After more than five and a half hours of passionate and occasionally poignant public testimony about the proposed street fee on Thursday, the obvious question of 'what now' hung in the air.

I'll get to that in a moment.

But first, those who stuck around and listened up to the bitter end of the hearing, likely heard the most poignant testimony from any of the 90 people that signed up to speak (not everyone stuck around, or else the metering would've lasted much longer).

Three women told three independent stories of hardship and concern about the fairness of the proposed street fee.

One painted a stark picture of how much even the smallest fee can mean to a family's monthly budget. She talked about the paint peeling on her home, the careful budgeting needed to pay the arts tax and the meals of rice and beans that came as a result, at least until the next paycheck.

Another woman talked about the street fee's calculator for businesses, how it kept her up at night worried about how her relatively large building hurts her bottom line under the current modeling rate. She would have to pay herself less, cut hours for employees, too.

The third woman talked about growing up in Portland, and retiring here, and her concerns that the city isn't a good place to age. All three felt priced out, and concerned about the street fee.

Five hours in, their testimony was arguably the most thoughtful and compelling.

Back to the political intrigue for a moment.

Even before the hearing began, Commissioner Steve Novick and Mayor Charlie Hales had said they wanted to take the issue to a council vote on June 4.

The events of the past few days changed how the street fee looks, as Novick and Hales opted to split the business and residential parts of the proposal in two.

Signs outside the City Council chamber for the first public hearing on a proposed street fee

Even before the public testimony started, details continued to change, as Commissioner Amanda Fritz tacked on an amendment that would slowly ramp up residential fees, starting at $6 per month in July 2015 until hitting $12 per month in the third year. That amendment piggybacked off another late revision (an $8, $10, $12 escalator).

With that context, Commissioner Nick Fish, who had already said he was in favor of a public vote on the street fee, stirred the pot a bit by asking, why hold the hearing if we've made up our minds?

Fish floated the idea of bundling the residential and business portions and consider both in November. He said he had "five pages of questions and follow ups" and questioned the logic of approving a measure that hasn't been thoroughly vetted.

Hales and Novick defended the process, saying that action must be taken now, and that if it's referred, voters deserve to have a say in November when turnout will be greater.

Check out the video above, which starts after Hales and Novick talked about why this needs to be approved now.

Fish eventually conceded he didn't have the votes needed to prevent next week's decision. The City Council is expected to vote on the residential street fee, and the charter amendment, on June 4.

Here's his list of questions submitted to other City Council offices on Friday:



Dear Colleagues,



Based on the testimony and emails I have reviewed, I have a number of questions and concerns about the proposed street fee. They are, in no particular order, as follows:



The impact of the proposed fee on low-income renters, particularly those with federal vouchers.

The adequacy of discounts generally, and the availability of waivers, for low-income individuals and families.

The decision to bifurcate the ordinances on a residential and non-residential fee.

The text and purpose of the Mayor's proposed ballot referral.

An analysis of whether it should include a sunset clause or any other triggers.

The proposed composition of the oversight committee and the selection process.

The financial impact of the fee on the faith community and nonprofits.

The cost to City bureaus.

Whether and how parking lots should be included.

The value of either an administrative cap or annual audits (modeled after the Children's Levy).

Impacts on small business.



I would be pleased to get written comments—or to schedule a follow-up meeting with the PBOT team—whichever makes the most sense.



Thanks in advance.



Nick





OK, here are your links.

Reading

The Oregonian: How the controversial plan landed on the fast track -- and what comes next

The Oregonian: Timeline of events in street fee discussion

The Oregonian: Live blog from the 5 1/2 hour public hearing

OPB News: Portland street fee proposal raises concerns about small business, low income families

Portland Mercury: The Merc's live blog of Thursday hearing

Willamette Week: Petroleum lobbyist says street fee will be referred to ballot

-- Andrew Theen