mayor buck and then zoe.

[51:06] on that, the third goal down related to local jurisdictions and whatnot, you know, ohs has been great providing grants, you know, to communities to update the code updates and whatnot

[51:21] but the cities have been rather united through loc and opposing further mandates at this time. So I would suggest that we remove kind of the the notion I saw there is that. Well, let's if there are other mandates, we're like, we'd no other pleated, no other mandates

[51:37] we would prefer that the state starts or the legislature start providing maybe a more carrot type approach, rewarding the jurisdictions who are producing housing, who are doing good things with some of the limited infrastructure dollars and whatnot

[51:53] that are out there, and would vehemently oppose any additional mandates.

[51:59] even the suggestion because there's not going to be money to help pay for them and the cities are already bogged down on the past mandates. So thank you.

[52:10] awesome. Okay, we have zoe and then commissioner singleton

[52:14] I

[52:15] want to say something as a service provider community action recipient of

[52:22] or adapt

[52:23] we

[52:25] we try hard to be equitable on the disperse of this funding

[52:32] and one of the approach, you know, is work with the cultural specific organizations for them to reach out to the people that are closest to, and we do the admin work, the data entry, the reports. They don't have to do that

[52:48] that's one of the approaches that we are taking. And we also open a line

[52:55] for the general community to access.

[52:58] in 30 minutes in agos, we open the line at 9

[53:03] 2,000 calls

[53:05] we received 2,000 calls, and 15 on 30 min

[53:11] approximately 500 unduplicated on those 15 minutes that we are able to see on our phone system.

[53:21] $11 million, 2,000 households

[53:26] you know, from different jurisdictions

[53:30] it's a possible 2,000 households who will become homeless. And we're not working directly with the eviction core, those who are already close to the cliff

[53:40] where rents are 10,000 to 12,000 to protect the stability. We're talking about households with a 10 day notice who need to pay 3,000, 4,000 in order to be stable on their house. So

[53:58] more than the continuous service level

[54:03] and the $11 million that we're possible going to lose across the state

[54:11] I feel like it's

[54:13] import imperial like

[54:16] we will be working here

[54:19] looking at the inflow that we are putting as a kpi, and then we already know it's going to be bigger plus the ltra plus the people that are unable to move from shelter to a rapid rehousing program

[54:35] plus, the ones who are going to stay outside because how many shelter beds this day is closing

[54:43] the work that we're doing here, I already see like a huge wall that we're going to try to press and it's it's sad as a service provider who I need to tell my participants the line is closed. We are already serving 100, and that's what we can only serve this month

[55:03] but I know there are a thousand people knocking on our doors on the very different service providers, and I'm talking about my county specifically, and I know it's the same thing across the whole county

[55:16] we are pushing people out more than ever.

[55:20] so

[55:23] I'm sorry. Thank you, zoe. Thank you.

[55:27] we have just about 5 more minutes, so I just want to make sure we get to everyone. Commissioner singleton, sahan, and then margaret.

[55:39] shannon singleton, thank you.

[55:42] I would love to do some follow-up, kyung. I think that I'm a little concerned. I don't see really any of the programs in number 2, the support and protect existing funding that we actually use in in homeless services through multnomah county. So I want to make sure that if we're going to protect, there's a number of other ones we can add there

[56:01] I also hope, mindy, you're going to talk about the behavioral health piece because I think the data that you all have that we looked at at our steering and oversight committee are really powerful and we can get more specific into this agenda based on some of the good work of health share

[56:16] so I'll let you talk about that one and then

[56:20] I think we're going to have our first board session on this on the 15th of september. So I'm not sure

[56:30] what's been brought here, but I'm a little concerned that we actually haven't even had a legislative, a local legislative conversation about our agenda. And

[56:39] to me, this is, I heard you say that you hope that some counties will adopt these, and I feel like it should be the other way around that metro is adopting what other counties are seeing as top priorities. So I hope there's some right sizing of this as counties really bring up

[56:55] what our legislative priorities would be.

[56:59] because there, I appreciate that ohcs is being held to not asking for any more money, but we certainly aren't. So I think we should ask for what we think we need, knowing that we might not get it. And not I know that you all may not be able to lobby for that bill, but we should still be asking for what we think we need locally

[57:15] and then the last part I just wanted to kind of say to commissioner snyder, your point, I know that this is a process of change, but part of the challenge for ohcs has been a long history of formula funding to only community action agencies, which means a lot of providers don't engage at the state level because they don't receive

[57:34] any funding. And so that's something that I think the organization has been trying to shift. So they're not necessarily getting frontline feedback into program development because of that lack of relationship.

[57:45] thank you. We have sahan, margaret, mindy, and then laura, and we'll need to move on.

[57:56] saha mckelvey, for the record.

[58:02] I've been in these kind of

[58:03] funding budget priority discussions so many times with the city of portland, with multnomah county, with metro, with the state and

[58:13] two things that I always try to bring up that almost always seem to get lost. One is the same thing andrew brought up earlier. We have to be able to look at a comprehensive resource map if we're going to advocate appropriately for funding priorities

[58:28] I don't know what the state should be prioritizing if I can't see what funding is coming from other spaces. I don't know what metro should be prioritizing, or the county should be prioritizing. If we can't see what funding is coming from everywhere collectively, we have to be able to work towards that, and

[58:44] there are enough people in this room right now

[58:48] to put their heads together to get us this kind of resource map, which is something that we absolutely need to have to make these kind of effective decisions. The other thing I would always want to say is

[59:00] we have to get out of

[59:02] the scarcity component of chasing our tail around the lack of funding that we know we have. And what zoe brought up about eviction prevention, we see that same thing

[59:16] but

[59:17] we also work in all of these other funding buckets that mike elevated with state funding as at risk of being reduction reduced. We see that same need in all of those as well, and we can't make our funding decisions based on

[59:31] whose terrible need is being ranked as more terrible than somebody else's terrible need. They're all terrible needs, and we don't have enough funding to address them all.

[59:42] I would hope that we can push for, and this is something that we can do with shs and ideally elevate it conceptually to the state level. But I would hope that we can push for a more

[59:54] conditions and percentage allocation approach. If we had all the money that we needed, then how would we allocate it? Based on the conditions that we have? And I haven't built this, so I don't know what the exact conditions should be, but we would look at local amis, we would look at eviction rates, we would look at

[1:00:12] homelessness per capita. We would look at unemployment, we would look at several factors and say, when we have these conditions, this is how we would percentage-wise allocate our funding. If we were going to… if we had enough to address everything, this is how it will be allocated when these are the conditions

[1:00:30] if the conditions change, that would trigger we would do… this is how we would allocate it. And when we have

[1:00:36] a quarter of what the total amount should be, our percentage allocations shouldn't change. It shouldn't be whoever is shouting the loudest about the terribleness of their need is getting funding, and

[1:00:50] this other space that also has terrible need is not getting funding because they didn't get put on metro's legislative agenda priorities. So there wasn't as loud of an advocacy voice pushing for that. We have to get out of that again, the just the cycle of chasing our tails around the lack of funding we have

[1:01:07] and put something together that is going to do the very best we can with what we have and get away from all the different bottlenecks we see, all like we see the inflow and outflow discrepancies because we're not allocating these right

[1:01:22] the inflow and outflow discrepancy shouldn't exist. What should exist and what is going to exist is we can't serve everybody, because we don't have enough. But what we can do is do the best with what we have, and again, I think we need to

[1:01:36] do a better job, and this is something that we can do in this group for specifically for shs, look at when these are the conditions, this is how we allocate our funds. And we can share that with the state. We can share that across all of our other counties that are in the metro region

[1:01:51] this is an appropriate way to be able to look at this because of the lack of resource we have. It's also the best tool that we can develop to be able to get more resource. Yeah. And again, I say this, I'll keep saying this over and over. It is so much easier to ask anybody

[1:02:06] whether it be foundation or a taxpayer to fund more excellence than it is to turn my mediocrity into excellence. So we need to be able to fund the small amount of excellence that we can with our limited

[1:02:19] that's our pathway to getting more resource. Thank you, sahan. Okay, we have margaret, then mindy, then laura. Yeah, and also just want to… margaret, sorry to interrupt. We were scheduled for a break at 3:05, so I hate to cut people short, but really, please try and make this short

[1:02:37] I'm standing in the way of you and your snacks, so I will be brief. Margaret salazar from reach cdc. I want to first thank you for the call out on affordable housing preservation. And the reason I'm doing that is because as a reminder, affordable housing is

[1:02:52] is homelessness prevention. We are your homelessness prevention system

[1:02:56] but really what I want to encourage us to do is to think more holistically. So I would be, I think, happier and more satisfied with a prong here that's focused on homelessness prevention, eviction prevention dollars being part of that, but just a little bit about our experience as a provider, we have seen

[1:03:16] far more demand for our food pantries than ever before with the cuts in snap. We are seeing far more folks that are standing to lose their health care with the cuts coming in medicaid. We're providing more folks with energy assistance. So if we're going to take a stand on homelessness prevention, I think we have an opportunity to be more expansive in our call for protection of those resources and how we can wrap around folks to prevent them from

[1:03:42] falling into homelessness, and not just look at one specific program. Yes, that program's important, but at reach, we know that to keep people housed, it's all of that coming together to keep folks stably housed. Thanks. Thank you. We have mindy and then laura. Thanks so much. Super briefly, thank you for the call out for behavioral health. We've been working with

[1:04:03] provider leaders across our region, so happy to connect offline and some more specifics for that if it's useful. And then I just want to say out loud, I think it is more important this session than ever that we are, as many organizations around this table and outside are aligned in what we're asking for, for the metro area

[1:04:21] and so I appreciate the kind of back and forth. Hope we keep doing that between now and the end of the year, because if we're all saying different things, I think our ability to get anything here diminishes rapidly. Thank you, laura.

[1:04:35] laura galino de lovato here together coalition. I was fascinated by the… what was in our packet as attachment b, the regional housing coordination strategy

[1:04:49] and all of the details in it, and how it seemed to

[1:04:56] collide with what mike was telling us about ohcs' budget. I would love to talk more about this as rpoc

[1:05:07] because I think it… talking about that plan and all of the things that my colleagues here have said would be very informative and helpful. Thanks.

[1:05:17] thank you. Okay, kyung, do you just the next steps are. Yeah, so

[1:05:24] I hope to be able to return to you all in the next few months. I know your agendas are tight, but in the meantime, if you're a local government, you likely have somebody at my reoccurring meetings, so you're able to pass along information for consideration for the agenda as we continue to develop it

[1:05:41] for our other members, please feel free to reach out to me directly to help us shape the homelessness side of this agenda. So stay tuned, and I'll be back. Thank you so much. Okay, we're gonna take a 10 min break, which means we'll be back at

[1:05:59] 3.20.

[1:06:02] thank you.

[1:06:06] all right

[1:06:08] all right, to our folks online, we are getting our meeting going again.

[1:06:14] we are about to start our next agenda item, which is our vote on our goals

[1:06:21] key performance indicators and key environmental indicators.

[1:06:26] just as a reminder for folks, when the council endorsed these draft goals in december, we were working within the restrictions and constraints that the ballot measure presented and also metro's contracts with the counties. I and metro council wanted to do more at the time, but those limitations

[1:06:46] are very, very real. The opportunity to go further will come with the future framework conversations that we're going to begin in january 2027. So I just want to remind folks, I know we're having a lot of conversations here about how we want to change the world, sweeping changes

[1:07:01] to how we serve people, and I want to ground us in the reality of the frameworks that we're also operating within today. So I do want to give also everyone a quick sense of how we're going to use our time today. We have 90 min dedicated to this conversation, but I think we can go a little bit longer if we need to again

[1:07:19] I think there's quite a bit that we're gonna dive into. We expect the presentation to take about 25 minutes, which is going to leave us roughly an hour for discussion, debate, and amendments. And I ask that everyone holds their questions until the end of the presentation so that we can all ask clarifying questions together before we move into the debate and those amendments.

[1:07:41] if that sounds good, I will move us to our next slide.

[1:07:44] so I want to talk a little bit about what our vote is going to look like as well. Before we dive into all of that, it's important I introduce everyone to shane abma. Shane, if you could wave your hand. Shane is an attorney with the office of the metro attorney. Shane normally sits up at the dais

[1:08:02] with the council, he's here to advise the committee, but I've asked him to join us up front here today so he can help us with any of the procedural, parliamentary questions that come up today, just so that everything is nice and, nice and tight on that end.

[1:08:17] and rahi is going to help us facilitate the conversation, making sure that everyone has a chance to speak, to help keep us on time. And she may also ask folks to wrap up their comments so we can hear from everyone. Again, some folks, our comments are starting to get a little bit long-winded, so I'm going to ask everyone to really, really

[1:08:37] focused specifically on the substance of what they want to share. And we're also shortly going to walk everyone through what it is that we're going to ask you to vote on, what is included in the package, what is not in the package, and why those distinctions exist

[1:08:53] and then again, before that debate, we're also going to walk you through how that vote… how our voting mechanism will work, including for the amendments, and the staff has put together a short video that kind of simulates that, because today we're using the 3-2-1 method, which is different from an a-nay method. Since this is our first vote as a committee, we're going to spend a little bit more time on that process

[1:09:16] and taking the time to talk about this committee's role and authority as well. So your formal role is to make a recommendation to the metro council, and that recommendation is very important. You're the only body outside of the metro council that we are asking to make recommendations on shs

[1:09:33] and we take that responsibility super seriously. That is also why we are using the 321 vote today. We want to understand not just whether you support or do not support something, but why. Homelessness is complex. We do not expect everyone to agree, but we do hope that we can work through those differences

[1:09:51] work on finding common ground and then identifying the solutions that strengthen this critical resource for the greater portland area. And finally, there will be an opportunity to offer amendments. We're aware that there's at least a few amendments out there

[1:10:07] so we're going to walk through that process before debate and voting. So with that, we are going to first start with the package. Next slide, please.

[1:10:19] so good afternoon, arpac. My name is liam frost. I use he, him, his pronouns. I am the metro housing director. And I know that you've all read through the 200 page meeting packet, but just in case we wanted to thanks for the accuracy

[1:10:37] but yesenia and I are going to briefly walk you through the high-level proposal, so we're all on the same page, so that you… when you get to the vote, we have the utmost clarity. In front of you are the packet materials we sent last week. The final package and the appendix are printed out for you to reference during today's discussion

[1:10:54] we did not print out copies of the memo on member proposals, but we have a few copies available over by mike garcia. If you'd like to reference them. They're also included in the meeting packet that we sent out

[1:11:06] I want to make one important distinction between the final package and the appendix. Today you're voting on the final package, not the appendix. However, that appendix will be included as part of the recommendation of metro council. It is a supporting document. It is important. The reason for that distinction is that the appendix is a more technical document

[1:11:24] it gets into the details of how we would implement and measure the direction that rpoc has recommended to metro council.

[1:11:31] that said, we know that many of you cared deeply about the details in the appendix, and we absolutely want to hear your feedback on it. So while you're not voting on that today, your feedback on it is still important and will be part of the conversation. So this slide right in front of you, that green band is what you're going to be voting on today.

[1:11:49] next slide, please.

[1:11:51] this is what it all comes down to. We've enumerated the goals, the outcomes, the kpis, and the keis. It's a quick overview of the final package. You'll notice that we've clarified outcomes alongside the goals, but the language for both the goals and outcomes is included in the final package.

[1:12:09] one last point before we move to the next slide, the goals and kpis apply only to shs-funded services. They do not include other funds. I want to respect and acknowledge the comments that we're providing in the previous agenda item. Having a much fuller understanding of the sources of funding for homeless services

[1:12:29] I agree would make for better deliberation. But for the purposes of this revenue source, the kpis and the goals here only apply to that revenue source. Okay, moving on to the next slide, please.

[1:12:44] and here are the goals and outcomes included in the final package. There have not been any substantive changes to these in the past few months. At a high level, these goals focus on three core parts of the system, making homelessness brief

[1:12:57] helping people get into the right housing, and then helping folks stay housed. These goals are the foundation of the kpis and the keis that yesenia is going to be walking us through next. I do want to make sure that your eyes are drawn to both the gold

[1:13:12] and the concomitant outcomes underneath them too.

[1:13:16] over to you, yesenia. Thank you. Next slide, please.

[1:13:21] so this slide provides a bit more detail to what I had shared with you all at the august meeting. Which is providing baseline data for each of the goals. As you see here, we have worked with our county partners to finalize baseline measures for each of the shs goals. These baselines represent region starting point and market important milestone in establishing a shared framework for measuring performance over time

[1:13:43] for shs-funded programming. So for each of these goals, there's full agreement among counties and metro on how the data is collected and how each baseline is calculated, and we have established consistent methodologies that we will be using moving forward, allowing us to measure progress reliably and compare performance year over year. So now that we have these baselines established

[1:14:04] we'll be able to see as we're providing oversight for these goals, if they are moving in the right direction or not.

[1:14:11] next slide, please. So those are not placeholders. Those are the actual baseline data from okay. Yep, those are the actual baseline data that we'll be reviewing at our reporting marks. Thank you.

[1:14:23] this next slide here provides a deeper dive into the nine kpis included in the final package. You'll see that there are two new kpis, both seven and nine, that you see here with the new asterisk. And a quick note that kpi eight has been renamed a bit to be

[1:14:42] the data regional coordination alignments, just to make it clear what it is that we're tracking with that one, but that continues to be the same kpi that you all voted on and did the activity back in april.

[1:14:54] next slide, please.

[1:14:57] here are the overall list of the keis included in the package. Kei 10 and kei 11. We'll get into more in detail in a few slides. But I wanted to quickly explain how keis fit into the package and one nuance with these two

[1:15:14] so as we've been discussing in our previous meetings, kei is generally measure conditions outside of the shs system that can affect performance of the homeless service system. And shs doesn't directly control these conditions, but they provide important context to the programs that we do fund and our goals and kpis

[1:15:31] so the new ones that I just wanted to unpack a little bit is with kei 10, which looks at shs provider workforce health. We're treating this as a kei because metro doesn't directly contract providers or control whether someone stays or leaves in their job. One other distinction is that the two new keis are based on data that metro is generating or pulling together as of right now, rather than data coming directly from an external source.

[1:15:56] so we'll come back to both of these in a few slides, but I just wanted folks to be reminded of the whole package of keis.

[1:16:04] next slide, please.

[1:16:08] so now that we've seen the list for both the full list for the cais and the kpis, we're going to be walking a little bit more in detail on the two new kpis that we've added that you see on this slide. So one looks at street outreach engagement. So this came out of the mayor's proposal through the metropolitan mayor consortium

[1:16:27] that was shared with the committee at our last meeting. So this kpi really looks at measuring the date of engagement using the hud definition, which is a local best practice here in our region. And it's really looking at tracking when an outreach relationship has progressed to a client assessment or a case plan

[1:16:44] but that's different than a person's first contact with an outreach worker, because outreach is so much more than just connecting with folks. It's about building the trust. And sometimes that takes time, which is why we're measuring the engagement point rather than the first point of contact

[1:17:01] and then kpi 9 that you see here looks at regional coordination alignment with the cities. This also came out of the mayor's proposal and was shared with the committee last month. So because metro doesn't directly have shs agreements with the cities, we're using metro's convening role to better understand

[1:17:18] how cities are involved in the homeless response system and where coordination can improve.

[1:17:23] so the proposed measure that you see here is the number of convenings, and we know that that's not the most exciting measure. No one wants another meeting just to meet. But the goal is here is really to have meaningful coordination, not just meeting for the sake of meeting, and the measure here that you'll see here might evolve with time as we continue to connect both with metro and our counties and our cities to ensure that we have good alignment across the jurisdictions. But this was the starting place for these years goals, keis and kpis

[1:17:54] next slide.

[1:17:57] here's a little bit more information on the two new keis. So kei 10 is a service provider turnover intentions. So this is something metro is already measuring and it connects directly to the hear together's proposal from last month

[1:18:13] wanting to provide better data on provider and system health. So for this package, we're proposing to use the data from the 2025 staff survey. We've also heard interest in a broader definition of shs staff that could include county and metro staff in addition to service providers into this kei.

[1:18:31] we don't have that data today, but we can explore it as we develop next summer's survey.

[1:18:37] the other cai that you see here is kei 11, which looks at state and federal funding for homeless services. Commissioner west formally proposed this, and it also reflects the committee's ongoing interest in understanding the broader funding landscape, recognizing that shs was never intended to fund the entire system

[1:18:55] this very much goes in alignment with some of the comments that we heard in the previous agenda item. So we're still working through how to best present this information. But if council adopts this kei, we'll continue developing it and bring updates back to you all in terms of how that work is moving forward.

[1:19:12] next slide, please.

[1:19:15] so this slide here just summarizes at the highest level, the two new keis and kpis that I just talked about. So we can go to the next slide.

[1:19:26] and this line here just walks through at a really high level the member proposals that were submitted in the last month that we did not include into the final package. So there is more detail on the why in the memo that we shared in your meeting packet. But the key takeaway is that these proposals weren't rejected on their merits. In most cases, they need additional work

[1:19:47] or we just didn't have the data available at this point in time to be able to track them. An additional discussion before we can determine how they fit into the package.

[1:19:56] next slide.

[1:19:59] this is the last slide that I had for you today. It's really just tracks at a really high level the changes that have been made since this package first moved forward from our metro council to now. So we wanted to be transparent about how the package has evolved. There's a document in your meeting packet that tracks the changes

[1:20:17] from when it was originally adopted in december 2025 to where all the different changes and all how all the feedback was incorporated into it. The changes reflect input we received from both our county partners and members of this committee.

[1:20:32] and this brings, yeah, the last slide that we wanted to touch on. And with that, I'll pass it back to chair gonzalez to walk us through the voting process. Thank you, yesenia and liam. Real quick for any of our arpac members that are attending the meeting online

[1:20:48] just an ask to please turn your camera on, especially for the vote. If your camera is not on, the public cannot see you, as I think it's important as we engage in our deliberation here. So now that we've walked through the final package and clarified what is in the voting packet, what is not

[1:21:08] we're going to spend again some of that time on the voting process and how amendments are going to work in the debate. This is the same slide that we started with a little bit earlier, the motion in the blue box is the main motion before the committee

[1:21:23] if the committee votes to amend the package, though, the motion will change… will change to, you know, I move to recommend the metro council, the final goals, key performance indicators, and key environmental indicators as amended. And again, this process will begin shortly with a motion and a second

[1:21:41] any amendments are considered and voted on first, and then the committee votes on the main motion as amended. Next slide, please.

[1:21:48] the 321 vote is really still a yes or no vote, but with more information behind it, it gives you the opportunity to say yes and or yes, but and then have that reflected in the record and wrapped up into the feedback that the metro council receives

[1:22:04] and again, that's important because we don't want to know if you support or not support, we want to know why. Next slide.

[1:22:13] and this might be one of my favorite parts of any meeting ever, but we're going to watch a short video that staff put together just showing how the 321 works. I want to make sure we're all on the same page. We will accept emmy nominations after this

[1:22:30] michael, if we could please plus 1.

[1:22:40] I don't think audio is working.

[1:23:21] it means that you do not support it. At the end of the vote, all three and two votes will count as yeses. Further discussion, we're going to move to take a vote. This is the 321 voting method, so we are going to ask everyone to state the number of their vote and if the member feels compelled, explain why they are voting that way. As a reminder, three means that you are fully in support of this. Two means that you support it with some reservations and one means that you do not support it.

[1:23:49] at the end of the vote, all three and two votes will count as yeses. Sharing why you are voting this way will allow the committee to better understand your support or concerns, and it will help staff to understand any considerations they should have while they work to implement the committee's recommendation.

[1:24:06] so, with that, we'll go ahead and move to a roll call vote.

[1:24:11] now we begin our roll call. Chair orbath

[1:24:15] three

[1:24:18] giovanni.

[1:24:20] agreed.

[1:24:22] malia

[1:24:24] my vote is a 2. I do have concerns about the status of the outcomes that were shared today, but I support this motion otherwise.

[1:24:33] ash?

[1:24:35] iboot is one I do not support finalizing this report. I think there are details missing from the challenges section that should be included before finalizing.

[1:24:47] michael?

[1:24:49] my vote is a three

[1:24:52] alejandro

[1:24:54] three.

[1:24:57] sandy?

[1:25:00] my vote is a two because I support finalizing the report but do not agree with the context in which the outcomes were framed.

[1:25:08] deanna.

[1:25:12] you have four threes, three twos and 1-1, totaling the threes and twos together, we have seven yeses to one no. The motion passes.

[1:25:24] great, all right. Thank you, metro staff. All right, again, it's just, I think it's just great to see it. The nominations for sure.

[1:25:30] the shs regional policy and oversight committee uses modified consensus for voting. A 3-to-one voting method.

[1:25:35] great. So the video is longer. It has other things if in the future you want to watch it

[1:25:38] the 3-2-1 voting method will only be used at the end of the discussion when members

[1:25:43] you're good. So now I want to also explain some of the nuances with amendments, because the amendments work in this meeting a little bit differently than in traditional meetings. We have, in the materials that were printed in front of you, there is a guide to motions that lays out

[1:26:01] the process so you can follow along with me on those, but I'm going to read some of those items super quick. Before an amendment can be made, someone must move to adopt the final package as a recommendation to council. That motion must be seconded. Once seconded, the package is on the floor and becomes the committee's motion to debate. At that point, motions to amend

[1:26:19] can be made. Seconding a motion does not mean that you agree with it. It simply means you think the motion is worth bringing forward to debate. Friendly amendments. A friendly amendment is an informal suggestion to change a motion that the original maker accepts. It's a way to make a change without going through the full amendment process

[1:26:36] we will not be accepting friendly amendments today, just as a heads up. And once a motion to amend is made, the committee can only vote on the amendment as proposed. Calling the question, what's important to understand here is that no one person can force the committee to end debate and vote, and it requires a two-thirds majority of the committee, which is a higher threshold

[1:26:56] then the 10 votes, simple majority that are needed to pass an underlying motion. Shane, did I miss anything?

[1:27:04] no, I don't think so. I just would emphasize again that there are no magic words for an amendment. We're here to help you. We're trying to capture your intent. I know that some of you on this committee are more familiar with the emotional process than others. So don't be shy. Don't be afraid. It may get a little bumpy at times, but we'll get through it

[1:27:21] I also just want to clarify that it takes 10 votes to pass an amendment and to vote on the final package 10. And so that's regardless of how many people are here today. That's what the bylaws require. So we're looking for 10

[1:27:35] thank you, shane. All right, great. Appreciate that. Again, in terms of that staff support, it's there. If we do receive an amendment that is very, very complex and multi-layered, we may need a short like five minute recess to see how things play out staff recommendation for how that can move forward

[1:27:56] the council, really, we want to understand, you know, if an amendment is feasible, if it's legal, if it aligns with existing shs priorities that are implementable. If it is, what it would take to get there. So that's a super important checkpoint, and we want to make sure that you do not feel like we are overriding your recommendation

[1:28:17] but it's making sure that what you are moving forward is executable. So I hope that all makes sense to folks and ask for the final slide to go up before we open it up for debate and really appreciate everyone's patience as we walk through the procedure. The quick overview of what to expect over the next week. Today, you're going to vote on a recommendation, and regardless of the outcome, the recommendation

[1:28:39] we'll go to the metro council on september 17th between now and friday, staff will draft a resolution and staff report for council that includes the committee's recommendation, your feedback, staff analysis on the policy options, and we'll let you know when they're publicly available and how to watch that council meeting

[1:28:55] metro council will consider and vote on the resolution, including the committee's recommendation next thursday, september 17th. And finally, whatever happens today will help inform the regional dashboard that is going to launch in the winter. So a lot to keep track of, and we're going to do our best to keep you updated along the way

[1:29:15] and are there any clarifying questions on all this process before we open up the floor for debate and motions and things like that?

[1:29:25] alright, so I'm gonna pass it off to rahi to help us move through this. Okay, so I think we're going to just entertain just right now any questions that folks have. And then I think you all have

[1:29:42] move to… move to the package. So any questions. Okay, we have peter and it's so important. I'm gonna model this as well, lean into the mic, lean into the mic. Everyone say your name, lean into the mic

[1:29:58] sorry, questions on what? Oh, like, on the process, right? If you have… do you have questions on the process, or we're also ready to move? I don't think anyone had a question. I'm sorry we're jumping into… yeah, I think we're jumping into the question. Okay, questions about the package.

[1:30:13] about the package that we're voting on. Right, we're now… yes.

[1:30:17] so I thank you for that.

[1:30:19] so we have, okay, we're going to do the queue. Sorry, you said question about the process. Package. Package. Yeah, so I asked questions about the sorry for the confusion. We asked questions about the voting process. We're now moving to any questions on the actual thing that we will be voting on the package of things

[1:30:36] and then we will begin our debate on amendments and whatnot. Okay. So in the queue right now, we have peter, we have commissioner snyder, mike, and then commissioner singleton and

[1:30:50] margaret. Got it. We'll keep going, but yes. Thank you. Peter rosenblatt. I have a question about the key performance indicator number four, exits from emergency shelter. I really want to thank alice

[1:31:07] and the team who try to help me process this before the meeting. It's really the word emergency that is throwing me, and I should state I am a shelter provider, I am an shs-funded shelter provider, and have been a shelter provider for years. But when I read exits from emergency shelter

[1:31:25] I started throughout the entire weekend going, well, what other shelters are there? What shelters would not be included here? What's an emergency shelter and what isn't? And I want to make sure that we are tracking and number four all shs funded shelters

[1:31:41] all of them

[1:31:43] and I think we are, but I'm not 100% sure, and I just want to make sure that we are. Thanks, staff.

[1:31:53] can we ask yesenia to come up to answer that question? Thanks, peter.

[1:32:04] thanks, peter, for the question and for waiting for me to get up here. I will note, yes, emergency shelter is a term that we use matching other funders. But that measure would include all the different shs-funded shelters that we fund.

[1:32:20] thank you.

[1:32:22] okay, we have commissioner snyder.

[1:32:24] thank you very quickly. I just wanted to understand more about

[1:32:30] how much vetting the two new kpis and keis got with county staffs, because my understanding is that there was a lot of collaborative work that was done on the rest of the slate of what we're looking at, and I'm probably going to be proposing some sort of

[1:32:47] additional process with the new keis and kpis. That's why I'm asking a question. So I just want to put that out there in the in the world of being fast.

[1:32:58] and our communication are succinct. Please, yesenia. Yeah, thank you, commissioner, for the question. And you're absolutely right. We had a lot more time to with our county partners to unpack the original package, whereas these kpis and keis came in

[1:33:13] you know, just this last month, so there was a lot less time, you know, there was information that we brought to them. For example, the street outreach kpi, that's data that we have available. So those were a lot of our guiding principles as we were making decisions for what to include based on proposals and what not

[1:33:31] it's like, is this data that we have been working with our county partners that we're already collecting? And that's kind of how we decided what was in and what was out. And I do wish we would have had more time to, like, unpack those with our county partners to see if there was, like, anything else that they'd want to offer or anything else that we're missing as we put those proposals forward.

[1:33:51] I just don't think they're not as robust as everything else that's been prepared. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. We have mike and then commissioner singleton.

[1:34:01] I think this is maybe just a little bit of an oversight, but I noticed that in the state and federal keis that we added, it lists like the federal resources for that, but it doesn't list ohcs or like oregon health authority or business oregon or any other state entities. Is that just

[1:34:19] we miss them in the list, or is that we're not going to include state state information? No, I think that's a little bit of like what the data that we had available at that point in time. But as you see here there, so we already had some data collected around the federal funds, but just given that you know we had about a month to pull this together

[1:34:39] we were going to do some outreach to you and probably other state staff as we work to compile it, because the kei is for state and federal funds. So we'll get there. Okay, thanks. Commissioner singleton and the margaret

[1:34:53] thank you. Shannon singleton. I have a couple questions

[1:35:00] one is on measure kpi number 7. The end of it around street outreach workers funded by shs. We just, I mean, that's just not real on how we fund our system

[1:35:15] so it's not really

[1:35:17] we met shs in our general fund when we fund positions, we don't ask them to track data

[1:35:23] when they're… if they're, like, 0.75 fte, shs, and 0.25 county general fund, we're not asking them to track those separately, necessarily. So I think there is more work to happen here. I also would be curious on what the outcome goal that the mayors are actually trying to get at, because I'm not sure

[1:35:41] if that's the way to get there, just as a former outreach provider, it's there's a lot of data that we can capture there that is about the person's engagement in the system, but I'm not sure that that's the one that necessarily gets there if that's what you all are looking for.

[1:35:59] on kei number 7. I'm curious about the data source of building permit survey. Number of new permits issued for residential construction. Why that data source and where others

[1:36:15] I'm just not sure. I don't know that data source as well. I don't know if there's a lag in time between what shows up there and what our actual local permitting looks like. I also am unclear if we're disaggregating that by income level. Trickle down housing is not real. And so I'm not super interested in permits at

[1:36:34] the higher income levels for this work for ending homelessness. So those that would be a question there

[1:36:43] and I will pause because I have lost the rest of my rest of my notes.

[1:36:49] yeah, and I'll note that on your first question, you're absolutely right. And those are conversations that we've had with staff and the housing services department in multnomah county is how do we best attribute for instances where programs are braided and different funding sources, how do we attribute those outcomes

[1:37:06] and we've done a lot of work to identify some of those methodologies and what's going to work best. I think, ultimately, what you see in the language reflected there is that we can't mandate that we get all outreach data with shs. You know, we do get a picture of system-wide data, so that's really what you see there is a distinction

[1:37:23] of trying to get to the shs funded work, knowing that for some instances, particularly around outreach, we might just be getting, like, maybe broader system-wide data that then we need to, like, explain that nuance. This is one that I think you actually have to talk to workers who do outreach on the ground and on the front lines. It's just a little bit. I totally hear what you're saying, and that's why we don't disaggregate it in the work that way. But like the outcomes for those folks will be disaggregated by funding source

[1:37:50] does that make sense? So it might be beneficial to engage frontline workers on developing what a outcome there. If that's actually workable. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And on your latter question, I'll just note that that that was the best data available that we had that was updated with certain cadences that kind of match the things. And I know there's a lot more there in terms of how we picked all these data sources, and

[1:38:19] none of them are perfect. So I definitely hear your feedback and can take that back to the team as we work to continue to figure out where exactly these sources come from, and what feels like important considerations as we're bringing those updates to our poc.

[1:38:35] thank you. And just as a reminder, this is really just the clarifying questions on the package. We'll have more time for debate in a minute. We have margaret and then zoe.

[1:38:48] great, thank you. I have two clarifying questions. One is on the kpis. So kpi one on homelessness prevention, we just heard a lot of conversation around that. Could you just remind us for the record

[1:39:03] why there's not an outcome measure connected to this, and why this is expressed as number of households. It would be helpful to have a reminder of that. And then for the new proposed kpi around regional coordination and alignment with cities

[1:39:19] it would be helpful to understand what

[1:39:23] the desired outcome is for regular staff to staff coordination meetings. I'm assuming that those coordination meetings are already happening in today's world. So I would love to understand the goal behind that.

[1:39:35] thanks. Thank you. I'll just note that on the homeless prevention interventions, it goes hand in hand with the kei that we're tracking with eviction preventions and wanting to see those two data points together. At the time where metro council passed the different goals that we have in front of you

[1:39:53] they… there wasn't a homeless prevention goal that we passed there. So as we kind of have moved through the process and worked with our county partners, and then later arpac to get feedback, we just learned that in terms of establishing a whole new goal for this, we just wanted to do a lot more work and assessing of what was out there

[1:40:12] to clearly outline a goal that would make sense in terms of homeless preventions and the work that we wanted to do there, given that we're a quarter into the year, just didn't quite make sense to, like, do that work. But I know that I've talked to our counselors, and especially as we head into budget

[1:40:27] year planning for next year, that is something of interest to continue to keep on the table in terms of if there's a goal or outcome that we want to associate with that kpi. Thank you.

[1:40:37] and I invite any of the mayors to jump in on this question as well, but we've just been having conversations around how we can better work across the jurisdictions in our region to address homelessness. And one of the things that continues to come up is how do we have more consistent and ongoing coordination between our city partners

[1:40:58] to ensure that they are also at the table, that we're really understanding the resources and services that they're bringing to the region. Metro and the cities didn't quite have an established meeting cadence. So that's why it's the first thing to get us started as we figure out best practices for that coordination, and how do we better integrate with our county partners on that

[1:41:19] thank you. So you weren't handing it to the mayor. We have mayor buck, but we'll have zoe go first. Zoe.

[1:41:28] yeah, I have the same question and concern that margaretta had. So we're only going to

[1:41:38] got the output from eviction prevention, not the outcomes. And I understand that the outcomes may need more data calling households 6 months later to see if the outcome is… was positive after the intervention. So outputs only

[1:41:54] perhaps in the cqi outcomes later, because that's what

[1:42:00] to me, people want to see what happened after that one-time intervention was successful or the household become homeless.

[1:42:09] and to the access to the emergency shelter or the placements to permanent or rapid rehousing or one-ton housing

[1:42:24] again, I don't know if this… the loans here or cqi continued improvement, but to me it's

[1:42:32] important and equity analysis also who move from shelter to housing and from shelter to housing and retention and all of that, I feel like we should look into the disparities

[1:42:47] of the different populations as well, because we know who are most likely have more barriers and have system issues that will prevent them to move faster than others. So

[1:43:02] I love notes. Equity, equity. All relationships matters to me on the engagement and the outreach thing before the

[1:43:14] assessment or input into the system that is going to count that relation probably 3 months have happened already where I have contact with this individual that are meaningful as well. It's because I don't want the public to believe that

[1:43:32] 100-something days, it's enough, you know, because it already happened before. Same with the amount of

[1:43:40] with the goal to reduce the length of homelessness just when we are

[1:43:47] placing a person on the system doesn't mean that they have not spent already 2, 3, 4 years homeless. So those are like distinctions that I feel like the public probably deserve clarification when we're putting this goal there, and from the number 9 regional coordination

[1:44:05] same questions, what are we trying to measure here? Number of meetings, what

[1:44:11] what is the activity and what is going to be successful after that? Like more clarity on that because you guys can meet and

[1:44:20] is that successful? So this is going to be like jeopardy, where it's like, can you put that in a form of a question? So we've got a couple of questions in there. Some of it was debate, and we're going to have time for more engagement, but there's a question about equity. Was there an equity analysis, I guess, to some of the points

[1:44:38] and then what are you measuring? And then we should revisit some of your other points in the debate part of the meeting. But I don't know if you wanted to answer that, and we'll move on. Yeah, and I think zoe, what I also heard your question being was like, can we continue to conduct those sort of disparities assessments? And the answer is yes. So as we start to collect this data

[1:44:58] we have data sharing agreements with each of the counties that we work with. So as we start to get information on households that we're placing into shelter and able to see which households move into rapid rehousing or permanent supportive housing, we do get additional data points on there that is desegregated by things like age or population

[1:45:21] or race that we could do additional deep dives into why are we serving this population in this way, and what could potentially be strategies that could inform future implementation to ensure that all populations are being served well.

[1:45:36] yeah, and I think on your eviction prevention, I totally hear you, it's pretty similar to what we were just discussing with margaret. At this point in time, what we learned as a region, not all service providers are across the region are collecting those outcomes and making those calls after you've

[1:45:52] supported someone with homeless prevention. So if we did want to create those outcomes and goals at a region level, we first need to build out some infrastructure for how we collect that, which is why, at this point in time, we just can't move forward with a goal or outcome.

[1:46:06] thank you. Let me know if there's anything in there else that you want me to speak to before we move into votes or amendments process.

[1:46:13] so it's a reminder, we're just wrapping up clarifying questions on the package before we get into debate. Mayor buck.

[1:46:20] thank you. Well, I do have a clarifying question, but to my colleagues across the room, the mayors had asked for, you know the support of the narrative that cities play an integral role in

[1:46:35] the region-wide system here that we're here working through, and we went to metro staff with that and say, what would be a good, you know kpi, and they came back with this

[1:46:49] particular one about the meetings I don't think as yesenia recognize I don't think anyone's thrilled with it we talked about this at the last meeting. The mayors were not really thrilled with it and and what we had proposed was a metric that would track the

[1:47:05] the funds that are shs funds going to cities and then either being expended directly by the city or being granted by the city, then to a local group

[1:47:15] and that got some pushback from our team here at metro. And so here we are with this

[1:47:25] with this one, I will say that the mayors think this is a good start. We want the role of cities to be recognized. We would hate to remove this and then remove any reference to to cities, and we do will continue to advocate for, because perhaps it's not a kpi. We honestly do not care

[1:47:42] but we think that being able to demonstrate transparency how the system works and where money is flowing, you know, through organizations and then to cities helps us better understand what is working where gaps are. And so we'll continue to advocate for that to be reported in some way in this work. And yeah, I think we're all on the same page. It's not a great metric, but we don't want to lose it because it's kind of a placeholder

[1:48:08] if you will. So we appreciate the responsiveness of the metro team. I had a question about the goals. So we have, you know, goal number one, you know, reducing the length of time people experience homelessness

[1:48:23] and I see that the baseline metric was 160, some odd days. And then goal number two is the number of households exiting shelter to positive destination. And we want that to increase. And that was 33.

[1:48:39] percent baseline. I just for to clarify, for my knowledge here. So goal one, if someone, after 160 days, is it possible that someone is… are there 2 outcomes there? Is someone either moving into a positive destination, or is another outcome that they're possibly still

[1:48:55] almost but just dropped out of a program.

[1:49:00] yeah, so the goals are definitely all interrelated, right? A household, we could see certain households being served in all three of these different goals. But we are measuring each goal distinctly, and we're more importantly, what you see here, for example, in goal number one is measuring the average days that someone is experiencing homelessness

[1:49:19] so what we would be looking for the goal number one is that that baseline as a region that we'd be able to find different strategies through the ways we implement program that that baseline would come down. So the goal in that average would be that we see that directional trend decreasing in terms of the amount of days that someone is experiencing homelessness

[1:49:40] and then goal two would look it's a different subset of data that we're looking at, really looking at the households that are entering our shelters and how do we increase the number of people that are served through our shelters that then exit into a positive destination of some sort, whether that's

[1:49:57] a housing placement or they're reunited with a certain situation that works for them. So that's what we are looking at. So there's some interconnectedness between all three of them, but they are distinct in what we're measuring. Well, can I just… so

[1:50:13] just to to be clear. So when we say, I guess I'm getting the number of days enrolled in a homeless program reduces. So if someone is is this after 160 days exiting homelessness, not just, well, I don't want to be engaged anymore

[1:50:29] I'm not engaged in a program anymore, still homeless. I'm not engaged in a program.

[1:50:34] yeah. Is that a put an outcome here? Not necessarily. The 160 days doesn't put like a hard cap on someone to be like in 160 days. If you're not engaged in services, if you're not doing this, you're no longer engaged. It's more like providing

[1:50:50] context and information for how long, on average, someone is being homeless, and then how do we find a way to through program interventions, try and minimize, you know that. And then in future years, how do we work to minimize that even further to really reduce the amount of time people experience homelessness? I ask this because, you know, the we had come at the last meeting with the

[1:51:10] it's really the mayors think important that people see that, that the or understand are the people entering homelessness greater or less than the number of people

[1:51:22] exiting homelessness. And so how is that

[1:51:25] identified in a clear way to the public. Yeah. What you're describing there is the number of households entering homelessness, and that is more captured in our inflow key environmental indicator. So that's where you would see the number of households every region

[1:51:44] every year in our region that are entering homelessness. And then you have our outflow numbers, which isn't as clearly dictated in these goals, but it is a measurement that we're tracking where we combine all of the people that we have placed into housing, so we get to see both of those data points together

[1:52:00] so they kind of go hand in hand with these goals, but they aren't explicitly stated here.

[1:52:06] okay. I mean, I think it is good for the public to understand those like key factors. So, and without having to

[1:52:16] like, do a lot of math. And we'll… we can get more into the debate piece of this, because I think there's more opportunity for… for engagement on that. We have peter, and is that closing out? I'm looking online as well, closing out our questions

[1:52:31] okay. Oh, and councillor lewis. I just want to get some clarity. So even though it's not perfect, the mayors are okay with the kpi number 9

[1:52:42] you are? Okay.

[1:52:44] I think it's horrible, but if you're okay with it, I'm okay with it. Good clarifying question, okay? Councillor lewis. Sure. I understand why in this current state we use people and or households throughout this, particularly because we have

[1:53:04] some counties that are deeply wedded to people, and some counties that are deeply wedded to households. Do we assume in the future state that we will have households or people standardized, or will we always be in a apples and pears situation with households and people

[1:53:22] yeah, that's a really great question, councillor lewis. And one that I'm peeking over at our data folks, because that's the ongoing question. And I think you kind of spoke to it, that we have the situation where, based on the infrastructure that was built prior to shs

[1:53:37] for some counties and people just works better versus households. So until we find a really good method to be able to do one over the other, we're going to continue to do both. And I will say, it does provide a good additional context into the services that we fund, particularly when surveying

[1:53:55] families that are experiencing homelessness or domestic violence survivors, given that that's more aggregate privatized data, to be able to see how many households we're serving, and how many people are in that a little bit differently does provide those additional programmatic context that feels critical to the system.

[1:54:15] okay

[1:54:17] okay, so seeing no further questions. Great. So this concludes our time for clarifying questions. So I'm going to pass it back to future

[1:54:28] all right, everyone, showtime. So I will now entertain a motion to adopt this final package and send it as a recommendation to the metro council

[1:54:40] I can get a motion, please.

[1:54:44] I move to approve the 3 draft goals, key performance indicators one to six and eight and key environmental indicators one through nine as written, and that the additions not put through the rigorous

[1:54:58] staff process be tabled for discussion at a later date.

[1:55:04] that's wonderful.

[1:55:08] so, I thank you, commissioner. I need a motion on the original package. So I appreciate your proactiveness. I'm going to look at shane here. Yeah, that sounds like an amendment. So I think we need the motion on the package, and then you can amend and take those away if you don't like them

[1:55:24] but the motion itself, the starting motion to get this in front of the committee, needs to be the one that was scripted. That is the final package that has been proposed. After that, you can amend all you want, and but for now we need to get it on the floor. Don't we decide what motion we're making? Like, how can I be told I can't make a motion

[1:55:44] they may like it, but like we could vote today.

[1:55:48] I just I I don't understand the process, I guess, from what's being described. I'm sure it'd be

[1:55:54] easier if it just went as people thought. But that's not what just happened

[1:56:01] okay, so should I accept the motion or well, it hasn't been second. It hasn't been seconded, and then it will be debated. If you want to go that route

[1:56:12] we're not… I think that it's probably better, and I understand what you're saying, to start with the main motion, which was as if you had a resolution in front of a council, or that you start with the main document that has been presented

[1:56:25] second it, get it on the floor, and then start amending it.

[1:56:29] okay

[1:56:30] so we have a motion from commissioner snyder, not seeing a second.

[1:56:34] sorry, I'm confused now because I would like to go back to the original motion. And I'm also seeing no one second this, so I'm going to read. I'll withdraw my motion.

[1:56:46] thank you, commissioner steiner. So again, I will entertain a motion to adopt this final package to send it as a recommendation to the metro council.

[1:56:56] so moved.

[1:56:58] thank you. So, moved by commissioner singleton, and can I get a second, please? I'll second. All right. And seconded by mindy. Thank you so much. So now we're able to have a conversation and debate on the motion on the table, and I understand that there's a series of amendments

[1:57:15] let's have the conversation as we need to have it.

[1:57:18] commissioner andrew rowe.

[1:57:22] have I been promoted? Committee member. Thank you, mr. President.

[1:57:30] I move to amend metro september 2026 final goals, kpis and keis by replacing the 9 proposed kpis with 6

[1:57:42] headline kpis and suggested sub-measures below in the document I'm about to distribute. Incorporating the sheltered and unsheltered homeless measure identified in kei number two into kpi number one, establishing a separate enabling scorecard and adopting the performance management requirements

[1:58:00] that are outlined in the document that's about to be distributed. All other adopted goals and keis remain unchanged. The executive summary is consolidating nine into six

[1:58:11] and addressing the issue of outcomes that was raised several times in the previous questions, and I'm happy to have this document distributed now to all the committee members so that you can see it.

[1:58:24] okay, thanks. So that amendment is being distributed. It is a pretty complex amendment that is being brought forward.

[1:58:35] do we have a second?

[1:58:37] but we're just getting for the purpose of

[1:58:42] the purpose of debate, the motion has been seconded by councilor lewis. So now committee member rose amendment is live and available for discussion. For questions and discussion, I know folks are trying to read. I understand this was also sent

[1:58:57] ahead of time to people, is that correct? No, this was not sent correct. Okay, this is just staff. Thank you.

[1:59:07] so if folks want to take a time to read it.

[1:59:10] and begin conversation and debate.

[1:59:19] I also have a second document that provides a comparison and analysis of how I came up with this amendment. And I'd be happy to distribute that as a clarifying document to all the committee members as well.

[1:59:37] oh, I see card's up. Apologies about that. Peter, and then we'll go to commissioner singleton.

[1:59:45] I'm torn. I appreciate andrew the work that went in here. I do not have enough time in this and today to do a crosswalk. This looks like a completely different thing than I would want to be able to really

[2:00:02] do the crosswalking to be able to support us. He was

[2:00:08] so I just want to put that out that I do not have enough time in the next hour and a half to be able to

[2:00:15] make it to accept us.

[2:00:19] commissioner singleton, and then we'll go to sahan.

[2:00:22] thank you. What does active homelessness mean?

[2:00:28] it's a hud definition, I believe.

[2:00:31] active homelessness, I've literally never heard it before.

[2:00:35] okay, well, we'll have to go back and look at the hud definition.

[2:00:40] well, I know the hud definition, but it's not. That's why I'm asking. But that's okay.

[2:00:46] so we have,

[2:00:49] commissioner snyder

[2:00:51] and then sahan. I actually don't want to speak on this amendment.

[2:00:58] yes, and just question around the

[2:01:03] folding kei number two into kpi number one suggestion

[2:01:09] is this meant to state that

[2:01:14] we do have control over the total number of people who are homeless.

[2:01:21] well, let me step back and just give you some rationale for why I've proposed this amendment.

[2:01:29] metro's proposal certainly advances regional consistency, but it does not yet constitute a focused performance management based set of kpis. And of the nine proposed kpis, several are activity counts

[2:01:44] three shelter measures overlap, two are enabling activities rather than homelessness outcomes. And the package lacks complete targets with owners and baselines, etc. And so what I've tried to do is rationalize this into a package

[2:02:00] keis that are more that should be in the kpi focus are put into those headlines that I've suggested in that document. And if you read those, those six

[2:02:11] high-level kpis. The first one is active and unsheltered homelessness, measuring that. And there's some sub-measures there too, and there's an outcome associated with that. And in each of these, there's an outcome associated with the actual headline kpi

[2:02:28] now, I recognize that there's a lot to digest here and to peter, your point, I don't know how president gonzalez is going to want to proceed on this, but certainly these are many of the points that are being made here are things that have been brought up over the last

[2:02:43] several weeks in discussion, and in follow-up and feedback that's been given to metro staff after each of the meetings where we've had discussions on kpis. So the attempt here has been to try to synthesize those ideas to streamline these kpis, make them better

[2:03:01] higher level and then establish some meaningful sub-measures that allow us to really look at the outcomes associated. I'm not questioning your attempt at all. I support your intent. I understand. I just don't have time. I also want to say that

[2:03:17] I definitely want

[2:03:21] I want us to be able to effectively track everything that we can effectively track. I want to be able to paint an accurate picture for the public.

[2:03:28] I would definitely be wary of

[2:03:32] I'm not sure if you're saying eliminate kei number one by folding it into or kei number two by folding it into kei, kpi number one. It's really because I think there's an element of

[2:03:46] kei number two that illustrates the reality that we can't control completely the total number of people who are homeless.

[2:03:57] and if we take that out and fold it into a kpi, I think that insinuates that

[2:04:02] no matter what these additional factors are that are contributing to homelessness, we are committing to the public that we're going to reduce it by a specified amount, which I don't know that I'm comfortable saying we can do, because there's so many factors that we don't have control over that are contributing to that total number

[2:04:20] I do think there should be a kei that demonstrates that, that illustrates that transparently for the public. And I agree that we should be as transparent as we possibly can with the steps we are taking to do the best we can to reduce homelessness to degree that is possible.

[2:04:38] the intent of folding kei number 2 into kpi number 1 is to promote and strengthen it, and the central analysis here is that a regional outcome, you know, should not remain an environmental indicator. And the regional outcome is reducing homelessness

[2:04:55] and so what we're trying to do is we're trying to strengthen the measurement of the outcome itself and make sure that it's front and center as the overarching outcome that we're aiming after as we work on continuous improvement, aligning systems, improving outcomes, etc.

[2:05:12] thank you, and we have mayor wilson is next.

[2:05:24] already been hunt

[2:05:25] yes.

[2:05:27] check, check. Yeah, there we go, okay. Hey, andrew. You know, I applaud you for this work. It's the first I've seen, so I haven't had a chance to look at it in a material sense. But just the kpi one that you note

[2:05:41] that the priority populations are going to begin with unsheltered homelessness, and then proceed from there in a stepped process or a waterfall process, because this prioritizes activity. It also prioritizes life safety

[2:05:56] right, those that are in harm's way are suffering on the street and addressing that to save lives and reduce suffering. And I think that's essentially what's always been driving a lot of the communication and the community concerns about shs as a whole. So I appreciate that

[2:06:13] at the very least, you talk about

[2:06:17] the goals and the kpis and the keis measuring activity

[2:06:21] but not really having that outcome focus. And so I appreciate that.

[2:06:27] it takes some time to review it, but it's

[2:06:30] a very large document to try and do a right turn at this particular stage, but I applaud you for that.

[2:06:37] thank you.

[2:06:40] okay, so if I'm not seeing more debate, I think it'd probably be appropriate to move us into a vote on the amendment made by committee member rowe

[2:06:51] just want to hold some time here if there's additional comments or questions. If not, I am assuming that you are prepared to vote.

[2:06:58] okay, so mike, if we could please make a roll call on this vote.

[2:07:05] and remember, 3, 2, 1, folks. Is it possible to have more time to just digest it, to just read it

[2:07:11] respectfully, you could say no, but I just how much more time would you like? 5 min without people talking just to read it. Just to give it a fair shake.

[2:07:21] okay, I can give us, 3 min. Does that sound okay? Thanks. So we will take a short recess, 3 min. We did mention that in our procedures, that if it was a very complex amendment

[2:07:38] that we might take some time.

[2:07:40] so I'm going to give folks 3 min. We'll reconvene for a vote at 426.

[2:09:04] can you speak into the microphone? Oh, sorry. Oh, don't touch button

[2:09:13] yeah, that's in the final equation paragraph should be amended and rejected and that

[2:09:22] this is not good trust, but temporal weakness, which is transforming a reporting list into a focus management system. Do you think there's a merit to that? And I'd like given when kpis are adopted, that we can

[2:09:37] exactly into a focus management system, which I think is the intent.

[2:09:44] focus our kpis on that direction when we adopt

[2:09:56] right. Thank you. All right, I think staff, are we ready to take a role on this amendment, please?

[2:10:05] are we ready to take rob? Yes, please. Okay, I will now begin taking roll. Commissioner shannon singleton.

[2:10:13] I love starting. I am a one.

[2:10:17] commissioner jason snyder. One

[2:10:21] mayor keith wilson.

[2:10:26] 321. So the threes and twos are yeses. One is a no. Two is a yes, and you can add more context. Great comment

[2:10:36] no, but I appreciate the work

[2:10:38] 01. Okay, thank you. Okay, the one. Mayor joe buck. Three.

[2:10:44] mary travis stowell.

[2:10:46] one

[2:10:48] mayor beach pace. Three.

[2:10:51] president rodriguez? One

[2:10:53] zayla copiano.

[2:10:57] beautiful. The equity session. Excellent.

[2:11:02] I see things that I have spoken today.

[2:11:05] but I don't have time to

[2:11:07] work on it

[2:11:09] the way that it deserved, and I feel like we can do this as a quality improvement, all of this. It's it's needed

[2:11:17] but

[2:11:20] one.

[2:11:23] sorry. All right. Peter rosenblatt. One.

[2:11:27] mindy statlander.

[2:11:29] I'm a one

[2:11:30] andrew row

[2:11:32] two, the committee needed more time to be able to deliberate on this. And my apologies. I apologize to everybody for bringing this at this date

[2:11:48] but in a perfect world, we would have actually put proposals like this forward well in advance of the meeting so that we could deliberate and talk them through, too. Thank you. Sahan mckelvey. One

[2:12:03] laura golino de lovato. 2.

[2:12:07] adam brown

[2:12:10] councillor lewis. One

[2:12:13] councilor wong

[2:12:16] chair gonzalez. I have a one. Andrew, thank you for your work, and we're going to see what we can incorporate going forward on this. Okay, so if a vote count, michael, I think the motion fails, but if you could please confirm. Yep, we had five yeses to eight nos. The motion fails

[2:12:31] thank you so much.

[2:12:33] okay, so now, arpok, we are back to the original motion, which is the final package to go to the metro council. Is there any deliberation on that package? And if there are further amendments to be discussed, please present them now.

[2:12:47] I saw peter raise their card up first. So, peter, I'm gonna invite you, and then we'll go to, I think, commissioner snyder has an action as well. So I have one motion to make. I had submitted several, but I only want one

[2:13:03] which is regarding kei number 10

[2:13:08] I move that we include all shs-funded employees, regardless of where they work

[2:13:16] my goal here is to include the government shs funded as well.

[2:13:21] there's a lot of them

[2:13:24] want to be comprehensive. Second. All right, so it's been moved by committee member rosenblatt, seconded by councilor lewis. The motion to amend kei number 10 is on the floor. Welcome discussion on this. Commissioner snyder will come to you after this motion.

[2:13:42] I see commissioner shann singleton with your card up.

[2:13:48] thank you. Peter, I just wanted to make sure I'm getting this right. It's still direct service staff, though. Is that correct?

[2:13:58] I would really, for me, it's about if we're looking at the health of the system

[2:14:03] I'm a part of the health system. I'm not a direct service staff. I view lauren as part of the health of the system. She's not a direct service staff. I view it as, what is shs funding? So if shs is funding my position, I want to take that survey. If shs is not even open is, lauren, and my apologies for including you. If it's funding your position, I want you to be able to take

[2:14:26] as well. Thank you.

[2:14:30] so I will just say I

[2:14:34] our department is amazing, but we don't do the direct service internally at the county, and so I struggle a little bit with how county staff at multnomah county would feed into. I would hate to see the direct the comparison between direct service

[2:14:49] to management be overweighted on management side by county staff, if that makes sense. It does. And so I imagine that this would be presented in a way where, yes, you would have a singular number, but there would be dropdowns where we would be able to see

[2:15:05] you know, whose management, who's frontline, who's government, who's a community-based provider, where we'd be able to see that as a provider, and we've talked about this before, one of the things that I have heard throughout the years from the governments, from the government entities is, oh, well, we're having a turnover in our billing department

[2:15:24] so that's going to be late. Okay, well, if there's a turnover in billing and it's an shs funded position, that impacts my ability to provide the services, so it impacts the total system health. So I see that connection. But yes, if we just had a singular

[2:15:40] you know, 27% turnover. That's not as… it's in the drop-downs.

[2:15:46] I saw you shaking your head, yesenia. Yeah, I agree. No, susenia was behind you. Sorry.

[2:15:54] yeah, that's right. Sorry, I can't help it. In our survey that we've conducted via the tri-county planning body employee recruitment and retention goal, this is where we collected this data

[2:16:10] there is an aggregate number, but then we are able to disaggregate by things like management. So if the amendment today passed forward, we'd have to do some work with our county partners to see how they would now engage in the survey, but we could disaggregate, you know, and say like, this is analysis that we want to do just on service providers, and then this is

[2:16:29] for county staff

[2:16:31] great. Thank you.

[2:16:33] okay, sihan

[2:16:36] you have a question for peter, for your intention and just for the overall intention of

[2:16:43] the cai as currently listed, are we defining turnover as someone leaves a position, or someone leaves an agency?

[2:16:55] we talked about that last time, because I remember, because I brought it up and I looked at the survey. It was sent to me. Thank you, alice. I think

[2:17:07] before we do the survey again, we're going to want to take a look at and to clarify that because people do move throughout, and it's not a total leave. It is still a vacancy, and if we're having a hard time filling a vacancy, that's a component, you know, as well.

[2:17:25] I think as well with the survey, we need to look at the categories of why people are leaving. They're heavily weighted on, my company sucks, as opposed to which are a lot of them, but there's a lot of life factors, and those were all kind of clustered in

[2:17:42] you know, either work-life balance or others, so I'd really want to… I want to get a very robust picture of the movement. Yeah, I also want to have a very robust picture of the movement, and would want to see this defined as leaving a position

[2:17:58] and I would be in favor of incorporating everybody with the disaggregated dropdown data, because I think that's extremely important. And if we are incorporating

[2:18:10] government funded shs positions that I really want it to be by position in our agency because I see that all the time like I I agree. I have not had a

[2:18:23] county funding coordinator the same… be the same person for more than two years in any time that I can remember in my 15 years.

[2:18:33] okay, commissioner snyder, is there anything you wanted to contribute to this?

[2:18:37] oh, councillor wong, did he want to say anything?

[2:18:42] okay. Can I? Oh, yes, shane. Just to double check, you're wanting to change the wording of

[2:18:50] it's in the appendix or it's in more the technical data, not not the actual package.

[2:18:55] because I'm trying to figure out how it would be worded differently. So if I'm only looking at this two pager as this here, then I would change it to be, I would I would change number 10 to read

[2:19:09] shs-funded staff turnover. Okay.

[2:19:15] shs funded staff

[2:19:18] turnover instead of service provider. Instead of service provider. Alright, so I just want to be clear that that is the motion that

[2:19:24] so those are the words that would be changed. Yes. Yeah, thanks. Thank you. Still intentions, peter?

[2:19:31] not measuring actual turnover.

[2:19:35] I mean, I had also based this on, I'm assuming, I mean, the document that, you know, the survey is comprehensive. I mean, it does cover a lot, not just the intention, so I assume a similar document would be used. I don't have a problem with the word intention, if that implies, susan.

[2:19:55] it's a little bit leading

[2:19:58] it's leading, like

[2:20:00] tell me your intent to stay, and then

[2:20:05] people are really like, no, I will leave because I don't get 70% already says that they're not satisfied with pay

[2:20:17] 70%, 54 says that they are stressed and 38% is sculpture for 117 people that said that they want to move

[2:20:28] their intent is out of the workforce

[2:20:33] so

[2:20:35] intent. I don't

[2:20:39] I don't know. I think that the intent of this language that is rolling over, if I understand correctly.

[2:20:46] the proposers wanted to carry forward work from the tri-county planning body, and it was kind of an outstanding thing that folks wanted to track to measure the health of the system. So it's why the cai made it to this list

[2:21:01] sahan, you have your card up again.

[2:21:04] yes, I just want to add, I don't see this clearly stated here. I think it might be part of the intent.

[2:21:12] I would

[2:21:14] want to know more than just are you wanting to leave the field entirely or leave an agency? I want to know where you're going. I think it is a

[2:21:23] strong indicator of

[2:21:26] some of the lack of system help when we see the number of provider staff who are leaving to go work for the government.

[2:21:33] to do a similar job in the same field.

[2:21:36] it's certainly something we can consider. That laura.

[2:21:41] yeah, thank you. Laura golino de lovato here together. So I think the original intent of the proposals to add kpis, keis and this one in particular, staff turnover by program and county

[2:21:59] was the original with the concept that organizations have to pay to replace and retain employees that depart. And that's just sort of to peter's point, affect

[2:22:14] operations. So I… I from here together's perspective, this was a much more general concept. Let's focus in on what it costs

[2:22:27] in lost work and money to

[2:22:31] deal with turnover. There's that. The other thing is, I would… I would use some caution in restricting this to shs-paid

[2:22:43] positions, because in many organizations, shs pays for 10%, or 54%, or 72%.

[2:22:54] and I think maybe that would

[2:22:59] provide us with a big challenge. And would not really get us the answer we want about the health of the whole system.

[2:23:08] but maybe we would get there another way. So thanks.

[2:23:12] thank you. Commissioner snyder, is your card still up? No. I'm waiting. Yeah, you're in the queue as you've acknowledged. You're in the next you're in the queue for next. So mayor pace, I'll go to you, and then we'll the commissioner singleton. Yes, thanks. I appreciate the comment

[2:23:30] and, and the concern about it. This after 20 years in the nonprofit sector, social impact sector, I see this as another burdensome report.

[2:23:39] honestly, right? Either the nonprofit organization is effective or they are not in helping and providing whatever service they're providing. If we're asking them to then further drill down on who left, when and where and why, and where did they go and who filled the spot, that's just another report that they have to generate. They either were effective

[2:24:00] and what they were supposed to measure or not do not measure, but do or not. And so

[2:24:08] not a fan of this particular one, so I'm I get it.

[2:24:13] commissioner singleton, and then we'll go to councilor lewis.

[2:24:17] thank you. I think one

[2:24:21] as a former nonprofit leader, I totally get this, and I support it. I think that it's for me, there's clearly work to be done on the survey tool itself. So I would ask that even moving this forward, that just there's a commitment from metro to engage with providers

[2:24:37] on the tool itself that it's actually meeting the needs that you all are articulating, and that be a part of the next steps. Councillor lewis. Sure, thank you. I think coming from the perspective of having walked the path with the tri-county planning body, really working on making these job good jobs, the survey gives us multiple dimensions

[2:24:58] of the health of the people who are on the front lines, and I think this focus on

[2:25:05] leaving and turnover is just one dimension, but it's really the indicator of health. So it's important to recognize this is survey data from individuals, and there's going to be a lot of texture there. That's not just the bare numbers of how many people moved up over or onto another organization. So I would advocate

[2:25:23] for keeping this

[2:25:25] gretchen.

[2:25:28] I just wanted to agree with what mayor pace had to say.

[2:25:36] in philanthropy, you know, collecting reporting all the time, and there was this really great project that came out about 15 years ago called project streamline. And one of the guiding principles of that is to not collect data unless you know exactly what you're going to do with it

[2:25:51] so like you may want a lot of data, but if you don't really know why, it's a really big burden on nonprofits to give specific data to each and every organization for which they may get funding or may want to track what they're doing. They're already overwhelmed with just providing services

[2:26:09] and again, as I said in the last meeting, like they're not great at tracking data anyway because they generally don't have a person who is

[2:26:17] trained in that role, they're all just providing services and you know usually by the skin of their teeth, quite honestly. And currently, many service providers are terrified right now about what is coming down the pipe in the next couple of years.

[2:26:34] putting more burden on nonprofits and service providers. I don't think that's a great idea.

[2:26:42] thank you.

[2:26:43] okay, I think that will wrap up the comments and questions and debates on this amendment. So I'm going to ask

[2:26:52] my goal to call roll, and just as a reminder, metro staff has put on this on your screen the exact action that you're considering, so you can track live changes and things like that as we go forward. I think it's a nice feature to be able to track the conversation.

[2:27:08] so, michael, if you could please call the vote. Thank you, chair. Commissioner singleton.

[2:27:14] three

[2:27:16] commissioner snyder, one

[2:27:18] mayor wilson.

[2:27:22] mayor buck one

[2:27:24] mayor stovill.

[2:27:26] one

[2:27:27] mayor pace? One. Regent rodriguez.

[2:27:32] 2. Cela copiano.

[2:27:35] peter rosenblatt. 3

[2:27:38] mindy statlander? 2.

[2:27:41] andrew rowe? 2.

[2:27:43] sahan mckelvey.

[2:27:46] and I would love to point out that

[2:27:51] all of the service providers are voting yes, and the people speaking on behalf of service providers are voting no.

[2:27:59] laura gorlino de lovato

[2:28:02] one

[2:28:04] do we have adam brown?

[2:28:19] councillor lewis? 3. Councillor huang? 2.

[2:28:24] councilor gonzalez. I will be to just want to note, I think

[2:28:31] counties in metro should work much harder in synthesizing a survey schedule. I know providers are being surveyed all the time. There should be, like.

[2:28:41] more coordination as to when we're surveyed. So they're not surveyed 8 times or 4 times or whatever. So I hope that we can work on that going forward. Can I get a vote tally, please? We have eight yeses to five noes.

[2:28:52] eight yeses to five nos, so that I understand that this fails. Wait a second. The twos are counting as yeses. I had it at 11.5. I had 11 as well. Okay.

[2:29:04] the folks that are saying three, they're like a yes, I'm all on board. Twos are still yeses, but like,

[2:29:10] okay. But I had 11. I want to double check that. That is correct. I was not telling correctly 5 yeses to or 5 nos to 11 yeses. Okay, so the motion passes. Thank you. The motion passes rosen. One is successful. Thank you, peter, for that

[2:29:27] thank you. Okay, we'll… so now we have our original package as amended by, rosenbelat one. Now, commissioner snyder, if you could please introduce your amendment.

[2:29:39] I would move to amend the motion on the table to remove key performance indicators 7 and 9

[2:29:46] as well as key environmental indicators 10 and 11 for consideration after we have much more robust work

[2:29:57] done on them.

[2:29:58] and I would also suggest that we approve the 3 draft goals, the key performance indicators, one to 6 and 8 and key environmental indicators one through 9, as written. Okay, thanks. So basically adopt everything as is except for kpi 7

[2:30:15] the things that are new have not been through. I strongly believe that it's better to do good quality work.

[2:30:25] then do things fast. I know that's a hard balance in government, and it's definitely a hard balance in this group. I've only been part of it for a couple couple months now. But I think it's

[2:30:38] I think we're doing all of ourselves a disservice if we do not use the same rigorous process that we used for the rest of them.

[2:30:47] and that's the reason

[2:30:50] okay

[2:30:51] so, we have it on the screen again. Commissioner snyder amendment removes kpi 7 and 9

[2:30:59] and removes kei 10 and 11

[2:31:03] essentially delays them for future consideration does not kill them outright. Correct. Thank you. So can we engage in discussion and deliberation on commissioner snyder's amendment? And thank you, commissioner, again, for your patience and just note there's been a motion. I don't know if I've heard a second. Oh, thank you.

[2:31:22] yes, correct, shane, thank you. Can I get a second, please? I'll second. Thank you, commissioner singleton.

[2:31:27] I apologize for that

[2:31:30] alright.

[2:31:31] I welcome conversation and discussion

[2:31:40] mr. Rowell.

[2:31:44] I'd like to just refer back to my original proposal in the analysis document that everybody has here. Not to revisit that, but to point out my concerns because both of these are essentially activity counts

[2:31:57] and I think we should be focusing on outcomes.

[2:32:03] can I ask for a clarifying question? So you're saying that the items commissioner snyder is looking to remove are activity counts, or just generally? Yes. Okay.

[2:32:13] they're not outcome measures. They're not outcome metrics. They're activity counts.

[2:32:19] they don't indicate, for example, when you… when there's an intervention with somebody on the street, you know, a touchpoint with somebody, it's not indicating there actually is moving that person to the next stage of the continuum of care and moving them along towards recovery.

[2:32:35] it's just talking to people.

[2:32:38] doesn't measure how effective that talking to people is. Thank you. Is that peter?

[2:32:46] any comments?

[2:32:48] so I get concerned about once we vote on something kind of becomes etched in stone. But I heard sort of the second part, at least of your intent of wanting to make sure that there is robust conversation that you want to see these vetted

[2:33:03] so, what… in the same way as all the other… right. So, what would that process

[2:33:10] how will we get there or are we just fully saying no or are we saying no and we're going to vent and with the same process. Yeah, there's been a lot more. I'll just be transparent. There's been a lot more staff work

[2:33:26] on the details of the rest of these than there are on the new items. A lot more, not a little bit, a lot.

[2:33:37] so the action is twofold here. The action is to both remove

[2:33:43] and to do that, the full consideration. It's a two pronged action motion. Great. Thank you for that clarity.

[2:33:50] to clarify, the amendment, you may go further and consider them in the future, but the amendment is just to remove them.

[2:34:00] the amendment because we're talking about amending the document. So this future intent of consideration, you can do that. This committee can do that, of course. And these aren't set in stone forever. Once you adopt these and send them to council or recommend them and council adopts them, that doesn't mean that they're forever ones, but

[2:34:15] the amendment, I believe, is just to

[2:34:18] commissioner schneider, it's just a removed right now. Well, the last part of the motion I made was for consideration at a later date

[2:34:28] so that may not have been up there, but that is what I said. All right, thank you. Well, we're updating the language up there to capture that.

[2:34:39] is there any more discussion on this item that folks would like to talk about commissioner singleton

[2:34:47] sorry, I stepped out. I had drank all my beverages, so I know I missed the question, but is the intent that there will be a specific time limited process that this will kind of further engagement between metro counties, the mayor, whomever needs to be involved like I don't want it

[2:35:04] linger forever. Can we get specific on a timeframe? Thanks. I don't think that it was clarified in the amendment, but maybe an intent can be described. One to two months should be just like these came in one or two months later than the original start of the process.

[2:35:19] okay, can I also ask metro staff if you send me if I could summon or liam, just to get a sense about given the current shs work and I mean, our future agendas are super packed, but we'll always make the will of this committee the priority

[2:35:34] what that would look like, given workload, I just want to be really mindful, and I know it's going to implicate others as well. Thank you, chair gonzalez. Thank you, commissioner snyder. We're about to end the first quarter of this fiscal year, entering the second quarter, delaying this even further would,

[2:35:52] for delay further beyond the second quarter of collecting a lot of this data that is extant. And in addition to that, too, it would take up time, capacity, and energy of the staff, and would need to reprioritize different aspects of our park

[2:36:07] I think I'll give you an example. A four-hour meeting today was the result of punting the vote from before, so our agenda items are really pinpoint and need to be focused. That said, what this committee decides is what this committee decides, and we will implement. So that's the answer to your question, chad.

[2:36:24] thank you, liam. Councilor huang. Thank you, chair. No, I want to complicate anything, but there are some kpis and some kdis I agree with. And so that I would consider pumpkins

[2:36:38] you know, I think kpi were 9. It's the the staff to staff meeting. That is an activity count

[2:36:46] and I don't think like the public cares how many meetings we have

[2:36:50] so that is something that I would like to consider more, but I do want to keep things like the staff survey. So I don't know if there's a

[2:36:59] I read it to amend it, but I do think some of these kpis could be a little bit more of a flushing out

[2:37:08] okay, it's a good copy

[2:37:12] thanks. Let's go to mayor buck, and then we'll go to mayor pace after, and then zoe.

[2:37:18] thank you, chair. You know, as we talked about before, the the

[2:37:25] this our kpi number. Well, 9 is not. I mean, this was the one that metro staff

[2:37:31] councilor wang will identify we agree. Not great, but we're trying to be good team players here, okay? And I also don't think it's complicated

[2:37:41] I think this will take all of two minutes to record this. All right. And it's kind of a move in the direction of recognizing the integration that's needed between the different layers of government. So I am concerned that our trusted county partners here

[2:37:57] our first and seconding this particular motion to now remove our intent at creating more coordination, at least a foot in the door, even if it's not the perfect one. So I would strenuously encourage the group to please support keeping these items in here. I think we can all agree that the whole list is not perfect

[2:38:14] I agree with mr. Rowe, and we need outcomes-based approach. But we also need to kind of start moving in a direction of more coordination. So thank you. Thanks, mayor buck. Mayor mayor pace.

[2:38:28] kind of in line with that, this is a way for the cities to measure our touches, right? It's a way for us to record how we're interacting with the homeless population. So, what mayor buck said, and in line with what we are trying to show and trying to measure, we'd ask for your support. Thank you.

[2:38:44] we'll go to zoe and then is that mark? No, that's mike. And then we'll go to councilor lewis. I cannot agree with jason and that we probably need to

[2:38:57] look more deep into this, because if what I'm hearing from the mayors is that what they ask is not specifically what we are measuring here, because again, the community doesn't care how many meetings

[2:39:13] you guys are gonna have

[2:39:16] and same with what is the intent to have data on turnover and

[2:39:25] my understanding was that key eyes, you don't have control of, but we can have control with the turnover, with all of the things that the staff already telling us. Paying us more

[2:39:39] where is stress culture management training. That's a control that we can probably making it a better goal we can have and reduce that unsatisfaction that us service providing has when we're providing the services

[2:39:57] one thing I don't want to move in the amendment is 11, because I really need to see what's the landscape on federal, state, and everything else. So that's a new one, but it's a one that I don't

[2:40:14] want to wait two months

[2:40:16] thank you, zoe. Mike, and then we'll go to councilor lewis, and then commissioner singleton. Yeah, recognizing I don't have a vote here. I think zoe is getting at is really important. I think the work to actually make sure that these these

[2:40:34] metrics matter is really important. And if we're hearing that there's there's not full alignment for in terms of like the ability to count them, the reason we're counting the measures, I think it's important to kind of say, wait, can we get better? And mayor, I was thinking about your comment about like ideally

[2:40:54] we would be tracking how much money is going through cities. And I know you got to know on that, and I guess I'd get really curious. I am really curious about, like, why can't we track that? That feels like an important step. So I know that's hard. I know there's a lot of logistics around that, but I I think

[2:41:12] from my perspective, the kei is on this list seem pretty reasonable, seem pretty manageable. So I don't know that maybe there's a down-the-road amendment or a potential modification. Maybe the kpis do need the 2 kpis do need work

[2:41:29] but maybe the keis can stay. Just another way of thinking about this, and I think that commitment to making sure we include cities in the ecosystem and the view is really important. But I don't think this gets it, you know. So I would much rather see us in a couple of months have

[2:41:46] real firm commitment around how much money is going through cities, what does that look like than having this sort of, you know, less helpful one. So that's just my perspective again. And I know there's a lot of logistics that go into it, but maybe there's a way of thinking through like what's good in here that we cannot kind of all settle with and live with. What are the you know, maybe one or 2 kpis of the of the list here that do need a bit more work to actually make everybody

[2:42:14] you know, kind of feel like, yeah, I got the thing I needed out of this. So, that's just another way of thinking about it. I know there's a lot of logistics, but potentially another way of thinking through it. Thanks, mike. Councillor lewis

[2:42:25] sure, I look at an amendment like this where you're looking at the temporal kind of

[2:42:33] theory of something that has come in recently hasn't had as much vetting, and I think it's true that internal staff vetting is very precise and sharp pencils from the government side. But I also want to give credit to the fact that community comes with their own knowledge

[2:42:50] if we're making a scorecard that the public is supposed to use and use their eyes on the street and eyes on the scorecard to judge us on this measure, there's no problems with the definitions. There's not a lack of clarity. If we need to come back and adjust later, that's better to me than leaving out something that

[2:43:09] the public expects us to be able to answer. So I'm going to move forward with this with the understanding that we could get 3 months into collection and actually say we need to make an amendment and like narrow or better define. But these are textbook or dictionary definitions

[2:43:25] that I'm happy to move forward with.

[2:43:27] thank you. Commissioner singleton and then sahan.

[2:43:32] thank you. Shannon singleton. And I think that there's I would I would just maybe caveat what councillor lewis was saying to ask that work actually happen over the next month. I don't think it takes that long to get these where they need to be

[2:43:48] but one example I'll give you is there's a lot of different types of outreach. There is outreach that is focused on cleaning streets or public space management. There's outreach that is about housing focus that is all about getting people into permanent housing

[2:44:05] there's outreach that is really focused on medical needs. And I think we need to really dig into this one and get more clear about what we're tracking, because I don't know that everybody shares those definitions. We worked for months with the city of portland to get to shared definitions of those. And I think we need to make sure that that's being rolled up into this

[2:44:24] I'm not opposed to these things. I just don't think they're baked yet, and I don't want to wait until we see the data come in to then be like, oh, we should have done these other things. So again, I don't know everybody's workload. I don't want to pretend that it's not a big ask, but I think I would feel comfortable

[2:44:40] moving these if there is a commitment to kind of get some of those details done in the next month.

[2:44:47] thank you.

[2:44:49] sahan, and I think we'll wrap up and call the vote after this. Yes, I was very similar to what commissioner singleton just said. I am not opposed to these things

[2:45:00] I

[2:45:02] like the idea of tracking street outreach engagement. I love the idea of regional coordination and alignment with the cities like I 100% love that. I don't love either of the way that we are measuring these things. And I think there should absolutely be more work going into

[2:45:19] how can we effectively track that what we are saying we want to do is we are doing effectively? Because I 100% do not think that

[2:45:29] how many meetings

[2:45:31] cities and counties have is the best way to measure or track regional coordination and alignment with the city. So I think that has to be there.

[2:45:39] and I think this could be done better. I also think that the

[2:45:45] there is a tie in with some of these, like the

[2:45:49] kpi number nine, the regional coordination and alignment. That is highly related to the kei number 10, the state and federal funding. We need to be able to put something forward that allows us to ensure that we are seeing total alignment. And I think that there is a pathway for us to get there

[2:46:06] again, I'm not opposed to these things, but I am prepared to support this amendment, because I think we can do these better

[2:46:15] all right. Thank you. All right, I'm not seeing any other cards up. I think we're ready to take a vote. So, michael, if you could please walk us through that. Real quick, just want to say we also did just vote to approve peter's amendment to cai number 10. So do want to speak to the fact that

[2:46:34] in that vote, we also had a whole lot of discussion about how that could be better worded. So again, just not opposed to peter's amendment, not opposed to that kai, but that is again something that we already started wordsmithing how we could make that more effective

[2:46:49] and would agree with that as well in this total process.

[2:46:53] thank you, sam. All right, michael, if you could please run the vote. Thank you, chair commissioner singleton.

[2:46:58] I am a two. Wait, sorry. I'm getting myself backwards on these.

[2:47:04] remind me again. Yeah, so the motion is to remove the kpis and keis. So two would be yes with the qualifier. So I will be a one with the reasons why

[2:47:19] I want to see these worked through. And I know I asked for a commitment, but I didn't hear anything. So I will add that that's a really big part to me to sahan's point. I will add there's a number of things that need to be updated here. Number 11 should include other county funds. We didn't even talk about that. We put a lot of general fund into this. It is insane to not look at that

[2:47:42] so I think I'm gonna be a no, but I do want us to figure these out in the next month before we're implementing them. Okay, thanks. So you're not always keeping are you intending to support the amendment? No. Okay.

[2:47:57] all right, thank you, commissioner singleton. Please, mike. Thank you, commissioner snyder. 3.

[2:48:04] mayor wilson. Sorry. Mayor buck. One. Mayor stovall.

[2:48:10] one

[2:48:11] mayor pace? One. Regent rodriguez.

[2:48:18] one.

[2:48:20] solo copiano.

[2:48:22] 3

[2:48:24] peter rosenblatt? One.

[2:48:27] mindy statlander.

[2:48:30] andrew rowe. 2.

[2:48:33] sahan mckelvey. Two.

[2:48:36] laura golino de lovato. One

[2:48:40] councillor lewis. One.

[2:48:42] councillor huang. Chair gonzalez. One

[2:48:49] okay, I see. Please announce the outcome. Yes, I see 12 no's and 4 yeses. The motion fails. All right, thank you. Can I make a comment? Yes, and liam, please yeah, just a commitment from metro housing department staff that even though this motion failed that we are collecting this feedback in real time and committed to improving these over time

[2:49:12] thank you. Okay, sahan, is your card up still, or is that from the conversation, discussion, debate for? All right, mayor wilson.

[2:49:21] chair is an opportunity to move to amend. Yes, this is so now we're back on the original motion, which is to adopt the final package. If you would like to introduce an amendment, now's the time. I would and consistent with commissioner snyder, I understand key performance indicator number 7

[2:49:38] may not have been vetted, but with that said. I move to amend

[2:49:43] the words street outreach engagement and replace it with street outreach outcome

[2:49:51] the key point here is we continue to measure activities

[2:49:57] when we have people that are unsheltered on the street, we need to be focusing on providing care.

[2:50:04] an outreach worker who

[2:50:07] simply engages with an individual

[2:50:11] and it be considered a positive outcome.

[2:50:14] or a positive engagement is missing the point

[2:50:18] in any given year, a woman left unsheltered will experience sexual or physical violence at 40%. Two years left unsheltered.

[2:50:29] possibility of significantly higher. I want our system, and I hope you agree to focus on rushing care to those suffering on the street. And so therefore, outreach workers really be engaged with resources offering a person choice

[2:50:47] but being measured on the outcome. For instance, today, our 10 outreach workers in portland reunified four people to four different states

[2:50:57] with their loved ones. Those are the sort of outcomes I want to measure. That's a positive outcome with a choice, as opposed to just engagement, allowing someone to suffer on the street for years on end.

[2:51:09] I would

[2:51:11] invite a second.

[2:51:13] thank you, mayor wilson. If we get a second, I'll second. All right, so moved by mayor wilson, seconded by peter rosenblatt. Mayor, if you could just confirm on the screen if that fits the intention of your amendment

[2:51:26] I'm sorry.

[2:51:30] it was a bit long, so I need to make sure it does end with the caveat with the outcomes would then be described. For instance, day center, detox, shelter, unity

[2:51:42] reunification, where then we would describe what those submetrics, but very clear outcome-focused

[2:51:50] thank you, mayor.

[2:51:54] so, all right, welcome conversation on this amendment.

[2:52:02] also, if I'm correct, this was originally came from the mayor's consortium, so it's been

[2:52:09] yes. Okay, further conversation, commissioner singleton, and then we'll go to andrew

[2:52:16] thank you. I'm supportive of this amendment. I think I'm curious if we feel like we have the data. This is a really different data collection than what's listed in our packet right now. I do also want to say, as a former outreach worker, I don't want us to minimize the importance of those positive interactions with people on the street

[2:52:37] because people listen to us, and again, our words are powerful, and I want to be clear that when our outreach workers are engaging somebody who is not currently connected to the system, it is a huge, huge deal for that person, and those are positive interactions, those are positive engagements. They are important to our work, and I appreciate that they're not outcome-oriented

[2:52:57] but I want to be really clear that people are doing really good work out there.

[2:53:02] thank you, commissioner singleton. I'm going to go and ask mayor stovall to speak since he is not just providing him the opportunity.

[2:53:10] thank you, chair. Just really quickly, I'm highly supportive of this change and adjustment, and I'm also highly supportive of what commissioner singleton just said. You know, we've been doing a lot of this work in gresham for a long time, and the challenges that I had

[2:53:26] as we were presenting this amendment, it was the fact that similar to what commissioner singleton just said, many times we have interactions that don't lead to outcomes and I don't want to discourage our outreach workers from having those interactions. Now, with that caveat, I will say

[2:53:43] that as long as we define, kind of, what those outcomes are, we can measure the outcomes, we can track the outcomes. But some of those outcomes could be just the interaction.

[2:53:53] but a focus on ensuring that we do, in fact, look at the interactions as being any of those interactions are positive. The more we can make those interactions, the more we can lead to positive engagements and positive interactions. So I want to caution us a little bit to not

[2:54:10] put so much focus on the outcome that we discourage the

[2:54:15] outreach workers from making those contacts because sometimes it can take 15 to 20 contacts and engagements to get them to move

[2:54:23] but as long as we have the opportunity to kind of outline both saying and engagement is important, but also tracking outcomes is also important. I am highly supportive of this change.

[2:54:35] thank you, mayor stovall. I'm going to call on andrew rowe, then councilor lewis, and then we'll go to sahan.

[2:54:43] thanks, mayor wilson. I appreciate it. I just want to point out briefly that

[2:54:48] you're… I support, first of all, your shift outcomes, and going back to the original structure of the proposal that I made that was defeated, that was really my underlying point, is that our kpis should all be outcome-focused, and underneath outcomes you can have sub-measures

[2:55:04] that indicate activities that are a means toward an end, a transition point, or another upstream measure of the effectiveness, and that's where a number of contacts made, of course, could certainly be tracked. And so I guess the question I have for you is

[2:55:22] would you be willing to modify your amendment to consider expanding the word outcome as a requirement for all of the kpis as I originally proposed? Andrew, I think that is I think you're requesting a friendly amendment, which I think we'll wait for this amendment to be wrapped up, and then you can include I withdraw my last comment. Okay, thank

[2:55:46] thank you. I understand, but I'm just trying to be fair to this process that we have today, but thank you for the comment. Councillor lewis.

[2:55:53] sure, I think I get where the headline is going by changing that we're trying to get into outcome. I also think the data is going to be a big soupy disaster mess, and we will be on a technical level stymied. I'm already hearing from staff

[2:56:12] whoa, how would we do this? Because it's actually two different sets of data. How many people did you literally go out and touch? Here's a bottle of water. Hi, how are you doing? And then there's a whole separate level of

[2:56:23] I did something with you that I report as an outcome. And I think that's two datas that are going to be

[2:56:30] spaghetti, and if we want clean data. We might need to separate this into 2 or

[2:56:38] somehow otherwise make it so that we are looking at, yes, we have street outreach. We have a certain number of contacts, and that leads to outcomes. But the

[2:56:50] the outcomes are not always going to be attached to the unique individual.

[2:56:54] so

[2:56:56] I lean towards this data being usable, I guess, would just be

[2:57:02] I don't know if I have time right now to articulate

[2:57:09] I want this outcome.

[2:57:12] how do we get it? How do we get in data in our current system? I don't think we have to.

[2:57:20] sahan. And did I miss anyone else? All right, sahan, go ahead. I was just looking to see if I missed anyone else. Yes, I do support this language change. I do

[2:57:35] like the ability to be able to describe these outcomes that we are pointing towards. And

[2:57:42] I 100% believe that engagement is an outcome and that should be part of the list. I think that would speak to some of what councilor lewis has said. I think mayor wilson, you even proposed in your proposal and your explanation was that choice is a big piece of this

[2:57:57] and

[2:58:01] people need to be seen. And a lot of the time people need to be seen in order for them to feel like it's they can move and that act of being seen is an outcome. And we want to see some level of outcome progression

[2:58:16] but as I think it was mayor stovil said, it might take 20 times

[2:58:21] and all 20 of those times were a positive outcome. So I like the the language change from engagement to outcomes. I think we do want to be able to look at how we are being outcome driven. But

[2:58:36] don't usually agree with andrew. I mean, I don't usually disagree with andrew. My bad. Bad language by my… I don't usually disagree with andrew. We're often on the same page. I will never disagree with commissioner singleton. But I would say

[2:58:55] in disagreement to all of that these activities are an outcome, and when we are touching somebody on the street, we are seeing them. We are allowing them to feel like there is a person out here who cares about me. That is a positive outcome, and all activity

[2:59:12] is not meaningless, and that activity specifically has significant meaning. And again, to councilor lewis's point, I think that would create more of

[2:59:23] a metric that could be usable. If that was listed as one of the outcomes. And that also creates a level of

[2:59:31] I don't necessarily want to say urgency, but a level of

[2:59:35] motivated compassion for outreach staff to say like

[2:59:40] there is a point where I am going to have a conversation about what's next beyond me giving you this bottle of water. But I have to give you this bottle of water in order for us to get to that point.

[2:59:51] thanks, ahan. Yes, mayor wilson, would you like to respond? I saw you signal me. I don't want to mislead with this, and I appreciate mayor stovill and sir haunt. I appreciate your point, but the goal isn't to measure engagements

[3:00:05] the goal is to measure outcomes, so I get a text every day, and I just got it about the people we're able to successfully house today. That's the outcome we're truly looking for. Somebody who was unsheltered today is not housed tomorrow. Engagements are very important, but that's an activity

[3:00:22] and we should all be moving to everybody when we see them on the street. I don't drive by anybody in the city that's just lying perpendicular on the sidewalk without stopping and handing them a reunification notice or where the near shelters are. Can I help you? That's an activity that I hope all of you are doing every day

[3:00:38] it doesn't take our outreach workers to just engage with somebody. It takes an outreach worker

[3:00:44] to go and move to the work and offer a person clear and

[3:00:49] decisive choice. I've got a shelter. Detox is available at flora right now. Reunification, I can have you home to your mother in 3 hours.

[3:00:57] we need to move to the work and ask our outreach workers to do the hard and important work, because I hope all of us are doing engagement every day. I don't want to dissuade you from thinking that, and sharon, I appreciate that. But I'm not looking at us talking to people that are suffering on the street that aren't going to be here next year

[3:01:15] if we don't work together to care for them. So I want to be very discreet. This is six, seven different outcomes that we determine

[3:01:24] that have a positive influence on that person's ability to live.

[3:01:28] thanks, mayor wilson. We'll go to shannon. I think I see margaret and then mike. I might offer a potential solution here, so I may have to come back and offer a different amendment. But I think we solve this problem by keeping number 7 as it is

[3:01:46] and adding outreach to number 3 and number 4 so that we're tracking placements into permanent housing from shelter, transitional housing and outreach and exits, I appreciate that. That's a new amendment. I understand, but I want to explain it so we don't just keep spinning on the same thing forever, but I think there's another way to get at the both and that people are trying to find the solution to. So I think there's another way to get your needs met, mayor, without amending that amendment or that number 7

[3:02:14] thanks, commissioner. And also, I think I'd just keep in mind what metro staff has shared, that everything that is being contributed is being collected, and is still actionable, even after this vote, because we want to be iterative, have continuous improvement, so, just know that this is all being captured, even if it's not acted on today.

[3:02:34] margaret and then mike. Yes, thank you. I am a non-voting member, but I wanted to just opine that I strongly agree with the mayor's perspective here, and with the perspective about leading with outcomes and being aspirational with these kpis, knowing that the data is not perfect

[3:02:50] many things can be true at the same time. We know the data is not going to necessarily be perfectly corresponding to those outcomes, and we also know that we're not denigrating the work of ongoing outreach or activity of our frontline workers. We can respect that and also be aspirational at the system level

[3:03:10] about moving people into permanent housing solutions. So I would just encourage us not to back away from that and get caught up in the weeds here. We can always list out activities and that the steps toward that outcome, and track that as well. But I think

[3:03:25] that the public is wanting us to be more aspirational here than some of the language that we're parsing. Thanks. Thanks. Mike. I'm sure singleton is brilliant. Had my idea already. Thank you. So we're going to move on on this this vote. I guess if I could add and have privileges chair just

[3:03:46] add my own notes and context. I mean, I have personally really appreciated the work from the mayors from across the region to engage this. I mean, this kpi came from those discussions, the additional clarity from mayor wilson. I really, really strongly agree that I think

[3:04:02] there is something the voters are telling us and that we need to be responding with our data and with our actions. And I think this helps us get much closer to what I think folks are asking us to address and work on, and this is very important. So I just wanted to add that to

[3:04:18] to the record. Michael, if you could please call the roll, please. Thank you, chair commissioner singleton.

[3:04:26] one.

[3:04:28] commissioner snyder.

[3:04:31] mayor wilson, 3.

[3:04:33] mayor buck three.

[3:04:35] mayor stovill.

[3:04:37] three

[3:04:38] mayor pace. Three.

[3:04:41] pidget rodriguez 2.

[3:04:43] sola copiano

[3:04:47] peter rosenblatt? 3

[3:04:49] mindy statlander. 2.

[3:04:52] andrew rowe 3

[3:04:54] sahan mckelvey.

[3:04:57] commissioner singleton, are you planning to propose your amendment?

[3:05:03] depending on what happens here, yeah.

[3:05:06] laura golino de lovato. 2.

[3:05:10] councilor lewis. 2.

[3:05:13] councillor vong.

[3:05:15] chair gonzalez? I'm a 3. Thanks.

[3:05:20] we have 14 yeses to no's. The motion passes.

[3:05:24] all right, thank you. So we have this amendment successful. So we've had a few amendments go on to our original package, commissioner singleton, I look to you to see if you would like to propose an additional amendment. We'll make time for it. Well, it's not needed now that you just that the last one just got amended.

[3:05:43] thank you.

[3:05:45] all right, folks, a lot, a lot, a lot of work. Thank you for leaning into this. I am not seeing any other placards suggesting amendments or changes or deliberation. So I'm just going to look at shane to make sure the original motion on the table was to adopt the final package to consent to the metro council

[3:06:04] and that package has now been amended. So we will now vote on the package as amended. I do not need to call a second, correct? I think so, yes. All right, thank you, shane. Just wanted to make sure for all our procedure experts

[3:06:21] what was that? We have what's amended on the screen.

[3:06:25] I think alice is working to just pull up that language on the screen just very shortly. Wanna make sure everyone has the language in front of them.

[3:06:34] and then I will very shortly ask michael to call the vote on that action.

[3:06:40] but first, alice needs to put the no pressure, alice.

[3:06:50] yeah, just that one and then changes. I mean, I think there's if I recall, there's only two that passed and they're very, there were just a couple words that are changed, so it should be pretty easy when we see it here on the screen.

[3:07:01] yes, we had rosenblatt and wilson amendments. And even for the amendments that were not successful, I think we've gathered really valuable language that again, the metro staff, I give you my commitment. We'll work on and see what is implementable throughout the life of the measure

[3:07:25] I'm seeing you look at the screen like hoping it'll pop up. All right.

[3:07:32] okay.

[3:07:35] here we are.

[3:07:38] those items highlighted in yellow are what we've changed. Obviously, a lot of… yeah, we spent almost 2 hours on those changes. Obviously, there's much deeper programmatic implications, but I did chuckle when I saw that 2 hours.

[3:07:57] all right, everyone, michael, if we could please call vote on the final package.

[3:08:04] okay, now voting on the final package. Commissioner singleton.

[3:08:08] 3

[3:08:10] commissioner snyder, 2.

[3:08:13] mayor wilson, 3.

[3:08:14] mayor buck? Three

[3:08:16] mayor stovall.

[3:08:17] two

[3:08:19] mayor pace. Three.

[3:08:21] regent rodriguez? 3.

[3:08:23] three.

[3:08:26] peter rosenblatt? Three

[3:08:28] mindy statlander? 3.

[3:08:31] andrew rowe who with the assurance of those attempts to incorporate all the other things that came up today, which you've committed to, of course. Thank you.

[3:08:44] sahan mckelvey

[3:08:46] two, and ditto to what andrew just said. Because we always do. Laura garlino de lovato. Three.

[3:08:58] councilor lewis. 3.

[3:09:00] councillor huang?

[3:09:02] chair gonzalez 3

[3:09:05] we have 16 yeses and 0 no's. Bravo, first of all

[3:09:12] okay

[3:09:14] all right

[3:09:16] all right, folks, that was democracy in action. I just think

[3:09:20] it's remarkable that the region has gotten to this point where we were essentially unanimous in the 321 system, I think really helped us today. We do have an agenda item that we're going to have to postpone, which is the regional investment fund discussion

[3:09:37] that is one that will require more time and tlc. So we have 2 options in front of us. One is we can go on break, which we are scheduled to do after this vote. But we would come back, do public testimony, and then adjourn

[3:09:53] or we just go through public testimony, and we adjourn early. So it would if there's any kind of strong preference, just please call off the second adjourn early. All right. You know, just want to make sure the committee gets what the committee wants

[3:10:08] public testimony wasn't given, like, a time certain of 5.45, right?

[3:10:13] that's a great question in terms of time certain public testimony, and if we could go forward, just would like to call metro staff to help me with that question. If we enter public testimony now, are we impacting someone's ability to give testimony

[3:10:31] no, it's not posted. You have mentioned early on in one of our early meetings that what people were told that public testimony started at 5:45. Thanks, peter. You're right. And I'm just looking to staff to see if alice

[3:10:47] and if you could introduce yourself just for the record, thank you. Hi, everyone. Alice hodge, she/her pronouns, council liaison. I believe the website does say 545. I'm looking at staff. I'm getting a thumbs up. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much, commissioner singleton, for noting that. So folks, we're going to take a 15 min recess. I just really want to make sure if folks want to do public testimony that they're given the ability to inform this body

[3:11:19] thank you.

[3:11:25] I'm gonna pull up my clock and try and look at the second thing here.

[3:11:31] okay, it's 545. If we could get the recording going, I guess it's probably going. So I'm going to hand it to rahi so we can go through our public comments

[3:11:40] and rocky, please describe our public communication protocol. Thank you. Chair gonzales. Okay, we are now moving on to public comments. We have at least 2 individuals signed up to speak

[3:11:55] if you are interested in testifying and haven't previously signed up and you're on zoom, you can raise your hand, and then mike will track that. When it's your turn to test file, call your name

[3:12:10] and for those on zoom, you know, you can accept the promoted to panelists. Testimony is limited to 3 min and the time will begin when you begin speaking. And please do state your name for the record before testifying, and you don't need to give any other additional information.

[3:12:29] okay, so shall we have the 1st testimony? Yes, please.

[3:12:39] hi, my name is stephanie perry. I'm a member of the housing justice alliance. Welcome home coalition. I've experienced homelessness for much of my adult life as well. I've seen a disproportionate number of homeless people using wheelchairs and walkers all over the country, including here in portland

[3:12:56] my disability started with a back injury when I was 20, though I didn't expect to end up in a wheelchair at 47. I'm grateful for the housing that I have been given here because it did save my life when I got sick in 2024. But I fear being put back out on the streets when my housing voucher expires june 1

[3:13:14] of 2027, given my current health conditions, because to the best of my knowledge, placement in permanent supportive housing has been denied to me, so I am living in regular commercial market rate housing. So, I do have a date of potentially returning to homelessness hanging over my head, unless my voucher is renewed

[3:13:33] we need more support to get people in the housing and to keep people housed, because even if you get disability and ssi payments, you're only getting around $1,000 a month, which doesn't cover rent. I was recently awarded disability and ssi and beginning in december

[3:13:48] I'll be on medicare, and money will be deducted from my ssdi, leaving me with $811 in december, unless in january following the medicare increase.

[3:13:59] and my studio apartment downtown rents for $1,200 a month, so there is no way I could afford to rent my apartment or any apartment on such a low income. And now that I have income, I'm responsible for paying $300 towards rent and the arlo voucher funded by the shs measure you are all discussing

[3:14:17] we'll pay $900 a month for $10,800 a year to keep me housed. So after rent, that leaves me with about 500 a month to cover my utilities, medications, healthcare, household supplies, food, and anything else I need

[3:14:33] I would really like to see you support the welcome home supportive housing services measure proposal because we really do need these systems in place to get people into housing and to keep them housed through the arlo voucher rental assistance and eviction prevention support

[3:14:49] in fiscal year 26, it just ended, out of the 146 million that multnomah county homeless service department spent just about 16 million was spent on the arlo program, the program that has saved my life. When I compare this to the 60 million spent on shelters and outreach

[3:15:06] that number sounds a little backwards to me. While I believe shelters are necessary, they do not end homelessness. Housing ends homelessness. And I would think the best indicator of progress is that we start to see less and less people living on the streets or in shelters and see less and less people asleep in or beside their wheelchairs.

[3:15:25] and we could do that with some concrete funding allegations to keep people housed written into the measure, like our welcome home proposal suggests. Thank you for your time today.

[3:15:36] perfect. Thank you.

[3:15:39] have our next speaker is a colleague.

[3:15:43] good evening. Thanks for your service and opportunity to speak. My name is molly hogan, and I'm the director of welcome home coalition, a housing justice alliance. I've also worked in direct homeless services and local, state, and federal governments. I've also experienced homelessness.

[3:15:58] from all these lenses, I offer support and critiques today regarding the kpi and kei work y'all are doing on this committee. I'm also here to ask everyone on this committee to read the welcome home coalition's shs measure reform proposal and use its recommendations as metro works towards crafting a new measure to go back to voters

[3:16:17] I'll start with your goals. I love the goal reduce the length of time people experience homelessness. This means you are designing an emergency service system not just to manage the visibility of homelessness and warehouse people, as we've seen be the focus in the past few years, but rather a system focused on offering people an exit from their homelessness if they want it.

[3:16:36] we do caution against rushing people for the sake of rushing people, though, as some people may be ready tomorrow, and others need more time to prepare to live indoors again. The third goal, ensure housing stability and retention for people placed in housing, is also a great goal.

[3:16:51] this feels like it gets back to the original intention of this measure in the first place. After the affordable housing bonds were passed in 2016 and 2018, there was a recognition amongst experts in the sector that many folks need more than just a physical home to stabilize

[3:17:06] people on zero to fixed incomes need longer-term financial assistance. Others need job and education support, furniture support, food access, childcare, social and emotional wellness supports, addiction and recovery supports, other healthcare needs, and more.

[3:17:21] the shs funds were created to pay for people to get these supports. Somewhere along the way, the plot got lost. And the goal seemed to shift to getting homeless people out of public view.

[3:17:34] but as we know, tearing down tents, shelters with no path out and jail does not change someone's housing status. So I'm heartened to see this committee making goals for the measure that focus on more of the original intent to support people in housing

[3:17:51] one feedback I offer for the kpis is adding one that measures participants' self-reported wellness and stability who have been housed through shs services. I hear too many stories from community members who have received services and haven't been visited by any support staff in months

[3:18:07] and see, there isn't sufficient support staff on site at their apartment buildings. A great way to measure if a system is working is by asking the system users.

[3:18:18] lastly, I'd like to acknowledge that I find it strange that service provider turnover is listed as a kei, an environmental indicator outside of shs control. I would argue that service provider turnovers absolutely in the kpi realm

[3:18:33] an aspect of the system that good policy can influence and you can measure. One of welcome home's shs proposal recommendations features creating regional wage and labor standards codified in the measure like was done in los angeles' measure a. Thank you. Can I say one last sentence

[3:18:49] a direct service workforce with quality training, living wages, and work-life balance benefits will go a long way in reducing burnout in an exhausting and underappreciated social work field. Thank you. Thank you so much.

[3:19:01] mike, do we have any other public testimony?

[3:19:06] I have no one signed up and see no hands raised online. Okay. Then we will close out public testament.

[3:19:13] thank you. So we will end public testimony. Thank you to those that came today. We sincerely appreciate you presenting to this commission folks. We are going to now move to adjourn this meeting. I want to say a deep, deep. Thank you for leaning in for trusting the 3 2 1 method

[3:19:31] and for I think, moving this region's system in the right direction. I just feel a sincere amount of

[3:19:41] pride in the way that we deliberated, and I hope that we're able to have just meaningful outcomes for the people that depend on us to make good policy, and also continue to build trust with the voters that is desperately needed. I will adjourn our meeting and look forward to seeing you at our next

[3:20:00] thanks. Thank you.

Supportive Housing Services Regional Policy Oversight Committee (SHS RPOC) on 2026-09-09 2:00 PM - Sep 10th, 2026

Agenda

Transcript